臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

在台灣，大部分的土種雞都是飼養於巴達利式(battery)雞籠，其狹窄的空間與貧乏的環境都對雞隻的福祉產生極大的影響。且歐盟為了顧及產蛋雞之福祉，於1999年宣布將於2012年後全面禁止使用巴達利式雞籠，因此未來許多的研究方向將轉向非傳統系統(如大鳥籠雞舍)與豐富化飼籠(enrichment cage)。本試驗之目的主要是在探討簡單籠飼豐富化對地方雞種日間作息行為之影響。本試驗使用信義、竹崎、花東、金門、石岐與名古屋等六保育雞種，試驗雞隻為45~51週齡，每個品系30隻雞，平分為處理組(雞籠前懸吊紅色尼龍繩)與對照組(沒有紅色尼龍繩)。共使用180隻雞作為此次之試驗動物。行為觀察之方式採掃描式採樣，每週觀察五天(分為產蛋日與休產日)，觀察時間為早上5點至晚上7點，每個小時觀察一次以代表此時段雞隻之行為表現。行為觀察之項目分為：飲食、舒適、探索、休息、警覺與其他活動等六種行為。行為觀察結束後，進行驚嚇癱瘓(Tonic Immobility, TI)試驗，以探討各品系之雞隻對豐富化處理之害怕程度。結果顯示，對於雞隻的日間行為，懸吊紅色尼龍繩沒有什麼作用，但是品種與產蛋對行為有顯著影響。石歧有較高的休息行為與較低的舒適行為(P&;lt;0.05)；花東有較高的探索行為與其他活動(P&;lt;0.05)；竹崎、石歧與名古屋有較高的飲食行為(P&;lt;0.05)；信義與金門則有較高的警覺行為(P&;lt;0.05)。休產日有較高的休息行為(P&;lt;0.05)。各品系於驚嚇癱瘓試驗之結果顯示，信義之TI秒數較高，推測此品系之雞隻其害怕程度較其他品系為高，金門與名古屋之TI秒數較低(P&;lt;0.05)；處理組之TI秒數則較對照組為短 (P&;lt;0.05)。白血球計數的結果顯示，金門雞有最高的H:L比值(P&;lt;0.05)，處理組與對照組之H:L比值則無顯著差異。生產性狀結果顯示，各品系之間的產蛋數與產蛋率有顯著的差異(P&;lt;0.05)，處理組的產蛋數與產蛋率也高於對照組(P&;lt;0.05)。綜上所述，簡單豐富化環境雖然沒有改變雞隻行為，但可能已使牠們較不會害怕，且也能改進雞隻的產蛋性狀，但原因尚待進一步的探討。

The majority of country chicken breeders are kept in battery cage in Taiwan. The narrow space and bare environment have an enormous influence on the welfare of chickens. In June 1999 the new European Union Directive on welfare of laying hens was passed, and the directive requires phasing out the battery cages by 2012. Investigations into alternative systems (such as aviaries) and enrichment cages for laying hens should be conducted for the future. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of a simple enrichment of cage environment on daytime behavior of native chickens. This study used the six conserved breed chickens which were named Hsin-Yi, Ju-Chi, Hua-Tung, Quemoy, Shek-Ki, and Nagoya. The chickens were 45~51 weeks age old. Each breed had 30 chickens, which were equally allocated to the treatment (hanging red nylon rope in front of the cage) and the control (no red nylon rope) groups. Totally, 180 chickens were used in this experiment. Scan sampling were used for the daytime observations, and it were carried out 5 days per week. The observed time was from 5:00 to 19:00, all birds were scanned once each hour to represent the behavior in the period. The behavior observed were categorized into: ingest, comfort, investigate, rest, alert and other activities. Tonic Immobility test (TI) was carried out after the behavior observation. The results indicated that though the simple environmental enrichment by hanging red nylon rope did not change chicken’s daytime behavior, breeds and egg laying did have some significant effect. Compared to other breeds, Shek-Ki displayed more rest and less comfort behavior; Hua-Tung had more investigate behavior and other activities, Ju-Chi, Shek-Ki and Nagoya showed more ingest behavior, and Hsin-Yi and Quemoy displayed more alert behavior. All birds showed more rest behavior during the non-laying days. TI duration was longer for Hsin-Yi and shorter for Quemoy and Nagoya. The treatment group also had shorter TI duration than the control. White Blood Cell count''s result showed that the Quemoy has the highest H:L ratio, The treatment group did not significant difference with the control. The egg production result showed the egg production and laying rate had significant difference Between various breeds, the treatment group had higher egg production and laying rate with the control. Overall, the simple environmental enrichment although did not affect the hen’s daytime behavior, it might have changed them to be less fearful. It can also improve the egg production of chicken, but the reason awaits the further discussion

目錄
壹、前言……………….…………..…………………………….…..1
貳、文獻探討…………….………..…………………………….....3
一、台灣種雞的飼養現況與問題…….…….……..........…3
二、雞隻種原保存現況及遺傳資源的利用………..……......6
（一）信義雞….……….……………….…….............7
（二）竹崎雞…..……...…...………………………......8
（三）花東雞……....................................8
（四）金門雞........................................9
（五）石岐雞........................................9
（六）名古屋雞….…………….…......................9
三、動物的行為…………………….………….…...…..…..13
（一）飲食(ingestive) ……...….…...……......……13
（二）排泄(eliminative)………..…..…………….…….13
（三）庇難(shelter-seeking)........................13
（四）探索(investigatory)..........................13
（五）互相模仿(allelomimetic)…….…….......….….13
（六）鬥爭(agonistic)……….............….....…..13
（七）性(sexual)………...………...........…..…...13
（八）照顧(care-giving or epimeletic) ..…….....…13
（九）求助(care-seeking or et-epimeletic) ….......14
四、雞隻日間作息行為…………...........…………......14
（一）採食行為.....................................14
（二）舒適行為………….……………...........….....15
（三）休息行為.....................................16
（四）活動行為.....................................17
五、雞隻日間作息行為研究成果……..…........………...18
（一）性別影響.....................................18
（二）日間時段………….…..………………............18
（三）週齡差異.....................................19
六、動物福祉狀況指標…………………..........………….26
（一）異嗜球與淋巴球比例(Heterophil to Lymphocyte).27
（二）激素的反應(Hormonal responses)…..….........27
（三）酵素的反應(Enzyme responses)…………..……...28
（四）行為的反應(Behavioral responses).............28
參、材料與方法………………………..........…...………..…31
一、試驗動物………………………...………...…………..…31
二、試驗雞舍與飼養管理……..………….………………..….35
三、試驗設計……………….……………………………..…….36
四、測量項目及方法….…………..…………………..……….36
（一）日間作息行為………...….………….…..…………36
（二）白血球分類………………………..…..……...…..38
（三）驚嚇癱瘓(Tonic Immobility, TI)測試………….…40
五、統計分析………...…………....…………………..…….42
（一）日間作息之試驗單位與模式…………………….……42
肆、結果與討論..…….………....……………………..........44
一、日間作息行為………….....……….……..………………44
（一）品系對雞隻日間作息行為之影響……….….……...44
（二）產蛋對雞隻日間作息行為之影響……….……………45
(三) 豐富化處理對雞隻日間作息行為之影響…………...46
(四) 時間變化對雞隻日間作息行為之影響…….........47
二、驚嚇癱瘓試驗(Tonic immobility, TI) ..….......……55
三、白血球計數 ……..……...………………...…………….59
四、雞隻生產性狀……..…….…………………….……………63
伍、結論……...……………………..……….………….…..…..67
陸、參考文獻……...…….…………….………………….……….68

日本食鳥協會。1996。國產銘柄雞 MAP。日本食鳥協會。東京。日本。
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。
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。
李伯年。1952。台灣之家禽。台灣之畜產資源，17-49頁。台灣銀行。台北。
李淵百。2004。動物行為學。國立中興大學教務處。台中。
李岳弦。2006。籠飼小母雞日間作息行為之探討。碩士論文。國立中興大學。
周易蕾。2006。棲架高度與棲木粗細對於台灣土雞育成期行為及生長性狀之影響。碩士論文。國立中興大學。
周佩璇。2008。性聯遺傳矮小基因與限飼對於台灣紅羽土雞生長性能與棲息行為之影響。碩士論文。國立中興大學。
姜中鳳。1994。不同公母比例飼養法、棲架及飼桶添置與飼糧添加色氨酸，對台灣土雞日間作息、鬥爭及性行為與重要經濟性狀之影響。碩士論文。國立中興大學。
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。
馮維綺、駱新太、吳小淦、劉畢祥、王志俊、張清、林建華、吳素琴，1994。石歧雞的選育及開發研究。第三屆優質雞的改良生產及發展研討會論文集，112-116頁。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。
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。
黃雅梅。2004。台灣商用土雞繁殖性能研究。碩士論文。國立中興大學。
曾秋隆。2007。曾氏家禽臨床血液學。176-224 頁。必中出版社。台中市。
賴麗如。1992。平飼與籠飼對土雞藾菢行為與產蛋性狀的影響。碩士論文。國立中興大學。
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、台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。
陳韋如。2008。遺傳與社會環境對台灣土雞棲息行為的影響碩士論文。國立中興大學。
鄭丕留。1988。中國家禽品種誌，彩色圖版。上海科學技術出版社。
上海。
Abrahamsson, P., R. Tauson, and M. C. Appleby. 1995. Performance of four hybrids of laying hens in modified and conventional cages. Acta Agric. Scand. 47:254–260.
Abrahamsson, P., and R. Tauson. 1997. Effects of group size on performance, health and birds’ use of facilities in furnished cages for laying hens. Acta Agric. Scand. 47:254–260.
Appleby, M. C., B. O. Hughes, and H. A. Elson. 2000. Poultry production systems：Behaviour, Management and welfare. CAB International, Oxfordshire.
Appleby, M. C., J. A. Mench, and B. O. Hughes. 2004. Poultry Behaviour and Welfare. CABI publishing. Oxford, UK.
Barbato, G. F., J. A. Cherry, P. B. Siegel, and H. P. Van Krey. 1980. Quantitative analysis of the feeding behavior of four populations of chickens. Physiol. Behav. 25: 885–891.
Blokhuis, H. J. 1984. Rest in poultry. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 12: 289-303.
Brake, J., T. P. Keeley, and R. B. Jones. 1994. Effect of age and presence of perches during rearing on tonic immobility fear reactions of broiler breeder pullets. Poult. Sci. 73: 1470-1474.
Broom, D. M. 1986. Indicators of poor welfare. Br. Vet. J. 142: 524-526.
Campo, J. L., M. G. Gil, I. Munoz, M. Alonso. 2000. Relation between Bilateral asymmetry and tonic immobility duration or heterophil to lymphocyte ratio in five breeds of chickens. Poult. Sci. 79: 453-459.
Campo, J. L., and S. G. Davila. 2002. Effect of photoperiod on heterophil to lymphocyte ratio and tonic immobility duration of chickens. Poult. Sci. 81: 1637-1639.
Craig, J. V., S. K. Kujiyat, and A. D. Dayton. 1984. Tonic immobility responses of white leghorn hens affected by induction techniques and genetic stock differences. Poult. Sci. 63: 1-10
Dawson, J. S., and P. B. Siegel. 1967. Behavior patterns of chickens to ten weeks of age. Poult. Sci. 46: 615-622.
Duncan, I. J. H., and B. O. Hughes. 1975. Feeding activity and egg formation in hens lit continuously. Br. Poult. Sci. 16: 145-155.
Duncan, I. J. H. 1981. Animal right-Animal welfare. A scientist''s assessment. Poult. Sci. 60: 489-499.
Fraser, A. F., and A. D. Broom. 1990. Welfare terminology and concepts. In: Farm animal behaviour and welfare. Baiillière Tindall, London, 3rdedition. p. 256-265.
Freire R., H. W. Cheng, and C. J. Nicol. 2004. Development of spatial memory in occlusion-experienced domestic chicks. Anim. Behav. 67: 141-150.
Gallup, G. G. Jr. 1979. Tonic immobility as a measure of fear in domestic fowl. Anim. Behav. 27: 316-317.
Grigor, P. N., B. O. Hughes, and M. C. Appleby. 1995. Effects of regular handling and exposure to an outside area on subsequent fearfulness and dispersal in domestic hen. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 44: 47-55.
Gross, W. B., and H. S. Seigel. 1983. Evaluation of the heterophil/lymphocyte ratio as a measure of stress in chickens. Avian Dis. 27: 972-978.
Hogan, J. A. 1973. Development of food recognition in young chicks. I. Maturation and nutrition. J. of Comparative and Physiological Psychology. 83:355-356.
Hocking, P. M., M. H. Maxwell, and M. A. Mitchell. 1993. Welfare assessment of broiler breeder and layer females subjected to food restriction and limited access to water during rearing. Br. Poult. Sci. 34: 443-458.
Jones, R. B., and J. M. Faure. 1981. Sex and strain comparisons of tonic immobility (righting time) in the domestic fowl and the effects of various methods of induction. Behav. Processes. 6: 47-55.
Jones, R. B., and J. M. Faure. 1981. Tonic immobility (Righting time) in laying hens housed in cages and pens. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 7: 369-372.
Jones, R. B. 1985a. Fear responses of individually-caged laying hens as a function of cage level and aisle. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 14: 63-74.
Jones, R. B. 1985b. Fearfulness of hens caged individually or in groups in different tiers of a battery and the effects of translocation between tiers. Br. Poult. Sci. 26: 399-408.
Jones, R. B. 1986a. Social factors affecting tonic immobility in chicks. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 16: 96-97.
Jones, R. B. and D. Waddington. 1992. Modification of fear in domestic chicks, Gallus gallus domesticus, via regular handling and early environmental enrichment. Anim. Behav. 43: 1021-1033.
Jones, R. B. 1996. Fear and adaptability in poultry: insights, implications and imperatives. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 52: 131-174.
Kujiyat, S. K., and J. V. Craig. 1983. Duration of tonic immobility affected by housing environment in white leghorn. Poult. Sci. 62: 2280-2282
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 influence on carcass traits. Proc. 3rd AAAP Anim. Sci. Cong. Vol(1): 257-259.
Lee, Y. P., and T. L. Chen, 2007. Daytime behavioral patterns of slow-growing chickens in deep-litter pens with perches. Br. Poult. Sci. 48:113-120.
Li, T., H. C. Howland, and D. Troilo. 2000. Diurnal illumination patterns affect the development of the chick eye. Vision Research. 40: 2387-2393.
Masic, B., B. G. M. Wood Gush, I. J. H. Duncan, C. McCorquodale, and C. J. Savory. 1974. A comparison of the feeding behaviour of young broiler and layer males. Br. Poult. Sci. 15:499-505.
Ostfeld, R. S. and D. N. Lewis, 1999. Experimental studies of interactions between wild turkeys and black-legged ticks. Journal of vector ecology 24, 182-186.
Siegel, P. B., W. L. Beane, and C. Y. Kramer, 1962. The measurement of feeding activity in chickens to 8 weeks of age. Poult. Sci. 41: 1419-1422.
Scott, J. P. 1972. Animal Behavior, Second Edition, Revised. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago & London.
Selye, H. 1980. The stress concept today. In: Kutash,I.L., Schlesinger,L.B. et al. (eds.): Handbook of stress and anxiety. Jossey-Bass Publisher, San Francisco, pp. 127-143.
Savory, C. J. 1975. A growth study of broiler and layer chicks reared in single-strain and mixed-strain groups. Br. Poult. Sci. 16:315-318.
Savory, L. J. 1980. Diurnal feeding patterns in domestic fowls: a review. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 6: 71-82.
Somes, R. G., 1988. International registry of poultry genetic stocks. Π. Mutations. Chicken. pp. 29.
Smith, S. F., M. C. Appleby, and B. O. Hughes. 1993. Nesting and dustbathing by hens in cages: Matching and mis-matching between behaviour and environment. Br. Poult. Sci. 34:21–33.
Sanotra, G. S., J. Damkjer-Lund, and K. S. Vestergaard. 2002. Influence of light-dark schedules and stocking density on behaviour, risk of leg problems and occurrence of chronic fear in broilers. Br. Poult. Sci. 43: 344-354.
Tauson, R., A. Wahlstrom, and P. Abrahamsson. 1999. Effect of two floor housing systems and cages on health, production, and fear response in layers. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 8:152–159.
Tactacan, G. B., W. Guenter, N. J. Lewis, J. C. Rodriguez-Lecompte, and J. D. House. 2009. Performance and welfare of laying hens in conventional and enriched cages. Poult. Sci. 88: 698–707.
Rozenboim, I., E. Tako, O. Gal-Garber, J. A. Proudman, and Z. Uni. 2007. The Effect of Heat Stress on Ovarian Function of Laying Hens. Poult. Sci. 86: 1760-1765.
Roll, V. F. B., G. A. M. Levrino, and R. C. Briz. 2008. Rearing system and behavioural adaptation of laying hens to furnished cages. Anim. Behav. 38: 1997-2003.
Zulkifli, I., and P.B. Siegel. 1995. The good and bad of stress. Poult. Dig. 54: 18-2