Comparison of Behavioral Time Budget and Welfare Indicators in Two Local Laying Hen Genotypes (Atak-S and Atabey) in a Free-Range System
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Animals and Housing
2.2. Data Collection
2.3. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Fernyhough, M.; Nicol, C.J.; Van De Braak, T.; Toscano, M.J.; Tønnessen, M. The ethics of laying hen genetics. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics. 2020, 33, 15–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tactacan, G.B.; Guenter, W.; Lewis, N.J.; Rodriguez-Lecompte, J.C.; House, J.D. Performance and welfare of laying hens in conventional and enriched cages. Poult. Sci. 2009, 88, 698–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- EU (European Union) Directive 1804/1999, Council 1999. Organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs to include livestock production. Off. J. Eur. Communities 1999, 19, 24–28. [Google Scholar]
- Ferrante, V.; Lolli, S.; Vezzoli, G.; Guidobono Cavalchini, L. Effects of two different rearing systems (organic and barn) on production performance, animal welfare traits and egg quality characteristics in laying hens. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2009, 8, 165–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larsen, H.; Cronin, G.M.; Gebhardt-Henrich, S.G.; Smith, C.L.; Hemsworth, P.H.; Rault, J.L. Individual ranging behavior patterns in commercial free-range layers as observed through RFID tracking. Animals 2017, 7, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castellini, C.; Mugnai, C.; Moscati, L.; Mattiolo, S.; Guarino Amato, M.; Cartoni Mancinelli, A.; Dal Bosco, A. Adaptation to organic rearing system of eight different chicken genotypes: Behavior, welfare and performance Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2016, 15, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, D.L.; De Haas, M.E.N.; Lee, C. A review of environmental enrichment for laying hens during rearing in relation to their behavioral and physiological development. Poult. Sci. 2019, 98, 9–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schuck-Paim, C.; Negro-Calduch, E.; Alonso, W.J. Laying hen mortality in different indoor housing systems: A meta-analysis of data from commercial farms in 16 countries. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 3052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kreienbrock, L.; Schäl, J.; Beyerbach, M.; Rohn, K.; Glaser, S.; Schneider, B. EpiLeg-Orientierende Epidemologische Untersuchungen zum Leistungsniveau und Gesundheitsstatus in Legehennenhaltungen Verschiedener Haltungssysteme; Abschlussbericht TiHo; Stiftung Tierärztliche Hochschule Hannover: Hannover, Germany, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Lambton, S.L.; Knowles, T.G.; Yorke, C.; Nicol, C.J. The risk factors affecting the development of gentle and severe feather pecking in loose housed laying hens. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2010, 123, 32–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sözcü, A.; İpek, A.; Oğuz, Z.; Gunnarsson, S.; Brinch Riber, A. Comparison of performance, egg quality, and yolk fatty acid profile in two Turkish genotypes (Atak-S and Atabey) in a free-range system. Animals 2021, 11, 1458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Z.G.; Li, J.H.; Li, X.; Bao, J. Effects of housing systems on behavior, performance and welfare of fast growing broilers. Asian-australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2014, 27, 140–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ghareeb, K.; Awad, W.A.; Sid-Ahmed, O.E.; Böhm, J. Insights on the host stress, fear and growth responses to the deoxynivalenol feed contaminant in broiler chickens. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e87727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Welfare Quality®. Welfare Quality Assessment Protocol for Laying Hens, 2nd ed.; Welfare Quality Consortium: Lelystad, The Netherlands, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Savory, C.J.; Wood-Gush, D.G.M.; Duncan, I.J.H. Feeding behavior in a population of domestic fowls in the wild. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 1978, 4, 13–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandilands, V.; Powell, K.; Keeling, L.J.; Savory, J. Preen gland function in layer fowls: Factors affecting preen oil fatty acid composition. Br. Poult. Sci. 2004, 45, 109–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chielo, L.I.; Pike, T.; Cooper, J. Ranging behavior of commercial free-range laying hens. Animals 2016, 6, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Moberg, G.P. (Ed.) Biological response to stress: Key to assessment of animal well being? In Animal Stress; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Jones, R.B. The tonic immobility reaction of the domestic fowl: A review. World Poult. Sci. J. 1986, 42, 82–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cloutier, S.; Newberry, R.C.; Forster, C.T.; Girsberger, K.M. Does pecking at inanimate stimuli predict cannibalistic behavior in domestic fowl? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2000, 66, 119–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lambton, S.L.; Knowles, T.G.; Yorke, C.; Nicol, C.J. The risk factors affecting the development of vent pecking and cannibalism in free-range and organic laying hens. Anim. Welf. 2015, 24, 101–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Heerkens, J.L.; Delezie, E.; Rodenburg, T.B.; Kempen, I.; Zoons, J.; Ampe, B.; Tuyttens, F.A.M. Risk factors associated with keel bone and foot pad disorders in laying hens housed in aviary systems. Poult. Sci. 2016, 95, 482–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tauson, R.; Abrahamsson, P. Foot and keel bone disorders in laying hens: Effects of artificial perch material and hybrid. Acta Agric. Scand. A Anim. Sci. 1996, 46, 239–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harlander-Matauschek, A.; Rodenburg, T.B.; Sandilands, V.; Tobalske, B.W.; Toscano, M.J. Causes of keel bone damage and their solutions in laying hens. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 2015, 71, 461–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gebhardt-Henrich, S.G.; Pfulg, A.; Fröhlich, E.K.F.; Käppeli, S.; Guggisberg, D.; Liesegang, A.; Stoffel, M.H. Limited association between keel bone damage and bone properties measured with computer tomography, three-point bending test and analysis of minerals in swiss laying hens. Front. Vet. Sci. 2017, 4, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Riber, A.B.; Casey-Trott, T.; Herskin, M.S. The influence of keel bone damage on welfare of laying hens. Front. Vet. Sci. 2018, 5, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Richards, G.J.; Wilkins, L.J.; Knowles, T.G.; Booth, F.; Toscano, M.J.; Nicol, C.J.; Brown, S.N. Pop hole use by hens with different keel fracture status monitored throughout the laying period. Vet. Rec. 2012, 170, 494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hinrichsen, L.K.; Riber, A.B.; Labouriau, R. Associations between and development of welfare indicators in organic layers. Animal 2016, 10, 953–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Riber, A.B.; Hinrichsen, L.K. Feather eating and its associations with plumage damage and feathers on the floor in commercial farms of laying hens. Animal 2016, 10, 1218–1224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Rørvang, M.V.; Hinrichsenet, L.K.; Riber, A.B. Welfare of layers housed in small furnished cages on danish commercial farms: The condition of keel bone, feet, plumage and skin. Br. Poult. Sci. 2019, 60, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whitehead, C.C.; Fleming, R.H. Osteoporosis in cage layers. Poult. Sci. 2000, 79, 1033–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fleming, R.H.; Mccormack, H.A.; Mcteir, L.; Whitehead, C.C. Relationships between genetic, environmental and nutritional factors influencing osteoporosis in laying hens. Br. Poult. Sci. 2006, 47, 742–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graveland, J.; Berends, A.E. Timing of the calcium intake and effect of calcium deficiency on behavior and egg laying in captive great tits, parus major. Physiol. Zool. 1997, 70, 74–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whitehead, C.C. Overview of bone biology in the egg-laying hen. Poult. Sci. 2004, 83, 193–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Riber, A.B.; Hinrichsen, L.K. Welfare consequences of omitting beak trimming in barn laying hens. Front. Vet. Sci. 2017, 4, 222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Jones, R.B.; Blokhuis, H.J.; Beuving, G. Open-field and tonic immobility responses in domestic chicks of two genetic lines differing in their propensity to feather peck. Br. Poult. Sci. 1995, 36, 525–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Behaviors | Definition |
---|---|
Eating | Hen has its beak in contact with feed repeatedly/once |
Drinking | Hen has its beak in contact with drinkers or raises its head when swallowing water |
Preening | Hen has its beak in contact with its own plumage, performing movements of pecking, combing, rotating, or nibbling once or repeatedly |
Feather pecking | Hen pecks the feathers of conspecifics |
Walking–standing | Hen moves with a normal or quick speed or stands in a stationary position |
Explorative pecking | Hen pecks other object in the house, except feathers |
Resting | Hen lies on its abdomen or sits with its legs under the body |
Main Factors | Eating | Drinking | Preening | Feather Pecking | Walking–Standing | Explorative Pecking | Resting |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Genotype | |||||||
Atak-S (brown) | 18.4 a | 5.2 a | 2.8 b | 5.6 a | 19.1 b | 8.0 a | 41.0 b |
Atabey (white) | 17.1 b | 3.7 b | 3.8 a | 5.1 b | 22.2 a | 5.3 b | 42.9 a |
SEM | 1.2 | 1.4 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.4 |
Age (wk) | |||||||
24 | 16.6 c | 3.4 c | 3.1 | 4.4 b | 19.4 b | 6.0 b | 47.3 a |
40 | 17.5 bc | 4.6 b | 3.3 | 5.5 a | 20.5 ab | 6.7 ab | 42.0 b |
56 | 18.1 ab | 4.7 b | 3.3 | 5.8 a | 21.2 a | 6.7 ab | 40.4 c |
72 | 18.8 a | 5.2 a | 3.6 | 5.8 a | 21.4 a | 7.2 a | 38.2 d |
SEM | 1.2 | 1.4 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.4 |
p-values | |||||||
Genotype | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Age | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.143 | <0.001 | 0.002 | 0.007 | <0.001 |
Genotype × Age | 0.092 | 0.183 | 0.823 | 0.915 | 0.957 | 0.122 | 0.093 |
Main Factors | TI Duration (Seconds) | Number of TI Inductions |
---|---|---|
Genotype | ||
Atak-S (brown) | 103.2 b | 1.2 a |
Atabey (white) | 120.4 a | 1.1 b |
SEM | 2.8 | 0.01 |
Age (wk) | ||
24 | 107.5 ab | 1.1 c |
40 | 105.5 b | 1.1 bc |
56 | 117.4 a | 1.1 ab |
72 | 116.9 a | 1.2 a |
SEM | 2.8 | 0.01 |
p-values | ||
Genotype | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Age | 0.012 | <0.001 |
Genotype × Age | 0.205 | 0.814 |
Item | Weeks | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
24 | 40 | 56 | 72 | |
Comb pecking wounds 1 | ||||
Atak-S | 0.69 | 1.33 | 1.50 | 1.83 |
Atabey | 0.31 | 0.67 | 0.83 | 1.33 |
SEM | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 |
p-values | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Plumage damage (total) 2 | ||||
Atak-S | 0 | 1.50 | 2.33 | 4.00 |
Atabey | 0 | 1.33 | 0.50 | 1.33 |
SEM | - | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.6 |
p-values | - | 0.250 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Skin lesions 1 | ||||
Atak-S | 0 | 0.37 | 0.67 | 1.17 |
Atabey | 0 | 0.17 | 0.33 | 0.67 |
SEM | - | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
p-values | - | <0.01 | 0.021 | <0.001 |
Footpad dermatitis 1 | ||||
Atak-S | 0 | 0.17 | 0.53 | 1.50 |
Atabey | 0.16 | 0.33 | 0.50 | 0.67 |
SEM | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
p-values | 0.001 | 0.006 | 0.250 | <0.001 |
Hock burns 1 | ||||
Atak-S | 0.33 | 0.50 | 1.33 | 1.67 |
Atabey | 0.17 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 1.17 |
SEM | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 |
p-values | 0.0006 | 0.925 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Toe damage 3 | ||||
Atak-S | 0.17 | 0.50 | 0.67 | 1.03 |
Atabey | 0.00 | 0.17 | 0.50 | 0.70 |
SEM | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 |
p-values | 0.001 | <0.001 | 0.022 | <0.001 |
Keel bone damage 3 | ||||
Atak-S | 0 | 0.33 | 0.67 | 1.00 |
Atabey | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.67 |
SEM | - | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
p-values | - | 0.204 | <0.001 | 0.001 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Sözcü, A.; İpek, A.; Oğuz, Z.; Gunnarsson, S.; Riber, A.B. Comparison of Behavioral Time Budget and Welfare Indicators in Two Local Laying Hen Genotypes (Atak-S and Atabey) in a Free-Range System. Animals 2022, 12, 46. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12010046
Sözcü A, İpek A, Oğuz Z, Gunnarsson S, Riber AB. Comparison of Behavioral Time Budget and Welfare Indicators in Two Local Laying Hen Genotypes (Atak-S and Atabey) in a Free-Range System. Animals. 2022; 12(1):46. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12010046
Chicago/Turabian StyleSözcü, Arda, Aydın İpek, Züleyha Oğuz, Stefan Gunnarsson, and Anja B. Riber. 2022. "Comparison of Behavioral Time Budget and Welfare Indicators in Two Local Laying Hen Genotypes (Atak-S and Atabey) in a Free-Range System" Animals 12, no. 1: 46. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12010046
APA StyleSözcü, A., İpek, A., Oğuz, Z., Gunnarsson, S., & Riber, A. B. (2022). Comparison of Behavioral Time Budget and Welfare Indicators in Two Local Laying Hen Genotypes (Atak-S and Atabey) in a Free-Range System. Animals, 12(1), 46. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12010046