The effect of genotype on the behaviour of free range chickens

Lichovnikova, Martina; Hampel, David; Nedomová, Šárka; Kupcikova, Lucie; Anderle, Vojtěch

doi:10.5513/jcea01/18.3.1937

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Lichovnikova et al., 2017 compared brown layer male chicks with male fast growing broiler chicks in the first 7 weeks of their live and found that the layer chicks were more active, whereas broiler chicks were sitting more.…”

Section: Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Welfare of laying hens on farm

Nielsen¹,

Álvarez²,

Bicout³

et al. 2023

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This scientific opinion focuses on the welfare of laying hens, pullets and layer breeders on farm. The most relevant husbandry systems used in Europe are described. For each system, highly relevant welfare consequences were identified, as well as related animal‐based measures (ABMs), and hazards leading to the welfare consequences. Moreover, measures to prevent or correct the hazards and/or mitigate the welfare consequences are recommended. The highly relevant welfare consequences based on severity, duration and frequency of occurrence are bone lesions, group stress, inability to avoid unwanted sexual behaviour, inability to perform comfort behaviour, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, isolation stress, predation stress, resting problems, restriction of movement, skin disorders and soft tissue lesions and integument damage. The welfare consequences of non‐cage compared to cage systems for laying hens are described and minimum enclosure characteristics are described for laying hens, pullets and layer breeders. Beak trimming, which causes negative welfare consequences and is conducted to reduce the prevalence and severity of pecking, is described as well as the risks associated with rearing of non‐beak‐trimmed flocks. Alternatives to reduce sharpness of the beak without trimming are suggested. Finally, total mortality, plumage damage, wounds, keel bone fractures and carcass condemnations are the most promising ABMs for collection at slaughterhouses to monitor the level of laying hen welfare on farm. Main recommendations include housing all birds in non‐cage systems with easily accessible, elevated platforms and provision of dry and friable litter and access to a covered veranda. It is further recommended to implement protocols to define welfare trait information to encourage progress in genetic selection, implement measures to prevent injurious pecking, rear pullets with dark brooders and reduce male aggression in layer breeders.

show abstract

Section: Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Welfare of laying hens on farm

Nielsen¹,

Álvarez²,

Bicout³

et al. 2023

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given the welfare issues associated with rapid growth, there has been increasing interest in the potential of using slower growing broiler strains for commercial production. Although previous studies have evaluated the welfare or welfare-related outcomes of fast- and slower growing broilers (e.g., Bokkers and Koene, 2003 ; Fanatico et al, 2005 ; Lichovníková et al, 2017 ; Wilhelmsson et al, 2019 ; Dixon, 2020 ; Mancinelli et al, 2020 ; Weimer et al, 2020 ), many of these studies directly compared a limited number of strains (e.g., 1 conventional vs. 1 slower growing strain: Bokkers and Koene, 2003 ; Wallenbeck et al, 2016 ; Lichovníková et al, 2017 ; Wilhelmsson et al, 2019 ; Weimer et al, 2020 ), evaluated welfare in nonintensive settings (e.g., Fanatico et al, 2005 ; Mancinelli et al, 2020 ), and/or evaluated slower growing birds at comparably low body weights (e.g., <2 kg: Bokkers and Koene, 2003 ; Lichovníková et al, 2017 ). Additionally, even among strains considered to be slower growing, there is a large range in growth rates and no consensus about growth rate cut-offs that ensure or lead to improved welfare.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In pursuit of a better broiler: a comparison of the inactivity, behavior, and enrichment use of fast- and slower growing broiler chickens

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Selection for rapid growth has produced heavier, more efficient broiler chickens, but has also introduced health and welfare issues, which may cause or be caused by inactivity. Rapid growth may also limit the performance of motivated behaviors, whereas the provision of enrichment may increase these behaviors and general activity. This study aimed to evaluate the inactivity, behavior patterns, and enrichment use of 2 fast- ( CONV ) and 12 slower growing broiler strains (categorized as fastest [ FAST ], moderate [ MOD ], and slowest slow [ SLOW] ), based on their growth rates; 4 strains/category]. To evaluate inactivity, one male and one female from 153 pens were outfitted with omni-directional accelerometers from d 21 until processing (14–24 birds/strain from 8 to 12 pens/strain). Additionally, to supplement inactivity data, 5-min continuous behavioral observations of four focal birds per pen (2 males, 2 females) were conducted on days 26, 42, and 56 (72–148 observations of 8–12 pens/strain) to quantify the duration and frequency of various behaviors; at the same time, 5 to 11 instantaneous scan samples were also performed for pen-based enrichment use. Inactivity peaked at 78 to 80% of the day for all strains; however, those with slower growth rates reached these levels at older ages. Compared to slower growing strains at the same age, faster growing strains were more inactive, spent more time sitting and feeding, spent less time standing and walking, and used enrichments less; these differences mostly occurred at younger ages. Generally, at the same age, strains with similar growth rates (within the same category) behaved similarly, with only a few exceptions. Results suggest that not all strains identified as “slow-growing” broilers behave differently from fast-growing broilers, nor do they all behave similarly to each other. As such, results suggest that improved broiler welfare, particularly with respect to reduced inactivity, the performance of a wider range of normal, motivated behaviors, and/or increased enrichment use, is related to the broiler strain's specific growth rate.

show abstract

“…Fanatico et al, 2005;Mancinelli et al, 2020), and/or evaluated slower-growing birds at comparably low body weights (e.g. < 2 kg: Bokkers and Koene, 2003;Lichovníková et al, 2017). Additionally, even among strains considered to be slower growing, there is a large range in growth rates and no consensus about growth rate cut-offs that ensure or lead to improved welfare.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bokkers and Koene, 2003;Fanatico et al, 2005;Lichovníková et al, 2017;Wilhelmsson et al, 2019;Dixon, 2020;Mancinelli et al, 2020;Weimer et al, 2020), many of these studies directly compared a limited number of strains (e.g. 1 conventional vs. 1 slower-growing strain: Bokkers and Koene, 2003;Wallenbeck et al, 2016;Lichovníková et al, 2017;Wilhelmsson et al, 2019;Weimer et al, 2020), evaluated welfare in non-intensive settings (e.g. Fanatico et al, 2005;Mancinelli et al, 2020), and/or evaluated slower-growing birds at comparably low body weights (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

In pursuit of a better broiler: A comparison of the inactivity, behavior, and enrichment use of fast- and slower-growing broiler chickens

Dawson

Widowski

Liu

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Selection for rapid growth has produced heavier, more efficient broiler chickens, but has also introduced health and welfare issues, which may cause or be caused by inactivity. Rapid growth may also limit the performance of motivated behaviors, whereas the provision of enrichment may increase these behaviors and general activity. This study aimed to evaluate the inactivity, behavior, and enrichment use of 2 fast- (CONV) and 12 slower-growing broiler strains [categorized as fastest (FAST), moderate (MOD) and slowest slow (SLOW), based on their growth rates]. To evaluate inactivity, one male and one female from 153 pens were outfitted with omni-directional accelerometers from day 21 until processing (14-24 birds/strain from 8-12 pens/strain). Additionally, to supplement inactivity data, five-minute continuous behavioral observations of four focal birds per pen (2 males, 2 females) were conducted on days 26, 42, and 56 (72-148 observations of 8-12 pens/strain) to quantify the duration and frequency of various behaviors; at the same time, 5-11 instantaneous scan samples were also performed for pen-based enrichment use. Inactivity peaked at 78-80% of the day for all strains; however, those with slower growth rates reached these levels at older ages. Compared to slower-growing strains at the same age, faster-growing strains were more inactive, spent more time sitting and feeding, spent less time standing and walking, and used enrichments less; these differences mostly occurred at younger ages. Generally, at the same age, strains with similar growth rates (within the same category) behaved similarly, with only a few exceptions. Results suggest that not all strains identified as 'slow-growing' broilers behave differently from fast-growing broilers, nor do they all behave similarly to each other. As such, results suggest that improved broiler welfare, particularly with respect to reduced inactivity, the performance of a wider range of normal, motivated behaviors, and/or increased enrichment use, is related to the broiler strain's specific growth rate.

show abstract

The effect of genotype on the behaviour of free range chickens

Cited by 4 publications

References 8 publications

Welfare of laying hens on farm

Welfare of laying hens on farm

In pursuit of a better broiler: a comparison of the inactivity, behavior, and enrichment use of fast- and slower growing broiler chickens

In pursuit of a better broiler: A comparison of the inactivity, behavior, and enrichment use of fast- and slower-growing broiler chickens

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About