CODE OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE WELFARE OF LIVESTOCK: DUCKS

Thank you for the opportunity for FAWC to comment on the draft code of recommendations for the welfare of farmed ducks. Points are set out identifying the text from which they arise.

Stockmanship and staffing: Highlighting of requirements for effective and appropriate training are well made.

Feed and water: Paragraph 24. Water consumption data is very difficult to interpret, especially in ducks that use water for bathing and head immersion in addition to drinking it. It is doubtful whether water consumption data will aid practical detection of disease or ill health. Focused observation of drinking and water behaviour is far more useful.

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

Paragraph 33. It is unlikely that the provision of hospital pens improves or safeguards 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 ducks.

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.

Paragraph 41. Will all keepers understand the word “autopsies”? Better to state “post mortem examination” or “further laboratory investigations” or “consult your veterinary surgeon”.

Stocking density and freedom of movement: Paragraph 42 – Ducks should not routinely be caged and any such treatment for management or health purposes should be minimised.

Paragraph 44. Council would support the figure of 22 Kg/m3 . In members’ practical experience it would be rare to see stocking densities approaching this figure in UK. Ducks tend to “create” their own stocking density by flocking together and the house set up (including siting of drinkers, feeders, and, where appropriate, nests) has a far more significant impact than stocking density.

Buildings and accommodation: Paragraph 50. The implication is that 100% floors would be prohibited. Although not uncommon in some other EU states, Council is not aware of any significant systems in UK, except possibly some small scale brooding systems. Preference would be for deep litter systems with slatted floors in the drinking area. In a house with a slatted floor area, is it envisaged that this would be included in the “allowed” floor area for stocking density calculation?

Paragraph 50 – FAWC welcomes plans for research into animal welfare aspects of duck rearing systems in use in this country. We hope this will include assessment of flooring materials and their suitability for ducks’ feet.

Paragraph 52 suggests provision of straw bales. If considered useful (although ducks are unlikely to jump up on them) then it must be stressed that they are of high quality as ducks are very susceptible to aspergillus induced mycotic pneumonia. Use of straw in brooding pens is to be discouraged.

Provision of water for bathing: Paragraph 53 – The water issue is a difficult one. The behavioural needs of ducks to immerse their heads and interact with water (identified by the Council of Europe) need to be balanced against the disease and environmental risks. The way the code is worded seems an acceptable compromise.

Ducks can be reared successfully in good health without access to open water. Indeed, total nipple systems have been used with some success. Further work may be necessary in this regard.

A system with the majority of water supplied for drinking via nipples supplemented with some more “open” small trough drinkers for face immersion is a possible successful solution to supplying adequate clean drinking water and satisfying behavioural needs.

Promotion of outside runs with access to water would seem to lessen the effects on bedding but a requirement for open water bathing in all enterprises would lead to soiling, contamination of carcases and significant health problems. Any welfare benefit would need to be balanced against these negative effects.

Heat stress: Paragraphs 59 and 60. Advice here is simply lifted from other welfare codes and chicken experience. Heat stress is rare in ducks, probably due to the lower stocking densities and general “mobile” behaviour of ducks allowing them to seek their comfort zones.

Para 61. Reducing stocking density in summer months is unlikely to offer any welfare benefits.

Lighting: Para 66. FAWC is not aware of any research on ducks that demonstrates a benefit in using dawn/dusk dimmers.

Range birds: Paragraph 74. FAWC agrees that stocking density in open areas, range rotation and water source rotation are important to prevent risks to the welfare of ducks in free range systems.

Bill trimming: Paragraph 90. FAWC does not approve of mutilations in principle and has concerns about the trimming of ducks’ bills, known to be particularly sensitive structures. The code quotes the legal situation, but other than clipping of the tip of the beak in certain more investigative strains (e.g. Barbary and muscovies), bill trimming should not be necessary and certainly not one third of the beak.

In Paragraph 90 the sentence in square brackets is a hostage to fortune. If the author is so convinced that bill trimming results in pain that compromises duck welfare then the procedure should be prohibited. Retention of the ability to beak “tip” only, would seem sensible.

Catching, handling and transport: Paragraph 101 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.

Paragraph 103. Whilst it may be acceptable to catch ducks and hold two in each hand at catching they should not be carried any significant distance. The wording is cumbersome as drafted and liable to misinterpretation.

Paragraph 104. It is unnecessary for lighter birds to be lifted by the legs.

Paragraph 106. It would be appropriate and helpful to draw attention to the notes of guidance that accompany WATO in setting density limits for transporting ducks of different weights.