Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T21:04:27.227Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Natural mating in broiler breeders: present and future concerns

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2007

J.P. Brillard
J.P. Brillard
Affiliation:
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Station de Recherches Avicoles, 37380-Nouzilly, France, e-mail: brillard@tours.inra.fr
Get access

Abstract

Intensive selection based on growth traits in meat-type breeder flocks has resulted in new breeds expressing early sexual precocity but limited persistence of gonad development. This can be in part circumvented by adequate use of specific light regimes. However, these breeds require environmentally controlled housing in which light, temperature and ventilation can be properly balanced, a situation which to date is technically feasible only under relatively mild climatic conditions. In recent years there has been a progressive shift in chicken production to warm geographic regions. As a consequence, increasing numbers of breeder flocks are now raised in open houses in which light regimes are only partly controlled. In most instances, reproductive performance in standard meat-type breeds remains satisfactory if sexual precocity can be delayed until 23–25wks of age. However, the early maturation of flocks stimulated by external photoperiods may result in small eggs during the early parts of the season. Early sexual precocity in breeder males is generally followed by a rapid decline in reproductive performance, resulting in their partial or even total replacement to maintain acceptable fertility rates throughout the season. Such changes, which are currently performed on a large scale, are costly, pose health risks and are only partly effective in maintaining adequate fertility rates. In addition to photoperiod, another common practice to for controlling sexual precocity and reproductive performance in meat-type chickens is based on strict control of feed allowance for each sex. In countries where housing and feed equipment are accessible, techniques such as sex-separate feeding combined with quantitative feed restriction have been of practical value to limit body growth. However, such equipment is costly and requires strict management practices. Severe feed restriction in maturing breeder flocks may be stressful and, which induces heterogeneity in body growth. Another concern is the moderate but constant decline in fertilising potential. A Furthermore a negative correlation between reproductive and growth traits may be responsible for such the decline in fertilising potential of birds selected for rapid growth. This may ultimately favour the emergence of breeds with less intensive growth rates and/or the extension of artificial insemination.

Keywords

reproductive seasonfertilitygrowthphotoperiodchicken

Information

Type
Reviews
Information
World's Poultry Science Journal , Volume 60 , Issue 4 , December 2004, pp. 439 - 445
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bakst, M.R., Wishart, G.J. and Brillard, J.P. (1994) Oviducal sperm selection, transport and storage in poultry. Poultry Science Reviews 5: 117–143.Google Scholar
Barbato, G.F. (1999) Genetic relationships between selection for growth and reproductive effectiveness. Poultry Science 78: 444–452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barbato, G.F., Cramer, P. and Hammerstedt, R.H. (1998) Evaluation of an in vitro sperm –egg binding assay assessing male infertility. Biology of Reproduction 58: 686–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brillard, J.P., Beaumont, C. and Scheller, M.F. (1998) Physiological responses of hens divergently selected on the number of chicks obtained from a single insemination. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 114: 111–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brillard, J.P. (2001) Future strategies for broiler breeders: an international perspective. World's Poultry Science journal 57: 243–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brillard, J.P. (2003) Practical aspects of fertility in poultry. World's Poultry Science Journal 59: 441–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cahaner, A. (1996) Improving poultry production under climatic stress through genetic manipulation. Proceedings of the XXth Poultry Congress, New-Delhi 1: 127–139.Google Scholar
Decuypere, E., Bruggeman, V., Barbato, G.F. and Buyse, J. (2003) Growth and reproduction problems associated with selection for increased broiler meat production. In: Poultry Genetics, Breeding and Biotechnologies, Muir, W.M. and Aggrey, S.E.A. editors, CAB international.Google Scholar
F.A.O. (2000) Statistics on meat production.Google Scholar
Geraert, P.A., Guillaumin, S. and Leclerq, B. (1993) Are genetically lean broilers more resistant to hot climate? British Poultry Science 34: 643–653.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hammerstedt, R.H. (1992) Artificial insemination using extended liquid semen: an old technology of great value to modern industry. An. National Breeders Roundtable 41: 163–186.Google Scholar
Hammerstedt, R.H. (1999) Symposium summary and challenges for the future. Poultry Science 78: 459–466.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Havenstein, G.P.R., Ferket, P.R., Scheideler, S.E. and Larson, B.T. (1994) Growth, viability and feed conversion of 1957 vs 1991 broilers when fed “typical” 1957 and 1991 broiler diets. Poultry Science 73: 1785–1794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hocking, P.M. and Whitehead, C.C. (1990) Relationship between body fatness, ovarian structure and reproduction in mature females from lines of genetically lean or fat broilers given different food allowances. British Poultry Science 31: 319–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hocking, P.M. (1996) Role of body weight and food intake after photostimulation on ovarian function at first egg in broiler breeder females. British Poultry Science 37: 841–851.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kerr, C.L. (1998) genetics of female-related fertility In chickens. Ph. D. Dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.Google Scholar
Leclercq, B. (1988) Genetic selection of meat-type chickens for high and low abdominal fat content. In: LECLERCQ, B., and WHITEHEAD, C.C., editors. Leanness in domestic birds. Genetic, metabolic and Hormonal Aspects: 25–40. INRA – Butterworths, London, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, G., Dunnington, E.A. and Siegel, P.B. (1995) Correlated responses to long-term divergent selection for eight-week body weight in chickens: growth, sexual maturity, nd egg production. Poultry Science 74: 1259–1268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merat, P. (1986) Potential usefulness of the Na (Naked Neck) gene in poultry production. World's Poultry Science Journal 42: 124–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millman, S.T., Duncan, I.J.H. and Widowski, T.M. (2000) Male Broiler breeder fowl display high levels of aggression towards females. Poultry Science 79: 1233–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millman, S.T. (2002) The animal welfare dilemma of broiler breeder aggressiveness. In: Poultry perspectives, Newsletter of the college of Agriculture and Natural Resources 4 (1): 1–6University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Reddy, R.P. and Sadjadi, M. (1990) Selection for growth and semen traits in the poultry industry: what can we expect in the future . In: Control of Fertility in Domestic Birds, 47–59. Brillard, J.P. editor, INRA editions volume 54.Google Scholar
Reviers de, M. (1988) Facteurs de variations du développement testiculaire et de la production de spermatozoïdes. In: Reproduction des volailles et Production d'oeufs: 183–208. Sauveur, B., Editor, INRA Editions, Versailles,F.Google Scholar
Reviers de, M. (1996) Photopériodisme, développement testiculaire et production de spermatozoïdes chez les oiseaux domestiques. INRA Productions Animales 9 (1): 35–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauveur, B. (1996) Photopériodisme et reproduction des oiseaux domestiques femelles. INRA Productions Animales 9 (1): 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauveur, B. (2000) Les raisons du succès des filières avicoles en France et dans le monde. Comptes rendus de l'Académie Agricole de France 3: 93–104.Google Scholar
Siegel, P.B. and Dunnington, E.A. (1985) Reproductive complications associated with selection for broiler growth. 59–72. In: Poultry Genetics and Breeding. Hill, W.G., Manson, J. M. and Hewitt, D. editors. Longman Group Limited, Harlow, UK.Google Scholar
Singh, H. (1999) Optimizing delivery of genetic merit in subtropical climates through advanced reproductive technologies. Poultry Science 78: 453–458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Souza de, M. (2004) Personal communication.Google Scholar
Timmons, M.B., Siopes, T.D.Martin, G.A. and Baugham, G.R. (1983) Darkout housing and lighting programs for broiler breeders. Winter Meeting of the ASAE, Chicag, 83: 4520.Google Scholar
Triyuwanta, , Leterrier, C., Brillard, J.P. and Nys, Y. (1992) Maternal body weight and feed allowance of breeders affect performance of dwarf broiler breeders and tibial ossification of their progeny. Poultry Science 71: 244–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wishart, G.J. and Staines, H.J. (1995) Assessing the breeding efficiency of broiler breeder flocks by measuring sperm transfer into laid eggs. British Poultry Science 36: 317–323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed