ArticlePoultry science2020
Effects of plastic antipecking devices on the production performance, beak length, and behavior in Chinese Wannan chickens.
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 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identification of Key Modules and Hub Genes Involved in Regulating the Color of Chicken Breast Meat Using WGCNA.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Effects of light color and intensity on discrimination of red objects in broilers.Journal of animal science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examined the effects of plastic antipecking devices (PAD) on the production performance, upper beak length, behavior, and plumage condition of a local Chinese chicken breed. Three hundred sixty 63-d-old Wannan chickens with intact beaks were randomly allocated into 3 groups. Birds were fitted with the PAD at 63 d (PAD63d) and at 77 d of age (PAD77d). Control birds were not fitted with PAD. The results showed that there were no significant effects of PAD on the BW, carcass traits, and meat quality (P > 0.05). The mortality in the PAD63d and PAD77d groups was lower than that in the control group. Compared with those in the PAD77d and control groups, the feed conversion ratio (FCR) from 63 to 112 d of age was lower in the PAD63d group. The ADFI of birds from 63 to 112 d of age was lowest in birds in the PAD63d group, intermediate in birds in the PAD77d group, and highest in control birds (P < 0.05). Birds in the PAD63d and PAD77d groups showed a lower frequency of walking and running, a higher frequency of sleeping, and higher plumage scores of the back and tail than those of control birds (P < 0.05). Birds' daily walking steps in the PAD77d group decreased compared with that of birds in the control group (P < 0.05). The upper beak length at 91 d and 112 d of age was longest in birds in the PAD63d group and shortest in control birds (P < 0.05). Overall, PAD appeared to be effective at reducing mortality, FCR, overall activity, and plumage damage and increasing the upper beak length.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.