**1.3 Problems related to traditional rearing**

404 Modern Telemetry

At the end of the reproductive season, the farmer who uses farm pheasants adapted to the breeding, eliminate his own breeders selling them as subjects "ready to be hunted". The farmer who uses breeding pheasants coming from the wild keeps them for 2-3 years. For this purpose the farmer chooses the most prolific and strong subjects and moves them into different and big aviaries, where they will recover their strength in view of the following reproductive season. The eggs of the pheasant, that have an average weight of 33 g., have a smooth shell and a changeable plain color from the light brown to the grayish - green. The reproduction is usually between March and July. The eggs are picked once - twice a day, and after the discarding of the defective ones, are preserved in special drawers or in simple bowls containing fine sand, at a temperature below 18°C - 20°C no longer than 7-10 days, in rooms, with or without air changing. Before being incubated the eggs are disinfected by formaline fumigation, ozone, UV rays, washing or nebulization of disinfectant. The incubation period lasts for 23-25 days and can be natural or artificial. In the natural incubation the eggs are hatched in varying numbers from 6 to 24, rarely by the pheasants, most of the times by hens. The artificial incubation is the most widespread and it is carried out in the same incubators used for poultry. The hatching takes average 24 hours and it is obtained in specific machines where the eggs are moved for the last 3 days of incubation. The pheasant chicks, hatched from the egg, remain 8-24 hours into the hatching machines, to

The breeding of the growing pheasants starts with the so called warm stage that takes about 3/5 weeks. The chicks are kept in well ventilated areas with a decreasing temperature from 37,6°C during the first 3 days, to approximately 21°C at the end of the

In natural incubation the warm stage is carried out, by maternal warmth and in artificial incubation by artificial heaters, all over the shed or localized, the so called substitutes of the mother. For this purpose different equipment can be used: hot batteries (multi shelves heating cages in which 50 - 60 chicks can stay per shelf ) or radiant heaters suspended on the top of simple control circles (circular box in wood, plastic net or other, till the capacity of 500-600 little pheasants, equipped with gas heater, electric heater or infrared rays lamps put to the right height to guarantee the correct temperature at the pheasant level). In this first stage, the animals are submitted to the most of the vaccinations and treatments. Around day 21, the chicks raised for the repopulating operations are submitted to a transition stage. The animals from internal rooms, where the temperature never goes down 21°C, start to go to external grass parks, shaded and sheltered from winds. After 30 days, the so called cold stage starts and the chicks are placed in big breeding aviaries (between some hundreds sq.m to a few hectares) in which they have to get used to the external environment. These aviaries are localized in flat pieces of land or with little slope, loose with good drainage and totally enclosed by wire mesh supported by chestnut cement poles. The complete feed, pellets or crumbles, are replaced, partially or totally by rations containing cereal grains, but also vegetables (e.g. salad, nettle, alfalfa and so on) to ensure proper fiber intake. When the pheasants are 60-70 days old can reach the territory of release. These pheasants, however, must stay, for a period of acclimatization (there they will prepare and exercise the functions required by free-living) in special aviaries with grass shrub and tree vegetation. These special aviaries must be prepared in the releasing

totally dry up and to take a rest.

third/fourth week.

areas.

**1.2 Rearing technique of growing pheasants** 

The major problems associated with traditional methods of farming have arisen with the uncritical application of criteria of domestic poultry production to the rearing of game. This approach has favored the most domestic characteristics, the productivity in captivity is therefore greatly increased, both for direct selection and for the natural, often unconscious, breeding selection. Another effect was to reduce pheasant genetic variability that the original group of subjects had. In addition, the reproducers, have been identified among pheasants producing the best performance in captivity and, consequently, has increased exponentially the selection of subjects suitable for captive breeding. The genotype of the pheasants that were most productive in the rearing has thus spread rapidly in all breeders and from them into the wild. The farms became more intensive over time, as a result of increased demand for captive birds. Stocking density was greatly increased, especially through the use of devices that limited the aggressiveness, and the extensive phase, represented by the finisher period spent in the aviaries that replicate the wild environment, has worsened, reducing time and going to a progressive degradation of the environment. The arboreal vegetation, as required by pheasants roost for the night, was eliminated from nearly all the farms, because his presence made more difficult to manage the aviaries and did not allow to achieve low and cheaper structures. The herbaceous vegetation, suitable for the pheasants and planted inside the aviaries for food and mimicry, has been reduced since plant cultivation inside the aviaries is difficult and expensive; seeds suitable for pheasants has been almost completely abandoned and remained only the species useful for camouflage and natural weed of reduced interest for pheasant nutrition (Bagliacca et al., 1994). At the same time the high density and the constant use of farm breeders , with the culling of the subjects with imperfect plumage (pecked), determined the increase of the aggressiveness in the farm pheasants. Discarding the pheasants which were injured not only chooses the most aggressive animals, but also chooses those with the most beautiful plumage (bright and intense colors) (Bagliacca et al., 1996). Since it is known that the characteristics of the plumage are secondary sexual characteristics associated with the level of sex hormones, with this choice, preference was given automatically to animals more aggressive, which occupy the highest positions in the scale of the pecking order and which are the subjects with the greater performances (higher ovarian efficiency and deposition rates). The use of mechanical devices to control aggression has become so indispensable in almost all farms. The application of various models of antipecking devices (such as beak guards, blinkers, or ring-beak bite) completely alters the behavior during captivity. These systems in fact hamper the functionality of the bill, preventing contact with the object of the same pecking, counter the complete closing, or block the direct frontal view needed to catch or flight. Diets normally used in rearing, rich in energy, protein and low in fiber, differ from those that the pheasants can find into the wild. In captive rearing concentrate diets also allow the weaker subject to reach the reproductive age. Concentrate diets thus contribute to the selection of domestication or captive rearing, with clear negative consequences on the genetics of animals whose aim is the wildlife. Concentrate diets also do not allow a proper development of the caeca, necessary for the use of poor food in nature. The adaptation of the digestive system to the diluted diets (poor in nutrients and rich in fiber), typical of pheasants living in the wild, needs at least 30 days (Bagliacca et al. 1994, 1996).

#### **1.4 Considerations on restocking of wild pheasants**

The term restocking is defined as the release of individuals of a species still existing in the habitat, but with a reduced population levels. This type of intervention, using farm subjects,

Radiotracking of Pheasants (*Phasianus colchicus* L.): To Test Captive Rearing Technologies 407

The data from this experience confirmed that farm reproducers show significantly higher production than those of wild captured. It is therefore evident that the use of wild pheasants as reproducers in intensive farms is not a quantitatively convenient choice, despite the improvement observed in the subsequent years of captivity. A proposed good compromise in terms of productivity was the use of the offspring of the wild captured pheasants as the a farm pheasant reproducers. These subjects, while retaining most of the genetic traits of wildness that distinguishes the parental generation, did not show production significantly different compared to those of the farm pheasants. Finally, in 2003, ARSIA produced the disciplinary for the production of "Quality Pheasants". The main elements shown were to restore conditions more similar to those observed in the wild in the farm growing. In

• to supply diets with low protein and energy content and high fiber content with the aim to promote a "functional exercise" of the digestive system of birds, at least during the

• to guarantee a minimum height of the aviaries which is essential to promote bird flight

• to decrease the density to a level which allows the presence of feeding vegetation

• to reduce temporally the so called warm phase which is a totally artificial period; Experiments on the survival of pheasants produced following this disciplinary, have been carried out by two different research groups. Improved survivals were observed by Ciuffreda et al. (2007) in respect to the traditional farm pheasants and different dispersion behaviors were observed by Bagliacca et al. (2008). The use of quality pheasants improves significantly the restocking results, but gives problems for the structure of the wild populations that game manager want to preserve. Paradoxically, while the poor quality of pheasants, which are produced by intensive farming, guarantee a low genetic risk (they are unable to survive for long time), the quality pheasants, if genetically different from the local ones, may represent a real risk for the self-reproducing wild local populations. These last are in fact able to survive in large number until the next breeding season and can alter the genotype of the local pheasants, even in surrounding areas (secondary irradiation). Until now the breeding techniques suggested to the game producers has obliged them to reduce the so called warm phase, not considering the effect of this artificial period on the imprinting on pheasants. The use of hens for the hatching of pheasant eggs, or only for the adoption of the pheasant chicks, has been defined a technique that improves the ability to adapt to the natural life of the offspring out from the farm (Game Conservancy 1994). It remains to prove the feasibility of using this technique for producing pheasants in contexts

• to guarantee the presence of trees or perching facilities for the pheasants;

other than amateur or incidental, that is, with a project that is "economical. "

Studies have repeatedly emphasized the limited survival of pheasants reared using traditional methods compared to the wild one, mainly in relation to the inefficient behavior versus the predators and the reduced capacity utilization of natural foods. These inefficient behavior do not happen in pheasants reared by parents who show the typical attitude of defense. The need for technical improvement of the animals, immediately after hatching

• to forbid the use devices or drugs with the aim to control pecking;

particular, the following traits were considered essentials:

final stage of rearing (finisher period);

species and refuge vegetation species;

**2. The case study example** 

learning;

is widespread in many areas of the Hunting Italian Districts (HTD) and in most of them is the only technique used for management. As summarized by Meriggi (1998), the use of captive animals have a wide range of negative effects:


Regarding in particular the captive pheasants, several studies have shown that these animals have a poor attitude to settle in the wild (Cocchi et al., 1998). In particular, a study conducted in a protected area in the province of Florence, with radio collared pheasants (Papeschi & Petrini, 1993), showed that the captive pheasants had a significantly lower survival rates than the wild translocated (from another PA), especially during the first month after release, while the wild translocated showed surprising survivals of about 80% even after 10 months from release.

#### **1.5 The attempt to reduce the problems of restocking with captive pheasants**

In Italy the first attempt to reduce the problem related to the release of farm pheasants was done by the Regional Agency for Development and Innovation in Tuscany Agriculture (ARSIA). Together with leading experts in the field, the Agency produced a "Guideline for the breeding of galliformes fitted for restocking and reintroduction" (Dessi Fulgheri et al., 1998). This work analyzed the different breeding techniques showing that the quality of the animal produced is deeply influenced by the different choices and technologies adopted by the farmers. Almost simultaneously data on an experimental trial conducted in Province of Siena, on the farm of Casabianca were published by Santilli & Mazzoni Della Stella (1998). These data demonstrated the possibility to use pheasants captured inside the PA as reproducers in the farm, although with some objective difficulties. Behavioral tests (Santilli et al., 2004) were also made on the progeny of these animals. The different origin of the pheasants subjected to behavioral tests showed differences attributable to the different genetic origin of the animals. Both experimental groups were in fact kept in the same rearing conditions from hatch. It appeared that natural selection, which acted on wild pheasant reproducers, was able to select a population of pheasants characterized by a different behavior than the population obtained from captive pheasant reproducers in which acted the farm selection. Although the behavior is a character modulated by the experiences (influenced by training) and received with the imprinting, the offspring of the farm pheasants reacted differently from the offspring of the pheasants catch into the PA. Another interesting study (Bagliacca et al., 2007), in some ways preparatory to the use of the wild pheasants as reproducers in the farms, showed that there are genetic differences between pheasants from different wild origin (PA) and different breeding farms. This latest study brings to the indication to use wild pheasants reproducers captured from no far areas to those where the offspring will be released. The experience of Siena at the end of 90 years has been replicated and implemented, on an ongoing basis over time, from the farm of Casentino (Province of Arezzo), in collaboration with the Florence HTD (Fronte et al., 2005).

The data from this experience confirmed that farm reproducers show significantly higher production than those of wild captured. It is therefore evident that the use of wild pheasants as reproducers in intensive farms is not a quantitatively convenient choice, despite the improvement observed in the subsequent years of captivity. A proposed good compromise in terms of productivity was the use of the offspring of the wild captured pheasants as the a farm pheasant reproducers. These subjects, while retaining most of the genetic traits of wildness that distinguishes the parental generation, did not show production significantly different compared to those of the farm pheasants. Finally, in 2003, ARSIA produced the disciplinary for the production of "Quality Pheasants". The main elements shown were to restore conditions more similar to those observed in the wild in the farm growing. In particular, the following traits were considered essentials:


Experiments on the survival of pheasants produced following this disciplinary, have been carried out by two different research groups. Improved survivals were observed by Ciuffreda et al. (2007) in respect to the traditional farm pheasants and different dispersion behaviors were observed by Bagliacca et al. (2008). The use of quality pheasants improves significantly the restocking results, but gives problems for the structure of the wild populations that game manager want to preserve. Paradoxically, while the poor quality of pheasants, which are produced by intensive farming, guarantee a low genetic risk (they are unable to survive for long time), the quality pheasants, if genetically different from the local ones, may represent a real risk for the self-reproducing wild local populations. These last are in fact able to survive in large number until the next breeding season and can alter the genotype of the local pheasants, even in surrounding areas (secondary irradiation). Until now the breeding techniques suggested to the game producers has obliged them to reduce the so called warm phase, not considering the effect of this artificial period on the imprinting on pheasants. The use of hens for the hatching of pheasant eggs, or only for the adoption of the pheasant chicks, has been defined a technique that improves the ability to adapt to the natural life of the offspring out from the farm (Game Conservancy 1994). It remains to prove the feasibility of using this technique for producing pheasants in contexts other than amateur or incidental, that is, with a project that is "economical. "
