Plumage cleanliness, foot health, and growth performance of Co ducks provided with different tray-based water-contact areas under semi-dry housing: Water contact and welfare in Co ducks

Nguyen Thi My Phuong; Nhân Phan

doi:10.62310/liab.v6i2.427

Authors

Nguyen Thi My Phuong Faculty of Applied Biology, Tay Do University, 68 Tran Chien Street, Thanh My Area, Cai Rang Ward, Can Tho, 900000, Vietnam
Nhân Phan Faculty of Applied Biology, Tay Do University, 68 Tran Chien Street, Thanh My Area, Cai Rang Ward, Can Tho, 900000, Vietnam https://orcid.org/0009-0005-4204-9093

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62310/liab.v6i2.427

Keywords:

Co duck, Water-contact area, Semi-dry housing, Plumage cleanliness, Footpad dermatitis, Growth performance

Abstract

Open water access promotes natural water-related behaviors of ducks but too much water exposure may lead to higher litter wetness and hygiene problems in semi-dry housing systems. The present study was conducted to evaluate the effects of graded water-contact areas in trays on water use behavior, floor condition, plumage cleanliness, foot health, and growth performance of Co ducks. The four treatments were defined as follows: T1 – drinking water only, with no tray-based water-contact area (0 cm²/duck); T2 – drinking water plus a tray-based water-contact area of 25 cm²/duck; T3 – drinking water plus a tray-based water-contact area of 50 cm²/duck; and T4 – drinking water plus a tray-based water-contact area of 100 cm²/duck. Water-use behavior increased with increasing tray-based water-contact area, from 13.1% in T2 to 36.9% in T4. However, floor moisture near the water area also increased from 28.4% in T1 to 53.8% in T4, and coliform counts rose from 4.18 to 5.61 log₁₀ CFU/g. Ducks provided with water-contact area of 50 cm²/duck had the lowest abdominal plumage dirtiness score (0.83), the highest body weight at 56 days (1,552.8 g/duck), and the lowest feed conversion ratio (2.84). In contrast, the 100 cm²/duck treatment was associated with greater abdominal feather wetness (score 1.57), footpad dermatitis (score 1.31), and impaired walking (36.1%). Among the tested treatments, a tray-based water-contact area of 50 cm²/duck showed the most favourable overall combination of water-use behavior, litter hygiene, plumage cleanliness, foot health, and growth performance under the semi-dry housing conditions evaluated

References

Abdelfattah E, Vezzoli G, Makagon MM. (2020). On-farm welfare assessment of commercial Pekin ducks: A comparison of methods. Poultry Science 99(2): 689-697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2019.10.006

Babington S, Campbell DLM. (2022). Water for domestic ducks: The benefits and challenges in commercial production. Frontiers in Animal Science 3: 782507. https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2022.782507

Biesek J, Banaszak M, Adamski M, Kuźniacka J, Maiorano G. (2024). Evaluation of coffee husks in pellet bedding, performance characteristics, footpad dermatitis scoring, and meat quality of broiler ducks. Veterinary Research Communications 48: 165-177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11259-023-10196-w

Byrd CJ, Main RP, Makagon MM. (2016). Evaluating Pekin duck walking ability using a treadmill performance test. Poultry Science 95(10): 2244-2249. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pew207

Campbell DLM, Belson S, Erasmus MA, Lea JM. (2022). Behavior and welfare impacts of water provision via misting in commercial Pekin ducks. Journal of Animal Science 100(12): skac341. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skac341

Colton S, Fraley GS. (2014). The effects of environmental enrichment devices on feather picking in commercially housed Pekin ducks. Poultry Science 93(9): 2143-2150. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2014-03885

de Jong IC, Gunnink H, van Harn J. (2014). Wet litter not only induces footpad dermatitis but also reduces overall welfare, technical performance, and carcass yield in broiler chickens. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 23(1): 51-58. https://doi.org/10.3382/japr.2013-00803

Dunlop MW, Moss AF, Groves PJ, Wilkinson SJ, Stuetz RM, Selle PH. (2016). The multidimensional causal factors of wet litter in chicken-meat production. Science of the Total Environment 562: 766-776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.03.147

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Animal Welfare, Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin-Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gortázar Schmidt C, Herskin M, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MÁ, Padalino B, Roberts HC, Spoolder H, Stahl K, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Berg C, Edwards S, Knierim U, Riber A, Salamon A, Tiemann I, Fabris C, Manakidou A, Mosbach-Schulz O, Van der Stede Y, Vitali M, Velarde A. (2023). Welfare of ducks, geese and quail on farm. EFSA Journal 21(5): e07992. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7992

Fraley SM, Fraley GS, Karcher DM, Makagon MM, Lilburn MS. (2013). Influence of plastic slatted floors compared with pine shaving litter on Pekin duck condition during the summer months. Poultry Science 92(7): 1706-1711. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2012-02992

Jones TA, Dawkins MS. (2010a). Environment and management factors affecting Pekin duck production and welfare on commercial farms in the UK. British Poultry Science 51(1): 12-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660903421159

Jones TA, Dawkins MS. (2010b). Effect of environment on Pekin duck behaviour and its correlation with body condition on commercial farms in the UK. British Poultry Science 51(3): 319-325. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2010.499143

Jones TA, Waitt CD, Dawkins MS. (2009). Water off a duck’s back: Showers and troughs match ponds for improving duck welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 116(1): 52-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.07.008

Karcher DM, Makagon MM, Fraley GS, Fraley SM, Lilburn MS. (2013). Influence of raised plastic floors compared with pine shaving litter on environment and Pekin duck condition. Poultry Science 92(3): 583-590. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2012-02215

Knierim U, Bulheller MA, Kuhnt K, Briese A, Hartung J. (2004). Water provision for domestic ducks kept indoors: A review on the basis of the literature and our own experiences. Deutsche Tierärztliche Wochenschrift 111(3): 115-118. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15195960

Liao SC, Lyu PX, Shen SY, Hsiao CC, Lien CY, Wang SD, Lin TY, Tu PA. (2021). Effects of different swimming pool conditions and floor types on growth performance and footpad dermatitis in indoor-reared White Roman geese. Animals 11(6): 1705. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11061705

Liao SC, Lyu PX, Shen SY, Hsiao CC, Lien CY, Wang SD, Lin TY, Tu PA. (2022). Effects of swimming pool conditions and floor types on White Roman geese’s physical condition scores and behaviors in an indoor rearing system. Animals 12(23): 3273. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12233273

Liste G, Kirkden RD, Broom DM. (2012a). Effect of water depth on pool choice and bathing behaviour in commercial Pekin ducks. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 139(1-2): 123-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.03.005

Liste G, Kirkden RD, Broom DM. (2012b). A commercial trial evaluating three open water sources for farmed ducks: Effects on health and production. British Poultry Science 53(5): 576-584. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2012.736613

Liste G, Kirkden RD, Broom DM. (2013). A commercial trial evaluating three open water sources for farmed ducks: Effects on water usage and water quality. British Poultry Science 54(1): 24-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2013.763900

Lowman ZS, Parkhurst CR, Romano JE. (2016). Effect of nipple lines vs. water trough on Pekin duck breeder performance and well-being. International Journal of Poultry Science 15(2): 52-56. https://doi.org/10.3923/ijps.2016.52.56

Makagon MM, Riber AB. (2021). Setting research driven duck-welfare standards: A systematic review of Pekin duck welfare research. Poultry Science 101(3): 101614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2021.101614

Mayne RK, Else RW, Hocking PM. (2007). High litter moisture alone is sufficient to cause footpad dermatitis in growing turkeys. British Poultry Science 48(5): 538-545. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660701573045

Mayne RK. (2005). A review of the aetiology and possible causative factors of foot pad dermatitis in growing turkeys and broilers. World’s Poultry Science Journal 61(2): 256-267. https://doi.org/10.1079/WPS200458

Mi J, Wang H, Chen X, Hartcher K, Wang Y, Wu Y, Liao X, Liu K, Zhang Y, Zhang H. (2020). Lack of access to an open water source for bathing inhibited the development of the preen gland and preening behavior in Sanshui White ducks. Poultry Science 99(11): 5214-5221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2020.08.018

O’Driscoll KKM, Broom DM. (2011). Does access to open water affect the health of Pekin ducks Anas platyrhynchos? Poultry Science 90(2): 299-307. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2010-00883

O’Driscoll KKM, Broom DM. (2012). Does access to open water affect the behaviour of Pekin ducks Anas platyrhynchos? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 136(2-4): 156-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2011.11.008

Rice M, Meelker A, Fraley SM, Fraley GS. (2014). Characterization of Pekin duck drinking and preening behaviors and comparison when housed on raised plastic versus pine litter flooring. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 23(4): 735-741. https://doi.org/10.3382/japr.2014-01037

Rodenburg TB, Bracke MBM, Berk J, Cooper J, Faure JM, Guémené D, Guy G, Harlander A, Jones T, Knierim U, Kuhnt K, Pingel H, Reiter K, Servière J, Ruis MAW. (2005). Welfare of ducks in European duck husbandry systems. World’s Poultry Science Journal 61(4): 633-646. https://doi.org/10.1079/WPS200575

Schenk A, Porter AL, Alenciks E, Frazier K, Best AA, Fraley SM, Fraley GS. (2016). Increased water contamination and grow-out Pekin duck mortality when raised with water troughs compared to pin-metered water lines using a United States management system. Poultry Science 95(4): 736-748. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pev381

Schober JM, Wilson N, Seyoum MM, Lyte JM, Bergman MM, Oluwagbenga EM, Fraley GS. (2025). Effects of semi-open water and non-water enrichment on welfare, production, behavior, and microbial exposure of grow-out Pekin ducks. Poultry Science 104(9): 105477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2025.105477

Shepherd EM, Fairchild BD, Ritz CW. (2017). Alternative bedding materials and litter depth impact litter moisture and footpad dermatitis. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 26(4): 518-528. https://doi.org/10.3382/japr/pfx024

Shepherd EM, Fairchild BD. (2010). Footpad dermatitis in poultry. Poultry Science 89(10): 2043-2051. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2010-00770

Sonnabend SJ, Spieß F, Reckels B, Ahmed MFE, Abd El-Wahab A, Sürie C, Lingens JB, Visscher C. (2022). Influence of using perforated plastic flooring beneath the waterline on growth performance, litter quality, and footpad health of broiler chickens: A field study. Animals 12(14): 1749. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12141749

Sun PX, Shen ZJ, Tang J, Huang W, Hou SS, Xie M. (2019). Effects of ambient temperature on growth performance and carcass traits of male growing White Pekin ducks. British Poultry Science 60(5): 513-516. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2019.1633011

Suswoyo I, Sulistyawan IH. (2014). Benefit of swimming access to behaviour, body and plumage condition and heat stress effect of local ducks. International Journal of Poultry Science 13(4): 214-217. https://doi.org/10.3923/ijps.2014.214.217

Świątkiewicz S, Arczewska-Włosek A, Józefiak D. (2017). The nutrition of poultry as a factor affecting litter quality and foot pad dermatitis: An updated review. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 101(5): e14-e20. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.12630

Taira K, Nagai T, Obi T, Takase K. (2014). Effect of litter moisture on the development of footpad dermatitis in broiler chickens. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science 76(4): 583-586. https://doi.org/10.1292/jvms.13-0321

Waitt C, Jones T, Dawkins MS. (2009). Behaviour, synchrony and welfare of Pekin ducks in relation to water use. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 121(3-4): 184-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.09.009