The effects of environmental enrichment devices on feather picking in commercially housed Pekin ducks

Abstract

Like other poultry species, Pekin ducks occasionally show an auto-mutilation behavior referred to as feather picking. Self-picking can lead to further pecking by conspecifics and ultimately to reduced feather quality and poor overall health of the bird. Although the reasons underlying feather picking are not clear, it appears to occur when the ducks are transitioning between downy feathers and adult plumage, between 17 and 22 d of age. We hypothesized that giving Pekin ducks a substitute outlet for this behavior in the form of environmental enrichment devices (EED) would decrease feather picking and improve feather quality and duck health and welfare. The EED were plastic Wifflestyle balls, each threaded with 4 zip-ties. In the first experiment, we set out to determine that placement of EED would not induce fear or harmful behaviors. Five barns were each divided into 2 pens, holding an average combined total of approximately 4,500 ducks with one pen per barn used as control. Upon placement of the EED in one pen per barn, both pens were videotaped for a total of 2 h per day. The physical characteristics of 100 ducks per pen were scored at age 7, 21, 28, and 35. Results showed a decrease (P = 0.034) in both selfpicking and conspecific-pecking in pens with EED compared with pens without EED. Although no differences in body condition scores were observed at 7 d of age, by d 21 ducks with EED showed better (P = 0.021) feather quality and cleanliness scores compared with ducks without EED. In a second experiment, we set out to determine if ducks had a color preference for blue/green, red, or white EED. Again, ducks with EED showed reduced (P = 0.038) feather picking compared with ducks without EED. Ducks interacted considerably more (P = 0.00089) frequently with blue/green EED then either red or white EED. These results suggest that providing environmental enrichment may minimize feather picking and improve feather quality and duck welfare.

Effects of monochromatic lights on the growth performance, carcass characteristics, eyeball development, oxidation resistance, and cecal bacteria of Pekin ducks

“…In the previous study, ducks raised under blue light were observed to do more activities, including preening and foraging, compared to ducks raised under red light [15]. Another study found that ducks preferred bluecolored enrichment devices than red-and white-ones, and showed more feather picking [17]. Thus, the decreased fat deposition of ducks under blue light in the present study might be due to their increased activity.…”

The effects of environmental enrichment objects on behaviors of Japanese quails at different cage stocking densities

“…Similarly, the results are in accordance with Laurence et al, (2015), it was reported that EE affected the activities of the quails. It was reported that EE, which was applied on Beijing ducks, caused a reduction in undesired behaviors comparing to ones, on which EE wasn't applied (Colton and Fraley, 2014), and might reduce conspecific pecking behavior at laying hens, thus weakening the injuries (Daigle et al, 2014), and also EE, created using straw bales, had potential necessary to increase welfare of animals (Bailie and O'Connell, 2015).…”

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

“…The purpose of preening is to maintain feather quality and cleanliness in healthy birds. Our laboratory has examined and published observations of nearly 1,000,000 ducks raised with pin-metered water line systems; ducks observed in all our publications showed excellent body condition, particularly with eye and feather quality, and feather cleanliness regardless of other differences in management or environmental conditions (Fraley et al, 2013 ; Karcher et al, 2013 ; Campbell et al, 2014 ; Colton and Fraley, 2014 ; Rice et al, 2014 ; Campbell et al, 2015 ). Thus, we have not observed any consistent or specific evidence showing that pin-metered water lines are unable to support adequate preening for Pekin ducks.…”

“…The biological conditions of the ducks were assessed through body condition scoring, analyses of gut microbial ecology, and serum hormone levels for corticosterone ( CS ) and angiotensin II ( AgII ). Body condition scoring was performed at ages 9, 23, and 33 d using a published rubric (Fraley et al, 2013 ; Karcher et al, 2013 ; Colton and Fraley, 2014 ). At the 3 specified ages, researchers used gates to randomly select 25 ducks in four corners of each pen, resulting in a total of 100 ducks/pen.…”