DOCSLIB.ORG

Clarifying Why the Muscovy Duck Is Kosher: a Factually Accurate Response

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Clarifying Why the Muscovy Duck Is Kosher: a Factually Accurate Response 159 Clarifying Why the Muscovy Duck is Kosher: A Factually Accurate Response By: ARI Z. ZIVOTOFSKY and ZOHAR AMAR Introduction Several years ago we summarized the halachik history of the ka- shrut of Muscovy duck, a story that had been static for nearly a century with the duck being accepted as kosher in Israel, France and South America and not accepted in the US.1 Its lack of accep- tance in the US and by some badatzim in Israel was due to its ques- tionable mesorah [tradition] rather than a definitive statement that it is a non-kosher species. Within the last year a specific kashrut agency and its affiliated rabbinic group in the US issued strongly worded position statements declaring that Muscovy is unquestiona- bly and definitively non-kosher because, they assert, it is a dores (predator) and therefore one would be required to kasher a pot in which Muscovy had been cooked. An investigation into the basis of * This article is an expanded and updated version of the material that ap- peared in Hebrew as: Zohar Amar and Ari Z. Zivotofsky, “L’Taher et haTahor: Od b’Inyan Kashrut HaBerber,” HaMa’ayan, Tishrei 5771 (51:1): 47-55. 1 A. Z. Zivotofsky and Z. Amar, “The Halachic Tale of Three American Birds: Turkey, Prairie Chicken and Muscovy Duck,” Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, 46 (2003), pp. 81-103 and Z. Amar and A. Z. Zivotofsky, “Kashrut HaBerberi v’HaMulourd,” HaMa’ayan 44:1 (5764): 35-42. ________________________________________________________ Ari Zivotofsky is a senior lecturer in the Brain Sciences program at Bar Ilan University and writes widely on themes related to Jewish tradi- tions. Many of his articles can be found at <http://halachicadven tures.com>. Zohar Amar is a professor and former chairman of the department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology at Bar Ilan University. He is also director of the program in the History of Medicine. 160 : Hakirah,̣ the Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought these rulings reveals factual errors and flawed methodology. Because these statements have received wide circulation and attention with- in worldwide rabbinic circles they call out for a factually accurate response, which we provide herein. First, however, we will give a brief background. With one ex- ception, all domestic ducks are believed to be derived from the wild mallard (Anas platyrhynchos). The common mallard A. p. platyr- hynchos is likely the sole progenitor of all domestic forms, with the most prominent breed (in the US and Israel) being the Pekin (Anas platyrhynchos domestica or Anas peking), introduced to the West from China in the late 19th century. The only exception is the Muscovy duck (Cairina moschata), also known as barbary duck. It is native to Mexico, Central America, and most of South America. The male weighs 2-4 kg and the female 1-1.5 kg. It is generally ac- cepted that it was domesticated in pre-Columbian South America, where it was found in the very early 16th century by the Spaniards. There appears to have been an early and rapid diffusion into the Old World. There is evidence that during this spread of the New World Muscovy to the Old World, Jews in parts of Russia treated it as kosher. Rabbi Aharon HaLevi Goldman wrote (VaYalkut Yosef 8(9):92) from Argentina in 1900 that he had refrained from shechting this New World bird until Jews from the Charshan and Besarabia areas of Russia emigrated and told him that it was eaten there with- out any hesitation. The early Jewish settlers in the southern U.S. also began eating Muscovy duck. The Muscovy has a peelable giz- zard, an “extra toe,” webbed feet, and a wide beak, all indicating that it is kosher. It does not have a standard crop, but has the same pseudo-crop found in other ducks and geese. Thus, these Jewish set- tlers treated it as kosher. It was its acceptance by the few Jews of New Orleans that led to the first known responsum about the Mus- covy. In 1861 Rabbi Yissachar Dov (Bernard) Illowy, PhD (1814-1871) arrived as the new rabbi in New Orleans and declared that the Mus- covy duck could not possibly be treated as a kosher species because there was no valid mesorah for it. In a letter written in beautiful biblical, poetic Hebrew, Rabbi Illoway presented the question of the Muscovy duck to two European rabbis, Chief Rabbi Dr. Na- Clarifying Why the Muscovy Duck is Kosher : 161 than Adler of London and Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch of Germany.2 Rabbi Illoway states in his letter that there could be no mesorah on this New World bird, and further that the eggs of the Muscovy have the signs of non-kosher eggs. Both Rabbi Hirsch and Rabbi Adler responded that Rabbi Illoway was correct in prohibiting the Muscovy. That was not the end of the pre-21st century discussion regard- ing the Muscovy. Many other authorities dealt with the question and many permitted it, some using arguments similar to those used to permit a nearly universally accepted New World bird, the tur- key. For example, the Netziv (Meishiv Davar 22), when asked about “geese that are larger and different from the common goose,” per- mitted them and argued that once a bird is widely accepted the bur- den of proof falls upon those who would prohibit it to bring proof that it is a dores and thus prohibited. Barring such a proof the bird should remain permitted. This argument is equally valid for the turkey and the Muscovy duck. Several decades after Rabbi Illoway, another European newly arrived on US shores seems to have addressed the same issue. Rabbi Leeber Cohen (born ca. 1874), upon taking a job as rabbi in Mem- phis, TN, discovered that he was receiving many queries about a new kind of “goose” about which he had previously answered sev- eral questions in Europe. In 1916 he published Chiddushei Chaviva, the first half of which is devoted to the question of the new “goose” which, according to his description, seems to have been the Mus- covy duck. He concluded that based on the “egg signs” discussed in the Talmud, the bird under discussion was permitted. Two South American rabbis also engaged in lengthy discussions about the Muscovy duck. The above-mentioned Rav Aharon Halevi Goldman permitted the Muscovy for several reasons, including a report that the Netziv and Rav Naftali (Hermann) Adler (1839- 1911) had permitted it.3 In response to the fact that some rabbis continued to challenge the kashrut of the Muscovy, Rav Yosef Aha- 2 See “The Controversial Letters and the Casuistic Decisions of the Late Rabbi Bernard Illowy,” by his son Henry Illoway, Berlin, 1914, p. 162-165. 3 Divrei Aharon, Yerushalayim, 5741, 25-31 (pp. 72-81). 162 : Hakirah,̣ the Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought ron Taran, a shochet in Argentina, took up the gauntlet of rebuttal. He realized that the naysayers had not personally observed the bird and were under the misimpression that it was a dores. In an effort to strengthen their position, those who sought to ban it sent a pair of birds to Yerushalayim to have Rav Shmuel Sa- lant (1816-1909), the av beit din, rule on it. The male bird died en route, but the female successfully completed the lengthy journey. Rav Salant initially refrained from ruling on the matter due to his advanced age and requested that Rav Chaim Berlin, who was then visiting the city, rule on the matter. When Rav Berlin was fed all manner of fiction, such as that the bird breeds with snakes, he re- fused to rule and returned the question to Rav Salant. Rav Salant immediately ordered his shochet to slaughter the bird and on erev Pesach a letter was promptly dispatched to Argentina stating that the bird had been eaten following Rav Salant’s ruling. Rav Shmuel Salant committed his opinion to writing in a responsum dated 25 Kislev 5668 (1908). Rav Taran publicized that letter, as well as sev- eral other permissive rulings from European rabbis, including one from Rav Naftali (Herman) Adler (1839-1911), chief rabbi of the British Empire and son of former Chief Rabbi Nathan Adler (1803- 1890) who had prohibited it years earlier.4 Almost 50 years later, the chief rabbi of Yerushalayim, Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank (1873-1961) testified (Har Tzvi YD 75) that the Muscovy was eaten in his day in Yerushalayim based on the ruling that was issued to an Argentinean emissary who had brought a bird with him. Although he does not specify that it was his teacher Rav Salant who had permitted it, the significance of the fact that it was well known that it was accepted and that it had been permitted after observing a live bird cannot be overemphasized. Subsequently, the Muscovy was commercially raised in Israel for decades and accepted as kosher by the chief rabbinate and various local kashrut organiza- tions. This was not merely theoretical; it was shechted by the tens of thousands for decades as “mehadrin” under the Jerusalem and Ki- ryat Shemona rabbinate. It was and continues to be accepted and slaughtered as kosher in France. In recent years in Israel the prima- ry usage of Muscovy was to cross a male with a pekin female to 4 Zichron Yosef, Yerushalayim 5684, 1a-5b. Clarifying Why the Muscovy Duck is Kosher : 163 yield a mulard (also spelled moulard) for the production of foie gras (foie gras de canard; as opposed to goose liver foie gras d'oie).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Welfare of Ducks and Geese in Foie Gras Production
    The Welfare of Ducks and Geese in Foie Gras Production A Summary of the Scientific and Empirical Evidence A Farm Sanctuary Report Farm Sanctuary · P.O. Box 150 · Watkins Glen, NY www.FarmSanctuary.org · www.NoFoieGras.org Introduction Foie gras, a French term meaning "fatty liver," is produced by force-feeding ducks and geese large amounts of meal that enlarges their livers up to 10 times the nor- mal size. In medical terms, ducks and geese raised for foie gras suffer from hepatic lipi- dosis, a pathologically enlarged, physiologi- cally impaired liver. Foie gras was traditionally produced from geese, but the trend in recent years has been toward using ducks, who require less space to house and are slaughtered younger. Only ducks are currently being used in the US to make foie gras. The species of duck used in foie gras production is a hybrid between the Muscovy duck (Carina moschata) and the domestic duck (Anas platyrhnchous). A male Muscovy duck, which is nearly twice the size of a female Muscovy, is crossed with a domestic female duck such as the Pekin, and the result is a sterile hybrid called the Mulard duck. Male Mulard ducks are used for foie gras production, while the females are either killed at birth or raised and slaughtered for meat con- sumption. During the force-feeding process, the duck is grabbed by the neck, and a metal or plastic tube 8 to 12 inches long is inserted down the esophagus. The desired amount of high fat, high carbohydrate corn mash is pushed through the tube and into the duck's esophagus by either a manual or a pneu- matic pump.
    [Show full text]
  • Online Guide to the Animals of Trinidad and Tobago [OGATT]
    UWI The Online Guide to the Animals of Trinidad and Tobago Behaviour Cairina moschata (Wild Muscovy Duck) Family: Anatidae (Ducks and Geese) Order: Anseriformes (Waterfowl) Class: Aves (Birds) Fig. 1. Muscovy duck, Cairina moschata. [www.birdsoftt.com/birds.../wild%20muscovy%20duck.htm, downloaded 19 September, 2011] TRAITS. Wild muscovies are overall black in colouration, but domesticated muscovies may be blue, brown or white. Indescent green and purple reflections on the wings and upper parts of their bodies (Wildfowl Trust, 2008). Wing; patches of white, which develops after one year of the duck’s life (Dye and Stai, 2004). Plumage (arrangement of feathers) brownish, almost black. Feathers are water proof because of an oil produced by a special gland on its’ tail. The wild muscovies are much sleeker, glossier and more attractive that their heavier, often “piebald” hybrid (Burton and Burton, 2002). Feather; facilitate flight, provide insulation, aids in thermoregulation, used for displaying, camouflage and signaling (Dye and Stai, 2004). Wing length; 400-500 mm (Wildfowl Trust, 2008). Males larger than female, average weight, male 6 lb (3 kg), female 3 lb (1.3 kg) (Burton and Burton, 2002). The naked skin and bill, (mouth) are bright red in domesticated ducks, but blackish in the wild muscovy ducks. Face; red warts on male not present in females, two blue-white bands. Bill; flat and broad which contain rows of fine v-shape indentation along the edge referred to as “lamellae”. The lamellae function is to UWI The Online Guide to the Animals of Trinidad and Tobago Behaviour provide a grip on food without it sliding off (Dye and Stai, 2004).
    [Show full text]
  • MAC1 Abstracts – Oral Presentations
    Oral Presentation Abstracts OP001 Rights, Interests and Moral Standing: a critical examination of dialogue between Regan and Frey. Rebekah Humphreys Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom This paper aims to assess R. G. Frey’s analysis of Leonard Nelson’s argument (that links interests to rights). Frey argues that claims that animals have rights or interests have not been established. Frey’s contentions that animals have not been shown to have rights nor interests will be discussed in turn, but the main focus will be on Frey’s claim that animals have not been shown to have interests. One way Frey analyses this latter claim is by considering H. J. McCloskey’s denial of the claim and Tom Regan’s criticism of this denial. While Frey’s position on animal interests does not depend on McCloskey’s views, he believes that a consideration of McCloskey’s views will reveal that Nelson’s argument (linking interests to rights) has not been established as sound. My discussion (of Frey’s scrutiny of Nelson’s argument) will centre only on the dialogue between Regan and Frey in respect of McCloskey’s argument. OP002 Can Special Relations Ground the Privileged Moral Status of Humans Over Animals? Robert Jones California State University, Chico, United States Much contemporary philosophical work regarding the moral considerability of nonhuman animals involves the search for some set of characteristics or properties that nonhuman animals possess sufficient for their robust membership in the sphere of things morally considerable. The most common strategy has been to identify some set of properties intrinsic to the animals themselves.
    [Show full text]
  • What Makes a Good Alien? Dealing with the Problems of Non-Native Wildfowl Tony (A
    What makes a good alien? Dealing with the problems of non-native wildfowl Tony (A. D.) Fox Mandarin Ducks Aix galericulata Richard Allen ABSTRACT Humans have been introducing species outside their native ranges as a source of food for thousands of years, but introductions of wildfowl have increased dramatically since the 1700s.The most serious consequence of this has been the extinction of endemic forms as a result of hybridisation, although competition between alien and native forms may also contribute to species loss. Globally, non-native wildfowl have yet to cause major disruption to ecosystem functions; introduce new diseases and parasites; cause anything other than local conflicts to agricultural and economic interests; or create major health and safety issues in ways that differ from native forms. The fact that this has not happened is probably simply the result of good fortune, however, since many introduced plants and animals have had huge consequences for ecosystems and human populations.The potential cost of greater environmental and economic damage, species extinction, and threats to the genetic and species diversity of native faunas means that we must do all we can to stop the deliberate or accidental introduction of species outside their natural range. International legislation to ensure this is remarkably good, but domestic law is generally weak, as is the political will to enforce such regulations.The case of the Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis in Europe will show whether control of a problem taxon can be achieved and underlines the financial consequences of dealing with introduced aliens.This paper was originally presented as the 58th Bernard Tucker Memorial Lecture to the Oxford Ornithological Society and the Ashmolean Natural History Society, in November 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • Raising Ducks Intended for Consumption
    eXtension Raising Ducks Intended for Consumption articles.extension.org/pages/69518/raising-ducks-intended-for-consumption Written by: Dr. Jacquie Jacob, University of Kentucky There are two important questions you should ask yourself before starting a small flock of meat ducks: What do you want to accomplish with a home flock? It is unlikely that you will be able to produce duck products for less than you can purchase them at the grocery store. A home duck flock, however, is a good 4H/FFA or family project. Are you up to the challenge of taking care of a flock of ducks for several weeks? Ducks, like all poultry, require daily care every day, including weekends and holidays. Consider the time and effort required for the care of the flock before deciding to start a poultry flock of any kind. Some additional questions to consider: Do the local zoning regulations permit you to raise poultry? Laws and ordinances in some communities may prohibit or restrict such activities in your neighborhood. Do you have the necessary equipment? Housing: Ducks need a clean, dry, draft-free shelter that provides at least 4 sq. ft. of space per duck. Ducks do not need water to swim in, but do require fresh water to consume. They drink a lot of water, resulting in very watery manure that must be cleaned on a daily basis. Ducks also like to splash in water, so it is important to have a waterer that limits spillage. Heat source: Ducks require a heat source, such as a heat lamp. Bedding material: Ducklings need some form of bedding or litter to help keep them warm and to absorb moisture.
    [Show full text]
  • Sokoto Journal of Veterinary Sciences Clinical and Gross-Pathological Changes in Muscovy Ducks and Nigerian Local Chickens Infec
    Sokoto Journal of Veterinary Sciences, Volume 18 (Number 4). December, 2020 RESEARCH ARTICLE Sokoto Journal of Veterinary Sciences (P-ISSN 1595-093X: E-ISSN 2315-6201) http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/sokjvs.v18i4.1 Usman et al. /Sokoto Journal of Veterinary Sciences, 18(4): 182 - 190. Clinical and gross-pathological changes in Muscovy ducks and Nigerian local chickens infected with Newcastle disease virus (XIVb strain) SG Usman1*, SB Oladele1, L Saidu2, MS Muhammed1, FS Umar2, A Abubakar1, A Saleh1 & O Orakpoghenor1 1. Department of Veterinary Pathology, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria 2. Veterinary Teaching Hospital, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria *Correspondence: Tel.: +2348162632180; E-mail: [email protected] Copyright: © 2020 Abstract Usman et al. This is an Newcastle disease (ND) is an acute highly contagious viral disease, spreading rapidly open-access article within flocks and affecting birds of all ages. Muscovy ducks, geese and other published under the anseriforms have been tested against different strains of Newcastle disease virus terms of the Creative (NDV) and are found to be potential reservoirs showing mild or no clinical signs when Commons Attribution infected experimentally with strains that are virulent to chickens. The aim of this License which permits work was to compare the clinical and gross pathological changes in Nigerian local unrestricted use, chickens and Muscovy ducks experimentally infected with XlVb strain of Newcastle distribution, and disease virus. Forty birds consisting of 20 chicks and 20 ducklings were randomly reproduction in any selected and divided into 4 groups of 10 birds each. The Groups were designated as medium, provided the group 1 (infected chicks, IC), group 2 (control chicks, CC), group 3 (infected ducklings, original author and ID), group 4 (control ducklings, CD).
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Animal & Natural Resource
    JOURNAL OF ANIMAL & NATURAL RESOURCE LAW Michigan State University College of Law MAY 2019 VOLUME XV The Journal of Animal & Natural Resource Law is published annually by law students at Michigan State University College of Law. The Journal of Animal & Natural Resource Law received generous support from the Animal Legal Defense Fund and the Michigan State University College of Law. Without their generous support, the Journal would not have been able to publish and host its annual symposium. The Journal also is funded by subscription revenues. Subscription requests and article submissions may be sent to: Professor David Favre, Journal of Animal & Natural Resource Law, Michigan State University College of Law, 368 Law College Building, East Lansing MI 48824, or by email to msujanrl@ gmail.com. Current yearly subscription rates are $27.00 in the U.S. and current yearly Internet subscription rates are $27.00. Subscriptions are renewed automatically unless a request for discontinuance is received. Back issues may be obtained from: William S. Hein & Co., Inc., 1285 Main Street, Buffalo, NY 14209. The Journal of Animal & Natural Resource Law welcomes the submission of articles, book reviews, and notes & comments. Each manuscript must be double spaced, in 12 point, Times New Roman; footnotes must be single spaced, 10 point, Times New Roman. Submissions should be sent to [email protected] using Microsoft Word or PDF format. Submissions should conform closely to the 19th edition of The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation. All articles contain a 2019 author copyright unless otherwise noted at beginning of article. Copyright © 2019 by the Journal of Animal & Natural Resource Law, Michigan State University College of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Genetic Diversity of Muscovy Ducks Revealed by Mtdna D-Loop
    IOSR Journal of Biotechnology and Biochemistry (IOSR-JBB) ISSN: 2455-264X, Volume 3, Issue 5 (Sep.- Oct. 2017), PP 11-18 www.iosrjournals.org Genetic diversity of Muscovy ducks revealed by mtDNA d-loop Kameshpandian Paramasivam1, Satyanarayana Swamy Vyshnava2, Dileep Kumar Kanderi2, Cino Pertoldi3,4. 1 (Department of Genomic Science, Central University of Kerala, Kasaragod, Kerala, India, [email protected]) 2 (Department of Microbiology, Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Anantapuramu, AP, India) 3 (Department of Chemistry and Bioscience, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark) 4(Aalborg Zoo, Aalborg, Denmark) Abstract: Based on geographical location and previous studies, the Muscovy ducks were grouped into six different populations such as India-Manipuri (IM), Wuyi-China (WC), Yuyao-China (YC), Fujian-China (FC) and Unkown-China (UC) and France. In total, 12 haplotypes were observed from six Muscovy population. The India-Manipuri (IM) population contributes 8 haplotypes. The AMOVA test shows high (75.12%) genetic variation within population. The NJ phylogenetic tree shows the intermingled China, India and France Muscovy populations. In order to find the depth of haplotype differences, the median joining network was constructed whereby H1 haplotype were shared by India and China population. Moreover, except H1 haplotype, other seven haplotypes from IM population were not observed to be shared with China population. Most importantly 33 InDel sites were observed, with regard to that another MJ network was constructed based on the InDel (Insertion-Deletion) sites or including alignment gaps. This InDel MJ network shows that India and China haplotypes separation based on H5 and H1 haplotype, and star-like structure also observed in both the networks.
    [Show full text]
  • Foie Gras “
    Foie Gras “Fake News”: A Fictitious Rashi and a Strangely Translated Ethical Will Foie Gras “Fake News”: A Fictitious Rashi and a Strangely Translated Ethical Will by Ari Z. Zivotofsky Controversial topics can sometimes lead to contrived sources, i.e. fake news. That is certainly true with the effort by vegetarians to find traditional sources to support their position. In the past I have shown how a booklet claiming Judaism supports vegetarianism was full of misquotes (here here ) and how a “quote” of the Rema was fabricated ( here ). Here I will expose two fake quotes that have been used by vegetarians in the battle against foie gras. Foie gras (pronounced “fwä-grä, meaning “fat liver” in French) is the fattened liver of a waterfowl that grew to 5-10 times its usual size due to gavage. Foie gras, a delicacy today rightly associated with the French who are indeed by far the largest producers and consumers of it, was for much of history an Ashkenazi Jewish expertise. This luxury item has been the subject of a great deal of controversy in recent years. Until its production was banned in 2003 by the Supreme Court, Israel was one of the leading producers in the world. Within the last year, kosher foie gras has begun to be produced in the US for the first time in history. The issue driving the current debate is animal welfare, or in the Jewish world, tza’ar ba’alei chaim. For hundreds of years, in traditional Jewish sources “stuffed goose” was indeed controversial, but not because of animal welfare.
    [Show full text]
  • Classificação Taxonômica, Diferenças Fisiológicas E Aspectos Nutricionais De Marrecos E Patos No Brasil
    Rev. Cient. Avic. Suin., v. 3, n. 1, p. 020-032, 2017 Classificação taxonômica, diferenças fisiológicas e aspectos nutricionais de marrecos e patos no Brasil Taxonomic classification, physiological differences and nutritional aspects of ducks and muscovy ducks in Brazil RUFINO, João Paulo Ferreira1,*, CRUZ, Frank George Guimarães Cruz2, OLIVEIRA FILHO, Pedro Alves de1, COSTA, Valcely da Rocha1 FEIJÓ, Julmar da Costa1, ROCHA, Biatris Lima3 1 Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciência Animal, Universidade Federal do Amazonas, Manaus, AM, Brasil. 2 Departamento de Produção Animal e Vegetal, Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias, Universidade Federal do Amazonas, Manaus, AM, Brasil. 3 Curso de Zootecnia, Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias, Universidade Federal do Amazonas, Manaus, AM, Brasil. * E-mail para correspondência: [email protected] RESUMO ABSTRACT O objetivo deste artigo foi contribuir para o esclarecimento da This paper aimed to set up an international and national classificação taxonômica internacional e nacional, diferenças taxonomic classification, physiological differences and fisiológicas e aspectos nutricionais de marrecos e patos. A nutritional aspects among ducks and muscovy ducks. The revisão da literatura foi realizada a partir da investigação de literature review was performed from papers and technical- artigos e material técnico-cientifico relacionados ao tema. Os scientific studies about these topics. We observed highlight estudos avaliados evidenciaram papel de destaque das aves da to the birds of Anseriformes order, where in the Anatidae ordem dos Anseriformes, onde na família Anatidae destacam- family, the ducks and the muscovy ducks stand out. The se os marrecos e os patos. Os marrecos (Anas platyrhynchos) ducks (Anas platyrhynchos) descend from mallard wild descendem dos patos selvagens mallard, sendo originários da ducks, originating in Asia and having a great range of Ásia e contando com uma vasta variedade de linhagens lineages distributed throughout the world.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case for Providing Farmed Ducks with Full Body Access to Water
    Watertight The case for providing farmed ducks with full body access to water “When ducks are given access to open water they will use it to perform a wide range of bathing behaviours, such as sieving, dabbling, preening and head dipping.” Guiomar Liste, University of Cambridge, 2012 Watertight The case for providing farmed ducks with full body access to water EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 INTRODUCTION 6 NATURAL HISTORY AND BEHAVIOUR 8 KEY ISSUES AFFECTING WELFARE 9 Space allowance 9 Lighting 9 Litter 10 Open water 10 Growth rate 10 COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION 12 Typical indoor production 12 Free-range and organic production 13 Non-UK production 13 FARM ASSURANCE SCHEME STANDARDS 15 THE EVIDENCE FOR OPEN WATER 19 How do we know ducks need access to open water? 19 Open water and health 21 Open water and behaviour 24 Why full body access? 27 Do ducks need to swim, and how deep should water be? 29 What about showers? 30 Open water management 30 COMMERCIAL VIABILITY 36 LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND GOVERNMENT 40 RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY 42 REFERENCES 44 GLOSSARY OF TERMS 46 3 Executive summary There is no generic legal requirement to provide farmed ducks with access to open water. Therefore, water may be provided for drinking purposes only via metal nipple drinkers. Furthermore, where ducks are provided with access to open water the facilities used may only permit the birds to dip their heads in water, thus preventing full body access. This report reviews the evidence relating to providing ducks with access to open water and identifies what should be provided to commercially-reared Pekin ducks to enable them to adequately perform their important water-related behaviours.
    [Show full text]
  • Their Voice Issue 10
    FREE ANIMAL EQUALITY’S MAGAZINE Nº 10 - WINTER 2020 JOAQUIN PHOENIX USING HIS VOICE TO HELP OTHERS GOING ONLINE DURING LOCKDOWN How Animal Equality adapted to the changing world FOIE GRAS- FREE GB Campaign pressure ramps up ahead of Brexit RAISING A PLANT-POWERED BABY How easy is it? CONTENT EDITORIAL She was frightened and shivering as I softly drew her out of the cage. EDITORIAL CAMPAIGNS SPOTLIGHT COVID-19 But after a moment, she slowly nestled into my arms, sensing that she was now safe. Immediately after, I took her to a vet, who proclaimed, “she is a survivor”. Hours later, she took her first steps on soft grass 3 A letter from our President 24 Going online during lockdown 14 and felt the sun for the first time. A letter from our UK 10 Resilience is defined by the capacity to recover quickly from difficulties 4 Executive Director 25 Lunch and learns or adversity. And of that, animals can teach us a lot. Beaten to death when they are sick or injured; locked in small cages; slaughtered while still conscious. It is difficult to imagine a life worse than those raised and killed for food. However, anyone who has rescued or worked with animals will tell you stories of resilience, such as Olivia’s. INVESTIGATIONS SPOTLIGHT SUPPORTER IN FOCUS As we face incredible challenges as a society, I find that focusing on Baby chicks cruelly caged on 26 Raising a plant-powered baby animals, especially on their individual stories, gives me hope. 6 British farm Foie gras-free GB But it’s people like you who also give animals hope—a hope for a better tomorrow, where we are all respected and protected, regardless of our species.
    [Show full text]