Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/25573
標題: 不同地方雞種的社會位序建立
The establishment of social hierarchy in different breeds of local chickens
作者: 林柔靜
Lin, Jou-Ching
關鍵字: 社會位序
Social hierarchy
地方雞種
local chickens
出版社: 動物科學系所
引用: 王效天。2001。手術去勢閹雞和雞胚時期注射雌二醇對台灣土雞公雞生長後期至性成熟後日間作息,鬥爭行為,生長成績,屠體性狀及官能品評之影響。碩士論文。國立中興大學。台中。 白火城、李淵百。1985。公雞血清睪固酮濃度與其日間作息情形、屠體性狀及雞肉品評結果之關係。中畜會誌。14(3-4):91-98。 甘明宗。1986。公母分飼、合飼及棲木對土雞日間作息行為、鬥爭行為、性行為 及經濟性狀之影響。碩士論文。國立中興大學。台中。 李淵百、陳振台。1983。在不同飼養環境下比較台灣三種肉用雞。Ⅱ、雞隻日間作息情況。中畜會誌。 12(1-2): 94-95。 李淵百、黃暉煌。1988。台灣土雞育種。中畜會誌。 17(3-4):29-47。 李淵百。2012。個人溝通。國立中興大學。台中。 林佳慶。1999。不同日齡胚注射雌二醇對台灣土雞生長後期至成長後鬥爭行為,性行為,社會地位,經濟性狀及胸肉物理特性之影響。碩士論文。國立中興大學。台中。 周宜靜。2012。不同地方雞種就巢與產蛋位置之選擇。碩士論文。國立中興大學。台中。 姜中鳳。1994。不同公母比例飼養法、棲架、及飼桶添置與飼量添加色胺酸,對台灣土雞日間作息、鬥爭行為、性行為與重要經濟性狀之影響。碩士論文。國立中興大學。台中。 洪兮雯。2010。長期選拔生產性狀對雄性台灣土雞性行為之影響。碩士論文。國立中興大學。台中。 陳志峰、李淵百、范揚廣、黃三元、黃暉煌。1994。台灣土雞種原保存。中畜會誌。23(3): 339-346。 陳亭蓉。1998。北京油雞、絲羽烏骨雞、臺灣地區商用烏骨雞與土雞育成期生長與行為性狀之比較。碩士論文。國立中興大學。台中。 陳信雄。2012。利用繞道迷宮試驗探討地方雞種對陌生環境之適應力。碩士論文。國立中興大學。台中。 黃誠鑑。1985。台灣商用土雞重要數量經濟性狀遺傳率與遺傳相關。中畜會誌。14(3-4): 67-78。 黃智鈴。2002。籠飼公雞對精液採集的行為反應:遺傳率、品種差異性與育成期行為的影響。碩士論文。國立中興大學。台中。 葉力子。1990。剪爪、棲架及公母分、合飼對土雞趨近性成熟階段之日間作息、鬥爭行為、性行為及經濟性狀之影響。碩士論文。國立中興大學。台中。 張凱鍠。2002。地方雞種之生長、免疫、繁殖性狀與耐熱能力之調查研究。碩士論文。國立中興大學。台中。 蕭薈。2012。不同地方雞種於成長期與產蛋期之日間作息行為與夜間棲息位置。碩士論文。國立中興大學。台中。 Azrin, N. H., R. R. Hutchinson, and D. F. Hake. 1966. Extinction-induced aggression. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 9: 191-204. Banks, E. M., and W. C. Allee. 1957. Some relations between flock size and agonistic behaviour in domestic hens. Physiol. Zool. 30: 255–268. Banks, E. M., D. G. M. Wood-Gush., B. O. Hughe, and N. J. Mankovich. 1979. Social rank and priority of access to resource in domestic fowl. Behav. Process. 4: 197-209. Billingslea, F. Y. 1941. The relationship between emotionality and various other salient of behavior in the rat. J. Comp. Psychol. 31: 69-77. Colléter, M., and C. Brown. 2011. Personality traits predict hierarchy rank in male rainbowfish social groups. Anim. Behav.81: 1231-1237. Collias N., E. Collias, and R. I. Jennrich. 1994. Dominant red junglefowl ( Gallus gallus) hens in an unconfined flock rear the most young over their lifetime. Auk. 111: 869-872. Craig, J. V., and A. M. Guhl. 1969. Territorial behaviour and social interactions of pullets kept in large flocks. Poult. Sci. 48: 1622-1628. Crawford, R. D., and Symth, J. R. 1964. Social and sexual behaviour as related to plumage pattern in the Fayoumi fowl. Poult. Sci. 43: 1193-1199. Duncan, I. J. H., and D. G. M. Wood-Gush. 1971. Frustration and aggression in the domestic fowl. Anim. Behav. 19: 500-504. Emily, A. O., J. E. Saunders, H. Grist, M. A. McLeman, C. M. Wathes, and S. M. Abeyesinghe. 2011. The relationship between the comb and social behaviour in laying hens. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 135: 293-299. Fox, R. A., L. S. Ladage, T. C. Rothe, and V. V. Pravosudov. 2009. Behavioural profile predicts dominance status in mountain chickadees, Poecile gambeli. Anim. Behav. 77: 1441-1448 Fox, T. W., and J. T. Clayton. 1960. Population size and density as related to laying house performance. Poult. Sci. 39: 896. Guhl, A. M. 1953. Social behavior of domestic fowl. Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 73. Guhl, A. M. 1958. The development of social organization in the domestic chicken. Anim. Behav. 6: 92-111. Guhl, A. M., and W. C. Allee. 1944. Some measureable effects of social organization in flocks of hens. Physiol. Zool. 17: 320-347. Hall, C. L., and L. M. Fegigan. 1997. Spatial benefits afforded by high rank in white-faced capuchins. Anim. Behav. 53: 1069-1082. Hall, C. S., and S. J. Klein. 1942. Individual differences in aggressiveness in rats. J. Comp. Psychol. 33: 371-83. Huang, Z. L., and Y. P. Lee. 2005. Aggressive influences behavioral patterns of local chickens. Jpn. Poult. Sci. 42: 30-38. Hughes, B. O., D. G. M. Wood-Gush, and R. M. Jones. 1974. Spatial organization in flocks of domestic fowl. Anim. Behav. 22: 438-445. Hughes, B. O., and D. G. M. Wood-Gush. 1977. Agonistic behavior in domestic hens: The influence of housing method and group size. Anim. Behav. 25: 1056-1062. Jonathan, N. D., O. R. Salva, L. Regolin, and G. Vallortigara. 2011. Social cognition and learning mechanisms: experimental evidence in domestic chicks. Int. Stud. 12: 208-232. Jones, M. E., and J. A. Mensch. 1991. Behavioral correlated of male mating success in a multi-sire flock as determined by DNA fingerprinting. Poult. Sci. 70: 1493-1498. Lahti, K., K. Koivula, S. Rytkönen, T. Mustonen, P. Welling, V. V. Pravosudov, and M. Orell. 1998. Social influences on food caching in Willow Tits: a field experiment. Behav. Ecol. 9: 122-129. Lazareva, O. F., A. A. Smirnova, Z. A. Zorina, and V. V. Rayevsky. 2001. Hooded crows solve a transitive inference problem cognitively. Anim. Welfare. 13: 219-31. Lee, A. D. 1997. Winner and loser effects and the structure of dominance hierarchies. Behav. Ecol. 8: 583-587. Lee, Y. P., J. V. Craig, and A. D. Dayton. 1982. The social rank index as a measure of social status and its association with egg production in white Leghorn pullets. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 8: 377-390. Lee, Y. P., C. T. Chen, Y. K. Fan, and C. C. Hwang. 1985. Daily activities of the three varieties of meat type chickens in Taiwan and their influences on carcass traits. Proc. 3rd AAAP Anim. Sci. Cong. 1: 257-259. Lill, A. 1968. Spatial organization in small flocks of domestic fowl. Behav. 32: 258-290. Mankovich, N. J., and E. M. Banks. 1982. An analysis of social orientation and the use of space in a flock of domestic fowl. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 9: 177-193. Marsteller, F. A., P. B. Siegel, and W. B. Gross. 1980. Agonistic behavior, the development of the social hierarchy and stress in genetically diverse flocks chickens. Behav. Proc. 5: 339-354. Masure, R. H., and W. C. Allee. 1934. Flock organization of the Parakeet melopsittacus undulatus shaw. Ecol. 15: 288-298. Mauldin, J. M., F. A. Marsteller, W. B. Gross, and P. B. Siegel. 1981. The relationship between the dwarfing gene (dw) and E. coli infection in two population of chickens. J. Hered. 72: 125-126. McBride, G. 1960. Poultry husbandry and the peck order. Br. Poult. Sci. 1: 65-68. McBride, G., J. W. James, and R. N. Shoffner. 1963. Social forces determining spacing and head orientation in a flock of domestic hens. Nature. 197: 1271. Ortman, L. L., and J. V. Craig. 1968 Social dominance in chickens modified by genetic selection-physiological mechanisms. Anim. Behav. 16: 33. Polley, C. R., J. V. Craig, and A. L. Bhagwat. 1974. Crowding and agonistic behaviour: A curvilinear relationship. Poult. Sci. 53: 1621-3. Potter, J. H. 1949. Dominance relation between different breeds of domestic hens. Physiol. Zool. 22: 261-280. Rajecki, D. W. 1988. Formation of leap orders in pairs of male domestic chickens. Aggressive Behav. 14: 425-436. Rogers, L. J., and L. Workman. 1989. Light exposure during incubation affects competitive behaviour in domestic chicks. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 23: 187-198. Rushen, J. 1982. The peck orders of chickens: how do they develop and why are they linear? Anim. Behav. 30: 1129-1137. Rushen, J. 1984. How peck orders of chickens are measured: a critical review. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 11: 255-264. Sanctuary, W. C. 1932. A study in avian behaviour to determine the nature and persistency of the order of dominance in the domestic fowl and to relate these to certain physiological reactions. M. S. Thesis, Univ. of Mass. Amherst. Sefton, A. E., and R. D. Crawford. 1967. Social behaviour as related to down pattern in Fayoumi domestic fowl. Poult. Sci. 46: 1499-1501. Schjelderup-Ebbe, T. 1922. Beitrage zur social-psychologie des Haushuhna. Zeitschr. F. Psychol. 88: 225-252. Schjelderup-Ebbe, T. 1935. Social behavior in birds. Cahp. XX in Murchison’s Handbook of Social Psychology, 947-072. Clark University Press. Worcester. Siegel, P. B., and D. C. Hurst. 1962. Social interactions among females in dubbed and undubbed flocks. Poult. Sci. 41: 141-145. Siegel, P. B., and D. S. Dudley. 1963. Comb type, behavior and body weight in chickens. Poult. Sci. 42: 516. Siegel, P. B., and W. B. Gross. 1973. Confinement, behavior and performance with examples from poultry. J. Anim. Sci. 37: 612-617. Siegel, P. B. 1984. The role of behavior in poultry production: a review of research. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 11: 299-316. Tindell, D., and J. V. Craig. 1959. Effects of social competition on laying house performance in the chickens. Poult. Sci. 58: 641-645. Tindell, D., and J. V. Craig. 1960. Genetic variation in social aggressiveness and competition effects between sire families in small flocks of chickens. Poult. Sci. 39: 1318-1319. von Fersen, L., C. D. L. Wynne, J. D. Delius, and J. E. R. Staddon. 1991. Transitive inference formation in pigeons. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 17: 334-341 Williams, C. G., P. B. Siegel, and W. B. Gross. 1977. Social strife in cockerel flocks during the formation of peck right. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 3: 35-45.
摘要: 一群動物相處一段時間後,便能辨認自己在群體中所處的位置,這些位置就是所謂的社會地位。在雞隻中,社會地位的高低被稱為啄序(peck order),因為雞隻常以喙啄擊的鬥爭方式來確立自己的位階,而這種序位存在的目的是為了維持群體內的穩定性,群體穩定,就不會有不必要的打鬥而浪費能量。反之,社會位序建立的不夠穩定,雞群內就容易出現較高的鬥爭頻率,這種現象會使雞隻處在緊張的狀態下,可能導致雞隻採食量減少,進而影響到的不只是動物的經濟性狀,甚至會牽扯到動物福祉之議題。因此本研究主要在探討花東、信義、竹崎、金門、名古屋及石岐雞這六種不同地方雞種社會位序建立的時間、位序建立前所需鬥爭次數,並且藉由違背位序的比例及鬥爭頻率來討論雞群位序的穩定性。結果顯示,石岐雞的社會位序建立完成的時間最早,大約為7週齡左右,花東及金門雞為9週齡,竹崎與信義雞則為10週齡,名古屋雞最晚,為14週齡。建立前所需鬥爭次數竹崎雞及信義雞顯著最高,名古屋雞則顯著較低。建立完成後,除了石岐雞違背位序的比例顯著較高外,其餘品種皆沒有明顯的差異;鬥爭頻率的部分也以石岐雞顯著最多,而名古屋雞顯著最少。總結以上,地方雞種社會地位建立時間約在9到10週齡之間,而社會地位建立的越穩定越可以降低鬥爭頻率,並減少此種打鬥對雞隻生理及心理之傷害,但在以上六個品種中,石岐雞在社會地位建立完成後仍有不少的打鬥情形,是屬於社會地位較不穩定的品種,代表此品種的雞隻較容易活在壓力之下,這樣可能會對雞隻造成嚴重的影響。因此,此品種之飼養必須注意如何從管理來減少彼此衝突的機會。
A group of animals may recognized their positions in the society after living together for a while, these “position” is so called the social status. Chickens use their beak to fight for their rank, which is how the term “peck order” comes from. The reason for the existing of hierarchy is to maintain the stability in the group, and the stability is believed to reduce the incidence of intense conflicts that incur a greater expenditure of energy. On the other hand, high frequency of aggression appeared in unstable social status group. In this circumstances, chickens live in a stressful life may reduce their food intake and therefore influence not only animals’ growing traits but welfare issues. The aim of the research is to discuss the age when hierarchy established, the fighting times required in group size of 30 before social hierarchy formed and its stability by using the proportion of peck-order violation and the frequency of aggression in six different breeds of local chickens, i.e. Hua-Tung, Hsin-Yi, Ju-Chi, Quemoy, Nagoya and Shek-Ki. The results showed that among all breeds, Shek-Ki was the first to establish their hierarchy, at seven weeks of age; followed by Hua-Tung and Quemoy at 9 weeks of age; then Hsin-Yi and Ju-Chi at 10 weeks; and Nagoya was the last one, at 14 weeks of age. As for the fighting times required for establishment, Ju-Chi and Hsin-Yi are significantly higher than any other breeds of local chickens, while Nagoya is the lowest. Shek-Ki was the least stable of all breeds also showed the highest frequency of aggression. Furthermore, the lowest frequency of aggression appeared in Nagoya. As stated above, local chickens formed their social hierarchy at 9 to 10 weeks of age. In addition, lower frequency of aggression showed in more stable hierarchy group. However, high frequency of aggression appeared in Shek-Ki which means the hierarchy is unsteady. For this breed, chickens live under a greater pressure would harm them physically and psychologically. To improving welfare, this kind of breed should be raised with an effective management to reduce the probability of physical conflict.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/25573
其他識別: U0005-1408201315345100
文章連結: http://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh1?DocID=U0005-1408201315345100
Appears in Collections:動物科學系

文件中的檔案:

取得全文請前往華藝線上圖書館



Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.