Separating the impact of group size, density, and enclosure size on broiler movement and space use at a decreasing perimeter to area ratio

Behavioural Processes

Volumn 83, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 16-22

  Leone, Erin Hoerl ^a   Christman, Mary C ^b   Douglass, Larry ^a   Estevez, Inma ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^c NEIKER and a Vaccine producing Commercial Company CZVSL   (Spain)

Author keywords

Broiler chicken; Density; Enclosure size; Movement; Use of space

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; GROUP BEHAVIOR; GROUP SIZE; MOVEMENT; NEAREST NEIGHBOR ANALYSIS; PATTERN RECOGNITION; POPULATION DENSITY; POULTRY; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SPACE USE;

ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL HOUSING; ARTICLE; CHICKEN; CONTROLLED STUDY; DENSITY; DOMESTIC FOWL; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; MOTION; NONHUMAN; PERIMETER; POPULATION SIZE; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

ANIMALS; BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; CHICKENS; MALE; MOVEMENT; POPULATION DENSITY; SAMPLE SIZE; SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT; SPATIAL BEHAVIOR;

AVES; GALLUS GALLUS;

EID: 72449176323     PISSN: 03766357     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2009.08.009     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Arnould C., and Faure J.M. Use of pen space and activity of broiler chickens reared at two different densities. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 87 (2004) 155-170
2. Banks E.M., Wood-Gush D.G.M., Hughes B.O., and Mankovich N.J. Social rank and priority of access to resources in domestic fowl. Behav. Proc. 4 (1979) 197-209
3. Barnett J.L., Cronin G.M., McCallum T.H., and Newman E.A. Effects of pen size/shape and design on aggression when grouping unfamiliar adult pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 36 (1993) 111-122
4. Carmichael N.L., Walker A.W., and Hughes B.O. Laying hens in large necks in a perchery system: influence of stocking density on location, use of resources and behaviour. Br. Poult. Sci. 40 (1999) 165-176
5. Christman M.C., and Leone E.H. Statistical aspects of the analysis of group size effects in confined animals. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 103 (2007) 265-283
6. Christman M.C., and Lewis D. Spatial distribution of dominant animals within a group: comparison of four statistical tests of location. Anim. Behav. 70 (2005) 73-82
7. Clark P.J., and Evans F.C. Distance to nearest neighbor as a measure of spatial relationships in populations. Ecology 35 (1954) 445-453
8. Cornetto T., and Estevez I. Influence of vertical panels on use of space by domestic fowl. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 71 (2001) 141-153
9. Cornetto T., and Estevez I. Behavior of the domestic fowl in the presence of vertical panels. Poult. Sci. 80 (2001) 1455-1462
10. Cornetto T., Estevez I., and Douglass L.W. Using artificial cover to reduce aggression and disturbances in domestic fowl. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 75 (2002) 325-336
11. Dawkins M.S., Donnelly C.A., and Jones T.A. Chicken welfare is influenced more by housing conditions than by stocking density. Nature 427 (2004) 342-344
12. Estevez I. Density allowances for broilers: where to set the limits?. Poult. Sci. 86 (2007) 1265-1272
13. Estevez I., and Christman M.C. Analysis of the movement and use of space of animals in confinement: the effect of sampling effort. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 97 (2006) 221-240
14. Estevez I., Andersen I.L., and Nævdal E. Group size, density and social dynamics in farm animals. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 103 (2007) 185-204
15. Estevez I., Newberry R.C., and Arias de Reyna L. Broiler chickens: a tolerant social system?. Etologia 5 (1997) 19-29
16. Febrer K., Jones T.A., Donnelly C.A., and Dawkins M.S. Forced to crowd or choosing to cluster? Spatial distribution indicates social attraction in broiler chickens. Anim. Behav. 72 (2006) 1291-1300
17. Grigor P.N., Hughes B.O., and Appleby M.C. Social inhibition of movement in domestic hens. Anim. Behav. 49 (1995) 1381-1388
18. Jensen M.B., Vestergaard K.S., and Krohn C.C. Play behaviour in dairy calves kept in pens: the effect of social contact and space allowance. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 56 (1998) 97-108
19. Keeling L.J., and Duncan I.J.H. Social spacing in domestic-fowl under seminatural conditions-the effect of behavioral activity and activity transitions. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 32 (1991) 205-217
20. Kenward M.G., and Roger J.H. Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics 53 (1997) 983-997
21. Kondo S., Sekine J., Okubo M., and Asahida Y. The effect of group-size and space allowance on the agonistic and spacing behavior of cattle. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 24 (1989) 127-135
22. Krause J., and Ruxton G.D. Living in Groups (2002), Oxford University Press Inc., New York 210 pp
23. Leone E.H., and Estevez I. Use of space in the domestic fowl: separating the effects of enclosure size, group size, and density. Anim. Behav. 76 (2008) 1673-1682
24. Leone E.H., and Estevez I. Economic and welfare benefits of environmental enrichment for broiler breeders. Poult. Sci. 87 (2008) 14-21
25. Leone E.H., and Estevez I. Space use according to the distribution of resources and level of competition. Poult. Sci. 87 (2008) 3-13
26. Leone E.H., Estevez I., and Christman M.C. Environmental complexity and group size: immediate effects on use of space by domestic fowl. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 102 (2007) 39-52
27. Littell R.C., Milliken G.A., Stroup W.W., Wolfinger R.D., and Schabenberger O. SAS for Mixed Models. 2nd ed. (2006), SAS Institute Inc. 814 pp
28. McBride G., and Foenander F. Territorial behaviour in flocks of domestic fowls. Nature 194 (1962) 102
29. McLean J.A., Savory C.J., and Sparks N.H.C. Welfare of male and female broiler chickens in relation to stocking density, as indicated by performance, health and behaviour. Anim. Welfare 11 (2002) 55-73
30. Millman S.T., and Duncan I.J.H. Strain differences in aggressiveness of male domestic fowl in response to a male model. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 66 (2000) 217-233
31. Mohr C.O. Table of equivalent populations of North American small animals. Am. Midl. Nat. 37 (1947) 233-249
32. Morgan K.N., and Tromborg C.T. Sources of stress in captivity. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 102 (2007) 262-302
33. National Agricultural Statistics Service. Poultry-Production and Value 2006 Summary (2007), USDA 15 pp
34. Nephew B.C., and Romero L.M. Behavioral, physiological, and endocrine responses of starlings to acute increases in density. Horm. Behav. 44 (2003) 222-232
35. Newberry R.C., and Hall J.W. Use of pen space by broiler chickens: effects of age and pen size. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 25 (1990) 125-136
36. Newberry R.C., Keeling L., Estevez I., and Bilcik B. Behaviour when young as a predictor of severe feather pecking in adult laying hens: the redirected foraging hypothesis revisited. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 107 (2007) 262-274
37. Newberry R.C., and Shackleton D.M. Use of visual cover by domestic fowl: a Venetian blind effect?. Anim. Behav. 54 (1997) 387-395
38. Ott R.L., and Longnecker M. An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis. 5th ed. (2001), Duxbury, Pacific Grove, CA 1151 pp
39. Pollard J.C., and Littlejohn R.P. The effects of pen size on the behaviour of farmed red deer stags confined in yards. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 47 (1996) 247-253
40. Rushen J. The peck orders of chickens: how do they develop and why are they linear?. Anim. Behav. 30 (1982) 1129-1137
41. Sanchez C., and Estevez I. The Chickitizer. 4th ed. (1998), University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA
42. Sibbald A.M., Shellard L.J.F., and Smart T.S. Effects of space allowance on the grazing behaviour and spacing of sheep. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 70 (2000) 49-62
43. Sørensen P., Su G., and Kestin S.C. Effects of age and stocking density on leg weakness in broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 79 (2000) 864-870
44. Stahl J., Tolsma P.H., Loonen M.J.J.E., and Drent R.H. Subordinates explore but dominants profit: resource competition in high Arctic barnacle goose flocks. Anim. Behav. 61 (2001) 257-264
45. Stricklin W.R. Space as environmental enrichment. Lab. Anim. 24 (1995) 24-29
46. Stricklin W.R., de Bourcier P., Zhou J.Z., and Gonyou H.W. Artificial pigs in space: using artificial intelligence and artificial life techniques to design animal housing. J. Anim. Sci. 76 (1998) 2609-2613
47. Stricklin W.R., Graves H.B., and Wilson L.L. Some theoretical and observed relationships of fixed and portable spacing behavior of animals. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 5 (1979) 201-214
48. Stricklin W.R., Zhou J.Z., and Gonyou H.W. Selfish animats and robot ethology: using artificial animals to investigate social and spatial behavior. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 44 (1995) 187-203
49. van Wolkenten M.L., Davis J.M., Gong M.L., and de Waal F.B.M. Coping with acute crowding by Cebus apella. Int. J. Primatol. 27 (2006) 1241-1256
50. Wiegand R.M., Gonyou H.W., and Curtis S.E. Pen shape and size: effects on pig behavior and performance. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 39 (1994) 49-61
51. Wu H.-I., Li B.-L., Springer T.A., and Neill W.H. Modelling animal movement as a persistent random walk in two dimensions: expected magnitude of net displacement. Ecol. Model. 132 (2000) 115-124
52. Xin H., Berry I.L., Barton T.L., and Tabler G.T. Feed and water-consumption, growth, and mortality of male broilers. Poult. Sci. 73 (1994) 610-616