Hesham Mohammed, Asmaa Abdelaty, Al-Sadik Saleem, Mohamed Youssef, Shereen Abdel-Hamid


Ducks spend their entire life in contact with the litter material, thus the management strategies should focus on what is the best for ducks welfare and growth performance. Herein, the main object of the present study was assessing the effects of different litter materials on the ducks’ welfare and growth performance. Four groups of ducks (24 duckling for each) were kept on four types of bedding materials, sawdust, plastic slatted floor, sand and without. The present study revealed several changes in duck’s behaviors due to different bedding materials, where the most frequencies of maintenance behaviors (feeding, drinking, idling, preening) were significantly (P<0.05) higher in plastic slatted in comparing to other materials the highest significantly in plastic slatted litter and the lowest in non-bedding litter. Moreover, the ducks reared under sawdust floor revealed the highest frequency of foraging behavior (11.48 bouts/hour). While, feather pecking and aggression were the highest in non-bedding material (74.4, 5.51 bouts/hour, respectively). The hygienic conditions inside the non-bedding floor was the worst due to increase levels of ammonia and carbon dioxide (12, 0.97 Cm3/Litter, respectively). The ducks reared in plastic slatted floor were the best in growth performance with good signs of soundness. In non-bedding floor, the environmental stress revealed in the increase the level of plasma corticosterone hormone with bad signs of soundness. This study confirms importance of bedding materials in rearing of ducks, especially under plastic slatted floor.

Key words: duck; bedding material; behavior; performance; welfare

Full Text:



Abdel GaiedS, BakriH. An economic evaluation for the impacts of spreading of bird flu on poultry sector in Egypt. World Agricul-tural Science 2009; 5(3): 264–9.

Taha A, Abd El-Ghany F, Sharaf M. Strain and sex effects on productive and slaughter performance of developed local Egyptian and Canadian chicken strains. Egyptian Poultry Sci-ence 2010; 30: 1059–72.

Witak B. Tissue composition of carcass, meat quality and fatty acid content of ducks of a commercial breeding line at different age. Archives Animal Breeding 2008; 51(3): 266–75.‏

Mohammed HH, Shereen EA, Enas N. Impact of different light color in behavior, wel-fare parameters and growth performance of Fayoumi broiler chickens strain. Hellenic Jour-nal of Veterinary Association 2018; 69(2): 951–8.

Mohammed HH, Badawi ME, Walaa MA, Ali MA, Abd El-Aziz RM. The influence of chromium sources on growth performance, economic efficiency, some maintenance behav-iour, blood metabolites and carcass traits in broiler chickens. Global Veterinaria 2014; 12: 599–605.

Mohammed HH, Grashorn M, Bessei W. The effects of lighting conditions on the behav-iour of laying hens. European Poultry Science 2010; 74: 197–202.

Aviagen A. guide to managing broilers in open-sided housing, available at: AVIAEn-vMgtOpenSidedHseBroiler-EN-2016.

Al Homidan A, Robertson J. Effect of lit-ter type and stocking density on ammonia, dust concentrations and broiler performance. British Poultry Science 2003; 44: S7–S8.

Seidavi A, Taherparvar G, Leila A, Pares-Casanova P. Effect of different litters supple-mented with chemical agents on broiler carcass components. Journal of Fisheries and Livestock Production 2015; 3: 1–4.

Benabdeljelil K, Ayachi A. Evaluation of alternative litter materials for poultry. Applied Animal Research 1996; 5(3): 203–9.

De Avila V, De Oliveira U, De Figueire-do E, Costa A, Abreu M, Rosa P. Alternative material to replace wood shavings as broiler litter. Revista Brasileira Zootec 2008; 37: 273–7.

Shields S, Garner J, Mench J. Effect of sand and wood-shavings bedding on the behav-ior of broiler chickens. Poultry Science 2005; 84(12): 1816–24.‏

Savory C. Broiler welfare: Problems and prospect. Special edition of OECD-Worksh”Growth and quality in broiler produc-tion” 1995.

Bilgili S, Montenegro G, Hess J, Eckman M. Sand as litter for rearing broiler chickens. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 1999; 8(3): 345–51.

Arnould C, Bizeray D, Faure J, Leterrier C. Effects of the addition of sand and string to pens on use of space, activity, tarsal angulations and bone composition in broiler chickens. Ani-mal Welfare 2004; 13(1): 87–4.‏

Shields S, Garner J, Mench J. Dust bath-ing by broiler chickens: a comparison of prefer-ence for four different substrates. Applied An-imal Behavior Science 2004; 87: 69–82.

Mohammed HH, Enas S, Shereen EA. Impact of different litter materials on behav-iour, growth performance, feet health and plumage score of Japanese quail (Coturnix ja-ponica). European Poultry Science 2017; 81: 719–27.

Sari M, Önk K, Isik S, Tilki M, Tufan T. Effects of housing system, slaughter age, and sex on slaughter and carcass traits of native Turkish ducks. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences 2013; 37(6): 694–700.‏

AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis. Association official analytical chemists, Gaithersburg, USA 2002.

Amado M, Xavier D, Boere V, Torres-Pereira C, McManus C, Bernal F. Behaviour of captive ostrich chicks from 10 days to 5 months of age. Revista Brasileira Zootec 2011; 40 (7):


Shimmur T, Hirahara S, Eguchi Y, Uetake K, Tanaka T. Behaviour and Physiolo-gy, performance and physical condition of lay-ers in conventional and large furnished cages in a hot environment. Animal Science 2007; 78: 314–22.

Karcher D, Makagon M, Fraley G, Fraley S, Lilburn M. Influence of raised plastic floors compared with pine shaving litter on environ-ment and Pekin duck condition. Poultry Science 2013; 92(3): 583–90.

Mohammed HH, Mohamed I, Al Sadik S. Effect of different light intensities on perfor-mance, welfare and behaviour of turkey poults. Journal of Advance Veterinary and Animal Research 2016; 3(1): 18–23.

Abdel-Rahman M. Study on the effect of stocking density and floor space allowance on behaviour, health and productivity of turkey broilers. Journal of Assiut Veterinary Medicine 2005; 51: 1–13.

Houping H, Shih-Ger C. Method of re-generate ammonia for the capture of carbon dioxide. Energy Fuels 2002; 16(4): 904–10.

SAS. SAS statistical system Package-Jmp 8 User’s Guide.2nd Cary, NC, SAS Institute Inc. USA. ISBN 2009.

Asaniyan EK, Agbede JO, Laseinde EA. Impact assessment of different litter depths on performance of broiler chickens raised on sand and wood shaving litters. World Journal of Zo-ology 2007; 2(2): 67–72.

Almeida EA, Sant’Anna AC, Crowe TG, Macari M, Furlan RL. Poultry rearing on perfo-rated plastic floors and the effect on air quality, growth performance, and carcass injuries–Experiment 2: Heat stress situation. Poultry Sci-ence 2010; 12(3): 189-195.

El-Deek AA, Al-Harthi MA, Khalifah MM, Elbanoby MM, Alharby T. Impact of newspaper as bedding material in arid land on broiler performance. Egyptian Poultry Science 2011; 31: 715–25.‏

Garcia RG, Almeida Paz IL, Caldara FR, Nääs IA, Bueno LF, Freitas LW, Sim S. Litter materials and the incidence of carcass lesions in broilers chickens. Revista Brasileira de Ciência Avícola 2012; 14(1): 27–32.‏

Karousa MM, Meneeh IS, Ahmed SA, Ahmed EA, Youseif HA. Effect of litter materi-als on broiler behaviour and performance. Ben-ha Veterinary Medical Journal 2012, 23(1): 142–9.

Toghyani M, Gheisari A, Modaresi M, Tabeidian SA. Effect of different litter material on performance and behavior of broiler chick-ens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2010; 122(1): 48–52.‏

Anisuzzaman M, Chowdhury SD. Use of four types of litter for rearing broilers. British Poultry Science 1996; 37(3): 541–5.‏

Stub C, Vestergaard KS. Influence of zinc bacitracin, light regimen and dust bathing on the health and welfare of broiler chickens. British Poultry Science 2001; 42(5): 564–8.‏

Villagrá A, Olivas I, Althaus RL, Gómez EA, Lainez M, Torres A. Behavior of broiler chickens in four different substrates: a choice test. Revista Brasileira de Ciência Avícola 2014; 16(1): 67–75.‏

Oliveira MC, Carvalho ID. Rendimento e lesões em carcaça de frangos de cortecriadosem diferentes camas e densidades populacionais. CiencAgrotec 2002; 26: 1076–81.‏

Hocking PM, Hughes BO, Keer S. Com-parison of food intake, rate of consumption, pecking activity and behavior in layer and broiler breeder males. British Poultry Science 1997; 38: 237–40.

Waitt C, Jones T, Dawkins MS. Behav-iour, synchrony and welfare of Pekin ducks in relation to water use. Applied Animal Behav-iour Science 2009; 121(3): 184–9.‏

Rice M, Meelker A, Fraley SM, Fraley GS. Characterization of Pekin duck drinking and preening behaviors and comparison when housed on raised plastic versus pine litter floor-ing. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 2014; 23(4): 735–41.‏

Sameh GA, Hamada DH, Mohamed AH, Khaled MG. Behaviour, welfare and perfor-mance of broiler chicks reared on different litter materials. Assiut Veterinary Medicine 2013; 59: 9–18.

Senaratna D, Atapattu NS, Belpago-dagamage DU. Saw dust and refuse tea as alter-native lit-

ter materials for broilers. Tropical Agricultural Research 2007; 19: 283–9.

Davis JD, Purswell JL, Columbus EP, Kiess AS. Evaluation of chopped switch grass as a litter material. International Journal of Poul-try Science 2010; 9(1): 39–42.

Mendes AS, Paixão SJ, Restelatto R, Reffatti R, Possenti JC, De Moura DJ, De Car-valho TR. Effects of initial body weight and litter material on broiler production. Revista Brasileira de Ciência Avícola 2011; 13(3): 165–70.

Abreu VM, Abreu PG, Coldebella A, Jaenisch FR, Silva VS. Evaluation of litter mate-rial and ventilation systems in poultry produc-tion: I. overall performance. Revista Brasileira Zootec 2011; 40: 1364–71.

Asaniyan EK, Agbede JO, Laseinde EA. Comparative influence of sand and wood shav-ings litter replacement frequency on the per-formance of broiler chickens. Journal of Ani-mal and Veterinary Advances 2006; 5(12): 1080–7.‏

Jones TA, Dawkins MS. Environment and management factors affecting Pekin duck production and welfare on commercial farms in the UK. British Poultry Science 2010; 51(1): 12–21.‏

Tasistro AS, Ritz CW, Kissel DE. Am-monia emissions from broiler litter: response to bedding materials and acidifiers. British Poultry Science 2007; 48(4): 399–405.‏

Fraley SM, Fraley GS, Karcher DM, Makagon MM, Lilburn MS. Influence of plastic slatted floors compared with pine shaving litter on Pekin Duck condition during the summer months. Poultry Science 2013; 92(7): 1706–11.‏

Lien RJ, Hess JP, Conner DE, Wood CW, Shelby RA. Peanut hulls as a litter source for broiler breeder replacement pullets. Poultry Science 1998; 77: 41–6.

Buhr RJ, Cason JA, Dickens JA, Hinton JA, Ingram KD. Influence of flooring type dur-ing transport and holding on bacteria recovery from broiler carcass rinses before and after de-feathering. Poultry Science 2000, 79(3): 436–41.‏

Sameh GA, El-Khloya SZ. Do alternative litter Materials Affect performance, Welfare and Immune Response of Broiler Chicks?. Al-exandria Journal for Veterinary Sciences 2017; 52(1): 133–41.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.26873/SVR-752-2019


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Gerbičeva 60, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia, T: +386 (0)1 47 79 100, F: +386 (0)1 28 32 243, E: slovetres@vf.uni-lj.si
Published by computing.si