Oxford University has been criticized for spending of £300,000 of taxpayers’ money researching what type of water ducks like the best.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has carried out a three-year study “to ascertain the importance of bathing water to ducks by quantifying their motivation to gain access to water in which they can bathe.”
After offering the ducks a variety of water supplies including a trough, shower, water pond and a nipple drinker, it was concluded that the birds preferred standing under a shower.
The research has sparked anger among farmers and taxpapers alike, who have viewed it as a huge waste of money.
Anthony Rew, Devon chairman of the National Farmers’ Union, said the use of taxpayers’ money on the research “just proves that Defra is quackers”.
He added, “They need to get out of London and get on a farm to see how the countryside works, to put policies in place that are practical.”
Susie Squire of the Taxpayers’ Alliance agreed, viewing the research as a “bonkers waste of money”.
“It is common sense that ducks like rain and water. The last thing the government should be allocating scarce resources to is this sort of nonsense”, she said.
A spokesperson for Defra defended the research, saying that it was carried out “to help determine the most appropriate method of providing water and maintaining hygiene in the duck-rearing industry.”
Marian Stamp Dawkins, professor of animal behaviour at Oxford added that it would be unfair to portray the study as finding out simply that ducks like water. It had been carried out to find the best way of providing water to farmed ducks because ponds quickly became dirty.
Oxford students have expressed mixed views on the research.
Jess Bolton, a first year student at Worcester expressed her support for the research.
“I think it’s fantastic that the government is taking the initiative to work towards a situation where the animals we farm are raised in the most comfortable conditions possible. The fact that the government is allocating such sums to the general cause of animal welfare shows a surprising level of moral integrity in the face of potential public criticism”, she said.
However, Daniel Lowe, the OUSU Environment and Ethics officer expressed his surprise at the sum spent.
“£300k seems quite excessive for research of this nature, and I wonder how the bill managed to get so high”, he said.
“However there is some environmental benefit of finding out that ducks prefer showers as a shower provides a more hygienic source of water for farmed ducks than ponds.”
