DRAFT CODE OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE WELFARE OF LIVESTOCK: TURKEYS

Thank you for the opportunity for FAWC to comment on the proposed code of recommendations for turkeys.

Council feels the draft code is a useful, sensible and clearly written document. The layout is consistent and well thought out, following the template of the other poultry codes. The references to relevant legislation are very helpful.

More specific comments:

Stockmanship and staffing: Highlighting of requirements for effective and appropriate training are well made. Some assessment of competence would also be welcome.

Feed and water: Paragraph 19 gives guidance on feed and drinker space requirements. This is consistent with previous advice, but these allowances may be overgenerous in some controlled environment housing, where house furniture can interfere with effective bird movement. Interestingly, the current draft for ducks is far less proscriptive in this area.

Health: Highlighting of the need for a relevant, practical, written veterinary health and welfare plan is well made.

Para 3. It is unlikely that the simple provision of hospital pens will improve or safeguard welfare. It would be better to state simply “Any birds should be immediately removed and treated or humanely killed”. Hospital pens can too easily become condemned cells and seldom aid recovery in turkeys.

Record keeping: Whilst keeping of detailed records of performance can be an effective aid to monitoring health and welfare, some of those detailed are less relevant than others or can be extremely difficult to record effectively (e.g. daily feed consumption and relative humidity). Excessive time and effort spent on substantial data recording should not restrict physical bird inspection, the importance of which is well highlighted in the previous section.

Stocking density: The recommendations here are clear and pragmatic. The onus on the producer to demonstrate that the stocking density chosen does not compromise welfare is a sensible and appropriate recommendation. The suggestion that stocking density be reduced if disease or environmental problems occur in a particular building or system (para 45) is not particularly helpful. It would be better to recommend that appropriate expert advice is taken where disease or environmental problems occur, to establish whether stocking density is relevant to those problems.

Ventilation and temperature: Para 54 addresses some aspects of air quality monitoring indicating that CO2, CO and NH3 should be controlled and kept within limits. Whilst maintaining good air quality is of obvious importance, the recommendation gives little guidance on practical aspects of monitoring (e.g. frequency of monitoring or acceptable limits – except reference is made to <5 ppm ammonia for turkeys, although the draft duck code indicates <20 ppm).

Heat stress: The comments and advice in Para 60 appear to have been lifted from chicken experience and Council is not thoroughly convinced of the benefit of hosing the roof of turkey (or indeed chicken) houses, as this needs to be related to relative humidity.

Lighting: Advice here is logical, although the practical experience of FAWC members suggests that turkeys do not benefit greatly from dawn/dusk dimming in the same way as chickens.

Catching, handling and transport: Para 99 indicates that a bird unable to stand on both legs should not be transported. It would seem more appropriate to indicate that only birds that can stand and walk without difficulty, pain or distress should be transported.

Para 100 again extrapolates from chicken experience. However, in turkey catching (especially in older turkey stags) birds are encouraged to walk towards transport crates to reduce the time of handling and distance individual birds are carried, and this is best achieved under higher light intensity.

Para 103. It would be appropriate and helpful to draw attention to the notes of guidance that accompany WATO in setting density limits for transporting turkeys of different weights.