Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:47:11.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relationships between multiple welfare indicators measured in individual chickens across different time periods and environments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

CJ Nicol ,
G Caplen ,
J Edgar ,
G Richards  and
WJ Browne
CJ Nicol*
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford BS40 5DU, UK
G Caplen
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford BS40 5DU, UK
J Edgar
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford BS40 5DU, UK
G Richards
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford BS40 5DU, UK
WJ Browne
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford BS40 5DU, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: c.j.nicol@bris.ac.uk
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 assessment of animal welfare requires the collection of multiple indicators of welfare but quantification of their associations in different contexts is lacking. Previous studies have examined correlations between a few indicators, but not relationships between many different indicators, or between indicators taken from the same individuals in more than one environment. We housed 60 hens for six sequential 35-day phases in different pen environments. During each phase, a series of behavioural and physiological measures was taken for every bird: body and plumage condition, surface body temperature, behaviours observed in the home pens and during test periods, tonic immobility, physiological blood profiles, and faecal sample composition. Most variation in nearly all measures was not explained by either individual bird or grouping effects but varied across phases within the birds. Acknowledging this, we examined correlations between all parameters at the phase within-bird level, selecting a conservative P-value. A consistent set of correlations showed that a slow approach response and alert behaviour in the novel object test was associated with higher bodyweight, lower body temperature and lower acute phase protein, heterophil: lymphocyte ratio and blood glucose level. A cluster analysis confirmed these correlations. Other important parameters known to be linked to the hens’ environmental preference (eg comfort behaviour) were independent of the set described above. We conclude that statistical techniques can reveal patterns of independence and redundancy in the collection of behavioural and physiological measures of welfare.

Keywords

animal welfarecluster analysislaying henmulti-level modellingstresswelfare indicator
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , May 2011 , pp. 133 - 143
Copyright
© 2011 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Albentosa, MJ, Kjaer, JB and Nicol, CJ 2003 Strain and age differences in behaviour, fear response and pecking tendency in laying hens. British Poultry Science 44: 333–344CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnett, JL, Tauson, R, Downing, JA, Janardhana, V, Lowenthal, JW, Butler, KL and 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: 456–470CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Browne, WJ, Dryden, IL, Handley, K, Mian, S and Schadendorf, D 2010 Mixed effect modelling of proteomic mass spectrometry data using Gaussian mixtures. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series C59: 617–633Google Scholar
Campo, JL and Prieto, MT 2009 Effects of moist litter, perches, and droppings pit on fluctuating asymmetry, tonic immobility duration, and heterophil-to-lymphocyte ratio of laying hens. Poultry Science 88: 708–713CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cashman, PJ, Nicol, CJ and Jones, RB 1989 Effects of transportation on the tonic immobility fear reaction of broilers. British Poultry Science 30: 211–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, HW and Jefferson, L 2008 Different behavioral and physiological responses in two genetic lines of laying hens after transportation. Poultry Science 87: 885–892CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cloutier, S and Newberry, RC 2002 Differences in skeletal and ornamental traits between laying hen cannibals, victims and bystanders. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 77: 115–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cockrem, JF 2007 Stress, corticosterone responses and avian personalities. Journal of Ornithology 148: S169–S178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, MS, Edmond, A, Lord, A, Solomon, S and Bain, M 2004 Time course of changes in egg-shell quality, faecal corticosteroids and behaviour as welfare measures in laying hens. Animal Welfare 13: 321–327Google Scholar
D’Eath, RB, Tolkamp, BJ, Kyriazakis, I and Lawrence, AB 2009 ‘Freedom from hunger’ and preventing obesity: the animal welfare implications of reducing food quantity or quality. Animal Behaviour 77: 275–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghareeb, K, Niebuhr, K, Awad, WA, Waiblinger, S and Troxler, J 2008 Stability of fear and sociality in two strains of laying hens. British Poultry Science 49: 502–508CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iason, GR and Elston, DA 2002 Groups, individuals, efficiency and validity of statistical analyses. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 75: 261–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, RB 1988 Repeatability of fear ranks among adult laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 19: 297–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koolhaas, JM, Korte, SM, De Boer, SF, Van Der Vegt, BJ, Van Reenen, CG, Hopster, H, De Jong, IC, Ruis, MAW and Blokhuis, HJ 1999 Coping styles in animals: current status in behavior and stress-physiology. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 23: 925–935CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kjaer, JB 2009 Feather pecking in domestic fowl is genetically related to locomotor activity levels: implications for a hyperactivity disorder model of feather pecking. Behavior Genetics 39: 564–570CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knowles, TG and Green, LE 2002 Multilevel statistical models allow simultaneous consideration of both individual and group effects. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 77: 335–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korte, SM, Pins, J, Vinckers, CH and Olivier, B 2009 On the origin of allostasis and stress-induced pathology in farm animals: celebrating Darwin's legacy. VeterinaryJournal 182: 378–383Google ScholarPubMed
Mason, G and Mendl, M 1993 Why is there no simple way of measuring animal welfare? Animal Welfare 2: 301–319Google Scholar
Nicol, CJ 1987a Effect of cage height and area on the behaviour of hens housed in battery cages. British Poultry Science 28: 327–335CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicol, CJ 1987b Behavioural responses of laying hens following a period of spatial restriction. Animal Behaviour 35: 1709–1719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, CJ, Brown, SN, Glen, E, Pope, SJ, Short, FJ, Warriss, PD, Zimmerman, PH and Wilkins, LJ 2006 Effects of stocking density, flock size and management on the welfare of laying hens in single-tier aviaries. British Poultry Science 47: 135–146CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicol, CJ, Caplen, G, Edgar, J and Browne, WJ 2009 Associations between welfare indicators and environmental choice in laying hens. Animal Behaviour 78: 413–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, CJC 2002 Further aspects of the use of individual animals as replicates in statistical analysis. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 75: 265–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team 2009 R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Rasbash, J, Browne, WJ, Healy, M, Cameron, B and Charlton, C 2009 MLwiN version 2.16. Centre for Multilevel Modelling: University of Bristol, UKGoogle Scholar
Richard, S, Auperin, B, Bolhuis, JE, Geverink, NA, Jones, BC, Lepage, O, Mignon-Grasteau, S, Mormede, P, Prunet, P and Beaumont, C 2007 Animal welfare: what are the relationships between physiological and behavioural measures of adaptation. Productions Animals 20: 29–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodenburg, TB, Tuyttens, FAM, de Reu, K, Herman, L, Zoons, J and Sonck, B 2008 Welfare assessment of laying hens in furnished cages and non-cage systems: assimilating expert opinion. Animal Welfare 17: 355–361Google Scholar
Sherwin, CS, Richards, G and Nicol, CJ 2010 A comparison of the welfare of layer hens in four housing systems used in the UK. British Poultry Science 51: 488–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, R, Cook, N, Cheng, KM and Silversides, FG 2009 Invasive and non-invasive measurement of stress in laying hens kept in conventional cages and in floor pens. Poultry Science 88: 1346–1351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tactacan, GB, Guenter, W, Lewis, NJ, Rodriguez-Lecompte, JC and House, JD 2009 Performance and welfare of laying hens in conventional and enriched cages. Poultry Science 88: 698–707CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thaxton, JP and Puvadolpirod, S 2000 Model of physiological stress in chickens 5. Quantitative evaluation. Poultry Science 79: 391–395CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thogerson, CM, Hester, PY, Mench, JA, Newberry, RC, Pajor, EA and Garner, JP 2009 The effect of feeder space allocation on behavior of Hy-Line W-36 hens housed in conventional cages. Poultry Science 88: 1544–1552CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Reenen, CG, Engel, B, Ruis-Heutinck, LFM, Van der Werf, JTN, Buist, WG, Jones, RB and Blokhuis, HJ 2004 Behavioural reactivity of heifer calves in potentially alarming test situations: a multivariate and correlational analysis. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 85: 11–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vestergaard, KS, Kruijt, JP and Hogan, JA 1993 Feather pecking and chronic fear in groups of red junglefowl: their relation to dustbathing, rearing environment and social status. Animal Behaviour 45: 1127–1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, AB and Hurnik, JF 1991 Behavior, production and well-being of the laying hen: individual variation and relationships of behaviour to production and physical condition. Poultry Science 70: 421–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar