Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T08:09:17.827Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of diet change on the behaviour of layer pullets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

G Dixon  and
CJ Nicol
G Dixon
Affiliation:
74 Melrose Avenue, Penylan, Cardiff CF23 9AS, Wales, UK
CJ Nicol*
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: c.j.nicol@bris.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Frequent diet change has been identified as a risk factor for feather pecking in commercial flocks but the mechanism underlying this association is not known. In this experiment we simulated a commercial change of diet between high quality (HQ) 19% protein, and low quality (LQ) 15% protein, diets. Twelve pairs of birds were fed both diets simultaneously for 38 days to determine whether clear preferences for the diets existed. A further 12 triplets of birds were fed either HQ or LQ diets for 38 days to examine any absolute effects of quality on behaviour. The remaining triplets received, on day 29, either a LQ to HQ diet change (n = 12 groups) or an HQ to LQ diet change (n = 12 groups). Half of the groups in these diet change treatments received oregano oil as a potential ‘masking’ agent to disguise the diet change. No dietary preferences were detected and there were no absolute effects of diet on behaviour. Diet change provoked significant increases in beak-related activity. Specifically, affiliative pecking (allopreening directed towards comb or beak) was increased after diet change. Masking the diet reduced the effects of diet change. Injurious pecking remained at low levels throughout the experiment and was not affected by diet change, but the relationship between affiliative pecking and subsequent injurious pecking requires further investigation.

Keywords

animal welfarecannibalismchickendietfeather peckinglaying hen
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , May 2008 , pp. 101 - 109
Copyright
© 2008 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aerni, V, El-Lethey, H and Wechsler, B 2000 Effect of foraging material and food form on feather pecking in laying hens. British Poultry Science 41: 16–21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ambrosen, T and Peterson, VE 1997 The influence of protein level in the diet on cannibalism and quality of plumage of layers. Poultry Science 76: 559–563CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blokhuis, HJ 1986 Feather pecking in poultry: its relation with ground pecking. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 16: 63–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ and Arkes, J 1984 Some observations on the development of feather pecking in poultry. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 12: 145–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce Webster, A 1995 Immediate and subsequent effects of a short fast on the behaviour of laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 45: 255–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheney, CD and Miller, ER 1997 Effects of forced flavor exposure on food neophobia. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 53: 213–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, DE, Acamovic, T, Deans, SG and McDevitt, RM 2002 The effects of dietary inclusion of herbs and their volatile oils on the performance of growing chickens. British Poultry Science 43: 533–535Google Scholar
Desforges, MF and Wood-Gush, DGM 1975 A behavioural comparison of domestic and mallard ducks. Habituation and flight reactions. Animal Behaviour 23: 692–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, G, Green, LE and Nicol, CJ 2006 Effect of diet change on the behaviour of chicks of an egg-laying strain. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 9: 41 -58CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
EC 1999 Council Directive 1999/74/ec of 19 July laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L1999:203:0053:0057:EN:PDFGoogle Scholar
Forbes, JM and Shariatmadari, F 1994 Diet selection for protein by poultry. World's Poultry Science Journal 50: 7–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, JM 1995 Voluntary Food Intake and Diet Selection in Farm Animals. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Gentle, MJ and Hunter, LN 1990 Physiological and behavioural responses associated with feather pecking in Gallus gallus var domesticus. Research in Veterinary Science 50: 95–101Google Scholar
Gleaves, EW 1989 Application of feed-intake principles to poultry care and management. Poultry Science 68: 958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, LE, Lewis, K, Kimpton, A and Nicol, CJ 2000 Cross-sectional study of the prevalence of feather pecking in laying hens in alternative systems and its associations with management and disease. Veterinary Record 147: 233–238CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harlander-Matauschek, A, Piepno, HP and Bessei, W 2006 The effect of feather eating on feed passage in laying hens. Poultry Science 85: 21–25CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrison, CJO 1965 Allopreening as agonistic behaviour. Behaviour 24: 161–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haskell, MJ, Vilarino, M, Savina, M, Atamna, J and Picard, M 2001 Do broiler chicks have a cognitive representation of food quality? Appetitive, behavioural and ingestive responses to a change in diet quality. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 72: 63–77CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hocking, PM, Maxwell, MH and Mitchell, MA 1999 Welfare of food restricted male and female turkeys. British Poultry Science 40: 19–29CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hocking, PM, Maxwell, MH, Robertson, GW and Mitchell, MA 2001 Welfare assessment of modified rearing programmes for broiler breeders. British Poultry Science 42: 424–432CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hocking, PM, Maxwell, MH, Robertson, GW and Mitchell, MA 2002 Welfare assessment of broiler breeders that are food restricted after peak rate of lay. British Poultry Science 43: 5–15CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huber-Eicher, B and Wechsler, B 1997 Feather pecking in domestic chicks: its relation to dustbathing and foraging. Animal Behaviour 54: 757–768CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, BO and Duncan, IJH 1972 The influence of strain and environmental factors upon feather pecking and cannibalism in fowls. British Poultry Science 13: 525–547CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, BO and Wood-Gush, DGM 1973 An increase in activity of domestic fowls produced by nutritional deficiency. Animal Behaviour 21: 10–17CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, RB 1986 Responses of domestic chicks to novel food as a function of sex, strain and previous experience. Behavioural Processes 12: 261–271CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, RB 2000 Presence of a familar odourant accelerates acceptance of novel food in domestic chicks. International Journal of Comparative Psychology 13: 147–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, RB and Roper, T 1997 Olfaction in the domestic fowl: a critical review. Physiology and Behaviour 62: 1009–1018CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kare, MR and Scott, ML 1962 Nutritional value and feed acceptability. Poultry Science 41: 276–278Google Scholar
Launchbaugh, KL, Provenza, FD and Werkmeister, MJ 1997 Overcoming food neophobia in domestic ruminants through addition of a familar flavor and repeated exposure to novel foods. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 54: 327–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeson, S and Summers, JD 1997 Commercial Poultry Nutrition. University Books Ltd: Guelph, Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Leonard, ML, Horn, AG and Fairfull, RW 1995 Correlates and consequences of allopecking in White Leghorn chickens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 43: 17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAdie, TM and Keeling, LJ 2000 Effect of manipulating feathers of laying hens on the incidence of feather pecking and cannibalism. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68: 215–229CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marples, NM and Kelly, DJ 1999 Neophobia and dietary conservatism: Two distinct processes? Evolutionary Ecology 13: 641–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, P and Bateson, P 1993 Measuring Behaviour: An Introductory Guide. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, LB 1977 Responses of domestic fowl to novel food and objects. Applied Animal Ethology 3: 335–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newberry, RC, Keeling, LJ, Estevez, I and Bilcik, B 2007 Behaviour when young as a predictor of severe feather pecking in adult laying hens: the redirected foraging hypothesis revisited. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 107: 262–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, CJ and Guilford, T 1991 Exploratory activity as a measure of motivation in deprived hens. Animal Behaviour 41: 333–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pöetzch, CJ, Lewis, K, Nicol, CJ and Green, LE 2001 A cross sectional study of the prevalence of vent-pecking in laying hens in alternative systems and its associations with feather pecking, management and disease. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 74: 259–272Google Scholar
Riedstra, B and Groothuis, TG 2002 Early feather pecking as a form of social exploration: the effect of group stability on feather pecking and tonic immobility in domestic chicks. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 77: 127–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savory, CJ and Mann, JS 1997 Behavioural development in groups of pen-housed pullets in relation to genetic strain, age and food form. British Poultry Science 38: 38–47CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wood-Gush, DGM and Rowland, CG 1973 Allopreening in the domestic fowl. Revue du Comportement Animal 7: 83–91Google Scholar
Zimmerman, PH and Koene, P 1998 The effect of frustrative nonreward on vocalisations and behaviour in the laying hen, Gallus gallus domesticus. Behavioural Processes 44: 73–79Google ScholarPubMed
Zimmerman, PH, Lindberg, AC, Pope, SJ, Glen, E, Bolhuis, JE and Nicol, CJ 2006 The effect of stocking density, flock size and modified management on laying hen behaviour and welfare in a non-cage system Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101: 111–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar