Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-lvtdw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-06T14:06:52.780Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of ambient temperature and early open-field response on the behaviour, feed intake and growth of fast- and slow-growing broiler strains

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2012

B. L. Nielsen
B. L. Nielsen*
Affiliation:
INRA, UR1197 Neurobiologie de l'Olfaction et Modélisation en Imagerie, F-78350 Jouy-en-Josas, France Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Science & Technology, Aarhus University, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
*
†E-mail: birte.nielsen@jouy.inra.fr
Get access

Abstract

Increased activity improves broiler leg health, but also increases the heat production of the bird. This experiment investigated the effects of early open-field activity and ambient temperature on the growth and feed intake of two strains of broiler chickens. On the basis of the level of activity in an open-field test on day 3 after hatching, fast-growing Ross 208 and slow-growing i657 chickens were allocated on day 13 to one of the 48 groups. Each group included either six active or six passive birds from each strain and the groups were housed in floor-pens littered with wood chips and fitted with two heat lamps. Each group was fed ad libitum and subjected to one of the three temperature treatments: two (HH; 26°C), one (HC; 16°C to 26°C) or no (CC; 16°C) heat lamps turned on. Production and behavioural data were collected every 2 weeks until day 57. For both strains, early open-field activity had no significant effects on their subsequent behaviour or on any of the production parameters measured, and overall, the slow-growing strain was more active than the fast-growing strain. Ambient temperature had significant effects on production measures for i657 broilers, with CC chickens eating and weighing more, and with a less efficient feed conversion than HH chickens, with HC birds intermediate. A similar effect was found for Ross 208 only for feed intake from 27 to 41 days of age. Ross 208 chickens distributed themselves in the pen with a preference for cooler areas in the hottest ambient temperature treatments. In contrast, the behaviour of the slow-growing strain appeared to be relatively unaffected by the ambient temperature. In conclusion, fast-growing broilers use behavioural changes when trying to adapt to warm environments, whereas slow-growing broilers use metabolic changes to adapt to cooler ambient temperatures.

Keywords

activityheat dissipationpoultryadaptationgrowth rate
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 6 , Issue 9 , September 2012 , pp. 1460 - 1468
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

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

Arnould, C, Faure, JM 2004. Use of pen space and activity of broiler chickens reared at two different densities. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 87, 155–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbato, GF, Cherry, JA, Siegel, PB, van Krey, HP 1980. Quantitative analysis of the feeding behavior of four populations of chickens. Physiology & Behavior 25, 885–891.Google Scholar
Bessei, W 1982. Investigations on the locomotor activity in domestic fowl [Untersuchungen zur Laufaktivität beim Huhn]. In Hohenheimer Arbeiten, Tierische Produktion (ed. S Scholtyssek), Heft 120, pp. 97–104. Verlag Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar
Bessei, W, Jones, RB, Faure, JM 1983. Ease of capture by human beings of Japanese quail (Cortunix cortunix japonica) genetically selected for different activity levels. Archive für Geflügelkunde 47, 134–137.Google Scholar
Bizeray, D, Leterrier, C, Constantin, P, Picard, M, Faure, JM 2000. Early locomotor behaviour in genetic stocks of chickens with different growth rates. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68, 231–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blomqvist, SM, Nielsen, BL 2000. Outside activity of 4–8 weeks old broilers in relation to early open-field behaviour. Proceedings of the 12th Nordic Symposium of the ISAE, Siggerud, Norway, pp. 46–47.Google Scholar
Bokkers, EAM, Koene, P 2003. Behaviour of fast- and slow-growing broilers to 12 weeks of age and the physical consequences. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81, 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bokkers, EAM, Koene, P 2004. Motivation and ability to walk for a food reward in fast- and slow-growing broilers to 12 weeks of age. Behavioural Processes 67, 121–130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boyer, JP, Melin, JM, Bourdens, P 1973. Activity test on young pheasants. Annales de Genetique et de Selection Animale 5, 417–418.Google ScholarPubMed
Cowan, PJ, Michie, W 1978. Environmental temperature and choice feeding of the broiler. British Journal of Nutrition 40, 311–315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeFries, JC, Gervais, MC, Thomas, EA 1978. Response to 30 generations of selection for open-field activity in laboratory mice. Behavior Genetics 8, 3–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faure, JM 1977. Relationship between growth and open-field activity in the hen. 1. Effect of selection for open-field activity on weight growth and conformation. Annales de Génétique et de Sélection Animale 9, 241–245.Google Scholar
Faure, JM 1981. Bidirectional selection for open-field activity in young chicks. Behavior Genetics 11, 135–144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faure, JM, Folmer, JC 1975. Genetic study of early open-field activity of the young chick. Annales de Génétique et de Sélection Animale 7, 123–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faure, JM, Ricard, FH 1977. Relationship between growth and open-field activity in the hen. 2. Effect of selection for live weight on open-field activity. Annales de Génétique et de Sélection Animale 9, 247–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faure, JM, Jones, RB, Bessei, W 1983. Fear and social motivation as factors in open-field behaviour of the domestic chick – a theoretical consideration. Biology of Behaviour 8, 103–116.Google Scholar
Forkman, B, Boissy, A, Meunier-Salauen, MC, Canali, E, Jones, RB 2007. A critical review of fear tests used on cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry and horses. Physiology & Behavior 92, 340–374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerken, M, Jaenecke, D 1997. Differences in productive and behavioural traits between meat type and egg type hybrids. Proceedings of the 5th European Symposium on Poultry Welfare, Wageningen, the Netherlands, pp. 121–122.Google Scholar
Lott, BD, Simmons, JD, May, JD 1998. Air velocity and high temperature effects on broiler performance. Poultry Science 77, 391–393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLean, JA, Savory, CJ, Sparks, NHC 2002. Welfare of male and female broiler chickens in relation to stocking density, as indicated by performance, health and behaviour. Animal Welfare 11, 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meltzer, A 1983. Thermoneutral zone and resting metabolic-rate of broilers. British Poultry Science 24, 471–476.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nielsen, BL, Thomsen, MG, Sørensen, P, Young, JF 2003. Feed and strain effects on the use of outdoor areas by broilers. British Poultry Science 44, 161–169.Google Scholar
Reiter, K, Bessei, W 1998. Effect of locomotor activity on bone development and leg disorders in broilers. Archiv für Geflügelkunde 62, 247–253.Google Scholar
Reiter, K, Bessei, W 2000. Effect of stocking density of broilers on temperature in the litter and at bird level. Archiv für Geflügelkunde 64, 204–206.Google Scholar
Rose, SP 1997. Principles of poultry science. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, 135pp.Google Scholar
Rutten, M, Leterrier, C, Constantin, P, Reiter, K, Bessei, W 2002. Bone development and activity in chickens in response to reduced weight-load on legs. Animal Research 51, 327–336.Google Scholar
Saito, S, Takagi, T, Koutoku, T, Saito, ES, Hirakawa, H, Tomonaga, S, Tachibana, T 2004. Differences in catecholamine metabolism and behaviour in neonatal broiler and layer chicks. British Poultry Science 45, 158–162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Savory, CJ 1975. A growth study of broilers and layer chicks reared in single and mixed-strain groups. British Poultry Science 16, 315–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar