Screening for coping style increases the power of gene expression studies

Background: Individuals of many vertebrate species show different stress coping styles and these have a striking influence on how gene expression shifts in response to a variety of challenges. Principal Findings: This is clearly illustrated by a study in which common carp displaying behavioural predictors of different coping styles (characterised by a proactive, adrenaline-based or a reactive, cortisol-based response) were subjected to inflammatory challenge and specific gene transcripts measured in individual brains. Proactive and reactive fish differed in baseline gene expression and also showed diametrically opposite responses to the challenge for 80% of the genes investigated. Significance: Incorporating coping style as an explanatory variable can account for some the unexplained variation that is common in gene expression studies, can uncover important effects that would otherwise have passed unnoticed and greatly enhances the interpretive value of gene expression data

Does rearing laying hens in aviaries adversely affect long-term welfare following transfer to furnished cages?

This study tests the hypothesis that hens that are reared in aviaries but produce in furnished cages experience poorer welfare in production than hens reared in caged systems. This hypothesis is based on the suggestion that the spatial restriction associated with the transfer from aviaries to cages results in frustration or stress for the aviary reared birds. To assess the difference in welfare between aviary and cage reared hens in production, non-beak trimmed white leghorn birds from both rearing backgrounds were filmed at a commercial farm that used furnished cage housing. The videos were taken at 19 and 21 weeks of age, following the birds' transition to the production environment at 16 weeks. Videos were analysed in terms of the performance of aversion-related behaviour in undisturbed birds, comfort behaviour in undisturbed birds, and alert behaviour directed to a novel object in the home cage. A decrease in the performance of the former behaviour and increase in the performance of the latter two behaviours indicates improved welfare. The results showed that aviary reared birds performed more alert behaviour near to the object than did cage reared birds at 19 but not at 21 weeks of age (P = 0.03). Blood glucose concentrations did not differ between the treatments (P>0.10). There was a significant difference in mortality between treatments (P = 0.000), with more death in aviary reared birds (5.52%) compared to cage birds (2.48%). The higher mortality of aviary-reared birds indicates a negative effect of aviary rearing on bird welfare, whereas the higher duration of alert behavior suggests a positive effect of aviary rearing

The development of feather pecking behaviour and targeting of pecking in chicks from a high and low feather pecking line of laying hens

Large individual differences between adult laying hens in their propensity for feather pecking are known to exist. However, not much research has been carried out into the individual differences concerning the development of feather pecking behaviour. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether contrasting levels of feather pecking, observed among adult birds from two lines of laying hens, already occur at an early age. Furthermore, an important question to be discussed was whether different behavioural systems may be related to the occurrence of feather pecking. Therefore, this study consisted of studying and comparing the behaviour of White Leghorn laying hens from a high (HFP) and low feather pecking line (LFP) during the first 8 weeks of life. Chicks were reared in litter-floor pens and were kept in groups of five animals per line (12 groups per line).HFP chicks showed significantly higher levels of gentle feather pecking (gentle FP) than LFP chicks at the age of 14 and 28 days. Furthermore, HFP chicks spent significantly more time preening than LFP chicks on days 14, 28 and 41. Duration of foraging behaviour and feeding behaviour was significantly higher in the LFP line compared to the HFP line on days 41 and 56 and days 28, 41 and 56, respectively. HFP chicks showed a significant negative correlation between gentle FP and preening on days 3 (r=-0.49) and 41 (r=-0.86). In the LFP line duration of feeding correlated negatively with gentle FP on day 3 (r=-0.63). A principal component analysis (PCA) revealed that in the HFP line, gentle FP and preening exhibited high and opposite loadings on the same component at all ages, whereas feeding consistently loaded on the other component. This outcome contrasted with that of the LFP line. In this line feeding predominantly loaded on the same principal component as gentle FP, with loadings opposite to those of gentle FP, whereas preening showed the same loadings as gentle FP, on days 3 and 41.In conclusion, differences in feather pecking behaviour between HFP and LFP chicks can already be observed at a very early age during development. Furthermore, our results indicate that HFP and LFP chicks differ in the way pecking behaviour is targeted. This difference could be related to the existence of a difference in underlying motivational system controlling the development of feather pecking between the two lines