Variability of laying hen behaviour depending on the breed

  • Kozak, Agnieszka (Institute of Biological Basis of Animal Production, University of Life Sciences in Lublin) ;
  • Kasperek, Kornel (Institute of Biological Basis of Animal Production, University of Life Sciences in Lublin) ;
  • Zieba, Grzegorz (Institute of Biological Basis of Animal Production, University of Life Sciences in Lublin) ;
  • Rozempolska-Rucinska, Iwona (Institute of Biological Basis of Animal Production, University of Life Sciences in Lublin)
  • Received : 2018.08.31
  • Accepted : 2018.11.29
  • Published : 2019.07.01


Objective: For many generations, most species of farm animals have been subjected to intense and strictly targeted selection for improvement of their performance traits. This has led to substantial changes in animal anatomy and physiology, which resulted in considerable differences between the current animal breeds and their wild ancestors. The aim of the study was to determine whether there is breed-specific variability in behaviour as well as differences in emotional reactivity and preferences of laying hens. Methods: The investigations involved 50 Green-legged Partridge, 50 Polbar, and 50 Leghorn hens. All birds were kept in the same conditions, and the behavioural tests were carried out at 30 weeks of age. We used the tonic immobility test and a modified open-field test including such objects as water, commercial feed, feed enriched with cereal grains, finely cut straw, and insect larvae, a sandpit, a mirror, and a shelter imitating a hen nest. Results: The research results demonstrate that the birds of the analysed breeds differ not only in the excitability and emotional reactivity but, importantly, also in the preferences for environment-enriching elements. Ensuring hens' well-being should therefore be based on environmental modifications that will facilitate acquisition of essential elements of chickens' behaviour. The greatest emotional reactivity was found in the Leghorn breed, which may be a result of correlated selection aimed at an increase in chicken productivity. Conclusion: The differences in the behaviour of the birds from the analysed breeds indicate that laying hens cannot be regarded as one group of animals with the same environmental requirements.


Laying Hen;Behavioural Test;Breed


  1. Lindqvist C, Janczak AM, Natt D, et al. Transmission of stressinduced learning impairment and associated brain gene expression from parents to offspring in chickens. PLoS ONE 2007;2:364.
  2. Smiechowska M, Podgorniak P. Study and assessment of selected quality parameters of organic hen eggs available on the tri-city market. J Agric Eng Res 2013;58:186-9.
  3. Program for the protection of genetic resources of laying hens population. Annex No. 1 to the Order No. 16/07 from 1.06.2007.
  4. Anang A, Mielenz N, Schuler L. Genetic and phenotypic parameters for monthly egg production in White Leghorn hens. J Anim Breed Genet 2000;117:407-15.
  5. Rodenburg TB, Buitenhuis AJ, Ask B, et al. Heritability of feather pecking and open-field response of laying hens at two different ages. Poult Sci 2003;82:861-7.
  6. Jones RB. The tonic immobility reaction of the domestic fowl: a review. Worlds Poult Sci J 1986;42:82-96.
  7. Dogan Narinc D, Aygun A. A non parametric data transformation technique for quantitative genetic analyses: The rank transformation. AIP Conference Proceedings 2017;1833:020060.
  8. Forkman B, Boissy A, Meunier-Salaun MC, Canali E, Jones RB. A critical review of fear tests used on cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry and horses. Physiol Behav 2007;92:340-74.
  9. Bergmann S, Schwarzer A, Wilutzky K, et al. Behavior as welfare indicator for the rearing of broilers in an enriched husbandry environment-A field study. J Vet Behav 2017;19:90-101.
  10. Rozempolska-Rucinska I, Kibala L, Prochniak T, Zieba G, Lukaszewicz M. Genetics of the novel object test outcome in laying hens. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2017;193:73-6.
  11. Panksepp J. Affective consciousness: core emotional feelings in animals and humans. Conscious Cogn 2005;14:30-80.
  12. Zimmerman PH, Buijs SAF, Bolhuis JE, Keeling LJ. Behaviour of domestic fowl in anticipation of positive and negative stimuli. Anim Behav 2011;81:569-77.
  13. Jones RB, Waddington D. Modification of fear in domestic chicks, Gallus gallus domesticus, via regular handling and early environmental enrichment. Anim Behav 1992;43:1021-33.
  14. de Haas EN, Kops MS, Bolhuis JE, Groothuis TG, Ellen ED, Rodenburg TB. The relation between fearfulness in young and stress-response in adult laying hens, on individual and group level. Physiol Behav 2012;107:433-9.
  15. Barnard C. Ethical regulation and animal science: why animal behaviour is special. Anim Behav 2007;74:5-13.
  16. Fraisse F, Cockrem JF. Corticosterone and fear behaviour in white and brown caged laying hens. Br Poult Sci 2006;47:110-9.
  17. Uitdehaag KA, Rodenburg TB, Van Reenen CG, et al. Effects of genetic origin and social environment on behavioral response to manual restraint and monoamine functioning in laying hens. Poult Sci 2011;90:1629-36.
  18. de Haas EN, Kemp B, Bolhuis JE, Groothuis T, Rodenburg TB. Fear, stress, and feather pecking in commercial white and brown laying hen parent-stock flocks and their relationships with production parameters. Poult Sci 2013;92:2259-69.
  19. Hocking PM, Channing CE, Waddington D, Jones RB. Agerelated changes in fear, sociality and pecking behaviours in two strains of laying hen. Br Poult Sci 2001;42:414-23.
  20. Cockrem JF. Stress, corticosterone responses and avian personalities. J Ornithol 2007;148:169-78.
  21. Gallup GC. Tonic immobility: the role of fear and predation. Psychol Rec 1977;27(Suppl 1):41-61.
  22. Oden K. Fear and aggression in large flocks of laying hens effects of sex composition [doctoral thesis]. Skara, Sweden: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; 2003.
  23. Lay Jr DC, Fulton RM, Hester PY, et al. Hen welfare in different housing systems. Poult Sci 2011;90:278-94.
  24. Janczak AM, Torjesen P, Palme R, Bakken M. Effects of stress in hens on the behaviour of their offspring. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2007;107:66-77.