Behavioural assessment of three chicken genotypes under free-range, semi-intensive, and intensive housing systems

Abstract

The present study evaluated the effects of housing systems (free-range, semi-intensive, and intensive) on the behaviour of chickens over 10 weeks period (7-16 weeks of age. A total of 360 birds were selected and subjected to different housing systems. A Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) considered the following: 3 genotypes (RNN, BNN, and NN) × 2 sexes (30 cockerels and 30 pullets = 60 / genotype) × 3 housing systems (free-range, semi-intensive, and intensive) = 18 experimental units with 20 birds per unit = 360 birds. Regarding behavioural response, male birds under the intensive system were more aggressive and showed more sitting and standing behaviour followed by semi-intensive and free-range systems. Jumping, running, walking and wing flapping behaviours were higher in semi-intensive birds followed by free-range and intensive systems. Regarding females, RNN and BNN chicken revealed higher running behaviour than NN. In terms of housing systems, birds reared in the intensive system were more aggressive and showed an increased frequency of sitting and standing behaviours followed by semi-intensive and free-range systems. Birds under the free-range system spent most of their time in feeding and wing flapping followed by semi-intensive and intensive housing systems. Jumping, running, and walking was more pronounced in the semi-intensive system followed by a free-range and intensive system. It was concluded that RNN and BNN chickens expressed more natural behaviours under semi-intensive and free-range systems than NN chickens; hence, crossbred chickens could be reared under such types of environments to achieve their maximum genetic potential.

Keywords

• Behavioural response
• chicken
• crossbred
• housing system
• purebred

References

1. Anonymous (2011): South African show poultry organisation breed standards. Available at: http://www.saspo.org.za. (Accessed September 06, 2020).
2. Appleby MC, Mench JA, Hughes BO (2004): Poultry Behaviour and Welfare. 118-175. In: Perceptions of Welfare. CABI Publishing, Oxfordshire, UK.
3. Bogosavljević-Bošković S, Rakonjac S, Dosković V, et al (2012): Broiler rearing systems: A review of major fattening results and meat quality traits. Worlds Poult Sci J, 68, 217-228.
4. Costa LS, Pereira DF, Bueno LGF, et al (2012): Some aspects of chicken behaviour and welfare. Braz J Poult Sci, 14, 159-164.
5. Dohner JV (2010): Black Australorp chickens: Heritage poultry breeds. Available at: https://www.motherearthnews.com/homesteading-and-livestock/raising-chickens/black-australorp-heritage-poultry-zeylaf. (Accessed September 06, 2020).
6. El-Deek A, El-Sabrout K (2019): Behaviour and meat quality of chicken under different housing system. Worlds Poult Sci J, 75, 1-9.
7. Fanatico AC, Pillai PB, Cavitt LC, et al (2006): Evaluation of slower growing broiler genotypes grown with and without outdoor access: sensory attributes. Poult Sci, 85, 337-343.
8. Huo X, Na-Lampang P (2016): Effects of stocking density on feather pecking and aggressive behaviour in Thai crossbred chickens. Agric Nat Res, 50, 396-399.

9. Javid A, Ashraf M, Mahmud, A, et al (2016): Time-budgets of turkeys (Maleagris gallopavo) reared under confinement and free range rearing systems. Pak J Zool, 48, 1951–1956.
10. Leeson S, Summers JD (2005): Commercial Poultry Nutrition. 3rd Edition. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, England.
11. Mench JA, Garner JP, Falcone C (2001): Behavioural activity and its effects on leg problems in broiler chickens. 152–156. In: Proceedings of 6th European Symposium Poultry Welfare Zollikofen, Switzerland.
12. Mohammed AA, Jacobs JA, Murugesan GR, et al (2018): Effect of dietary synbiotic supplement on behavioural patterns and growth performance of broiler chickens reared under heat stress. Poult Sci, 97, 1101-1108.
13. Momoh OM, Nwosu CC (2008): Genetic evaluation of growth traits in crosses between two ecotypes of Nigerian local chicken. Livestock Res Rural Dev, 20, 580-690.
14. Ponte PIP, Rosado CMC, Crespo JP, et al (2008): Pasture intake improves the performance and meat sensory attributes of free-range broilers. Poult Sci, 87, 71-79.
15. Razuki WM, Mukhlis SA, Jasmin FH, et al (2011): Productive performance of four commercial broiler genotypes reared under high ambient temperatures. Int J Poult Sci, 10, 87-92.
16. Rehman MS, Mahmud A, Mehmood S, et al (2018): Assessing behaviour in Aseel pullets under free-range, part-time free-range, and cage system during growing phase. Poult Sci, 97, 725-732.
17. RSPCA (2016): The Welfare of Layer Hens in Cage and Cage-Free Housing Systems. RSPCA Australia, Deakin West ACT 2600, Australia.
18. Saadey SM, Galal A, Zaky HI, et al (2008): Diallel crossing analysis for body weights and egg production traits of two native Egyptian and two exotic chicken breeds. Int J Poult Sci, 7, 64–71.
19. Shafiq M, Mahmud A, Hussain J, et al (2018): Comparative production performance of four different Naked Neck chicken phenotypes in Pakistan. J Anim Plant Sci, 28, 33-37.
20. Shimmura T, Suzuki T, Hirahara S, et al (2008): Pecking behaviour of laying hens in single-tiered aviaries with and without outdoor area. Brit Poult Sci, 49, 396–401.
21. Siwendu NA, Norris D, Ng’Ambi JW, et al (2012): Heterotic and combining ability for body weight in a diallel cross of three chicken genotypes. Trop Anim Health Prod, 20, 23-25.
22. Tukey JW (1953): The problem of multiple comparisons. The Collected Works of JOHN W. Tukey VIII. Multiple Comparisons. Chapman and Hall, New York.
23. Van Marle-Köster E, Hefer CA, Nel LH, et al (2008): Genetic diversity and population structure of locally adapted South African chicken lines: Implications for conservation. South Afr J Anim Sci, 38, 271-281.