CONTENTS

Part One
Introduction
Types of duck
Mallards
Muscovies
Beak trimming - a terrible mutilation
Viva! victory
Wire flooring
Water denied
Parent stock
Artificial insemination
Size of the UK industry
Duck meat – the low fat choice?
Duck egg industry
References (part one)

Part Two
Statistics
Down on the factory farm
Ducks out of water - the cruellest deprivation
Water supply - varying standards
Stocking densities
References (part two)

Part Three
The legal position
The Council of Europe’s Standing Committee of the European Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes Concerning Ducks, adopted June 1999
UK/EU law
1999/2000 welfare regulations
UK code of recommendations
References (part three)

Part Four
Breeding ducks
Amount of living space
Life expectancy
Litter management
Behavioural patterns
Food and drink
Sexual patterns
Preening
Parenting
References (part four)

Part Five
Duck exports
Varying farm standards
References (part five)

Part Six
Slaughter
Catching
Levels of suffering
Methods of killing
Dislocation
Sticking
Captive bolt
Electrical stunning
Gas stunning
Stunner failings
Religious slaughter of ducks
Instantaneous Mechanical Destruction: a hidden horror
Plucking
Dry plucking machine
Wax finishing
Wet plucking
References (part six)

Part Seven
Disease patterns
UK diseases
Starvation and injury
Antibiotics
Global diseases
Diseases of intensification
References (part seven)

Part Eight
Duck suppliers
Major supermarkets stocking duck meat
Manor Farm Ducklings
Producers of duck meat
Kerry Foods
Green Label
Cherry Valley
Telmara Farms Ltd
The rescued ducks
The Chinese sector - the overlooked trade in duck meat
Fat food
Mock duck - an alternative
References (part eight)

Part Nine
Global resources
References (part nine)

Part Ten
Viva!’s campaign – Ducks out of Water

Appendix 1

Part Six

Slaughter

Catching

The Council of Europe demands that: 'Where possible, birds shall be encouraged to walk and handling reduced to a minimum.' (2) And: 'Birds shall not be carried hanging head downwards or by the legs alone. Their weight shall be supported by a hand placed under their body and an arm around the body to keep the wings in the closed position. Heavy birds shall be carried individually and put into containers/crates one by one. Transport crates with large openings shall be used.' (3)

The Defra code offers the following advice on catching: 'It may be necessary to catch older ducks by the neck but they should not be carried significant distances held by the neck once caught nor should they be carried with more than two birds in each hand. Once caught their weight should be supported either by taking the weight of the bird by a hand placed under its body, or by holding the bird with a hand on either side of its body with the wings in the closed position.' (1) This wording is too ambiguous; if the catcher is carrying two birds how can he carry a bird 'with a hand on either side of its body with the wings in the closed position'? Sadly, the likelihood is that birds will be carried by their necks whatever the distance.

The code continues: 'Birds should not be carried hanging head downwards or by the legs alone.' (18) However, the code does suggest that 'lighter birds below 3.3kg maybe lifted by their legs for placing in the container/crate' (18). This surely means that, despite the code saying that any bird that is unable to stand on both legs should not be transported (and should be killed on farm) (19), many birds will suffer pain.

Also, if ducks should not be held by the legs and carried upside down, it begs the question of why it is permissible to hang them in shackles for slaughter - a process known to be capable of causing pain and damage. Defra could offer no explanation for the discrepancy.

Yet another scenario is presented by the RSPCA's Freedom Food standards: 'Ducks must not be carried hanging head downwards or by the legs alone. Ducks may be caught by their necks, with no more than two birds in each hand. Birds weighing more than 4kg must be carried individually. Their body weight must be supported and they must be put into containers/crates one at a time.' (4)

Catching Muscovy ducks is likely to present particular welfare problems since they struggle wildly when frightened (5). None of the existing codes or standards make any reference to Muscovies.

Freedom Food's recommendation that two birds may be carried in each hand also gives great cause for concern and appears impractical as well as compromising welfare. When the catcher arrives at the crates or modules, in which the birds will travel to slaughter, both his hands will be full. Clearly, the temptation will be to sling the birds straight into the crates, just as so frequently happens to broiler chickens. The alternative is to put one 'handful' down while dealing with the other! The birds are unlikely to wait patiently for their turn to be crated.

Levels of suffering

There are 15 UK slaughterhouses licensed to kill ducks. The Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) is responsible for policing, and previously would not release a list of addresses, deeming such information 'commercially sensitive'. This decision has now been relaxed and below is a table listing their details: (21)

Licence No Name Town County
4046 Atwell's Ltd Redditch Worcestershire
4534 Marsh. T (Orchard Lea Poultry) Nr Preston Lancashire
4539 Hasham & Sons Birmingham West Midlands
4559 Taj & Co Birmingham West Midlands
4574 Johnson & Swarbrick Preston Lancashire
4765 Kosher Poultry Ltd Manchester Greater Manchester
5004 A E Button & Sons (Kerry Foods) Diss Norfolk
5023 Leonard Ames (Ampthill) Hill Ampthill Bedfordshire
5029 Shingfield, E F & Son Norwich Norfolk
5036 MFD Foods Ltd T/A Manor Farm Ducklings Thetford Norfolk
5069 Green Label Poultry Woodbridge Suffolk
5482 W E Botterhill & Son Grantham Lincolnshire
8013 Creedy Carver Chicken Crediton Devon
8019 Spurtham Farm Abbatoir Honiton Devon
8353 Humza Poultry Gloucester Gloucestershire

Although statistics are available for the different stunning methods used to kill chickens and turkeys, ducks are not included, despite the known welfare problems that duck slaughter presents. The MHS simply states: 'In all cases these animals (the 'minority species') were slaughtered by an approved method.' (6)

Methods of killing

According to Defra, before slaughter the birds should be starved for at least six hours so that their intestines will be empty. 'Although starvation for much over six hours results in some loss in carcass weight, in practice this is unavoidable where substantial numbers are involved.'

Killing can be either by dislocation of the neck or by stunning and 'sticking'.

Dislocation

Dislocation of the neck can be a quick method of killing provided it is properly done. However, Defra state that as a duck's neck is rather long, 'this is not always easy' - and if not done properly results in great stress and pain. This is only recommended for small numbers of ducks, and accounts for approximately 10 per cent of birds slaughtered (15) (17).

Sticking

Defra state that this method is necessary if the birds are to be sold as 'oven-ready' (15). The birds should first be stunned, which may be achieved with an electric stunning knife or, on a large scale, by their heads passing through an electrically-charged waterbath. Then the brain is pierced via the roof of the palate and the jugular vein severed (usually manually). Before plucking, the birds must be bled out and for this purpose specially shaped cones, often mounted on a circular stand, are sometimes used. Bleeding time will usually be in excess of two minutes (17).

Captive bolt

The latest amendment to WASK (Welfare of Animals at Slaughter) regulations have allowed a captive bolt gun (a pneumatic or cartridge operated percussive device intended to produce immediate death) to be used on ducks, for the purpose of disease control (16).

Electrical stunning

In the 'processing plant' the live, fully conscious duckling is hung upside down on a conveyor (a clarification of the law stipulates that this must not be any longer than two minutes, which came into force on 6 January 2005) (16). The bird's head is supposed to be immersed in an electrically-charged water bath in order to render the animal unconscious before it is knifed and bleeds to death. But how effective is this method of stunning?

In fact, little attention has ever been paid to ducks' suffering at slaughter. Research at Bristol University's Department of Meat Animal Science found that ducks were less susceptible to a ventricular fibrillation (stopping of the heartbeat) than either chickens or turkeys. They also established that a stunning current of 250mA was necessary to induce a ventricular fibrillation in 99 per cent of the birds (7).

Despite this, many ducks may be subjected to an attempted stun by a current as low as 51mA (17) before being bled to death. Few, if any, will be killed outright by a stun as low as this and many will either fail to lose consciousness or regain it before reaching the knife (the wait can be as long as 21-25 seconds) (17).

According to UK law on slaughter, stunning means any process which causes an immediate loss of consciousness that lasts until death (8).

There is no differentiation between ducks and other poultry in the regulations, although the requirement for special treatment is clear. Defra's codes recommend a stun current of 'at least 105mA' applies only to broiler chickens and says: 'Where other species of poultry are being stunned ... the manufacturer's instructions with regard to voltage and current should be used as a guide when setting the stunner.' (9)

In 2002, Defra published a draft code of practice for the welfare of poultry at slaughter, which does make specific reference to ducks. It recommends a minimum electrical current stun of 130mA (19). However, this code has not yet been ratified; a phone conversation with Defra confirmed that they are hoping for this to happen in early 2006 - over three years since the draft code was originally published. Defra were unable to explain why it had taken so long (20). Again, as with any recommendations, the figure of 130mA is merely a suggestion and not enforceable by law (and is liable to change before the code is ratified).

Even if this seems to be an improvement, Defra have appeared to ignore scientific evidence as Bristol scientists have deemed the much higher current of 150mA as an acceptable minimum current for the slaughter of ducks (10). Bearing in mind the ignorance surrounding duck slaughter and consistent problems with electrical stunning, the manufacturer's instructions may be of little help.

Although the majority of ducks are stunned via an electric water bath, some are stunned via hand-held equipment (17).

Gas stunning

Researchers at Bristol's Division of Food Animal Science suggest that killing ducks with gas could alleviate some of the welfare problems encountered in conventional electrical stunning. It would omit the shackling stage, allowing the ducks to remain in their transport crates until dead (11). However, gas stunning has its own welfare problems and can cause extreme breathlessness and panic. EU law states carbon dioxide must be avoided 'as ducks are not as susceptible to carbon dioxide as other birds' (14) and using it would cause great distress. The Meat Hygiene Service's Animal Welfare Report 2001 shows that, among the slaughterhouses that took part, no ducks were slaughtered in this way in the UK.

Stunner failings

As stated above, for an effective stun it is imperative that a bird's head is immersed in an electrically-charged waterbath. However, ducks are known to 'swan neck' - raising their heads when entering the waterbath so avoiding full immersion. The Bristol researchers believe that if only the crop and bill are immersed, it will be less effective in disturbing brain function than if the whole head had been immersed. They concluded that incomplete immersion is generally less effective at stunning than whole head immersion (12). Further, the Scientific Veterinary Committee of the EU state that they are concerned about the effectiveness of waterbath stunning, because ducks in particular may not be immersed in the waterbath at all (13). Ben Bradshaw, in his letter to Viva! in response to our questions about the UK duck industry, declared that: "There are no particular problems in slaughtering ducks." Once again, the Government body supposedly setup to oversee the welfare of farmed animals in the UK shows staggering ignorance.

Any ducks not rendered unconscious by the stun, or who regain consciousness, will be fully conscious during the process of having their throats cut and bleeding to death. With the exception of so-called ritual (or religious) slaughter, this is illegal.

Religious slaughter of ducks

The Meat Hygiene Service's Animal Welfare Report 2001 shows that ducks were amongst animals slaughtered without prestunning via Kosher and Halal methods. Despite the relatively small numbers involved, this still raises serious welfare concerns (17).

Instantaneous Mechanical Destruction: a hidden horror

It is believed that around 30 million male 'day old' chicks are killed in the UK every year. Being the wrong sex to lay eggs and too 'skinny' to be raised for meat, they are deemed unnecessary by the industry and are killed either by being gassed or thrown alive into huge electric mincers: a process known as IMD (Instantaneous Mechanical Destruction).

Whilst the figures will undoubtedly be lower for ducklings, IMD is an approved method for the disposal of what Defra refer to as duckling 'hatchery waste': unwanted birds provided they are less than 72 hours old, unhatched eggs and embyos. However, the figure of live ducklings killed this way remains unknown, as Defra does not collect any data relating to it (22).

WASK regulations make no provision for ducklings over 72 hours old, and they would be slaughtered by one of the other methods detailed in this chapter.

In a letter to Viva!, Defra stated: '[IMD is a ] ... method used for the destruction of surplus male ducklings by a breeder unit. Where movement restrictions imposed as part of measures to control a disease outbreak mean that a producer could not move ducklings from another unit to be finished, this device would be used. Unhealthy ducklings could also be euthanised via this route.' (22)

The Humane Slaughter Association (HSA) insists that IMD '... is a humane and effective disposal method for day-old chicks when used, managed correctly' (23). However, they admit that the ability of a IMD machine to cause immediate death is greatly dependent on the working parts operating correctly. IMD takes place on the hatchery site. Hatcheries do not need to be licensed as slaughterhouses do.

In something of an understatement, the HSA admit that the process of throwing live, downy-feathered yellow ducklings into a mechanical macerator is 'aesthetically unpleasant', which probably explains why suppliers fight so hard to keep footage of it happening from the view of the general public.

Plucking

Ducks are plucked soon after killing. For moderate numbers or where the ducks are to be sold uneviscerated 'dry plucking combined with wax finishing' is recommended by Defra (15).

Dry plucking machine

The birds are stripped of feathers by machine, finishing being carried out by hand. Duck feathers used for pillows, quilts, cushions and decorations are almost all from the intensive duck meat industry and obtained from the carcass immediately the bird is killed.

The tail and large wing feathers are taken out first by hand and kept separately. The machine operation takes one to two minutes. The remaining stubs are removed by hand. The down that clings to the flesh is difficult to remove. It may be singed off; or for large numbers of carcasses 'wax finishing' is used.

Wax finishing

Hot paraffin wax is held in tanks at a temperature of 60 degrees centigrade. After immersion in the wax for about five seconds the carcasses are removed and either sprayed with cold water or immersed in a cold water tank. The hardened wax is stripped off by hand or by using a rubber-fingered drum plucking machine.

Wet plucking

Most ducks are now sold eviscerated and frozen. Some of the large intensive duck producers such as Cherry Valley and Green Label have deep-freeze facilities and eviscerating lines on their farms and carry out the whole production processes from brooding to packing.

The birds are first supposed to be electrically stunned and then pass a revolving knife at the beginning of a conveyor line. This cuts the neck and the blood drains into a trough as the ducks pass along the line. After passing through a scalding tank at 60 degrees centigrade, the dead animals are moved to a rubber-fingered plucking machine, through a hot wax dip, then a cold dip to set the wax followed by removal of the wax and down. Following evisceration they are cooled in either slush ice or a spin chiller. After draining, the carcasses are weighed and placed in plastic bags. The giblets are usually wrapped in plastic film and stuffed inside the body cavity (15). Their past and suffering forgotten?

References (part six)

  1. Defra, Codes of recommendations for the welfare of livestock: Ducks. Consultation document. 2004, para 103
  2. Council of Europe, Recommendations Concerning Domestic Ducks, Article 19, 6
  3. Ibid
  4. Freedom Food, Welfare Standards for Ducks, Transport (Depopulation), T9
  5. Council of Europe, Recommendations Concerning Muscovy Ducks, Article 2(h)
  6. Meat Hygiene Service, Animal Welfare Survey Report, 1997/9, p14
  7. Effect of Stunning Current on downgrading in Ducks, Gregory N. G. and Wilkins, I. J. British Poultry Science, 1990, 31, 429-431
  8. The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995, Part 1, 2
  9. MAFF Code, The Welfare of Poultry at Slaughter, para 30 E
  10. ffect of Incomplete Immersion of the Head in Waterbath Stunners on the Effectiveness of Electrical Stunning in Ducks, Gregory N. G. and Wotton S. B. Veterinary Science, 1992, 53, pp. 269-270
  11. As 10
  12. As 10
  13. Scientific Veterinary Committee Animal Welfare Section. 1996. Report on the Slaughter and Killing of Animals. Directorate-General for Agriculture; European Commission
  14. Council of Europe, Recommendations Concerning Domestic Ducks, Article 24, 2c
  15. MAFF, Ducks and Geese, HMSO, 1986
  16. The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2003
  17. Meat Hygiene Services Animal Welfare Report 2001 (detailed data)
  18. Defra, Codes of recommendations for the welfare of livestock: Ducks. Consultation document. 2004, para 104
  19. The Welfare of Poultry At Slaughter (Draft), Code of Practice 2002, para 41
  20. Phone conversation with Alison Pinto, Defra's Animal Welfare Division, 11 March 2005
  21. Slaughterhouses in the UK Licensed Under the Poultry Meat, Farmed Game Meat and Rabbit Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995, As Amended ('Poultry Meat') (last updated 24/02/2005), Foods Standards Agency, http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/meat/meatplant sprems/meatpremlicence
  22. Letter to Viva! from Ben Bradshaw MP, Minister for Nature Conservation and Fisheries, 26 July 2004
  23. Instantaneous Mechanical Destruction, Humane Slaughter Association, No.9

Viva! Vegetarians International Voice for Animals
8 York Court, Wilder Street, Bristol BS2 8QH, UK
T: 0117 944 1000 F: 0117 924 4646 E: info@viva.org.uk