|
|
 |
Edmund
Hoffmann - Revised draft Oct 20, 1987
Some
say the Muscovy is not a proper duck at all. Bonnet mentioned all the ways in
which the Muscovy differs from domestic ducks and concluded nevertheless
these geese are always listed as ducks.
A
tropical jungle duck built to roost in trees at night, Muscovies are quite
distinct from either the common duck or a goose. In an evolutionary sense they
branched off the main line of descent that produced the common duck in the
Miocene epoch perhaps 70,000,000 years ago (Johnsguard). Compare this date to
emergence of the humanoid family 14,000,000 years ago and anatomically modern
man 40,000 years ago.
Delacour
considers the Muscovy, Cairina moschata
and two other perching ducks, Cairina
scutulata of Southeast Asia and Cairina
hartlaubi of West Africa to be three species of the same genus. Johnsguard
does not include the latter among the Cairina.
One
can see scutulata in collection in
both England and the US including the Washington DC Zoo. Scutulata is about the
same size as moschata but lacks the marked difference in size between the sexes.
Hybrids between scutulata and moschata
have not been reported but since both species cross with Anas platyrhynchos, the common duck, it seems possible. This is a
mating yet to be made.
Hartlaubi
is reported to be very beautiful, but has not apparently been successfully
reared in captivity. The Brazilian Teal, also a perching duck, looks like a
small edition of the Muscovy, but is not a relative and belongs to a different
genus.
As
an import from South America, this duck had no traditional name in the
Indo-European languages and none, of the many names they have been given, are
very apt, The name Muscovy, now commonly used in English is so inappropriate one
can only conclude the poor duck has been misnamed. This should not be
surprising, the Muskox suffers the same libel.
The
scientific names of the Muscovy are Anas
moschata, named by Linné, 1758, and the current name, Cairina
moschata, Fleming in 1822. Hollander feels Fleming’s choice of the name
Cairina reflects Aldrovandi’s statement that the Muscovy first reached Italy
from Cairo.
In
Egypt the Muscovy is called the Sudani
which means nothing more than black. Kamar believes the Sudani
is shown in Egyptian wall paintings dating back to 4000 years BC. I have seen
the picture and must confess I do not find the evidence conclusive.
Johnsguard
does not agrees that Fleming’s choice of a name has any special significance.
He wrote in those days (1822) it was not surprising to name a genus without
specific justification. The name Cairina is almost certainly not derived from
Cairo, but its origin is not at all clear. I tend to believe Gotch. He suggests
that Cairina may be derived from Cairu Brazil, the suffix ina meaning from or of.
Phillips
comments on the disagreeable associations of the name Muscovy and explains its
origin as the error of a translator who, reading
Anas moschata in Latin, carelessly translated it into French as Oie
de Muscovie, goose of Muscovy. The French have had the good sense to ignore
the error but, like pink lemonade, the bogus is often more viable in English
than the truth.
Phillips
suggests that the Muscovy could be a corruption of Muysca,
the name of a tribe of Indians living on the Mosquito coast of Nicaragua which
is to say there is no connection between Muscovy and musk at all. Sauer opts for
Muisca, Indians of Colombia.
According
to most of the older authors, see Brown, the name Muscovy is derived from Musk duck. While the Muscovy has no musk gland and no odour of musk,
the idea that the males, at least, do give off the odour of musk has persisted
over the years from the days of Belon, 1555. Apparently one author copied from
the previous author none of whom actually sniffed a duck.
Old
lies never die. But I have had the experience of driving several hours in a
closed auto with 3 old Muscovies males in a crate behind me. It would be wrong
to leave the impression Muscovies had no odour. One can smell an unpleasant
odour alright, about the same as the odour of chickens but no stronger. In any
case the odour is not of musk.
Earlier
in this century, Robinson and later Grow, prominent waterfowl authorities in the
USA concerned with the slander implied in the name, made a valiant effort
without success to change the name of the Muscovy to Brazilian duck or pato, its name in Portuguese.
The
French call the Muscovy Canard de Barbarie,
which refers to North Africa. It is meaningless, but like many exotic names it
has the connotation that the Bird’s origin was outside
France, i.e. foreign.
The
Germans have two distinctly different names for the Muscovy, one Flugenten, flying duck, the other Warzenten, wart duck, referring, of course, to the fleshy red
caruncles of the Muscovy males.
In
South America, the ancestral home of the Muscovy, many descriptive names are
used in local areas usually along with the name pato.
Mendez listed 26 different names common locally in parts of Panama. Pato
real, i.e. royal duck, was most widely used.
The
Mandarin Chinese name for the Muscovy is simple fang
ya, or foreign duck. In the Taiwanese dialect however, the name is Ahn-min-ah,
red faced duck, which has the merit of being unmistakably descriptive.
Domestication
of animals can be defined as the process of taming a wild species and its
adaptation to and adoption of life with man.
In
the absence of written records inferences must be drawn from other evidence,
much of it quite circumstantial. It is helpful to speculate on the circumstances
involved in domestication so as to understand why certain species have been
successful as domesticated animals while other species have not.
Development
of agriculture must precede settlement because there will not be enough food
nearby to feed the people. And a civilization cannot develop until some of the
population can be freed of the daily chore of finding food so time can be
devoted to religious and social organization, manufacture, and the construction
of buildings all of which are the basis of a culture. But agriculture depends on
the prior domestication of plants and animals probably centuries, perhaps
millenniums, before.
Is
it surprising to conclude that most of the animal and plant species we use today
must have been domesticated by Neolithic or Mesolithic man?
However,
nothing in this scenario infers that the domestication process was part of a
deliberate plan by early man to achieve civilization, however dimly perceived.
Contrary
to the common wisdom, animals were probably not domesticated for food by
disparate starving people. Hungry people would have slaughtered the animals
rather have domesticated them.
The
circumstances involved in the domestication of the various species inevitably
differ. Often it is suggested that birds, including the Muscovy, were
domesticated for sport or religious rituals. I think this notion ignores human
psychology. Some animals and all birds would have been domesticated first as
pets and companions as a response to the care-taking urge of man. This is
something more than companionship as with a dog. Man has an urge to husband.
Animals
were domesticated by people who were comfortably settled, with food and leisure
time to spare. The adopted animals served as camp scavengers, insects killers,
and watch dogs. It was only much later
that they were used in religious rituals, and sport (cock fighting).
Of
the 144 species of waterfowl, only the duck, goose and Muscovy duck have been
domesticated. Why were so few domesticated? Because most wild species are not
suitable for domestication. For example, some species do not reproduce well in
captivity, other remain wild and unchanged after years of being bred in
captivity.
Several
traits determine if a species is suitable for domestication. Lack of one or more
of these traits may preclude successful domestication.
If
the animal does not require a specialized diet it is easier to feed in
captivity.
If
the mating behavior of the species is promiscuous rather than monogamous, the
animals are easier to reproduce in captivity and inbreeding is less of a
problem.
If
the young animals can fend for themselves at birth, they are not only easier to
raise, but easier to tame because they do not learn fear from their parents, or,
reared apart from their parents, will imprint on humans.
If
at least some individuals are reasonably docile it is easier for them to lose
the natural wildness, essential for survival in nature. When these individuals
reproduce the species is selected for a quiet temperament.
Some
species of animals are naturally tame, but lack, like the Curassow and Fulvous
duck in South America, some of the other prerequisites to domestication. Thus,
only a very few wild species were naturally preadapted to domestication.
The
Muscovy, remarkably, has all the qualities required for life with man. Most
importantly they are dependably broody for hatching eggs and fiercely dedicated
to their ducklings. They are sedentary and loath to leave the locale where they
are fed. The Muscovy can be considered as self-domesticating.
A
society must have the luxury of surplus food before domestication of a wild
species of animal can succeed. This is especially true in the case of
non-grazing animals like birds who compete directly with man for food.
On
the other hand, easy access to food is a powerful incentive for the animal to
cohabit with man. The probable circumstances of domestication in Middle and
South America illustrate this point. The Proto-Indians began to convert from
gathering to growing food before 7000 BC. They were marvellous farmers who
domesticated 30 varieties of vegetables including most of those that feed the
world today. There is botanical evidence that suggests corn (maize) was already
a tame plant by 5400 BC.
Hunger
was no problem for these people. Because they had corn as well as other
vegetables, a family could grow enough food to last for a year with only 10
weeks labor. There was a surplus of food.
The
Muscovy living in the wild (and incidentally, the turkey, although limited to
Northern Mexico) was easy to capture and tame. Man had surplus food and leisure.
Conditions were ripe for domestication.
Unfortunately
the New World, so rich in suitable plant species, lacked suitable animals for
domestication. Beside the small dogs the immigrants had brought with them from
Asia, Middle Americans had only turkeys, Muscovy ducks, and bees. The Peruvians
had the additional advantage of cavies (Guinea pigs), the alpaca and the llama.
Early American man did not have many species of animals to choose from.
It
is impossible to determine exactly when the Muscovy was domesticated. Birds
rarely leave preserved fossils and bird bones are not a top priority of
archaeologists. We do know that both the Muscovy and man have lived in the New
World for a long time. Wetmore has evidence of the presence of the Muscovy
during the Pleistocene period. Recent datings show man’s presence at least
30,000 years ago, in the middle of the last ice age. The first men must have
crossed the Alaska-Siberian land bridge long before then. This means that
domestication could have occurred earlier than our current estimates.
Previous
estimates of probable dates of domestication of all animals are being pushed
back farther into the past as a new analysis is made of the evidence. Moreover,
in the past, two errors were made that bias estimates against earlier dates.
First, not enough lead time has been allowed for the development of plant and
animal husbandry proceeding the emergence of an hybridation. Second, the early classical,
anthropologists based their estimates on the appearance of the animals on the
pottery of frescoes of a civilization which is interesting but too long after
the fact, meaningless for our purpose.
There
is a normal tendency to think that the Muscovy was domesticated in recent times
because our written knowledge dates from the time of Columbus. Students agree
that the Indians had Muscovies but I detect an inference that domesticated
Muscovies were in their view a recent development. Even today, we overlook, with
our European point of view, the many very sophisticated civilization of the New
World, some of which existed long before the Golden Age of Greece.
Part
of the problem of studying the Muskovies that they are not, even now, well
known. Two recent books on domestication of animals, one written as late as
1972, do not mention the Muscovy. This is an amazing because the ubiquitous
Muscovy can be seen in farmyards all over the world and one would think the must
untutored observer could not confuse the Muscovy with our domestic puddle duck.
In the light of this inattention, what evidence of the Muscovy has been
overlooked?
Sauer,
a serious student of dispersal, thought the Muscovy had been domesticated in the
many sheltered basins of fertile land in what is now Columbia, where a high
civilization, still mainly unexplored, had declined before the arrival of the
Europeans (see his map). Perhaps, but the Muscovy, like the Mallard, is so easy
to tame that domestication probably has occurred many times in various parts of
Middle and South America.
The
first domestication must have occurred long before 3500 BC. Lanning describes
elaborate ceremonial buildings built in Peru as early as 2500 BC (4500 BP) and
includes the Muscovy among the domestic animals present before the emergence of
this first culture.
Lanning
thought the Muscovy must have been domesticated somewhere in Peru from whence it
spread over the New World. It seems unlikely that the Muscovy could have been
domesticated in the Andes. The natural habitat of the wild Muscovy is along the
streams of tropical jungle so one would not expect to find wild Muscovies either
on the dry cool eastern coast of Peru or in the mountain streams of the cold,
high Andes. A more logical theory would be to say that Muscovies, already
domesticated, had arrived in Peru by sea from the jungles of the north, perhaps
from Ecuador. This is consistent with our knowledge that the very earliest
inhabitants of Peru were fishermen who sailed up and down the coast of South
America in their balsa boats.
Sauer
was probably correct. The Muscovy was domesticated by natives living in
semi-permanent camps along the rivers of the jungle. There were plenty of
vegetables, largely root crops, and fish and game in abundance. The turkey,
domesticated in Northern Mexico, would have been fed maize, but I am inclined to
think the tame Muscovy was fed the many available root crops and the many kinds
of squash.
Primitive
people have a deep interest in the understanding of animals. In their leisure,
the women of the settlement domesticated Muscovy ducks not for food but as barnyard
pets in response to the basic caring
urge of man. Wilder reports that South American Indians are noted for their
interest in birds. Besides the Muscovy, they keep tame Fulvous ducks, Curassows,
and Comb Ducks. While the latter three species are very tame, they have not been
domesticated probably because they do not reproduce well in contact with man.
The
old Spanish name of the Muscovy is patos
caseros, i.e. house ducks, and today,
as I look out my window, the Muscovies seem not to have changed much in all
those years. While our domestic ducks are out foraging in the orchard, the
Muscovies are content to hang around
the farmstead.
Mendez
quotes personal correspondence from Mr Cooke reporting bones dating from 300 BC
to 500 AD in a precolumbian culture of Panama.
The
first historical mention of the Muscovy describes the use of dried Muscovies by
the Incas in their religious ceremonies. It is very fashionable to believe that
religion was the motivation of domestication but I don’t find the argument
very persuasive. Shamans were not long range planners that would undertake so
long term a project. No, I think they made use of the material at hand.
While
the Inca empire only dates from 1200 AD, it, like the Aztec empire, was only the
last of a long series of older cultures. The Muscovy must have arrived in Peru
centuries before.
Delacour
wrote that Muscovies were being raised in large numbers by the Indians long
before the discovery of the New World. He quotes Oviedo, who in 1514, saw local
Muscovies of different colors and noted the well developed facial caruncles
which Delacour associates with domestication.
The
Indians of the West Indies may have had domesticated Muscovies as well. Columbus
and his men reported the islanders had ducks
as large as geese.
Tenochtitlan,
which eventually became the capital of the Aztec Empire, was first settled in
1325 AD and the new, barbaric arrivals supported themselves by trading fish,
frogs, ducks and other lake products to people of the more advanced city states
nearby for corn and beans. The ducks were probably Muscovies because as Whitley
has described, the Muscovy played an important role as the inspiration of the
masks of the Aztecs and was their major source of feathers as well.
Although
anthropologists have traditionally seen the Mayan agriculture as totally based
on plants, vegetables and corn, recent revaluation of the literature by
Gallenkamp shows that, centuries before the Spanish conquest, the Mayans has
domesticated turkeys, ducks, bees, and had semi-domesticated deer. The species
of duck is not mentioned but it is logical to assume they were indigenous
Muscovies.
There
is no question that the Mayans had domestic animals in the period immediately
following their conquest by the Spanish. About 1550 AD Bishop Landa, the
infamous monk who burned all extant Mayan books in his blind religious fervor,
wrote that the Mayans raised a certain kind of large white mallard (sic). Tozzer
translates this as the Muscovy duck Cairina moschata. Landa also mentions that
the Mayans had large numbers of fowl, bred a kind of domestic dove, and the
coatimundi, a racoon like animal.
It
is conceivable that these Muscovies of the Mayans were of post Hispanic
introduction, but the presence of the white mutants suggests the Mayans had a
longer association with the birds than a few turbulent years in a collapsing
society.
After
the discovery of America, the Muscovy quickly spread to France and if its South
American origins were ever known they were soon forgotten.
The
first European description of a bird that is unmistakably a Muscovy appeared in L'histoire
de la nature des oyseaux by Pierre Belon, published in Paris in 1955. Belon
called them Canard de Guinea, nor
surprising when you consider he called the turkey Coq
de Indie. One of his contemporary ornithologists thought Muscovies as
indigenous to southwest France. Had he seen feral Muscovies there?
Belon’s
description of the Muscovy is an important historical document. Part of its
charm lies in the fact that Belon was describing the bird without preconception
or prejudice.
Note
that he didn’t know the Muscovy was supposed to have the odor of musk. His
paper has been translated for me from Middle French by Claire De Rycke and
reads:
Not
so long ago in France, we started to feed and breed a kind of medium size duck,
between a goose and a duck which does not make any noise while quacking, even
more its voice is husky, as if its lungs were wounded. There is already such a
big quantity of these ducks all over our country, that we feed them in the
cities and we started to sell them on public markets to use them in feasts and
wedding parties.
This
female duck is shortlegged, the male is higher than the female. These ducks are
numerous and have various feathers, (colors), sometimes the female is one color
and the male another color. So we can say that the male is sometimes white,
sometimes the female is white, sometimes both are black, sometimes both are of
various (mixed?) colors. This is the reason we cannot describe simply their
colors like a normal female duck commonly they are blacker than with other
various colors.
Their
beak, as usually for ducks and geese, is hooked at its end, short and wide,
having a red crest (comb!!!!!!!!), not like a cock but these ducks have a
tuberosity, that is to say like a swelling or protuberance between the two holes
of the beak through which they breathe, and it looks like a red cherry.
On
the two sides of the head around the eyes they do not have any feathers but they
have like a red leather from the same kind as the cherry we said they wear on
top of their eyes. It is a sufficient mark to distinguish them.
This
bird has such a big genital member which is a big as a big finger and long
between four and five (?) and red as blood.
If
were not so costly, we would breed them more than we do because if we feed than
as much as they want they lay a lot of eggs and in a very short time they have a
big quantity of ducklings. But we are afraid that feeding them as they want
would cost too much.
Their
meat is not worse nor better than the one of a duck or of a domesticated goose.
Apparently,
Muscovies had become very popular in the 50 years after arriving in France. In
contrast, I have been able to find a reference to their arrival in or culture in
Spain. Kamar claims Muscovies arrived in Europe from Egypt but as has been
mention earlier I do find the evidence of their long time presence there very
convincing. Yet, Wilder has made a convincing case for trans South Atlantic
crossing in his account of the dispersion of the Fulvous duck from India to
South America. Perhaps the Hindu sailors brought the Muscovy back to Africa but
there is until now no evidence.
Over
the next 250 years, Muscovies were said to have come from various exotic places,
Turkey, Guinea, India, Cairo, and even Moscow to name a few. It was not until
the 19th century that their South American origin was again
reasonably well recognised.
The
Muscovy is widely dispersed throughout Southeast Asia, Indonesia, China, Taiwan
and the Philippines. Did they arrive by transpacific carriage in precolumbian
times? Sauer thought there was strong evidence that several plants like the
sweet potato and cotton having been dispersed from east to west and from west to
east. Several writers advance the theory that the chicken arrived in South
America from Southeast Asia in precolumbian times but there is no mention of the
Muscovy.
There
is a great deal of circumstantial evidence for transpacific contact but nothing
positive. The sea is calm. The ocean currents favorable. And favorable in both
directions, depending whether a northern or southern route across the Pacific is
taken. The peoples of the Pacific Isles from Hawaii to New Zealand have much in
common and their maritime talents are well known. The Norwegian, Thor Heyerdahl,
sailed his balsa boat from Peru to Polynesia. There is ceramic evidence of
contact between China and Japan with South America some feel over a long period
of time.
A
more logical scenario, however, is to think that the Muscovy was dispersed to
Africa, the Far East and the islands of the Pacific by Portuguese traders or
even by the notorious Dutch pirates who preyed on them. The tame disposition of
the Muscovy and their tolerance of a wide variety of foods makes them an ideal
source of fresh meat for the Captain and officers on a long voyage which may
account for their rapid spread around the world but I wonder if they took
advantage of the opportunity.
In
the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Far East, the Muscovy is
considered to be a foreign duck which suggests a fairly recent arrival.
As
early as 1715 an important breakthru in use of the Muscovy had been made in
Taiwan. Written records show that the Taiwanese were producing hybrids from
mating the Muscovy male to domestic dicks in order to combine the meat of the
Muscovy and the good egg production of the domestic duck. A commercial use had
been found for the household duck. For
the first time Muscovy duck was established as a food.
Robinson
reports there had been no mention of Muscovies in North America before 1845,
when some were described on a farm in St Catherines Ontario. Subsequently, three
exhibitors showed birds at the Boston Poultry Show in 1849.
Although
the Taiwanese had learned to increase production of duck meat centuries ago by
making a hybrid combining the best progress was slow to come.
It
is sometimes written that the Muscovy was the most popular table duck of the
western world before the arrival of the Pekin from China about 1870. The story
goes that the more rapid growth and better feed conversion of the Pekin enabled
it to replace the Muscovy.
This
story is a myth. The Muscovy duck could never have enjoyed widespread popularity
because it was of necessity a seasonal product limited to the few ducklings that
could be produced on general farms. The Pekin duck has the advantage of higher
egg production and of being non-broody. Pekin ducklings, as compared to Muscovy
ducklings, can be produced cheaply all year ‘round, making them suitable for
intensive production of large numbers.
First
use of Muscovies for mass production in the western world began only recently in
France. Windowless houses are used to control the environment which makes it
possible to greatly improve egg production per Muscovy breeder duck while the
development of a vaccine for Derseys disease made it feasible to successfully
grow large numbers of Muscovy ducklings of several ages on the same farm.
The
success of the French Muscovy duck industry is the result of a remarkable
cooperative efforts by the farmers and the government research establishment,
Institut
Nationale
Recherches Agricoles (INRA). Partly as a result of this cooperation, Muscovy
markets in spite of being more expensive to by. And the mulard has replaced the goose as a source of fois gras.
Commercial
production in Israel has begun more recently by Moshe Tomarkin and others in an
attempt to develop an industry producing fat livers, fois
gras by force feeding Muscovy hybrids. Their efforts to develop special
markets for the meat by-product are noteworthy, especially the kosher
bacon and ham made from smoked Muscovy meat. The red, smoked meat of the Muscovy
is delicious, leaner and tastier than pork.
But,
in the rest of the west, Muscovy meat is virtually unknown.
An
Italian ornithologist, Professor Taibel, at the University of Pisa, Italy, was
the pioneer student of inheritance of plumage color. He has been ably succeeded
in recent years by Drs Fedeli Avanzi and Isabella Romboli who have a greatly
expanded research program. Thus, Pisa continues to be the prominent center for
the study of the Muscovy.
Professor
W.F.Hollander, at Iowa State University, USA, and Colonna Cesari, France, have
also made important contributions to our knowledge of inheritance in the Muscovy.
Selection
for meat traits was begun in France, 1955, by the monks of Bellefontaine Abbey
who continue to keep Muscovies to this day. About 1970 Grimaud Frères, Roussay,
began breeding Muscovies and, over the years, Muscovy breeding in France has
been pretty well centralized in their hands.
Other
French Muscovy breeders of importance are Bernard Gourmaud, Couvoir de La
Seigneurtière, Viellevigne, who specializes in white Muscovies, and Avi Bocage
La Frontière, Les Herbiers, who breed a color sexing cross.
In
North America, the Webfoot hatchery of Mr and Mrs Lewis Day, Elora, Ontario,
Canada, have been breeding commercial white Muscovies for more than 20 years.
They began with stock purchased from a fancier at a poultry show and have
developed the only commercial meat strain in North America. Recently, Grimaud of
France has began to a venture to breed Muscovies in California.
In
Southeast Asia, the Muscovy is very important in Taiwan and to a lesser extent
in Australia. The long time resident native
Muscovy of Taiwan, a colored bird, has been replaced by newly imported white
Muscovies for use in crossing with the common duck to produce a white hybrid. In
the early 1976, a large importation was made in the USA although the birds
probably originated in Canada. Later, a second importation of the white variety
was made from Holland. There have been recent importation of white Muscovies
from France.
The
native Muscovy of Taiwan now enjoys only a limited market for making a
traditional medicinal ginger soup
eaten by men to increase their resistance to cold.
In
Indonesia the Muscovy is used in a very unusual way, to brood and rear native
ducks.
Since
Australia has been behind a genetic iron curtain since 1955 when all imports
were banned, their Muscovies may by now be distinctly different than the
European or North American white Muscovies. However, the data of Brewster, 1974,
reflect a rate of growth and muscle yield comparable to that of Muscovies in
Europe and Canada.
There
is apparently considerable interest in Muscovy production in the sphere of
Russian influence, but readable reliable information is not available, to me at
least. When seen in the rest of the world, the Muscovy is a barnyard bird.
The
Muscovy really never made it with the fancier and showmen. The few birds seen at
the poultry shows both in the Us and UK, are shown as curiosities. I am advised
that the Muscovy is the least popular waterfowl among British breeders. Sadly,
it is rarely included in US waterfowl collections.
Yet,
the essentially mute Muscovy has much to recommend it to the backyard hobbies.
Certainly, the neighbors cannot complain about the noise they don’t make. The
Muscovy is dependably broody and the meat of young birds is a special treat,
more than can be said of most fancy birds. The Muscovy has been neglected by the
fancier and commercial duck industry as well. It is worthy of more attention.
|
|
|
|