The phenotypic interrelationships between feather pecking, being feather pecked and fear criteria in White Leghorn lines selected for high and low severe feather pecking and their F2-crosses

S. Bögelein, D. M. Hurtado, J. Kjaer, Grashorn, J. Bennewitz, W. Bessei
{"title":"The phenotypic interrelationships between feather pecking, being feather pecked and fear criteria in White Leghorn lines selected for high and low severe feather pecking and their F2-crosses","authors":"S. Bögelein, D. M. Hurtado, J. Kjaer, Grashorn, J. Bennewitz, W. Bessei","doi":"10.1399/EPS.2014.50","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"On the basis of observations that flocks of chickens with high incidence of feather pecking and feather damages show a high fear level, it is generally assumed that feather pecking and fear are positively correlated. This hypothesis was tested in two experiments using adult laying hens of lines selected for high (HFP) and low feather pecking behaviour (LFP) and their reciprocal crosses. A total of 60 adult birds, 30 HFP and 30 LFP, of the selection lines were used in part one of the experiment. The birds were first observed for the number of bouts of severe feather pecks delivered (FPD) and received (FPR) when kept in groups of equal numbers of both lines. Thereafter all birds were subjected to several fear tests: Tonic immobility test (TI), open- field test (OF), emerge box test (ET) and pencil test. In part two of the experiment a total of 967 birds of the F2- crosses of both lines were used. All birds were tested using the same fear tests as above at 7 days and 40 weeks of age. FPD and FPR were observed in adults only. The whole population was split for FPD in HFP and LFP using the threshold of ≥ 2 (HFP) and < 2 (LFP). HFP and LFP of the selection lines and the F2- crosses clearly differed in FPD. LFP of the selection lines received more feather pecks than HFP. There was no significant difference for FPR in HFP and LFP in the F2- crosses. In contrast to our expectation HFP from the selection lines showed a significant shorter duration of TI, shorter latency to move and to vocalize in the OF and a shorter latency to leave the emerge box, indicating lower fear. Similar results were found in the HFP and LFP of the F2- crosses for the duration of TI and latency of head appearance in the ET. Latency of the first step and to vocalize in the OF, however showed the opposite tendency. Line by age interactions appeared for the number of inductions in the TI and the latency of head emerge in the ET. There were no differences between HFP and LFP in the pencil test in both experiments. The phenotypic correlations between FPD and FPR with all fear criteria were low and not significant in both experiments. There is obviously no consistent relationship between feather pecking and fear in this population. Depending on type of fear test and age the HFP may show higher, lower or no difference in fear. Genotypes by age interactions further contribute to the variability of the results. The low phenotypic correlations among the criteria confirm this conclusion.","PeriodicalId":8106,"journal":{"name":"Archiv Fur Geflugelkunde","volume":"8 1","pages":"1-15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archiv Fur Geflugelkunde","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1399/EPS.2014.50","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

On the basis of observations that flocks of chickens with high incidence of feather pecking and feather damages show a high fear level, it is generally assumed that feather pecking and fear are positively correlated. This hypothesis was tested in two experiments using adult laying hens of lines selected for high (HFP) and low feather pecking behaviour (LFP) and their reciprocal crosses. A total of 60 adult birds, 30 HFP and 30 LFP, of the selection lines were used in part one of the experiment. The birds were first observed for the number of bouts of severe feather pecks delivered (FPD) and received (FPR) when kept in groups of equal numbers of both lines. Thereafter all birds were subjected to several fear tests: Tonic immobility test (TI), open- field test (OF), emerge box test (ET) and pencil test. In part two of the experiment a total of 967 birds of the F2- crosses of both lines were used. All birds were tested using the same fear tests as above at 7 days and 40 weeks of age. FPD and FPR were observed in adults only. The whole population was split for FPD in HFP and LFP using the threshold of ≥ 2 (HFP) and < 2 (LFP). HFP and LFP of the selection lines and the F2- crosses clearly differed in FPD. LFP of the selection lines received more feather pecks than HFP. There was no significant difference for FPR in HFP and LFP in the F2- crosses. In contrast to our expectation HFP from the selection lines showed a significant shorter duration of TI, shorter latency to move and to vocalize in the OF and a shorter latency to leave the emerge box, indicating lower fear. Similar results were found in the HFP and LFP of the F2- crosses for the duration of TI and latency of head appearance in the ET. Latency of the first step and to vocalize in the OF, however showed the opposite tendency. Line by age interactions appeared for the number of inductions in the TI and the latency of head emerge in the ET. There were no differences between HFP and LFP in the pencil test in both experiments. The phenotypic correlations between FPD and FPR with all fear criteria were low and not significant in both experiments. There is obviously no consistent relationship between feather pecking and fear in this population. Depending on type of fear test and age the HFP may show higher, lower or no difference in fear. Genotypes by age interactions further contribute to the variability of the results. The low phenotypic correlations among the criteria confirm this conclusion.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
高、低严重啄羽和被啄羽与恐惧标准之间的表型相互关系及其f2杂交
根据观察,啄毛和羽毛损伤发生率高的鸡群表现出较高的恐惧水平,一般认为啄毛与恐惧呈正相关。这一假设在两个试验中得到了验证,试验对象是选择高啄羽行为(HFP)和低啄羽行为(LFP)品系的成年蛋鸡及其互交。第一部分试验选用60只成鸟,其中高成鸟30只,低成鸟30只。首先观察这些鸟在两种线的数量相等的情况下,严重啄羽毛的次数(FPD)和接受(FPR)。然后,对所有的鸟进行了几项恐惧试验:强直静止试验(TI)、空地试验(OF)、出箱试验(ET)和铅笔试验。第二部分试验选用两系F2杂交组合967只。在7日龄和40周龄时,对所有雏鸟进行相同的恐惧测试。FPD和FPR仅在成人中观察到。采用HFP≥2 (HFP)和LFP < 2 (LFP)的阈值对整个人群进行FPD划分。选择系和F2杂交的HFP和LFP在FPD上存在明显差异。LFP的选育系比HFP的选育系得到更多的羽突。在F2-杂交中,HFP和LFP的FPR无显著差异。与我们的预期相反,来自选择线的HFP显示出明显较短的TI持续时间,较短的在of中移动和发声的延迟时间,较短的离开出现框的延迟时间,表明较低的恐惧。F2-杂交体的HFP和LFP在等待时间和头部出现潜伏期的变化中也有相似的结果,而在等待时间第一步和发声潜伏期则呈现相反的趋势。随着年龄的增长,TI的诱导次数和ET的头出现潜伏期出现了直线相互作用。在两个实验中,HFP和LFP在铅笔测试中没有差异。在两个实验中,FPD和FPR与所有恐惧标准的表型相关性都很低且不显著。在这个种群中,啄羽毛和恐惧之间显然没有一致的关系。根据恐惧测试的类型和年龄,HFP在恐惧方面可能表现出更高、更低或没有差异。年龄相互作用的基因型进一步增加了结果的可变性。这些标准之间的低表型相关性证实了这一结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Archiv Fur Geflugelkunde
Archiv Fur Geflugelkunde 农林科学-奶制品与动物科学
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>36 weeks
期刊介绍: Archiv für Geflügelkunde ist die international anerkannte Fachzeitschrift mit wissenschaftlich wertvollen und erstmaligen Veröffentlichungen über Geflügelkunde und artverwandte Gebiete.
期刊最新文献
Effect of cryopreservation of individual ejaculates on fertility in genetic resource chicken lines Combined effect of short-term temperature stimulation during the hatching phase and of protein and energy concentrations in the diets on performance of laying-type cockerels of different strains Comparative analyses of layer males, dual purpose males and mixed sex broilers kept for fattening purposes regarding their floor space covering, weight-gain and several animal health traits Clostridium perfringens challenge and dietary fat type modifies performance, microbiota composition and histomorphology of the broiler chicken gastrointestinal tract Phylogenic versus selection effects on growth development, egg laying and egg quality in purebred laying hens
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1