ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2025
Analysis of Risk Factors of Feather Pecking Injurious Behavior in Experimentally Raised Yangzhou Goslings in China.
Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2025. 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.
- Effects of Feather-Pecking Phenotype on Physiological and Neurobiological Characteristics and Gut Microbiota Profile of Goslings.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- DietaryFrontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Feather pecking can influence the welfare and health concerns of all farmed poultry and affect production and economic aspects. Although some information is available about feather pecking behavior in chickens and ducks, the risk factors of feather pecking in goslings have not been fully demonstrated. In this study, 3-day-old Yangzhou goslings were chosen, and risk factors of feather pecking injurious behavior were investigated, including stocking density, rearing method, flock uniformity, and environmental enrichment. The gosling performed three different pecking behaviors in starter barns from 3d of age to 10d, including gentle feather pecking (GFP), severe feather pecking (SFP), and aggressive pecking (AGP), and the corresponding proportions were 82.16%, 17.02%, and 0.82%, respectively, with peak aggressive feather pecking at 4-5 days of age. The pecked gosling also led to further pecking by conspecifics. Goslings preferred to peck the back (77.32%) and head (11.14%), which caused skin damage to the epidermal and dermal layers, accompanied by a decrease in feather follicle number and diameter. In addition, the effect of the stocking density and population uniformity on the occurrence of feather pecking was determined. The higher feather pecking frequencies and poorer feather quality of goslings were observed under high-density conditions than those of lower-density environments. Importantly, the lower population uniformity resulted in more aggressive pecking, potentially linked to the establishment of a social hierarchy. Finally, environment-related changes in pecking behavior were investigated. The results showed that damp and dirty housing conditions deteriorated plumage conditions and the occurrence of feather pecking, and environment enrichment (the grass section) could significantly reduce the incidence of pecking. Taken together, lower stocking density, higher population uniformity, and the provision of enrichment can reduce the prevalence of feather pecking. Meanwhile, feather pecking in goslings, with the back being the most commonly targeted area, can lead to the loss of back feathers and even skin damage. These results help to develop effective management and prevention strategies to reduce the negative effects of pecking behavior on goose health and performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.