Assessing activity and location of individual laying hens in large groups using modern technology

Animals

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2016, Pages

  Siegford, Janice M ^a   Berezowski, John ^b   Biswas, Subir K ^c   Daigle, Courtney L ^d   Gebhardt Henrich, Sabine G ^b   Hernandez, Carlos E ^e   Thurner, Stefan ^f   Toscano, Michael J ^b  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

^c Michigan State University   (United States)

^d TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

^f Institute for Agricultural Engineering and Animal Husbandry   (Germany)

Author keywords

Activity; Individual; Motion; Production; RFID; Tracking

Indexed keywords

EID: 84957891733     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20762615     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/ani6020010     Document Type: Review

References (58)

1. Hurlbert, S.H. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol. Monogr. 1984, 54,187-211. [CrossRef].
2. Dawkins, M.S. Using behaviour to assess animal welfare. Anim. Welf. 2004, 13, S3-S8.
3. Fraser, D. Understanding animal welfare. Acta Vet. Scand. 2008, 50, S1. [CrossRef].
4. Lawrence, A.B.; Terlouw, E.M.; Kyriazakis, I. The behavioural effects of undernutrition in confined farmanimals. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 1993, 52, 219-229. [CrossRef][PubMed].
5. Bruininx, E.; Der Peet-Schwering, V.; Schrama, J.W.; Den Hartog, L.A.; Everts, H.; Beynen, A.C. The IVOG®feeding station: A tool for monitoring the individual feed intake of group-housed weanling pigs. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. (Berl). 2001, 85, 81-87. [CrossRef] [PubMed].
6. Weeks, C.A.; Nicol, C.J. Behavioural needs, priorities and preferences of laying hens. Worlds Poult. Sci. J.2006, 62, 296-307. [CrossRef].
7. Lay, D.C.; Fulton, R.M.; Hester, P.Y.; Karcher, D.M.; Kjaer, J.B.; Mench, J.A.; Mullens, B.A.; Newberry, R. C.; Nicol, C. J.; O’Sullivan, N. P.; et al. Hen welfare in different housing systems. Poult. Sci. 2011, 90, 278-294. [CrossRef] [PubMed].
8. Harlander-Matauschek, A.; Rodenburg, T. B.; Sandilands, V.; Tobalske, B. W.; Toscano, M. J. Causes of keelbone damage and their solutions in laying hens. Worlds Poult. Sci. J. 2015, 71, 461-472. [CrossRef].
9. Blakely, T.A.; Woodward, A.J. Ecological effects in multi-level studies. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2000,54, 367-374. [CrossRef] [PubMed].
10. Chatfield, C. The Analysis of Time Series: An Introduction; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2013.
11. Kleinbaum, D.G.; Kupper, L.L.; Miller, K.E.; Nizam, A. Applied Regression Analysis and Other MultivariableMethods, 3rd ed.; Brooks/Cole Publishing Company: Pacific Grove, CA, USA, 1988.
12. Railsback, S.F.; Grimm, V. Agent-Based and Individual-Based Modeling: A Practical Introduction; PrincetonUniversity Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2011.
13. Dohoo, I.; Martin, S.W.; Stryhn, H. Veterinary Epidemiological Research; VER, Inc.: Charlottetown, PE,Canada, 2009.
14. Ovčjak, B.; Heričko, M.; Polančič, G. Factors impacting the acceptance of mobile data services-A systematicliterature review. Comput. Human Behav. 2015, 53, 24-47. [CrossRef].
15. Broom, D.M. Behaviour and welfare in relation to pathology. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2006, 97, 73-83.[CrossRef].
16. Cheng, H.W.; Freire, R.; Pajor, E. A. Endotoxin stress responses in chickens from different genetic lines. 1.Sickness, behavioral, and physical responses. Poult. Sci. 2004, 83, 707-715. [CrossRef] [PubMed].
17. Millman, S.T. Sickness behaviour and its relevance to animal welfare assessment at the group level.Anim. Welf. 2007, 16, 123-125.
18. Daigle, C.L.; Siegford, J.M. Understanding the individual non-cage laying hen through the body-behaviorconnection: Associations between welfare quality physical parameters and behavioral observations throughout a lay cycle. Anim. Welf. 2014, 23, 423-434. [CrossRef].
19. Dawkins, M.S.; Cain, R.; Roberts, S.J. Optical flow, flock behaviour and chicken welfare. Anim. Behav. 2012, 84, 219-223. [CrossRef].
20. Manteuffel, G.; Puppe, B.; Schön, P.C. Vocalization of farm animals as a measure of welfare. Appl. Anim.Behav. Sci. 2004, 88, 163-182. [CrossRef].
21. Calvo, B.; Furness, R.W. A review of the use and the effects of marks and devices on birds. Ringing Migr.1992, 13, 129-151. [CrossRef].
22. Gebhardt-Henrich, S.G.; Fröhlich, E.K.F.; Burose, F.; Fleurent, J.; Gantner, M.; Zähner, M. Individual trackingof laying hens with an RFID-System (Registrierung des Auslaufverhaltens einzelner Legehennen mit einem RFID-System). Landtechnik 2014, 69, 301-307.
23. Hartcher, K.M.; Hickey, K.A.; Hemsworth, P.H.; Cronin, G.M.; Wilkinson, S.J.; Singh, M. Relationshipsbetween range access as monitored by radio frequency identification technology, fearfulness, and plumage damage in free-range laying hens. Animal 2015. [CrossRef] [PubMed].
24. Daigle, C.L.; Banerjee, D.; Biswas, S.; Siegford, J.M. Noncaged laying hens remain unflappable while wearingbody-mounted sensors: Levels of agonistic behaviors remain unchanged and resource use is not reduced after habituation. Poult. Sci. 2012, 91, 2415-2423. [CrossRef] [PubMed].
25. Murray, D.L.; Fuller, M.R. A critical review of the effects of marking on the biology of vertebrates. In ResearchTechniques in Animal Ecology; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2000; pp. 15-64.
26. Igual, J.M.; Forero, M.G.; Tavecchia, G.; González-Solís, J.; Martínez-Abraín, A.; Hobson, K.A.; Ruiz, X.; Oro, D. Short-term effects of data-loggers on Cory’s shearwater (Calonectris diomedea). Mar. Biol. 2005, 146, 619-624. [CrossRef].
27. Godfrey, J.D.; Bryant, D.M.; Williams, M.J. Radio-telemetry increases free-living energy costs in theendangered Takahe Porphyrio mantelli. Biol. Conserv. 2003, 114, 35-38. [CrossRef].
28. Stratmann, A.; Frohlich, E.K.F.; Gebhardt-Henrich, S.; Harlander-Matauschek, A.; Würbel, H.; Toscano, M. J. Modification of aviary design reduces incidence of falls, collisions and keel bone damage in laying hens. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2015, 165, 112-123. [CrossRef].
29. Toscano, M.J.; Wilkins, L.J.; Tarlton, J.F. Impact of a mixed chain length omega-3 fatty acid diet on productionvariables in a commercial free-range laying hens. Br. Poult. Sci. 2012, 53, 360-365. [CrossRef] [PubMed].
30. Richards, G.J.; Wilkins, L.J.; Knowles, T.G.; Booth, F.; Toscano, M.J.; Nicol, C.J.; Brown, S.N. Continuousmonitoring of pop hole usage by commercially housed free-range hens throughout the production cycle. Vet. Rec. 2011, 169, 338. [CrossRef] [PubMed].
31. Newberry, R.C.; Webster, A.B.; Lewis, N.J.; Van Arnam, C. Management of spent hens. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci.1999, 2, 13-29. [CrossRef] [PubMed].
32. Duncan, I.J.H.; Wood-Gush, D.G.M. Thwarting of feeding behaviour in the domestic fowl. Anim. Behav.1972, 20, 444-451. [CrossRef].
33. Nicol, C.J.; Caplen, G.; Statham, P.; Browne, W.J. Decisions about foraging and risk trade-offs in chickens areassociated with individual somatic response profiles. Anim. Behav. 2011, 82, 255-262. [CrossRef].
34. Nicol, C. J. Social influences on the comfort behaviour of laying hens. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1989, 22, 75-81.[CrossRef].
35. Browne, W.J.; Caplen, G.; Statham, P.; Nicol, C.J. Mild environmental aversion is detected by a discrete-choicepreference testing method but not by a free-access method. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2011, 134, 152-163. [CrossRef].
36. Kristensen, H.H.; Burgess, L.R.; Demmers, T.G.H.; Wathes, C.M. The preferences of laying hens for differentconcentrations of atmospheric ammonia. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2000, 68, 307-318. [CrossRef].
37. Martiskainen, P.; Järvinen, M.; Skön, J.-P.; Tiirikainen, J.; Kolehmainen, M.; Mononen, J. Cow behaviourpattern recognition using a three-dimensional accelerometer and support vector machines. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009, 119, 32-38. [CrossRef].
38. Banerjee, D.; Biswas, S.; Daigle, C.; Siegford, J. M. Remote Activity Classification of Hens Using Wireless BodyMounted Sensors. In Proceedings of the 2012 Ninth International Conference on Wearable and ImplantableBody Sensor Networks (BSN), London, UK, 9-12 May 2012; pp. 107-112.
39. Robert, B.; White, B.J.; Renter, D.G.; Larson, R.L. Evaluation of three-dimensional accelerometers to monitorand classify behavior patterns in cattle. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2009, 67, 80-84. [CrossRef].
40. Hansen, B.D.; Lascelles, B.D.X.; Keene, B.W.; Adams, A.K.; Thomson, A.E. Evaluation of an accelerometer forat-home monitoring of spontaneous activity in dogs. Am. J. Vet. Res. 2007, 68, 468-475. [CrossRef] [PubMed].
41. Quwaider, M.Q.; Daigle, C.L.; Biswas, S.K.; Siegford, J.M.; Swanson, J. C. Development of a WirelessBody-Mounted Sensor to Monitor Location and Activity of Laying Hens in a Non-Cage Housing System. Trans. Asabe 2010, 53, 1705-1713. [CrossRef].
42. Keegan, K.G.; Kramer, J.; Yonezawa, Y.; Maki, H.; Pai, P.F.; Dent, E.V.; Kellerman, T.E.; Wilson, D.A.; Reed, S. K. Assessment of repeatability of a wireless, inertial sensor-based lameness evaluation system for horses. Am. J. Vet. Res. 2011, 72, 1156-1163. [CrossRef] [PubMed].
43. Rothwell, E.S.; Bercovitch, F.B.; Andrews, J.R.M.; Anderson, M.J. Estimating daily walking distance of captiveAfrican elephants using an accelerometer. Zoo Biol. 2011, 30, 579-591. [CrossRef] [PubMed].
44. Richards, G.J.; Wilkins, L.J.; Knowles, T.G.; Booth, F.; Toscano, M.J.; Nicol, C.J.; Brown, S.N. Pop hole use byhens with different keel fracture status monitored throughout the laying period. Vet. Rec. 2012, 170, 494. [CrossRef] [PubMed].
45. Gebhardt-Henrich, S.G.; Toscano, M.J.; Fröhlich, E.K.F. Use of outdoor ranges by laying hens in differentsized flocks. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2014, 155, 74-81. [CrossRef].
46. Hernandez, C.E.; Lee, C.; Ferguson, D.; Dyall, T.; Belson, S.; Lea, J.; Hinch, G. Personality traits of high,low, and non-users of a free range area in laying hens. In 48th Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology; Estevez, I., Manteca, X., Marin, R., Averos, X., Eds.; Wageningen Academic Publishers:Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain, 2014; p. 89.
47. Wendl, G.; Klindtworth, K. Electronic animal identification for behavioural investigations of laying hens.Landtechnik 2000, 55, 364-365.
48. Thurner, S. Automatic Registration and Evaluation of Laying Hens in Group Housing Systems Using RFIDTechnology and Electronic Pop holes; Technical University of Munich: Munich, Germany, 2006.
49. Nguyen, T.A.; Roberts, J.; Hernandez, C.E.; Hinch, G. Free Range Layer Production and Egg Shell Colour.In Proceedings of the 10th Asisa Pacific Poultry Conference, Jeju, Korea, 19-23 October 2014.
50. Thurner, S.; Pauli, S.; Wendl, G.; Preisinger, R. Using a Wide Electronic Pop Hole Based on RFID-Technologywith High-Frequency Transponders to Monitor the Ranging Behaviour of Laying Hens in Alternative. In Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Precision Livestock Farming (4thECPLF) during theJIAC2009, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 6-8 July 2009; Volume 6.
51. Thurner, S.; Icken, W.; Cavero, D.; Schmutz, M.; Wendl, G.; Preisinger, R. Ranging behaviour of laying hensrecorded with different pop hole sizes and effects on behaviour and genetic parameters. Worlds Poult. Sci. J. 2012, 68, 148-151.
52. Zaninelli, M.; Costa, A.; Tangorra, F.M.; Rossi, L.; Agazzi, A.; Savoini, G. Preliminary Evaluation of a NestUsage Sensor to Detect Double Nest Occupations of Laying Hens. Sensors 2015, 15, 2680-2693. [CrossRef] [PubMed].
53. Burel, C.; Ciszuk, P.; Wiklund, B.-S.; Brännäs, E.; Kiessling, A. Note on a method for individual recording oflaying performance in groups of hens. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2002, 77, 167-171. [CrossRef].
54. Marx, G.; Klein, S.; Weigend, S. An automated nest box system for individual performance testing andparentage control in laying hens maintained in groups. Arch. Geflügelkd 2002, 66, 141-144.
55. Thurner, S.; Wendl, G.; Böck, S.; Weinfurtner, R.; Fröhlich, G. Individuelle und automatische Erfassung vonLegeleistung und-verhalten-Weihenstephaner Muldennest für Legehennen in Gruppenhaltung. Landtechnik 2005, 60, 280-281.
56. Icken, W.; Thurner, S.; Heinrich, A.; Kaiser, A.; Cavero, D.; Wendl, G.; Fries, R.; Schmutz, M.; Preisinger, R. Higher precision level at individual laying performance tests in noncage housing systems. Poult. Sci. 2013, 92, 2276-2282. [CrossRef] [PubMed].
57. Fröhlich, S.; Thurner, S.; Wendl, G. Identifizierungssicherheit von bewegten HF-Transpondern bei simultanerErfassung (Electronic identification system for the behaviour evaluation of laying hens). Landtechnik 2007, 62, 106-107.
58. Heinrich, A.; Icken, W.; Thurner, S.; Wendl, G.; Bernhardt, H.; Preisinger, R. Nesting behavior-Acomparison of single nest boxes and family nests. Eur. Poult. Sci. 2014, 78. [CrossRef].