DOCSLIB.ORG

Clinic of Birds and Reptiles Faculty of Veterinary Medicine University of Leipzig

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Clinic of Birds and Reptiles Faculty of Veterinary Medicine University of Leipzig Clinic of Birds and Reptiles Faculty of Veterinary Medicine University of Leipzig and Animal Husbandry and Animal Ecology Group Institute of Agricultural and Nutritional Sciences Natural Sciences Faculty III Martin-Luther University Halle-Wittenberg Genetic and environmental factors influencing the behaviour and health of laying hens with emphasis on feather pecking Thesis for the degree of Doctor medicinae veterinariae (Dr. med. vet.) from the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine University of Leipzig presented by Sameh Gad Abdel-hak Ramadan, M.V.Sc. from El-Dakahlia, Egypt Leipzig, 2007 Mit Genehmigung der Veterinärmedizinischen Fakultät der Universität Leipzig Dekan: Prof. Dr. med. vet. K. Fehlhaber Betreuer: Prof. Dr. med. vet. Maria-Elisabeth Krautwald-Junghanns Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Eberhard von Borell Gutachter: Prof. Dr. med. vet. Maria-Elisabeth Krautwald-Junghanns Klinik für Vögel und Reptilien, Veterinärmedizinische Fakultät, Universität Leipzig Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Eberhard von Borell Professur für Tierhaltung und Nutztierökologie, Institut für Agrar- und Ernährungswissenschaften, Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät III, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg Prof. Dr. med. vet. Uwe Truyen Institut für Tierhygiene und Öffentliches Veterinärwesen,Veterinärmedizinische Fakultät, Universität Leipzig Prof. Dr. Dr. med. vet. habil Hafez Mohamed Hafez Institut für Geflügelkrankheit, Veterinärmedizinische Fakultät, Freie Universität Berlin Tag der Verteidigung: 30. Oktober 2007 To my family CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 4 2.1 Behavioural biology of the bird (hen) 4 2.2 Function and anatomy of feathers 6 2.2.1. Definition of feathers 6 2.2.2 Function of feathers 6 2.2.3 Feathers and body surface 7 2.2.4 Types and anatomy of feathers 7 2.2.5 Forms of feathers damage 9 2.3 Housing systems 10 2.3.1 Main egg production systems 10 2.3.1.1 Cage systems 10 2.3.1.1.1 Conventional battery cages 10 2.3.1.1.2 Furnished/enriched cages 11 2.3.1.2 Non cage systems 12 2.3.1.2.1 The perchery (barn) system 12 2.3.1.2.2 The deep litter system 12 2.3.1.2.3 Free range system 12 2.3.1.2.4 Semi intensive system 12 2.4 Feather pecking and cannibalism 13 2.4.1. Relationship between feather pecking and cannibalism 15 2.4.2 Types of feather pecking 15 2.4.2.1 Relationship between gentle and severe feather pecking 16 2.4.3 Factors influencing the occurrence and development of feather pecking 17 2.4.3.1 Causation of feather pecking 17 2.4.3.2 External factors 18 2.4.3.3 Internal factors 21 2.4.4 Control of feather pecking 23 2.5 Behaviour patterns related to feather pecking 25 2.5.1 Dustbathing behaviour 25 2.5.2 Foraging behaviour 27 2.6 (Some experiments related to) Feather function and feather pecking 29 2.6.1 Effect of feathers manipulation on the incidence of feather pecking and cannibalism 29 2.6.2 Feather as a substrate for dustbathing 29 2.6.3 Feather eating and its role in the aetiology of feather pecking damage 30 2.6.3.1 Relationship between feather eating, feather pecking and feather attractiveness 31 2.6.4 Demand of laying hens for straw and feathers as litter substrates 32 2.6.5 Pecking at feather bunches 32 2.6.6 Demand of laying hens for feathers and wood shavings 34 2.7 Fear 34 3 ANIMALS, MATERIAL AND METHODS 36 3.1. Birds and housing 36 3.1.1 Rearing period (0-16 weeks of age) 36 3.1.2 Laying period (from 16 weeks of age) 36 3.2 Experimental design 38 3.2.1 Experiment I 39 3.2.2 Experiment II 40 3.3 Behavioural observations 40 3.3.1. Feather pecking 41 3.3.2 Other behaviour activities 41 3.4 Feather scoring 43 3.5 Tonic immobility 44 3.6 Egg production 45 3.7 Body weight 45 3.8 Statistical analysis 45 4 RESULTS 47 4.1 Feather treatment and genotype (first experiment) 47 A- Rearing period 47 4.1.1 Effect of feather treatment and genotype on the rate of feather pecking 47 4.1.2 Feather pecking directed to different body parts 49 4.1.3 Effect of feather treatment and genotype on the behavioural activities 51 4.1.4 Effect of feather treatment and genotype on feather condition. 52 4.1.5 Effect of feather treatment and genotype on body weight 54 B- Laying period 54 4.1.6 Effect of feather treatment and genotype on the rate of feather pecking 54 4.1.7 Feather pecking directed to different body parts 57 4.1.8 Location of feather pecking activity. 58 4.1.9 Behavioural activities in LT and LS during the laying period. 59 4.1.10 Effect of feather treatment and genotype on feather condition. 60 4.1.11 Effect of feather treatment and genotype on skin injuries 64 4.1.12 Effect of feather treatment and genotype on body weight 66 4.1.13 Effect of feather treatment and genotype on egg production. 67 4.2 Feather treatment and imprinting to loose feathers (second experiment) 68 A- Rearing period 68 4.2.1 Effect of feather treatment on the rate of feather pecking 68 4.2.2 Feather pecking directed to different body parts 70 4.2.3 Effects of feather treatment on the behavioural activities 70 4.2.4 Effects of feather treatment on the plumage condition 71 4.2.5 Effect of feather treatment on body weight 71 B- Laying period 72 4.2.6 Effect of feather treatment on the rate of feather pecking 72 4.2.7 Feather pecking directed to different body parts 73 4.2.8 Location of feather pecking activity 74 4.2.9 Effect of feather treatment on the behavioural activities 75 4.2.10 Effect of feather treatment on feather condition 75 4.2.11 Skin injuries 78 4.2.12 Effect of feather treatment on body weight 79 4.2.13 Effect of feather treatment on egg production 79 4.2.14 Effect of feather treatment on fear reactions of the birds (TI test) 80 4.2.15 Mortality rate 80 5 DISCUSSION 81 5.1 Feather treatment and genotype 81 5.2 Feather treatment and imprinting to loose feathers 94 5.3 Conclusions 101 6 SUMMARY 103 7 ZUSAMMENFASSUNG 105 8 REFERENCES 107 ABBREVIATIONS °C Degree celsius Cm Centimetre cm² Square centimetre (cont) Control group (+f) With feather group (-f) Without feather group FP Feather pecking G. Gallus GLM General linear model h Hour HFP High feather pecking birds Kg/ g Kilogram/ Gram LB Lohmann Brown LFP Low feather pecking birds LS Lohmann Silver LSL Lohmann Selected Leghorn LS-Means Least squares means LT Lohmann Tradition m Metre m² Square Metre ME Metabolised energy min Minute ns Non-significant PH Poultry house s Second SE Standard Error TI Tonic immobility vs. Versus WG Winter garden Exp. Experiment Introduction 1 INTRODUCTION In 1999 the European Commission approved the directive on the welfare of laying hens banning the traditional battery cages from 2012. This type of cages has been criticised because the space available is restricted and of the barrenness of the environment, which could not fulfil the bird’s need to express their natural behaviour and causes severe welfare disadvantages for the hens (APPLEBY 2003). Enriched cages (which provide more space, perches, nest box and litter area) will still be allowed. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop feasible alternative housing systems for layers (SEDLACKOVA et al. 2004). These systems, however, show much higher incidence of feather pecking and cannibalism compared to cage systems (MORGENSTERN 1995; GREEN et al. 2000; PÖTZSCH et al. 2001; APPLEBY 2003; BESTMAN and WAGENAAR 2003). Feather pecking is an abnormal behaviour where laying hens peck the feathers of conspecifics, damaging the plumage or even injuring the skin, so it is considered as one of the most widespread and serious problems of today’s poultry production when hens are kept under commercial conditions (SAVORY 1995; BLOKHUIS et al. 2000). It causes reduced welfare of the bird, as it has been suggested that having feathers pulled out is painful for the recipient hen (GENTLE and HUNTER 1990) and it can lead to cannibalism (ALLEN and PERRY 1975). Moreover, it increases economical losses due to increased mortality, reduction in egg production (JOHNSEN et al. 1998; EL-LETHY et al. 2000), increased food consumption (LEESON and MORRISON 1978), and is also associated with increased (chronic) fear (HUGHES and DUNCAN 1972; QUART and ADAMS 1982). Feather pecking and cannibalism are found in battery cages as well as in modified cages, deep litter and aviary systems (ALLEN and PERRY 1975; BESSEI et al. 1984; APPLEBY and HUGHES 1991). It can occur during both the rearing and laying periods (HUGEHS and DUNCAN 1972; ALLEN and PERRY 1975; HUBER- EICHER and WECHSLER 1997, 1998). JOHNSEN and VESTERGAARD (1997) emphasised the importance of early rearing conditions (litter substrate) on the development of feather pecking behaviour, and it is possible that feather availability on litter in early life may affect subsequent pecking behaviour. Feather eating has been observed in commercial layers (SAVORY and MANN 1997), pullets prefer to eat shorter semiplumes rather than longer ones, and once feather eating has become established, a too low availability of short feathers on ______________________________________________________________________1 Introduction pen floors may cause feather eating and pecking to be redirected to other birds (MCKEEGAN and SAVORY 1999). Various studies indicated that early pecking experience is related to later preference for dustbathing substrates in domestic chicks (VESTERGAARD and BARANYIOVA 1996). It is therefore likely that early pecking experience with inedible loose substrates lead to an imprinting like process whereby the pecked substrate becomes preferred for dustbathing later in life (VESTERGAARD and BILDS∅E 1999).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • (Mother Hens' Uropygial Secretion Analogue) Sur Le Stress Des Poulets
    TTHHÈÈ SSEE En vue de l'obtention du DOCTORAT DE L’UNIV ERSITÉ DE TOULOUSE Délivré par L'Institut National Polytechnique Discipline ou spécialité : Pathologie, Toxicologie, Génétique & Nutrition Présentée et soutenue par Iltud MADEC Le 19 mai 2008 Titre : Effets du sémiochimique MHUSA (Mother Hens’ Uropygial Secretion Analogue) sur le stress des poulets de chair. Approches zootechnique, physiologique et comportementale. JURY Pr Jean DAYDE, Président. Pr Xavier MANTECA, Rapporteur. Pr Giovanni RE, Rapporteur. Pr Patrick PAGEAT, Tuteur. Dr Jean-François GABARROU, Tuteur. Pr Xavier FERNANDEZ, Membre. Dr Anne-Marie LESENEY, Membre. Ecole doctorale : Sciences Ecologiques, Vétérinaires, Agronomiques et Bioingéniéries Unité de recherche : Institut de Recherche Phérosynthèse, Ecole d'Ingénieurs de Purpan Directeur(s) de Thèse : Pr Vassilia THEODOROU Rapporteurs : MM. les Pr X. MANTECA et G. RE SOMMAIRE Remerciements Liste des publications Liste des sigles et abréviations Liste des illustrations INTRODUCTION Partie I : contexte de l’étude Partie II : objectifs de travail et résultats Partie III : discussion générale CONCLUSION Bibliographie Table des matières 1 « On aime sa mère presque sans le savoir, et on ne s’aperçoit de toute la profondeur des racines de cet amour qu’au moment de la séparation dernière. » Guy de Maupassant 2 Remerciements Ce mémoire n’est pas un aboutissement, mais une étape. Néanmoins ce moment marque, comme tous les moments forts d’une vie. Il faut maintenant passer à autre chose en se servant de cette dernière comme d’un atout. Cette étape m’a vu grandir et évoluer vers une certaine forme de maturité, j’espère en faire partager mon entourage. C’est ce dernier, tant professionnel que personnel (parfois les deux sont conjugués), que je souhaite remercier dans ce message.
    [Show full text]
  • Chickens As Patients - UEP2013 - VIN
    7/27/2020 Chickens as Patients - UEP2013 - VIN Chickens as Patients AAVAC-UPAV 2013 Anna Meredith, MA, VetMB, PhD, CertLAS, DZooMed, MRCVS Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK Introduction The keeping of non-commercial backyard poultry is increasing greatly in popularity. Ducks, geese, pheasants, guinea fowl and other species may all be kept, but chickens are probably the most common species presented in general practice. People keep chickens for different reasons, including just having a few hens for private egg production and consumption, breeding of exhibition or "fancy" birds, small layer or meat bird flocks, or as true pets that also help to weed the garden. Chicken owners will vary from very experienced to complete novices. For these types of poultry, the local small animal or mixed veterinary practitioner is likely to be called upon rather than an experienced commercial poultry vet, although this may well be after advice has been sought from the breeder, agricultural merchant or internet first and various treatments applied. Many owners become very attached to their birds and invest time and money in their care, and will expect their veterinary surgeon to be knowledgeable, able to advise on general husbandry and management and to treat any problems effectively. The domestic chicken is descended from the red junglefowl (Gallus gallus), but has been domesticated into a large variety of breeds. Choice of breed usually depends on the purpose of keeping the chicken. Bantams are often kept if space is limited; these are small varieties with correspondingly small eggs, and most large breeds have a bantam (miniature) version.
    [Show full text]
  • Controlling Feather Pecking and Cannibalism in Laying Hens Without
    CONTROLLING FEATHER PECKING & CANNIBALISM IN LAYING HENS WITHOUT BEAK TRIMMING A Compassion in World Farming Report by Heather Pickett MSc BSc (hons) October 2009, revised March 2011 Registered Charity No. 1095050 Compassion in World Farming is grateful to The Rufford Maurice Laing Foundation whose funding made this research possible. www.rufford.org EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Hens are often beak trimmed to reduce the risk of welfare problems caused by feather pecking and cannibalism. The consequences of beak trimming for welfare include trauma during the procedure, pain due to tissue damage and nerve injury, loss of normal function due to reduced ability to sense materials with the beak, and loss of integrity of a living animal. This report reviews the evidence from the scientific literature and from practical experience, which demonstrates that feather pecking and cannibalism can be controlled in non-cage systems without beak trimming through (i) the use of appropriate strains and selective breeding to further reduce the hens’ propensity to feather peck and (ii) good design of non-cage systems and implementation of a range of preventive management practices. Experience in other European countries where beak trimming has been prohibited indicates that, with experience, laying hens can be successfully managed in non-cage systems without beak trimming. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has repealed the ban on the beak trimming of laying hens in England, which was due to come into force on 1st January 2011. Instead, the government has merely banned the use of the hot blade method for beak-trimming, except in emergencies on-farm, while allowing beak-trimming by the infra-red (IR) beam method to continue.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of Nutritional Factors on Feather Pecking Behaviour of Laying Hens in Non-Cage Housing Systems
    Impact of nutritional factors on feather pecking behaviour of laying hens in non-cage housing systems 1* 2 1 1 M.M. VAN KRIMPEN , R.P. KWAKKEL , G. ANDRÉ , C.M.C. VAN DER PEET-SCHWERING , L.A. 3,4 2 DEN HARTOG and M.W.A. VERSTEGEN 1Animal Production, Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen UR, PO Box 65, NL-8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands; 2Animal Nutrition Group, 3Animal Production Systems Group, Department of Animal Sciences, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, NL-6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands and 4Nutreco R&D, PO Box 220, NL-5830 AE Boxmeer, The Netherlands *Corresponding author: [email protected] The expected bans on battery cages (EU) and beak trimming (e.g. The Netherlands) may cause an increased risk of feather pecking and cannibalism in layers. Many factors influence feather pecking behaviour, but in this review we will focus on nutritional factors. Dietary deficiencies, resulting in inaccurate delivery of nutrients, may increase feather pecking behaviour and cannibalism. Severe feather pecking has been demonstrated in birds that were fed too low mineral levels, protein levels or amino acid levels (methionine, arginine). Feeding high-NSP diets, low energy diets, or roughages reduced feather pecking. Providing additional grain or straw in the litter during rearing could result in lower levels of feather pecking behaviour in adult stages. Nutritional factors seem to reduce feather pecking behaviour in laying hens if these factors increase the time related to foraging, feed intake and satisfying. Laying hens may spend more time on these behaviours when they are fed 1) mash diets in stead of crumbles or pellets, 2) low energy diets, 3) high (in-)soluble fibre diets or 4) roughages.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Feather Cover a Guide to Reducing the Risk of Injurious Pecking Occurring in Non-Cage Laying Hens
    Improving Feather Cover A guide to reducing the risk of injurious pecking occurring in non-cage laying hens 2013 © University of Bristol Introduction This guide summarises strategies available to reduce the risk of injurious pecking occurring in non- cage laying hens during both rearing and laying. Beak-trimming and alterations to lighting are commonly practised to control injurious pecking, but these are not ideal in terms of bird welfare. The strategies discussed in this guide offer many ways of reducing the risk of injurious pecking occurring, which may also offer other benefits. Injurious pecking (IP) is an umbrella term covering a group of behaviours; gentle and severe feather pecking, vent pecking, and cannibalistic pecking. Gentle feather pecking (GFP) consists of gentle pecks to the tips of the feathers. This type of feather pecking (FP) usually does not result in much damage and is often ignored by the recipient. It can indicate a welfare problem in the bird performing the behaviour, and precede more serious pecking. Severe feather pecking (SFP) causes the most damage to Cannibalistic pecking occurs when SFP the recipient; it consists of forceful pecks and pulls of has led to feather loss and bald feathers that are frequently eaten and results in feather patches. Pecking can then continue on loss especially on the back, vent and tail area. Victims of the skin, leading to wounds and may SFP often initially move away, squawk or confront the eventually lead to the victim’s death pecker in response to receiving SFP, which are painful. If due to excessive blood loss, tissue SFP continues, however, victims have also been observed damage & infections.
    [Show full text]
  • Chów I Hodowla Zwierząt Gospodarskich Na Przestrzeni 70 Lat - Problemy I Wyzwania
    70 LAT g | 1950-2020 { m x z b Chów i hodowla zwierząt gospodarskich na przestrzeni 70 lat - problemy i wyzwania Zakład Hodowli Drobiu Zakład Hodowli Drobnego Inwentarza Instytutu Zootechniki PIB MONOGRAFIA Kraków 2020 Chów i hodowla zwierząt gospodarskich na przestrzeni 70 lat – problemy i wyzwania Zakład Hodowli Drobiu Zakład Hodowli Drobnego Inwentarza Instytutu Zootechniki PIB MONOGRAFIA Kraków 2020 1 INSTYTUT ZOOTECHNIKI PAŃSTWOWY INSTYTUT BADAWCZY 32-083 Balice, ul. Krakowska 1 tel. 12 3572500 fax 12 422 8065 www.izoo.krakow.pl facebook.com/IZOO.PIB twitter.com/iz_pib [email protected] Monografia pod redakcją: prof. dr hab. Dorota Kowalska dr hab. Katarzyna Połtowicz, prof. IZ PIB Recenzenci: prof. dr hab. Grażyna Jeżewska-Nitkowska prof. dr hab. Stanisław Socha Opracowanie redakcyjne: mgr Danuta Dobrowolska Opracowanie graficzne, projekt okładki i skład tekstu: mgr Bogusława Krawiec Fot. na okładce: archiwum Zakładu Hodowli Drobnego Inwentarza J. Calik, K. Anders ISBN 978-83-7607-353-8 © Copyright by Instytut Zootechniki PIB Ark. wyd. 15,1 Ark. druk. 14,4 Druk: Zespół Wydawnictw i Poligrafii IZ PIB 2 PRACE NAUKOWE Z ZAKRESU HODOWLI DROBIU I DROBNEGO INWENTARZA W INSTYTUCIE ZOOTECHNIKI PAŃSTWOWYM INSTYTUCIE BADAWCZYM 3 Spis treści Zakład Hodowli Drobiu ..................................................................... 5 Zakład Hodowli Drobnego Inwentarza ............................................. 121 4 Zakład Hodowli Drobiu 5 Spis treści rozdziału Zakład Hodowli Drobiu 1. Eugeniusz Herbut, Katarzyna Połtowicz: Rys historyczny ……………………………………………..…………… 7 2. Józefa Krawczyk, Jolanta Calik: Genetyka i bioróżnorodność drobiu …..………………………………… 17 3. Ewa Sosnówka-Czajka, Iwona Skomorucha: Systemy utrzymania a produkcyjność i dobrostan drobiu …….………..... 38 4. Iwona Skomorucha, Ewa Sosnówka-Czajka: Wpływ różnych technologii chowu na produkcyjność i dobrostan kurcząt brojlerów ………………………………………………………………….
    [Show full text]
  • Feather Pecking in Organic Rearing Hens
    Feather pecking in organic rearing hens M. Bestman and J.P. Wagenaar Abstract – Feather pecking is the main welfare prob- METHODS lem in organic laying hens. Several studies showed For our study we concentrated on 10 different rear- that rearing factors are of crucial importance for ing farms, who were contracted by 3 hatcheries. We feather pecking not only during rearing, but also monitored 29 flocks of pullets on these 10 farms. during the laying period. In order to collect back- However, some of our 29 flocks have spend their ground information for our handbook about organic first weeks on another farm. Therefore, in our study pullet rearing, we collected data from 29 flocks from week 1 to week 30. We wanted to know the degree of 19 different farms were involved that did warm feather pecking during rearing, risk factors for feather rearing and 10 different farms that did cold rearing. pecking and the persistence of feather pecking There was some overlap between the 19 warm and throughout the whole life. Feather pecking was seen the 10 cold rearing farms, formed by the farms that in 54% of the rearing flocks, although symptoms could do both. Finally, the hens raised on our ‘study’ were very subtle. The main risk factor was high den- farms went to 29 different laying farms. sity during the first 4 weeks of life. Finally, feather We collected data from week 1 to week 30 about pecking once started during rearing, seems to be very management, housing and feather pecking damage. persistent throughout the whole life.
    [Show full text]
  • Newsletter Kepro January 2017
    NEWSLETTER KEPRO JANUARY 2017 FEATHER PECKING AND CANNIBALISM IN POULTRY Feather pecking and cannibalism remain major welfare issues in the laying hen industry. In large flocks of birds with intact beaks, feather pecking and cannibalism are much more difficult to control, which will probably result in more feather damage and increased mortality levels. Different forms of bird-to-bird pecking can be distinguished: - Gentle feather pecking: gentle pecks to the tips of the feathers. - Severe feather pecking: this is the more damaging form, which includes forceful pecks and vigorous pulls. This often results in removal of the feathers. The plucked feathers are frequently eaten by the pecker. In the denuded body areas of the victim, cannibalistic tissue pecking can develop, resulting in the wounding and death of the victim. - Aggressive pecking: these pecks are directed to the head or neck of the bird and are used to maintain the dominance hierarchy. Aggressive pecking usually results in little damage in laying hens. Feather pecking can result in poor plumage, patches of feather loss, skin damage and even death. Where feather pecking develops into injurious pecking and the protective function of the bird’s plumage is lost, cannibalism can be triggered. There are different causes of feather pecking behavior: - Stress. Some breeds are more prone to stress and are more likely to show feather pecking behavior. - Sudden, unexpected changes in ration. - Parasites, like red mite and chicken lice. - Suboptimal nutrition intake. - Lighting variations. Treatment and management If you come across a flock with feather pecking behavior, there a few things which need to be checked: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Stocking Density on Feather Pecking and Aggressive Behavior in Thai Crossbred Chickens
    Agriculture and Natural Resources 50 (2016) 396e399 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Agriculture and Natural Resources journal homepage: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/agriculture-and- natural-resources/ Original Article Effects of stocking density on feather pecking and aggressive behavior in Thai crossbred chickens * Xin Huo,a Pongchan Na-Lampangb, a Veterinary Technology Program, Faculty of Science and Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima Rajabhat University, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, Thailand b School of Animal Production Technology, Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, Thailand article info abstract Article history: The influence of stocking density on feather pecking and aggressive behavior of Thai crossbred chickens Received 22 March 2015 was investigated from age 4e12 wk. In total, 900 day-old mixed sex Thai crossbred chickens were Accepted 12 April 2016 assigned to three replicates of 100 birds per pen, at stocking densities of 8 birds/m2, 12 birds/m2 and 16 Available online 27 December 2016 birds/m2, respectively. The frequency of feather pecking, the number of pecks per bout, pecking intensity and the frequency of aggressive behavior were recorded once a week by scanning all the birds in the pen. Keywords: It was found that the stocking density had no effect on the frequencies of feather pecking on body areas Aggressive except on the wings area (p < 0.05). The stocking density had no effect on the occurrence of 1e4 pecks Feather pecking e fi fl Stocking density per bout or 5 9 pecks per bout. The stocking density had no signi cant in uence on the pecking, Thai crossbred chicken pinching or plucking intensity, except on the intensity of pulling.
    [Show full text]
  • Beak Trimming Methods -Review
    1619 Beak Trimming Methods -Review - P. C. Glatz* Pig and Poultry Production Institute, South Australian Research and Development Institute Roseworthy, South Australia, 5371, Australia ABSTRACT : A review was undertaken to obtain information on the range of beak-trimming methods available or under development. Beak-trimming of commercial layer replacement pullets is a common yet critical management tool that can affect the performance for the life of the flock. The most obvious advantage of beak-trimming is a reduction in cannibalism although the extent of the reduction in cannibalism depends on the strain, season, and type of housing, flock health and other factors. Beak-trimming also improves feed conversion by reducing food wastage. A further advantage of beak-trimming is a reduction in the chronic stress associated with dominance interactions in the flock. Beak-trimming of birds at 7-10 days is favoured by Industry but research over last 10 years has shown that beak-trimming at day-old causes the least stress on birds and efforts are needed to encourage Industry to adopt the practice of beak-trimming birds at day-old. Proper beak-trimming can result in greatly improved layer performance but improper beak-trimming can ruin an other wise good flock of hens. Re-trimming is practiced in most flocks, although there are some flocks that only need one trimming. Given the continuing welfare scrutiny of using a hot blade to cut the beak, attempts have been made to develop more welfare friendly methods of beak-trimming. Despite the developments in design of hot blade beak-trimmers the process has remained largely unchanged.
    [Show full text]
  • Stress in Chickens Effects of Domestication and Early Experience on Behaviour and Welfare
    Linköping studies in science and technology. Dissertation No. 1755 Stress in chickens Effects of domestication and early experience on behaviour and welfare Maria Ericsson IFM Biology Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology Linköping University, SE-581 83, Linköping, Sweden Linköping 2016 Stress in chickens: Effects of domestication and early experience on behaviour and welfare Maria Ericsson Linköping studies in science and technology. Dissertations, No. 1755 ISSN: 0345-7524 ISBN: 978-91-7685-796-0 Front cover: Red Junglefowl chicks Photo: Maria Ericsson Copywright © Maria Ericsson unless otherwise noted Printed by LiU-Tryck, Linköping, Sweden, 2016 Till mina stjärnor Abstract The domestication is the process where animals have adapted to human conditions. A prerequisite for domestication is tame behaviour towards humans and subsequently, selection for other desirable traits took place which led to changes in several behavioural and physiological parameters. The domestication of chickens (Gallus gallus) was initiated around 8000 years ago, and today we see clear phenotypic and genotypic alterations when comparing domestic breeds with the wild ancestor. Our modern domestic production breeds have been selected for, and still undergo heavy selection for high meat and egg yields. Beside obvious morphological changes, studies investigating behavioural differences between the ancestral Red Junglefowl and domestic breeds show, for example, differences in fearfulness, foraging strategies, exploratory behaviour and sociality. The modern production environments are intense and already from hatch chicks are exposed to harsh conditions. From an animal welfare perspective, the production environment contain many stressful aspects. The shift in stressor types between wild and captive conditions have likely contributed to alterations in stress tolerance when comparing domestic breeds to the wild ancestors.
    [Show full text]
  • April 2014 Volume 93, Number 4
    93 April 2014 Volume 93, Number 4 S R Y C T I E L N U C O E P A 11908908 S N S O O C I AT I ISSN 0032-5791 Official Journal of the Poultry Science Association Inc. EDITOR-IN-CHIEF ® T. E. Porter (2016) POULTRY SCIENCE SECTION EDITORS ASSOCIATE EDITORS (2013–2014) Environment, Well-Being, ǯȱȱǻŘŖŗśǼ I. Hanning (2016) M. Pines (2014) Ȳȱ ǯȱȱǻŘŖŗśǼ ǯȱ ěȱǻŘŖŗŚǼ T. Poole (2016) I. Estevez (2014) H. Ahmadi (2013) R. M. Hulet (2014) ǯȱȱǻŘŖŗśǼ M. M. Beck (2016) W. Alali (2016) ǯȱ ȱǻŘŖŗśǼ A. Pradhan (2014) ǯȱ ǯȱȱǻŘŖŗśǼ A. Jackson-Davis (2016) ǯȬ ǯȱȱǻŘŖŗśǼ Genetics C. Ashwell (2016) D. Jackwood (2014) ǯȱȱǻŘŖŗŚǼ J. Dodgson (2016) ǯȱȱǻŘŖŗśǼ P. A. Johnson (2016) ǯȱȱǻŘŖŗśǼ ¢ǰȱ ǰ ǯȱȱǻŘŖŗŜǼ C. Jones (2016) K. Reed (2016) Ȳȱ M. R. Bakst (2014) P. Kaiser (2014) T. B. Rodenburg (2014) R. L. Taylor Jr. (2016) R. Beckstead (2016) ǯȱ ȱǻŘŖŗśǼ G. J. M. Rosa (2016) B. R. Behrends (2016) N. Kansaku (2016) W. B. Roush (2013) ȱȱ L. Berghman (2014) E. Kebreab (2013) I. Rozenboim (2014) G. Cherian (2014) W. Berry (2014) E. J. Kim (2016) C. Ruiz-Feria (2013) M. Rodehutscord (2016) D. Biswas (2014) W. Kim (2016) ǯȱǯȱȱǻŘŖŗśǼ E. Esteve-Garcia (2014) J. Brake (2013) ǯȱ ȱǻŘŖŗśǼ ǯȱȱǻŘŖŗśǼ K. Bregendahl (2014) K. W. Koelkebeck (2013) C. Schmidt (2016) ǰȱǰ B. Brehm-Stecher (2016) M. H. Kogut (2014) P. Selle (2013) ȱȱȱ¢ J. Buyse (2014) A. Kollanoor-Johny (2016) ǯȱ ǯȱȱǻŘŖŗśǼ G. Bedecarrats (2016) D. Caldwell (2014) B.-W. Kong (2013) D. H. Shah (2016) ¢¢ǰȱ¢ǰȱ F.
    [Show full text]