Logo image
Welfare of ducks, geese and quail on farm
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

Welfare of ducks, geese and quail on farm

EFSA AHAW Panel (EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare), Soren Saxmose Nielsen, Julio Alvarez, Dominique Joseph Bicout, Paolo Calistri, Elisabetta Canali, Julian Ashley Drewe, Bruno Garin-Bastuji, Jose Luis Gonzales Rojas, Christian Gortázar Schmidt, …
EFSA journal, Vol.21(5), pp.1-157
05/2023
PMID: 37200855
pdf
Welfare of ducks, geese and quail13.61 MBDownloadView
Published (Version of record)CC BY-ND V4.0 Open Access
url
Welfare of ducks, geese and quailView
Published (Version of record)CC BY-ND V4.0 Open

Related links

Metrics

652 File views/ downloads
19 Record Views

Abstract

on-farm animal welfare ducks geese quail foie gras welfare consequences end the cage age
This Scientific Opinion concerns the welfare of Domestic ducks (Anas platyrhynchos domesticus),Muscovy ducks (Cairina moschata domesticus) and their hybrids (Mule ducks), Domestic geese (Anseranser f. domesticus) and Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica) in relation to the rearing of breeders, birdsfor meat, Muscovy and Mule ducks and Domestic geese for foie gras and layer Japanese quail for eggproduction. The most common husbandry systems (HSs) in the European Union are described for eachanimal species and category. The following welfare consequences are described and assessed for eachspecies: restriction of movement, injuries (bone lesions including fractures and dislocations, soft tissuelesions and integument damage and locomotory disorders including lameness), group stress, inabilityto perform comfort behaviour, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour and inability toexpress maternal behaviour (related to prelaying and nesting behaviours). Animal-based measuresrelevant for the assessment of these welfare consequences were identified and described. The relevanthazards leading to the welfare consequences in the different HSs were identified. Specific factors suchas space allowance (including minimum enclosure area and height) per bird, group size,floor quality,characteristics of nesting facilities and enrichment provided (including access to water to fulfilbiological needs) were assessed in relation to the welfare consequences and, recommendations onhow to prevent the welfare consequences were provided in a quantitative or qualitative way.

Details

Logo image