The influence of stocking density on the behaviour of featherless
Transcription
The influence of stocking density on the behaviour of featherless
Arch.Geflügelk., 74 (2). S. 73–80, 2010, ISSN 0003-9098. © Verlag Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart The influence of stocking density on the behaviour of featherless and normally-feathered broilers under hot ambient temperature Der Einfluss der Besatzdichte auf das Verhalten von genetisch federlosen und normal befiederten Masthühnern unter hohen Temperaturen Susanna Lolli1, W. Bessei2, A. Cahaner3, L. Yadgari3 and Valentina Ferrante1 Manuskript eingegangen am 16. Mai 2008, angenommen am 7. April 2009 Introduction Heat stress is a main problem of modern broiler production under tropical conditions. Passive heat dissipation of normally feathered broilers is restricted to small areas of the body surface which are not covered by feathers, such as wattles, combs and legs, and the production of metabolic heat in contemporary fast-growing broilers often exceeds the potential of passive heat loss under hot conditions. It has been reported that litter temperature increases with increasing stocking density, due to the accumulation of droppings that increase the bacterial fermentation in the litter (REITER and BESSEI, 2001; YADGARI et al., 2006). Moreover, at high stocking density the entire floor surface is covered by birds, and the heat from the litter cannot be removed effectively by the usual ventilation systems. Thus, broilers may suffer from heat stress even under moderate climatic conditions. Reduced growth rate in response to increasing stocking density on deep litter is well documented (SCHOLTYSSEK and GSCHWINDT-ENSINGER, 1983; SHANAWANY, 1988; SCHERER, 1989; GRASHORN and KUTRITZ, 1991; WIEDMER and HADORN, 1998; YADGARI et al., 2006). When birds are kept on wire or ventilated floor, the depression of growth rate occurs at higher stocking densities as compared to conventional deep litter systems (SCHOLTYSSEK and GSCHWINDT-ENSINGER, 1983; ARKENAU et al., 1997). This underlines the crucial role of stocking density, ambient temperature and heat dissipation in modern commercial broiler production systems. Naked neck broilers perform better under high ambient temperatures as compared to normally feathered birds (HORST, 1982; MERAT, 1986, 1990; CAHANER et al., 1993; DEEB and CAHANER, 2001; CAHANER et al., 2008). This is due to areas without feathers on the neck as well as reduced feather density at the entire body area. The beneficial effect of artificially de-feathered neck areas was also demonstrated in broiler breeders (GERKEN et al., 2006). Featherless broilers, which do not have feathers at any part of the body, may be even better adapted to hot ambient temperature than naked neck chickens. CAHANER et al. (2003) and YARON et al. (2004) reported that featherless broilers, homozygous for the Scaleless mutation (sc/sc), did not suffer from ambient temperatures up to 35°C, and survived even heat waves of 40°C. The superiority under high ambient temperatures of featherless broilers compared to fully feathered and naked neck broilers as well as normally feathered birds was confirmed by CAHANER et al. (2008). Normally feathered chickens under heat stress show particular behaviours, such as wing lifting, feather ruffling, preening and dustbathing. These behaviours enhance heat loss by increasing the body surface or reducing the isolating capacity of the feather cover. Broilers spend considerable part of their time budget sitting/lying (BESSEI, 1992a). In this posture the temperature of the legs and of the litter surface underneath the birds increases. While standing up and moving a short distance the birds expose the un-feathered surface of the legs to the ambient temperature and allow the temperature at the litter surface to cool down (GERKEN et al., 2006). While the above mentioned behaviours enhance passive heat loss, panting enables the birds to dissipate heat through evaporation in the respiratory tract (MCLEAN et al., 2001). Featherless chickens show similar behaviours as normally feathered birds. Even behaviours which are considered related to feathers, such as wing-flapping, preening and dust-bathing is observed similarly in featherless and feathered birds (PROVINE, 1981; VESTERGAARD et al., 1999). Differences in the behaviour of featherless and feathered birds are likely to provide information on the level of heat challenge. Therefore the present study compares the behaviour of featherless and normally feathered broilers in response to increasing stocking density under high ambient temperature. The great difference in optimum temperature of featherless and normally feathered birds has to be considered when both genotypes are to be compared, and the featherless birds have to be kept at higher temperatures than normally feathered birds. As litter temperature increases with increasing stocking density, the requirement of higher temperatures of featherless broilers was considered in the present study by adjusting the stocking density of the featherless and normally feathered broilers at different levels. Detailed results of performance and carcass quality of the present experiment have been reported elsewhere (YADGARI et al., 2006). Material and Methods 1Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Vet. Med., Milan, Italy 2Institute of Animal Husbandry and Breeding (470), University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany 3The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Faculty of Agriculture, Rehovot, Israel Arch.Geflügelk. 2/2010 A total of 112 normally feathered and 112 featherless broilers were used in the experiment. The birds were assigned to six pens of the same poultry house at day-old (Table 1). 74 Lolli et al.: Behaviour of featherless and normally-feathered broilers Table 1. Experimental design and basic information on pen area, group size, body weight, stocking density and litter temperature Versuchsanlage und Grundlageninformationen zu Abteilgröße, Gruppengröße, Körpergewicht, Besatzdichte und Einstreutemperatur Phenotype Pen Area (m2) *No. of birds/m2 *Mean body weight (g) *Stocking density (kg/m2) *Litter temperature Feathered Feathered Feathered 3.22 3.22 3.22 7.5 11.2 16.8 2349 1885 1937 16.5 21.1 32.5 31.4 34.5 36.7 Featherless Featherless Featherless 2.24 2.24 2.24 12.9 17.0 21.9 2337 2116 2083 28.1 35.9 45.6 36.3 37.2 36.9 *) at 44 days of age Three pens each had a surface of 3.22 m2 (2.3 × 1.4 m) and 2.24 m2 (1.6 × 1.4 m) respectively. They were separated by wire fences. The larger pens were used for the feathered broilers and the smaller ones for the featherless birds. Three different stocking densities were used within each genetic group by varying group size from 7.5, 11.2 and 16.8 birds per m2 in the feathered broilers and from 12.9, 17.0 and 21.9 birds per m2 in the featherless broilers. This resulted in stocking densities at the end of the experiment of 16.5, 21.1 and 32.5 kg per m2 in the feathered and 28.1, 35.9 and 45.6 kg per m2 in the featherless broilers respectively (Table 1). Litter temperature increased with increasing stocking density from 31,4 centigrade at the lowest stocking density to 36.9 centigrade at the highest stocking density. All birds received the same commercial broiler diet containing 20% crude protein and 13.4 MJ ME/kg. Water was provided ad libitum by one automatic round drinker per pen. The floor was covered with a layer of 8 cm wood shavings at day old and fresh litter was supplied as required by good management practice. The ambient temperature was 35 centigrade at the beginning of the experiment and was reduced to 33 centigrade at 1 week of age and maintained at that level thereafter. The light schedule was 23 h of light and 1 hour of darkness. The mean body weight per pen was recorded at the end of the experiment (44 days of age). Each pen was video recorded at 42 days of age for 1 hour continuously using a digital video recorder. The video tapes were analysed by scan sampling and focal sampling technique. The behaviour was classified in 7 mutually exclusive categories: walking, standing, sitting (birds sitting and not performing any other activities), feeding (pecking of food and swallowing), drinking (dipping the beak in the water and raising the beak thereafter) and preening. Dust bathing and scratching was observed but the data are not presented because the events were too rare to provide sound information. The number of birds engaged in the particular behaviour was counted in 10 scans at 5 minutes intervals and reported as percentage of the maximum frequency of counts (no. of scans × number of birds per group). In addition five birds per pen were randomly selected, and the mean duration of the above mentioned behaviours was measured. A screen shot was made at the beginning of each record and the birds to be observed were marked. Thus it was avoided to observe the same birds repeatedly. In addition to the above mentioned behaviours the duration of panting (sitting or standing with the beak widely opened) was recorded. All video analyses were carried out by commercial software (INTERACT®, version 7.4.0; Mangold International GmbH® 94424 Arnstorf, Germany). The above mentioned behaviours were assigned to particular keys on the keyboard. The duration of each behavioural event was computed by the programme. The means of behaviours of both breeds were plotted against stocking density (kg/m2). Since only one replicate of each treatment was available no test statistics were carried out. Results There was a clear decrease in percent of birds spent walking, standing, sitting/lying, preening, feeding and drinking in the feathered birds as stocking density increased (Figure 1–6). The featherless broilers at their lowest density (28.1 kg/m2) showed similar activity levels of walking, standing, sitting/lying and preening as the feathered birds at their intermediate density (21.1 kg/m) In feathered broilers the percentage of birds spent sitting declined with increasing density from more than 60% to 30%. There was a declining trend in response to stocking density in the featherless chickens also, however, the percent of birds spent sitting was higher at the lowest density than that of the feathered birds at the highest density (Figure 3). Preening in feathered broilers decreased from 10.7 to 3.2% with increasing density (Figure 4). In the featherless broilers the level of preening declined from 6.1 to 3.7% and was similar to that of the feathered broilers at intermediate and low density. There was no consistent response of feeding and drinking behaviour in response to stocking density in featherless broilers (Figure 5 and 6). There was a tendency of higher percentages for drinking in featherless (4.3–6.9 percent) as compared to feathered birds (1.9–4.0 percent) (Figure 6). The mean duration of walking increased with increasing stocking density in normally feathered broilers. The response was obvious when stocking density was raised from the lowest to the intermediate level (Figure 7). The featherless birds showed a slight decline of the duration of walking with increasing stocking density. There was no consistent response of the duration of standing to stocking density in both feathered and featherless birds (Figure 8). The overall level of this trait was, however, lower in the featherless birds. The duration of sitting/lying decreased in the feathered and the featherless broilers with increasing stocking density (Figure 9). There was a sharp drop from 65 to 30 sec. in the feathered birds when stocking density was raised from the low to the intermediate level. In the featherless birds the duration of sitting/lying decreased linearly from 86 sec at the lowest to 28 sec at the highest density. Arch.Geflügelk. 2/2010 Lolli et al.: Behaviour of featherless and normally-feathered broilers walking 15,0 10 75 standing 12,5 8 10,0 6 7,5 4 5,0 2 2,5 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 15 50 20 Figure 1. Walking (%) of feathered (S) and featherless ( ) broilers in response to increasing stocking density Fortbewegung (%) der befiederten (S) und unbefiederten ( ) Masthühnern bei zunehmender Besatzdichte 80 70 10 60 8 50 6 40 4 30 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 stocking density kg/m2 30 35 40 45 50 Figure 2. Standing (%) of feathered (S) and featherless ( ) broilers in response to increasing stocking density Stehen (%) der befiederten (S) und unbefiederten ( ) Masthühnern bei zunehmender Besatzdichte 12 sitting/lying 25 stocking density kg/m2 stocking density kg/m2 preening 2 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 stocking density kg/m2 Figure 3. Sitting/lying (%) of feathered (S) and featherless ( ) broilers in response to increasing stocking density Sitzen/Liegen (%) bei befiederten (S) und unbefiederten ( ) Masthühnern bei zunehmender Besatzdichte Figure 4. Preening (%) of feathered (S) and featherless ( ) broilers in response to increasing stocking density Federputzen (%) bei befiederten (S) und unbefiederten ( ) Masthühnern bei zunehmender Besatzdichte The duration of preening and drinking was highly variable, and there was no consistent effect of either line or stocking density (Figure 10 and 12). Feathered birds showed higher duration of feeding than featherless birds, regardless of the stocking density (Figure 11). The duration of panting was higher in feathered than in featherless broilers at the highest and lowest stocking density, while a short duration was found at the intermediate stocking density (Figure 13). In the featherless broilers there was a consistent increase of panting duration with increasing stocking density. from about 10 to 35 kg/m2 (BLOKHUIS and VAN DER HAAR, 1990; LEWIS and HURNIK, 1990; ANDREWS et al., 1997; REITER and BESSEI, 2000a, b). Further increases in stocking density did not produce significant changes in locomotion and scratching activity (BESSEI, 1992a), indicating a ceiling effect. The behavioural response to increasing stocking density has been discussed under the aspects of physical constraint and thermal discomfort. In the present study locomotor activity clearly declined with increasing stocking density in the normally feathered but not in the featherless birds. Since stocking density in the featherless birds was much higher than in the feathered birds, physical constraint can be excluded as influencing factor. This is in agreement with PRESTON and MURPHY (1989) who found that physical constraint was not limiting locomotor activity in commercial broiler houses. The most likely explanation for the behavioural responses to stocking density of the featherless and fully feathered broilers is the thermal effect. The litter temperature increased from 31.4 centigrade Discussion The effect of stocking density on the behaviour of normally feathered commercial broilers has been studied in several experiments. There was a significant decrease in locomotor and scratching activity when stocking density increased Arch.Geflügelk. 2/2010 76 6,0 Lolli et al.: Behaviour of featherless and normally-feathered broilers feeding drinking 8 5,5 7 6 5,0 5 4,5 4 4,0 3 3,5 2 1 3,0 15 20 25 30 stocking density 35 40 45 50 Figure 5. Feeding (%) of feathered (S) and featherless ( ) broilers in response to increasing stocking density Futteraufnahme (%) von befiederten (S) und unbefiederten ( ) Masthühnern bei zunehmender Besatzdichte 2,8 15 20 walking 25 30 35 40 45 50 stocking density kg/m2 kg/m2 Figure 6. Drinking (%) of feathered (S) and featherless ( ) broilers in response to increasing stocking density Trinken (% von befiederten (S) und unbefiederten ( ) Masthühnern bei steigender Besatzdichte 16 standing 2,6 14 2,4 12 2,2 2,0 10 1,8 8 1,6 1,4 6 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 stocking density kg/m2 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 stocking density kg/m 2 Figure 7. Mean duration (sec) of walking in response to line (feathered (S); featherless ( )) and stocking density Mittlere Dauer (Sekunden) der Fortbewegung von befiederten (S) und unbefiederten ( ) Masthühnern bei zunehmender Besatzdichte Figure 8. Mean duration (sec) of standing in response to line (feathered (S); featherless ( )) and stocking density Mittlere Dauer des Stehens (Sekunden) von befiederten (S)und unbefiederten ( ) Masthühnern bei zunehmender Besatzdichte to about 37 centigrade as stocking density increased from 17.5 kg/m2 to 45.6 kg/m2 respectively (Table 1). The decrease of percent of walking, standing and preening with increasing litter temperature in the feathered birds (Figure 1; 2 and 4) can be interpreted as the attempt of the birds to reduce the metabolic heat production associated with physical exercise. Studies of featherless and normally feathered birds under moderate temperature have shown that the featherless exhibit similar heart rates as normally feathered birds only when they are active during the light period, but exhibit higher heart rates during resting (CAIN and ABBOTT, 1971). It was concluded that the metabolic heat production through physical activity balance the greater heat loss of the featherless birds. The fact that the featherless birds showed high levels in these behaviours when litter temperatures was about 36 centigrade indicates that they can afford to maintain a high physical activity under these conditions due to their high heat dissipation capacity. The increase in the duration of the walking and the relatively high level of the duration of standing of the feathered broilers (Figure 7, 8) seem to corroborate the above explanation. Standing and walking increase the metabolic heat production relative to resting by 16–20% and 53–65% respectively (VAN KAMPEN, 1976a, b). However, the magnitude of the increase in duration of walking (from 1.7 to 2.4 sec.) is not expected to contribute remarkably to the increase of metabolic heat production. With increasing litter temperature the birds may develop a strategy where sitting phases are intermitted by short standing and walking bouts. DEIGHTON and HUTCHINSON (1940, loc. cit. VAN KAMPEN, 1976b) noticed a sudden increase of heat production in chickens immediately after standing up. Since this increase could not be explained by the energy requirement of the physical exercise, VAN KAMPEN (1976b) assumed that this effect was caused by the release of the heat stored in the feather cover while the birds are sitting. While standing, the birds can dissipate heat through the un-feathered surface of the legs. Moving a few steps from Arch.Geflügelk. 2/2010 Lolli et al.: Behaviour of featherless and normally-feathered broilers 90 sitting/lying 35 80 30 70 25 60 20 50 15 40 10 30 5 feeding 0 20 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 15 50 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 stocking density kg/m2 stocking density kg/m2 Figure 9. Mean duration (sec) of sitting/lying in response to line (feathered (S); featherless ( )) and stocking density Mittlere Dauer von Sitzen/liegen (Sekunden) von befiederten (S) und unbefiederten ( ) Masthühnern bei zunehmender Besatzdichte 30 77 Figure 10.Mean duration (sec) of preening in response to line (feathered (S); featherless ( )) and stocking density Mittlere Dauer des Federputzens (Sekunden) bei befiederten (S) und unbefiederten ( ) Masthühnern bei zunehmender Besatzdichte drinking preening 7,0 6,5 25 6,0 20 5,5 15 5,0 10 4,5 4,0 5 15 20 25 30 stocking density 35 40 45 50 kg/m2 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 stocking density kg/m2 Figure 11.Mean duration (sec) of feeding in response to line (feathered (S); featherless ( )) and stocking density Mittlere Dauer der Futteraufnahme (Sekunden) von befiederten (S) und unbefiederten ( ) Masthühnern bei zunehmender Besatzdichte Figure 12.Mean duration (sec) of drinking in response to line (feathered (S); featherless ( )) and stocking density Mittlere Dauer des Trinkens (Sekunden) von befiederten (S) und unbefiederten ( ) Masthühnern bei zunehmender Besatzdichte the former sitting place allows the birds to choose a cooler place to settle down while the litter surface temperature of the former sitting place declines to the level of the air temperature (GERKEN et al., 2006). Hence the beneficial effect of standing and walking on heat dissipation may be higher than the negative effect of additional heat production. The effect of stocking density on percentage feeding was rather small in the feathered broilers and highly inconsistent in the featherless birds (Figure 5). BESSEI (1992b) and REITER and BESSEI (2000a) found no significant effects of stocking density on percent feeding in broilers. Since the motivation for feeding has a high priority in broilers, and the time spent feeding represents only a minor share of the bird’s time budget, the birds will satisfy their nutritional demand as long as sufficient feed is available, and may not reduce feeding activity. Increasing ambient temperature usually increases water consumption and the water:feed ratio. DEEB and CAHANER (2002) and VANDAI et al. (2009) reported a rise in water:feed ratio from 1:1.5 to 1:2.5 when the ambient temperature increased from 22 to 32 centigrade. Though the water consumption was not recorded in the present study, it can be assumed that there was a considerable increase with increasing stocking density and litter temperature in the feathered birds. Since percent drinking decreased with increasing stocking density, the birds must have increased their speed of drinking so that larger amounts of water were consumed in shorter time. Since featherless birds dissipate more heat through convection and radiation, the loss of water through respiration (panting) is expected to be lower than in the feathered birds. Nevertheless the percentage of drinking was higher in featherless than in feathered birds. The absence of heat stress in the featherless chickens might have allowed more frequent visits to the drinker and lower drinking intensity. It was interesting to note that featherless birds showed preening behaviour similarly to feathered broilers. The Arch.Geflügelk. 2/2010 78 Lolli et al.: Behaviour of featherless and normally-feathered broilers panting 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 stocking density kg/m 2 Figure 13.Mean duration (sec) of panting in response to line (feathered (S); featherless ( )) and stocking density Mittlere Dauer des Hechelns (Sekunden) von befiederten (S) und unbefiederten ( ) Masthühnern bei zunehmender Besatzdichte present results confirm the report by PEREIRA et al. (2007) that preening behaviour gradually decreased as environmental temperature increased. Some authors (KRISTENSEN et al., 2000; WATHES, 2002) reported that preening was associated with both high environment temperatures. The causal relationship between ambient temperature and preening behaviour is not fully understood. The ruffling of the feather cover while preening would enhance heat loss in feathered birds. But as the response of the percent preening in the feathered birds showed the opposite tendency (Figure 4) this explanation cannot be supported. The reduction of preening in the present study may be the expression of a shift from comfort behaviour towards behaviours which are more efficient in facilitating heat loss. Preening has no obvious function in featherless broilers. Therefore is not expected that this behaviour reacts to the experimental conditions. The response of the duration of the behaviours to increasing stocking densities and litter temperature was generally less consistent than that of the percentages. Since the duration of behaviours is based on observations of individual birds, the variation among individuals may hide the effect of the experimental factors. Nevertheless, there are consistent effects for the duration of sitting/lying and panting. As shown in Figure 9 the duration of sitting/lying declined with increasing stocking density in both, the featherless and the feathered birds, but the similar re- sponse occurred in feathered birds at lower density than in the featherless birds. Short periods of sitting/lying in broilers have also been reported by PRESTON and MURPHY (1989). The authors considered disturbancies by other birds as the causal factor for short periods of this behaviour. Since disturbancies are expected to increase with increasing stocking density, this effect cannot explain the results of the present study. Panting is the main mechanism of active heat dissipation (FREEMAN, 1971). It is activated when the passive heat loss is not sufficient to keep the body temperature on its normal level. ROBINSON (1979) found a sharp increase in panting at ambient temperatures between 30 and 35 centigrade. MCLEAN et al. (2001) found deep panting of commercial broilers under moderate climatic conditions from stocking density of 34 kg/m2 onwards. In the present study the reaction of the duration of panting to increased stocking density was not consistent in the feathered birds. However, their mean values at stocking densities of 16.5 and 32.5 kg/m2 were higher than that of the featherless broilers at densities of 28.1 and 45.6 kg/m2. This confirms that the increased sensible heat loss in the featherless broilers shifts the necessity of active heat dissipation to higher temperature. Conclusions The comparison of normally feathered and featherless broilers at different stocking densities under high ambient temperature indicate that the thermal conditions rather than physical density influences their behaviour (Table 2). This conclusion is based on the consistent responses of various behaviours to increased litter temperature. These responses could be explained as behavioural mechanisms to dissipate metabolic heat. Since passive heat loss is much higher in featherless than in feathered birds, the behavioural responses to increasing stocking density in feathered birds started at a lower litter temperature than that of the featherless broilers. These results are in line with previous findings of CAHANER et al. (2008) and the assumption that featherless broilers, under high ambient temperatures, may suffer less from heat stress than feathered broilers. Summary Problems of heat dissipation restrict feed intake and growth rate of conventional broilers under hot environmental conditions and high stocking density. Featherless broilers dissipate through the whole body surface, and, thus, are better adapted to high ambient temperatures. Table 2. Percentages and mean duration of behaviours recorded in response to line (feathered and featherless) and stocking density Anteile und mittlere Dauer von Verhaltensweisen in Abhängigkeit von der Linie (befiedert und unbefiedert) und der Besatzdichte Phenotype Den- Sum sity of % kg/m2 Miss% ing % drink Feathered Feathered Feathered 16.5 100.7 21.1 89.7 32.5 49.1 –0.7 10.3 50.9 4.0 3.5 1.8 Featherless Featherless Featherless 28.1 91.3 35.9 100.5 45.6 74.9 8.7 –0.5 25.2 6.9 4.4 5.9 % feed % % % preen sit/lay stand % walk duration sum duration drink dura- dura- dura- dura- duration tion tion tion tion feed preen sit/lay stand walk 4.3 3.9 3.8 10.5 4.7 3.2 60 64 35 9.2 7.2 2.2 12.7 6.4 3.2 135 67 110 17 8 29 33 12.5 28 5.25 4.7 6.2 64 31 31 14 8 13.8 1.6 2.3 2.4 3.9 5.6 3.3 6.2 5.8 3.2 58 69 50 8.0 9.0 6.7 8.3 6.7 5.8 108 113 59 8.2 22 14 1 13 2.3 4.8 4.15 6.8 84 63 27 7.1 8.8 7 2.5 1.93 2.15 Arch.Geflügelk. 2/2010 Lolli et al.: Behaviour of featherless and normally-feathered broilers The aim of the present study was to compare the behaviour of featherless chickens and conventional feathered broilers under high ambient temperatures and increasing stocking densities. Three groups of featherless and normally feathered broiler type chickens each were kept in deep litter pens. The ambient temperature was kept between 33°C. Stocking density was 16.6; 21.1 and 32.5 kg/m2 in feathered and 28.1; 35.9 and 45.6 kg/m2 in the featherless chickens. The temperature of the litter surface increased with increasing stocking density, regardless of the breed, from 31.4 to about 37 centigrade. The behaviour was recorded at 7 weeks of age using video-recording. Percent spent walking, standing, sitting, feeding, drinking, preening was recorded by time sampling technique. The duration of the same behaviours and of, panting was recorded by focal animal sampling. Within the feathered broilers, walking, standing, sitting, preening and drinking was reduced with increasing stocking density. Panting occurred in all groups and under all stocking densities. Bouts of panting were shorter in featherless than in feathered birds. The featherless broilers did not consistently respond to increasing stocking density in most behaviours. In some cases a similar trend in response to stocking density in behaviour occurred in featherless as in the feathered broilers, but at a higher density. The behavioural responses could be explained by the attempt of the birds to cope with high temperature. The results suggest that changes in behaviour in response to stocking density are caused by the temperature rather than physical restriction of space. It is concluded that at high ambient temperature featherless broilers show a better state of welfare than feathered broilers. Key words Behaviour, litter temperature, stocking density, featherless chickens 79 Dauer der gleichen Verhaltensweisen sowie die Dauer des Hechelns wurde durch Einzeltierbeobachtungen registriert. Bei den Folgefedern Masthühnern ging der Anteil an Fortbewegung, stehen, sitzen, Federputzen und Trinken mit zunehmender Besatzdichte zurück. Hecheln wurde war in allen Gruppen und unter allen Besatzdichten beobachtet. Die Dauer des Lächelns war bei den genetisch federlosen Masthühnern kürzer als bei den befiederten. Im Gegensatz zu den befiederten Hühnern reagierten die federlosen Masthühnern in den meisten Verhaltensabläufen nicht konsistent auf zunehmende Besatzdichte. Bei manchen Merkmalen wurde sowohl bei den federlosen als auch bei den befiederten der Masthühnern der gleiche Trend in der Reaktion auf die Besatzdichte festgestellt, wobei jedoch die Reaktion bei den federlosen Tieren bei höheren Temperaturen einsetzte. Dieser Ergebnisse können als Anpassung der Tiere an steigende Temperaturen interpretiert werden. Die Veränderungen des Verhaltens mit zunehmender Besatzdichte können eher über die die Veränderung der Temperaturen als über die räumliche Begrenzung erklärt werden. Die Ergebnisse weisen darauf hin, dass die unbefiederten Tiere unter hohen Umgebungstemperaturen weniger leiden als die befiederten. Stichworte Verhalten, Einstreutemperatur, Besatzdichte, Nackthühner Acknowledgement The present study was carried out in the framework of the cooperation of the University of Hohenheim and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and funded by the Government of Baden-Württemberg, Germany. References Zusammenfassung Der Einfluss der Besatzdichte auf das Verhalten von genetisch federlosen und normal befiederten Masthühnern unter hohen Temperaturen Die Abgabe der mit metabolischen Wärme begrenzt die Futteraufnahme und das Wachstum von kommerziellem Masthühnern unter warmen Klimabedingungen und unter hohen Besatzdichten. Genetisch federlosen Masthühnern können die Wärme übergeht die gesamte Körperoberfläche abgeben und sind deshalb besser und hohe Temperaturen angepasst. Ziel der vorliegenden Arbeit war es, das Verhalten von genetisch federlosen und normal befiederten Masthühnern unter hohen Umweltbedingungen und unter unterschiedlichen Besatzdichten zu vergleichen. Zu diesem Zweck wurden je drei Gruppen von genetisch federlosen und normal befiederten Masthühnern in eingestreuten Abteilen gehalten. Die Umgebungstemperatur war 33°C. Die Besatzdichte betrug 16,6, 21,1 und 32,5 kg/m2 bei den befiederten und 28, ein, 35,9 und 45,6 kg/m2 bei den unbefiederten Tieren. Die Temperatur an der Einstreu Oberfläche erhöhte sich mit zunehmender Besatzdichten unabhängig von der Herkunft von 31,4 bis etwa 37°C. Das Verhalten der Tiere wurde über Videoaufnahmen im Alter von sieben Wochen erfasst. Es wurde der prozentuale Anteil der Tiere, die beim Stehen, Laufen, Sitzen, Fressen, Trinken und Federputzen beobachtet wurden, mit Hilfe der Time sampling Technik erfasst. Die Arch.Geflügelk. 2/2010 ANDREWS, S.M., H.M. OMED, C.J.C. PHILLIPS, 1997: The effect of a single or repeated period of high stocking density on the behavior and response to stimuli in broiler chickens. Poultry Sci. 76, 1655-1660. ARKENAU, E.F., H. MACKE, H. VAN DEN WEGHE, 1997: Einfluss der Bodenbelüftung in Broilermastställen auf Tierleistung and Tierverluste. Züchtungskunde 69, 307-313. BESSEI, W., 1992a: Das Verhalten von Broilern unter intensiven Haltungsbedingungen. Arch. Geflügelkde 56, 1-7. BESSEI, W., 1992b: The effect of different floor systems on the behaviour of broilers. Proc. 19th World’s Poultry Congress, Amsterdam (The Netherlands), 2, 743-746. BESSEI, W., 2005: Welfare of meat producing poultry-an overview. 7th European Symposium on Poultry Welfare, 15-19 June 2005, Lublin, (Poland). Animal Science Papers and Reports: 23(1), 205-216. BESSEI, W., 2006: Welfare of broilers: a review. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 62, 455-466. BLOKHUIS, H.J., J.W. VAN DER HAAR, 1990: Effects of stocking density on the behaviour of broilers. Arch. Geflügelkde 54, 74-77. CAHANER, A., N. DEEB, 2004: Breeding broilers for adaptability to hot conditions. 8 pages. In: Proc. 22nd World Poultry Congress, Istanbul (Turkey). CAHANER, A., N. DEEB, M. GUTMAN, 1993: Effects of the plumage-reducing naked neck (Na) gene on the performance of fast-growing broilers at normal and high ambient temperature. Poul. Sci. 72, 767-775. 80 Lolli et al.: Behaviour of featherless and normally-feathered broilers CAHANER, A., S. DRUYAN, N. DEEB, 2003: Improving broiler meat production, especially in hot climates, by genes that reduce or eliminate feather coverage. 2003 Spring Meeting of the WPSA UK Branch; British Poultry Science 44(1), 22-23. CAHANER, A., J.A. AJUH, M. SIEGMUND-SCHULZE, Y. AZOULAY, S. DRUYAN, A. VALLE ZÁRATE, 2008: Effects of the genetically reduced feather coverage in naked neck and featherless broilers on their performance under hot conditions. Poul. Sci. 87, 2517-2527. CAIN, J.R., U.K. ABBOTT, 1971: Heart rate studies with scaleless chickens. Poult. Sci. 50, 126-134. DAI, N.V., W. BESSEI, N.H. QUANG, 2008: Effects of sodium chloride and potassium chloride supplementation in drinking water on performance of broilers under tropical summer conditions. Arch. f. Geflügelk. in press. DEEB, N., A. CAHANER, 1994: Genotype-environment interaction and heat tolerance of naked-neck broilers. Proc. 5th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Guelph, (Canada). 20, 65-68. DEEB, N., A. CAHANER, 2001: Genotype-by-environment interaction with broiler genotypes differing in growth rate. 1. The effects of high ambient temperature and naked-neck genotype on lines differing in genetic background. Poult. Sci. 80, 695-702. DEEB, N., A. CAHANER, 2002: Genotype-by-Environment Interaction with Broiler Genotypes Differing in Growth Rate. 3. Growth rate and water consumption of broiler progeny from weight-selected versus non-selected parents under normal and high ambient temperatures. Poult. Sci. 81, 293-301. FREEMAN, B.M., 1971: Body temperature and thermoregulation. In: Bell, D.J. and Freeman B.M. Edts., Physiology and Biochemistry of the Domestic Fowl. Academic Press, London 1115-1151. GERKEN, M., R. AFNAN, J. DÖRL, 2006: Adaptive behaviour in chickens in relation to thermoregulation. Arch. Geflügelkde 70, 194-198. GRASHORN, M., B. KUTRITZ, 1991: Der Einfluss der Besatzdichte auf die Leistung moderner Broilerherkünfte. Arch. Geflügelkde 55, 84-90. HORST, P., 1982: Genetical perspectives for poultry breeding on improved productive ability to tropical conditions. Proc. 2nd World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Madrid, Spain. 8, 887-892. VAN KAMPEN, M., 1976a: Activity and energy expenditure in laying hens. 2. The energy costs of exercise. J. Agric. Sci. 87, 81-84. VAN KAMPEN, M., 1976b: Activity and energy expenditure in laying hens. 3. The energy cost of eating and posture. J.Agr.Sci. (Cambridge) 1976, 85-88. KRISTENSEN, H.H., L.R. Burgess, T.G.H. DEMMERS, C.M. WATHES, 2000: The preferences of laying hens for different concentrations of atmospheric ammonia. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68, 307-318. LEWIS, N.J., J.F. HURNIK, 1990: Locomotion of broilers chickens in floor pens. Poult. Sci. 69, 1087-1093. MCLEAN, J., J. SAVORY, N. SPARKS, 2001: Welfare of male and female broiler chickens in relation of stocking density. Proc. 6th European Symposium on Poultry Welfare, Zollikofen (Switzerland), 132-135. MERAT, P., 1986: Potential usefulness of the Na (naked neck) gene in poultry production. World's Poultry Science Journal 42, 124-142. MERAT, P., 1990: Pleiotropic and associated effects of major genes. In: Poultry Breeding and Genetics. R.D. Crawford, ed., Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 429-467. PEREIRA, D.F., I.A. NAAS, C.E.B. ROMANINI, D.D. SALGADO, G.O.T. PEREIRA, 2007: Broiler breeder behaviour and egg production as function of environmental temperature. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science 9(1), 9-16. PRESTON, A.P., L.B. MURPHY, 1989: Movement of broiler chickens reared in commercial conditions. Brit. Poult. Sci. 30, 519-532. PROVINE, R.R., 1981: Wing-flapping develops in chickens made flightless by feather mutations. Developmental Psychobiology 14, 481-486. REITER, K., W. BESSEI, 2000a: Effect of Stocking density of broilers on temperature in the litter and at bird level. Arch. Geflügelkde 64, 204-206. REITER, K., W. BESSEI, 2000b: The behaviour of broilers in response to group size and stocking density. Arch. Geflügelkde 64, 93-98. REITER, K., W. BESSEI, 2001: Effect of reduced weight load on locomotor activity and leg disorders in broiler chickens. Proc. 6th European Symposium on Poultry Welfare, Zollikofen (Switzerland), 113-117. ROBINSON, D., 1979: The influence of temperature humidity and air speed on the occurrence of heat stress symptoms in laying hens. 3rd Australasian Poultry and Stock Feed Convention, Surfers Paradise, Australia, 23–28 Sept., 184-196. SCHERER, P.J., 1989: Einfluss unterschiedlicher Haltungsbedingungen auf das Verhalten von Broilern unter Berücksichtigung von Leistungsdaten. Thesis, ETH Zürich, Zürich (Switzerland). SCHOLTYSSEK, S., B. GSCHWINDT-ENSINGER, 1983: Leistungsvermögen einschließlich Befiederung und Belastbarkeit von Broilern bei unterschiedlicher Besatzdichte in Bodenhaltung. Arch. Geflügelkde 47, 3-8. SHANAWANY, M.M., 1988: Broiler performance under high stocking densities. Brit. Poult. Sci. 29, 43-52. VESTERGAARD, K.S., B.I. DAMM, U.K. ABBOTT, M. BILDSOE, 1999: Regulation of dustbathing in feathered and domestic chicks: the Lorenzian model revisited. Anim. Behav. 58, 1017-1025. WATHES, C.M., 2002: Measuring and auditing broiler welfare. Eds: Weeks, C. A., Butterworth, A., 117-131. WIEDMER, R.D., R. HADORN, 1998: Revision Tierschutzverordnung: Kurzmast-Besatzdichten lassen. Schweizerische Geflügelzeitung. 2, 10-15. YADGARI, L., R. KUHNREICH, S. DRUYAN, A. CAHANER, 2006: The effects of stocking density in hot conditions on growth, meat yield and meat quality of and feathered broilers. In CD Proc. XII European Poultry Conference, Verona, Italy. YADGARI, L., R. KUHNREICH, N. ASTRACHAN, Y. HADAD, S. DRUYAN, A. CAHANER, 2007: Broilers produce more high-quality meat in hot conditions and high stocking densities. 3 pages. In: CD Proc. VIII Asian-Pacific Poultry Conference, Bangkok (Thailand). YARON, Y., Y. HADAD, S. DRUYAN, A. CAHANER, 2004: Heat tolerance of broilers. 4 pages. In: CD Proc. 22nd World Poultry Congress, Istanbul (Turkey). Correspondence: Dra. V. Ferrante, University of Milan, Dept. of Animal Science, Sec. Veterinary Animal Husbandry, Via Celoria 10, 20133 Milano, Italy; E-mail: [email protected] Arch.Geflügelk. 2/2010