Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T06:49:45.794Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of housing conditions during the rearing and laying period on adrenal reactivity, immune response and heterophil to lymphocyte (H/L) ratios in laying hens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2010

R. O. Moe ,
D. Guémené ,
M. Bakken ,
H. J. S. Larsen ,
S. Shini ,
S. Lervik ,
E. Skjerve ,
V. Michel  and
R. Tauson
R. O. Moe*
Affiliation:
Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Department of Production Animal Clinical Sciences, P.O. Box 8146 dep., N-0033 Oslo, Norway
D. Guémené
Affiliation:
INRA, UR83-Unité de Recherches Avicoles, 37380 Nouzilly, France
M. Bakken
Affiliation:
The Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, P.O. Box 5003, N-1432 Ås, Norway
H. J. S. Larsen
Affiliation:
Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Department of Food Safety and Infection Biology, P.O. Box 8146 dep., N-0033 Oslo, Norway
S. Shini
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Science, Faculty of Natural Resources, Agriculture & Veterinary Science, University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD 4343, Australia
S. Lervik
Affiliation:
Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Department of Production Animal Clinical Sciences, P.O. Box 8146 dep., N-0033 Oslo, Norway
E. Skjerve
Affiliation:
Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Department of Food Safety and Infection Biology, P.O. Box 8146 dep., N-0033 Oslo, Norway
V. Michel
Affiliation:
French Food Safety Agency (AFSSA), Research Unit ‘Epidemiology and Welfare of Poultry and Rabbits’, BP 53, 22440, Ploufragan, France
R. Tauson
Affiliation:
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, Avian Division, Kungsängen Research Centre, Feeding and Management of Poultry, 753 23 Uppsala, Sweden
*
†E-mail: randi.moe@nvh.no
Get access

Abstract

This study was conducted to evaluate the effect of early rearing conditions on physiological, haematological and immunological responses relevant to adaptation and long-term stress in white Leghorn hens with intact beaks housed in furnished cages (FC) or conventional cages (CC) during the laying period. Pullets were cage reared (CR) or litter floor reared (FR). From 16 to 76 weeks of age, hens were housed in FC (eight hens per cage) or in CC (three hens per cage). As measures of long-term stress at the end of the laying period, adrenal reactivity was quantified by assessing corticosterone responses to adrenocorticotropin challenge, and immune response was assessed by measuring antibody responses after immunization with sheep red blood cells (SRBC) and keyhole limpet haemocyanin (KLH). Heterophil to lymphocyte (H/L) ratio was employed as an indicator of stress. Rearing conditions significantly affected anti-SRBC titres (P < 0.0001) and tended to affect H/L ratios (P = 0.07), with the highest values found in FR hens. Layer housing affected H/L ratio (P < 0.01); the highest ratio was found in FR birds housed in FC during the laying period. This study shows that early rearing environment affects immunological indicators that are widely used to assess stress in laying hens. However, while results on H/L ratio indicated that FR birds experienced more stress particularly when they were housed in FC during the laying period, the immune responses to SRBC in FR hens was improved, indicating the opposite. This contradiction suggests that the effects on immune response may have been associated with pathogenic load due to environmental complexity in FR and FC hens rather than stress due to rearing system or housing system per se.

Keywords

welfarehousingrearinglaying hensadaptation
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 4 , Issue 10 , October 2010 , pp. 1709 - 1715
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2010

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

Appleby, MC, Walker, AW, Nicol, CJ, Lindberg, AC, Freire, R, Hughes, BO, Elson, HA 2002. Development of furnished cages for laying hens. British Poultry Science 43, 489–500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnett, JL, Tauson, R, Downing, JA, Janardhana, V, Lowenthal, JW, Butler, KL, Cronin, GM 2009. The effects of a perch, dust bath, and nest box, either alone or in combination as used in furnished cages, on the welfare of laying hens. Poultry Science 88, 456–470.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blokhuis, HJ, van Niekerk, TF, Bessei, W, Elson, A, Guemene, D, Kjaer, JB, Levrino, GAM, Nicol, CJ, Tauson, R, Weeks, CA, van de Weerd, HA 2007. The LayWel project: welfare implications of changes in production systems for laying hens. World’s Poultry Science Journal 63, 101–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colson, S, Arnould, C, Michel, V 2008. Influence of rearing conditions of pullets on space use and performance of hens placed in aviaries at the beginning of the laying period. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 111, 286–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council Directive 1999 of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. Off J EU L 203, 53-57. Retrieved March 26, 2010, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1999:203:0053:0057:EN:PDFGoogle Scholar
Craig, JV, Muir, WM 1996. Group selection for adaptation to multiple-hen cages: beak-related mortality, feathering, and body weight responses. Poultry Science 75, 294–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Craig, JV, Okpokho, NA, Milliken, GA 1988. Floor- and cage-rearing effects on pullets’ initial adaptation to multiple-hen cages. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20, 319–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dohms, JE, Metz, A 1991. Stress – mechanisms of immunosuppression. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology 30, 89–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) 2005. The welfare aspects of various systems of keeping laying hens. The EFSA Journal 197, 1–23.Google Scholar
El-Lethey, H, Huber-Eicher, B, Jungi, TW 2003. Exploration of stress-induced immunosuppression in chickens reveals both stress-resistant and stress-susceptible antigen responses. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology 95, 91–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
El-Lethey, H, Aerni, V, Jungi, TW, Wechsler, B 2000. Stress and feather pecking in laying hens in relation to housing conditions. British Poultry Science 41, 22–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Etches, RJ 1976. A radioimmunoassay for corticosterone and its application to the measurement of stress in poultry. Steroids 28, 763–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faure, JM 1991. Rearing conditions and needs for space and litter in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 31, 111–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gore, ER 2006. Immune function tests for hazard identification: a paradigm shift in drug development. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology 98, 331–335.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gross, WB, Siegel, PB 1980. Effects of early environmental stresses on chicken body weight, antibody response to RBC antigens, feed efficiency, and response to fasting. Avian Diseases 24, 569–579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gross, WB, Siegel, HS 1983. Evaluation of the heterophil/lymphocyte ratio as a measure of stress in chickens. Avian Diseases 27, 972–979.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guémené, D, Guy, G, Noirault, J, Destombes, N, Faure, J-M 2006. Rearing conditions during the force-feeding period in male mule ducks and their impact upon stress and welfare. Animal Research 55, 443–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hester, PY, Muir, WM, Craig, JV, Albright, JL 1996. Group selection for adaptation to multiple-hen cages: hematology and adrenal function. Poultry Science 75, 1295–1307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hetland, H, Moe, RO, Tauson, R, Lervik, S, Svihus, B 2004. Effect of including whole oats into pellets on performance and plumage condition in laying hens housed in conventional and furnished cages. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica A 54, 206–212.Google Scholar
Kjaer, JB, Guémené, D 2009. Adrenal reactivity in lines of domestic fowl selected on feather pecking behavior. Physiology & Behavior 96, 370–373.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Korver, K, Zeijlemaker, WP, Schellekens, PTA, Vossen, JM 1984. Measurement of primary in vivo IgM- and IgG-antibody response to KLH in humans: implications of pre-immune IgM binding in antigen-specific ELISA. Journal of Immunological Methods 74, 241–251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ling, NR, Catty, D 1988. Haemagglutination and haemolysis assays. In Antibodies volume I a practical approach (ed. D Catty), pp. 169–173. IRL Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Maxwell, MH, Robertson, GW 1998. The avian heterophil leucocyte: a review. World’s Poultry Science Journal 54, 155–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mormède, P, Andanson, S, Aupérin, B, Beerda, B, Guémené, D, Malmkvist, J, Manteca, X, Manteuffel, G, Prunet, P, van Reenen, CG, Richard, S, Veissier, I 2007. Exploration of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal function as a tool to evaluate animal welfare. Physiology & Behavior 92, 317–339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mumma, JO, Thaxton, JP, Vizzier-Thaxton, Y, Dodson, WL 2006. Physiological stress in laying hens. Poultry Science 85, 761–769.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicol, CJ, Caplen, G, Edgar, J, Browne, WJ 2009. Associations between welfare indicators and environmental choice in laying hens. Animal Behaviour 78, 413–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pohle, K, Cheng, H-W 2009. Comparative effects of furnished cages and battery cages on egg production and physiological parameters in White Leghorn hens. Poultry Science 88, 2042–2051.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Post, J, Rebel, JMJ, ter Huurne, AAHM 2003. Physiological effects of elevated plasma corticosterone concentrations in broiler chickens. An alternative means by which to assess the physiological effects of stress. Poultry Science 82, 1313–1318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rath, NC, Anthony, NB, Kannan, L, Huff, WE, Huff, GR, Chapman, HD, Erf, GF, Wakenell, P 2009. Serum ovotransferrin as a biomarker of inflammatory diseases in chickens. Poultry Science 88, 2069–2074.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodenburg, TB, Tuyttens, FAM, Sonck, B, De Reu, K, Herman, L, Zoons, J 2009. Welfare, health, and hygiene of laying hens housed in furnished cages and in alternative systems. Journal of Applied Welfare Science 8, 211–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scholz, B, Rönchen, S, Hamann, H, Pendl, H, Distl, O 2008. Effect of housing system, group size and perch position on H/L ratio in laying hens. Archiv für Geflügelkunde 72, 174–180.Google Scholar
Shini, S 2003. Physiological responses of laying hens to the alternative housing systems. International Journal of Poultry Science 2, 357–360.Google Scholar
Shini, S, Kaiser, P 2009. Effects of stress, mimicked by administration of corticosterone in drinking water, on the expression of chicken cytokine and chemokine genes in lymphocytes. Stress 12, 388–399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shini, S, Shini, A, Kaiser, P 2010. Cytokine and chemokine gene expression profiles in heterophils from chickens treated with corticosterone. Stress: The International Journal on the Biology of Stress 13, 185–194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shini, S, Kaiser, P, Shini, A, Bryden, WL 2008. Differential alterations in ultrastructural morphology of chicken heterophils and lymphocytes induced by corticosterone and lipopolysaccharide. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology 122, 83–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siegel, HS 1985. Immunological responses as indicators of stress. World’s Poultry Science Journal 41, 36–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tactacan, GB, Guenter, W, Lewis, NJ, Rodriguez-Lecompte, JC, House, JD 2009. Performance and welfare of laying hens in conventional and enriched cages. Poultry Science 88, 698–707.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tauson, R 1998. Health and production in improved cage designs. Poultry Science 77, 1820–1827.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thorn, GW, Jenkins, D, Laidlaw, JC, Goetz, FC, Dingman, JF, Arons, WL, Streeten, DHP, McRacken, BH 1953. Pharmacologic aspects of adrenocortical steroids and ACTH in man. The New England Journal of Medicine 248, 232–245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van de Weerd, HA, Elson, A 2006. Rearing factors that influence the propensity for injurious feather pecking in laying hens. World’s Poultry Science Journal 62, 654–664.Google Scholar
van Emous, R 2003. From cages to alternative systems requires different skills. World Poultry 19, 24–27.Google Scholar
Wall, H, Tauson, R 2005. Uppfödningen har betydelse för värphöns i innredda burar. Fjäderfä 8, 24–26.Google Scholar
Wall, H, Tauson, R, Elwinger, K 2004. Pop hole passages and welfare in furnished cages for laying hens. British Poultry Science 45, 20–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zulkifli, I, Gilbert, J, Liew, PK, Ginsos, J 2002. The effects of regular visual contact with human beings on fear, stress, antibody and growth responses in broiler chickens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 79, 103–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar