Literature DB >> 11080557

Are genetic differences in foraging behaviour of laying hen chicks paralleled by hybrid-specific differences in feather pecking?

.   

Abstract

Feather pecking is a behavioural disorder in laying hens which consists of pecking the feathers of conspecifics, causing feather damage or even injuries to the skin. Its development can be explained by redirection of foraging behaviour. While the occurrence of feather pecking strongly depends on the kind of housing condition, it is also known that there are strain differences in the tendency to feather peck. From the inverse relation between feather pecking and foraging behaviour found earlier, we hypothesised that genetically determined differences in foraging behaviour could be responsible for the observed differences in feather pecking between strains.In a first experiment we tested whether there are differences in the foraging behaviour of two hybrids. As hybrids, we used Lohman selected leghorn (LSL) and Dekalb; eight groups of 20 1-day old chicks each. They were kept in enriched pens (265cmx90cm) with a litter area (200cmx90cm) consisting of wood-shavings, chaff, straw, polystyrene blocks, sand area (65cmx90cm) and elevated perches. Behavioural observations were carried out in week 4. In a subsequent experiment with the same birds we tested how the foraging behaviour of the two hybrids differed when housing conditions were changed from enriched to restricted and to what extent they developed feather pecking. A 2x2 factorial design with hybrid (LSL, Dekalb) and housing condition (restricted, enriched) as factors and with four replicates of each factor combination was used. Half of the pens of each hybrid were changed from enriched to restricted housing conditions by covering the litter area with slats. Behavioural observations were carried out in weeks 5 and 6.In experiment 1, LSL and Dekalb spent the same amount of time foraging, but Dekalb spent significantly more of that time with pecking and hacking at the polystyrene blocks. On the other hand, LSL spent significantly more time at the feeding troughs and rested significantly less than Dekalb. In the restricted environment of experiment 2, again, the total foraging time did not differ between hybrids, but LSL chicks spent significantly less time scratching, while Dekalb spent significantly more time moving. Both hybrids developed feather pecking but LSL showed significantly higher rates than Dekalb.Our results demonstrate genetic differences in the foraging behaviour and in the way hybrids cope with the change in housing condition from enriched to an environment that is restricted in relation to foraging possibilities. We conclude that the results support the hypothesis put forward that genetic differences in foraging behaviour could be the basis for the genetic influence in the development of feather pecking.

Entities:  

Year:  2000        PMID: 11080557     DOI: 10.1016/s0168-1591(00)00147-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Appl Anim Behav Sci        ISSN: 0168-1591            Impact factor:   2.448


  8 in total

1.  Influence of genetic strain and access to litter on spatial distribution of 4 strains of laying hens in an aviary system.

Authors:  A B A Ali; D L M Campbell; D M Karcher; J M Siegford
Journal:  Poult Sci       Date:  2016-07-21       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  Identification of chromosomal locations associated with tail biting and being a victim of tail-biting behaviour in the domestic pig (Sus scrofa domesticus).

Authors:  Kaitlin Wilson; Ricardo Zanella; Carlos Ventura; Hanne Lind Johansen; Tore Framstad; Andrew Janczak; Adroaldo J Zanella; Holly Louise Neibergs
Journal:  J Appl Genet       Date:  2012-09-02       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Behavioral Differences of Laying Hens with Fractured Keel Bones within Furnished Cages.

Authors:  Teresa M Casey-Trott; Tina M Widowski
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2016-05-31

4.  A meta-analysis on the effect of environmental enrichment on feather pecking and feather damage in laying hens.

Authors:  Nienke van Staaveren; Jennifer Ellis; Christine F Baes; Alexandra Harlander-Matauschek
Journal:  Poult Sci       Date:  2020-11-19       Impact factor: 3.352

5.  Floor Substrate Preferences of Chickens: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Valerie Monckton; Jennifer L Ellis; Alexandra Harlander-Matauschek
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2020-12-09

6.  Relation between Feed Particle Size Distribution and Plumage Condition in Laying Hens on Commercial Farms.

Authors:  Ruben Schreiter; Klaus Damme; Markus Freick
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-03-11       Impact factor: 2.752

Review 7.  Welfare issues and potential solutions for laying hens in free range and organic production systems: A review based on literature and interviews.

Authors:  Claire Bonnefous; Anne Collin; Laurence A Guilloteau; Vanessa Guesdon; Christine Filliat; Sophie Réhault-Godbert; T Bas Rodenburg; Frank A M Tuyttens; Laura Warin; Sanna Steenfeldt; Lisa Baldinger; Martina Re; Raffaella Ponzio; Anna Zuliani; Pietro Venezia; Minna Väre; Patricia Parrott; Keith Walley; Jarkko K Niemi; Christine Leterrier
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2022-08-05

8.  A risk assessment of health, production, and resource occupancy for 4 laying hen strains across the lay cycle in a commercial-style aviary system.

Authors:  Ahmed B A Ali; Dana L M Campbell; Janice M Siegford
Journal:  Poult Sci       Date:  2020-07-08       Impact factor: 3.352

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.