PLS: Welfare of ducks and geese on farm

Published date:

Disclaimer

  • This plain language summary (PLS) is a simplified communication of EFSA’s Welfare of ducks, geese and quail on farm and focuses on ducks and geese. The full EFSA scientific opinion can be found here.
  • The purpose of the PLS is to enhance transparency and inform interested parties on EFSA’s work on the topic using simplified language to present a summary of the main findings.

Background to the scientific opinion

  • This was the first scientific opinion assessing the welfare of ducks and geese on farms.
  • The scientific opinion did not include the process of collecting feathers and down, the process of overfeeding for foie gras production, birds reared for hunting or gaming, and the transport or slaughter of the birds.

What was EFSA asked to do?

EFSA was asked to evaluate and provide a scientific opinion on the impact of cage systems and other systems currently used in the EU on the welfare of the following ducks and geese:

  • Domestic ducks (Anas platyrhynchos domesticus);
  • Muscovy ducks (Cairina moschata domesticus);
  • Mule ducks (hybrids between female Domestic ducks and male Muscovy ducks);
  • Domestic geese (Anser anser f. domesticus).

The descriptive categories that were evaluated are:

  • breeders for reproduction;
  • birds for meat production (including foie gras).

EFSA was asked to describe the welfare of ducks and geese and the associated risks. The following topics were included:

  • the main husbandry* systems, focusing on these currently used in the EU for keeping these birds;
  • the following relevant† welfare consequences: restriction of movement, injuries, group stress and inability to perform comfort behaviour‡ related to these husbandry systems.

*Accommodation for keeping animals.
†Based on literature and EFSA’s expert opinion.
‡Activities that maintain the function and integrity of the integument.

EFSA was asked to provide recommendations to prevent negative consequences on the welfare of ducks and geese relating to the following specific factors:

  • space allowance (three-dimensional) per bird;
  • group size;
  • floor quality;
  • availability, design and size of nesting facilities;
  • environmental enrichment provided to fulfil biological needs (including access to open water).

How did EFSA carry out this work?

  • The evaluation followed the EFSA AHAW Panel guidance, 2022: Methodological guidance for the development of animal welfare mandates in the context of the Farm to Fork strategy.
  • The types of husbandry system were identified.
  • Experts considered eight welfare consequences: restriction of movement, group stress, inability to perform comfort behaviour, soft tissue lesions and integument damage, bone lesions, locomotory disorders, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, and inability to express pre-laying and nesting behaviours.
  • The relevance of the welfare consequences was identified in each husbandry system, based on the prevalence of the hazards.
  • Only animal-based measures (ABMs) relevant to the welfare consequences were considered.
  • Preventive measures to reduce the risk of the birds experiencing the welfare consequences were described in relation to the specific factors: space allowance (including minimum floor area and height), group size, floor quality, nesting facilities and environmental enrichment.
  • Uncertainty regarding the identification and assessment of husbandry systems, welfare consequences, related ABMs, and the assessment of factors was assessed.

What data were used?

  • Literature (published and grey* literature).
  • Data provided by Member States and stakeholders.
  • Expert opinion through working group discussion and specific exercises.

*Written material that is not published in a scientific journal.

What were the limitations/uncertainties?

  • There was limited literature and information available on ducks and geese raised in the EU and on specific farming conditions.
  • The limited data may have impacted the description and type of husbandry systems, relevant welfare consequences, ABMs and/or specific factors.
  • There is limited knowledge on the prevalence of the hazards related to the welfare consequences and husbandry systems.
  • There is a scarcity of knowledge on each of the specific factors that limited the welfare assessment.
  • There is a degree of uncertainty for each of the required questions. This is indicated in the conclusions of the scientific opinion.

What were the outcomes and their implications?

Space allowance

  • The spaces required for the birds to express different behaviours and prevent specific welfare consequences are described, including the space to bathe in open water.
  • The minimum height was reported as 66 cm for Domestic ducks, 96 cm for Muscovy and Mule ducks, and 127 cm for Domestic geese; however, a total height allowing a human to enter to inspect the birds should be guaranteed.

Group size

  • The male:female ratio is important for groups of mature birds to avoid unwanted sexual behaviour and aggression between males.
  • There is no scientific evidence to conclude on any maximum group size.

Floor quality

  • Littered solid floors provide better opportunities for exploratory or foraging behaviour than perforated floors.
  • Litter management is important to maintain good quality litter (dry, friable and free of physical, chemical and microbiological hazards).

Availability, design and size of nesting facilities

  • Availability and quality of nests (dimensions, nesting material, position, luminosity and type of enclosure) are important for bird welfare and nesting behaviour.
  • In birds kept in a group, sharing of a nest over time is possible. The nest:female ratio is important to avoid competition and the floor laying of eggs.

Environmental enrichment

  • Providing open water prevents or mitigates soft-tissue lesions and integument damage, group stress, the inability to perform comfort behaviour and the inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour.
  • The provision of enrichment material, such as silage or hay, stimulates exploratory or foraging behaviour and reduces the risks of feather and cannibalistic pecking in ducks.
  • Muscovy ducks like to use elevated structures, such as perches.
  • Outdoor access provides stimuli but is a management challenge related to protection of the birds from predation and biosecurity.
  • Alternatively, a covered veranda provides some of the benefits of outdoors.

Implications

  • The welfare of ducks and geese in the husbandry systems described can be improved by applying the preventive measures indicated in the scientific opinion.

What are the key recommendations for public health authorities, policy makers, industry, research community or others?

  • The currently used husbandry systems described in the scientific opinion and called cages (individual, couple or collective) and all husbandry systems used in foie gras production should be avoided as they lead to a high risk of occurrence of the welfare consequences considered in the scientific opinion.
  • Preventive measures indicated in the scientific opinion should be applied to all husbandry systems.
  • More space (three-dimensional) should be provided to allow species-specific behaviours (including water bathing).
  • Birds should not be kept individually.
  • The male:female ratio should be considered when grouping mature birds.
  • Birds in indoor systems should be provided with solid and littered floors. The litter material should be dry and friable.
  • Floor areas under and around water sources should enable sufficient drainage.
  • Soft and manipulable nesting material should be provided to facilitate nest-building behaviour.
  • Individual nests for birds kept in groups should allow non-competitive use of nests over time.
  • Open water sources should be provided that allow at least head dipping and, preferably, full body contact and bathing.
  • Easily reachable elevated structures, such as perches, are recommended for Muscovy ducks.
  • Forage-related enrichment, such as silage, should be provided.
  • A covered veranda is recommended when outdoor access is unavailable.

Are there any additional information sources for the reader?

Animal welfare