On-farm welfare assessment of commercial Pekin ducks: a comparison of methods

Abstract

Although a number of welfare assessment methods have been developed for poultry, none have been evaluated for use in commercial duck farms. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the inter-rater reliability and relative accuracy of 4 duck welfare assessment strategies. Over 2 experiments, 12 flocks of commercial meat ducks (5,850 to 6,300 ducks/flock) aged 30 to 34 D were evaluated. During experiment 1, six flocks were evaluated using 2 welfare assessment methods: transect walks ( TW ) and catch-and-inspect ( CAI ). During TW, 2 observers walked predetermined transects along the length of the house and recorded the number of ducks per transect that were featherless, were dirty, were lethargic, had bloody feathers, had infected eyes, and/or had plugged nostrils or were found dead. During CAI, a total of 150 ducks per flock were corralled and individually evaluated. The same welfare indicators were assessed using both methods. During experiment 2, six flocks were initially evaluated using CAI, TW, and a distance evaluation ( DE ; a total of 50 ducks per flock evaluated from a walking distance) and then reassessed within 24 h during the loadout ( LO ) process. Data were analyzed in SAS (version 9.4) to determine the observer and method effects on the incidence of welfare indicators. Interobserver reliability was high ( P > 0.05) across methods for most welfare indicators. The assessment method affected the measured outcome variables in both experiments ( P < 0.05). CAI resulted in higher estimated incidences of most welfare indicators than TW (experiment 1 and 2) and LO (experiment 2). DE yielded intermediate results compared with other methods (experiment 2). Results obtained using TW and LO were most similar, the only difference being the number of dead birds observed using each method ( P < 0.0001). The average time required for CAI, TW, DE, and LO was 2.40 ± 0.004, 1.12 ± 0.02, 1.54 ± 0.001, 3.56 ± 0.006 h, respectively. Bootstrapping analyses showed that the observed welfare indicator prevalence estimates were affected by the number of transects (TW) and number of birds (CAI) sampled.

Setting research driven duck-welfare standards: a systematic review of Pekin duck welfare research

“…As is true of other welfare indicators, insufficient studies have reported on eye condition to allow for meta-analysis. However, another study, which used similar sampling methods to evaluate ducks housed on slats only, reported a higher prevalence of dirty eyes and nostrils for ducks than the previous studies ( Abdelfattah et al, 2020 ). Differences in how the scoring categories were defined and applied, and differences in barn management, other than flooring, may have contributed to the difference in reported prevalence.…”

“…While the topic of duck welfare assessment methodology is outside the scope of this review, it is worth noting that 10 of the 63 reviewed publications addressed questions related to the development and comparison of duck welfare assessment methods ( Campbell et al., 2014 ; Pritchett et al, 2014 ; Makagon et al, 2015 ; Robison et al, 2015 ; Byrd et al, 2016 ; Duggan et al, 2016 ; Duggan et al, 2017 ; Barrett & Blanche, 2019 ; Klambeck et al, 2019 ; Abdelfattah et al, 2020 ). Briefly, duck welfare can be assessed using animal-, resource-, and management-based indicators.…”

“…In their concluding remarks, the authors noted that decreased eye condition most likely reflects the combined effect of nipple lines and ventilation on barn temperature and ammonia levels. Seasonal differences in temperature and ammonia could also explain the differences in the prevalence of dirty or crusty eyes, which was numerically higher in commercial barns fitted with nipple lines when ducks were assessed during the summer (45.3–51.8% at 32 d of age; Fraley et al, 2013 ) versus the fall and winter months (1.3–8.5%; Karcher et al, 2013 ; Abdelfattah et al, 2020 ). In regards to feather condition, several studies have associated the opportunity for ducks to immerse their heads in water with improved feather cleanliness ( Jones et al, 2009 ; Jones and Dawkins, 2010a ; O'Driscoll and Broom, 2011 ), whereas others have associated nipple drinkers with improved feather cleanliness ( Schenk et al, 2016 ; Klambeck et al, 2017 ).…”

“…Fully slatted floors are sometimes used, particularly in the United States. The target stocking density of meat ducks ranges from approximately 15 to 25 kg/m 2 , although up to 46 kg/m 2 has been reported ( Rodenburg et al, 2005 ; Jones and Dawkins, 2010a ; Karcher et al, 2013 ; Liste et al, 2013 ; Rice et al, 2014 ; Abdelfattah et al, 2020 ). Natural or mechanical ventilation may be used to ensure appropriate air exchange, help maintain a comfortable thermal environment, and, where litter is used, help maintain a good litter quality.…”

Developing a novel welfare assessment tool for loose-housed laying hens – the Aviary Transect method

“…If a particular welfare assessment method is to be applied in practice by the industry, the method needs to be time efficient, accurate, and repeatable. Previous studies have shown that the transect walk is a practical and reliable method for assessing animal-based welfare indicators on-farm in large flocks of broilers ( Marchewka et al, 2013 ; BenSassi et al, 2019a , b ), turkeys ( Marchewka et al, 2015 , 2019 ; Ferrante et al, 2019 ), and ducks ( Abdelfattah et al, 2020 ). The transect method is based on line transect sampling methodology, a technique routinely used in ecological and wildlife studies to estimate animal biodiversity and abundance ( Butler et al, 2007 ).…”