Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T15:52:54.327Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Continuous-Choice Assessment of the Domestic Fowl's Aversion to Concurrent Transport Stressors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

J M MacCaluim ,
S M Abeyesinghe ,
R P White  and
C M Wathes
J M MacCaluim
Affiliation:
Institute of Ecology and Resource Management, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK Silsoe Research Institute, Wrest Park, Silsoe, Bedfordshire MK45 4HS, UK
S M Abeyesinghe*
Affiliation:
Silsoe Research Institute, Wrest Park, Silsoe, Bedfordshire MK45 4HS, UK
R P White
Affiliation:
Silsoe Research Institute, Wrest Park, Silsoe, Bedfordshire MK45 4HS, UK
C M Wathes
Affiliation:
Silsoe Research Institute, Wrest Park, Silsoe, Bedfordshire MK45 4HS, UK
*
‡ Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: siobhan.abeyesinghe@bbsrc.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Characterisation of the effect of transport on the welfare of fowl requires common currency methods that can compare the effects of diverse stressors using the same unit of measure. Aversion of broiler chickens (42 ± 1 days old) to vibrational and thermal stressors was investigated in a continuous free-choice procedure. Each choice-chamber had four compartments, connected via a central zone, offering a thermal stressor (T: 40°C, relative humidity 21%), a vibrational stressor (V: 2 Hz, 1 ms−2), concurrent vibrational and thermal stressors (VT), or no applied stressors (N). In experiment 1, there were no significant effects of stressor on the latency to leave the compartments after initial introduction (n = 24). In experiment 2, 12 subjects were introduced individually to a chamber for 4 h during each of a control and two treatment sessions. The results indicated that chickens did not avoid vibration, but significantly avoided the thermal stressor overall (T and VT; P < 0.001). As no interactive effect of the stressors was observed, all avoidance of the combined stressors can be attributed to the effects of the thermal stressor alone. Further work is required to establish ways in which delayed stressors can be studied using behavioural methods before common currency methods can be practicable.

Keywords

animal welfareconcurrent stressorsaversionbroiler chickensvibrationtemperature
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , February 2003 , pp. 95 - 107
Copyright
© 2003 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

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

Abeyesinghe, S M, Wathes, C M, Nicol, C J and Randall, J M 2001 The aversion of broiler chickens to concurrent vibrational and thermal stressors. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 73: 199–215CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anon 1964 A study of the effects of anaesthesia, high oxygen and feeding upon resonant frequencies of visceral organs. Technical report AMRL TDR-64-14. Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright-Patterson, AFB: Ohio, USAGoogle Scholar
Berenbaum, M C 1989 What is synergy? Pharmacological Reviews 41: 93–141Google ScholarPubMed
Bolles, R C 1970 Species-specific defence reactions and avoidance learning. Psychological Review 77: 32–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broderson, A B 1972 Biothermal response of the rhesus monkey to mechanical vibration. Annual Scientific Meeting of the Aerospace Medical Association, Florida, 8-11 May, pp 41–42Google Scholar
Eason, G, Coles, C W and Gettinby, G 1980 Mathematics and Statistics for the Bio-Sciences. Ellis Hoorwood Limited: Chichester, UKGoogle Scholar
Hughes, B O 1976 Preference decisions of domestic hens for wire or litter floors. Applied Animal Ethology 2: 155–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kestin, S C, Knowles, T G, Tinch, A E and Gregory, N G 1992 Prevalence of leg weakness in broiler chickens and its relationship with genotype. Veterinary Record 131: 190–194CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kettlewell, P J 1989 Physiological aspects of broiler transportation. World's Poultry Science Journal 46: 219–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust 1998 Genstat®5, Release 4.1 (Edn 4) for Windows. IACR: Rothamsted, UKGoogle Scholar
Manteca, X and Deag, J M 1994 Individual variation in response to stressors in farm animals: implications for experimenters. Animal Welfare 3: 213–218Google Scholar
Mitchell, M A and Kettlewell, P J 1998 Physiological stress and welfare of broiler chickens in transit: solutions not problems! Poultry Science 77: 1803–1814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mount, L E 1979 Adaption to Thermal Environment. Edward Arnold: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Nicol, C J 1985 Non-exclusive spatial preference in the laying hen. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15: 337–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randall, J M, Duggan, J A and Alami, MA 1995 Influence of motion and vibration on animals. Fleischwirtsch 72: 158–160Google Scholar
Randall, J M, Duggan, J A, Alami, M A and White, R P 1997 Frequency weightings for the aversion of broiler chickens to horizontal and vertical vibration. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 68: 387–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randall, J M, Streader, W V and Meehan, AM 1993 Vibration on poultry transporters. British Poultry Science 34: 635–642CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rutter, S M and Duncan, I J H 1991 Shuttle and one-way avoidance as measures of aversion in the domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30: 117–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutter, S M and Randall, JM 1993 Aversion of domestic fowl to whole-body vibratory motion. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37: 69–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, G B 1994 Effects of short-term whole body vibration on animals with particular reference to poultry. World's Poultry Science Journal 50: 25–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spinka, M, Duncan, I J H and Widowski, T M 1998 Do domestic pigs prefer short-term confinement to medium-term confinement? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58: 221–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiepkema, P R and Koolhaas, J M 1993 Stress and animal welfare. Animal Welfare 2: 195–218Google Scholar