Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:10:28.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of selection on low mortality and brooding by a mother hen on open-field response, feather pecking and cannibalism in laying hens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

TB Rodenburg ,
KA Uitdehaag ,
ED Ellen  and
J Komen
TB Rodenburg*
Affiliation:
Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
KA Uitdehaag
Affiliation:
Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands Vencomatic BV, PO Box 160, 5520 AD Eersel, The Netherlands
ED Ellen
Affiliation:
Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
J Komen
Affiliation:
Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The aim of the present study was to investigate the effects of selection on low mortality in combination with brooding by a mother hen on open-field response at 5-6 weeks of age and on plumage and body condition at 42 weeks of age. Birds in the experiment were either selected for low mortality in group housing (low mortality line) or randomly selected (control line) for two generations. These lines originated from the same population. Twenty groups of 10 female birds from each line were used. Within each line, ten groups were brooded by a foster mother and ten groups were non-brooded. At 5-6 weeks of age, the chicks were tested in an open-field test for five minutes. At 42 weeks of age, plumage condition and incidence of comb lesions and toe wounds of all birds was recorded. It was found that both brooded chicks and chicks from the low mortality line were more active in the open-field test at 5-6 weeks of age, indicating that they were less fearful or had a stronger exploratory motivation. No interactions were found between selection on low mortality and brooding. Birds from the low mortality line also had a lower incidence of comb and toe wounds compared with the control line at 42 weeks of age. No effect of brooding on plumage condition or incidence of wounds was found. This study indicates that selection on low mortality is a promising way forward to reduce maladaptive behaviour in laying hens, especially if such an approach is combined with improved rearing conditions.

Keywords

animal welfarebroodingcannibalismfeather peckinggenetic selectionlaying hens
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 18 , Issue 4: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , November 2009 , pp. 427 - 432
Copyright
© 2009 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Blokhuis, HJ 1986 Feather-pecking in poultry: its relation with ground-pecking. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 16: 63–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolhuis, JE, Ellen, ED, Van Reenen, CG, De Groot, J, Ten Napel, J, Koopmanschap, R, De Vries-Reilingh, G, Uitdehaag, KA, Kemp, B and Rodenburg, TB 2009 Effects of genetic group selection against mortality on behaviour and peripheral serotonin in domestic laying hens with trimmed and intact beaks. Physiology & Behavior 97: 470–475CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellen, ED, Muir, WM and Bijma, P 2007 Genetic improvement of traits affected by interactions among individuals: sib selection schemes. Genetics 176: 489–499CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellen, ED, Visscher, J, van Arendonk, JAM and Bijma, P 2008 Survival of laying hens: genetic parameters for direct and associative effects in three purebred layer lines. Poultry Science 87: 233–239CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forkman, B, Boissy, A, Meunier-Salaun, MC, Canali, E and Jones, RB 2007 A critical review of fear tests used on cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry and horses. Physiology & Behavior 92: 340–374CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gallup, GG and Suarez, SD 1980 An ethological analysis of open-field behaviour in chickens. Animal Behaviour 28: 368–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsburg, HJ, Braud, WG and Taylor, RD 1974 Inhibition of distress vocalizations in open-field as a function of heightened fear or arousal in domestic fowl (Gallus gallus). Animal Behaviour 22: 745–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glatz, PC and Bourke, M 2006 Beak Trimming Handbook for Egg Producers: Best Practices for Minimising Cannibalism in Poultry. Landlinks Press: Collingwood VIC, AustraliaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber-Eicher, B and Wechsler, B 1997 Feather pecking in domestic chicks: its relation to dustbathing and foraging. Animal Behaviour 54: 757–768CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, BO and Duncan, IJH 1972 The influence of strain and environmental factors upon feather pecking and cannibalism in fowls. British Poultry Science 13: 525–547CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, RB, Blokhuis, HJ and Beuving, G 1995 Open-field and tonic immobility responses in domestic chicks of two genetic lines differing in their propensity to feather peck. British Poultry Science 36: 525–530CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kjaer, JB, S⊘rensen, P and Su, G 2001 Divergent selection on feather pecking behaviour in laying hens (Gallus gallus domesticus). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 71: 229–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, ML, Horn, AG and Fairfull, RW 1995 Correlates and consequences of allopecking in White Leghorn chickens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 43: 17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muir, WM 1996 Group selection for adaptation to multiple-hen cages: selection program and direct responses. Poultry Science 75: 447–458CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perré, Y, Wauters, AM and Richard-Yris, MA 2002 Influence of mothering on emotional and social reactivity of domestic pullets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 75: 133–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riber, AB, Wichman, A, Braastad, BO and Forkman, B 2007 Effects of broody hens on perch use, ground pecking, feather pecking and cannibalism in domestic fowl (Gallus gallus domesticus). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 106: 39–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roden, C and Wechsler, B 1998 A comparison of the behaviour of domestic chicks reared with or without a hen in enriched pens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 55: 317–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodenburg, TB, Buitenhuis, AJ, Ask, B, Uitdehaag, KA, Koene, P, Van der Poel, JJ and Bovenhuis, H 2003 Heritability of feather pecking and open-field response in laying hens at two different ages. Poultry Science 82: 861–867CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodenburg, TB, Buitenhuis, AJ, Ask, B, Uitdehaag, KA, Koene, P, van der Poel, JJ, van Arendonk, JAM and Bovenhuis, H 2004a Genetic and phenotypic correlations between feather pecking and open-field response in laying hens at two different ages. Behavior Genetics 34: 407–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodenburg, TB, Koene, P and Spruijt, BM 2004b Reaction to frustration in high and low feather pecking lines of laying hens from commercial or semi-natural rearing conditions. Behavioural Processes 65: 179–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS 2002 SAS® Proprietary Software Release 9.1.3 Service Pack 4, Copyright 2002-2003. SAS Institute Inc: Cary, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
Savory, CJ 1995 Feather pecking and cannibalism. World's Poultry Science Journal 51: 215–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sedlackova, M, Bilcik, B and Kostal, L 2004 Feather pecking in laying hens: environmental and endogenous factors. Acta Veterinaria Brno 73: 521–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tauson, R, Kjaer, J, Maria, G, Cepero, R and Holm, KE 2005 Applied scoring of integument and health in laying hens. Animal Science Papers and Reports 23: 153–159Google Scholar
Vestergaard, KS, Kruijt, JP and Hogan, JA 1993 Feather pecking and chronic fear in groups of red junglefowl: their relations to dustbathing, rearing environment and social status. Animal Behaviour 45: 1127–1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar