Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:12:40.200Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Welfare of ducks in European duck husbandry systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2007

T.B. Rodenburg ,
M.B.M. Bracke ,
J. Berk ,
J. Cooper ,
J.M. Faure ,
D. Guémené ,
G. Guy ,
A. Harlander ,
T. Jones  and
U. Knierim
...Show all authors
T.B. Rodenburg*
Affiliation:
Applied Research, Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen UR, Lelystad, The Netherlands;
M.B.M. Bracke
Affiliation:
Animal Resources Development Division, Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen UR, Lelystad, The Netherlands;
J. Berk
Affiliation:
Institute for Animal Welfare and Animal Husbandry, Celle, Germany;
J. Cooper
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, United Kingdom;
J.M. Faure
Affiliation:
Station de Recherches Avicoles, INRA de Tours, Nouzilly, France;
D. Guémené
Affiliation:
Station de Recherches Avicoles, INRA de Tours, Nouzilly, France;
G. Guy
Affiliation:
Station Experimentale des Palmipedes a Foie Gras, INRA Artigueres, Benquet, France;
A. Harlander
Affiliation:
Department of Farm Animal Ethology and Poultry Science, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany;
T. Jones
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom;
U. Knierim
Affiliation:
Department of Farm Animal Behaviour and Husbandry, University of Kassel, Witzenhausen, Germany;
K. Kuhnt
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Behaviour of Farm Animals, School of Veterinary Medicine, Hannover, Germany;
H. Pingel
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Martin-Luther-University, Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany;
K. Reiter
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Husbandry and Welfare, Bavarian Research Centre of Agriculture, Poing-Grub, Germany;
J. Serviére
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences INRAINAPG, Paris, France
M.A.W. Ruis
Affiliation:
Applied Research, Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen UR, Lelystad, The Netherlands;
*
*Corresponding author: b.rodenburg@clo.fgov.be
Get access

Abstract

European duck meat production is based on the use of Pekin, Muscovy and Mule duck genotypes that vary in their behavioural and physiological characteristics. Furthermore, large differences exist in their housing and management conditions. The aim of this review is to discuss the welfare of these different genotypes in typical husbandry systems, focusing on ducks kept for meat production. Firstly, factors that can affect duck welfare, such as stocking density and group size, access to straw, an outdoor run, or open water, are described. Secondly, welfare problems such as feather pecking, fear and stress, and health problems are assessed. Thirdly, the various systems used in Europe are described for these aspects. Giving ducks access to straw, an outdoor run, or open water increases the behavioural opportunities of the ducks (foraging, preening, bathing, and swimming), but can also lead to poor hygiene and increased health- and food safety risks. Therefore, practical solutions that allow expression of natural behaviour, but do not lead to hygiene or health problems have to be found and some practical suggestions are provided.

Keywords

duck welfareduck behaviourduck healthgenotypeshousing systemsdesign criteriaperformance criteria
Type
Reviews
Information
World's Poultry Science Journal , Volume 61 , Issue 4 , December 2005 , pp. 633 - 646
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abd El-Latif, S. A. (2003) Drinking water quality for waterfowl. 2nd World Waterfowl Conference,Alexandria, Egypt pp. 60.Google Scholar
Anonymous (2001) Scientists' Assessment of the Impact of Housing and Management on Animal Welfare. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 4: 3–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashton, C.Ashton, M. (2001) The Domestic Duck. Marlborough, United Kingdom, The Crowood Press, pp. 192.Google Scholar
Babile, R., Auvergne, A., Andrade, V., Heraut, F., Benard, G., Bouillier-Oudot, M. and Manse, H. (1996) Réversibilité de la stéatose hépatique chez le canard mulard. 2èmes Journées de la Recherche sur les Palmipûdes à Foie Gras, Bordeaux, France, pp. 107–110.Google Scholar
Baeza, E.Chartrin, P.Arnould, C. (2003) Effet de la densite en elevage sur le bien-etre, les performances de croissance et la qualite des carcasses du canard de barbarie. Sciences et Techniques Avicoles 45: 5.Google Scholar
Barber, C. L.Prescott, N. B.Wathes, C. M.Le Sueur, C.Perry, C. G. (2004) Preferences of growing ducklings and turkey poults for illuminance. Animal Welfare 13: 211–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benard, P., Bengone, T., Benard, G., Prehn, D., Tanguy, J., Babile, R. and Grimm, F. (1996) Démonstration de la réversibilité du gavage chez le canard/l'aide de tests d'exploration fonctionnelle hépatique. 2èmes Journées de la Recherche sur les Palmipûdes à Foie Gras, Bordeaux, France, pp. 41–44.Google Scholar
Benda, I., Reiter, K., Harlander-Matauschek, A. and Bessei, W. (2004) Preliminary observations of the development of bathing behaviour of Pekin ducks under a shower. Book of abstracts of the XXII World's Poultry Science Congress, Istanbul, Turkey pp. 349.Google Scholar
Bezzel, E. (1977) Ornithologie. Stuttgart, GermanyEugen Ulmer Verlag, pp 51.Google Scholar
Bierschenk, F. (1991) Tips und Tricks zur Aufzucht von Wassergeflügel. Deutsche Geflügelwirtschaft und Schweineproduktion 11: 303–305.Google Scholar
Bilsing, A.Becker, I.Nichelmann, M. (1992) Verhaltensstörungen bei der Moschusente. Aktuelle Arbeiten zur artgemä Ben Tierhaltung. KTBL-Schrift 351: 69–76.Google Scholar
Bulheller, M. A., Kuhnt, K., Hartung, J. and Knierim, U. (2004) Effects of different types of water provision on the behaviour and cleanliness of the plumage of muscovy ducks (Cairina Moschata). Proceedings of the 38th International Congress of the ISAE,Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
Cooper, J. J.McAfee, L.Skinn, H. (2002) Behavioural responses of domestic ducks to nipple drinkers, bell drinkers and water troughs. British Poultry Science 43: S17–S18.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (1999a) Recommendation concerning domestic ducks (anas platyrynchos).Google Scholar
Council of Europe (1999b) Recommendation concerning Muscovy ducks (Cairana moschata) and hybrids of Muscovy and domestic ducks (Anas platyrhynchos).Google Scholar
Dawkins, M. S.Donnelly, C. A.Jones, T. A. (2004) Chicken welfare is influenced more by housing conditions than by stocking density. Nature 427: 342–344.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dayen, M.Fiedler, H. H. (1990) Intensive raising of Muscovy ducks. Deutsche Tierärztliche Wochenschrift 106: 55–59.Google Scholar
De Buisonje, F. E.Kiezebrink, M. C. (1999) Badwaterverstrekking via ronddrinkers bij eenden onderzocht. Praktijkonderzoek 99/3: 27–32.Google Scholar
De Buisonje, F. E. (2001) Bezettingsdichtheid bij vleeseenden. Praktijkonderzoek Veehouderij-Pluimvee, pp. 36–38.Google Scholar
Defra (2000) Codes of Recommendations of Codes of Welfare for Livestock: Ducks.Google Scholar
Desforges, M. (2002) Suppression de debecquage en elevage de barbaries de chair: premiers resultats. Journee Nationale des Professionnels du Canard, Angers, France, pp. 4.Google Scholar
Faure, J. M.Guy, G.GuemenÉ, D. (2001) Is there avoidance of the force feeding procedure in ducks and geese. Animal Research 50: 154–157.Google Scholar
Faure, J. M.Val-Laillet, D.Guy, G.Bernadet, M.-D.Guemene, D. (2003) Fear and stress reactions in two species of duck and their hybrid. Hormones and Behavior 43: 568–572.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guémené, D.Guy, G.Noirault, J.Garreau-Mills, M.Gouraud, P.Faure, J. M. (2001) Force-feeding procedure and physiological indicators of stress in male mule ducks. British Poultry Science 42: 650–657.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guy, G., Faure, J. M. and Guémené, D. (1997) Capacity of ingestion in the male mule duck. 11th European Symposium on Waterfowl,Nantes,France, pp. 240–245.Google Scholar
Henderson, J. V.Nicol, C. J.Lines, J. A.White, R. P.Wathes, C. M. (2001) Behaviour of domestic ducks exposed to mobile predator stimuli. 1. Flock responses. British Poultry Science 42: 433–438.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klemm, R., Pingel, H., Reiter, K., Bierschenk, F. and Rauch, W. (1992) Investigations on feather pecking in Muscovy ducks. World's Poultry Congress,Amsterdam, The Netherlands pp..Google Scholar
Knierim, U., Bullheller, M. and Tutsch, S. (2002) Federrupfen und Kannibalismus bei Moschusenten gibt es Ansätze zur Prävention? Tagungsband 4. Niedersächsisches Tierschutzsymposium, Oldenburg, Germany pp. 53–58.Google Scholar
Knierim, U.Bulheller, M. A.Kuhnt, K.Briese, A.Hartung, J. (2004) Wasserangebot für Enten bei Stallhaltung ein Überblick aufgrund der Literatur und eigener Erfahrung. Deutsche Tierärztliche Wochenschrift 111: 115–118.Google Scholar
Knierim, U., Bulheller, M. A., Kuhnt, K., Briese, A. and Hartung, J. (2005) Mindestanforderungen an die Haltung von Moschusenten (Cairina moschata dom.). Hannover, Germany pp. 150.Google Scholar
Kosters, J.Jakoby, J. R.Korbel, R. (1993) Zur Problematik der Flugunfähigmachung von Geflügel und zu Fragen der Teichhaltung von Wassergeflügel aus der Sicht des Tierschutzrechts. Deutsche Tierärztliche Wochenschrift 100: 73–76.Google Scholar
Kuhnt, K., Bulheller, M. A., Hartung, J. and Knierim, U. (2004) Hygienic aspects of provision of bathing water for Muscovy ducks in standard housing. Book of abstracts of the XXII World's Poultry Science Congress,Istanbul, Turkey,.Google Scholar
Leipoldt, A. L. (1992) Gedrag van pekingeenden met variatie in drinkwatersysteem en bodembedekking. Praktijkonderzoek voor de Pluimveehouderij, PP-uitgave no. 03.Google Scholar
Raud, H.Faure, J. M. (1994) Welfare of ducks in intensive units. Revue Scientifique et Technique (International Office of Epizootics) 13: 119–129.Google ScholarPubMed
Reiter, K. (1997) Das Verhalten von Enten (Anas platyrhynchos f. domestica) (Literaturstudie) Archiv fur Geflügelkunde 61: 149–161.Google Scholar
Reiter, K., Zernig, F. and Bessei, W. (1997) Effect of water bath and free range on behaviour and feathering in Pekin, Muscovy, and Mulard duck. 11th European Symposium on Waterfowl,Nantes, France, pp. 224–229.Google Scholar
Reiter, K. (2003) Bathing behaviour of Peking ducks in water bath and under shower. 2nd World Waterfowl Conference,Alexandria, Egypt,.Google Scholar
Robin, N., Rigou, L. and Castaing, J. (2002) Parcours de canards mulards: incidence de la presence d'herbe pour une exploitation de mai a juin. Journee Nationale des Professionnels du Foie Gras, Pau, France, pp. 232–237.Google Scholar
Ruis, M. A. W.Lenskens, P.Coenen, E. (2003a) Stro als bodembedekker belangrijk bij snebberen. Pluimveehouderij 24: 16–17.Google Scholar
Ruis, M. A. W., Lenskens, P. and Coenen, E. (2003b) Welfare of Pekin-ducks increases when freely accessible open water is provided. 2nd World Waterfowl Conference,Alexandria, Egypt,.Google Scholar
Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (1998) Welfare aspects of the production of foie gras in ducks and geese.Google Scholar
Serviere, J., Bernadet, M.-D. and Guy, G. (2003) Is nociception a sensory component associated to force-feeding? Neurophysiological approach in the mule duck. 2nd World Waterfowl Conference,Alexandria, Egypt pp. ?.Google Scholar
Serviere, J., Bernadet, M.-D. and Guy, G. (2004) La réponse d'extravasation plasmatique neurogene, signe d'inflammation du tractus digestif supérieur chez le Mulard? évolution au cours du gavage, comparaison avec une inflammation expérimentale aigue. 6th Journées de la Recherche sur les Palmipûdes à Foie Gras, Arcachon, France, pp. 89–93.Google Scholar
Simantke, C. (2002) Ethologische Begründung des Wasserbedarfes von Pekingenten bei der Stallmast. Expert opinion, University of Kassel, Germany, pp. 20.Google Scholar
Sostak, R. (1999) Literaturauswertung zur speziellen Physiologie einiger Entenarten: Licht und Temperatur in der Haltung. PhD thesis University of Hannover, Germany, pp. 119.Google Scholar