Academia.eduAcademia.edu
Proceedings of the 15th AAAP Animal Science Congress 26-30 November 2012, Thammasat University, Rangsit Campus, Thailand Variability among Body Shape Characters in adult Guinea Fowl (Numida meleagris L.) D. M. Ogah and M. M. Ari Animal Science Deparment, Faculty of Agriculture, Nasarawa State University Keffi,Shabu- Lafia campus, Nigeria Morphometric traits (body length, wing length, neck length, shank length, thigh length, keel length, chest circumference) and body weight obtained from 82 adult (both sexes) Nigerian indigenous guinea fowl domesticated by rural farmers in three communities of Lafia local government area of Nasarawa State, were used for the study. The objectives of the study was to obtain the sources of shared variability among the body shape characters of adult guinea fowl and predict live weight using both original traits and orthogonal traits. Sex effect was not significant (p>0.05) on the traits. Correlations between traits were low to high. Body conformation “shape” were controlled by both common and unique factors, communalities ranges between .371 to .996 for wing length and keel length respectively. Common sources of variability in body dimension of the bird were accounted for by factors representing general size and chest circumference. Original body dimensions were better predictors of body weight than the orthogonal traits derived from factor analysis. Key Words: Guinea fowl,Body dimensions, Factor analysis, Variability, Communality INTRODUCTION Guinea fowl production is comon among smallholder farmers in Africa, and is describe as a poor man’s “pheasant”Smith (2000).In north central Nigeria few farmers tend to domesticate the bird through collection of the wild birds egggs and hatching them at home thereby growing them with the local chicken. This practice is gaining wide acceptance among rural people. Some farmers keep the bird out of curiosity and as watch animal around home stead because they have an excellent eye sight, a hash cry and shrick at the slightest provocation (Bond, 1997).Relationship between body measurements and body weight of animals of different species and breeds using factor analysis have been investigated by a number of authors, Shahin (1996), Shahin and Hassan( 2000) ,Ogah et al. (2009) etc. The objective of this study was to investigate the sources of shared variability and relationship involving body measurement traits and live weight in adult guinea fowl using both original and orthogonal traits. 3375 Proceedings of the 15th AAAP Animal Science Congress 26-30 November 2012, Thammasat University, Rangsit Campus, Thailand MATERIALS AND METHODS The data used for the study were generated from 82 adult indigenous guinea fowl domesticated by rural farmers as described by Smith (2000) in three villages of Adogi, Ashige and Abu of lafia Local government area of Nasarawa State, Nigeria. The birds were managed under semi intensive system, water was supplied ad libitum and fed on brewer dried grain and whole corn seed and kitchen waste. They were allowed to scavenged arround in addition at noon. The birds considered for measurement were adult birds of about a year and above. Morphometric traits used for this study include (body length, wing length, neck length, shank length, thigh length, keel length, chest circumference) and body weight.Measurements were carried out as suggested by ( Gueye et al., 1998 and Ogah et al., 2009) Statistical Analysis The data was subject to a factor analysisprocedure (SAS, 1999). The main source ofshared variation among the interdependenceof body measurements (p) was expressed in terms of fewer mutually uncorrelatedcommon factors F1, F2, Fq (where q <p)than the original measurements (Darton, 1980). The firstfactor contained the greatest portion of theoriginal variation and in a morphometricapplication of factor analysis, it was designatedas a general size factor. Subsequentfactors were mutually orthogonal to thosepreceding and to one another and containedless variation.The model used is as follows: X=LF+U where X = a p ´ 1 is a vector observational variables; L = a p ´ q a matrix of factor loading ‘factor – variate correlations, the degree of correlation of the variable with factor’ (the pattern matrix); F = a q ´ 1 avector of factors (non-observable) and U = a p ´ 1 a vector of the specific ‘unique’factor. The total variance of a variable wasequal to unity and can be written as the sum of common variance ‘communalities’ andunique variance ‘uniqueness’. A build up stepwise multiple regressionwas used to predict body weight from the live measurements and orthogonal factor scores generated. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The effect of sex was not sigificant (p>0.05) which lead to the use of pool data for general analysis, agreeing to the submission of Ayorinde (1991). Table 1 present the correlation matrix between the morphometric traits. All traits were positively correlated to body weight, chest circumference had the highest phenotypic correlation (p<0.001) to body weight while wing length had the least (.17). Ogah et al.(2011) reported similar trend to male muscovy duck. The positive and significant correlation of body weight and the other morphological 3376 Proceedings of the 15th AAAP Animal Science Congress 26-30 November 2012, Thammasat University, Rangsit Campus, Thailand traits body length, keel length, chest circumference suggest that the traits are under same gene action (pleitropism) and by implication selection for improvement of one would result in improvement of the other trait as correlated response. Similar relationship between body weight and chest circumference was reported by Ogah et al.(2011) for muscovy duck , Mendes et al. (2005) for America bronze turkey under different lightening programme. Table 2 outline the communalities and unique factors for various variables and also indicate that 37 to 99% of the variation in body measurement traits were brought about by the common fators whereas 63 to 1% of there variation were contributed by unique factors specific for each variable. keel length, neck length, shank length and thigh length had the highest common factors (.993, .917, .972, and .987) with lowest variation contributed by the unique factor while wing length had the least common factor (.371) and the highest contribution of the unique factor.The two common factor were obtained from varimax rotation was acconted for 77.22% of the total variability of the original variables. The first factor (F1) general size was characterized by high positive loading (factor-variate correlaton) on all body dimension other than wing length and chest circumference, Shank lenght , thigh length and neck length coefficient dominated the first factor and represent good estimator of general size (Shahin and Hassan, 2000). This first factor general size accounted for 56.34% of the total variance, similar to what Ricard and Rouvier (1968) obtained from principal component analysis of cockreal among body shape charcaters, Ogah e al. (2009) 57% for male muscovy duck.The most common variability in the second factor are general size and chest circumference similar to that reported for NewZealand White rabbit (Shahin and Hassan, 2000). Table 3 present the result of stepwise multiple regression of body weight on both morphometric and their orthogonal traits chest circumference alone accounted for 61% of the variability in the body weight . This traits have been used as an indicator of animal size in number of studies (Shahin, 1996, Ogah et al., 2011). On addition of thigh length the R2 increases to 86%, this indicate that live weight can be predicted with fair degree of accuracy and reliability from chest circumference and thigh length. The orthogonal factor scores FC1 and FC2 accounted for 63% R2 indicating thatOriginal body dimensions were better predictors of body weight than the orthogonal traits derived from factor analysis. REFERENCES Ayorinde, K. L. (1991). Body weight increase of indigenous pearl guinea fowl through crossbreeding. Bri. Poultry Sci., 33(2): 295-301. Darton R. A. (1980) Rotation in factor analysis. Statistician 29:167-194. Gueye, E. F. Ndiaye, A. Branckaert, R. D. S.( 1998). Prediction of body weight on the basis of body measurement in mature indigenous chickens in Senegal. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 1998, vol. 10, no. 3, http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd10/3/sene103.htm. 3377 Proceedings of the 15th AAAP Animal Science Congress 26-30 November 2012, Thammasat University, Rangsit Campus, Thailand Mendes M. , A. Karabayir and A Pala .(2005). Path analysis of the relationship between various body measurement s and live weight of American Bronze Turkey under three different lightening programs Tarim Bilimleri:Dergiai 2005 11 (2) 184-188 Ogah D M ,A Yakubu, M O Momoh and N I Dim (2011) Relationship between some bodymeasurements and live weight in adult muscovy duck .Traki Journal os science 9(1)58-61. Ogah D M , Alaga AA and M O Momoh (2009) Use of factor analysis score in multiple regression model for the estimation of body weight using body measurements in muscovy duck. International journal of poultry science 8(1) Ricard F H and Rouvier R (1968) study of conformation measurements in the chicken Genetic and phenotypic variability of carcass measurements in a cornish strain Ann. Zootech 17:445-458. SAS(1999) SAS/STAT user ‘s guide Release 8.0 SAS Inst. Inc Cary NC USA. Shahin K A andN S Hassan (2000)Sources of shared variability among body shape characters at marketing age in NewZealand White and Egyptian rabbit breeds. Ann Zootech 49:435-445 Shahin K A (1996) Analysis of muscle and bone weight variation in egyptian strain of pekin duckling. Ann Zootech 45:173-184 Smith A J (2001) Poultry. The tropical Agriculturalist (revised edition). MacMillan with CTA. London, U.K. 242pp Table 1. Correlation matrix between morphometric traits of the indigenous guinea fowl BW Bl Wl NL SL TL KL CC BL .23 WL .17 .12 NL .44** .16 -0.09 SL .67*** .23 -0.09 .96*** TL .31 .12 -0.12 .98*** .90 KL .52** .18 -0.07 .96*** .98 .97 CC .78*** .24 .23 -0.11 .18 -0.27 -0.12 BW=body weight, BL=body length, WL= wing length, NL=neck length, SL=shank length,TL= thigh length, KL=keel length, CC=chest circumference. **=P<0.01, ***=P<0.001 3378 Proceedings of the 15th AAAP Animal Science Congress 26-30 November 2012, Thammasat University, Rangsit Campus, Thailand Table 2. Explained variation associated with rotated factor analysis along with their common aand unique factors . Common factors FC1 FC 2communalities unique factor BL .214 .618 .428 .577 WL -.101 .601 .371 .629 NL .998 -.042 .997 .003 SL .996 .195 .972 .028 TL .980 -.166 .987 .013 KL .997 .031 .996 .004 CC -.072 .806 .655 .345 % var 56.342 20.874 Table 3. Step-wise multiple regression of body weight on morphometric traits and their orthogonal variable from factor analysis scores Step A 1 2 B 1 2 indep. Var Predictor original body measurement intercept reg.coeff se R2 VIF chest circumference -5.344 .191 .026 .61 1.000 Chest circumf -12.321 .227 .015 .89 1.075 Thigh length .481 .052 1.075 Their orthogonal traits FC 2 1.421 .327 .067 .41 1.000 FC 2 1.421 .327 .054 .63 1.000 FC 1 .241 .054 1.000 3379