Can short-term frustration facilitate feather pecking in laying hens?

Abstract

Feather pecking is a major problem in laying hens. Frustration, i.e. the omission of expected reward, may play a role in the development of feather pecking. In two experiments, we studied if feather pecking could be facilitated by short-term frustration in birds with a high feather pecking phenotype and victims of feather pecking (experiment 1), and in birds with a high or low feather pecking genotype (experiment 2). Furthermore, the motivation to peck a key for a food reward was assessed in birds with a high or low feather pecking genotype in experiment 3, as birds that have a stronger motivation may also react stronger to the omission of a reward. We trained birds to peck a key for a food reward in an automated Skinnerbox and tested them in control and frustration sessions. During frustration, the feeder was covered with Perspex. Frustration did not facilitate feather pecking in either experiment. In experiment 1, birds with a high feather pecking phenotype did show more gentle feather pecking and aggressive pecking than victims of feather pecking during some of the control sessions. Furthermore, victims of feather pecking vocalised more than birds with a high feather pecking phenotype. In experiment 2, birds with a high feather pecking genotype scratched more than birds with a low feather pecking genotype, indicating differences in motivation for foraging or dust-bathing behaviour, which shows a relation to feather pecking. Birds with a low feather pecking genotype also had a stronger motivation to peck at a key for a food reward than birds with a high feather pecking genotype. No evidence was found that feather pecking could be facilitated by short-term frustration in a Skinnerbox. However, differences in reaction to frustration and in motivation to peck a key for a food reward in birds with a high or low feather pecking phenotype or genotype indicate that frustration may still play a role in the development of feather pecking. #

Comportamento de poedeiras criadas a diferentes densidades e tamanhos de grupo em ambiente enriquecido

“…Guo et al (2012) O teste de χ 2 , para os comportamentos empoleirar e perseguir, mostrou que as ocorrências desses comportamentos nos vídeos dependem da interação entre o tamanho dos grupos e as densidades de criação, e que, para a condição de 6 aves e maior densidade (774 cm² por ave), houve mais perseguições e os animais empoleiraram-se menos (Tabela 4). É esperado que, em grupos maiores, comportamentos agressivos sejam menos frequentes (D'Eath & Kelling, 2003;Rodenburg et al, 2005). A baixa ocorrência dos comportamentos empoleirar e perseguir, nos vídeos, está associada aos horários de preferência das aves para expressá-los.…”

Redirected behavior in learning tasks: The commercial laying hen (Gallus gallus domesticus) as model

“…The hens were selected randomly from this group. We excluded hens that performed feather-pecking or cannibalism because these abnormal behaviors might affect learning skills (Garner and Mason, 2002;Rodenburg et al, 2005). Victims of feather-pecking or cannibalism were detected phenotypically, whereas the perpetrators betrayed themselves by repeatedly showing such behavior patterns.…”

“…Rodenburg et al (2005) tested the effect of shortterm frustration (i.e., the omission of expected reward) on feather pecking using an automated Skinner box but failed to find a correlation between feather pecking and short-term frustration. Nevertheless, reactions to frustration, like vocalization and scratching, or variations in motivation to peck a key for a food reward, were predictive of feather-pecking birds (Rodenburg et al, 2005). If pecking has no immediate effect (foraging leading to food consumption and artificial learning situations leading to a food reward), the birds might become frustrated, which mostly results in redirected behavior.…”

“…Birds are particularly suited for simple visual discrimination tasks because they are able to discriminate colors on the basis of luminance (Croney et al, 2007). Rodenburg et al (2005) tested the effect of shortterm frustration (i.e., the omission of expected reward) on feather pecking using an automated Skinner box but failed to find a correlation between feather pecking and short-term frustration. Nevertheless, reactions to frustration, like vocalization and scratching, or variations in motivation to peck a key for a food reward, were predictive of feather-pecking birds (Rodenburg et al, 2005).…”

Vocalisations and acoustic parameters of flock noise from feather pecking and non-feather pecking laying flocks

“…Feather pecking is also an economic problem; it can lead to lowered egg production (Johnsen et al, 1998;El-Lethey et al, 2000) and higher food consumption because birds with little feather cover have poor thermoregulation and consequently greater energy demands than unaffected birds (Leeson and Morrison, 1978;Tauson and Svensson, 1980;Tullett et al, 1980;Peguri and Coon, 1993). Victims of feather pecking show high rates of alarm (high frequency (Hz) sound of $0Á3 s duration with a distinct harmonic structure (Konishi, 1963;Collias, 1987)) calling (Rodenburg et al, 2005) and a squawk of startle/pain (short ($0Á1 s) with an abrupt onset and ending and covering a wide frequency (Hz) range (Konishi, 1963;WoodGush, 1971;Collias, 1987)) may be given by a hen suddenly pecked by another (Collias, 1987). Bird lines with a high rate of feather pecking behaviour made more vocalisations (notes) than birds from a line with a low incidence of feather pecking during individual and social feather pecking tests (Rodenburg and Koene, 2003).…”