4.5 Article

Rapid behavioral assay using handling test provides breed and sex differences in tameness of chickens

Journal

BRAIN AND BEHAVIOR
Volume 9, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/brb3.1394

Keywords

behavior; breed; chickens; heterosis; sex; tameness

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Japanese indigenous chicken breeds are often used to improve meat quality rather than broilers in the Jidori industry. There are sometimes severe crowding accidents caused by many birds frightened by environmental stimuli. To prevent the economic loss, the chickens need to be more gentle, tame, and imperturbable. Methods In this study, a new handling test for tameness in adult chickens in individual cages was performed with 100 birds from each sex of Shamo, Rhode Island Red, Nagoya, Australorp, and Ukokkei, as well as 10 hens of F-1 hybrid between Shamo and Rhode Island Red, to measure both active and passive tameness. We counted the number heading toward human hands (heading) and retreating in other directions (avoiding) in both active and passive tameness phases, as well as the number of steps taken (step) during the handling test. Results Male chickens exhibited higher avoidance behavior than females. Nagoya females displayed the lowest level of avoidance behavior, which implies passive tameness. In terms of active tameness, a variety of phenotypes can be obtained in different combinations of breed and sex. These results suggested the handling test will be good method for rapid screening of individual differences in tameness. In addition, there were heterosis effects on avoidance and locomotive behaviors. Since F-1 is often used in the Jidori industry, the breeders should be tested not only for meat production but also for tameness. Conclusions In the future, combining both the behavioral screening and the population genomics will establish typical evidence about mechanisms of tameness and domestication in animals.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available