Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T18:21:52.290Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is Broiler Breeder Welfare Improved by Using Qualitative Rather Than Quantitative Food Restriction to Limit Growth Rate?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

C J Savory ,
P M Hocking ,
J S Mann  and
M H Maxwell
C J Savory*
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS, UK
P M Hocking
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS, UK
J S Mann
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS, UK
M H Maxwell
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS, UK
*
† Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints
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.

Possible welfare benefits of qualitative rather than quantitative food restriction were investigated with growing female broiler breeder chickens (Ross 1). In Experiment 1, body-weight gains from 2 to 6 weeks of age were compared among different diet dilution, appetite suppression and low protein treatments, with free access to food at all times, to identify qualitative treatments causing weight gains similar to that recommended in the Ross 1 Parent Stock Management Manual. Based on these results, four diet dilution (400g kg−1 unmolassed sugar-beet pulp, 300 and 600g kg−1 oat hulls, 500g kg−1 softwood sawdust) and one appetite suppression (50g kg−1 calcium propionate) treatments were compared with two quantitative restriction (the recommended daily ration and twice that amount) and one ad libitum control treatments, from 2 to 10 weeks of age, in Experiment 2. As well as growth, food intake, excreta production and digestibility, measurements were also made of behaviour and blood indices of stress. Several conclusions were drawn. Different methods of qualitative food restriction can be used to control growth rate within desired limits. Problems with these methods include reduced uniformity in weight gain, increased excreta production and/or increased cost. Although they appear to suppress abnormal oral behaviours, they do not alter the increased general activity which is correlated with suppression of growth rate, and which may more accurately reflect associated hunger. Suppression of abnormal oral behaviours may only rarely correspond with reduction in blood indices of stress, and so cannot be taken to indicate improved welfare. Some of these methods can add to physiological stress. Finally, there was insufficient evidence of improved welfare, based on both behavioural and physiological criteria, to justify advocating the suitability of any of these methods for commercial use.

Keywords

animal welfarebehaviourchickenshungerqualitative and quantitative food restrictionstress
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , May 1996 , pp. 105 - 127
Copyright
© 1996 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Appleby, M C and Lawrence, A B 1987 Food restriction as a cause of stereotypic behaviour in tethered gilts. Animal Production 45: 103–110Google Scholar
Bartlett, M S 1947 The use of transformations. Biometrics 3: 39–52CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baumeister, A, Hawkins, W F and Cromwell, R L 1964 Need states and activity level. Psychological Bulletin 61: 438–453CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beuving, G and Vonder, G M A 1978 Effect of stressing factors on corticosterone levels in the plasma of laying hens. General and Comparative Endocrinology 35: 153–159CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bolton, W and Blair, R 1974 Poultry Nutrition. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Brouns, F, Edwards, S A and English, P R 1992 Feeding motivation of sows fed a sugar-beet pulp diet. Animal Production 54: 486–487Google Scholar
Brouns, F, Edwards, S A and English, P R 1994 Effect of dietary fibre and feeding system on activity and oral behaviour of group housed gilts. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, F and Briggs, G M 1948 Sawdust in purified chick rations. Poultry Science 27: 117–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council 1992 The five freedoms. Farm Animal Welfare Council Press Notice 9217, 7 OctoberGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 1975 The effect of straw on the behaviour of sows in tether stalls. Animal Production 21: 59–68Google Scholar
Hainan, E T 1949 The architecture of the avian gut and tolerance of crude fibre. British Journal of Nutrition 3: 245–253Google Scholar
Hill, F W and Dansky, L M 1954 Studies of the energy requirements of chickens. 1 The effect of dietary energy level on growth and feed consumption. Poultry Science 33: 112–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hocking, P M 1993 Welfare of broiler breeder and layer females subjected to food and water control during rearing: quantifying the degree of restriction. British Poultry Science 34: 53–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hocking, P M, Gilbert, A B, Walker, M and Waddington, D 1987 Ovarian follicular structure of White Leghorns fed ad libitum and dwarf and normal broiler breeders fed ad libitum or restricted until point of lay. British Poultry Science 28: 493–506CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hocking, P M, Maxwell, M H and Mitchell, M A 1993 Welfare assessment of broiler breeder and layer females subjected to food restriction and limited access to water during rearing. British Poultry Science 34: 443–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honma, K-I, Honma, S, Hirai, T, Katsuno, Y and Hiroshige, T 1986 Food ingestion is more important to plasma corticosterone dynamics than water intake in rats under daily restricted feeding. Physiology and Behavior 37: 791–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katanbaf, M N, Dunnington, E A and Siegel, P B 1989 Restricted feeding in early and late-feathering chickens. 1. Growth and physiological responses. Poultry Science 68: 344–351CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Katanbaf, M N, Jones, D E, Dunnington, E A, Gross, W B and Siegel, P B 1988 Anatomical and physiological responses of early and late feathering broiler chickens to various feeding regimes. Archiv für Geflügelkunde 52: 119–126Google Scholar
Kendall, M G and Stuart, A 1963 The Advanced Theory of Statistics, Volume 1: Distribution Theory. Griffin: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Kostal, L, Savory, C J and Hughes, B O 1992 Diurnal and individual variation in behaviour of restricted-fed broiler breeders. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 32: 361–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, A B, Appleby, M C, Illius, A W and MacLcod, H A 1989 Measuring hunger in the pig using operant conditioning: the effect of dietary bulk. Animal Production 48: 213–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, A B, Appleby, M C and MacLeod, H A 1988 Measuring hunger in the pig using operant conditioning: the effect of food restriction. Animal Production 47: 131–137Google Scholar
Maxwell, M H 1981 Leucocyte diurnal rhythms in normal and pinealectomised juvenile female fowls. Research in Veterinary Science 31: 113–115CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maxwell, M H 1993 Avian leucocyte responses to stress. World’s Poultry Science Journal 49: 34–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, M H, Hocking, P M and Robertson, G W 1992 Differential leucocyte responses to various degrees of food restriction in broilers, turkeys and ducks. British Poultry Science 33: 177–187CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maxwell, M H, Robertson, G W, Spence, S and McCorquodale, C C 1990 Comparison of haematological values in restricted- and ad libitum-fed domestic fowls: white blood cells and thrombocytes. British Poultry Science 31: 399–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, S E and Delaney, H D 1990 Designing Experiments and Analyzing Data. Wads worth: Pacific Grove, USAGoogle Scholar
McHugh, P R and Moran, T R 1986 The stomach and satiety. In: Kare, M R and Brand, J G (eds) Interaction of the Chemical Senses with Nutrition pp 167–180. Academic Press: Orlando, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mench, J A 1993 Problems associated with broiler breeder management. In: Savory, C J and Hughes, B O (eds) Proceedings of the Fourth European Symposium on Poultry Welfare pp 195–207. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Potters Bar, UKGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, M A, MacLeod, M G and Raza, A 1986 The effects of ACTH and dexamethasone upon plasma thyroid hormone levels and heat production in the domestic fowl. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 85A: 207–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, R and Trenholm, I B 1987 Food intake, digestibility and gut size in red grouse. British Poultry Science 28: 81–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council 1994 Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals. No 1 Nutrient Requirements of Poultry. National Academy of Sciences: Washington, USAGoogle Scholar
Oyawoyc, E O and Krueger, W F 1986 The potential of monensin for body weight control and ad libitum feeding of broiler breeders from day-old to sexual maturity. Poultry Science 65: 884–891Google Scholar
Oyawoye, E O and Krueger, W F 1990 Potential of chemical regulation of food intake and body weight of broiler breeder chicks. British Poultry Science 31: 735–742CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinchasov, Y and Elmaliah, S 1994 Broiler chick responses to anorectic agents: 1. Dietary acetic and propionic acids and the digestive system. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 48: 371–376CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinchasov, Y, Galili, D, Yonash, N and Klandorf, H 1993 Effect of feed restriction using self-restricting diets on subsequent performance of broiler breeder females. Poultry Science 72: 613–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinchasov, Y and Jensen, L S 1989 Effect of short-chain fatty acids on voluntary feed of broiler chicks. Poultry Science 68: 1612–1618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert, S, Matte, J J, Farmer, C, Girard, C L and Martineau, G P 1993 High-fibre diets for sows: effects on stereotypies and adjunctive drinking. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37: 297–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, G W and Maxwell, M H 1990 Modified staining techniques for avian blood cells. British Poultry Science 31: 881–886CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ross Breeders Ltd 1988 Ross 1 Parent Stock Management Manual. Newbridge, Midlothian, UKGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J P 1985 Stereotypies, aggression and the feeding schedules of tethered sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 14: 137–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savory, C J 1975 A growth study of broiler and layer chicks reared in single-strain and mixed-strain groups. British Poultry Science 16: 315–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savory, C J 1984 Regulation of food intake by Brown Leghorn cockerels in response to dietary dilution with kaolin. British Poultry Science 25: 253–258CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Savory, C J 1992 Gastrointestinal morphology and absorption of monosaccharides in fowls conditioned to different types and levels of dietary fibre. British Journal of Nutrition 67: 77–89CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Savory, C J, Carlisle, A, Maxwell, M H, Mitchell, M A and Robertson, G W 1993b Stress, arousal and opioid peptide-like immunoreactivity in restricted- and ad lib.-fed broiler breeder fowls. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 106A: 587–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savory, C J and Gentle, M J 1976a Effects of dietary dilution with fibre on the food intake and gut dimensions of Japanese quail. British Poultry Science 17: 561–570CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Savory, C J and Gentle, M J 1976b Changes in food intake and gut size in Japanese quail in response to manipulation of dietary fibre content. British Poultry Science 17: 571–580CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Savory, C J and Maros, K 1993 Influence of degree of food restriction, age and time of day on behaviour of broiler breeder chickens. Behavioural Processes 29: 179–190CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Savory, C J, Maros, K and Rutter, S M 1993a Assessment of hunger in growing broiler breeders in relation to a commercial restricted feeding programme. Animal Welfare 2: 131–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savory, C J, Seawright, E and Watson, A 1992 Stereotyped behaviour in broiler breeders in relation to husbandry and opioid receptor blockade. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 32: 349–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slater, P J B 1978 Data collection. In: Colgan, P W (ed) Quantitative Ethology pp 7–24. Wiley: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Terlouw, E M C, Lawrence, A B and Illius, A W 1991 Influences of feeding level and physical restriction on development of stereotypies in sows. Animal Behaviour 42: 981–991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Hemel, S B and Myer, J S 1969 Feeding patterns and response to caloric dilution in the Japanese quail. Physiology and Behavior 4: 339–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldroup, P W, Bussell, W D and Johnson, Z B 1976 Attempts to control body weight gains of growing broiler breeder females with high fiber diets. Poultry Science 55: 1118–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldroup, P W, Damron, B L and Harms, R H 1966 The effect of low protein and high fiber grower diets on the performance of broiler pullets. Poultry Science 45: 393–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World’s Poultry Science Association 1989 European Table of Energy Values for Poultry Feedstuffs. European Federation of Branches of the World’s Poultry Science Association: Beekbergen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Zuidhof, M J, Robinson, F E, Feddes, J J R, Hardin, R T, Wilson, J L, McKay, R I and Newcombe, M 1995 The effects of nutrient dilution on the well-being and performance of female broiler breeders. Poultry Science 74: 441–456CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed