The aversion of broiler chickens to concurrent vibrational and thermal stressors
Publication Type: |
Journal Article |
Year of Publication: |
2001 |
Authors: |
S.M. Abeyesinghe, C.M. Wathes, C.J. Nicol, J.M. Randall |
Publication/Journal: |
Applied Animal Behaviour Science |
Keywords: |
aversion, chickens, concurrent stressors, hyperthermia, transport, vibration |
Abstract:
The requirement for assessing the effects of multiple concurrent stressors in improving the welfare of broiler chickens during transport has not been widely recognised. A discrete-choice technique was used to investigate the aversion of broiler chickens to concurrent vibrational and thermal transport stressors. In experiment 1, 12 female broiler chickens, aged 42+/-3 days were studied individually using two choice-chambers. Each chamber had four compartments connected via a central zone and offered four treatments; thermal (T: air temperature; 40 degrees C, 21% RH), vibrational (V: frequency; 2Hz, acceleration; 1ms(-2)), concurrent vibrational and thermal (VT) and no applied stressors (N). Coloured compartment wall panels, allocated at random, assisted chickens’ identification of compartments. Birds were fasted overnight and were required to make five consecutive choices on each of four consecutive days. A choice was defined as entering a compartment and feeding (5g pellets), whereupon confinement for 60min was initiated. Choices were totalled over all birds and analysed using a log-linear generalised linear model. The vibration was significantly avoided (V and VT versus N and T; P<0.05) but the thermal stressor was not (T and VT versus N and V; P>0.05) and there was no interaction. In experiment 2, the procedure was repeated with 12 more birds and modifications to increase method sensitivity and maximise bird learning. Choices were more disparate than before with vibration avoided to a greater extent (V and VT versus T and N; P<0.01) but there was still no main effect of the thermal treatment or a significant interaction. Substantial differences between individuals were observed in both experiments. The overall response to vibration supported previous findings for short-term exposure, however, non-avoidance of the thermal treatment was unexpected. Possibly, the birds were unable to associate the delayed heat stress with the compartment. Alternatively, the thermal conditions were not perceived as aversive either initially or throughout the 60min confinement. The preference method provides a useful starting point for assessing combinations of stressors which affect broiler welfare, allowing relative ranking of treatments from an animal-centred perspective.