Huber-eicher B, Wechsler B
Abteilung Sozial- und Nutztierethologie, Zoologisches Institut, Universität Bern
Anim Behav. 1998 Apr;55(4):861-73. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1997.0715.
Feather pecking resulting in feather damage, injuries and mortality causes severe welfare problems in laying hens. In the present study, we tested whether there is an inverse relationship between feather pecking and foraging behaviour (exploratory and manipulative behaviour away from the feeder). Forty-eight groups of 30 or 31 chicks, Gallus gallus domesticus, were reared in pens and provided with different types of foraging material. Feather pecking and foraging behaviour were quantified when the chicks were 4 and 5 weeks of age. In experiment 1, chicks with access to long-cut straw showed more foraging behaviour and less feather pecking than chicks that were provided with the same straw but in shredded form. On the other hand, there was no difference in foraging behaviour and feather pecking between chicks reared with access to long-cut straw and polystyrene blocks. In experiment 2, the importance of the form of the foraging material was confirmed. Chicks provided with polystyrene blocks performed more foraging behaviour and less feather pecking than chicks with access to polystyrene beads. The provision of an area with a layer of wood-shavings to promote scratching behaviour had no significant effect, however, on the incidence of feather pecking. In experiment 3, polystyrene blocks and beads were offered during the whole day or only in the morning. Both the quality and the availability of the foraging materials had a significant effect on foraging behaviour and a significant but opposite effect on feather pecking. Focal animal observations showed that the chicks performed different types of foraging behaviour at polystyrene blocks and beads. This suggests that not only the quantity but also the quality of foraging behaviour elicited by a given material may be important to prevent the development of feather pecking. Feather pecking should thus be considered as redirected foraging behaviour. Copyright 1998 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Copyright 1998 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.
啄羽导致羽毛受损、受伤甚至死亡，给蛋鸡带来了严重的福利问题。在本研究中，我们测试了啄羽行为与觅食行为（远离喂食器的探索和操纵行为）之间是否存在反比关系。48组30或31只家鸡雏鸡在鸡舍中饲养，并提供不同类型的觅食材料。当雏鸡4周和5周龄时，对啄羽行为和觅食行为进行量化。在实验1中，与提供切碎形式相同稻草的雏鸡相比，能够接触到长切稻草的雏鸡表现出更多的觅食行为和更少的啄羽行为。另一方面，接触长切稻草和聚苯乙烯块饲养的雏鸡在觅食行为和啄羽行为上没有差异。在实验2中，觅食材料形式的重要性得到了证实。与能够接触聚苯乙烯珠子的雏鸡相比，提供聚苯乙烯块的雏鸡表现出更多的觅食行为和更少的啄羽行为。然而，提供一层木屑区域以促进抓挠行为对啄羽发生率没有显著影响。在实验3中，全天或仅在上午提供聚苯乙烯块和珠子。觅食材料的质量和可获得性对觅食行为有显著影响，对啄羽行为有显著但相反的影响。焦点动物观察表明，雏鸡在聚苯乙烯块和珠子上表现出不同类型的觅食行为。这表明，给定材料引发的觅食行为不仅数量，而且质量对于防止啄羽行为的发展可能都很重要。因此，啄羽行为应被视为重新定向的觅食行为。版权所有1998动物行为研究协会。版权所有1998动物行为研究协会。
