1473
INTRODUCTION
Musk deer (Moschus spp.) are small solitary forest
ruminants well known for the musk secreted by the adult
males (Green, 1987, 1989). Musk deer are distributed in the
mountainous regions of East Asian and are classified as
endangered owing to historic over-utilization of musk
extraction and habitat degradation and loss (Yang et al.,
2003; Aryal et al., 2010; Aryal and Subedi, 2011). Currently
musk deer exist only in China, Russia, Nepal and India, and
are listed in Appendix I and Appendix II of the Convention
on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES), and World Conservation Union
IUCN Red List. All musk deer species occur in China and
are protected as a category I key species under the National
Wild Animal Protection Law (Yang et al., 2003).
In China, musk deer farming, is one of the important
methods of ex-situ protection the species outside their
natural habitat. Farming has become an effective measure to
protect musk deer and provide sustainable musk resources
(Parry-Jones and Wu, 2001). Whilst musk deer farms have
been established in Russia, India and Nepal (Sathyakumar
et al., 1993; Homes, 1999), large scale farming only exists
in China, largely due to the heavy demand of musk in
Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). TCM is the flagship
medicinal system of traditional Asian medicine in which
over 400 patent medicines use musk as an ingredient, with
an estimated use of 1,000 kg/yr of musk (Parry-Jones and
Wu, 2001). With increasing international interest in
traditional medicine; ongoing promotion of TCM by the
Chinese Government (Qiu, 2007), and the use of musk in
the perfume industry, musk usage is expected to increase.
Despite being a major consumer of musk, China has ceased
the import of natural musk in an attempt to conserve musk
Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci.
Vol. 24, No. 10 : 1473 - 1482
October 2011
www.ajas.info
http://dx.doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2011.11111
Quantified Analyses of Musk Deer Farming in China:
A Tool for Sustainable Musk Production and Ex situ Conservation
Xiuxiang Meng*, Baocao Gong, Guang Ma and Leilei Xiang
College of Life and Environmental Sciences, Minzu University of China,
27 Zhongguancun Nandajie, Beijing 100081, China
ABSTRACT :
Adult male musk deer ( Moschus spp.) secrete musk, a widely used ingredient in traditional Asian medicine and the
international perfume industry. Musk deer are endangered due to historic over-utilization of musk and habitat loss. Musk deer farming,
provides an important way of conserving musk deer and ensuring a sustainable musk supply. For over 50 years musk deer farming has
been conducted in China with the endangered Alpine musk deer (Moschus sifanicus) the predominant farmed musk deer species. To
date, few studies have examined the musk production of captive musk deer. This study analyzed musk-extraction data collected from
1997 to 2009 at Xinglongshan Musk Deer Farm, Gansu, China. The musk-extraction ratio (MER) of captive male musk deer was
90.30% (n = 732), while the annual average musk extraction (AME) per animal was 7.90
±0.17 g with the range from 0.00 g to 34.20 g
(n = 732). The origin of the deer had an influence on AME and MER production, with male wild-captured (WC) individuals recording
higher values (AME, 8.76
±0.27 g, n = 272; MER, 93.75%, n = 272) than those of captive breeding (CB) males (AME: 7.39±0.22 g,
n = 460; MER: 88.26%, n = 460). The origin of an individual’s parents, however, did not influence AME and MER. Age also influenced
musk production with the MER of 1.5-year-old males being 87.5% with an average musk production of 8.27
±0.47 g (n = 96). The peak
period for musk production was from 1.5 to 8.5 years of age. The results of our study demonstrate musk deer farming could work as an
effective measure to protect musk deer and provide sustainable musk resources, however, the musk production including MER and AME
could be improved through optimizing the managing and breeding system in endangered musk deer farming. (Key Words : Alpine
Musk Deer (Moschus sifanicus), Captive Breeding, Musk Production, Average Musk Extraction, Musk Extraction Ratio, Sustainable
Musk Supply)
* Corresponding Author : Meng Xiuxiang. Tel: +86-10-6893-
2922, Fax: +86-10-6893-8163, E-mail: muskdeer2006@163.com
Received April 21, 2011; Accepted June 22, 2011
Meng et al. (2011) Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 24(10):1473-1482
1474
deer populations (Yang et al., 2003). Hence, musk deer
farming and the extraction of musk from captive animals
will become the only legal source of musk for the
traditional medicine and perfume industries. A successful
musk deer farming and sustainable captive musk production
will, therefore, be a prerequisite of developing and
continuing these industries throughout the world.
In China, commercial musk deer farming began in the
1950s despite early unsuccessful attempts to keep and breed
musk deer in captivity and extracted musk from living
males. Currently musk deer farming in China has expanded
to the point in which farms no longer need to supplement
individual numbers by capturing musk deer from the wild,
which is common in wildlife farming (Mockin et al., 2005).
This has proved beneficial for the conservation of the
species by providing a steady and legal source of musk for
medicine and perfume industries (Meng et al., 2006).
Despite the operation of over 10 musk deer farms in China
totaling approximately 5,000 captive animals and an annual
musk production of 20-30 kg, the demand for musk in
commercial enterprise has still not been met.
Musk deer farming in China is largely based on the
Forest musk deer (Moschus berezovskii) and the Alpine
musk deer. In recent years, some investors, institutions and
a medicinal company have been interested in musk deer
farming owing to the reduction of natural musk resources
and the high price of musk. It could be expected that more
musk deer farms will begin operation in China and other
countries such as Russia, Mongolia and India.
Extracting musk from captive animals has been the
focus of research for many scientists and farming
practitioners, with a wide number of relevant observations,
research and farming practices being developed. In China,
however, studies on the captive musk deer and musk
production are largely based on descriptive accounts of the
general behavior patterns of male deer during musk
secretion (Zhang, 1979, 1983; Homes, 1999). Musk
secretion is a complicated physiological process and could
be influenced by a number of factors such as the physical
condition, age, health and endocrine level of the animal in
addition to external factors such as forage protein level,
farming management practices and even the weather (Dai
and Yin, 1990, 1991; Huang et al., 1998). Cheng et al.
(2002) reported no significant difference in musk
production of male Forest musk deer in regard to the
duration of musk secretion. Generally speaking, the studies
above are based on relatively small samples taken over
short time period, which leads to relatively limited
conclusions. Furthermore, the majority of musk production
research targets Forest musk deer, with related studies of the
Alpine musk deer restricted to descriptive accounts (Jiang,
1998; Kang et al., 2008) with no reported studies of musk
production of Alpine musk deer based on long-time
monitoring with a large sample size.
This study analyzed the musk production of captive
Alpine musk deer from 1997 to 2009 at Xinglongshan
Musk Deer Farm (XMDF) in Gansu Province, China, to
determine the potential effect of age and origin of animals
on the average musk extraction (AME) and the musk
extraction ratio (MER), which has important implications
for establishing a sustainable musk supply and assist in ex
situ conservation of this endangered species.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study site
This study was conducted at XMDF, located within
Qilian Mountain range within Xinglongshan National
Nature Reserve, Gansu Province, north-west China
(E103
°50′; N35°38′). Xinglongshan National Nature
Reserve is habitat for wild Alpine musk deer, with the
average elevation at XMDF of 2,000-2,100 m and the
annual average temperature is 2.5-6.4
°C.
Farming practices
XMDF, built in 1990, encompasses 30 ha in area, and
contains more than 400 Alpine musk deer. Musk deer were
housed in groups of five individuals of the same sex in an
enclosure of approximately 100 m
2
. Enclosures were
separated by brick wall and iron-mesh, which enables
olfactory and audio interaction, but prevented physical
contact between individuals of different enclosures.
Animals were fed a diet of leaves collected from the natural
habitat and supplemented by artificial food mix consisting
of flour, wheat bran and seasonal vegetables, twice a day.
The amount of food provided was held constant and water
was provided ad libitum. Interaction with the human keeper
was limited to five minutes per day, as required for feeding,
cleaning and other management duties (Meng et al., 2002).
Musk extraction has occurred at XMDF since 1996
(Jiang, 1998) with musk harvesting usually occurring in
October and March, in line with mating periods. To extract
musk, the identified male is restrained while the operator
uses a sterilized and specialized spoon to extract musk from
the musk pod. Musk quantities are then dried on coarse
paper to remove water, weighted and transferred to a
customized bottle under airtight condition (Zhang, 1983).
Data collection and statistic analyzes
The age of wild-captured individual (WC), is estimated
from the animals weight and the growth of the canine teeth
(Meng et al., 2003a). Individuals are labeled as not
producing musk if they don’t contain the brown powder
characteristic of ripe musk. Musk extraction ratio (MER) is
calculated for each group annually by dividing the number
of individuals with ripe musk by the total number of
Meng et al. (2011) Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 24(10):1473-1482
1475
individuals involved in the musk obtaining process.
Musk deer were grouped according their origin wild-
captured (WC) and captive-bred (CB), with CB individuals
further divided into groups of different generations such as
F1, F2 and F3. Individuals were also grouped according to
the origin of their parents. Individuals can be divided into 4
groups: wild father (WF) and wild mother (WM), wild
father (WF) and captive mother (CM), captive father (CF)
and wild mother (WM), and captive father (CF) and captive
mother (CM), all of which can be further divided into WF,
WM, CF and CM if only one parent was taken into
consideration. As parturition of Alpine musk deer occurs in
June (Meng et al., 2003b), while musk extracted occurs in
October and March (Jiang, 1998), age groups were based on
0.5 year groups.
Analysis of Variation (ANOVA) was used to explore the
effect of individual’s origins and parents’ origins on musk
production (AME) and the differences of musk production
among groups with different age. Based on the
homogeneity test (Levene), the Least significant difference
(LSD) or Games-Howell method was used to conduct
potential differences between groups. Cochran Test was
used to test the factors with MER. All statistical analysis
was conduced using SPSS 11.5 program (SPSS Inc.,
Chicago, Illinois) with a significance level of p = 0.05.
RESULTS
Musk production
Quantities of musk extracted from 1997 to 2009 were
distributed normally (Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test, n = 732,
Z = 1.350, p = 0.052>0.05). Total MER of captive male
deer at XMDF was 90.30% (n = 732) and the AME (
±SE)
was 7.90
±0.17 g (n = 732) with the range from 0.00 g to
34.20 g.
Effect of origins of males on musk production
The MER for WC and CB (F1, F2 and F3 generation)
musk deer groups is shown in Table 1. MER was
significantly different between groups (Cochran test, Q =
30.00, df = 3, p<0.01), with a further pairwise comparison
showing a highly significant difference between WC and F1
(p<0.01), F2 (p<0.01) and F3 (p<0.01), moreover, the
differences between F1 and F3, F1 and F2 were also highly
significant (p<0.01). No significant difference was recorded
among F3 and F2 groups (p>0.05). Pooling individuals
across generations (F1, F2 and F3), the captive-bred musk
deer (CB) had a significantly lower MER (88.26%, n = 460)
compared to WC individuals (93.75%, n = 272) (t = 3.835,
p = 0.001<0.01). The effect of individuals’ origin on the
AME was significant (ANOVA, F
3, 731
= 7.29, p<0.01). As
the variance of data was homogeneous (Levene test, df
1
= 3,
df
2
= 728, p = 0.24>0.05), LSD multiple comparisons
indicated differences in AME was mainly due to differences
between F1 (7.16
±0.22 g, n = 363), WC (8.76±0.27 g, n =
272) and F3 groups (10.02
±1.24 g, n = 17) (F1-WC:
p<0.01; F1-F3: p<0.05). AME was not significantly
different between other groups (p>0.005). The comparison
of pooled generations (F1, F2, F3) of CB individuals with
WC individuals indicated that AME results for WC
(8.76
±0.27 g, n = 272) was significantly higher than that of
CB (7.39
±0.22 g, n = 460) (p<0.01).
Effect of parents’ origins on musk production
Comparison of MER for groups based on the origin of
parents is showed in Table 2. The effect of parents’ origins
on musk production was not significant (ANOVA, F
3,393
=
0.373, p = 0.772>0.05). No significant differences in MER
was recorded between the groups, however individuals with
a wild father (WF, 92.32%, n = 573) recorded lower MER
than those of individuals with a captive father (CF, 93.02%,
n = 43) (Cochran test, Q = 3.00, df = 1, p = 0.083>0.05).
Furthermore, the MER of males with a wild mother (WM,
92.28%, n = 492) was lower than that of males with a
captive mother (CM, 95.56%, n = 90)(Cochran test, Q = 0,
df = 1, p = 1.00>0.05).
Comparison of musk production of each year
Total MER recorded between 1997 and 2009 is shown
in Figure 1. Significant differences were recorded between
years (Cochran test, Q = 21.93, df = 12, p<0.05), with
further pairwise comparisons shown in Table 3.
From 1998 (6.07
±1.02 g, n = 13), AME levels rose till
2002 (10.88
±0.88 g, n = 25), after which it fluctuated from
2004 (6.86
±1.61 g, n = 13), through to 2006. From 2006
AME again increased from 6.01
±0.50 g (n = 86) to 2009
Table 1. The MER and AME of captive male Alpine musk deer with different origins
Origin
Frequency
MER (%)
AME (g)
Wild (N = 272)
257
93.75
93.75
8.76
±0.27 8.76±0.27
Captive
(N = 460)
313
F1 (n = 363)
86.23
88.26
7.16
±0.22 7.39±0.22
77
F2 (n = 80)
96.25
7.86
±0.43
16
F3 (n = 17)
94.12
10.02
±1.24
AME showed as the Mean
±SE and MER showed as the percentage of groups with different parents’ origins.
AME = Average musk production; MER = Musk-extraction ratio.
Meng et al. (2011) Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 24(10):1473-1482
1476
Table 2. The MER and AME of captive male alpine musk deer with different parents’ origins
Parents
origins
WF CF
Total
AME MER
AME
MER
WM
8.28
±0.22
(n = 460)
92.17%
(n = 460)
8.54
±0.80
(n = 30)
93.33%
(n = 30)
8.28
±0.21,
92.28%
(n = 492)
CM
7.77
±0.48
(n= 74)
95.95%
(n = 74)
8.35
±1.15
(n = 13)
92.31%
(n = 13)
8.10
±0.45,
95.56%
(n = 90)
Total
8.19
±0.19, 92.32% (n = 573)
8.48
±0.65, 93.02% (n = 43)
AME showed as the Mean
±SE and MER showed as the percentage of groups with different parents’ origins.
WF = Wild father; WM = Wild mother; CF = Captive father; CM = Captive mother; AME = Average musk production; MER = Musk-extraction ratio.
Table 3. Comparison of MER of captive male alpine musk deer in years
Year
1997 1998 1999
2000 2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006 2007 2008
2009
1997
1998 a
1999 ns
ns
2000 a a
ns
2001 a a
ns
*
2002 a a
ns
ns
ns
2003 a
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
2004 ns * ns * * * ns
2005 ns * ns ns ns * ns ns
2006 ns ns ** ** ** ** ** ns ns
2007 ns ns ** ns ** * ns ns ns *
2008 ns * ** * ** ** ns ns ns ns ns
2009 ns ns * ns ns * ns ns ns * ns ns
a = The Cochran Test is not performed because all variables are not dichotomous with the same values.
* p<0.05; ** p<0.01; ns: p>0.05.
Year
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
ME
R
(
%
)
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Figure 1. The MER (musk extraction ration) of captive male Alpine musk deer from 1999 to 2009.
Meng et al. (2011) Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 24(10):1473-1482
1477
(7.50
±0.86 g, n = 43). AME was significantly different
between years (ANOVA, F
12, 718
= 4.91, p<0.01). As the
variances of data was not homogeneous (Levene test, df
1
=
12, df
2
= 718, p<0.01), the Games-Howell test was used to
test the AME differences between years, with results shown
as Table 4.
MER of males extracted before breeding (90.43%, n =
208) was not significantly different to those extracted after
breeding (94.83%, n = 312) (Cochran test, Q = 1.00, df = 1,
p = 0.317>0.05). Similarly AME of males with musk
extracted prior to the breeding season (8.30
±0.31 g, n =
230) was not significantly different those whose musk was
extracted after breeding season (8.37
±0.24 g, n = 329) (T
test, df = 535, t = -0.182, p = 0.856>0.05).
Effect of age on musk production
The MER of musk deer extracted from different age
groups is shown in Figure 3. Significant differences in MER
between age groups was evident (Cochran test, Q = 31.91,
df = 11, p = 0.001<0.01). Pairwise comparison indicated
MER of males at 1.5 years of age (87.5%) was significantly
lower than that of those aged 2.5-5.5 years (p<0.05). Of
these 12.5% of 1.5 year old males had not started to secrete
musk, however, almost every individual in the ages of 2.5-
5.5 years secreted musk. In addition, males older than 9.5
years recorded lower MER than those at 9.5 years of age,
68.18% and 71.43% respectively. Over 28% of males older
than 9.5 years did not secreted musk, while only 33% of
males aged 12.5 years or more produced musk.
The AME production of males increased from 1.5 years
in age (8.27
±0.47 g, n = 96) with highest values recorded in
the 3.5 year group (9.30
±0.34 g, n = 131). AME declined
Table 4. The multiple comparisons (LSD) of AME during 1999 to 2009
1997 1998 1999
2000 2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006 2007 2008
2009
1997
1998
ns
ns
1999
ns
ns
2000
ns
ns
ns
2001
ns
ns
*
ns
ns
2002
ns
ns
*
ns
ns
2003
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
2004 ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
2005 ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
2006 ns ns ns ** ** ** ns ns *
2007 ns ns ns * ** * ns ns ns ns
2008 ns ns ns ns * * ns ns ns ns ns
2009 ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
* p<0.05; ** p<0.01; ns: p>0.05.
Year
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
A
v
er
age
m
u
sk
pr
o
duct
ion
(
g
)
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Figure 2. The AME (average musk extraction) of alpine musk deer from 1999 to 2009.
Meng et al. (2011) Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 24(10):1473-1482
1478
inversely with age as recorded at 8.5 years (5.59
±0.67 g, n
= 38), 9.5 years (4.61
±0.88 g, n = 28) and 12.5 years
(1.14
±0.76 g, n = 2), (Figure 4). The effect of age on AME
was significant (ANOVA, F
11, 719
= 9.481, p<0.01). As the
Variance was not homogeneous (Levene test, df1 = 11, df2
= 719, p<0.01), the Games-Howell test was applied to
conduct pairwise comparison (Table 6).
DISCUSSION
Musk secretion is a complex physiological process.
Studies on captive species indicate a number of factors may
determine musk secretion such as the deer species,
physiological characteristics, health, food supply, managing
system and weather (Zhang, 1983; Yan, 1985; Dai and Yin
1991; Huang et al., 1998; Meng et al., 2006; Sheng and Liu,
2007). Sheng et al. (2002) reported that the AME of captive
Forest musk deer varied with geographic region, with the
musk production of Forest musk deer from Anhui Province
(10.8 g) was higher than those from Shanxi Province (7.8 g).
Cheng et al. (2002) also reported the average musk
production of captive Forest musk deer from Sichuan
Province.
The present study indicated that the AME of captive
Alpine musk deer in Xinglongshan Musk Deer Farm was
7.90 g, lower than the 8.8 g reported in previous captive
musk deer studies (Kang et al., 1998). The variation in
reported values can be attributed to a number of factors. In
many reported values MER is not calculated, resulting in
annual musk extraction values (AME) based only on males
who produced musk. In this study, however, the MER of
musk deer was 90%, hence 10% of captive males did not
secreted ripe musk. Musk sample preparation method may
also contribute to the variation in AME values as the
Age
12.5
11.5
10.5
9.5
8.5
7.5
6.5
5.5
4.5
3.5
2.5
1.5
ME
R
(%
)
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Figure 3. The MER (musk extraction ration) of captive male alpine musk deer with ages.
Age
12.5
11.5
10.5
9.5
8.5
7.5
6.5
5.5
4.5
3.5
2.5
1.5
A
v
er
ag
e mu
sk
p
ro
d
u
c
ti
o
n
(
g
)
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Figure 4. The AME (average musk extraction) of alpine musk deer with different age-classes.
Meng et al. (2011) Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 24(10):1473-1482
1479
proportion of water retained in the musk sample varied
between studies (Zhang, 1983; Sheng and Liu, 2007).
Moreover, factors such as species (forest vs. alpine),
geographic region and the management and husbandry of
the individual farms are also likely to have an effect on final
AME of captive musk deer.
In further studies, identical data collection methods and
calculations of musk volume would assist in the comparison
of musk production based on variation in farming practices.
By comparing musk production from different farms,
captive management and husbandry can be optimized to
improve the musk production and assist in future
conservation of the species.
The musk deer is a small solitary forest ungulate, in
which the male musk deer are strongly territorial and
defend an area of approximately 20-30 ha exclusively
(Green, 1987; Yang et al., 1996; Aryal et al., 2010; Aryal
and Subedi, 2011). Due to high farming costs and
traditional domestic practices, musk deer farming in China
still adopts an intensive group enclosing system established
in the initial musk deer farming, in which, several musk
deer (usually 5-7 individuals) are enclosed in a limited area
(approximately 100 m
2
) (Homes, 1999; Meng et al., 2006).
As a result, musk deer endure high levels of stress not only
from captive environment (limited area, artificial feed, and
close human contact) but also the social stress of high
density enclosure (Shrestha, 1998). These factors are likely
to influence the endocrinological state of the animal, which
is directly related to musk secretion of male musk deer (Bi
et al., 1985). The response of an individual to captive stress
will also relate to the animals’ origin, age and even different
managing system hence different musk production patterns
of captive musk deer populations would be expected.
Musk production and the origin of individual and its
parent
In the late 1990’s, the captive population of musk deer
at XMDF was established by capturing Alpine musk deer of
all ages from the wild under authorized approval (Sheng
and Liu, 2007). This study indicated MER and AME of WC
Table 6. The multiple comparisons (LSD) of musk production among ages
Age
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11
12
1.5
2.5
ns
3.5
ns
ns
4.5
ns
ns
ns
5.5
ns
ns
ns
ns
6.5
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
7.5
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
8.5
ns
*
**
**
ns
ns
ns
9.5
*
*
**
**
*
ns
ns
ns
10.5
** ** ** ** ** * ns ns ns
11.5
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ns ns ns
12.5
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ns ns ns
* p<0.05; ** p<0.01; ns: p>0.05.
Table 5. Comparison of the MER of captive male alpine musk deer with ages
Age
1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5
11.5
12.5
1.5
2.5
*
3.5
**
*
4.5
**
*
a
5.5
*
ns
ns
ns
6.5
ns
*
**
**
**
7.5
ns
ns
**
**
*
ns
8.5
ns
ns
*
*
ns
ns
ns
9.5
ns
*
**
**
*
ns
ns
ns
10.5
ns ns * * * * * * ns
11.5
ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
12.5
* * * * * * * * * ns ns
The Cochran test is not performed because all variables are not dichotomous with the same values. * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; ns: p>0.05.
Meng et al. (2011) Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 24(10):1473-1482
1480
Alpine musk deer was significantly higher than those of CB
individuals, with 6% of WC individuals not secreting ripe
musk and 8 g of musk recorded as AME compared with
11% of CB deer not secreting musk and an average AME of
7 g. Despite these results, it is hypothesized that induced
stress caused by captivity would result in a reduction in
musk production as compared to wild musk deer in their
natural habitat. If the sustainable musk-extraction from the
wild musk deer (Wood et al., 2008) could be conducted in
China, the above hypothesis can be tested.
Similar to captive Forested musk deer (Dai and Yin,
1990), this study also showed no significant association
between musk production and the origin of an individual’s
parents, indicating musk production at XMDF may not be
genetically determined.
On the bases of the results of this study, when building
the founder population on a musk deer farm aimed at
conserving and releasing into the wild, an individual’s
origin should be taken into consideration in order to
optimize the genetic diversity and behavioral diversity
(Meng et al., 2006b). However, if musk deer farming just
aims to maintain captive populations and harvest musk,
since individual origin does not affect the musk secretion of
their offspring, origin should not be looked as a factor in
determining mating males a during breeding season. This
could avoid some wild-captured males or males with high
annual musk production being used for mating too often
mating resulting in reduced mating efficiency and success.
Furthermore, in the practice of musk deer farming, it is not
necessary for the farm to capture wild deer to improve the
musk production of subsequent generations, which would
reduce the numbers being removed from the endangered
wild musk deer population.
Musk production and managing system
The annual musk production of captive musk deer was
different with age (Sheng and Liu, 2007). This study
showed that patterns of AME and MER in captive Alpine
musk deer populations at XMDF varied with age. Similarly,
Kang et al. (2008) and Cheng et al. (2002) reported annual
differences in AME in captive Alpine musk deer and
Forested musk deer.
As a complicated physiological process, the musk
production of captive animals is likely to be affected by the
management system of in the farming facility (Zhang,
1983). At XMDF, captive deer were taken from the wild
between 1996 and 1997. Since 2008, the managing
personnel and keepers were changed frequently with three
different owners between 2005 and 2008. Consequently, the
whole farming system including keeping system, veterinary
system, and even the fodder ingredients changed
dramatically, which would have effected the musk secretion
of the captive population, with certain time lag, and can be
seen in the AME and MER production. Furthermore, the
effects on AME is expected to be bigger than on MER on
account of a reduction of musk secretion is more likely than
the complete cessation of musk production (Meng et al.,
2006). Optimistically, as shown in this study, musk
production (MER and AME) of captive Alpine musk deer at
XMDF continues to rise under the present managing system.
Many authors have concentrated on the effect of
extraction frequency and time on AME (Zhang, 1983; Dai
and Yin, 1990; Cheng et al., 2002), however the potential
influences of these factors on MER has been largely
overlooked. This study showed no relationship exists
between the musk extraction time and musk production. In
practice, many musk deer farms extract musk from non-
mating males before the mating season (November, Meng et
al., 2002a), but from mating males after the season (March,
Meng et al., 2002a), owing mainly to management logistics.
As this study showed the mating of males did not affect the
musk production (AME and MER), therefore, the musk
extraction could be conducted collectively after the mating
season, in order to reduce the deer-handling times and the
stress from the musk extraction, which will benefit musk
deer farming, musk production and ex situ musk deer
conservation.
Musk production and the age of Alpine musk deer
This study found age to be a factor in musk production
with similar effects on MER and AME of captive males. At
XMDF, most males (87.5%) begun to secrete musk at 1.5
years of age with AME on 8.27
±0.47 g. Reports from other
captive farms indicate both Forest musk deer and Alpine
musk deer secreted musk at a similar age (1.5 yrs) with
maximum AME recorded at 11.58 g and 10.3 g respectively
(Cheng et al., 2002; Kang et al., 2008). Because the MER
of Alpine musk deer was taken into consideration in this
study, the AME of captive Alpine musk deer with the age of
1.5 was lesser than that in the other studies above. Although
male deer can reach sexual maturation at 1.5 years, the
physical maturation and related physiological processes
relating to musk production is not fully completed until 2.5
years old (Homes, 1999; Sheng and Liu, 2007). Hence the
musk production of 1.5 year of deer was relatively lower
than older age-classes in this study. Furthermore, despite
strong reproduction synchronization and timing in both wild
and captive alpine musk deer, 12.5% of births occurred after
the peak month of June (Zhang, 1983; Meng et al., 2003a,
2003b). Hence these late borne individuals would be
expected to be even less mature and have in lower levels of
musk production. A similar pattern was also reported in
captive Forest musk deer, in which the MER of 1.5 year old
males were 87.27% and 89.74% respectively (Dai and Yin,
1991; Cheng et al., 2002).
Musk deer can secrete musk up to 20 years of age, but
Meng et al. (2011) Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 24(10):1473-1482
1481
peak musk secretion occurred prior to 10 years of age
(Zhang, 1983; Yan, 1985; Parry-Jones and Wu, 2001). The
peak period of musk secretion of captive Forest musk deer
was 2.5-7.5 years, with only 68% of males older than 8.5
years able to secrete ripe musk in Maerkang Musk Farm in
western China (Dai and Yin, 1991). The MER of male
Forest musk deer older than 9.5 years was only 68% in
Dujiangyan Musk Deer Farm (Cheng et al., 2002). Likewise,
the peak age of musk production at XMDF was between 1.5
and 8.5 years. MER of males younger than 8.5 years was
over 84.21%, which means that most of the male musk deer
at this peak age period produce ripe musk, and overall AME
was greater than 5.5 g (the AME of males aged 8.5 years
was 5.59
±0.67 g). After the peak age period, the MER
levels declines to 71% males aged over 9.5 years, while the
AME was reduced to under 5.0 g. Similar to this result, the
peak age period of Himalayan musk deer (M. chrysogaster)
and Siberian musk deer (M. moschiferus) was suggested to
be 3-9 years old (Yan, 1985; Green, 1989).
The relevance of musk production (including AME and
MER) and age was directly related to the physiological
growth of captive musk deer (Zhang, 1983; Cheng et al.,
2002). Normally, captive musk deer reach sexual maturity
at the age of 1.5 years, and physical maturity at 2.5 years of
age, hence between the age of 2.5-8.5 (especially 2.5-5.5)
individuals have completed endochronological development,
resulting in peak musk secretion during this age period. As
males grow older, the effect of physical decline, illness and
a reduction in androgen secretion (Dai and Yin, 1991),
result in a cessation or decline in musk secretion leading to
decreasing trend of AME and MER.
In this study, MER and AME both peaked during the
1.5-8.5 years old range. Therefore, to pursue high musk
production and improve the benefits of musk deer farms
that are focused on musk production, the captive population
should mainly consist of males younger than 9 years, and
those males older than 9.5 could be removed from the farm
and released into the wild habitat to rejuvenate the
endangered wild population.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by Nature Science
Foundation of China (30970374, 30770286), the “985
Project” of Minzu University of China (MUC985-9) and
Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University
(NCET-08-0596).
REFERENCES
Aryal, A. and A. Subedi. 2011. Conservation and potential Habitat
of Himalayan Musk deer Moschus chrysogaster in the
protected areas of Nepal. International Journal of Conservation
Sciences 2(2):127-141.
Aryal, A., D. Raubenheimer, S. Subedi and B. Kattel. 2010.
Spatial Habitat overlap and Habitat preference of Himalayan
Musk deer ‘Moschus chrysogaster’ in Sagarmatha (Mt.
Everest) National Park, Nepal. Current Research Journal of
Biological Sciences 2(3):217-225.
Cheng, J. G., Y. Luo, M. P. Qiao, Y. H. Cai and D. Z. Wang. 2002.
The factors affecting musk secretion quantity in Moschus
berezovskii. Special Wild Economic Animal and Plant
Research 3:15-18(In Chinese with English abstract).
Debby, Ng and Elizabeth A. Burgess. 2005. Against the grain:
trade in musk deer products in Singapore and Malaysia.
TRAFFIC Southeast Asia.
Green, M. J. B. 1986. The distribution, status and conservation of
Himalayan musk deer (Muschus chrysogaster). Biol. Conserv.
35:347-375.
Green, M. J. B. 1987. Diet composition and quality in. Himalayan
musk deer based on faecal analysis. J. Wildl. Manage. 51:880-
892.
Green, M. J. B. 1989. Scent-marking in the Himalayan musk deer
(Moschus chrysogaster). J. Zool. 1:721-737.
Harris, R. 1991. For musk deer and other wildlife in southern
Qinghai, China. Mt. Res. Dev. 11(4): 353-358.
Homes, V. 1999. On the scent: Conserving Musk deer - the uses of
musk and Europe’s role in its Trade. TRAFFIC Europe.
Huang, B. J., H. L. Sheng and H. F. Xu. 1998. The effect of feed
nutrition on musk production and quality of Dwarf musk deer.
Zoological Research 19(4):296-00 (In Chinese with English
abstract).
Jiang, Y. 1998. The reproduction of the captive alpine musk deer.
Chinese Journal of Zoology 21(4):23-25 (In Chinese with
English abstract).
Meng, X., Q. Yang, L. Xia, Z. Feng, Y. Jiang and P. Wang. 2003a.
The temporal estrous patterns of female alpine musk deer in
captivity. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 82:75-85.
Meng, X., Q. Yang, L. Xia, Z. Feng, Y. Jiang and P. Wang. 2003b.
Timing and synchrony of parturition in alpine musk deer. Folia
Zool. 52(1):39-50.
Meng, X., C. Zhou, J. Hu, C. Li, Z. Meng, J. Feng, Y. Zhou and Y.
Zhu. 2006a. The musk deer farming in China. Anim. Sci. 82:
1-6.
Meng, X., Q. Yang, Z. Feng, L. Xia, J. Feng and Y. Zhou. 2006b.
Behavioral diversity of captive alpine musk deer in
Xinglongshan musk deer farm. Acta Zoologica Sinica
52(6):1026-1033 (In Chinese with English abstract).
Mockin, M. H., E. L. Bennett and D. T. LaBruna. 2005. Wildlife
farming: A viable alternative to hunting in tropical forests?
WCS Working Paper No. 23. Wildlife Conservation Society,
New York.
Parry-Jones, R. and J. Y. Wu. 2001. Musk deer farming as a
conservation tool in China. Hong Kong: TRAFFIC, East Asia.
Qiu, J. 2007. China plans to modernize traditional medicine.
Nature 446:590-591.
Sathyakumar, S., S. N. Prasad and S. Walker. 1993. Status of
captive Himalayan Forest musk deer Moschus c. chrysogaster
in India. Int. Zoo Yb., 32:32-38.
Sheng, H. and N. Ohtaishi. 1993. The status of deer in China. In
Deer of China: biology and management (Ed. N. Ohtaishi and
H. Sheng). pp. 14-29. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam.
Meng et al. (2011) Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 24(10):1473-1482
1482
Sheng, H. L. and Z. X. Liu. 2007. The musk deer in China.
Shanghai Scientific and Technical Publishers.
Shrestha, M. N. 1998. Animal welfare in the musk deer. Appl.
Anim. Behav. Sci. 59:245-250.
Wood, J., D. Knowler and O. Gurung. 2008. Assessing the
prospects for community-based wildlife management: the
Himalayan musk deer (Moschos chrysogaster) in Nepal.
Human Dimensions of Wildlife 13(1):16-30.
Yan, Y. 1985. A preliminary study on the factors affecting musk
deer production in Siberian musk deer. Journal of Chinese
Medicinal Materials 2:11-13 (in Chinese with English abstract).
Yang, Q. S., Z. J. Feng, Z. W. Wang, W. L. Liu, X. C. Li and O. Z.
Silang. 1998. Home range of the alpine musk deer in the
southeast area of Tibet autonomous region. Acta Theriologica
Sinica 18(2):87-94 (In Chinese with English abstract).
Yang, Q. S., X. X. Meng, Z. J. Feng and L. Xia. 2003.
Conservation status and causes of decline on musk deer in
China. Biol. Conserv. 109:333-342.
Yin, S. Y. and W. G. Dai. 1991a. Experimental study about the
physiology effect of Androgen on the second musk secretion of
male dwarf musk deer. Acta Theriologica Sinica 11(1):9-12 (In
Chinese with English abstract).
Yin, S. Y. and W. G. Dai. 1991b. The relevance of age and musk
secretion of male musk deer. Chinese Journal of Zoology
26(6):45-48 (In Chinese with English abstract).
Zheng, S. and N. Pi. 1984. The musk sac, musk, quanyity and
hunting of alpine musk deer (Moschus sifanicus). Acta
Theriologica Sinica 4(1):35-42 (In Chinese with English
abstract).
Zheng, S. and N. Pi. 1979. Study on ecology of the musk deer
(Moschus sifanicus). Acta Zoologica Sinica 25(2):176-186 (in
Chinese with English abstract).
Zhang, B. 1979. The farming of musk deer in China. Agriculture
Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
Zhang, B. 1983. Musk-deer, their capture, domestication and care
according to Chinese experience and methods. Unasylva
35:16-24.
Dostları ilə paylaş: |