LES CANARDS SANS EAU
Lors d’une réunion à Bordeaux le 16 février 2017, le conseil d’administration du Comité interprofessionnel des palmipèdes à foie gras (Cifog) a adopté de nouvelles règles de production, entre autres la mise en place de nouvelles règles obligatoires de protection des élevages durant la période de migration des oiseaux sauvages. Entre le 15 novembre et le 15 janvier (2 mois), en cas de niveau de risque élevé, il est obligatoire de garder les animaux à l’intérieur des bâtiments d’élevage. 

Nous sommes contre une telle obligation, d’abord parce qu'il n'y a aucune preuve que le confinement des animaux va diminuer le risque de contamination. 

Mais plus important encore, nous pensons, en tant qu'association pour la protection animale, que le confinement, surtout de canards adultes, serait une violation de leur bien-être. 

Le changement va perturber et stresser ces animaux qui sont déjà très vulnérables et qui n'aiment pas vraiment le contact physique avec l'homme. Un animal stressé est beaucoup plus sensible aux maladies comme, entre autres, l'influenza aviaire.  

En tant qu’animaux aquatiques, les canards ont un besoin quotidien d'eau en grande quantité : pour la baignade, pour se laver et pour la reproduction. Les canards ont également un instinct naturel de chercher et tremper la nourriture dans l'eau. Des recherches scientifiques à l'étranger (voire les cadres ci-dessous) ont montré que l'absence d'accès à un cours d'eau, un lac ou une mare pose un problème important pour le bien-être des canards.

Les canards seront élevés sur de la paille qui ne risque pas d'être changée pendant des mois. De temps en temps, une nouvelle couche de paille propre est mise par-dessus le reste, pour couvrir la paille souillée. Après quelques jours seulement, l'odeur devient insoutenable pour les animaux ainsi que pour les employés, l'air devient étouffant, et les litières moisies créent un environnement parfait pour le développement de bactéries, virus et champignons. 

Des infections oculaires et des infections sous les pattes en résultent très souvent, ce qui leur donne des problèmes de mobilité, surtout dans des bâtiments avec un surnombre de canards. En raison de ces conditions stressantes, les canards risquent de se donner des coups de bec. La coupe du bec, qui est fait sans anesthésie, risque de devenir une pratique habituelle pour éviter des blessures. 

Le confinement des canards donne plus de travail à l'éleveur et empire les conditions de travail des employés. 

Si on décide de confiner des milliers de canards dans un bâtiment, on ne doit pas sous-estimer non plus les conséquences pour le voisinage: nuisances de bruit, d'odeur, diminution de la qualité de l'air, plus de circulation de tracteurs (nettoyage des hangars), le risque d’incendies (qui arrivent de plus en plus souvent dans les poulaillers) et évidemment plus de déchets dont il faut se débarrasser. 

Les oies sont également utilisées pour la production de foie gras. Il va sans dire qu'héberger des oies dans des hangars et des granges va à l’encontre de leur besoins  physiologiques: l'oie est un herbivore qui doit pouvoir pâturer à sa guise et qui, tout comme le canard, bénéficie d'un plan d'eau ou d’une mare. 

En résumé, le stress engendré par le confinement ne fera qu’aggraver la situation en fragilisant encore plus la santé des oiseaux d’élevage. 


Water off a duck’s back: Showers and troughs match ponds for improving duck welfare
Tracey A. Jones, Corri D. Waitt, Marian Stamp Dawkins 
Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK


ABSTRACT
The impact of production systems on the welfare of ducks grown for meat is becoming increasingly controversial. In the UK, approximately 18 million ducks (Anas platyrhynchos) were reared for meat in 2006 (British Poultry Council, 2008; http://www.poultry.uk.com/who_ducks01.htm). Despite the association between ducks and water in the wild, there are no legal requirements for them to have water for bathing or swimming. Some have troughs in which they dip their heads and splash water onto their bodies but for some, their only contact with water is drinking water from ball-bearing ‘nipples’. The Council of
Europe (1999) recommends that ducks should be able to dip their heads in water and
spread water over their feathers.

We here provide clear evidence that duck welfare is related to the nature and extent of their access to water. We recorded body and plumage condition and undertook three behavioural techniques to assess the effect of water source on the welfare of ducks. Ducks were reared with access to one of five water sources: a bath (small pond), a trough, an overhead shower, nipple drinkers only or nipple drinkers until 5 weeks and a bath thereafter. Their behaviour was assessed by recording (i) the time spent with a single
resource, (ii) rebound in water related behaviour when given access to a bath and (iii) their preference for water source when given a four-way choice of all resources.

The results showed that without the opportunity to at least dip their heads and splash their feathers with water, ducks were unable to keep their eyes, nostrils and feathers fully clean. Importantly, there was no difference in the time spent bathing from the bath, trough or shower, indicating resources were equivalent in their provision of bathing water. Very little time, however, was spent showing bathing movements at the nipples. Only ducks in the nipple-only group showed ‘compensatory rebound’ when finally given access to water in a bath, indicating previous bathing deprivation. There was no rebound in groups reared with a trough or shower, again indicating that the trough and shower were equivalent to
the bath in its provision of bathing water. When given choice, the ducks preferred to rest and drink-dabble with the shower, and bathe with the bath; the shower was intermediate to the trough. Little time was spent with the nipples when the ducks were given access to other water sources and little time was spent swimming in the bath.

The results suggest that commercial farmers may be able to improve duck welfare as much by providing water in troughs or from overhead showers (both clean and economical of water) as from actual ponds (baths).
Effect of water depth on pool choice and bathing behaviour in commercial Pekin ducks
Guiomar Liste'Correspondence information about the author Guiomar Liste
, 
Richard D. Kirkden
, 
Donald Maurice Broom
Centre for Animal Welfare and Anthrozoology, Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ES, United Kingdom

Pekin ducks (Anas platyrhynchos domestica) are raised for meat, often in indoor intensive systems. Research into the welfare of intensively reared ducks makes clear the importance of access to bathing water. Most researchers agree that bathing behaviours such as preening are important; however, the welfare implications of swimming are not so clear. A choice test was therefore designed to compare three depths of water: 10 cm, where ducks could stand but not swim; 20 cm, where ducks could stand and swim; and 30 cm, where ducks could swim but not stand. Ducks were housed in groups of four and each group had access to a shallow pool (10 cm), a deeper pool (either 20 or 30 cm) and two turkey bell drinkers which were added just as sources of clean drinking water. Observations were made between 29 and 48 days post-hatch. No difference was found between the usage of 10 and 20 cm deep pools, but ducks chose to use the 10 cm pools more than the 30 cm pools. This is a useful indication of duck preferences for water depth, but not a definitive measure because observations of bathing behaviour suggested that pools of different depths were used in different ways (30 cm pools were more suitable for swimming, but more dabbling was performed in the 10 cm pools than in deeper pools) and because not all groups of ducks made the same choices. Age had very little effect on bathing behaviour. Water cleanliness was also considered in the analysis: when the water was dirty, ducks spent less time inside the pools, spent less time sitting during bathing bouts and drank more from the bell drinkers. These results indicate that water depth and cleanliness have an impact on duck bathing behaviour.

An HSUS Report: The Welfare of Animals in the Duck Industry


Duck production in the United States shares many of the same intensive husbandry practices found in the chicken and turkey industries, despite being much smaller in scale. The vast majority of farmed ducks are reared in dimly lit sheds with high stocking densities and without access to water for swimming, a significant welfare concern for these aquatic animals. Lameness, feather pecking, respiratory problems, and eye infections are common, and most birds are subjected to bill-trimming, a physical mutilation known to cause pain. The stress
and physical trauma of catching and crating for transport, as well as the journeys themselves, further compromise duck welfare. Inappropriate and inefficient stunning procedures may result in birds experiencing painful electric shocks before slaughter or having their throats slit while fully conscious. 

Open water provision increases welfare in duck stalls

University of Wageningen

https://www.wur.nl/en/show/Open-water-provision-increases-welfare-in-duck-stalls.htm

A literature search by Wageningen UR Livestock Research has shown that the welfare of ducks can be further increased by offering open water in duck stalls

Dutch Pekin ducks are restricted in their natural behaviour by the lack of such water. This is because Pekin ducks have a strong need for open water, even in a straw system that already largely provides for their ‘bill care needs’. Merely providing water through drinking valves does not sufficiently stimulate their natural behaviour. The research was carried out with a subsidy from the Product Board for Poultry and Eggs (PPE).

Water provision by means of drinking valves is hygienic and more than sufficient to meet the ducks’ drinking water needs, but is apparently insufficient for proper care of their bodies, and possibly also for the cleaning of eyes and nostrils. Open water facilities such as drinking basins, drinking troughs, showers and shallow baths do enable the ducks to look after their bodies properly. Swimming water – i.e. the ability to float fully – is not required for this. There is a need to develop a water system suitable for the way in which a duck grooms and cleans itself and drinks, but which is not associated with greater risks for animal health, the environment (ammonia, odour and particulate emissions) and the quality of the end product, and which has a minimum impact on manure quality. In other words, open water in the stall must not lead to contamination of the stall, and the water itself must remain clean enough that no hygiene problems arise. Developing this kind of water provision demands an integrated approach.

Improving duck welfare

The duck sector feels responsible for the welfare of ducks and wants to take their natural needs into account as much as possible. For this reason, it has asked Wageningen UR Livestock Research to conduct a literature search to look into which welfare improvements are possible in duck farming. In the Netherlands, ducks are kept in stalls with straw. Although the Council of Europe recommends providing ducks with open water, no European or national statutory requirements to this effect currently apply.

Report 436 ‘Natural behaviour and needs of Pekin ducks; from theory to practice’ by M.M. van Krimpen and M.A.W. may be downloaded free. 

Why farmed ducks endure worse conditions than battery hens 

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/why-farmed-ducks-endure-worse-conditions-than-battery-hens-8595956.html

Liens en français: http://rhone-alpes.synagri.com/synagri/pj.nsf/TECHPJPARCLEF/13516/$File/WEB-canard-bio.pdf?OpenElement

Bird Flu:A Disease of the Intensive Poultry Industry


https://www.upc-online.org/poultry_diseases/51906flu.html