Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33142437›Full record

ArticlePoultry science2020

Lack of access to an open water source for bathing inhibited the development of the preen gland and preening behavior in Sanshui White ducks.

Jiandui Mi, Hongling Wang, Xiaohui Chen, Kate Hartcher, Yan Wang, Yinbao Wu, Xindi Liao

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Poultry science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jiandui MiCollege of Animal Science, National Engineering Research Center for Breeding swine Industry, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China; Ministry of Agriculture Key Laboratory of Tropical Agricultural Environment, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China; Guangdong Provincial Key Lab of Agro-Animal Genomics and Molecular Breeding and Key Lab of Chicken Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture, Guangzhou 510642, China.
Hongling WangCollege of Animal Science, National Engineering Research Center for Breeding swine Industry, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China; Ministry of Agriculture Key Laboratory of Tropical Agricultural Environment, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China; Guangdong Provincial Key Lab of Agro-Animal Genomics and Molecular Breeding and Key Lab of Chicken Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture, Guangzhou 510642, China.
Xiaohui ChenCollege of Animal Science, National Engineering Research Center for Breeding swine Industry, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China; Ministry of Agriculture Key Laboratory of Tropical Agricultural Environment, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China; Guangdong Provincial Key Lab of Agro-Animal Genomics and Molecular Breeding and Key Lab of Chicken Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture, Guangzhou 510642, China.
Kate HartcherCentre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, 4072, Australia.
Yan WangCollege of Animal Science, National Engineering Research Center for Breeding swine Industry, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China; Ministry of Agriculture Key Laboratory of Tropical Agricultural Environment, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China; Guangdong Provincial Key Lab of Agro-Animal Genomics and Molecular Breeding and Key Lab of Chicken Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture, Guangzhou 510642, China.
Yinbao WuCollege of Animal Science, National Engineering Research Center for Breeding swine Industry, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China; Ministry of Agriculture Key Laboratory of Tropical Agricultural Environment, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China; Guangdong Provincial Key Lab of Agro-Animal Genomics and Molecular Breeding and Key Lab of Chicken Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture, Guangzhou 510642, China.
Xindi LiaoCollege of Animal Science, National Engineering Research Center for Breeding swine Industry, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China; Ministry of Agriculture Key Laboratory of Tropical Agricultural Environment, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China; Guangdong Provincial Key Lab of Agro-Animal Genomics and Molecular Breeding and Key Lab of Chicken Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture, Guangzhou 510642, China. Electronic address: xdliao@scau.edu.cn.
South China Agricultural University · CNUniversity of Queensland · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As a species of waterfowl, ducks rely on access to water to facilitate feeding behaviors. Further, wet preening behavior in ducks relies on access to water and is a key behavior for duck welfare. Traditionally, Chinese duck farms provide not only free access to drinking water in the duck house but also an open water pool outside of the house. However, recent restrictions prohibit the use of an open water pool for raising ducks in some areas of China. Little is known about the effects of not providing an open water pool on duck welfare, in particular, the development of the preen gland and wet preening behaviors. The preen gland secretes oil which is crucial for maintaining plumage conditions. A total of one hundred twenty 1-day-old Sanshui White ducks (SSWD) were randomly divided into 2 groups and fed for 6 wk with access to a water pool (WP) or without access to a water pool and provided drinking water only (LWP). The live body weights of ducks from the WP group were significantly increased compared with those of ducks in the LWP group starting from 3 wks of age (P < 0.05). Feed intake was increased in the WP group at 2 wk of age and from 4 to 6 wk of age (P < 0.05). The feed conversion ratio (FCR) was significantly different only at 4 and 5 wks of age, when the FCR was increased by 5.7% and 9.5%, respectively, in the LWP group compared with the WP group (P < 0.05). Lack of access to an open water pool significantly inhibited the growth of the preen gland based on its weight, size, and quantity of oil secretions (P < 0.05). In addition, the proportion of ducks exhibiting wet preening behavior was significantly reduced in the LWP group compared with the WP group (5.5 ± 0.2% vs. 24.8 ± 2.1%, P < 0.05). This study indicated that a lack of access to an open water source had negative impacts on the development of the preen gland and on the preening behavior of SSWD.

Indexed as

DucksExocrine GlandsFresh WaterGroomingAnimalsChinaRandom Allocationduckpreen glandpreening behaviorwelfare

Identifiers

PMID33142437
PMCPMC7647854
OpenAlexW3080910849

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.