Early Feed Restriction Can Affect the Behavior and Welfare of Mule Ducks

Author's: Fatma A.M. Ahmed
Authors' Affiliations
Animal Behaviour and Husbandry Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Sohag University, Sohag, 82524, Egypt.
*CorrespondenceFatma A.M. AhmedEmail:ftm_abushanief@yahoo.com
Article Type: Research Article     Published: Apr. 30, 2022 Pages: 43-54
DOI:        Views 102       Downloads 0


The analysis of feeding behavior is crucial for animal farming and output. This study aimed to determine the influence of the feeding regime on behavior, welfare indices, as well as growth performance of Mule ducks.The study employed 48 one-day-old Mule ducklings, each wing labelled and housed in two groups of 24 ducklings. The first group received ad libitum feed while the second group received a feed restriction (FR) regime.The feed restriction caused increased feeding, gentle and severe feather pecking, and decreased standing, resting, and preening. At 7 weeks of age, the mean walking score differed between the ad libitum and limited feed groups, as did the mean standing score at 5 and 7 weeks. The feather score changed significantly with age (P0<001). The cleanliness of the nostrils decreased with age, whereas scores for the neck and rump increased. Most duck welfare measures concerning cleanliness and gait have decreased in the feed restriction group, except for nostrils. The breast and undertail scores statistically increased at 3–7 weeks, then fell from 5 to 7 weeks. The number of ducks with 1 and 2 gait scores increased with age, whereas ducks with the same footpad scores decreased. Most of the ducks had a feather quality score of zero, whereas ducks with a score of one increased with increasing age, but none of them had a head feather quality score of two at any age. In terms of cleanliness, As the ducks aged, the proportion of ducks scoring 1 increased, with the exception of nostrils and neck, where the proportion of ducks scoring 1 fell from 5 to 7 weeks. Except for nostril cleanliness and gait, the feed restriction group had significantly lower welfare scores. At 2–4 weeks of age, the feed restriction group had a considerably greater mean body weight than the ad libitum group, but at 5–7 weeks, the difference was reversed. At all ages, except for two weeks, the feed restriction group’s mean body weight gain was lower than the open food access group’s at all ages. On average, the feed conversion ratio was higher in the restricted group at 4 weeks than at 3, 5, and 7 weeks.A small feed restriction may help animals gain weight and have a good feed conversion ratio, which helps keep feed costs down and prevent metabolic syndrome. It is possible to set up a feed restriction plan that will improve ducks’ welfare but not hurt their health scores.




Feeding regime,



Authors’ Contribution

FAMA conceived and designed the study; collected and analysed data; performed experiments; wrote, and revised the paper.

How to cite

Ahmed, F.A.M., 2022. Early Feed Restriction Can Affect the Behavior and Welfare of Mule Ducks. PSM Vet. Res., 7(1): 43-54.


Abdel Gaied, S., Bakri, H.H., 2009. An economic evaluation for the impacts of spreading of bird flu on poultry sector in Egypt. World J. Agric. Res., 5: 264-9.

Altmann, J., 1974. Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour., 49: 227-67.

American Humane Association, 2019. American Humane Certified™ Animal Welfare Standards for Ducks (Meat and Egg Layers) (Revised June 2019).

Babington, S., Campbell, D.L., 2022. Water for domestic ducks: The benefits and challenges in commercial production. Front. Anim. Sci., 3.

Barrett, L., Malecki, I., Blache, D., 2019. Differences in pre-laying behavior between floor-laying and nest-laying Pekin ducks. Anim., 9: 40.

Benyi, K., Acheampong-Boateng, O., Norris, D., Mathoho, M., Mikasi, M.S., 2009. The response of Ross 308 and Hybro broiler chickens to early and late skip-a-day feed restriction. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 41: 1707-13.

Bentley, A., Porter, L., Van Blois, L., Van Wyk, B., Vuong, C., Tellez-Isaias, G., Shafer, D., Tucker, Z., Fraley, S., Hargis, B. and Fraley, G., 2020. A feed restriction milieu for Pekin meat ducks that may improve gait characteristics but also affects gut leakiness. Poult. Sci., 99: 39-47.

Blokhuis, H.J., Jones, R.B., Geers R., Miele, M., Veissier, I., 2003. Measuring and monitoring animal welfare: transparency in the food product quality chain. Anim. Welf., 12: 445-55.

Boostani, A., Ashayerizadeh, A., Mahmoodian, F.H., Kamalzadeh, A., 2010. Comparison of the effects of several feed restriction periods to control ascites on performance, carcass characteristics and hematological indices of broiler chickens. Braz. J. Poult. Sci., 12: 170-77.

Brickett, K.E., Dahiya, J.P., Classen, H.L., Annett, C.B., Gomis, S., 2007. The impact of nutrient density, feed form, and photoperiod on the walking ability and skeletal quality of broiler chickens. Poult. Sci., 86: 2117-25.doi:10.1093/ps/86.10.2117

Da Costa, M.J., Grimes, J.L., Oviedo-Rondón, E.O., Barasch, I., Evans, C., Dalmagro, M., Nixon, J., 2014. Footpad dermatitis severity on turkey flocks and correlations with locomotion, litter conditions, and body weight at market age. J. Appl. Poult. Res., 23: 268-279.doi: 10.3382/japr.2013-00848

Dalton, H.A., Wood, B.J., Torrey, S., 2013. Injurious pecking in turkeys: development, causes, and potential solutions. World’s Poult. Sci. J., 69: 865-75.

De Jong, I.C., Fillerup, M., Blokhuis, H.J., 2005. Effect of scattered feeding and feeding twice a day during rearing on indicators of hunger and frustration in broiler breeders. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 92: 61-76. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2004.10.022

Dixon, L.M., Duncan, I.J.H., Mason, G., 2008. What’s in a peck? Using fixed action pattern morphology to identify the motivational basis of abnormal feather-pecking behaviour. Anim. Behav., 76: 1035-42.

Duggan, B.M., Rae, A.M., Clements, D.N., Hocking, P.M., 2017. Higher heritabilities for gait components than for overall gait scores may improve mobility in ducks. Genet. Sel. Evol., 49: 1-7. doi:10.1186/s12711-017-0317-2

El Kholya, S.Z., El-Tahawy, A.S., 2017. Effects of Early Feed Restriction on Some Welfare Indices and Economic Efficiency of White Pekin and Mule Ducks. Alex. J. Vet. Sci., 52:68-80.

Erisir, Z., Poyraz, O., Onbasilar, E.E., Erdem, E. Oksuztepe, G.A., 2009. Effect of housing system swimming pool and slaughter age on duck performance, carcass and meat characteristics. Anim. Vet. Adv., 8: 1864-1869.

Fattori, T.R., Wilson, H.R., Harms, R.H., Mather, F.B., Miles, R.D., Butcher, G.D., 1993. Response of Broiler Breeder Females to Feed Restriction Below Recommended Levels.: 3. Characterizing the Onset of Sexual Maturity. Poult. Sci., 72: 2044-51.

Fraley, G.S., Coombs, E., Gerometta, E., Colton, S., Sharp, P.J., Li, Q., Clarke, I. J., 2013. Distribution and sequence of gonadotropin-inhibitory hormone and its potential role as a molecular link between feeding and reproductive systems in the Pekin duck (Anas platyrhynchos domestica). Gen. Comp. Endocrinol., 184: 103-110.doi: 10.1016/j.ygcen.2012.11.026

Guémené, D., Shi, Z.D., Guy, G., 2012. Production systems for waterfowl. Alternative systems for poultry: health, welfare and productivity, 128-154.

Karcher, D. M., Makagon, M.M., Fraley, G.S., Fraley, S.M., Lilburn, M.S., 2013. Influence of raised plastic floors compared with pine shaving litter on environment and Pekin duck condition. Poult. Sci., 92: 583-90.

Keenan, K.P., Ballam, G.C., Soper, K.A., Laroque, P., Coleman, J.B., Dixit, R., 1999. Diet, caloric restriction, and the rodent bioassay. Toxicol. Sci., 52(suppl_1): 24-34.doi: 10.1093/toxsci/52.suppl_1.24

Krishnappa, P., Devegowda, G., Ramappa, G.R., Lokanath, B.S., 1992. Effect of restricted feeding on subsequent performance of broiler breeder dams. Indian Poult. Sci., 27: 29-31.

Leishman, E.M., van Staaveren, N., Osborne, V.R., Wood, B.J., Baes, C.F., Harlander-Matauschek, A., 2021. A Cross-Sectional Study on the Prevalence of Footpad Dermatitis in Canadian Turkeys. Front. Anim. Sci., 43. doi:10.3389/fanim.2021.726907

Liste, G., Kirkden, R.D., Broom, D.M., 2012. Effect of water depth on pool choice and bathing behaviour in commercial Pekin ducks. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 139: 123-33.

Mahmoud, U.T., Abdel-Rahman, M., Darwish, M., Applegate, T., Cheng, H. 2015. Behavioural changes and feathering score in heat stressed broiler chickens fed diets containing different levels of propolis. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 166: 98-105.

Mayne, R.K., Else, R.W., Hocking, P.M., 2007. High litter moisture alone is sufficient to cause footpad dermatitis in growing turkeys. Br. Poult. Sci., 48: 538-545. doi: 10.1080/00071660701573045

Novel, D.J., Ng’Ambi, J.W., Norris, D., Mbajiorgu, C.A., 2009. Effect of different feed restriction regimes during the starter stage on productivity and carcass characteristics of male and female Ross 308 broiler chickens. Int. J. Poult. Sci, 8: 35-39.

Pennycuick, C.J., 1975. Mechanics of flight. In: Farner D. S. and King J. R. (eds) Avian Biology. Academic Press: London. 5: 1-75.

Sahraei, M., 2012. Feed Restriction in Broiler Chickens Production: A Review. Glob. Vet., 8: 449-58.

Sahraei, M., Hadloo, M.H., 2012. Effect of Physical Feed Restriction in Finisher Period on Carcass Traits and Broiler Chickens Performance. Glob. Vet., 9: 201-4.

Sarvestani, T.S., Dabiri, N., Agah, M.J., Norollahi, H., 2006. Effect of Pellet and Mash Diets Associated with Biozyme Enzyme on Broilers Performance, Int. J. Poult. Sci., 5: 485-90.

Shepherd, E.M., Fairchild, B.D. 2010. Footpad dermatitis in poultry. Poult. Sci. 89: 2043-2051. doi: 10.3382/ps.2010-00770

Taha, A., Abd El-Ghany, F., Sharaf, M., 2013. Strain and sex effects on productive and slaughter performance of developed local Egyptian and Canadian chicken strains. J. Anim. Poultry Prod., 4: 297-319.

Trocino, A., Piccirillo, A., Birolo, M., Radaelli, G., Bertotto, D., Filiou, E., Petracci, M., Xiccato, G., 2015. Effect of genotype, gender and feed restriction on growth, meat quality and the occurrence of white striping and wooden breast in broiler chickens. Poult. Sci., 94: 2996-3004. doi: 10.3382/ps/pev296.

Tullo, E., Fontana, I., Peña Fernandez, A., Vranken, E., Norton, T., Berckmans, D., Guarino, M., 2017. Association between environmental predisposing risk factors and leg disorders in broiler chickens. J. Anim. Sci., 95: 1512-1520. doi: 10.2527/jas2016.1257

Van Wyhe, R.C., Regmi, P., Powell, B.J., Haut, R.C., Orth, M.W., Karcher, D.M. 2014. Bone characteristics and femoral strength in commercial toms: The effect of protein and energy restriction. Poult. Sci., 93: 943-952.doi:10.3382/ps.2013-03604

Weber Wyneken, C., Sinclair, A., Veldkamp, T., Vinco, L.J., Hocking, P.M., 2015. Footpad dermatitis and pain assessment in turkey poults using analgesia and objective gait analysis. Br. Poult. Sci., 56: 522-530.doi:10.1080/00071668.2015.1077203

Willems, O.W., Miller, S.P., Wood, B.J., 2013. Assessment of residual body weight gain and residual intake and body weight gain as feed efficiency traits in the turkey (Meleagrisgallopavo). Genet. Sel. Evol., 45: 1-8. doi:10.1186/1297-9686-45-26

Wu, L., Guo, X., Fang, Y., 2012. Effect of diet dilution ratio at early age on growth performance, carcass characteristics and hepatic lipogenesis of Pekin ducks. Braz. J. Poult. Sci., 14: 43-9.

Xu, Z.R., Zou, X.T., Hu, C.H., Xia, M.S., Zhan, X.A., Wang, M.Q., 2002. Effects of dietary fructooligosaccharide on digestive enzyme activities, intestinal microflora and morphology of growing pigs. Asian-Aus. J. Anim. Sci., 15: 1784-89.

Zhong, Z., Muckley, M., Agcaoglu, S., Grisham, M.E., Zhao, H., Orth, M., Lilburn, M.S., Akkus, O., Karcher, D.M., 2012. The morphological, material-level, and ash properties of turkey femurs from 3 different genetic strains during production. Poult. Sci., 91: 2736-46.doi:10.3382/ps.2012-02322

Zubair, A.K., Leeson, S., 1996. Changes in body composition and adipocyte cellularity of male broilers subjected to varying degrees of early-life feed restriction. Poult.Sci., 75: 719-28. doi:10.3382/ps.0750719