Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T20:48:11.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of dietary strategy on progression of health and behaviour in mule ducks reared for fatty liver production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2020

J. Litt Open the ORCID record for J. Litt [Opens in a new window] ,
C. Leterrier ,
D. Savietto  and
L. Fortun-Lamothe Open the ORCID record for L. Fortun-Lamothe [Opens in a new window]
J. Litt*
Affiliation:
Institut Technique de l'Aviculture, 1076 route de Haut-Mauco, 40280 Benquet, France
C. Leterrier
Affiliation:
UMR Physiologie de la Reproduction et des Comportements, INRA, CNRS, IFCE, Université de Tours, Centre Val de Loire, 37380 Nouzilly, France
D. Savietto
Affiliation:
GenPhySE, Université de Toulouse, INRA, ENVT, 31326 Castanet Tolosan, France
L. Fortun-Lamothe
Affiliation:
GenPhySE, Université de Toulouse, INRA, ENVT, 31326 Castanet Tolosan, France
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Overfeeding in ducks is questioned because forced introduction of food into the animal and metabolic overload may induce damage to health and discomfort. In this context, the objective of our experiment was to measure the impact of dietary strategy on the progression of animal status evaluated through 28 health and behavioural indicators in ducks reared for fatty liver production. To do this, 320 ducks were forced-fed twice a day from 70 to 90 days of age including 10 days of overfeeding (87 to 96 days). They were divided into two groups differing in the feeding strategy during overfeeding period: a moderate feed intake (MI, an average of 376 g of maize flour per meal, n = 160 ducks) or at high feed intake (HI, 414 g/meal, n = 160 ducks). We evaluated 28 indicators related to Good feeding (n = 3), Good housing (n = 4), Good health (n = 10) and Appropriate behaviour (n = 11) principles, taken from the European Welfare Quality Consortium® at four stages: before overfeeding (BEF; 80 days), at the beginning (88 days), the middle (MID; 92 days) or the end of overfeeding (END; 96 days). Animals were slaughtered at 93 and 97 days to measure fatty liver weight at MID and END stages (n = 80 per group). The results showed that dietary strategy influenced the fatty liver weight at MID (+23% in HI v. MI group; P < 0;05) and END stage (+23%; P < 0.05). Assessment stage influenced 13 of the 28 indicators measured. Among these 13 indicators, (i) BEF differed from END stage for 7 indicators and (ii) the dietary strategy degraded all the indicators chosen to evaluate the Good feeding (2/2) principle, but had no effect on the indicators related to the Good health (0/4) principle while (iii) most of the indicators that evaluated Good housing (2/3) and Appropriate behaviour (2/4) principles were affected by an interaction between both factors. Our results suggest that (i) duck fattening status, including the fatty liver weight, and several welfare indicators progressed during the fatty liver production process; and (ii) feeding strategy influenced or even interacted with this progression.

Keywords

welfare assessmentwelfare indicatorsfeeding strategyforced-feedingfoie gras
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 6 , June 2020 , pp. 1258 - 1269
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arnould, C, Butterworth, A and Knierim, U 2009. Standardization of clinical scoring in poultry. In Assessment of animal welfare measures for layers and broilers (ed. Forkman, B and Keeling, L), pp. 7–30. Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.Google Scholar
Arroyo, J, Fortun-Lamothe, L, Dubois, JP, Lavigne, F, Bijja, M and Molette, C 2014. The influence of choice feeding and cereal type (corn or triticale) during the finishing period on performance of mule ducks. Poultry Science 93, 2220–2226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baéza, E, Fernandez, X and Marie-Etancelin, C 2013. Carcass and meat quality of overfed waterfowl. INRA Productions Animales 26, 425–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bech, C and Johansen, K 1980. Blood-flow changes in the duck during thermal panting. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica 110, 351–355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bignon, L, Mika, A, Mindus, C, Litt, J, Souchet, C, Bonnaud, V, Picchiottino, C, Warin, L, Dennery, G, Guesdon, V and Bouvarel, I 2017. A shared and practical method for welfare assessment in poultry and rabbit: EBENE. In Proceedings of the 12th Journées de la Recherche Avicole et Palmipèdes à Foie Gras, 5–6 April 2017, Tours, France, pp. 1015–1019.Google Scholar
Blatchford, RA, Fulton, RM and Mench, JA 2016. The utilization of the Welfare Quality® assessment for determining laying hen condition across three housing systems. Poultry Science 95, 154–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blokhuis, HJ, Veissier, I, Miele, M and Jones, B 2010. The Welfare Quality® project and beyond: safeguarding farm animal well-being. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science 60, 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonnefont, CMD, Molette, C, Lavigne, F, Manse, H, Bravo, C, Lo, B, Rémignon, H, Arroyo, J and Bouillier-Oudot, M 2019. Evolution of liver fattening and foie gras technological yield during the overfeeding period in mule duck. Poultry Science, 1–10.Google ScholarPubMed
Buijs, S, Ampe, B and Tuyttens, FAM 2017. Sensitivity of the Welfare Quality® broiler chicken protocol to differences between intensively reared indoor flocks: which factors explain overall classification? Animal 11, 244–253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carrière, M, Roussel, S, Bernadet, M, Duvaux-Ponter, C and Servière, J 2006. Effect of force-feeding on the post-prandial behavior of mule ducks. In Proceedings of the 7h Journées de la Recherche Palmipèdes à Foie Gras, 18–19 October 2006, Arcachon, France, pp. 84–89.Google Scholar
Council of Europe - Standing Committee of the European Convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes 1999. Recommendation concerning Muscovy ducks (Cairana moschata) and hybrids of Muscovy and domestic ducks (Anas platyrhynchos), adopted by the Standing Committee on 22 June 1999. Retrieved on 20 November 2019 from https://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/legal_co-operation/biological_safety_and_use_of_animals/farming/Rec%20Muscovy%20ducks%20E%201999.aspGoogle Scholar
Daigle, C and Siegford, J 2014. Welfare Quality®parameters do not always reflect hen behaviour across the lay cycle in non-cage laying hens. Animal Welfare 23, 423–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez, X, Guy, G, Laverze, JB, Bonnefont, C, Knudsen, C and Fortun-Lamothe, L 2016. A kinetic study of the natural induction of liver steatosis in Greylag Landaise geese: the role of hyperphagia 1. Animal 10, 1288–1295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentle, M 1992. Pain in birds. Animal Welfare 1, 235–247.Google Scholar
Guémené, D, Guy, G, Noirault, J, Destombes, N and Faure, J-M 2006. Rearing conditions during the force-feeding period in male mule ducks and their impact upon stress and welfare. Animal Research 55, 443–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, A 2001. The effect of stocking density on the welfare and behaviour of broiler chickens reared commercially. Animal Welfare E 10, 23–40.Google Scholar
Hester, P 1994. The role of environment and management on leg abnormalities in meat-type fowl. Poultry Science 73, 904–915.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kestin, S, Knowles, T, Tinch, A and Gregory, N 1992. Prevalence of leg weakness in broiler chickens and its relationship with genotype. Veterinary Record 131, 190–194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knierim, U, Bulheller, MA, Kuhnt, K, Briese, A and 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, 115–118.Google ScholarPubMed
Knudsen, C, Bonnefont, C, Fortun-Lamothe, L, Ricaud, K and Fernandez, X 2018. Spontaneous liver steatosis in waterfowls: overview on current research and perspectives. INRA Productions Animales 31, 117–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lensink, B, Ofner-Schröck, E, Ventorp, M, Zappavigna, P, Flaba, J, Georg, H and Bizeray-Filoche, D 2013. Lying and walking surfaces for cattle, pigs and poultry and their impact on health, behaviour and performance. In Livestock housing: modern management to ensure optimal health and welfare of farm animals (ed. Aland, A. and Banhazi, T.), pp. 75–92. Wageningen Academic, Wageningen, Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Litt, J, Chaumier, J, Laborde, M, Bernadet, M, Vogelaer, J, Boucher, M and Bignon, L 2015. Establishment of an animal-based indicators grid for the assessment of physical integrity of mule duck. In Proceedings of the 11th Journées de la Recherche Avicole et Palmipèdes à Foie Gras, 25–26 March 2015, Tours, France, pp. 1012–1017.Google Scholar
Litt, J and Pé, M 2015. Main developments in foie gras market and technical results of French breeding and fattening units over the last decade. In Proceedings of the 11th Journées de la Recherche Avicole et Palmipèdes à Foie Gras, 25–26 March 2015, Tours, France, pp. 147–151.Google Scholar
Marchewka, J, Estevez, I, Vezzoli, G, Ferrante, V and Makagon, MM 2015. The transect method: a novel approach to on-farm welfare assessment of commercial turkeys. Poultry Science 94, 7–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Massabie, P, Aubert, C, Menard, J, Roy, H, Boulestreau-Boulay, A, Dubois, A, Dézat, E, Dennery, G, Roussel, P, Martineau, C, Brunschwig, P, Thomas, J, Quilien, J, Briand, P, Coutant, S, Quillien, J, Briand, P, Coutant, S, Fulbert, L, Huneau, T, Lowagie, S, Magnière, J, Nicoud, M, Piroux, D and Boudon, A 2013. Livestock water consumption control: development of a repository, identification of the means of reduction, construction of a diagnostic approach. Innovations Agronomiques 30, 87–101.Google Scholar
Mirabito, L, Sazy, E, Héraut, F, Guémené, D, Faure, J, Guy, G and Doussan, I 2002. Effect of group size and area allocated during forced-feeding phase in mule duck: II Behaviour. In Proceedings of the 5th Journées de la Recherche Palmipèdes à Foie Gras, 9–10 October 2002, Pau, France, pp. 80–83.Google Scholar
Morris, D 1956. The feather postures of birds and the problem of the origin of social signals. Behaviour 9, 75–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quartarone, V, della Rocca, G and Passantino, A 2012. Beak trimming and other pain’s sources in laying hens and broilers: welfare problems and medico-legal aspects. Large Animal Review 18, 245–252.Google Scholar
Reiter, K and Bessei, W 1995. Behavioural comparison of pekin, muscovy and mulard duck in the fattening period. In Proceedings of the 10th European Symposium on Waterfowl, 26–31 March 1995, Halle, Germany, pp. 26–31.Google Scholar
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, Serviére, J and Ruis, MAW 2005. Welfare of ducks in European duck husbandry systems. World’s Poultry Science Journal 61, 633–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The National Archives 2012. Five Freedoms. Farm Animal Welfare Council. Retrieved on 21 November 2019 from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121007104210/http:/www.fawc.org.uk/freedoms.htm.Google Scholar
Wilhelmsson, S, Yngvesson, J, Jönsson, L, Gunnarsson, S and Wallenbeck, A 2019. Welfare Quality® assessment of a fast-growing and a slower-growing broiler hybrid, reared until 10 weeks and fed a low-protein, high-protein or mussel-meal diet. Livestock Science 219, 71–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World’s Poultry Science Association (WPSA) 1984. Working Group V, Method of dissection of broiler carcases and description of parts. In Terms used for parts of poultry in different languages (ed. Jensen, J), p. 33. Pergamon press, Cambrigde, UK.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Litt et al. supplementary material

Table S1 and Figures S1-S2

Download Litt et al. supplementary material(File)
File 1.1 MB