An Analysis of the Maxillary Beak Shape Variation Between 2 Pure Layer Lines and Its Relationship to the Underlying Premaxillary Bone, Feather Cover, and Mortality

Overview

Journal Poult Sci

Publisher Elsevier

Specialty Veterinary Medicine

Date 2023 Jun 24

PMID 37354620

Authors

S Struthers

B Andersson

M Schmutz

O Matika

H A McCormack

P W Wilson

I C Dunn

V Sandilands

J J Schoenebeck

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Beak shape varies considerably within and between intact-beak laying hens, and aspects of beak shape appear to be heritable. As an alternative to beak treatment (an effective method of reducing damage from severe feather pecking (SFP)), this variation could be used to genetically select hens whose beak shapes are less apt to cause damage. To be able to select certain phenotypes, the beak shape variation that exists within laying hen flocks must first be characterized. The objectives of this study were to 1) describe the maxillary beak shape variation in 2 pure White Leghorn layer lines with intact beaks using geometric morphometrics to analyze images, and 2) examine the beak shape's relationship to the premaxillary bone, feather cover, and mortality. A lateral head image was taken of each hen (n = 710), and 20 landmarks were placed along each image's dorsal and ventral margins of the maxillary beak. Landmark coordinates were standardized by Procrustes superimposition, and the covariation was analyzed by principal components analysis and multivariate regression. Feather cover was scored at 3 ages and mortality was monitored throughout the production cycle. Three principal components (PCs) explained 83% of the maxillary beak shape variation and the first PC partially separated the 2 lines. Maxillary beak shapes ranged from long and narrow with pointed tips to short and wide with more curved tips. Moderate correlations were found between the maxillary beak and premaxillary bone shape (r = 0.44) and size (r = 0.52). Line A hens had better feather cover than Line B at all ages. Line A hens also had less total and cannibalism-related mortality than Line B (10.7 and 0.4% vs. 16.7 and 2.4%, respectively). Beak shape may be one factor contributing to the observed differences in feather cover and mortality. The results suggest that distinct maxillary beak phenotypes within each line could be selected to help reduce SFP damage and improve bird welfare.

References

Lamichhaney S, Berglund J, Almen M, Maqbool K, Grabherr M, Martinez-Barrio A . Evolution of Darwin's finches and their beaks revealed by genome sequencing. Nature. 2015; 518(7539):371-5. DOI: 10.1038/nature14181. View

Stange M, Nunez-Leon D, Sanchez-Villagra M, Jensen P, Wilson L . Morphological variation under domestication: how variable are chickens?. R Soc Open Sci. 2018; 5(8):180993. PMC: 6124038. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.180993. View

Su G, Kjaer J, Sorensen P . Divergent selection on feather pecking behavior in laying hens has caused differences between lines in egg production, egg quality, and feed efficiency. Poult Sci. 2006; 85(2):191-7. DOI: 10.1093/ps/85.2.191. View

Joller S, Bertschinger F, Kump E, Spiri A, von Rotz A, Schweizer-Gorgas D . Crossed beaks in a local Swiss chicken breed. BMC Vet Res. 2018; 14(1):68. PMC: 5838925. DOI: 10.1186/s12917-018-1398-z. View

Foster D, Podos J, Hendry A . A geometric morphometric appraisal of beak shape in Darwin's finches. J Evol Biol. 2007; 21(1):263-275. DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2007.01449.x. View

Bennewitz J, Bogelein S, Stratz P, Rodehutscord M, Piepho H, Kjaer J . Genetic parameters for feather pecking and aggressive behavior in a large F2-cross of laying hens using generalized linear mixed models. Poult Sci. 2014; 93(4):810-7. DOI: 10.3382/ps.2013-03638. View

Van Hemert C, Handel C, OHara T . Evidence of accelerated beak growth associated with avian keratin disorder in black-capped chickadees (Poecile atricapillus). J Wildl Dis. 2012; 48(3):686-94. DOI: 10.7589/0090-3558-48.3.686. View

Tokita M, Yano W, James H, Abzhanov A . Cranial shape evolution in adaptive radiations of birds: comparative morphometrics of Darwin's finches and Hawaiian honeycreepers. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2016; 372(1713). PMC: 5182413. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2015.0481. View

Struthers S, Classen H, Gomis S, Schwean-Lardner K . The effect of beak tissue sloughing and post-treatment beak shape on the productivity of infrared beak-treated layer pullets and hens. Poult Sci. 2019; 98(9):3637-3646. DOI: 10.3382/ps/pez230. View

10.

Ellen E, van der Sluis M, Siegford J, Guzhva O, Toscano M, Bennewitz J . Review of Sensor Technologies in Animal Breeding: Phenotyping Behaviors of Laying Hens to Select Against Feather Pecking. Animals (Basel). 2019; 9(3). PMC: 6466287. DOI: 10.3390/ani9030108. View

11.

Marchant-Forde R, Fahey A, Cheng H . Comparative effects of infrared and one-third hot-blade trimming on beak topography, behavior, and growth. Poult Sci. 2008; 87(8):1474-83. DOI: 10.3382/ps.2006-00360. View

12.

Abzhanov A, Protas M, Grant B, Grant P, Tabin C . Bmp4 and morphological variation of beaks in Darwin's finches. Science. 2004; 305(5689):1462-5. DOI: 10.1126/science.1098095. View

13.

Struthers S, Andersson B, Schmutz M, McCormack H, Wilson P, Dunn I . Determining the variation in premaxillary and dentary bone morphology that may underlie beak shape between two pure layer lines. Poult Sci. 2021; 100(12):101500. PMC: 8554249. DOI: 10.1016/j.psj.2021.101500. View

14.

Baker P, Nicol C, Weeks C . The Effect of Hard Pecking Enrichment during Rear on Feather Cover, Feather Pecking Behaviour and Beak Length in Beak-Trimmed and Intact-Beak Laying Hen Pullets. Animals (Basel). 2022; 12(6). PMC: 8944788. DOI: 10.3390/ani12060674. View

15.

Gentle M, Hunter L, Waddington D . The onset of pain related behaviours following partial beak amputation in the chicken. Neurosci Lett. 1991; 128(1):113-6. DOI: 10.1016/0304-3940(91)90772-l. View

16.

Dalton H, Wood B, Widowski T, Guerin M, Torrey S . An analysis of beak shape variation in two ages of domestic turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) using landmark-based geometric morphometrics. PLoS One. 2017; 12(9):e0185159. PMC: 5608350. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185159. View

17.

Boer E, Van Hollebeke H, Maclary E, Holt C, Yandell M, Shapiro M . A ROR2 coding variant is associated with craniofacial variation in domestic pigeons. Curr Biol. 2021; 31(22):5069-5076.e5. PMC: 8612976. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2021.08.068. View

18.

McAdie , Keeling . Effect of manipulating feathers of laying hens on the incidence of feather pecking and cannibalism. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2000; 68(3):215-229. DOI: 10.1016/s0168-1591(00)00107-6. View

19.

Gentle M, McKeegan D . Evaluation of the effects of infrared beak trimming in broiler breeder chicks. Vet Rec. 2007; 160(5):145-8. DOI: 10.1136/vr.160.5.145. View

20.

Urano Y, Sugimoto Y, Tanoue K, Matsumoto R, Kawabe S, Ohashi T . The sandwich structure of keratinous layers controls the form and growth orientation of chicken rhinotheca. J Anat. 2019; 235(2):299-312. PMC: 6637450. DOI: 10.1111/joa.12998. View