Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-s9k8s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-11T11:23:28.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New phenotypes for new breeding goals in layers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2012

W. ICKEN ,
D. CAVERO ,
M. SCHMUTZ  and
R. PREISINGER
W. ICKEN*
Affiliation:
Lohmann Tierzucht GmbH, Am Seedeich 9-11, 27472 Cuxhaven, Germany
D. CAVERO
Affiliation:
Lohmann Tierzucht GmbH, Am Seedeich 9-11, 27472 Cuxhaven, Germany
M. SCHMUTZ
Affiliation:
Lohmann Tierzucht GmbH, Am Seedeich 9-11, 27472 Cuxhaven, Germany
R. PREISINGER
Affiliation:
Lohmann Tierzucht GmbH, Am Seedeich 9-11, 27472 Cuxhaven, Germany
*
Corresponding author: icken@ltz.de
Get access

Abstract

Upcoming nesting behaviour traits, such as the exact oviposition time or the time spent in the nest, have a direct impact on economically relevant aspects. Hens which stay for a long time inside the nest box, require more nest capacity which result in higher investments for the farmer. This is similar to flocks in which most of the layers have the need to lay their eggs in a short time frame during the day. For both of these nesting behaviour traits, published data have shown strain differences. While brown layers are more relaxed in terms of their oviposition time, almost 90% of a white layer flock lay their eggs within 3 hours during the morning. Additionally, a white layer on average occupies the nest 15 minutes longer than a brown layer. The estimated heritabilities for both traits are on a medium level of around h² = 0.25, and are therefore susceptible to genetically-linked changes. Lower heritabilities are estimated for indirect nesting behaviour traits such as the time interval between two consecutively laid eggs (h² = 0.09) or the total clutch size (h² = 0.25). Ranging behaviour traits also show heritabilities on a medium level. The published heritability for the frequency of passages as well as for the length of stay in the winter garden is h² = 0.24, however, their relationship to the most important selection trait ‘egg number’, is negative. The laying performance tested with the Funnel Nest Box (FNB) show differences to the recorded egg number of full sibs which have been tested in cages. Tabled genetic parameters showed low correlations for the egg number at peak production (rg = +0.2 to rg = +0.4) which could be explained by genotype x environment effects. Other traits like egg weight, early egg production and body weight show high correlations between both testing environments.

Keywords

layersgroup housinglaying performancebehaviour traits
Type
Reviews
Information
World's Poultry Science Journal , Volume 68 , Issue 3 , September 2012 , pp. 387 - 400
Copyright
Copyright © World's Poultry Science Association 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

ATWOOD, H. (1929) Observations concerning the time factor in egg production. Poultry Science 8: 137-140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BEDNARCZYK, M., KIECTZEWSKI, K. and SWACZKOWSKI, T. (2000) Genetic parameters of the traditional selection traits and some clutch traits in a commercial line of laying hens. Archiv für Geflügelkunde 64: 129-33.Google Scholar
BESBES, B. (2001) Livability of laying hens: an example of GXE interaction. Proceedings 2nd Poultry Genetics Symposium, Gödöllő, Hungary, pp. 59 - 60.Google Scholar
BESBES, B., DUCROCQ, V. and PROTAIS, M. (2002) A survival trait and a categorical trait in laying hens. 7th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Montpellier, France, August 19 - 23, 2002, pp. 509-512.Google Scholar
BESBES, B. and DUCROCQ, V. (2003) Use of mixed model methodology in breeding strategies for layers, in: MUIR, W.M. & AGGREY, S.E. (Eds) Poultry Genetics, Breeding and Biotechnology, pp. 127-411 (CAB International).Google Scholar
BUBIER, N.E. and BRADSHAW, R.H. (1998) Movement of flocks of laying hens in and out of the hen house in four free range systems. British Poultry Science 39: 5-18.Google Scholar
COOPER, J.J. and APPLEBY, M.C. (1995) Nesting behaviour of hens: Effects of experience on motivation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 42: 283-295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FLOCK, D.K., SCHMUTZ, M. and PREISINGER, R. (2007) Optimierung der Eiqualität aus züchterischer Sicht. Züchtungskunde 79(4): 309-319.Google Scholar
HARLANDER-MATAUSCHEK, A., FELSENSTEIN, K., NIEBUHR, K. and TROXLER, J. (2006) Influence of pop hole dimensions on the number of laying hens outside on the range. British Poultry Science 47: 131-134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
HEGELUND, L., SOERENSEN, J.T., KJAER, J.B. and KRISTENSEN, I.S. (2005) Use of the range area in organic egg production systems: effect of climatic factors, flock size, age and artificial cover. British Poultry Science 46: 1-8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ICKEN, W. (2009) Schätzung genetischer Parameter für Verhaltens- und Leistungsmerkmale von Legehennen in Gruppenhaltungssystemen. Dissertation. Institut für Tierzucht und Tierhaltung der Christian Albrechts Universität zu Kiel. Heft 171.Google Scholar
ICKEN, W., CAVERO, D., SCHMUTZ, M., THURNER, S., WENDL, G. and PREISINGER, R. (2008a) Analysis of the time interval within laying sequences in a transponder nest. Proceedings XXII World's Poultry Congress Brisbane, Australia 30June-04July 2008, pp. 231.Google Scholar
ICKEN, W., CAVERO, D., SCHMUTZ, M., THURNER, S., WENDL, G. and PREISINGER, R. (2008b) Analysis of the free range behaviour of laying hens and the genetic and phenotypic relationships with laying performance. British Poultry Science 49(5): 533-541.Google Scholar
ICKEN, W., THURNER, S., CAVERO, D., SCHMUTZ, M., WENDL, G. and PREISINGER, R. (2009) Analyse des Nestverhaltens von Legehennen in der Bodenhaltung. Archiv für Geflügelkunde 73: 102-109.Google Scholar
ICKEN, W., THURNER, S., CAVERO, D., SCHMUTZ, M., WENDL, G. and PREISINGER, R. (2010) Free-range behaviour as a new potential selection trait in laying hens. Book of Abstracts of the XIIIth European Poultry Conference, Tours, France, 23-27 August 2010, pp. 221.Google Scholar
IEC, (2007) Comparison of international country data. International egg market. Annual review 2007. London. International Egg Commission.Google Scholar
LILLPERS, K. (1993) Oviposition patterns and egg production in domestic hen. Dissertation, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Uppsala.Google Scholar
LUNDBERG, A. and KEELING, L.J. (1999) The impact of social factors on nesting in laying hens (Gallus gallus domesticus). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 64: 57-69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MCCLUNG, M.R., WANG, A.B.S. and JONES, W.T. (1976) Response to selection for time interval between ovipositions in the hen. Poultry Science 55: 160-171.Google Scholar
MÜLLER, J., HILLIG, J., VON BORELL, E. and THIES, N. (2001) Untersuchungen zur Akzeptanz des Auslaufs durch Legehennen in einem Haltungssystem mit Wintergarten und Grünauslauf. Lohmann Information 4: 3-7.Google Scholar
NURGIARTININGSHI, V.M.A., MIELENZ, N., PREISINGER, R., SCHMUTZ, M. and SCHÜLER, L. (2002) Genetic parameters for egg production and egg weight of laying hens housed in single and group cages. Archiv für Tierzucht 45(5): 501-508.Google Scholar
PREISINGER, R. (1997) Züchtung von Legehybriden für alternative Haltungssysteme. Lohmann Information, Juli - September: 9-11.Google Scholar
SAVAŞ, T. (1998) Untersuchungen zur Verbesserung der Zuchtwertschätzung für Legeleistung bei Legehennen. Dissertation. Institut für Tierzucht und Tierhaltung der Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel; Heft 102.Google Scholar
THURNER, S., WENDL, G., PREISINGER, R., FRÖHLICH, G., BÖCK, S. and WEINFURTNER, R. (2005) Entwicklung eines automatischen Legenestes zur einzeltierbezogenen Erfassung von Verhaltens- und Leistungsparametern bei Legehennen in artgerechter Gruppenhaltung. Aktuelle Arbeiten zur artgemäßen Tierhaltung 2005, KTBL-Schrift 441, 274-283. ISBN:3-7843-2189-5.Google Scholar
WALL, H., TAUSON, R. and ELWINGER, K. (2004) Pop hole passages and welfare in furnished cages for laying hens. British Poultry Science 45(1): 20-27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ZAKARIA, A.H., PLUMSTEAD, P.W., ROMERO-SANCHEZ, H., LEKSRISOMPONG, O., OSBORNE, J. and BRAKE, J. (2005) Oviposition pattern, egg weight, fertility, and hatchability of young and old broiler breeders. Poultry Science 84: 1505-1509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar