The presence of extreme feather peckers in groups of laying hens

Piepho, Hans‐Peter; Lutz, Vanessa; Kjaer, Joergen; Grashorn, M. A.; Bennewitz, Jörn; Bessei, W.

doi:10.1017/s1751731116001579

Cited by 14 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The phenotypic differences between the two lines in the 15th generation can be seen in Figure 2. In Piepho et al [14], feather pecking data of the 5th to the 11th generation of both lines is shown with the same phenotypic difference over these seven generations. Hence, the two feather pecking subpopulations are both phenotypically and genotypically distinguishable, but there was little selection response in the last generations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…Feather pecking is not homogenous within groups of laying hens and several studies reported the presence of a subgroup of extreme feather peckers (EFP), i.e., showing an exceptional high severe feather pecking activity compared to group mates [12][13][14][15]. In a previous study [15], we detected a subgroup of extreme feather pecking hens within an F2-cross of the HFP and LFP lines mentioned above by fitting a mixture of two negative binomial distributions to feather pecking data.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 85%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Genomewide Mapping of Selection Signatures and Genes for Extreme Feather Pecking in Two Divergently Selected Laying Hen Lines

Iffland

Wellmann

Schmid

et al. 2020

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Feather pecking (FP) is a longstanding serious problem in commercial flocks of laying hens. It is a highly polygenic trait and the genetic background is still not completely understood. In order to find genomic regions influencing FP, selection signatures between laying hen lines divergently selected for high and low feather pecking were mapped using the intra-population iHS and the inter-population FST approach. In addition, the existence of an extreme subgroup of FP hens (EFP) across both selected lines has been demonstrated by fitting a mixture of negative binomial distributions to the data and calculating the posterior probability of belonging to the extreme subgroup (pEFP) for each hen. A genomewide association study (GWAS) was performed for the traits pEFP and FP delivered (FPD) with a subsequent post GWAS analysis. Mapping of selection signatures revealed no clear regions under selection. GWAS revealed a region on Chromosome 1, where the existence of a QTL influencing FP is likely. The candidate genes found in this region are a part of the GABAergic system, which has already been linked to FP in previous studies. Despite the polygenic nature of FP, selection on these candidate genes may reduce FP.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Genomewide Mapping of Selection Signatures and Genes for Extreme Feather Pecking in Two Divergently Selected Laying Hen Lines

Iffland

Wellmann

Schmid

et al. 2020

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Genotype: A number of studies addressed strain differences (genotypic differences) regarding feather pecking and feather pecking-related behavior [27,[37][38][39][40][41] and identified strains that have a higher propensity to develop feather pecking [29], the age of occurrence of feather pecking, and effects of selection on this behavior [35].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Importance of Basic Research on the Causes of Feather Pecking in Relation to Welfare

Fijn

Staay

Goerlich-Jansson

et al. 2020

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Feather pecking is a prominent issue in the commercial egg industry, associated with economic losses and welfare problems. A non-systematic literature search suggests that studies on feather pecking are predominantly concerned with applied research goals. That is to say, they aim to solve or diminish the effects of this problematic behavior by orienting towards practical approaches. The strong emphasis on this research approach has skewed our knowledge of the causes of feather pecking in relation to welfare. While the need for such research is high, there is an equivalent need for basic research that has not received corresponding effort. Also, current research predominantly focuses on the negative effects on the birds being pecked, whereas too little attention is given to the possible welfare problems of the peckers. We argue that more basic research is needed for obtaining comprehensive science-based knowledge of behavioral needs and abilities of hens, in particular with respect to behavioral problems that threaten their welfare.

show abstract

“…To this end, we compare motor impulsivity in a line of White Leghorns selected for high FP (HFP) to that of an unselected control line (CON) to determine the contribution of the respective genetic backgrounds 27 . While we hypothesize that the HFP line exhibits higher impulsivity in general, it has long been observed that FP behaviour does not occur in all individuals in a population with this genetic predisposition 28,29 . Consequently, the motor impulsivity between phenotypic peckers (P) and non-peckers (NP) within the HFP and CON lines was also evaluated.…”

mentioning

confidence: 72%

“…This, in turn, is expected to yield valid inferences regarding the relative ranking of the different group 41 . Additionally, one can argue that selecting the highest peckers (P) in a population of HFP birds constitutes a continuation of selection 29 , as the selection of extreme phenotypes is a common breeding tool. It is also possible that the FP levels in the tested population were too low to make a significant association to motor impulsivity; however, it should be noted that FP levels are difficult to control and distinct FP groups may be formed and re-formed even after the birds are categorized into their FP groups, as the phenotypes may evolve over time 42 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chickens selected for feather pecking can inhibit prepotent motor responses in a Go/No-Go task

Heinsius

Staaveren

Kwon

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Repetitive feather pecking (FP) where birds peck and pull out feathers of conspecifics could reflect motor impulsivity through a lack of behavioural inhibition. We assessed motor impulsivity in female chickens (n = 20) during a Go/No-Go task where birds had to peck (Go) or inhibit pecks (No-Go) appropriately to obtain a food reward, depending on visual cues in an operant chamber. Birds were selected to show divergent fp performance based on their genotype (high predisposition for fp or unselected control line) and phenotype (peckers or non-peckers). Genotype, phenotype, and its interaction did not affect the number of pre-cue responses, percentage of responses during No-Go cues (false alarms), or efficiency (number of rewards over number of responses). We present the first documentation of a Go/no-Go task to measure the ability of birds genetically and phenotypically selected for fp activity to inhibit a prepotent motor response. Results indicate that the repetitive motor action of FP does not reflect impulsivity and is not genetically linked to a lack of behavioural inhibition as measured in a Go/no-Go task.Chickens use pecking as their main action for manipulation of objects, which include e.g., the handling of food, foraging, and exploring or moving items 1 . A similar pattern is seen in feather pecking (FP) -a behaviour where a bird reaches out to peck at the feather of conspecifics, which may or may not result in plucking of feathers and occasionally the consumption of feathers 2,3 . This damages the feather cover of conspecifics which in some cases can lead to cannibalism and ultimately death of the victim 3 . FP is a common behaviour in birds kept for egg-laying with a reported prevalence ranging from 15% to 95% on commercial farms 4-7 . This disruptive behaviour can be induced by adverse, stressful environments 8-10 and is associated with neurobiological changes, such as alterations within the monoaminergic system 11 . This potential link to permanent neurobiological alterations, together with its apparent heritability 12,13 , makes FP difficult to treat and often irreversible 14 . Theoretically, neurobiological alterations can reduce behavioural control, and would explain functionless pecking by birds that engage in this behaviour during operant tasks [15][16][17] . Given the repetitive nature of FP, FP may be more akin to similarly described repetitive behaviour seen in human psychiatric disorders, such as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) 18 . Impulsivity is part of normal behaviour 19 . It is considered a favourable trait when decision making needs to be completed quickly, enabling the individual to seize fleeting opportunities, and when the outcomes of such decisions are positive. However, impulsivity can be detrimental when it is a persistent or a dominant trait (e.g., in people with psychological disorders such as ADHD) 20 . Impulsivity is a multifaceted construct that encompasses quick decision-making fuelled by a lack of forethought, decreased ability to pay attention, and decreased...

show abstract

The presence of extreme feather peckers in groups of laying hens

Cited by 14 publications

References 26 publications

Genomewide Mapping of Selection Signatures and Genes for Extreme Feather Pecking in Two Divergently Selected Laying Hen Lines

Genomewide Mapping of Selection Signatures and Genes for Extreme Feather Pecking in Two Divergently Selected Laying Hen Lines

Importance of Basic Research on the Causes of Feather Pecking in Relation to Welfare

Chickens selected for feather pecking can inhibit prepotent motor responses in a Go/No-Go task

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About