Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:06:33.680Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of social rank and familiarity on dustbathing in domestic fowl

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

T Shimmura ,
T Nakamura ,
T Azuma ,
Y Eguchi ,
K Uetake  and
T Tanaka
T Shimmura*
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Animal Behaviour and Management, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Azabu University, 1-17-71 Fuchinobe, Sagamihara, Kanagawa 229-8501, Japan
T Nakamura
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Animal Behaviour and Management, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Azabu University, 1-17-71 Fuchinobe, Sagamihara, Kanagawa 229-8501, Japan
T Azuma
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Animal Behaviour and Management, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Azabu University, 1-17-71 Fuchinobe, Sagamihara, Kanagawa 229-8501, Japan
Y Eguchi
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Animal Behaviour and Management, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Azabu University, 1-17-71 Fuchinobe, Sagamihara, Kanagawa 229-8501, Japan
K Uetake
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Animal Behaviour and Management, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Azabu University, 1-17-71 Fuchinobe, Sagamihara, Kanagawa 229-8501, Japan
T Tanaka*
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Animal Behaviour and Management, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Azabu University, 1-17-71 Fuchinobe, Sagamihara, Kanagawa 229-8501, Japan
*
* Contacts for correspondence and requests for reprints: tsuyoshi_shimmura@yahoo.co.jp or tanakat@azabu-u.ac.jp
* Contacts for correspondence and requests for reprints: tsuyoshi_shimmura@yahoo.co.jp or tanakat@azabu-u.ac.jp
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.

The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of social rank (Experiment 1) and familiarity (Experiment 2) on dust-bathing in domestic hens (Gallus gallus domesticus). We conducted choice tests between two conditions using actual birds as the stimuli and evaluated the effects in terms of quality and quantity of dustbathing performed. Twenty-four, medium-ranked hens were selected as test subjects. The stimuli presented were combinations of a high-ranked hen, a low-ranked hen, or no hen at all for Experiment 1, and a combination of a familiar hen, an unfamiliar hen, or no hen for Experiment 2. The number and duration of dustbaths, wing tosses as well as other behaviours were measured. For Experiment 1, the test hen performed dustbathing more frequently on the side of the hen, regardless of its social rank, when presented with a choice of a high- or low-ranked hen, or no hen. For Experiment 2, the test hen performed dustbathing more frequently on the side of the familiar hen when presented with a familiar hen or no hen, and more frequently on the side of no hen when presented with an unfamiliar hen and no hen. It was concluded that dustbathing was not affected by social rank, and that the quality and quantity of dustbathing was greater on the side of the familiar hen. However, dustbathing was restricted by the presence of an unfamiliar hen.

Keywords

animal welfaredominancedustbathfamiliaritylaying hensocial rank
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , February 2010 , pp. 67 - 73
Copyright
© 2010 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Appleby, MC, Walker, AW, Nicol, CJ, Lindberg, AC, Freire, R, Hughes, BO and Elson, HA 2002 Development of furnished cages for laying hens. British Poultry Science 43: 489–500CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Appleby, MC, Mench, JA and Hughes, BO 2004 Poultry Behaviour and Welfare. CABI Publishing: Oxfordshire, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bilčík, B and Keeling, LJ 2000 Relationship between feather pecking and ground pecking in laying hens and the effect of group size. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68: 55–66CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blokhuis, HJ 2004 Recent developments in European and international welfare regulations. World's Poultry Science Journal 60: 469–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, R and Silk, JB 1983 A method for assigning cardinal dominance rank. Animal Behaviour 31: 45–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradshaw, RH 1992 Conspecific discrimination and social preference in the laying hen. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 33: 69–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clutton-Brock, TH, Albon, SD, Gibson, RM and Guinness, FE 1979 The logical stag: adaptive aspects of fighting in red deer (Cervus elaphus L). Animal Behaviour 27: 211–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clutton-Brock, TH, Albon, SD and Guinness, FE 1986 Great expectations: dominance, breeding success and offspring sex ratios in red deer. Animal Behaviour 34: 460–471Google Scholar
Collias, NE, Collias, EC, Hunsaker, D and Minning, L 1966 Locality fixation, mobility and organization within an unconfined population of red jungle fowl. Animal Behaviour 14: 550–559CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collias, NE and Collias, EC 1996 Social organization of a red junglefowl, Gallus gallus, population related to evolution theory. Animal Behaviour 51: 1337–1354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, MS 1982 Elusive concept of preferred group size in domestic hens. Applied Animal Ethology 8: 365–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, MS 1995 How do hens view other hens? The use of lateral and binocular visual fields in social recognition. Behaviour 132: 591–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Eath, RB and Dawkins, MS 1996 Laying hens do not discriminate between video images of conspecifics. Animal Behaviour 52: 903–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Eath, RB and Keeling, LJ 2003 Social discrimination and aggression by laying hens in large groups: from peck orders to social tolerance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 84: 197–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guhl, AM 1953 Social behaviour of the domestic fowl. Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 73: 3–46Google Scholar
Hauser, J and Huber-Eicher, B 2004 Do domestic hens discriminate between familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics in the absence of visual cues? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 85: 65–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, JA and Van Boxel, F 1993 Causal factors controlling dustbathing in Burmese Red Junglefowl: some results and a model. Animal Behaviour 46: 627–633Google Scholar
Hughes, BO 1977 Selection of group size by individual laying hens. British Poultry Science 18: 9–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, BO, Carmichael, NL, Walker, AW and Grigor, PN 1997 Low incidence of aggression in large flocks of laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 54: 215–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, RB, Larkins, C and Hughes, BO 1996 Approach/avoidance responses of domestic chicks to familiar and unfamiliar video images of biologically neutral stimuli. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 48: 81–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehner, PN 1996 Handbook of Ethological Methods, 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Lindberg, AC and Nicol, CJ 1996 Effects of social and environmental familiarity on group preferences and spacing behaviour in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49: 109–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundberg, AS and Keeling, LJ 2003 Social effects on dustbathing behaviour in laying hens: using video images to investigate effect of rank. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81: 43–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, P and Bateson, P 1993 Measuring Behaviour: An Introductory Guide, 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, IC, Duncan, IJH, Keeling, LJ and Widowski, TM 2002 How important is social facilitation for dustbathing motivation in laying hens? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 79: 285–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, AP and Murphy, LB 1989 Movement of broiler chickens reared in commercial conditions. British Poultry Science 30: 519–532CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pulliam, HR 1973 On the advantages of flocking. Journal of Theoretical Biology 38: 419–422CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quinn, GP and Keough, MJ 2002 Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, G 1995 A real-time response of vigilance behaviour to changes in group size. Animal Behaviour 50: 1371–1374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodenburg, TB and Koene, P 2007 The impact of group size on damaging behaviours, aggression, fear and stress in farm animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 103: 205–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimmura, T, Eguchi, Y, Uetake, K and Tanaka, T 2006a Behavioral change of laying hens after introduction to battery cages, furnished cages and an aviary. Animal Science Journal 77: 242–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimmura, T, Eguchi, Y, Uetake, K and Tanaka, T 2006b Effects of light intensity and beak trimming on preventing aggression in laying hens. Animal Science Journal 77: 447–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimmura, T, Eguchi, Y, Uetake, K and Tanaka, T 2007a Differences of behavior, use of resources and physical condition between dominant and subordinate hens in furnished cages. Animal Science Journal 78: 307–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimmura, T, Eguchi, Y, Uetake, K and Tanaka, T 2007b Behavior, performance and physical condition of laying hens in conventional and small furnished cages. Animal Science Journal 78: 323–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimmura, T, Hirahara, S, Eguchi, Y, Uetake, K and Tanaka, T 2007c Behavior, physiology, performance and physical condition of layers in conventional and large furnished cages under hot environment. Animal Science Journal 78: 314–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimmura, T, Azuma, T, Hirahara, S, Eguchi, Y, Uetake, K and Tanaka, T 2008a Relation between social order and use of resources in small and large furnished cages for laying hens. British Poultry Science 49: 516–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimmura, T, Eguchi, Y, Uetake, K and Tanaka, T 2008b Effects of separation of resources on behaviour of high-, middle- and low-ranked hens in furnished cages. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113: 74–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimmura, T, Azuma, T, Eguchi, Y, Uetake, K and Tanaka, T 2008c Effects of separation of resources on behaviour, physical condition and production of laying hens in furnished cages. British Poultry Science 50: 39–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Syme, GJ, Syme, LA and Barnes, DR 1982 Fowl sociometry: Social discrimination and the behaviour of domestic hens during food competition. Applied Animal Ethology 11: 163–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Liere, DW 1992 The significance of fowls’ bathing in dust. Animal Welfare 1: 187–202Google Scholar
Van Liere, DW and Bokma, S 1987 Short-term feather maintenance as a function of dust-bathing in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 18: 197–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Rooijen, J 1999 Dust-bathing by hens in group cages. Proceedings of XXVI the International Ethological Conference. 2-9 August 1999, Bangalore, IndiaGoogle Scholar
Vestergaard, K 1982 Dust-bathing in the domestic fowl — diurnal rhythm and dust deprivation. Applied Animal Ethology 8: 487–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widowski, TM and Duncan, IJH 1995 Do domestic fowl form groups when resources are unlimited? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44: 280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yanagii, H 2007 4 Steps Excel Statistics, Volume 7. OMS Publishing: Tokorozawa, JapanGoogle Scholar