![]() ![]() ![]() Commonly, only the colouration of certain ornaments of the plumage or the development of these has been considered ( 11– 13), since plumage ornaments are also used by the birds themselves to assess the conditions of a conspecific. The assessment of the overall status of the plumage has often been neglected in avian research model species such as Great Tits ( Parus major) or Zebra Finches ( 7). A standardized scoring method is the necessary basis to systematically answer questions about well-being and any underlying reasons related to the differences in plumage appearance, such as the prevalence of feather pecking ( 9, 10). On the other hand, damaged and incomplete plumage may indicate poorer condition and/or health as a result of poorer environments, or previous agonistic interactions with conspecifics ( 8). Birds in good conditions and/or health usually have a proper plumage as they can perform respective maintenance behavior in their housing environment and can carry the energetic costs. Scoring the plumage of a bird, based on the density or relative amount of surface being feathered, reveals the differences among individuals and populations which can be linked to age, housing, or feeding conditions and thus may be important and informative well-being indicators. For these birds, which are not bred for increased fattening or egg production, phenotypic traits for ad hoc well-being indicator assessment will be most suited, that is, plumage scores or direct body conditions indices. In these scenarios, passerines are often kept, for example, the Zebra Finch. However, assessing well-being indicators in birds is not only important in farmed animals, but is also a key issue for avian species housed in research institutes, zoological gardens, or as pets. For laying hens, such as domestic chicken or quails, well-being assessment indicators are mainly based on the phenotypic plumage parameters ( 5, 6), as they provide robust proxies for animal condition. Therefore, locomotor assessment is more suited in fattening poultry. Locomotion is more often impaired than feather status due to the rapid growth of these birds. For poultry, especially fattening poultry such as broiler chickens or turkeys, locomotor behavior is often used for assessing well-being ( 1– 4). Specifically in poultry, several approaches are commonly used to assess the well-being indicators on farms. There are several approaches to assess the indicators of health condition and thus indicators of well-being in birds. The plumage score, maybe in combination with the fat score, may be an important tool to reliably assess well-being on a regular basis in captive populations in zoos, laboratories, or pet stocks.Īssessing the well-being of captive birds should be mandatory for any animal owner. Furthermore, the plumage score can be reliably taught to other observers. Thus, we conclude that our proposed novel plumage score is a simple, reliable, and non-invasive way to estimate an important indicator of captive Zebra Finches' well-being. The intra-observer reliability of the experienced observer who trained the others also showed a very strong reliability for the plumage score and for the fat score. ![]() We found substantial inter-observer reliability for the proposed novel plumage score, and lower inter-observer reliability for the fat score, which seems to require more training of observers. We used up to five different observers of different experience levels to assess inter- and intra-observer reliability of the proposed plumage score and also the fat score. Here, we propose a novel plumage scoring system for small songbirds, using the example of the Zebra Finch, and examine its reliability in comparison with a well-known body condition index, that is, the fat score. To assess the potential indicators for animal well-being, ideally simple, non-invasive, and reliable methods are necessary. The well-being of animals kept by humans in laboratories, farms, or as pets should always be of the highest importance, and a prerequisite for this is adequate housing. ![]() 2Institute of Animal Welfare and Animal Husbandry, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Celle, Germany.1Department of Animal Behaviour, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |