Printer Friendly

Perseveration in a guessing task by laying hens selected for high or low levels of feather pecking does not support classification of feather pecking as a stereotypy.

Perseveration in a guessing task by laying hens selected for high or low levels of feather pecking does not support classification of feather pecking as a stereotypy. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2015;168:56-60.

Feather pecking is a behavior by which birds damage or destroy the feathers of themselves (self-pecking) or other birds (allo feather pecking), in some cases even plucking out feathers and eating these. The self-pecking is rarely seen in domestic laying hens but is not uncommon in parrots. Feather pecking in laying hens has been described as being stereotypic, ie, a repetitive invariant motor pattern without an obvious function, and indeed the amount of self-pecking in parrots was found to correlate positively with the amount of recurrent perseveration (RP), the tendency to repeat responses inappropriately, which in humans and other animals was found to correlate with stereotypic behavior. In the present experiment we set out to investigate the correlation between alio feather pecking and RP in laying hens. We used birds (N = 92) from the 10th and 11th generations (G10 and G11) of lines selectively bred for high feather pecking (HFP) and low feather pecking (LFP), and from an unselected control line (CON) with intermediate levels of feather pecking. We hypothesized that levels of RP would be higher, and the time taken (standardized latency) to repeat a response lower, in FIFP compared to LFP hens, with CON hens in between. Using a 2-choice guessing task, we found that lines differed significantly in their levels of RP, with HFP unexpectedly showing lower levels of RP than CON and LFP. Latency to make a repeat did not differ between lines. Latency to make a switch differed between lines with a shorter latency in HFP compared to LFP (in G10), or CON (in Gil). Latency to peck for repeats versus latency to peck for switches did not differ between lines. Total time to complete the test was significantly shorter in HFP compared to CON and LFP. Thus, our hypotheses were not supported by the data. In contrast, selection for feather pecking seems to induce the opposite effects than would be expected from stereotyping animals: pecking was less sequenced and reaction to make a switch and to complete the test was lower in HFP. This supports the hyperactivity-model of feather pecking, suggesting that feather pecking is related to a higher general activity, possibly due to changes in the dopaminergic system.

COPYRIGHT 2015 Association of Avian Veterinarians
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2015 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Selected Abstracts From the Literature
Author:Brockmann, Kjaer J.; Wurbel, H.; Schrader, L.
Publication:Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery
Date:Sep 1, 2015
Words:399
Previous Article:J Vet Diagn Invest.: Microlichus americanus acariasis in saffron finches (Sicalis flaveola) with dermatitis and feather loss.
Next Article:Appl Anim Behav Sci.: Effects of different dietary protein levels during rearing and different dietary energy levels during lay on behaviour and...
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters