IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v13y2023i1p218-d1036617.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Integration of Grape-Duck Production Pattern Boosts Duck Behavior, Meat Quality, Fecal Microbiota and Soil Microorganisms

Author

Listed:
  • Ye Zhou

    (College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, No. 2 Yuanmingyuan West Road, Beijing 100193, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Chao Yan

    (Shenzhen Branch, Guangdong Laboratory for Lingnan Modern Agriculture, Key Laboratory of Livestock and Poultry Multi-Omics of MARA, Agricultural Genomics Institute at Shenzhen, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shenzhen 518124, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Di Chen

    (College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, No. 2 Yuanmingyuan West Road, Beijing 100193, China)

  • Chengde Zhang

    (College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, No. 2 Yuanmingyuan West Road, Beijing 100193, China)

  • Xingbo Zhao

    (College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, No. 2 Yuanmingyuan West Road, Beijing 100193, China)

Abstract

The combination of planting and breeding, an agricultural production system, makes full use of land, ecological space and time, increasing the utilization rate and yield of both plant and animal production. This experiment aimed to explore the effects of the grape-duck farming system by analyzing behavior, meat quality, and fecal microbiota of ducks and the soil microbiota. The results differed significantly on the expressions of positive behaviors between the breeding group and the combination of planting and breeding group, including actions of foraging, feeding and walking ( p < 0.05), while the free-range group showed more stereotyped behavior of no apparent purpose or significance. In terms of meat quality, the yellow value b* of the combination group was significantly higher than that of the free-range group ( p < 0.05). The drip loss rate of the planting and breeding group was 1.80%, and the drip loss rate of the combination group was 3.80%, with a significant difference ( p < 0.05). The combination of planting and rearing increased the alpha diversity of soil microbiota ( p < 0.05), but it had no obvious effect on the fecal microbiota of ducks. PCoA showed that soil microorganisms and fecal microbiota are obviously separated and clustered. In conclusion, the combination production mode of “grape-duck” had a positive effect on duck behavior, meat quality, and soil microorganisms, however, it changed virtually nothing in duck production performance and fecal microbiota.

Suggested Citation

  • Ye Zhou & Chao Yan & Di Chen & Chengde Zhang & Xingbo Zhao, 2023. "Integration of Grape-Duck Production Pattern Boosts Duck Behavior, Meat Quality, Fecal Microbiota and Soil Microorganisms," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-17, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:1:p:218-:d:1036617
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/1/218/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/1/218/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marian Stamp Dawkins & Christl A. Donnelly & Tracey A. Jones, 2004. "Chicken welfare is influenced more by housing conditions than by stocking density," Nature, Nature, vol. 427(6972), pages 342-344, January.
    2. Thornton, Philip, 1996. "The emergence of agriculture : Bruce D. Smith. Scientific American Library, distributed by W. H. Freeman & Co. Ltd, New York and Oxford, 1995. 231 pp. Price: [pound sign]19.95, US$ 32.95 (hardback). I," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 51(4), pages 496-497, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. B Bayraktar & E Tekce & H Kaya & M Karaalp & E Turunc, 2020. "The impact of dietary tarragon (Artemisia dracunculus) on serum apelin, brain-derived neurotrophic factor, cardiac troponin concentrations and histopathology of liver tissue in laying hens housed at d," Veterinární medicína, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 65(6), pages 269-279.
    2. Hall, Clare & Sandilands, Victoria, 2006. "Public Attitudes to the Welfare of Broiler Chickens," Working Papers 45998, Scotland's Rural College (formerly Scottish Agricultural College), Land Economy & Environment Research Group.
    3. Eliseo Bustamante & Fernando-Juan García-Diego & Salvador Calvet & Fernando Estellés & Pedro Beltrán & Antonio Hospitaler & Antonio G. Torres, 2013. "Exploring Ventilation Efficiency in Poultry Buildings: The Validation of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) in a Cross-Mechanically Ventilated Broiler Farm," Energies, MDPI, vol. 6(5), pages 1-19, May.
    4. Jones, Tracey & Feber, Ruth & Hemery, Gabriel & Cook, Paul & James, Katy & Lamberth, Curt & Dawkins, Marian, 2007. "Welfare and environmental benefits of integrating commercially viable free-range broiler chickens into newly planted woodland: A UK case study," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 177-188, May.
    5. Eliseo Bustamante & Fernando-Juan García-Diego & Salvador Calvet & Antonio G. Torres & Antonio Hospitaler, 2015. "Measurement and Numerical Simulation of Air Velocity in a Tunnel-Ventilated Broiler House," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-20, February.
    6. Gocsik, Éva & Brooshooft, Suzanne D. & de Jong, Ingrid C. & Saatkamp, Helmut W., 2016. "Cost-efficiency of animal welfare in broiler production systems: A pilot study using the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 55-69.
    7. Patterson, Jacinta & Mugera, Amin & Burton, Michael, 2015. "Consumer Preferences for Welfare Friendly Production Methods: The Case of Chicken Production in Western Australia," 2015 Conference (59th), February 10-13, 2015, Rotorua, New Zealand 202567, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    8. McVittie, Alistair & Moran, Dominic & Nevison, Ian, 2006. "Public Preferences for Broiler Chicken Welfare: Evidence from Stated Preference Studies," Working Papers 45990, Scotland's Rural College (formerly Scottish Agricultural College), Land Economy & Environment Research Group.
    9. Katarzyna Olejnik & Ewa Popiela & Sebastian Opaliński, 2022. "Emerging Precision Management Methods in Poultry Sector," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-18, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:1:p:218-:d:1036617. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.