The impact of commercial feeder types on feeding and feed-spillage related behaviors of broiler chickens.

Abstract

The behavior of birds at the feeder can cause feed spillage, which can have economic consequences. This research aimed to evaluate the impact of different commercial feeder types on feeding and feed-spillage related behaviors of broilers by assessing the frequency of behaviors performed by each bird at the feeder. The first study was conducted during the starter phase. A total of 720 male broiler chicks (YP x Ross708) were randomly placed into 24 floor pens at a stocking density of 30 birds/pen. Feeder treatments were C2 plus feeder (C2), C2 feeder with supplemental turbo grow (C2TG), C2 feeder with supplemental feed tray (C2FT), and Konavi feeder (KON). Behaviors were continuously recorded on days 1, 4, 7, and 14 with a 5-minute observation every 30 minutes. Behaviors were categorized as, eating from outside the feeder, eating perched on the edge of the feeder, eating from inside the feeder, entering-exiting the feeder, attempts to enter the feeder, moving inside the feeder, pecking at litter within the feeder, feed scratching, feed selection, jostling at the feeder, displacing other birds from the feeder, and repetitive pecking at the feeder. Behavioral frequencies were analyzed by using a one-way ANOVA (PROC GLIMMIX, SAS 9.4) with Poisson distribution to assess the impact of feeder treatments on bird behavior. Means were separated via Tukey-Kramer. Birds ate more from outside the C2TG (9.98) and KON (9.68), whilst birds ate more from inside the C2FT (6.10). More birds ate while perching on the edge of C2 (0.44), while fewer birds ate from the edge of KON (0.1). Birds had the highest successful entering and exiting with C2FT (4.12), and the highest unsuccessful attempts with KON (0.78). Birds were most active inside C2FT (2.10), then C2 (0.74), followed by C2TG (0.29), and least active inside KON (0.01). Pecking at litter within the feeder, feed scratching, and feed selection were more frequently observed with C2FT (P<0.01). Both jostling at the feeder and displacement of chicks from the feeder occurred the most with KON and least with C2 (P<0.01). These results indicate that feeders such as C2FT and C2 allowed birds to enter feeders, subsequently increasing the occurrences of eating, moving, feed-scratching, and feed selection inside the feeder. With these behaviors, birds spilled the feed while sorting or scratching the feed. Whereas feeders such as C2TG and KON limited birds from entering the feeder and had higher frequencies of birds eating from outside, jostling, and displacement at the feeder. These behaviors have led to the feeder swinging or shaking, forcing out the feed particles from the feeder. The second study was conducted on the grower and finisher phases of broiler chickens. On the day of hatch, a total of 720 male broiler chicks (YP x Ross708) were randomly placed into 24 floor pens (30 birds/pen) in a randomized block design. Treatments were: C2 feeders at opening setting 4 (C2 (4)), C2 feeders at opening setting 5 (C2 (5)), C2 feeders at opening setting 6 (C2 (6)), KON feeders at opening setting 1 (KON (1)), KON feeders at opening setting 2 (KON (2)), and KON feeders at opening setting 3 (KON (3)). Experimental feeder treatment started on day 14, and behaviors were observed on days 27, 34, and 41 with a similar method used in Study 1. Behaviors assessed were straight eating, neck flexion with head outside feeder, neck flexion with head in-feeder, lateral eating, moderate feeder shaking, violent feeder shaking, feeder movement with birds’ activity, jostling at the feeder, displacement of birds from the feeder, and substrate flicking. To assess the impact of feeder treatments on bird behavior, a one-way ANOVA (PROC GLIMMIX, SAS 9.4) with negative binomial distribution was used. Overall, birds ate from all the treatments at a similar frequency. However, birds ate less in an neck flexion with head outside the feeder posture in all C2 feeders (C2 (4) = 0.45, C2 (5) = 0.49, C2 (6) = 0.50) then KON feeders, with the frequency being higher for KON (2) (1.52) then for KON (3) (1.23) but not differing from KON (1) (1.28). Similarly, fewer birds ate in lateral posture at all C2 treatments (C2 (4) = 0.20, C2 (5) = 0.19, C2 (6) = 0.23) compared to KON treatments; however, within KON feeders, birds ate more with KON (1) (0.95) and KON (2) (0.93), then with KON (3) (0.71). Birds were moderately shaking C2 (6) (0.36), and KON (2) (0.18) the most, and KON (3) (0.18) the least. Whilst birds were violently shaking all KON feeders (KON (4) = 0.04, KON (5) = 0.04, and KON (6) = 0.04) more than all the C2 feeders (C2 (4) = 0.00, C2 (5) =0.00, C2 (6) = 0.01). No effect of feeder treatments was seen on straight feeding, feeder movement, jostling, displacement, and substrate flicking. These results indicate that behavior such as moderate and violent feeder shaking, feeder movement, jostling, and displacement caused by feeder disturbances led to spillage, as explained in study 1. However, the greater amount of spillage in KON feeders (1, 2, 3) than in C2 feeders (4, 5, 6) can be attributed to the violent feeder-shaking behavior of birds and feeder features. Feeder design influenced the feeding and feed-spillage related behaviors of birds, and KON had greater spillage in both studies. Design features of KON, such as lower pan height and the feed being presented near the edge, made it prone to spilling the feed when birds performed behavior at the feeder. Overall, these studies in different phases of broiler chickens highlight the influence of feeder design on behaviors that cause feed spillage.