Research Article

 

Organic Selenium Supplementation: A Convenient Approach to Improve Behaviour, Performance, and Economics and to Suppress Stress in Home-Cage Reared Ducks

 

Shereen El-Sayed Abdel-Hamid1*, Sara Esam Shahin2, Ibrahim Farag Rehan3*

1Department of Veterinary Public Health, Faculty of veterinary medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, 44519, Egypt; 2Department of Animal Wealth Development (Veterinary Economics and Farm Management), Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, 44519, Egypt; 3Department of Husbandry and Development of Animal Wealth, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Menofia University, Shebin Alkom, Menofia, 32511, Egypt.

 

Editor | Asghar Ali Kamboh, Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam, Pakistan.

Received | November 02, 2020; Accepted | November 23, 2020; Published | December 27, 2020

*Correspondence | Shereen El-Sayed Abdel-Hamid and Ibrahim Farag Rehan, Department of Veterinary Public Health, Faculty of veterinary medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, 44519, Egypt; Department of Husbandry and Development of Animal Wealth, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Menofia University, Shebin Alkom, Menofia, 32511, Egypt; Email: [email protected]; [email protected]

Citation | Abdel-Hamid SE, Shahin SE, Rehan IF (2020). Organic selenium supplementation: A convenient approach to improve behaviour, performance, and economics and to suppress stress in home-cage reared ducks. J. Anim. Health Prod. 9(s1): 9-16.

DOI | http://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.jahp/2020/9.s1.9.16

ISSN | 2308-2801

Copyright © 2020 Abdel-Hamid et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

 

INTRODUCTION

 

The modern production of duck’s meat is considered a beneficial industry, and therefore the housing/rearing condition is one of the ducks’ fundamental needs to improve their behavior and productivities. For instance, duck group managed in battery spent more day period in resting, walked less frequently, and for a shorter time than those floor housed duck (Carrière et al., 2006). However, capturing of ducks at cage/ battery increased their discomfort and stress. Meanwhile, feeding birds on dietary antioxidants has the ability to enhance their antioxidant status, health, and subsequent welfare (Woods et al., 2020). Hence, the behavior is an indicator of well-being of animals to assess the welfare, production, and economy (Wegner, 1992) we tried to overcome this captivity challenge by addition of selenium in diet. As well, selenium is an important antioxidant, used in the regulation of most metabolic processes, including antioxidant immune status and the metabolism process of thyroid hormone (Brown and Arthur, 2001). Furthermore, nutrition is a first concern of the poultry industry since it is compromises about 60-70 % of total cost of poultry production (Behnke and Beyer, 2004). Thus, the functional feeding is essential to assess the economic profits. The bird’s health is a vital part of their life as the level of physiological comfort and welfare were reflected in their behavioural patterns, growth curve and feed utilization (Platz et al., 2003). Muscovy ducks, chosen in our study, are native to tropical South America and Central America, which are good at flying but do not like swimming (Abd El-Azeem, 2002). The origin of Muscovy duck is different from that of domestic duck, and both have great differences in living habits and feeding methods (Ling et al., 2018; Zenunovic and Glavic, 2018). Therefore, we tried to emphasize the influences of organic selenium supplementation on Muscovy ducks’ behaviour, performance, economics, and suppressing stress in their home-cages.

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 

This research was performed at the research farm that belongs to Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Zagazig University. The research protocol was approved by the Institutional 86 Animal Care 87 and Use Committee and Zagazig University (Approval No. ZU–IACUC/2/F/45/2020). The graphical presentation of experimental design of the study has been presented in Figure 1.

 

 

Birds used and management

Forty-eight black Muscovy ducklings, 3 weeks old, (350 g ± 20.1), were reared in cage system, with stocking density 8 birds/cage (Liste et al., 2013); feed and water were provided ad-libitum. Ducklings were classified into control and Se-treated group (three cages for each group). As shown in Table 1, control group was provided with commercial starter diet contained 22% crude protein until 5 weeks old. Then, it was fed a finisher diet with 18% of crude protein until week-10 (AOAC, 2002). The control group was fed a basal diet of in organic selenium in vit. premix (vitamin AD3E, folic acid, biotin and in organic selenium 0.5%). Se-treated group was provided with 0.4 g organic selenium (Se yeast, as Sel-Plex, Alltech Inc. USA.)/kg ration on a daily basis (Zenunovic and Glavic, 2018).

 

Table 1: The composition of the basal control starter and finisher diet of Muscovy duck.

 

Ingredients	Starter	Finisher
Yellow corn	54%	65%
Soybean	40%	28.95%
Vegetable oil	3%	3%
Limestone	1%	1%
Dicalciumphosphate	1%	1%
Dl– Methionine	0.1%	0.1%
Salt	0.45%	0.45%
Vit.–Min. Premix1	0.5%	0.5%
Total (%)	100	100
Crude protien (%)	22%	18%
metabolized energy (kcal/kg)	3015	3125

 

Observation technique

A focal sample observation was used. Photographing digital camera (Hikvision, Binjiang District, Hangzhou, China) was used for recording the behavioural pattern 3-hour/ week for each treatment according to (Shimmura et al., 2007).

 

The behavioural analyses

The behavioural patterns were observed according to Chapuis et al. (2017), (i) ingestive behaviour, birds were fed from feeders or drinking, the mean time (second) were record, (ii) standing behaviour, ducks were standing idle and not engaged in any activity, (ii) walking behaviour, (iv) resting behaviour, birds sitting on ground, (v) comfort behavior, (feather preening), and (vi) aggressive pecking behaviour as the bird only pecked at the feathered parts of conspecifics.

 

Welfare assessments

Eyes quality, feather quality, footpad quality, and gait score of ducks were assessed and scale of 0 ~ 2, where 0 was the ideal and a 1 or 2 was a worst. The individual traits scores were scored on a scale of 0 ~ 1 (nostril and feather cleanliness). These welfare scores were detected previously according to Karcher et al. (2013).

 

Live duck performance

(i) live body weights were weakly record for each duck (ii) weight gain = w2-w1; (iii) relative growth, RGR% = 0.5×w2-w1/(w2+w1), (iv) feed intake that was estimated for each bird in and (v) feed conversion ratio = weight gain/ feed intake.

 

Stress hormones analysis

Blood samples were collected randomly from wing vein of eight birds per each group for evaluating thyroid stimulating hormones and free thyroxin (Mohammed et al., 2015).

 

Economic analysis

The economic values and profitability ratios were calculated in the 10th week according to the prevailing market price of ingredients and the body weight.

 

Economic values

The formulas were used according (Omar et al., 2019), for calculation of economic values; the feed costs (average variable costs)= total feed intake per bird × cost of one kg diet; A total costs (TC)= total feed cost + average fixed costs; the total revenue (TR)= live body weight × price/kg; the net profit (NP) = total revenue – total costs. The feed cost/kg weight gain = cost of feed consumed/ weight gain was estimated (Embaye et al., 2018).

 

Profitability ratio

The formulas were used according (Nworgu, 2007) for calculation of economic values; benefit cost ratio (BCR) = TR/TC; profitability index = NP/TR; gross ratio (GR) = TC/TR.

 

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was done using statistical system SPSS-version 16 and was performed using t-test to demonstrate the comparison between two groups, control and organic selenium supplementation groups). The comparison of average was analyzed using Duncan’s multiple-range tests. p values < 0.05 for all mean effects showed significance. The F distribution has two parameters, the between-groups degrees of freedom, k, and the residual degrees of freedom, N –k, represented as the following formula: (df1 = k – 1, df2 = N – k), where df, degree of freedom; k, number of groups; N, number of observations.

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

 

The impact of selenium addition on the behavioural patterns of Muscovey ducks

Our obtained results in Table 2 showed that the feeding time had not been affected with organic selenium supplementation although there was a non-significant increase in the 10th week (976,67±153.69 in control, vs 1273.33±175.25 in selenium treatment group). Herein, the drinking duration time (second) of ducks in control group increased significantly, (p=0.017, F(1,46)=63.023, at week-9). Moreover, the resting duration time (second) of ducks in selenium treated group has been increased significantly, (P=0.044, F(1,46)=4.268; P=0.008, F(1,46)=165.342; and P=0.004, F(1,46)=128.572, at week-5, week-9, and week-10, respectively) compared to the controls. As a result shown in Table 3 referred to the feeding frequencies (bout) of ducks in selenium-treated group increased significantly, at week-7 and week-8 (P=0.034, F(1,46)=1.937 and P=0.019, F(1,46)=27.488, respectively) compared to the controls. Moreover, the drinking frequency (bout) of ducks in control group increased significantly, (p=0.005, F(1,46)=0.000; and p=0.021, F(1,46)=46.000, at week-9 and week-10, respectively) compared to the selenium-treated one. Also, the walking frequency (bout) of ducks in selenium-treated group has been increased significantly, (p=0.031, F(1,46)=7.830, at week-7) compared to the control one. Furthermore, the preening frequencies (bout) of ducks in selenium-treated group has been increased significantly, (P=0.011 each, F(1,46)=345, F(1,46)=0.371, at week-8, and week-9, respectively) compared to the controls.

 

The impact of selenium addition on the welfare assessments of Muscovey ducks

The score of welfare assessments in Figure 2 ranged from 0 ~ 2, where 0 was the best or ideal condition while a 1 or 2 indicated the worse condition for that specific quality of ducks. Herein, our results showed that selenium improved the scores of food-pad, gait, feather quality; eye clean, nostril clean, and feather clean compared to those control ducks fed a basal diet. Importantly, these mentioned scores were the best significantly (p= 0.002, F(1,46)=7.024; p=0.032, F(1,46)=4.404; p=0.000, F(1,46)=15.606; p=0.001, F(1,46)=34.938; p=0.000, F(1,46)=33.920; p=0.004, F(1,46)=29.571) in the selenium-treated group in comparison with the control.

 

The impact of selenium addition on the performance of Muscovey ducks

As a result shown in Table 4, the body weight (g) showed that the weight of ducks in selenium treatment group has been improved significantly, (p=0.002, F(1,46)=1.527; p=0.000, F(1,46)=1.25; p=0.000, F(1,46)=0.11; and p=0.000, F(1,46)=0.841, in week-7, week-8, week-9, and week-10, respectively) compared to the controls. As well, the weight gain (g)

 

Table 2: The behavioural duration (second) of control and selenium supplemented diet groups of Muscovy duck, from week-4 until week-10 of age.

 

Week	Group	Behavioural duration (second)
		Feeding-time	Drinking-time	Standing-time	Walking-time	Sitting-time
Week-4	CNT	716,67 ± 208.83	648,33 ± 111.59	116,67 ± 32.83	96,67 ± 21.86	2701,00 ± 132.48
	Se-treated	836,67 ± 37.23	857,33 ± 113.62	110,33 ± 34.35	99 ± 27.21	2706,00 ± 161.06
Week-5	CNT	624,33 ± 239.81	667,33 ± 294.73	53,00 ± 14.80	15,67 ± 3.84	2161,00 ± 73.51
	Se-treated	769,00 ± 215.13	812,33 ± 123.85	46,67 ± 9.82	7,67 ± 1.86	2924,00 ± 251.41*
Week-6	CNT	720,00 ± 231.80	762,00 ± 253.02	125,00 ± 38.19	14,33 ± 1.20	1190,00 ± 121.24
	Se-treated	781,33 ± 247.28	700,00 ± 205.26	117,00 ± 28.71	11,00 ± 1.15	1842,67 ± 298.55
Week-7	CNT	703,33 ± 276.55	270,00 ± 81.85	110,00 ± 10.00	12,00 ± 5.039	1916,67 ± 365.53
	Se-treated	1004,67 ± 61.86	252,67 ± 56.57	125,00 ± 11.59	8,67 ± 1.76	2148,00 ± 43.10
Week-8	CNT	808,00 ± 233.21	551,33 ± 142.65	68,67 ± 48.18	10,33 ± 3.28	1125,00 ± 186.89
	Se-treated	964,67 ± 309.46	495,67 ± 138.65	14,67 ± 1.20	10,67 ± 2.60	1485,33 ± 495.37
Week-9	CNT	964,33 ± 86.19	1853,00 ± 349.74*	125,00 ± 50.50	6,67 ± 4.67	737,67 ± 212.28
	Se-treated	964,33 ± 96.76	455,67 ± 68.63	19,00 ± 2.65	9,33 ± 2.03	2086,33 ± 167.71**
Week-10	CNT	976,67 ± 153.69	993,67 ± 121.49	125,00 ± 50.50	6,67 ± 4.67	737,67 ± 212.28
	Se-treated	1273,33 ± 175.25	760,33 ± 154.12	57,00 ± 7.81	7,00 ± 2.52	2201,67 ± 111.24**

The result was presented as mean ± SEM and analyzed using t-test, SPSS-version 16. CNT, control; se-treated, selenium-treated; (*), P ≤ 0.05; (**), P ≤ 0.01.

 

Table 3: The behavioural frequencies (bout) of control and selenium supplemented diet groups of Muscovy duck, from week-4 until week-10 of age.

 

Week	Group	Behavioural frequencies (bout)
		Feeding frequency	Drinking frequency	Standing frequency	Walking frequency	Sitting frequency	Preen frequency	Aggression frequency
Week-4	CNT	6.33 ± 0.88	16.33 ± 2.03	6.33 ± 1.86	25.67 ± 7.45	18.00 ± 2.31	14.33 ± 0.88	0.67 ± 0.33
	Se-treated	6.33 ± 2.33	16.33 ± 3.53	7.00 ± 2.31	36.00 ± 7.45	12.67 ± 1.2	14.67 ± 2.03	0.33 ± 0.33
Week-5	CNT	7.00 ± 3.00	11.33 ± 3.76	2.33 ± 0.33	8.33 ± 3.71	17.67 ± 3.76	11.33 ± 3.38	2.33 ± 0.33
	Se-treated	11.33 ± 3.48	10.33 ± 2.4	4.33 ± 0.88	8.67 ± 3.76	23.00 ± 4.73	15.00 ± 3.61	1.00 ± 0.58
Week-6	CNT	5.67 ± 0.33	11.33 ± 2.33	3.00 ± 0.58	6.33 ± 0.88	16.00 ± 2.65	11.00 ± 3.21	2.00 ± 0.58
	Se-treated	8.33 ± 1.86	11.67 ± 0.88	5.33 ± 1.45	6.33 ± 1.45	19.67 ± 1.2	18.00 ± 1.15	0.67 ± 0.33
Week-7	CNT	5.67 ± 1.76	9.00 ± 2.89	3.67 ± 0.889	4.00 ± 1.73	15.67 ± 4.98	16.33 ± 2.73	0.67 ± 0.33
	Se-treated	12.33 ± 1.45*	10.33 ± 1.21	6.00 ± 1.53	10.33 ± 0.88*	17.67 ± 1.67	20.00 ± 4.36	0.33 ± 0.33
Week-8	CNT	5.33 ± 0.33	9.00 ± 1.53	3.00 ± 0.58	4.67 ± 2.03	14.00 ± 4.51	11.33 ± 1.67	0.33 ± 0.33
	Se-treated	12.00 ± 1.73*	10.00 ± 1.15	4.34 ± 0.88	7.33 ± 0.88	13.33 ± 3.53	22.33 ± 1.76*	0.00 ± 0.00
Week-9	CNT	5.33 ± 0.88	15.00 ± 1.53**	3.00 ± 1.00	2.67 ± 1.67	8.00 ± 1.53	12.00 ± 1.00	0.33 ± 0.33
	Se-treated	11.33 ± 2.03	9.00 ± 1.53	5.67 ± 1.67	4.67 ± 0.88	10.00 ± 1.15	21.33 ± 1.86*	0.67 ± 0.33
Week-10	CNT	8.33 ± 1.45	17.00 ± 1.53*	3.00 ± 1.00	2.67 ± 1.67	8.00 ± 1.53	12.00 ± 1.00	0.33 ± 0.33
	Se-treated	10.00 ± 1.15	11.00 ± 0.58	5.00 ± 1.53	5.67 ± 1.86	9.33 ± 1.33	11.00 ± 0.58	1.00 ± 0.58

The result was presented as mean ± SEM and analyzed using t-test, SPSS-version 16. CNT, control; se-treated, selenium-treated; (*), P ≤ 0.05; (**), P ≤ 0.01.

 

of ducks in selenium-treated group has been increased significantly, (P=0.002 each, F(1,46)=18.151, F(1,46)=33.021, in week-7, and week-8) compared with the control group. Meanwhile, the feed conversion ratio was highly decreased with organic selenium supplementation at ducks’ finishing periods. Importantly, we noticed that the relative growth ratio was improved significantly with selenium supplementation in week-7 (0.37±0.04, p=0.006, F(1,46)=16.443) compared to those ducks fed a basal diet (0.25±0.02). Also, it was increased at week-8 in a selenium supplemented group (0.21±0.04) compared to the controls (0.13±0.01), but with no significant differences.

 

Table 4: The performance of control and selenium supplemented diet groups of Muscovy duck from week-4 until week-10 of age.

 

Performance
Items/ group	Week-4	Week-5	Week-6	Week-7	Week-8	Week-9	Week-10
Feed intake (g)/ CNT	616.67 ± 120.11	833.33 ± 132.22	1045.83 ± 222.22	1087.50 ± 225.11	1137.50 ± 180.11	1187.50 ± 193.22	1237.50 ± 212.33
Feed intake (g)/ se-treated	583.33 ± 111.22	862.50 ± 126.11	850.00 ± 100.44	1095.83 ± 143.23	1187.50 ± 144.55	1258.33 ± 198.33	1291.67 ± 155.34
Body weight (g)/ CNT	825.17 ± 21.38	1041.04 ± 29.66	1593.96 ± 43.61	2043.21 ± 52.12	2332.09 ± 65.39	2514.13 ± 76.48	2750.46 ± 85.84
Body weight (g)/ se-treated	864.54 ± 25.25	1088.63 ± 42.61	1588.59 ± 54.14	2317.79 ± 63.53**	2860.88 ± 67.90***	2988.13 ± 50.83***	3132.17 ± 73.03***
Weight gain (g)/ CNT	----	215.88 ± 39.45	552.92 ± 24.02	449.25 ± 32.71	288.88 ± 34.33	182.04 ± 68.48	236.33 ± 69.82
Weight gain (g)/ se-treated	----	224.08 ± 46.83	499.96 ± 51.22	729.21 ± 79.74**	543.08 ± 99.30**	127.25 ± 90.21	144.04 ± 79.93
Feed conversion (%)/ CNT	----	26 ± 1.9	53 ± 7.5	41 ± 6.4	25 ± 1.5	15 ± 0.5	19 ± 0.9
Feed conversion (%)/ se-treated	----	26 ± 2.3	59 ± 4.3	67 ± 9.4	46 ± 3.2	10 ± 1.2	11 ± 1.1
Relative growth (%)/ CNT	----	0.23 ± 0.04	0.42 ± 0. 01	0.25 ± 0.02	0.13 ± 0.01	0.07 ± 0.03	0.09 ± 0.03
Relative growth (%)/ se-treated	----	0.22 ± 0.04	0.37 ± 0.04	0.37± 0.04**	0.21 ± 0.04	0.05 ± 0.03	0.04 ± 0.03

The result presented as mean ± SEM and analyzed using t-test, SPSS version 16. CNT, control; se-treated, selenium-treated; (----), not detected; (*), P ≤ 0.05; (**), P ≤ 0.01; (***), P ≤ 0.001.

 

Table 5: Economic analysis (economic value and profitability ratio) of control and selenium-treated groups of Muscovy duck at week-10 of age.

 

Economic value	Groups		P-value
	CNT	Se-treated
Number of ducks/ treatments	24	24
Weight (kg)/ duck	2.750 ± 0 .08	3.1338 ± 0.07***	0.001
Weight gain (kg)	1.926 ± 0.08	2.269 ± 0.08**	0.005
Feed intake (kg)/ duck	7.159 ± 0.25	7.128 ± 0.30	0.938
Feed conversion ratio	3.717 ±0.22*	3.141 ± 0.18	0.03
1 Feed costs (AVC) $/ duck	2.534 ± 1.38	2.543 ±1.69	0.983
2 Total costs (TC) $/ duck	4.469 ± 1.38	4.478 ± 1.66	0.682
3Total returns (TR) $/ duck	6.215 ± 3.00	7.082 ±2.55***	0.001
Net profit (NP) $/ duck	1.746 ± 3.40	2.603 ± 3.03**	0.006
Feed costs/ kg weight gain	1.315 ± 1.25*	1.121 ±1.04	0.038
Profitability ratio
Benefit cost ratio (BCR)	1.39 ± 0.050	1.58 ± 0.057**	0.01
Profitability index (PI)	0.28 ± 0.021	0.37 ± 0.028**	0.008
Gross ratio (GR)	0.719 ± 0.030**	0.63 ± 0.029	0.009

Means are significantly different at P < 0.05. 1Cost/kg diet= 0.354 $ and 0.357$ for CNT, control; and se, selenium-treated, respectively. 2Total costs include fixed costs which consists of (price of duckling, labor, medicine) = 1.935$. 3Price of one kg meat = 2.26 $. The result presented as mean ± SEM and analyzed using t-test, SPSS version 16. CNT, control; se-treated, selenium-treated; (*), P ≤ 0.05; (**), P ≤ 0.01; (***), P ≤ 0.001.

 

The significant role of selenium addition as anti-stress in Muscovey ducks ration

On the other hand, the TSH and T4 (see Figure 3) of Muscovy ducks in control group have been increased in week-7 (1.35 µg/dl, 0.07 µg/dl, p=0.043, F(1,46)=11.006; p=0.132, F(1,46)=7.361, respectively), in comparison with the selenium-treated group (0.98 µg/dl, 0.06 µg/dl).

 

 

The economic analysis of adding selenium to Muscovey ducks ration

Economics analysis including economic values and profitability ratio were presented in Table 5. Results revealed non-significant differences (p=0.98, F(1,46)=1.895) between the two treated groups regarding the feed cost and subsequently the total costs. The average total return (7.082±2.55 $/ duck) and net profit (2.603±3.03 $/ duck) for group fed selenium treated diet which were significantly (p=0.001, F(1,46)=0.859) higher than the control group (6.215±3.00, 1.746±3.40) $/duck). The significantly (p=0.03, F(1,46)=1.120) lowest cost/ kg gain presented in selenium treated group (1.156±1.04 $/ duck). Moreover, benefit costs ratio and profitability index were significantly higher (p=0.01, F(1,46)=0.080; p=0.008, F(1,46)=1.535) in selenium treated group (1.58±0.057), (0.37±0.02) than control group (1.39±0.057), (0.28±0.021) subsequently. Additionally, Gross ratio was the better in a selenium-treated group (0.63±0.029) compared with the control group (0.719±0.030).

 

Bird’s behavior is the best indicator of managerial factor and welfare. To our background, this study is unique to emphasize the influences of organic selenium supplementation on behaviour, welfare, performance, thyroxine hormones level, and economic values in Muscovy ducks. We found that the feeding time was increased gradually with the age progress in selenium treatment. Similar results were obtained with Woods et al. (2020). Moreover, ingestive behavior is increased by dietary selenium alone or in combination with vitamin-E (Celi et al., 2010). As well, the drinking duration time (second) of ducks in control group has been increased compared to the selenium-treated group. Furthermore, the sitting duration time (second) of ducks in selenium-treated group has been increased significantly. It is well-known that the changes in the locomotor activities of birds are used as indicator of muscular dystrophy (Duncan, 2001) and related to improving number of lying and standing, and suppress number of walking ducks treated with selenium. In contrast the previous reported results (Nier et al., 2006). The aggression was increased with diet deficient in selenium (Sherwin and Kelland, 1998). In contrary, a reduced locomotor activity in control group in ducklings was recorded (Duncan, 2001). Concerning welfare soundness, this indicator can be improved with selenium supplementation and the worst signs of soundness; especially food pad dermatitis and feather quality occurred at caged duck without organic selenium supplementation. Herein, the organic selenium improved bird gait, eye, nose, and feather cleaning. These results were supported with (Mohammed et al., 2019). Direct contact of footpad with wire cage leaded to foot lesions, which characterized by inflam­mation and necrosis of foot, toe, and hock (Dawkins et al., 2017). Likewise, to our results, the prevalence of footpad dermati­tis was significantly increased in the battery housing in ducks (Abdel-Hamid et al., 2020). Herein, the body weight and weight gain (gm) of ducks in selenium treated group increased significantly at the growing period. As well, as the feed conversion ratio was improved with dietary selenium supplementation at ducks’ finishing periods also, the relative growth ratio was highly improved with dietary selenium supplementation. Consequently, the daily weight gain, feed intake and feed conversion ratio were not influenced by dietary selenium-treatments (Surai and Fisinin, 2014). On the other hand, selenium has a positive impact on the animal health, growth rate, and body weight of animals (Yoon et al., 2007).

 

Furthermore, the TSH and T4 (µg/dl) of ducks in control group have been increased significantly at week-7 compared to the selenium treatment one. The impact of selenium status on mood, behaviour, and cognition may be slightly regulated by changes influenced by selenium levels in thyroid function (Sher, 2000). As well, we reported that the capture of duck in cages increased hormonal stress-related leading to increase T4 (Abdel-Hamid et al., 2020). Regarding to the economic values, ducks are one of the most economic birds that is commonly raised with the purpose of consuming meat and eggs. This research showed that improvement in economic values (Total Return, Net Profit, Feed costs/ kg weight gain) and profitability ratio (Benefit cost ratio, Profitability index, Gross Ratio) was resulted from addition of selenium in duck diet. The weight gain, feed conversion ratio and subsequently profit and profitability ratio were improved without affecting on quantity and costs of feed intake. These results agreed with the previous report (Ali et al., 2019) who found that addition of selenium in duck ration up to 0.5 mg/kg feed enhanced body weight, feed conversion ratio and monetary indices. Similarity, using of selenium in broiler feed increased final weight and improved meat quality without increasing the cost of feed (Ibrahim et al., 2011). Therefore, from an economic point of view, it was clear in our results that using of 0.4 mg/kg achieved a better economic production according to the previous report (Zenunović and Glavić, 2018). Besides, the Muscovy duck would be ideal for small–scale rural farmers in Africa especially in Egypt and could contribute to food security. Therefore, a selenium-treated diet is essential to display the ducks’ fundamental needs and/ or behaviour to maximize their welfare and productivities. However, further experiments should be done in vivo to evaluate the carcass traits and to emphasize the selenium level in blood and meat.

 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

The rearing of ducks inside their cages increased the possibility of discomfort and stressors, and therefore it considered a challenge refrains the bird’s welfare. Herein, selenium clearly improved the feeding and sitting duration time of ducks than those of control group. Moreover, the body weight and weight gain of ducks in selenium-treated group have been clearly increased. Also, the feed conversion ratio was highly decreased with dietary selenium supplementation. Capture of duck in cages increased stress leading to increased thyroid hormones. Therefore, adding organic selenium to diet might be used as anti-stress and growth promoter in Muscovy ducks. Also, addition of 0.4 mg/kg organic-selenium showed a great economic values and profitability ratio in production of Muscovy duck.

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 

The authors would like to thank the staff at the Department of Veterinary Public Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Zagazig University, Egypt, for providing materials used in this study. Moreover, we appreciate Dr. Amr Elkelish’s help in finishing the manuscript, at the Faculty of Science, Suez Canal University.

 

AUTHOR’S CONTRIBUTIONS

 

SEA, IFR and SES were mutually contributed by chemical, materials, and research methods in the manuscript, shared in the strategy and sample analysis. All authors took part in the analysis. They drafted, revised, and approved the manuscript.

 

CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

 

The authors have declared no conflict of interest.

 

REFERENCES

• Abd El-Azeem AF (2002). Effect of dietary protein levels on productive and reproductive performance of Muscovy ducks. PhD. thesis, Fac. Agric. Al-Azhar Univ. Cairo Egypt.

• Abdel-Hamid SE, Saleem AY, Youssef MI, et al. (2020). Influence of housing systems on duck behavior and welfare. J. Adv. Vet. Anim. Res., 7: 407–413. https://doi.org/10.5455/javar.2020.g435

• Ali JH, Aqeel YA, Zeaid AZ (2019). Effect using hornwort (Ceratophyllum demersum) and selenium in diets on productive and economic traits of Pekin ducks. Fayoum J. Agric. Res. Dev., 33: 181-189.

• AOAC (2002). Official methods of analysis. Association official analytical chemists, Gaithersburg, USA.

• Behnke KC, Beyer RS (2004). Effect of feed processing on broiler performance. Ph.D. Dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan.

• Brown KM, Arthur JR (2001). Selenium, selenoproteins and human health: A review public health. Nutrition, 4: 593–599. https://doi.org/10.1079/PHN2001143

• Carriere M, Roussel S, Bernadet MD, et al. (2006). Effect of force-feeding on postprandial behavior of mulard ducks. In: 7. Research days on foie gras palmipeds, ITAVI-Technical Institute of Agriculture, pp. 84-89.

• Celi P, Eppleston J, Armstrong A, et al. (2010). Selenium supplementation increases wool growth and reduces faecal egg counts of Merino weaners in a selenium-deficient area. Anim. Prod. Sci., 50: 688–692. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN09168

• Chapuis H, Blanchet M, Mignon GL (2017). Genetic parameters of electronically recorded feeding behavior traits in meat Pekin ducks. 12e Journées de la Recherche Avicole et Palmipèdes à Foie Gras (JRA-JRPFG 2017), Tours, France, pp. 269-273.

• Dawkins MS, Roberts SJ, Cain R J, et al. (2017). Early warning of footpad dermatitis and hockburn in broiler chicken flocks using optical flow, bodyweight and water consumption. Vet. Rec., 180: 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.104066

• Duncan IJ (2001). Welfare is to do with what feel. J. Agric. Envirom. Ethics, pp. 9–15.

• Embaye TN, Ameha N, Yusuf Y, et al. (2018). Effect of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) grain on growth performance of Cobb 500 broiler chickens. Int. J. Livest. Prod., 9: 326-333. https://doi.org/10.5897/IJLP2017.0424

• Ibrahim, MT, Eljack BH, Fadlalla IMT (2011). Selenium supplementation to broiler diet. Anim. Sci. J., 2: 12-17.

• Karcher D, Makagon M, Fraley G, et al. (2013). Influence of raised plastic floors compared with pineshaving litter on environment and Pekin duck condition. Poult. Sci., 92: 583–590. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2012-02215

• Ling Z, Wenjie G, Kai Z, et al. (2018). Appropriate metabolic energy, crude protein, calcium and available phosphorus levels of diet for black Muscovy duck at 43-91 days of age. Anim. Husband Feed Sci., 10: 257-263.

• Liste G, Kirkden RD, Broom DM, et al. (2013). A commercial trial evaluating three open water sources for farmed ducks: effects on water usage and water quality. Br. Poult. Sci., 54: 24-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2013.763900

• Mohammed AA, Abdel-Rahman MA, Darwish MH, et al. (2015). Influence of swimming deprivation on behavior, performance and some blood parameters of Muscovy ducks. J. Adv. Vet. Anim. Res., 5: 53-59.

• Mohammed HH, Abdelaty AI, Saleem AY, et al. (2019). Effect of bedding materials on duck’s welfare and growth performance. Slov. Vet. Res., 56: 149–156. https://doi.org/10.26873/SVR-752-2019

• Nier B, Weinberg P, Rimbach G, et al. (2006). Differential gene expression in skeletal muscle of rats with vitamin E deficiency. IUBMB Life, 58: 540–548. https://doi.org/10.1080/15216540600871100

• Nworgu FC (2007). Economic importance and growth rate of broiler chickens served fluted pumpkin (Telfaria occidentalis) leaves extract. Afr. J. Biotechnol., 6: 167-174.

• Omar MA, Abdel-Hamid TM, Esam S, et al. (2019). Growth and economic performance of using dried tomato pomace for Mallard ducks. Slov. Vet. Res., 56: 699–706. https://doi.org/10.26873/SVR-810-2019

• Platz S, Berger J, Ahrens F, et al. (2003). Health, productivity and behavior of conventional turkey breeds under ecological outdoor rearing conditions. Proc. ХІth Int. Cong. Anim. Hyg. Mexico, 1: 259–264.

• Sher L (2000). Selenium and human health. Lancet, 356(9233): 943. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)73927-1

• Sherwin CM, Kelland A (1998). Time-budgets, comfort behaviors and injurious pecking of turkeys housed in pairs. Br. Poult. Sci., 39: 325–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071669888854

• Shimmura T, Hirahara S, Eguchi Y, et al. (2007). Behaviour and physiology, performance and physical condition of layers in conventional and large furnished cages in a hot environment. Anim. Sci., 78: 314-322. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-0929.2007.00441.x

• Surai PF, Fisinin VI (2014). Selenium in poultry breeder nutrition: An update. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech., 191: 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2014.02.005

• Wegner RM (1992). Analysis of the research into alternative systems in the laying hens. Brussels, European conference group on the protection of farm animal, pp. 45-55.

• Woods SL, Sobolewska S, Rose SP, et al. (2020). Effect of feeding different sources of selenium on growth performance and antioxidant status of broilers. Br. Poult. Sci., 61: 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2020.1716301

• Yoon I, Werner TM, Butler JM, et al. (2007). Effect of source and concentration of selenium on growth performance and selenium retention in broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. J., 86: 727–730. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/86.4.727

• Zenunović A, Glavić M (2018). The influence of adding organic selenium in concentrated mixtures on production results of ducks fattening. Int. J. Adv. Agric. Sci. Technol., 5: 11-20.