\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter

\IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}%
  {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}%
  {\RequirePackage{color}}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{ifxetex}
\ifxetex
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \usepackage{xunicode}
  \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash}
  \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{}
  \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}}
  \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}}
  \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}}
  \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}}
  \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono}
  
\else
  \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}%
   {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
      \PrerenderUnicode{–}
    }%
   {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}}
  \usepackage[english]{babel}
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage{float}
  \usepackage[]{ucs}
  \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash }
  \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{}
  \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}}
  \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}}
  \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,}
  \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ }
  \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>}
  \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}}
  \def\textJapanese{}
  \def\textChinese{}
  \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{}
\fi
\def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small}
\DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25}
\usepackage{relsize}
\RequirePackage{array}
\def\@testpach{\@chclass
 \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else
  \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else
   \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else
    \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@
   \else \z@
   \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else
   \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}%
   \@chnum
   \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else
    \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else
     \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else
   \z@ \@chclass
   \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else
    \if \@nextchar !6 \else
     \if \@nextchar @7 \else
      \if \@nextchar (8 \else
       \if \@nextchar )9 \else
  10
  \@chnum
  \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else
   \if \@nextchar p4 \else
    \if \@nextchar b5 \else
   \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi
   \fi \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi}
\gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr}
\def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}}
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\def\abbr{}
\def\corr{}
\def\expan{}
\def\gap{}
\def\orig{}
\def\reg{}
\def\ref{}
\def\sic{}
\def\persName{}\def\name{}
\def\placeName{}
\def\orgName{}
\def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}}
\def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}}
\def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}}
\def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}}
\def\textquoted#1{‘#1’}
\def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}}
\def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}}
\def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}}
\def\titlem{\itshape}
\newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{bibl}{}{}
\newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{rubric}{}{}
\newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par }

\newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}}
\newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75}
\def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@}
\def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}}
\begingroup
\catcode`\_=\active
\gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}}
\endgroup
\mathcode`\_=\string"8000
\catcode`\_=12\relax

\usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{framed}

\definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{marginnote}

\renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1}


\renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize}

\def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif}

  \pagestyle{fancy}

\usepackage[pdftitle={Morphology and Morphometry of Indigenous Ducks of Tamil Nadu},
 pdfauthor={}]{hyperref}
\hyperbaseurl{}

	 \paperwidth210mm
	 \paperheight297mm
              
\def\@pnumwidth{1.55em}
\def\@tocrmarg {2.55em}
\def\@dotsep{4.5}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\clubpenalty=8000
\emergencystretch 3em
\hbadness=4000
\hyphenpenalty=400
\pretolerance=750
\tolerance=2000
\vbadness=4000
\widowpenalty=10000

\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
     {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\large}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
     {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}%
     {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}%
     {-1em}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}}


\def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt}
 \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup
 \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth 
 \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth 
 \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par
 \endgroup}
\def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}}
\def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}}
\def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}}
\def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}}
\@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{}
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{}
\newif\if@mainmatter 
\@mainmattertrue
\def\chaptername{Chapter}
\def\frontmatter{%
  \pagenumbering{roman}
  \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\roman{section}}
  \def\@chapapp{}%
}
\def\mainmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter}
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \pagenumbering{arabic}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6}
  \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}%
  \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}}
}
\def\backmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
  \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}%
  \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}}
  \appendix
}
\newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{%
   \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
       {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
        \leftmargin\labelwidth
        \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
        \@openbib@code
        \usecounter{enumiv}%
        \let\p@enumiv\@empty
        \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}%
	}%
  \sloppy
  \clubpenalty4000
  \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
  \widowpenalty4000%
  \sfcode`\.\@m}%
  {\def\@noitemerr
    {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}%
    \endlist}

\def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}}
\parskip0pt
\parindent1em
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\newenvironment{reflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{sansreflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{specHead}[2]%
 {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}%
  \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}%

  \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}%
  \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}%
  }{}
      \def\TheFullDate{2014-01-15 (revised: 15 January 2014)}
\def\TheID{\makeatother }
\def\TheDate{2014-01-15}
\title{Morphology and Morphometry of Indigenous Ducks of Tamil Nadu}
\author{}\makeatletter 
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{%
  \clearpage
    \if@twoside
    \ifodd\c@page
      \hbox{}\newpage
      \if@twocolumn
        \hbox{}\newpage
      \fi
    \fi
  \fi
}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\thispagestyle{empty}
\markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author}
\renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@
\belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip
\abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@
\belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@
\def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini
               \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@
               \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@
               \itemsep 1pt}
}
\makeatother
\fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm}
\fancyhf{} 
\setlength{\headheight}{14pt}
\fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} 
\fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} 
\fancyfoot[RO]{}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID}
\fancyfoot[LE]{}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID}
\hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true}
\fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

\date{}
\usepackage{authblk}

\providecommand{\keywords}[1]
{
\footnotesize
  \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1
}

\usepackage{graphicx,xcolor}
\definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81}
\definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9}
\definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70}
\definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} 

\renewenvironment{abstract}{%
   \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
   \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space}
}{%   
   \vskip8pt
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
}

\usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos}

\makeatother 
      \usepackage{lineno}
      \linenumbers
      
\begin{document}

             \author[1]{  P.Veeramani}

             \author[2]{  R.Prabakaran}

             \author[3]{  S.T.Selvan}

             \affil[1]{  Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University}

\renewcommand\Authands{ and }

\date{\small \em Received: 7 December 2013 Accepted: 5 January 2014 Published: 15 January 2014}

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
        


Duck production in Tamil Nadu is characterised by the traditional enterprise with indigenous ducks, distributed widely. The indigenous duck varieties of Tamil Nadu have evolved over the years with better adaptability and production potentiality. These indigenous ducks are capable of laying 180-200 eggs per annum with an average egg weight ranging from 60-64 g with no additional or special feeding management. The common Indian breeds/genetic groups of ducks are Indian Runner, Nageswari, Sythetmete, Kuttanad, Arni etc. Besides non-descript ducks are also available in large numbers in many states of the country, contributing significantly to the total duck population. The unique nature of this native germplasm has not been properly documented. Hence, the work was proposed to study morphology and morphometric analysis of distinct indigenous ducks of Tamil Nadu.The duck farmers in the northern districts of Tamil Nadu are rearing two predominant varieties of ducks i.e. Sanyasi and Keeri. Among these, Sanyasi female is the popular duck variety reared by the farmers. The Sanyasi female ducks are having saffron coloured plumage and males are with dark brown plumage mixed with black.

\end{abstract}


\keywords{morphology, morphometric traits, indigenous ducks, tamil nadu.}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark}
\end{textblock*}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}}
\end{textblock*}


\let\tabcellsep& 	 	 		 
\section[{Introduction}]{Introduction}\par
uck production in India is largely a traditional enterprise and has not yet been industrialized as that of chicken. Even though, duck contributes next to chicken, it is still a neglected species. Being the neglected species for many decades, this native poultry species is threatened for existence due to lack of scientific breeding and management practices. The distribution and demographic dynamics of duck population in India revealed that they are mainly concentrated in eastern, north eastern and southern states of the country. The leading states in duck population are West Bengal, Assam, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Bihar and Orissa. The common Indian breeds/genetic groups of ducks are Indian Runner, Nageswari, Sythetmete, Kuttanad, Arni etc. In Tamil Nadu, 70 per cent of the duck population is concentrated in six districts namely, Kancheepuram, Thiruvallur, Villupuram, Cuddalore, Vellore and Thiruvannamalai, falling under northern agro-climatic zone of Tamil Nadu \hyperref[b4]{(Sivakumar et al., 2009} So far, there is no guided breeding and scientific management practices followed in the country, which would lead to loss of the rich native duck germplasm. There is lack of sufficient scientific information on ducks, either phenotypic or genotypic to differentiate various duck breeds or distinct varieties. The duck germplasm is not properly utilized due to various difficulties in duck rearing in the rural environment. Hence, the work was proposed to study phenotypic character and morphometric analysis of this distinct indigenous ducks of Tamil Nadu. 
\section[{II.}]{II.} 
\section[{Materials and Methods}]{Materials and Methods}\par
The morphology of indigenous ducks was studied as per the breed descriptors of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, 1986) and the guidelines given by the National Bureau of Animal Genetic Resources, Karnal, Haryana, India. The morphological characters studied were plumage pattern, carriage, bill colour and shank colour. 
\section[{III.}]{III.} 
\section[{Morphometry}]{Morphometry}\par
Body measurements were taken for ducks of Sanyasi and Keeri variety with a standard measuring tape to the nearest 0.1 centimetre (cm) for bill length, shank length, neck length and body length. The data collected were scrutinized, edited and analysed as per standard statistical procedures \hyperref[b5]{(Snedecor and Cochran., 1989)}.  
\section[{Results and Discussion}]{Results and Discussion}\par
The duck farmers in the northern districts of Tamil Nadu are rearing two predominant duck varieties i.e. Sanyasi and Keeri. Among these, Sanyasi female is the popular duck variety being reared by the farmers. Each variety is having different phenotypic character.\par
V. 
\section[{Morphology}]{Morphology}\par
The Sanyasi female ducks are having saffron coloured plumage with or without white ring like feathers around the neck and males are with dark brown plumage mixed with black. The head and neck covered with lustrous brown plumage. Males have brown coloured drake feather. The bill colour of females is orange and for males it is yellowish orange. The shank colour is orange for both males and females.\par
The Keeri female ducks are having mixture of black and brown plumage characteristically in striations with or without white ring like feathers around the neck and males are with mixture of dark black and white plumage. The head and neck covered with lustrous black plumage. The bill colour and shank colour of females is grey / orange. Keeri male duck has dark yellow bill colour and oranged coloured shank. The drake feather is black in colour. Similar plumage pattern, bill colour and shank colour was observed by \hyperref[b2]{Murugan et al., (2009)}. 
\section[{VI.}]{VI.} 
\section[{Morphometric Traits}]{Morphometric Traits}\par
The morphometric traits such as, body length, neck length, bill length and shank length were recorded for 909 adult ducks comprising of 488 Sanyasi and 421 Keeri varieties of ducks. The least square means with S.E. is presented in Table \hyperref[tab_1]{-1}  
\section[{Body Length}]{Body Length}\par
The overall body length for both the varieties recorded was 23.74±0.06 cm. Body length for Sanyasi and Keeri varieties was 23.85±0.09 and 23.64±0.08 cm respectively. The numerical difference in body length between varieties was not statistically significant. The value for male and female ducks was 24.53±0.11 and 22.95±0.06 cm respectively and the difference between the sexes was highly significant (P<0.01). On the contrary, \hyperref[b8]{Yakubu (2009)} recorded mean values of body length (cm) for male and female African Muscovy ducks as 47.86 and 38.35. The lower valued obtained in this study might be due to the variation in the size and conformation of the distinct variety / breed of ducks.\par
VIII. 
\section[{Neck Length}]{Neck Length}\par
The neck length recorded for Sanyasi and Keeri varieties was 13.47±0.25 and 12.90±0.22 respectively with overall neck length of 13.19±0.17 cm. Among the sexes the difference in neck length was highly significant (P<0.01). The value for male and female adult ducks was 13.94±0.29 and 12.43±0.15 respectively. The interaction between variety and sex had no significant effect on neck length. whereas, Yakubu (2009) recorded the mean neck length for male and female African Muscovy ducks as 18.10 and 14.33 cm respectively, while \hyperref[b2]{Murugan et al. (2009)} recorded the neck length (cm) of 21.10 ± 0.12and 18.70 ± 0.24for male and female Sanyasi ducks respectively. The neck length of Volume XIV Issue III Version I Year ( ) 2014 G 6.87±0.01 cm respectively, while the value for female ducks was 5.75±0.02 and 5.77±0.01 cm respectively. Within the sex the variety had no significant effect on bill length. The bill length for male and female ducks recorded was 6.84±0.02 and 5.76±0.01 cm respectively. This revealed a highly significant variation among the sexes. The overall bill length for two varieties of ducks was 6.30±0.01 cm. Similarly, Ajith et al. (  {\ref 2009}) recorded significantly higher bill length in males in comparison with respective females with regard to Chara and Chemballi ducks of Kerala. Whereas, shorter bill length of 4.98 and 3.75 cm was recorded for African Muscovy male and female ducks by \hyperref[b8]{Yakubu (2009)}. The bill length for Sanyasi and Keeri ducks of Tamil Nadu was recorded by \hyperref[b2]{Murugan et al. (2009)}, which is in comparison with the values of this present study. The higher value of bill length in males than female ducks might be attributed to their heavier size and adaptability.\par
X. 
\section[{Shank Length}]{Shank Length}\par
Significantly higher shank length for males than female ducks was recorded in both the varieties (5.61±0.02 cm for males and 5.56±0.01 cm for females), on the other hand, variety had no significant role on shank length (5.58±0.02 cm for Sanyasi and 5.59±0.02 cm for Keeri variety). The overall shank length was 5.58±0.01 cm. The interaction between sex and variety also had no significant effect on shank length. While, \hyperref[b3]{Renchi et al. (1979)} recorded the mean shank length in male and female Desi ducks of Kerala at 12 weeks of age as 6.44±0.04 and 6.15±0.02 cm and reported that males had significantly higher shank length than female ducks and similar values were recorded by \hyperref[b0]{Ajith et al. (2009)} for Chara and Chemballi ducks of Kerala. Whereas, in Nageswari ducks of Assam, \hyperref[b9]{Zaman et al. (2007)} recorded the mean shank length of male and female as 6.67±0.71 and 6.12±0.68 cm respectively. The difference in the shank length of different varieties of indigenous ducks might be attributed to the variation among indigenous germplasm and adaptability to the rearing environment. 
\section[{XI.}]{XI.} 
\section[{Conclusion}]{Conclusion}\par
The existence of two distinct indigenous duck varieties namely Sanyasi and Keeri was fully evidenced through this study. These varieties were having different morphology and morphometry with other indigenous duck varieties of the country. Since, the concept of rearing breeder flock and proper selection among the duck varieties are the biggest lacunas in the study area, necessary steps to address these constraints will throw more light on these unique germplasm. Moreover, these duck germplasm are known for its prolificacy under nilinput system of management, further studies focusing on large scale survey, characterisation of these ducks at molecular level will be the best approach for proper selection and conservation of these unique germplasm for future use and exploitation.\begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-2.png}
\caption{\label{fig_0}D}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}}
). Existence\\
of different indigenous duck varieties namely Arni,\\
Sanyasi and Keeri\\
(Gajendran and Karthickeyan, 2009; Murugan et al.,\\
2009;\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_0}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.2292274052478134\textwidth}P{0.05947521865889213\textwidth}P{0.22674927113702625\textwidth}P{0.11895043731778426\textwidth}P{0.10779883381924199\textwidth}P{0.10779883381924199\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{ducks of Tamil Nadu}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Particulars\tabcellsep Number of observations\tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{Body length (cm) Neck length (cm) Bill length (cm) Shank length (cm)}\\
Overall mean\tabcellsep 909\tabcellsep 23.74±0.06\tabcellsep 13.19±0.17\tabcellsep 6.30±0.01\tabcellsep 5.58±0.01\\
Variety\tabcellsep \tabcellsep NS\tabcellsep NS\tabcellsep NS\tabcellsep NS\\
Sanyasi\tabcellsep 488\tabcellsep 23.85±0.09\tabcellsep 13.47±0.25\tabcellsep 6.29±0.01\tabcellsep 5.58±0.02\\
Keeri\tabcellsep 421\tabcellsep 23.64±0.08\tabcellsep 12.90±0.22\tabcellsep 6.31±0.01\tabcellsep 5.59±0.02\\
Sex\tabcellsep \tabcellsep **\tabcellsep **\tabcellsep **\tabcellsep **\\
Male\tabcellsep 201\tabcellsep 24.53±0.11\tabcellsep 13.94±0.29\tabcellsep 6.84±0.02\tabcellsep 5.61±0.02\\
Female\tabcellsep 708\tabcellsep 22.95±0.06\tabcellsep 12.43±0.15\tabcellsep 5.76±0.01\tabcellsep 5.56±0.01\\
Sex X Variety\tabcellsep \tabcellsep NS\tabcellsep NS\tabcellsep NS\tabcellsep NS\\
Male\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Sanyasi\tabcellsep 81\tabcellsep 24.74±0.17\tabcellsep 13.50±0.46\tabcellsep 6.82±0.02\tabcellsep 5.59±0.03\\
Keeri\tabcellsep 120\tabcellsep 24.33±0.13\tabcellsep 13.38±0.37\tabcellsep 6.87±0.01\tabcellsep 5.65±0.04\\
Female\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Sanyasi\tabcellsep 407\tabcellsep 22.96±0.07\tabcellsep 12.45±0.20\tabcellsep 5.75±0.02\tabcellsep 5.57±0.02\\
Keeri\tabcellsep 301\tabcellsep 22.94±0.09\tabcellsep 12.42±0.23\tabcellsep 5.77±0.01\tabcellsep 5.56±0.02\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{NS-Non-significant (P<0.05); * -Significant (P< 0.05); ** -Significant (P<0.01)}\tabcellsep \\
VII.\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_1}Table 1 :}\end{figure}
 			\footnote{© 2014 Global Journals Inc. (US)} 		 		\backmatter  			  				\begin{bibitemlist}{1}
\bibitem[Snedecor and Cochran ()]{b5}\label{b5} 	 		\textit{},  		 			G W Snedecor 		,  		 			W G Cochran 		.  		1989.  	 
\bibitem[Yakubu (2009)]{b8}\label{b8} 	 		‘An assessment of sexual dimorphism in African Muscovy ducks (Cairina. moschata) using morphological measurements and discriminant analysis’.  		 			A Yakubu 		.  	 	 		\textit{Proceedings of the IV World Waterfowl Conference},  				 (the IV World Waterfowl ConferenceThrissur, India)  		2009. November, 2009. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Veeramani et al. (2009)]{b7}\label{b7} 	 		‘Duck production for rural livelihood’.  		 			P Veeramani 		,  		 			S M K Karthickeyan 		,  		 			A Kannan 		.  	 	 		\textit{Proceedings of the IV World Waterfowl Conference},  				 (the IV World Waterfowl ConferenceThrissur, India)  		2009. 11-13 November, 2009. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Ajith et al. (2009)]{b0}\label{b0} 	 		‘Evaluation of bill length and shank length in Kuttanad ducks of kerala’.  		 			B B Ajith 		,  		 			N P Padwal 		,  		 			D Anish 		,  		 			G M Deepa 		,  		 			P A Peethambaran 		.  	 	 		\textit{Proceedings of the IV World Waterfowl Conference},  				 (the IV World Waterfowl ConferenceThrissur, India)  		2009. 11-13 November, 2009. p. 173.  	 
\bibitem[Murugan et al. (2009)]{b2}\label{b2} 	 		‘Indigenous duck varieties in Uthiramerur block of north eastern agroclimatic zone of Tamil Nadu’.  		 			M Murugan 		,  		 			A Gopinathan 		,  		 			T Sivakumar 		.  	 	 		\textit{Proceedings of the IV World Waterfowl Conference},  				 (the IV World Waterfowl ConferenceThrissur, India)  		2009. November, 2009. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Sivakumar et al. ()]{b4}\label{b4} 	 		‘Indigenous feeding technologies prevalent in rural duck farming of Tami Nadu’.  		 			T Sivakumar 		,  		 			M Murugan 		,  		 			A Gopinathan 		.  	 	 		\textit{Proceedings of the IV World Waterfowl Conference},  				 (the IV World Waterfowl Conference)  		2009. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Renchi et al. (1979)]{b3}\label{b3} 	 		‘Relationship between shank length and body weight in desi ducks’.  		 			P Renchi 		,  		 			G R George 		,  		 			R S Nair 		,  		 			B R K Nair 		,  		 			A K K Nair 		,  		 			Unni 		.  	 	 		\textit{Indian veterinary Journal}  		1979. November. 56 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Statistical Methods]{b6}\label{b6} 	 		\textit{Statistical Methods},  				 (Ames, lowa)  		Iowa state University Press. p. 503.  	 	 (8th edn.) 
\bibitem[Gajendran and Karthickeyan ()]{b1}\label{b1} 	 		‘Status of indigenous ducks in Tamil Nadu, India: a traditional perspective. Livestock Research for Rural Development’.  		 			K Gajendran 		,  		 			S M K Karthickeyan 		.  		 \url{http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd21/10/gaje21175.htm}  	 	 		\textit{Article \#}  		2009. 21.  	 
\bibitem[Zaman et al. ()]{b9}\label{b9} 	 		‘Studies on body weight and shank length of Nageswari duck of Assam’.  		 			G Zaman 		,  		 			R N Goswami 		,  		 			A Aziz 		,  		 			N Nahardeka 		,  		 			J D Mahanta 		.  	 	 		\textit{Indian Journal of Poultry Science}  		2007. 42  (1)  p. .  	 
\end{bibitemlist}
 			 		 	 
\end{document}