Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:33:37.221Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Behavioural Reactions, Semen Quality and Testosterone Levels in Cocks: Genetic Implications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

V Ferrante ,
M Verga ,
M G Mangiagalli  and
C Carenzi
V Ferrante*
Affiliation:
Istituto di Zootecnica, Via Celoria 10, 20133 Milan, Italy
M Verga
Affiliation:
Istituto di Zootecnica, Via Celoria 10, 20133 Milan, Italy
M G Mangiagalli
Affiliation:
Istituto di Zootecnica, Via Celoria 10, 20133 Milan, Italy
C Carenzi
Affiliation:
Istituto di Zootecnica, Via Celoria 10, 20133 Milan, Italy
*
† Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Intense selection for productivity may have indirectly affected some behavioural traits in poultry. Intensive husbandry systems change rapidly, and the animals may have difficulties in coping with their environment and management. The aims of this study are to examine the fear reactions of two strains of chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus) and to test the relationship between these fear reactivity levels and the chickens’ semen characteristics. Semen characteristics may indicate the effect of genetic selection both on the productivity and fitness of the animals. Forty cocks of two genetics strains (an egg-type strain and a meat-type strain), housed in single cages, were used in the study. During the breeding period, semen was collected twice a week from each animal. Each cock was submitted to an open-field test and a tonic immobility test. The results show that strong genetic selection, carried out over a long period on domestic chickens in order to improve egg and meat production, seems to affect some aspects of behaviour. The reactions to the fear tests show many differences between the two strains: in the open-field test, the egg-type cocks show higher levels of exploratory behaviour and lower general fearfulness (eg lower frequency of vocalisations and head movements). On the other hand, the meat-type cocks show a significantly lower duration of tonic immobility, indicating a lower level of fear specifically towards humans. Moreover, a key nearest neighbours analysis carried out using the behavioural data allows us to discriminate between the two strains with an error rate of 0%. These results suggest the potential for genetic selection aimed at reducing fear reactions, both towards novel environments and towards human beings, which may significantly improve the welfare of cocks.

Keywords

animal welfareegg-type cocksfear reactionmeat-type cockssemen quality
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , August 2001 , pp. 269 - 279
Copyright
© 2001 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Andrew, R J 1978 Increased persistence of attention produced by testosterone and its implications for the study of sexual behaviour. In: Hutchison, J B (ed) Biological Determinants of Sexual Behaviour pp 255–275. John Wiley & Sons: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Archer, J 1973a The influence of testosterone on chick behavior in novel environments. Behavioral Biology 8: 93–108CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Archer, J 1973b Effect of testosterone on immobility responses in the young male chick. Behavioral Biology 8: 551–556CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benoff, F H and Siegel, P B 1976 Genetic analysis of tonic immobility in young Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica). Animal Learning Behavior 4: 160–162CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campo, J L and Alvarez, C 1991 Tonic immobility of several Spanish breeds of hens. Archiv fur Geflugelkunde 55: 19–22Google Scholar
Craig, J V and Muir, W M 1989 Fearful and associated responses of caged White Leghorn hens: genetic parameter estimates. Poultry Science 68: 1040–1046Google Scholar
Etches, R J 1996 Reproduction in Poultry ρ 318. CAB International: Wallingford, Oxon, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faure, J M 1975 Etudes des liaisons entre comportament en open-field et émotivité chez le jeune poussin. Annales de Génétique et de Sélection Animale 7: 197–204Google Scholar
Frank, I E and Friedman, J H 1989 Classification: oldcomers and newcomers. Journal of Chemometrics 3: 463–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, B M 1984 Physiology and Biochemistry of the Domestic Fowl. Academic Press: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Gaiani, R, Chiesa, F, Mattioli, M, Nannetti, G and Galeati, G 1984 Androstenedione and testosterone concentrations in plasma and milk of the cow throughout the pregnancy. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 70: 55–59Google Scholar
Gallup G G Jr 1974 Genetic influence on tonic immobility in chickens. Animal Learning and Behaviour 2: 145–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallup, G G and Suarez, S D 1980 An ethological analysis of open-field behaviour in chickens. Animal Behaviour 28: 368–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallup, G G Jr, Ledbetter, D H and Maser, J D 1976 Strain differences among chickens in tonic immobility: evidence for an emotionality component. Journal of Comparative Physiology and Psychology 90: 1075–1081Google ScholarPubMed
Gerken, M and Petersen, J 1992 Heritabilities for behavioural and production traits in Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica) bidirectionally selected for dustbathing activity. Poultry Science 71: 779–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsburg, H J, Braud, W G and Taylor, R D 1974 Inhibition of distress vocalizations in the open-field as a function of heightened fear or arousal in domestic fowl (Gallus gallus). Animal Behaviour 22: 745–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grigor, P N, Hughes, B O and Appleby, M C 1995 Effects of regular handling and exposure to an outside area on subsequent fearfulness and dispersal in domestic animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44: 47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, I, Braastad, B O, Storbråten, J and Tofastrud, M 1993 Differences in fearfulness indicated by tonic immobility between laying hens in aviaries and in cages. Animal Welfare 2: 105–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, I E 1991 A User's Guide to Principal Components. John Wiley & Sons Inc.: New York, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R B 1982 Effects of early environmental enrichment upon open-field behavior and timidity in the domestic chick. Developmental Psychobiology 15: 105–111CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, R B 1986 The tonic immobility reaction of the domestic fowl: a review. World's Poultry Science Journal 42: 82–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R B 1987a The assessment of fear in the domestic fowl. In: Zayan, R & Duncan, I J H (eds) Cognitive Aspects of Social Behaviour in the Domestic Fowl pp 40–81. Elsevier: Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Jones, R B 1987b Assessment of fear in adult laying hens: correlational analysis of methods and measures. British Poultry Science 28: 319–326CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, R B, Blokhuis, H J and Beuving, G 1995 Open-field and tonic immobility responses in domestic chicks of two genetic lines differing in their propensity to feather peck. British Poultry Science 36: 525–530CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, R B and Faure, J M 1982 Sex and strain comparisons of tonic immobility (‘righting time’) in the domestic fowl and the effects of various methods of induction. Behavioural Processes 6: 47–55Google Scholar
Jones, R B, Mills, A D and Faure, J M 1991 Genetic and experimental manipulation of fear related behaviour in Japanese quail chicks (Coturnix coturnix japonica). Journal of Comparative Psychology 105: 15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerr-Kerr, S, Hughes, B O, Hocking, P M and Jones, R B 1996 Behavioural comparison of layer and broiler fowl: measuring fear responses. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49: 321–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kujiyat, S K, Craig, J V and Dayton, A D 1984 Fear-related responses of white Leghorn hens of several genetic stocks in five-bird cages and associations with quantitative traits. Poultry Science 63: 1679–1688CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lake, P E and Stewart, J M 1978 Artificial insemination in poultry. Bulletin 213. Her Majesty's Stationery Office: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Murphy, L B and Wood-Gush, D G M 1978 The interpretation of the behaviour of domestic fowl in strange environment. Biology of Behaviour 3: 39–61Google Scholar
North, M H and Bell, D D 1990 Commercial chicken production manual. Van Nostrand: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Ottinger, M A 1983 Hormonal control of reproductive behavior in avian male. Poultry Science 62: 1690–1699CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ratner, S C 1967 Comparative aspects of hypnosis. In: Gordon, J E (ed) Handbook of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis pp 550–587. Macmillan: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis System Institute Inc. 1987 SAS/STAT User's Guide to Statistics, 6th edition. SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, USAGoogle Scholar
Webster, A B and Hurnik, J F 1989 Genetic assessment of the behavior of White Leghorn type pullets in an open field. Poultry Science 68: 335–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, A B and Hurnik, J F 1990 Open-field assessment of behavioral phenotype within genetic stocks of the White Leghorn chicken. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 27: 115–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar