首页> 外文期刊>Applied Animal Behaviour Science >Differences between feather pecking and non-feather pecking laying hen flocks regarding their compliance with recommendations for the prevention of feather pecking - A matched concurrent case-control design
【24h】

Differences between feather pecking and non-feather pecking laying hen flocks regarding their compliance with recommendations for the prevention of feather pecking - A matched concurrent case-control design

机译:羽毛啄木枝与非羽毛啄木枝铺设母鸡的差异,关于他们遵守预防羽毛啄食的建议 - 一个匹配的并发案例控制设计

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Feather pecking (FP) is a multifactorial problem in all housing systems. Using a case-control design we wanted to determine a set of variables which may be decisive for a flock to become case or control. At the same time, we expected that the prevention of feather pecking not only depends on certain factors, but also quantitatively on the extent of compliance with recommendations. Data from three cross-sectional studies were pooled, from which 165 flocks were allocated to cases (FP problem flocks) or controls (no FP problem). Control flocks had at least 98% of hens with a very good or nearly complete feather cover whereas in case flocks 10% or more of the hens had highly damaged feathers or featherless areas >= 5 cm(2) in at least one body region. From 32 potential preventive factors that had been recorded in all data sets, 18 factors passed univariable pre-selection and were presented to forward logistic regression analysis. The resulting model for 137 flocks (due to missing values) explained 41% of the variance, correctly classified 77% of cases and comprised four variables with an effect size of integral = 0.8. A higher stocking density increased the likelihood of a 'FP-problem' whereas the presence of wooden perches and a littered veranda lowered it. Unexpectedly, a higher drinking place/hen ratio also predicted a FP problem. The results concerning wooden perches and drinking place/hen ratio might be due to indirect effects and should be further investigated. Non-FP flocks complied on average with 46.5% of recommendations (from a list of 13 factors), which was greater than FP-flocks (42.5%, P = .036, U = 2537.500, n = 165, Mann-WhitneyU test, d(Cohen) = 0.327). We conclude that the number of fulfilled recommendations as well as the combination of specific measures such as provision of a covered veranda with dry litter or reduced stocking density are important to prevent FP.
机译:羽毛啄食(FP)是所有住房系统中的多因素问题。使用案例控制设计,我们希望确定一组变量,这可能是植绒变得或控制的植物的决定性。与此同时,我们预计预防羽毛啄食不仅取决于某些因素,而且在遵守建议的程度上定量地定量。合并来自三个横截面研究的数据,将165个群体分配给病例(FP问题群)或控制(没有FP问题)。控制羊群至少有98%的母鸡,具有非常好的或几乎完全的羽毛封面,而在羊群中,母鸡的10%或更多的羽毛或羽毛区域具有极高的羽毛或羽毛区域> = 5cm(2)在至少一个体积中。从32个潜在的预防因素从所有数据集中记录,18个因素通过了单一的预选,并提出了前瞻性回归分析。由此产生的137群(由于缺失值)的型号解释了41%的方差,正确分类了77%的病例,并包含四个变量积分= 0.8的效果大小。较高的放养密度增加了“FP-archition”的可能性,而木鲈鱼的存在和垃圾阳台降低。出乎意料地,更高的饮酒场所/母鸡比例也预测了FP问题。关于木制栖息地和饮酒场所/母鸡比率的结果可能是由于间接影响,应进一步调查。非FP群落平均符合46.5%的建议(从13个因素列表),大于FP-群(42.5%,P = .036,u = 2537.500,n = 165,Mann-Whitneyu测试, D(Cohen)= 0.327)。我们得出结论,履行建议的数量以及具体措施的结合,如提供具有干垃圾的覆盖的阳台或减少库存密度的覆盖的阳台,这对于预防FP是重要的。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号