Alzhan Shamshidin , Aruzhan Nugmanova *, Arman Sabyrzhanov and Zhanylsyn Makhimova
Zhangir Khan Agrarian Technical University, Uralsk, Kazakhstan
*Corresponding author: a.e.nugmanova@bk.ru
This study evaluated the growth performance and survival of male and female Muscovy ducks (Cairina moschata) reared under three feeding and vitamin-support programs during an 84-day growing period. We allocated 150 one-day-old ducklings to a control group and two experimental groups (E1 and E2), with 50 birds per group. The control group received the Megakorm feeding program without additional vitamins in drinking water, whereas E1 and E2 received the same Baby Line/Finish Chick compound-feed program supplemented with Tetragidrovit and Nitamin, respectively. Both vitamin preparations contained vitamins A, D₃, E, and C, but differed in concentration and administration regimen. We recorded body weight throughout the study and evaluated average daily gain, absolute weight gain, and survival separately by sex. Growth responses differed markedly between sexes and feeding programs. At 84 days, male body weight reached 3098.83, 3861.82, and 4024.62 g in the control, E1, and E2 groups, respectively, whereas corresponding female weights were 2314.14, 2355.25, and 2423.51 g. Whole-period average daily gain in males was 36.28, 45.36, and 47.30 g/bird/day in the control, E1, and E2 groups, respectively; corresponding values in females were 26.97, 27.45, and 28.26 g/bird/day. The treatment-associated response was therefore considerably greater in males. Survival exceeded 98% in all groups. Because the control group received a different basal feed, interpret differences between the control and experimental groups as responses to complete feeding programs rather than to vitamin supplementation alone. In contrast, the E1–E2 comparison indicated greater growth under the Nitamin-based regimen than under the Tetragidrovit-based regimen when the same compound-feed program was used. These findings highlight the importance of considering both feeding strategy and sex when evaluating nutritional support programs for Muscovy duck production.