Differences among domestic chicken breeds in tonic immobility responses as a measure of fearfulness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: One priority for animal welfare is for animals to experience less fear, especially during human contact. For domestic animals, breeds that are less fearful may provide genetic resources to develop strains with improved welfare due to lower susceptibility to fear. Genetic predispositions inherited in these breeds might reflect the large diversity of chicken breeds. The goal of the present study was to systematically test a diverse group of chicken breeds to search for breeds that experience less fear. Methods: Nineteen chicken breeds from commercial hybrid lines, native layer-type, meat-type and dual-purpose breeds, ornamental breeds as well as bantam breeds were tested in a standardized tonic immobility (TI) test. Chickens were manually restrained on their back, and the time to first head movement and first leg movement, the duration of TI, as well as the number of attempts needed to induce TI were measured. Results: ≤ 0.001) for naïve, mature hens. The median number of attempts required to induce TI ranged from 1 to 2 and did not differ significantly among breeds. Median durations were much more variable, with Lohmann Brown showing shortest durations (6 s, 12 s, 58 s for time to first head movement, first leg movement and total duration of TI, respectively). In contrast, medians reached the maximum of 600 s for all three measures in German Creepers. Repeated tests on the same individuals did not affect attempts needed to induce TI nor TI durations. Breeds clustered into two main groups, with layer-type native breeds and ornamental breeds having longer TI durations, and bantam, dual-purpose and meat-type native breeds having shorter TI durations. Conclusions: Our findings provide evidence for substantial variation of fearfulness among breeds. This variation could be linked to the intended use during the breed's specific history. Knowledge and quantitative measurement of these behavioural responses provide the opportunity to improve welfare through selection and future breeding.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".