Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Poultry Science logoLink to Poultry Science
. 2024 Feb 16;103(4):103563. doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2024.103563

Phenotypic and morphometric characterization of domestic geese raised in northern Benin

M Azalou *,‡,1, AS Assani ‡,§, CC Kpomasse *, K Tona *, IT Alkoiret ‡,§, W Pitala *,†
PMCID: PMC10909896  PMID: 38417339

Abstract

Documentation on the domestic geese (Anser anser) in Benin is scarce, making it objectively difficult to exploit. Its production depends on small flocks raised by livestock farmers in different areas. The aim of the study was to describe the phenotypic and morphometric characteristics of geese encountered in northern Benin. To this end, a total of 576 adult geese (353 males and 223 females) from 102 farms in 4 agro-ecological zones of northern Benin were evaluated for 11 quantitative and 5 qualitative body traits. There are 6 plumage colors with white (42.01%), white-brown magpie (24.65%) and white-grey magpie (17.19%) as dominant colors. The proportions of white-grey (75%) and multicolored (51.85%) in Far northern zone of Benin (FNZB) were higher (P < 0.05) than those in the cotton zone of northern Benin (CZNB), Food-producing zone of southern Borgou (FZSB) and West-Atacora Zone (WAZ). The red coloring of the tarsi was more dominant in the FZSB (63.09%) and the FZSB (61.79%) (P < 0.05). Orange (57.47%) and yellow (28.82%) colored beaks were dominant but did not vary (P > 0.05) from one agro-ecological zone to another. Quantitative traits such as body length, tarsus length, wing span and thoracic circumference of geese varied (P < 0.05) between 71.34 to73.22 cm, 10.08 to 10.6 cm, 131.95 to 135.42 cm and between 42.07 to 43.86 cm respectively. Males differed significantly from females (P < 0.05) for all morphometric traits. The live weight of geese in the FNZB showed higher values than those of other agro-ecological zones (P ˂ 0.05). In addition, white phenotype geese (3.76 kg) were heavier (P ˂ 0.05) than other phenotypes. All correlations between weight and body measurements of domestic geese were positive, but the correlations between live weight and wing span (r = 0.68) were the strongest. These correlations could be used to assess the live weight of the geese population studied and for selection based on live weight. This study provides a reference for morpho-biometric traits and will be complemented by molecular characterization.

Key words: domestic goose, biometric characteristic, color, agro-ecological zone of Benin

INTRODUCTION

Poultry today constitutes important sources of animal protein and household income, particularly for communities in low-input and marginalized rural areas (Mushi et al., 2020). In Benin, the level of consumption of animal products is estimated at 22.72 kg per inhabitant per year (FAOSTAT, 2021), supported by an agricultural sector with numerous potential which must be judiciously exploited to support national economic growth and contribute to the effective fight against poverty and malnutrition (Dèdéhou et al., 2018). The main conventional species include cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, and poultry (FAOSTAT, 2021). In addition to the above mentioned species in this sector chickens, ducks, turkeys, guinea fowl, quails and geese are also encountered in small numbers (Ekpo et al., 2020; Houessionon et al., 2020; Dotché et al., 2021). Poultry production progresses each year with improvements due to the development of chicken farming and secondarily to the breeding of turkeys, ducks and guinea fowl. To these different breeding systems, is added that of the domestic goose although that it is still in its beginnings (Hugo, 1997; Hamadani et al., 2017) in certain countries around the world such as India and even at Benin (Azalou et al., 2023). Thus, on a global scale, domesticated geese came from2 wild species: 1) the greylag goose (Anser anser), an ancestor of many domestic breeds, including today's indigenous geese in Egypt and Europe; and 2) the swan goose (Anser cygnoides), an ancestor of the Chinese and some African goose breeds (Silversides et al., 1988; Scherf, 2000; Abdel-Kafy et al., 2021). Domestic geese, related to the greylag goose, belong to the order Anseriformes, to the family Anatidae and to the genus Anser (Buckland and Guy, 2002). They were one of the first birds to be domesticated in Europe towards the fourth millennia before BC (Kozák, 2019), while in Asia, there is evidence of early goose domestication from 7,000 yr ago (Eda et al., 2022). These birds were kept for meat, eggs, fat and down, as well as in the cult sphere (Serjeantson, 2002; Albarella, 2005; Koch, 2014; Kozák, 2021). Despite the low contribution to total poultry production, geese contribute significantly to the reduction of household poverty in developing countries. Likewise, the goose has better growth performance than local chickens, guinea fowl, ducks and turkeys, and is more resistant to different avian pathologies (Islam et al., 2016). Despite the usefulness of the goose, it is poorly characterized in the tropics. Each livestock species or breed is a real component of the world's animal genetic diversity that deserves immense attention (Dobrzański et al., 2019). However, the proper use of a species or breed depends on accurately understanding its unique characteristics that differentiate it from other poultry species or breeds (Olusegun and Ayorinde, 2015). Therefore, there is a need for appropriate characterization focused primarily on improving meat and egg production. The first step of such a study as described by the FAO (FAO, 2012) involves the use of phenotypic characteristics which are aspects of physical appearance or other body parameters that can be measured qualitatively and quantitatively. For most animal species, there are phenotypic variations due to their adaptation to agro-ecological zones (Loba et al., 2021). As for morpho-biometric characterization (qualitative and quantitative characters), it allows selection of elite animals, breeding, conservation and sustainable use of indigenous animal resources (Habimana et al., 2021; Sheriff et al., 2021). The morphometry of a species can be determined using morphological measurements on the living animal, on the carcass, on the length of the bones and even on the width of the muscles (Loba et al., 2021). On the other hand, biometric measurements are useful in breeding programs, to revalorize domestic or local breeds, allow the preservation of animal biodiversity and respond to consumer demands (Traoré et al., 2018). Animal morphological measurements have diverse implications in breeding perspectives (Hamadani et al., 2014; Akounda et al., 2023). In Benin, the breeds of domestic geese were not previously characterized and there is a lack of real information on the diversity of their characteristic traits. In addition, the literature on the genetic characterization of the geese encountered in Benin still remains limited, which could be an obstacle to a possible breeding development program for this population. Thus, the objective of this study was to describe the phenotypic and morphometric diversity of domestic geese (Anser spp.) raised in different agro-ecological zones of northern Benin.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ethics

The Regional Center of Excellence in Avian Sciences (CERSA), University of Lome (UL) ethics and scientific committees gave their approval for this investigation, which was conducted in the center's laboratory and experimental unit.

Study Environment

The study was carried out on geese found in northern Benin and precisely in four agro-ecological zones (AEZ): far northern zone of Benin (FNZB), the cotton zone of northern Benin (CZNB), the food-producing zone of southern Borgou (FZSB) and the West-Atacora zone (WAZ) (Figure 1). Geese were more encountered in poultry farms in the north than in the south of Benin where they are almost absent (Houessionon et al., 2020).

Figure 1.

Figure 1:

Open in a new tab

Map showing the investigation area of geese farms in North Benin.

Far northern zone of Benin (FNZB): the Benin extreme northern zone extends over 9,057 km2, has a dry tropical climate with a rainy season and a dry season with an average rainfall of less than 900 millimeters (mm) per year. The temperature in this area varies between 18°C and 38°C. The growing period is 120 d; the soils are ferruginous on sandstone or base and very fertile alluvial soils from the Niger River. The vegetation of this area is characterized by a shrubby to thorny savannah (Gbemavo et al., 2014).

The cotton zone of northern Benin (CZNB): the cotton zone of North Benin covers an area of 20,930 km2 and is made up of the municipalities of Ségbana, Gogounou, Banikoara and Kandi. It benefits from a Sudanian climate but with an influence of the Sudano-Sahelian climate in the northern part of the area. The average annual rainfall varies from 800 to 1,200 mm with very irregular rainfall on ferruginous soils (Lixisols), Vertisols and hydromorphic soils (Gleysols) (Aholoukpè et al., 2020).

Food-producing zone of southern Borgou (FZSB): the South-Borgou food-growing zone covers an area of 23,442 km2 and brings together the municipalities of N'Dali, Nikki, Kalalé, Sinendé, Péhunco, Bembèrèkè and Kouandé. It has a Sudanian climate with an average rainfall ranging from 1,100 to 1,200 mm. The soils are leached tropical ferruginous (Lixisols).

West-Atacora Zone (WAZ): the West-Atacora zone is home to a Sudanian-type climate with a strong disparity in average rainfall with 2 seasons (dry and rainy). The average annual rainfall is between 800 and 1,500 mm (Aholoukpè et al., 2020). The soils encountered are: concretionary ferruginous soils (Leptosols), poorly evolved raw mineral soils (Arenosols and Fluvisols) and hydromorphic soils (Fluvisols and Gleysols) more or less clayey and fertile. This area embraces the municipalities of Cobly, Matéri, Ouaké, Boukombé, Tanguiéta, Natitingou, Djougou, Toucountouna, and Copargo.

Data Collection Method

The data for this research was collected from December 2021 to September 2022 directly from 102 households raising geese including 26 in CZNB, 24 in FZSB, 21 in WAZ and 31 for FNZB. The observations were made on a sample of 576 adult geese (353 males and 223 females) distributed in the different agro-ecological zones selected. This sample is largely representative for this study since according to characterization standards (FAO, 2013), at least 100 geese and 10 ganders are required for a phenotypic characterization study of animal populations. Thus, each animal was the subject of a phenotypic description, directly or on the basis of visual observations of the photographs that were taken (Chrysostome et al., 2013; Mahammi et al., 2014). The qualitative data focused on plumage characteristics (the color of the body, neck, head feathers and the color of the beak and tarsus) and the shape of the beak (FAO, 2013; Islam et al., 2016). Body measurements were taken immediately after each weigh-in. The quantitative measurements concerned the body weight of the bird, the body, the wingspan, the chest circumference, the length of the tarsus, the length of the head of geese and the length of the beak (Youssao et al., 2010; Hamadani et al., 2014; Islam et al., 2016). These measurements were taken using a digital scale (accuracy 1 g), a digital caliper (accuracy 0.01 mm) and a tape measure. All descriptive and quantitative measurements were taken by the same investigator. The different body measurements were carried out according to the following definitions (Liu et al., 2022):

  • -

    Beak length (BeLe): defined as the length of the upper edge of the beak;

  • -

    Head length (HeLe): distance between the end of the beak and the end of the occipital condyle;

  • -

    Neck length (NecLe): distance between the first and last cervical vertebra;

  • -

    Neck diameter (NecDi): neck circumference measured of the middle of the neck;

  • -

    Body length (BoLe): distance between the first cervical vertebra and the pygostyle (without feathers);

  • -

    Thoracic perimeter (Tpe): circumference of the chest taken below the wings and at the level of the protruding region of the keel bone;

  • -

    Wing span (Wsp) : length between the tips of the right and left wings after having stretched them to their full length (without feathers);

  • -

    Length of the thigh (TiLe): distance between the knee (femorotibial joint) and the joint with the tarsus;

  • -

    Length of the tarsus (TaLe): length from the articulation with the drumstick to the dewclaw of each leg;

  • -

    Diameter of the tarsus (TaDi): measured perpendicular to the anteroposterior plane and in the middle of the tarsus;

  • -

    Body weight (P): live weight of the goose.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistical analyzes were carried out using R 4.2.0 software (R Core Team, 2022). The frequencies of qualitative variables (colors of plumage, head, neck, beak and tarsus) between agro-ecological zones, sex and between phenotypes were calculated and compared using the chi-square test. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated between continuous variables as well as the linear regression of weight on chest circumference (Mahammi et al., 2014). Quantitative data (body weight, thoracic perimeter, wing span, body length, head, beak, neck, thigh, and tarsus) were subjected to multivariate analysis of variance on the factors: agro-ecological zone, phenotype, and sex. The cld function of the multcomp package enabled, as part of the Tukey test for the comparison of means, to indicate significance by letters (P < 0.05).

RESULTS

Morphological Observations

Plumage Characteristics (Phenotype)

The different colorations of the plumage of domestic geese depending on the agro-ecological zones selected for this study are summarized in Table 1. A diversity of coloration was observed with a total of 6 colors (Figure 2), of which the most encountered were: white (42.01%), white-brown magpie (24.65%), and white-grey magpie (17.19%). Geese with brown plumage were rarely encountered (4.69%). The agro-ecological zone significantly influenced (P ˂ 0.05) plumage color. The proportions of gray-white (75%) and multicolored (51.85%) in the FNZB were higher (P ˂ 0.05) than those in the CZNB, FZSB and the WAZ. Similarly, the brown phenotype was more reported in the FZSB than in other agro-ecological zones. On the other hand, individuals of the white and white-grey magpie phenotypes were more frequently encountered in the FNZB (P > 0.05). The color of the plumage of the geese encountered in northern Benin did not vary (P > 0.05) regarding the sex.

Table 1.

Frequency of geese plumage color by agro-ecological zone and sex.

Agro-ecological zone
 Sex
Plumage characteristics CZNB
 FNZB
 WAZ
 FZSB
 Male
 Female
N % N % N % N % N % N %
White 67 27.69 a 74 30.58 a 56 23.14 a 45 18.6 a 92 41.26 150 42.49
White gray 2 16.67 a 9 75 a 0 0 b 1 8.33 ab 5 2.24 7 1.98
Brown 6 22.22 ab 8 29.63 ab 1 3.7 ab 12 44.44 ab 8 3.59 19 5.38
Multicolored 2 3.7 a 28 51.85 b 10 18.52 b 14 25.93 b 19 8.52 35 9.92
White-brown magpie 50 35.21 a 37 26.06 b 19 13.38 b 36 25.35 ab 56 25.11 86 24.36
White-grey magpie 22 22.22 a 34 34.34 a 28 28.28 a 15 15.15 a 43 19.28 56 15.86
Chi-square 57.09 2.27
P-value 7,91e-07 0.81
Total 149 25.87 190 32.99 114 19.79 123 21.35 223 38.72 353 61.28
Open in a new tab
a,b

The values of the same line (Agro-ecological zone and Sex) indexed by different letters are significantly different at the 5% threshold (P ˂ 0.05), N: Number of individuals; FNZB: Far northern zone of Benin, CZNB: cotton zone of northern Benin, FZSB: Food-producing zone of southern Borgou, WAZ: West-Atacora zone.

Figure 2.

Figure 2:

Open in a new tab

Plumage colors.

Coloring of Head Feathers

Four head feather colorations were identified in domestic geese (Table 2). Agro-ecological zone (AEZ), phenotype and sex significantly (P < 0.05) influenced head feather coloration. The white coloring remains superior whatever the AEZ. Likewise, white and grey colorings were more observed respectively in the West-Atakora zone (86.84%) and in the food-producing zone of South Borgou (17.89%). The white color was in higher proportion in the white-grey (97.98%), white (97.93%) and grey-white (83.33%) phenotypes compared to the brown-white phenotypes (28.17%) and brown (0%) which remains absent (P < 0.05). However, brown color was more observed in the brown (44.44%) and white-brown (34.51%) phenotypes than in the multicolored (12.96%) and white (0.83%) phenotypes. The brown and gray color remains absent in the white-grey magpie phenotypes. The white-brown coloring was more noticeable in females (6.8%) than in males (1.35%). On the other hand, that of males (16.14%) was higher compared to females (10.2%) for brown color.

Table 2.

Frequency of head feather color by agro-ecological zone, phenotype, and sex.

Factors White
 White-brown
 Brown
 Gray
 Chi-square P-value
N % N % N % N %
Agro-ecological zone 33.157 0.0001
CZNB 105 70.47 a 5 3.36 a 20 13.42 a 19 12.75 a
FNZB 140 73.68 a 12 6.32 a 26 13.68 a 12 6.32 ab
WAZ 99 86.84 b 1 0.88 a 5 4.39 b 9 7.89 a
FZSB 71 57.72 c 9 7.32 a 21 17.07 a 22 17.89 ac
Phenotype
White 237 97.93 a 0 0 2 0.83 a 3 1.24 a
White gray 10 83.33 b 0 0 2 16.67 b 0 0 a
Brown 0 0 c 5 18.52 b 12 44.44 b 10 37.04 b 337.45 2.2e-16
Multicolored 31 57.41 b 2 3.7 b 7 12.96 b 14 25.93 b
White-brown magpie 40 28.17 b 18 12.68 b 49 34.51 b 35 24.65 b
White-grey magpie 97 97.98 a 2 2.02 a 0 0 a 0 0 a
Sex
Male 160 71.75 b 3 1.35 a 36 16.14 a 24 10.76 a 12.54 0.0057
Female 255 72.24 b 24 6.8 b 36 10.2 b 38 10.76 a
Total 415 72.05 27 4.69 72 12.5 62 10.76
Open in a new tab
a,b,c

The values of the same column indexed by different letters are significantly different at the 5% threshold (P ˂ 0.05).

N: Number of individuals; FNZB: Far northern zone of Benin, CZNB: cotton zone of northern Benin, FZSB: Food-producing zone of southern Borgou, WAZ: West-Atacora zone.

Neck Feather Coloring

The color of geese neck feathers was identified on the same birds previously observed. Table 3 presents the different colors encountered and their frequency by AEZ. Neck feather color was not significant (P > 0.05) depending on agro-ecological zone and sex. Among these colors, white- and brown-necked geese had the highest frequency of occurrence. As for phenotypes, white followed by white-grey magpie and white-grey were significantly higher (91.74, 80.81, and 75%) in white birds in terms of frequency (P < 0.05). The brown and multicolored phenotypes are also more represented (70.37 and 61.11%) with a significant difference at the 5% threshold (Table 3).

Table 3.

Frequency of neck feather color by agro-ecological zone, phenotype and sex.

Factors White
 White-brown
 Brown
 Gray
 Chi-square P-value
N % N % N % N %
Agro-ecological zone
CZNB 102 68.46 a 15 10.07 a 25 16.78 a 7 4.7 a 7.12 0.6241
FNZB 133 70 a 19 10 a 31 16.32 a 7 3.68 a
WAZ 73 64.04 a 15 13.16 a 20 17.54 a 6 5.26 a
FZSB 70 56.91 a 18 14.63 a 29 23.58 a 6 4.88 a
Phenotype
White 222 91.74 a 0 0 20 8.26 a 0 0 367.5 0.0000
White grey 9 75 a 1 8.33 b 1 8.33 a 1 8.33 ab
Brown 5 18.52 b 0 0 19 70.37 b 3 11.11 ab
Multicolored 7 12.96 b 5 9.26 b 33 61.11 b 9 16.67 c
White-brown magpie 55 38.73 b 58 40.85 b 24 16.9 b 5 3.52 b
White-grey magpie 80 80.81 b 3 3.03 b 8 8.08 a 8 8.08 b
Sex
Male 149 66.82 21 9.42 42 18.83 11 4.93 1.83 0.608
Female 229 64.87 46 13.03 63 17.85 15 4.25
Total 378 65.63 67 11.39 105 18.23 26 4.51
Open in a new tab
a,b,c

The values of the same column indexed by different letters are significantly different at the 5% threshold (P ˂ 0.05).

N: Number of individuals; FNZB: Far northern zone of Benin, CZNB: cotton zone of northern Benin, FZSB: Food-producing zone of southern Borgou, WAZ: West-Atacora zone.

Beak Coloring

Three beak colorations were identified (Figure 3 and Table 4). The dominant color was orange followed by yellow regardless of the agro-ecological zone. The effect of agro-ecological zone, phenotype and sex was significant (P < 0.05) on beak coloration. Thus, the color orange and yellow were dominant in the CZNB. The same orange coloring was mainly observed in the multicolored (85.19%), white-grey magpie (64.65%), brown (62.96%) phenotypes, while the yellow coloring was mainly encountered in the grey white (41.67%) and white-brown magpie (41.55%) (P < 0.05). Depending on sex, the yellow color (33.14%) was more present in females than in males (P < 0.05). Among the latter the yellow-orange color was the most important. The shapes of the beaks, if it must be noted, remain uniform on all the birds encountered.

Figure 3.

Figure 3:

Open in a new tab

Beak color.

Table 4.

Frequency of goose beak color by agro-ecological zone, phenotype and sex.

Factors Yellow
 Yellow-orange
 Orange
 Chi-square P-value
N % N % N %
Agro-ecological zone 18.21 0.005
CZNB 52 34.90 a 7 4.7 a 90 60.4 a
FNZB 48 25.26 a 31 16.32 b 111 58.42 a
WAZ 32 28.07 a 24 21.05 b 58 50.88 a
FZSB 34 27.64 a 17 13.82 b 72 58.54 a
Phenotype
White 71 29.34 a 44 18.18 a 127 52.48 a 43.742 0.000
White gray 5 41.67 ab 1 8.33 ab 6 50 a
Brown 6 22.22 a 4 14.81 a 17 62.96 a
Multicolored 8 14.81 bc 0 0 46 85.19 b
White-brown magpie 59 41.55 b 12 8.45 bc 71 50 a
White-grey magpie 17 17.17 c 18 18.18 ab 64 64.65 ac
Sex
Male 49 21.97 a 36 16.14 a 138 54.67 a 8.71 0.012
Female 117 33.14 b 43 12.18 a 193 61.88 a
Total 166 28.82 79 13.72 331 57.47
Open in a new tab
a,b,c

The values of the same column indexed by different letters are significantly different at the 5% threshold (P ˂ 0.05).

N: Number of individuals; FNZB: Far northern zone of Benin, CZNB: cotton zone of northern Benin, FZSB: Food-producing zone of southern Borgou, WAZ: West-Atacora zone.

Tarsus Coloring

Four tarsi colorings were identified (Figure 4 and Table 5) with a predominance of red coloring of up to 63.09%. The agro-ecological zone and the phenotype had a significant influence (P < 0.05) on tarsi coloration, but not according to sex (P > 0.05). The most represented colors in the cotton zone of northern Benin were: red (63.09%), gray (13.42%), and yellow (12.75%) while in the West-Atacora zone, the colors were: red (41.23%), gray (33.33%). The proportion of red tarsi was higher (P < 0.05) in the white-brown magpie (60.56%), brown (59.26%), and white (52.89%) phenotypes compared to the multicolored phenotypes (5.56%), and white (7.02%) of the gray and yellow tarsi respectively (P < 0.05).

Figure 4.

Figure 4:

Open in a new tab

Tarsus colors.

Table 5.

Frequency of tarsi color by agro-ecological zone, phenotype and sex.

Factors Gray
 Yellow
 Pink
 Red
 Chi-square P-value
N % N % N % N %
Agro-ecological zone 84.735 1.843e-14
CZNB 20 13.42 a 19 12.75 a 16 10.74 a 94 63.09 a
FNZB 18 9.47 ab 41 21.58 b 49 25.79 b 82 43.16 b
WAZ 38 33.33 b 0 0 29 25.44 b 47 41.23 b
FZSB 25 20.33 ac 8 6.5 a 14 11.38 a 76 61.79 a
Phenotype
White 42 17.36 a 17 7.02 a 55 22.73 a 128 52.89 a 55.449 0.000
White grey 2 16.67 ab 6 50 bc 1 8.33 ab 3 25 ab
Brown 4 14.81 a 5 18.52 ac 2 7.41 a 16 59.26 a
Multicolored 3 5.56 ab 10 18.52 b 16 29.63 a 25 46.3 a
White-brown magpie 22 15.49 a 20 14.08 b 14 9.86 b 86 60.56 ac
White-grey magpie 28 28.28 b 10 10.1 a 20 20.2 a 41 41.41 a
Sex
Male 43 19.28 29 13 48 21.52 103 46.19 4,86 0,18
Female 58 16.43 39 11.08 60 17 196 55.52
Total 101 17.53 68 11.81 108 18.75 299 51.91
Open in a new tab
a,b,c

The values of the same column indexed by different letters are significantly different at the 5% threshold (P ˂ 0.05).

N: Number of individuals; FNZB: Far northern zone of Benin, CZNB: cotton zone of northern Benin, FZSB: Food-producing zone of southern Borgou, WAZ: West-Atacora zone.

Biometric Characteristics

Body Length, Wing Span, and Thoracic Circumference of Domestic Geese

Body length, wing span, and thoracic circumference were influenced by agro-ecological zone, phenotype and sex (P ˂ 0.05). The body length of geese in the FNZB remained shorter than that of other agro-ecological zones (P ˂ 0.05) with respective values of 71.34 cm compared to 73.22 cm, 73.21 cm and 72.97 cm (Table 6). The white phenotype has a greater length compared to the multicolored and white-grey magpie phenotypes. The wing span of geese from the CZNB, FNZB, and WAZ remains longer with a significant difference (P ˂ 0.05). This is still very much noticed on birds with a white-brown magpie phenotype (136.15 cm) compared to multicolored (132.85 cm) and white-grey magpie (133 cm). As for the thoracic circumference, it is longer in the geese from the CZNB (P ˂ 0.05). White-brown (43.14 cm) and white (43.11 cm) geese had a larger chest circumference (P ˂ 0.05) compared to multicolored geese (41.27 cm). These different measurements were higher in males than females regardless of phenotype and agro-ecological zone (P ˂ 0.05).

Table 6.

Least squares mean and standard error of live body weight (kg) and body measurements of domestic geese according to agro-ecological zone, phenotype and sex.

Factors P (Kg) BoLe (Cm) Wsp (Cm) HeLe (Cm) BeLe (Cm) NecLe (Cm) NecDi (Cm) TiLe (Cm) TaLe (Cm) TaDi (Cm) Tpe (Cm)
Agro-ecological zone
CZNB (149) 3.74 ± 0.5 ab 73.21 ± 4.4 b 134.38 ± 7.2 b 12.69 ± 0.9 b 7.08 ± 0.61 24.85 ± 3.18 b 7.73 ± 0.98 16.31 ± 1.3 10.08 ± 0.8 a 5.39 ± 0.5 43.86 ± 3.5 b
FNZB (190) 3.79 ± 0.4 b 71.34 ± 5.4 a 135.02 ± 5.1 b 12.33 ± 0.87 a 7.01 ± 0.95 23.63 ± 2.54 a 7.58 ± 1.21 16.12 ± 1.15 10.15 ± 1.2 a 5.37 ± 0.65 42.33 ± 2.6 a
FZSB (114) 3.58 ± 0.5 a 72.97 ± 5 b 131.95 ± 6.7 a 12.67 ± 1.3 b 6.92 ± 0.78 24.48 ± 2.73 b 7.66 ± 0.9 16.18 ± 1.2 10.11 ± 0.9 a 5.24 ± 0.5 42.3 ± 3.42 a
WAZ (123) 3.62 ± 0.6 a 73.22 ± 5.1 b 135.42 ± 5.89 b 12.71 ± 1.12 b 6.83 ± 0.68 24.95 ± 2.45 b 7.82 ± 1.02 15.97 ± 1.17 10.6 ± 1.2 b 5.35 ± 0.5 42.07 ± 3.6 a
P-value ** ** *** ** ns *** ns ns *** ns ***
Phenotypes
White (242) 3.76 ± 0.5 a 73.5 ± 5.2 b 134.32 ± 6.7 ab 12.72 ± 1.17 c 6.94 ± 0.78 ac 24.69 ± 2.69 b 7.56 ± 1.08 15.16 ± 1.2 10.42 ± 1 b 5.39 ± 0.5 b 43.11 ± 3.02 b
White gray (12) 3.62 ± 0.6 ab 71.41 ± 3.5 ab 133.25 ± 6.09 ab 11.75 ± 0.96 ab 7.54 ± 1.01 c 22.16 ± 2.72 a 7.41 ± 1.2 15.75 ± 1.4 10.16 ± 0.8 ab 5.2 ± 0.7 ab 41.08 ± 2.8 ab
Brown (27) 3.53 ± 0.4 ab 72.7 ± 3.5 ab 133.25 ± 5.6 ab 12.11 ± 1.2 ab 7.29 ± 0.62 bc 23.7 ± 2.07 ab 8.07 ± 1.03 16.15 ± 0.9 10.03 ± 1.01 ab 5.42 ± 0.7 ab 41.44 ± 2.47 ab
Multicolored (54) 3.74 ± 0.5 ab 70.75 ± 5.2 a 132.85 ± 5.5 a 11.96 ± 0.73 a 6.82 ± 0.81 ab 24.16 ± 2.24 ab 7.51 ± 1.04 16.22 ± 0.96 9.68 ± 1.02 a 5.28 ± 0.5 ab 41.27 ± 3.8 a
White-brown magpie (142) 3.72 ± 0.5 ab 72.19 ± 4.2 ab 136.15 ± 4.6 b 12.76 ± 0.86 c 7.12 ± 0.72 bc 24.47 ± 3.2 ab 7.79 ± 1.07 16.14 ± 1.3 10.23 ± 1.1 bc 5.42 ± 0.5 b 43.14 ± 3.2 b
White-grey magpie (99) 3.55 ± 0.5 b 71.79 ± 5.9 a 133 ± 7.16 a 12.54 ± 0.9 bc 6.77 ± 0.81 a 24.15 ± 2.6 ab 7.87 ± 1.03 16.16 ± 1.16 10.06 ± 1.1 ac 5.16 ± 0.5 a 42.18 ± 3.7 ab
P-value *** ** *** *** *** * ns ns *** * ***
Sex
Male 4.13 ± 0.49 a 75.71 ± 4.86 a 138.08 ± 5.32 a 13.06 ± 1.16 a 7.35 ± 0.79 a 26.18 ± 3.07 a 7.91 ± 1.2 a 16.61 ± 1.27 a 10.63 ± 1.05 a 5.6 ± 0.6 a 43.87 ± 3.58 a
Female 3.43 ± 039 b 70.55 ± 4.2 b 131.97 ± 5.7 b 12.27 ± 0.87 b 6.74 ± 0.69 b 23.27 ± 1.86 b 7.54 ± 0.96 b 15.86 ± 11 b 9.96 ± 1.0 b 5.18 ± 0.52 b 41.9 ± 2.93 b
P-value *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** ***
Open in a new tab

Means with different letters are significantly different (*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001).

NS: not significant, Kilograms (kg), Body length (BoLe), wingspan (Wsp), head length (HeLe), beak length (BeLe), neck length (NecLe), neck diameter (NecDi), tarsus length (TaLe), tarsus diameter (TaDi), thigh length (TiLe), thoracic perimeter (Tpe), live weight (P) by agro-ecological zone, by phenotype and sex, FNZB: Far northern zone of Benin, CZNB: cotton zone of northern Benin, FZSB: Food-producing zone of southern Borgou, WAZ: West-Atacora zone.

Beak Length, Head Length, Neck Length, and Neck Diameter of Geese

The beak length of the geese was only under the influence of the phenotype (P ˂ 0.05) while the length of the head and the length of the neck were both influenced (P ˂ 0.05) by the phenotype and by the agro-ecological zone (Table 6). Geese from CZNB, FZSB and WAZ had longer head and neck lengths (P ˂ 0.05) than geese from FNZB. On the other hand, for neck diameter, no difference was obtained (P > 0.05) on phenotype and agro-ecological zone. The beaks of the white-grey (7.54 cm) and brown (7.29 cm) phenotypes were significantly longer (P ˂ 0.05) than those of the white-grey phenotypes (6.77 cm). As for the white (12.72 cm), white-brown magpie (12.76 cm) phenotypes, the length of the head remains greater compared to the multicolored phenotypes (11.96 cm). Likewise, the neck length of the white phenotypes (24.69 cm) is greater (P ˂ 0.05) compared to the grey-white phenotypes (22.16 cm).

Length and Diameter of the Tarsus and Length of the Thigh of Domestic Geese Found in Northern Benin

The phenotype had a significant influence (P ˂ 0.05) on both the length of the tarsus and its diameter. On the other hand, only the length of the tarsus was affected by the agro-ecological zone (P ˂ 0.05). As for sex, it remains significant on each of these measures (P ˂ 0.05). The geese from the WAZ (10.6 cm) had a longer tarsus (P ˂ 0.05) than that of the guinea fowl from the CZNB, FNZB and FZSB (10.08 cm; 10.15 cm and 10.11 cm). Geese with white phenotype (10.42 cm) had significantly (P ˂ 0.05) longer tarsi compared to geese with multicolored phenotype (9.68 cm). For tarsus diameter, the white (5.39 cm) and white-brown (5.42 cm) phenotypes showed higher values compared to the white-grey (5.16 cm) phenotypes. Regarding the length of the thigh of the birds, it was not influenced by the agro-ecological zone nor by the phenotype (P > 0.05).

Live Weight According to Agro-Ecological Zone and Body Measurements and Sex

Live weight of geese was influenced (P ˂ 0.05) by agro-ecological zone, phenotype and sex (Table 6). The geese from the FNZB (3.74 kg) were heavier (P ˂ 0.05) than the geese from the FZSB and the WAZ (3.58 kg and 3.62 kg). The white phenotype (3.76 kg) presented a greater weight (P ˂ 0.05) than the white-grey magpie phenotypes (3.55 kg). The weight of males (4.13 kg) was greater than that of females (3.43 kg) with a significant difference (P ˂ 0.05).

Correlation Coefficients Between Live Weight and Body Measurements

Table 7 presents the summary of the correlation coefficients between live body weight and the various measurements in domestic geese raised in northern Benin. All body measurements were positively correlated (P ˂ 0.05) with live weight. Strong correlations were obtained between live weight and wing span (r = 0.682) on the one hand and between live weight and body length (r = 0.574) and thoracic circumference on the other hand (r = 0.513). Likewise, the relationships between the other variables were positive.

Table 7.

Correlations between weight and body measurements of domestic geese raised in northern Benin.

Variables P BLe Wsp HeLe BeLe NecLe NecDi TiLe TaLe TaDi Tpe
Weight (P) 1
Body length (BoLe) 0.574** 1
Wingspan (Wsp) 0.682** 0.567** 1
Head length (HeLe) 0.401** 0.458** 0.461** 1
Beak length (BeLe) 0.33** 0.47** 0.446** 0.36** 1
Neck length (NecLe) 0.434** 0.535** 0.454** 0.525** 0.366** 1
Neck diameter (NecDi) 0.151** 0.166** 0.222** 0.2** 0.159** 0.192** 1
Thigh length (TiLe) 0.344** 0.396** 0.292** 0.192** 0.188** 0.331** 0.078ns 1
Tarsus length (TaLe) 0.248** 0.399** 0.368** 0.356** 0.479** 0.454** 0.077ns 0.067ns 1
Tarsus diameter (TaDi) 0.479** 0.357** 0.409** 0.405** 0.355** 0.289** 0.117** 0.007ns 0.419** 1
Thoracic perimeter (Tpe) 0.513** 0.591** 0.551** 0.48** 0.479** 0.408** 0.191** 0.314** 0.342** 0.369** 1
Open in a new tab

DISCUSSION

Analysis of Phaneroptic Variability

In Benin, as in sub-Saharan Africa, studies dedicated to the breeding of domestic geese are very rare. The color of the plumage of domestic geese found in the 4 agro-ecological zones in northern Benin remains very variable. Six plumage colors have been identified with a dominance of white, white-brown and white-grey magpie colors. This phenotypic diversity is therefore not specific to domestic geese found in northern Benin. Similar observations were reported by certain authors (Banerjee, 2013; Islam et al., 2016; Macharia et al., 2017; Abdel-Kafy et al., 2021) on different parts of the body of the native or domestic goose. Morphological variation within a species is of great biological interest, both as a descriptive and as an analytical tool. This variation in phenotype generally characterizes domestic geese and indicates the presence of several morphological mutations which result from domestication and the random mode of reproduction (Hamadani and Khan, 2016; Chen et al., 2023) as in chickens in Western Algeria (Mahammi et al., 2014). The high frequency of white and white-brown magpie geese could also be linked to the morals and customs of local populations who exploit many of these phenotypes for cultic purposes and therefore exert positive selection. White is a symbol of purity in both Africa and Europe, and breeders' preference for white makes white feathers more popular. In addition, white feathered geese (e.g., Embden) possess valuable traits for meat production, while brown (and grey) feathered geese (e.g., Toulouse and Landes) have good fattening ability (EFSA, 2023).

The diversity of beak coloration of domestic geese has been reported by previous studies. In India (Banerjee, 2013) and Bangladesh (Islam et al., 2016), these authors noted respectively 2 (brown and orange) and 2 (black and orange) colors of the beak with a dominance of orange. According to Hill (2010), more than a dozen types of carotid arteries were responsible for the orange and yellow coloration of geese's beaks and that pheomelanin produces various shades of brown. The beak shapes of the identified geese were uniform and are similar to those reported by Islam et al. (2016). On the other hand, our results are contrary to those of Zhang et al. (2023) on the different beak shapes of 6 breeds of Chinese geese which present a fleshy bulge at the top of the bill, called a “knob.” As a result, all the geese belonged to the species Anser anser, which are descendants of the greylag goose (Albarella, 2005; FAO, 2012). Regarding the color diversity obtained on the tarsi (Gray, Yellow, Pink, and Red) of geese in northern Benin, similar observations have been made on other birds in various countries. On white and brown and white geese, tarsi of respective yellow and orange colors are observed (Banerjee, 2013; Macharia et al., 2017). The tarsi colorings identified in geese in northern Benin are all included in those reported by Soara et al., (2020) (10 colors) on guinea fowl in northern Togo. The grey coloring observed on the tarsi of birds could be protection against heat by melanin. As for the diversity of geese head and neck feather colors, they were consistent with the findings of Banerjee (2013); Islam et al. (2016), and Abdel-Kafy et al. (2021).

Biometric Characters in Domestic Geese

Characterizing differences between closely related geese observed in four agro-ecological zones in northern Benin requires the assessment of body size and morphological measurements. The morphometry of domestic geese in northern Benin is characterized by the live weight dimorphism observed between ganders and geese. The same goes for live weight and all biometric measurements which were in favor of males. This result is in agreement with those of other authors (Yapi-Gnaore et al.,2010; Adeoye et al.,2017). Current data demonstrated that sex influenced most biometric characteristics of domestic geese. Dimorphism may vary depending on the characters measured.

Morphological measurements including head length, tarsus length and thoracic circumference on the geese studied showed values comparable to those described by Abdel-Kafy et al., (2021) on domestic geese (Anser anser) in Egypt which recorded ranges of 122.7 to 126.8, 100.1 to 103.7 and 45.8 to 46.5 mm respectively. Chest measurements are considered reliable criteria for assessing the live weight of most livestock (Saatci and Tilki, 2007). In a village environment, the equation for predicting live weight from thoracic circumference constitutes a simple method for measuring weight.

Tarsus length remains similar to those of Macharia et al., (2017) obtained from Anser anser geese in Kenya. The tarsus constitutes a support for the body of the poultry and reflects the format of the animal (Hassaballah et al., 2015). The geese of the WAZ were taller on their legs than the geese of the other 3 agro-ecological zones. Similarly, Saatci and Tilki (2007) reported similar values for neck length, beak length, and thoracic circumference (24.8 cm, 7.5 cm, and 45.20 cm) in native Turkish geese. On the other hand, these values for body and tarsus length remain lower (62 cm and 8.8 cm) at 16 wk in male subjects. This could be explained by the age of these animals whose physiological development is not achieved. The body length of geese obtained in this study was similar to the results of Islam et al. (2016) but higher than those reported by Saatci and Tilki (2007) on native Turkish geese aged 16 wk. Wing span varied between agro-ecological zones (131.95–135.42 cm) and phenotype (132.85–136.15 cm). The wing span obtained from geese in this study was similar to that reported by Hamadani et al. (2014) and Islam et al. (2016). Our values are lower than those reported by Ogilvie and Young (2004) for the greylag goose and the swan goose. There are then a certain number of biological factors which could influence the wingspan, but also the length of the feathers, for example sex, age, population, molt and differences between years of breeding. The values obtained for neck diameter and tarsus diameter were similar to those reported by Liu et al., (2022) on Wulong geese in China.

The current results for geese body weight varied regardless of factor and remain similar to those reported by Hamadani et al., (2014) on local geese of the Kashmir Valley but higher than those of Abdel-Kafy et al., (2021) on Egyptian goose populations. On the other hand, our values are lower than those reported by El-Hanoun et al., (2012) and Banerjee (2013) during their respective study on Egyptian geese (3.98 kg and 4.48 kg) and the white-feathered goose (4.4 kg). Buckland and Guy (2002), found that the Chinese goose was relatively small, with mature males weighing on average 4.5 kg and females 4.0 kg. Therefore, the relatively poor diets provided to birds in the different agro-ecological zones are most likely the cause of their body weight which remains lower (Azalou et al., 2023). These results could also be explained by the breeding systems in which these animals evolve. The values reported by Juodka et al., (2012) and Buzała et al., (2014) show high body weights at the end of fattening with the Lithuanian Vishtines breed and the Polish oat breed reaching respectively 5 to 6 kg and 4.19 kg for the goose and 6 to 7 kg and 4.43 kg for gander.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study on domestic geese in 4 agro-ecological zones of northern Benin present great diversity and therefore differentiation on the basis of morpho-biometric measurements. In the study population, white-plumaged, white-brown magpie and white-grey magpie geese were predominant. The low proportion of other phenotypes suggests a significant influence of random crosses on these animals. In general, the biometric values of male geese were higher than those of females. The marked dimorphism between the 2 sexes can allow breeders, under current breeding conditions, to select males early for meat production. The geese of the FNZB are heavier with a lower body length and head length than those of the other 3 zones. Measurements and live weight varied between agro-ecological zones and/or between phenotypes and sex. But it would be very early to draw the conclusion that domestic geese from the four agro-ecological zones of northern Benin constitute different populations. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that further genetic analyzes be done to determine the genetic variation between and within these small goose populations in order to develop an effective conservation and utilization program for this poultry species.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Regional Center of Excellence in Avian Sciences (CERSA) of the University of Lome in Togo funded this project. The primary funding source for CERSA, World Bank Group IDA 6512, is greatly appreciated by the writers.

DISCLOSURES

All authors declare no conflicts of interest.

REFERENCES

  1. Abdel-Kafy E.-S.M., Ramadan S.I., Ali W.H., Youssef S.F., Shabaan H.A., El-Deighadi A., Inoue-Murayama M. Genetic and phenotypic characterization of domestic geese (Anser anser) in Egypt. Anim. Open Access J. MDPI. 2021;11:3106. doi: 10.3390/ani11113106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Adeoye A.A., Rotimi E.A., Oluyode M.O. Biometric differentiation of local and exotic turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) in southwest Nigeria. Appl. Trop. Agric. 2017;22:63‑66. [Google Scholar]
  3. Aholoukpè H. S. N., Amadji G. L., Koussihouèdé H. K. I., 2020. Stocks de carbone dans les sols des zones agro-écologiques du Bénin. In: Carbone Des Sols en Afrique (Eds. Chevallier T., Razafimbelo T.M., Chapuis-Lardy L., Brossard M.). IRD Éditions, 101‑122.
  4. Akounda B., Ouédraogo D., Soudré A., Burger P.A., Rosen B.D., Van Tassell C.P., Sölkner J. Morphometric characterization of local goat breeds in two agroecological zones of Burkina Faso. West Africa. Animals. 2023;13:1931. doi: 10.3390/ani13121931. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Albarella U. In: Feathers, grit and symbolism: birds and humans in the ancient, old and new worlds: (Documenta Archaeobiologiae 3) Grupe G., Peters J., editors. VML Verlag Marie Leidorf; Munich: 2005. The role of domestic ducks and geese from Roman to medieval times in Britain; pp. 249–258. [Google Scholar]
  6. Azalou M., Kpomasse C.C., Assani A.S., Alkoiret I.T., Pitala W. Diversity of Geese (Anser spp.) farming systems in Northern Benin, West Africa. J. Anim. Health Prod. 2023;11:382‑393. [Google Scholar]
  7. Banerjee S. Morphological traits of duck and geese breeds of West Bengal, India. Anim. Genet. Res. 2013;52:1‑16. [Google Scholar]
  8. Buckland R., Guy G. Goose production. FAO Anim. Prod. Health Pap. FAO. 2002;146:1‑146. [Google Scholar]
  9. Buzała M., Adamski M., Janicki B. Characteristics of performance traits and the quality of meat and fat in Polish oat geese. Worlds Poult. Sci. J. 2014;70:531‑542. [Google Scholar]
  10. Chen L., Cao Y., Li G., Tian Y., Zeng T., Gu T., Xu W., Konoval O., Lu L. Population structure and selection signatures of domestication in geese. Biology. 2023;12 doi: 10.3390/biology12040532. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Chrysostome C.A.A.C., Houndonougbo M.F., Houndonougbo P., Dossou J., Zohoun R. Conf. Dixièmes Journ. Rech. Avic. Palmipèdes À Foie Gras Rochelle, JRA-JRFG. 2013. Caractéristique des poulets selon le point de vue des éleveurs. [Google Scholar]
  12. Dèdéhou V.F.G.N., Attakpa E.Y., Awohouedji D.Y.G., Alkoiret T.I. Typology of local turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) breedings located in Ouaké commune in northwestern Benin. Int. J. Agron. Agric. Res. 2018;13:111‑118. [Google Scholar]
  13. Dobrzański J., Calik J., Krawczyk J., Szwaczkowski T. Conservation of goose genetic resources in Poland - past and present status. Worlds Poult. Sci. J. 2019;75:387‑400. [Google Scholar]
  14. Dotché I.O., Baba L.I., Okambawa L.F., Koffi M., Adebo N., Karim I.Y.A. Typologie des élevages de dindons au sud du Bénin. Rev. D’élevage Médecine Vét. Pays Trop. 2021;74:13‑26. [Google Scholar]
  15. Eda M., Itahashi Y., Kikuchi H., Sun G., Hsu K.-H., Gakuhari T., Yoneda M., Jiang L., Yang G., Nakamura S. Multiple lines of evidence of early goose domestication in a 7,000-y-old rice cultivation village in the lower Yangtze River, China. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2022;119 doi: 10.1073/pnas.2117064119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (AHAW Panel) Nielsen S.S., Alvarez J., Bicout D.J., Calistri P., Canali E., Drewe J.A., Garin-Bastuji B., Gonzales Rojas J.L., Schmidt C.G., Herskin M., Michel V., Miranda Chueca M.Á., Padalino B., Roberts H.C., Spoolder H., Stahl K., Viltrop A., Winckler C., Berg C., Edwards S., Knierim U., Riber A., Salamon A., Tiemann I., Fabris C., Manakidou A., Mosbach-Schulz O., Van der Stede Y., Vitali M., Velarde A. Welfare of ducks, geese and quail on farm. EFSA J. 2023;21:e07992. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7992. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Ekpo K.J., Oke O.E., Osseyi G.E., Dossou J., Chrysostome C.A.A.M. Characterization of Quail (Coturnix japonica) Production in Benin Republic. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 2020;19:531‑538. [Google Scholar]
  18. El-Hanoun A.M., Attia Y.A., Gad H.a.M., Abdella M.M. Effect of different managerial systems on productive and reproductive traits, blood plasma hormones and serum biochemical constituents of geese. Animal. 2012;6:1795‑1802. doi: 10.1017/S1751731112000808. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. FAO, 2012. Phenotypic characterization of animal genetic resources. Accessed Apr. 2023. http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2686e/i2686e00.htm.
  20. FAO, 2013. Caractérisation phénotypique des ressources génétiques animales. Directives FAO sur la production et la santé animales No. 11. Rome. 151p.
  21. FAOSTAT, 2021. Cultures et produits animaux. Accessed Jan. 2024. https://www.fao.org/faostat/fr/#data/QCL.
  22. Gbemavo D.S.J.C., Gnangle P.C., Azontondé H.A., Glele Kakai R.L. Modélisation du stock de biomasse et dynamique de séquestration minérale et du carbone de Jatropha curcas L. sous différents types de sol au Bénin. Ann. Sci. Agron. 2014;18:1‑21. [Google Scholar]
  23. Habimana R., Ngeno K., Mahoro J., Ntawubizi M., Shumbusho F., Manzi M., Hirwa C.A., Okeno T.O. Morphobiometrical characteristics of indigenous chicken ecotype populations in Rwanda. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2021;53:1‑11. doi: 10.1007/s11250-020-02475-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hamadani H., Khan A.A. Morphological characterization with special reference to color variations in domestic geese (Anser anser domesticus) Indian J. Anim. Sci. 2016;86:445‑448. [Google Scholar]
  25. Hamadani H., Khan A.A., Hamadani A., Banday M.T., Ganai N.A. Characteristics of geese production and management in the valley of Kashmir. J. Anim. Res. 2017;7:271‑277. [Google Scholar]
  26. Hamadani H., Khan A.A., Mir M.S., Banday M.T., Ganai T.A.S., Hamadani A. Morphometric characterization of local geese in the Valley of Kashmir. Indian J. Anim. Sci. 2014;84:978‑981. [Google Scholar]
  27. Hassaballah K., Zeuh V., Mopate L.Y., Sembene M. Morpho-biometrical characterization of local chicken (Gallus gallus) in three agro-ecological zones of Chad. Livest. Res. Rural Dev. 2015;27 http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd27/3/hass27053.html Retrieved October 2, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hill G.E. USA Natl. Geogr. Soc; Washington. DC: 2010. National geographic bird coloration. [Google Scholar]
  29. Houessionon J.B.F., Bonou G.A., Ahounou G.S., Dahouda M., Dougnon T.J., Mensah G.A., Bani Kogui S., Youssao Abdou Karim I. Caractéristiques de l’élevage du canard de Barbarie dans les zones agro-écologiques du Sud-Bénin. J. Appl. Biosci. 2020;145:14862–14879. [Google Scholar]
  30. Hugo S. Goose production and utility in integrated agricultural systems. Pages in 527–532 in 11th European Symposium on Waterfowl; Nantes (France); 1997. pp. 527–532. September 8-10. [Google Scholar]
  31. Islam M.F., Mia M.M., Rahman M.A., Bhowmik N. Morphometric, productive and reproductive traits of indigenous goose of Bangladesh. Anim. Genet. Resour. 2016;59:37‑45. [Google Scholar]
  32. Juodka R., Kiskiene A., Skurdeniene I., Ribikauskas V., Nainiene R. Lithuanian vishtines goose breed. Worlds Poult. Sci. J. 2012;68:51‑62. [Google Scholar]
  33. Koch I. Goose keeping, elite emulation and Egyptianized feasting at Late Bronze Lachish. Tel Aviv. 2014;41:161‑179. [Google Scholar]
  34. Kozák J. Variations of geese under domestication. Worlds Poult. Sci. J. 2019;75:247‑260. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kozák J. Goose production and goose products. Worlds Poult. Sci. J. 2021;77:403‑414. [Google Scholar]
  36. Liu J., Zhang D., Zhang Z., Chai W., Zhang J., Li M., Wang Y., Zhang S., Zhu M. Comparison of body size and reproductive hormones in high- and low-yielding Wulong geese. Poult. Sci. 2022;101:1‑6. doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2021.101618. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Loba A.L.E.G., Amanidja B.D., Kakou B.I., Soro D., Adepo-Gourene A.B. Diversités phénotypiques et morphométriques des canards (Cairina moschata, Linnaeus 1758) élevés dans le Sud forestier de la Côte d'Ivoire. Afr. Sci. 2021;19:1‑15. [Google Scholar]
  38. Macharia J.W., Mberu M.N., Wamuyu L., Imboma T., Lichoti J.K., Ngeiywa K.J., Ommeh S.C. Phenotypic analysis of underutilized poultry species in Kenya. Livest. Res. Rural Dev. 2017;29 http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd29/5/somm29099.html Retrieved September 30, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  39. Mahammi F.Z., Gaouar S.B.S., Tabet-Aoul N., Tixier-Boichard M., Saïdi-Mehtar N. Caractéristiques morpho-biométriques et systèmes d’élevage des poules locales en Algérie occidentale (Oranie) Cah. Agric. 2014;23:382–392. [Google Scholar]
  40. Mushi J.R., Chiwanga G.H., Amuzu-Aweh E.N., Walugembe M., Max R.A., Lamont S.J., Kelly T.R., Mollel E.L., Msoffe P.L., Dekkers J., Gallardo R., Zhou H., Muhairwa A.P. Phenotypic variability and population structure analysis of Tanzanian free-range local chickens. BMC Vet. Res. 2020;16:1‑10. doi: 10.1186/s12917-020-02541-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Ogilvie M.A., Young S. New Holland Publishers; Chatswood NSW, Australia: 2004. Wildfowl of the world. [Google Scholar]
  42. Olusegun O., Ayorinde K. Duck production in Nigeria: flock characteristics, management and mortality. Arch. Zootech. 2015;18:27‑40. [Google Scholar]
  43. R Core Team, 2022. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Accessed Oct. 2023. https://www.R-project.org/.
  44. Saatci M., Tilki M. Zoometrical body measurements and their relation with liveweight in native Turkish geese. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 2007;31:47‑53. [Google Scholar]
  45. Scherf B.D. Ed. 3. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO); Rome, Italy: 2000. World watch list for domestic animal diversity. 739. [Google Scholar]
  46. Serjeantson D. Goose husbandry in medieval England, and the problem of ageing goose bones. Acta Zool. Cracoviensia. 2002;45:39‑54. [Google Scholar]
  47. Sheriff O., Alemayehu K., Haile A. Phenotypic ranking experiments in identifying breeding objective traits of smallholder farmers in northwestern Ethiopia. PloS One. 2021;16 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248779. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Silversides F.G., Crawford R.D., Wang H.C. The cytogenetics of domestic geese. J. Hered. 1988;79:6‑8. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a110449. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Soara A.E., Talaki E., Dayo G.-K., Tona K. Morpho-Biometric Characterization of Indigenous Guinea fowl (Numida meleagris) Populations in Northern Togo. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 2020;19:432‑446. [Google Scholar]
  50. Traoré F.G., Traoré A., Bayala B., Dayo G.K., Tapsoba A.S., Soudré A., Sanou M., Tindano K., Tamboura H.H. Characterization and typology of Guinea fowl (Numida meleagris) farming Systems in Burkina Faso. Int. J. Adv. Res. 2018;6:6‑21. [Google Scholar]
  51. Yapi-Gnaore C.V., Loukou N.É., N'Guetta A.S.P., Kayang B., Rognon X., Tixier-Boichard M., Touré G., Coulibaly Y., Youssao I. Diversités phénotypique et morphométrique des poulets locaux (Gallus gallus) de deux zones agroécologiques de Côte d'Ivoire. Cah. Agric. 2010;19:439–445. [Google Scholar]
  52. Youssao I.a.K., Tobada P.C., Koutinhouin B.G., Dahouda M., Idrissou N.D., Bonou G.A., Tougan U.P., Ahounou S., Yapi-Gnaoré V., Kayang B., Rognon X., Tixier-Boichard M. Phenotypic characterisation and molecular polymorphism of indigenous poultry populations of the species Gallus gallus of Savannah and Forest ecotypes of Benin. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2010;9:369‑381. [Google Scholar]
  53. Zhang Y., Xu X., Ji W., Qi S., Bao Q., Zhang Y., Zhang Y., Xu Q., Chen G. Morphological, anatomical and histological studies on knob and beak characters of six goose breeds from China. Front. Physiol. 2023;14 doi: 10.3389/fphys.2023.1241216. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Poultry Science are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES