Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T14:21:57.863Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differences in Fearfulness Indicated by Tonic Immobility Between Laying Hens in Aviaries and in Cages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

I Hansen ,
B O Braastad ,
J Storbråten  and
M Tofastrud
I Hansen*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Agricultural University of Norway, PO Box 5025, N-1432 Ås, Norway
B O Braastad
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Agricultural University of Norway, PO Box 5025, N-1432 Ås, Norway
J Storbråten
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Agricultural University of Norway, PO Box 5025, N-1432 Ås, Norway
M Tofastrud
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Agricultural University of Norway, PO Box 5025, N-1432 Ås, Norway
*
† Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate whether there were differences in fearfulness between laying hens (Gallus gallus domesticus) housed in aviaries and in cages. The tonic immobility (TI) test was used to assess the fearfulness. Norwegian light hybrid White Leghorn hens were housed in battery cages and in three types of aviaries: the Marielund, the Laco-Volétage and the Tiered Wire Floor. Each system housed about 1,500 birds. Tests were performed on 50 birds per housing system at 70 weeks of age in one laying flock and at 30 and 70 weeks of age in the next.

At 30 weeks of age in the second laying flock, the duration of the tonic immobility response was unaffected by type of system. At 70 weeks, however, hens in cages showed tonic immobility of longer duration than hens in aviaries, in the first as well as in the second laying flock No differences in TI between hens from the three types of aviaries were found. The duration of TI did not correlate with plumage condition or body-weight, except for a longer duration of TI with poorer plumage condition in aviaries at 30 weeks. These results indicate that the fearfulness of hens in cages, as measured by the TI test, increased considerably with time. The lower fearfulness shown by hens in aviaries suggests that this important aspect of welfare is more secured in aviaries than in cages.

Keywords

animal welfareaviariescagesfearlaying henstonic immobility
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , May 1993 , pp. 105 - 112
Copyright
© 1993 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

Craig, J V, Kujiyat, S K and Dayton, A D 1984 Tonic immobility responses of White Leghorn hens affected by induction techniques and genetic stock differences. Poultry Science 63: 1–10CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faure, J M 1975 Études des liaisons entre comportement en open-field et émotivité chez le jeune poussin. Annales de Génétique et de Sélection Animale 7: 197–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallup G G Jr 1974 Genetic influence on tonic immobility in chickens. Animal Learning and Behaviour 2: 145–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallup G G Jr 1977 Tonic immobility: the role of fear and predation. Psychological Record 27: 41–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallup G G Jr 1979 Tonic immobility as a measure of fear in the domestic fowl. Animal Behaviour 27: 316–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, I, Berget, B, Lilleng, H and Kolstad, N 1990 Alternativer til bur i eggproduksjonen. Aktuelt fra Statens fagtjeneste for landbruket No 4: 420–424Google Scholar
Henderson, N D 1966 Effects of intensity and spacing of prior stimulation on later emotional behaviour. Journal of Comparative Physiology 62: 441–448Google Scholar
Hughes, B O 1982 The social behaviour of the fowl. Applied Animal Ethology 9: 84–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, B O and Black, A J 1974 The effect of environmental factors on activity, selected behaviour patterns and ‘fear’ of fowls in cages and pens. British Poultry Science 15: 375–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R B 1982 Effects of early environmental enrichment upon open-field behavior and timidity in the domestic chick. Developmental Psychobiology 15: 105–111CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, R B 1986 The tonic immobility reaction of the domestic fowl: a review. World’s Poultry Science Journal 42: 82–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R B 1987a Assessment of fear in adult laying hens: correlational analysis of methods and measures. British Poultry Science 28: 319–326CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, R B 1987b Social and environmental aspects of fear in the domestic fowl. In Zayan R and Duncan I J H (eds) Cognitive Aspects of Social Behaviour in the Domestic Fowl Elsevier: AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
Jones, R B 1987c The assessment of fear in the domestic fowl. In Zayan R and Duncan I J H (eds) Cognitive Aspects of Social Behaviour in the Domestic Fowl Elsevier: AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
Jones, R B and Faure, J M 1981 Tonic immobility (‘righting time’) in laying hens housed in cages and pens. Applied Animal Ethology 7: 369–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R B and Waddington, D 1992 Modification of fear in domestic chicks, Gallus gallus domesticus, via regular handling and early environmental enrichment. Animal Behaviour 43: 1021–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joncs, R B, Bessei, W and Faure, J M 1982 Aspects of ‘fear’ in the Japanese quail chick (Coturnix coturnix japónica) genetically selected for different levels of locomotor activity. Behavioural Processes 7: 201–210Google Scholar
Jones, R B, Mills, A D and Faure, J M 1991 Genetic and experiential manipulation of fear related behaviour in Japanese quail chicks (Coturnix coturnix japonica). Journal of Comparative Psychology 105: 15–24CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kujiyat, S K, Craig, J V and Dayton, A D 1983 Duration of tonic immobility affected by housing environment in White Leghorn hens. Poultry Science 62: 2280–2282CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ratner, S C 1967 Comparative aspects of hypnosis. In Gordon, J E (ed) Handbook of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis pp 550–587. Macmillan: New YorkGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc 1987 SAS/STAT Guide for Personal Computers, Version 6 Edition. SAS Institute Inc: CaryGoogle Scholar
Suarez S D and Gallup G G Jr 1981 Predatory overtones of open-field testing in chickens. Animal Learning and Behaviour 9: 153–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, R N and Cummins, R A 1975 Mechanisms mediating the production of environmentally induced brain changes. Psychological Bulletin 82: 986–100CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed