Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T18:56:05.633Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The relationship between measures of fear of humans and lameness in broiler chicken flocks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2017

G. Vasdal ,
R. O. Moe ,
I. C. de Jong  and
E. G. Granquist
G. Vasdal*
Affiliation:
Norwegian Meat and Poultry Research Centre, Lorenveien 38, 0513 Oslo, Norway
R. O. Moe
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, PO Box 8146 Dep., 0033 Oslo, Norway
I. C. de Jong
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
E. G. Granquist
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, PO Box 8146 Dep., 0033 Oslo, Norway
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

In the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for broilers, the touch test is included to assess the human–animal relationship in the flock. The test is designed to measure the animals’ fear of humans, assuming that broilers will withdraw from the observer if they are fearful. However, many broilers close to slaughter age have impaired walking ability, and the results from the touch test may thus be biased by lameness and poor leg health. As the touch test is currently being used in several countries to assess human–animal relationship in broilers, there is an urgent need to examine this potential relationship for a further validation of the test. In the present study, fear of humans was assessed in 50 randomly selected Norwegian broiler flocks, using the touch test as described in the Welfare Quality® protocol for ty broilers. Leg health was assessed by examining the gait of 150 random birds in each of the flocks, using a six-point gait score scale from 0 to 5. The coefficient for the relationship between touch test score and gait score was 0.034 (P<0.001), indicating that the animals express less fear as assessed by the touch test when the gait scores increase. This implies that the touch test may be confounded by impaired walking ability and therefore might be a suboptimal method of assessing fear of humans and human–animal relationship in broilers. In conclusion, the results from this study suggests that the touch test must be further validated in broilers and perhaps be replaced with a fear test that doesn’t rely on walking ability.

Keywords

broilerfearhumanslamenessWelfare Quality
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , February 2018 , pp. 334 - 339
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

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

Bassler, AW, Arnould, C, Butterworth, A, Colin, L, de Jong, IC, Ferrante, V, Ferrari, P, Haslam, S, Wemelsfelder, F and Blokhuis, HJ 2013. Potential risk factors associated with contact dermatitis, lameness, negative emotional state, and fear of humans in broiler chickens flocks. Poultry Science 92, 2811–2826.Google Scholar
Bayram, A and Özkan, S 2010. Effects of a 16-hour light, 8-hour dark lighting schedule on behavioral traits and performance in male broiler chickens. The Journal of Applied Poultry Research 19, 263–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boissy, A, Manteuffel, G, Jensen, MB, Moe, RO, Spruijt, B, Keeling, LJ, Winckler, C, Forkman, B, Dimitrov, I, Langbein, J, Bakken, M, Vessier, I and Aubert, A 2007. Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Physiology and Behavior 92, 375–397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broom, DM 1991. Animal welfare: concepts and measurement. Journal of Animal Science 69, 4167–4175.Google Scholar
Cransberg, PH, Hemsworth, PH and Coleman, GJ 2000. Human factors affecting the behaviour and productivity of commercial broiler chickens. British Poultry Science 41, 272–279.Google Scholar
Danbury, TC, Weeks, CA, Chambers, JP, Waterman-Pearson, AE and Kestin, SC 2000. Self-selection of the analgesic drug carprofen by lame broiler chickens. The Veterinary Record 146, 307–311.Google Scholar
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) 2012. EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW): scientific opinion on the use of animal-based measures to assess welfare of broilers. EFSA Journal 10, 2774.Google Scholar
Forkman, B, Boissy, A, Meunier-Salaün, MC, Canali, E and Jones, RB 2007. A critical review of fear tests used on cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry and horses. Physiology and Behavior 92, 340–374.Google Scholar
Fraser, D 2008. Understanding animal welfare. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 50, 1.Google Scholar
Graml, C, Niebuhr, K and Waiblinger, S 2008b. Reaction of laying hens to humans in the home or a novel environment. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113, 98–109.Google Scholar
Graml, C, Waiblinger, S and Niebuhr, K 2008a. Validation of tests for on-farm assessment of the hen–human relationship in non-cage systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 111, 301–310.Google Scholar
Jones, B and Boissy, A 2011. Fear and other negative emotions. Animal Welfare 78–97.Google Scholar
Jones, RB 1986. The tonic immobility reaction of the domestic fowl: a review. World’s Poultry Science Journal 42, 82–96.Google Scholar
Jones, RB 1992. The nature of handling immediately prior to test affects tonic immobility fear reactions in laying hens and broilers. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 34, 247–254.Google Scholar
Jones, RB 1996. Fear and adaptability in poultry: insights, implications and imperatives. World’s Poultry Science Journal 52, 131–174.Google Scholar
Jones, RB and Waddington, D 1992. Modification of fear in domestic chicks, Gallus gallus domesticus, via regular handling and early environmental enrichment. Animal Behaviour 43, 1021–1033.Google Scholar
Kestin, SC, Knowles, TG, Tinch, AE and Gregory, NG 1992. Prevalence of leg weakness in broiler chickens and its relationship with genotype. Veterinary Record 131, 190–194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kittelsen, KE, David, B, Moe, RO, Poulsen, HD, Young, JF and Granquist, EG 2016. Associations between gait score, production data, abattoir registrations and post mortem tibia measurements in Norwegian broiler chickens. Poultry Science 96, 1033–1040.Google Scholar
Knowles, TG, Kestin, SC, Haslam, SM, Brown, SN, Green, LE, Butterworth, A, Pope, SJ, Pfeiffer, D and Nicol, CJ 2008. Leg Disorders in Broiler Chickens: Prevalence, Risk Factors and Prevention. PloS one 3:e1545, article number e1545.Google Scholar
Marin, RH, Freytes, P, Guzman, D and Jones, RB 2001. Effects of an acute stressor on fear and on the social reinstatement responses of domestic chicks to cagemates and strangers. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 71, 57–66.Google Scholar
McGeown, DT, Danbury, T, Waterman-Pearson, A and Kestin, S 1999. Effect of carprofen on lameness in broiler chickens. Veterinary Record 144, 668–671.Google Scholar
Pichova, K, Nordgreen, J, Leterrier, C, Kostal, L and Moe, RO 2016. The effects of food-related environmental complexity on litter directed behaviour, fear and exploration of novel stimuli in young broiler chickens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 174, 83–89.Google Scholar
Sanotra, GS, Lund, JD and Vestergaard, KS 2002. Influence of light-dark schedules and stocking density on behaviour, risk of leg problems and occurrence of chronic fear in broilers. British Poultry Science 43, 344–354.Google Scholar
Vestergaard, K and Sanotra, G 1999. Relationships between leg disorders and changes in the behaviour of broiler chickens. Veterinary Record 144, 205–209.Google Scholar
Weeks, CA, Danbury, TD, Davies, HC, Hunt, P and Kestin, SC 2000. The behaviour of broiler chickens and its modification by lameness. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 67, 111–125.Google Scholar
Welfare Quality 2009. The Welfare Quality ® assessment protocol for poultry (broilers, laying hens). The Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Zulkifli, I, Gilbert, J, Liew, PK and Ginsos, J 2002. The effects of regular visual contact with human beings on fear, stress, antibody and growth responses in broiler chickens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 79, 103–112.Google Scholar