Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.
Culver Duck Farms, Inc., Middlebury, IN, USA.
Poult Sci. 2023 Dec;102(12):103145. doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2023.103145. Epub 2023 Sep 22.
Preening cups may be a form of open water that would allow ducks to express preening behaviors. We set out to test the hypothesis that preening cups would not have detrimental effects on ducks or their environment. Control pens (N = 6, 65 ducks/pen) had nipple lines while experimental pens (N = 6, 65 ducks/pen) had the same nipple line plus one preening cup (PC). Body weights of 30 ducks per pen, and body condition scores on 50 ducks per pen were recorded weekly. On d 18 and 43, 5 ducks per pen were euthanized and their spleens, Bursas, liver, and uropygial glands were weighed. Behavior data were collected using scan sampling with video being recorded for 72 continuous hours at 4 different ages: 25 d, 30 d, 36 d, and 40 d. Body morphometrics were analyzed by 2-way ANOVA with repeated measures. Body condition scoring was analyzed by Pearson's chi-square. The GLIMMIX procedure (SAS 9.4) was used for behavioral analyses to examine treatment differences in the proportion of ducks performing dry preening, wet preening, eating, drinking, standing, and laying down. Feather pecking, feather picking, preening conspecifics (also known as allopreening), dunking head, and drinking from preening cup were analyzed using PROC LOGISTIC with the Firth bias correction for quasi-complete separation and odds ratios were calculated. More PC ducks housed with PC performed wet preening compared to control ducks (25 d: F = 6.90, P = 0.0143; 30, 36, and 40 d; F = 24.53, P < 0.0001). Ducks in the PC group were also more likely to lay down compared to controls (25 d: F = 4.95, P = 0.0330). No differences were observed for any other behavior, body condition score, body weight or morphometrics at any age. Although ducks in the preening cup group showed an increase in wet preening, our data suggest that open water is not necessary to maintain feather condition or uropygial gland size.
理羽杯可能是一种开放式水域,可让鸭子表达理羽行为。我们旨在测试理羽杯不会对鸭子或其环境造成有害影响的假设。对照组(N=6,每栏 65 只鸭)有乳头线,而实验组(N=6,每栏 65 只鸭)则有相同的乳头线和一个理羽杯(PC)。每周记录每栏 30 只鸭的体重和每栏 50 只鸭的体况评分。在 d 18 和 43 时,每栏处死 5 只鸭,称其脾脏、法氏囊、肝脏和尾脂腺的重量。使用扫描采样收集行为数据,并在 4 个不同年龄(25、30、36 和 40 天)连续 72 小时记录视频。使用双向方差分析(重复测量)分析身体形态学。使用 Pearson 卡方分析体况评分。使用 GLIMMIX 过程(SAS 9.4)分析行为数据,以检查干理羽、湿理羽、进食、饮水、站立和躺下等行为中鸭子比例的处理差异。使用 PROC LOGISTIC 分析啄羽、拔羽、梳理同种(也称为互理羽)、浸头和从理羽杯中饮水,使用 Firth 偏倚校正进行拟完全分离,并计算比值比。与对照组相比,更多的 PC 鸭与 PC 一起饲养时进行湿理羽(25 天:F=6.90,P=0.0143;30、36 和 40 天:F=24.53,P<0.0001)。与对照组相比,PC 组的鸭子也更有可能躺下(25 天:F=4.95,P=0.0330)。在任何年龄,其他行为、体况评分、体重或形态测量均未观察到差异。尽管理羽杯组的鸭子表现出湿理羽增加,但我们的数据表明,开放式水域对于维持羽毛状况或尾脂腺大小并非必需。