Assessing Activity and Location of Individual Laying Hens in Large Groups Using Modern Technology

Simple Summary Tracking of individual animals within large groups is increasingly possible offering an exciting opportunity to researchers. Whereas previously only relatively indistinguishable groups of individual animals could be observed and combined into pen level data, we can now focus on individual actors and track their activities across time and space with minimal intervention and disturbance. We describe several tracking systems that are currently in use for laying hens and review each, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses, as well as environments or conditions for which they may be most suited, and relevant issues to fit the best technology for the intended purpose. Abstract Tracking individual animals within large groups is increasingly possible, offering an exciting opportunity to researchers. Whereas previously only relatively indistinguishable groups of individual animals could be observed and combined into pen level data, we can now focus on individual actors within these large groups and track their activities across time and space with minimal intervention and disturbance. The development is particularly relevant to the poultry industry as, due to a shift away from battery cages, flock sizes are increasingly becoming larger and environments more complex. Many efforts have been made to track individual bird behavior and activity in large groups using a variety of methodologies with variable success. Of the technologies in use, each has associated benefits and detriments, which can make the approach more or less suitable for certain environments and experiments. Within this article, we have divided several tracking systems that are currently available into two major categories (radio frequency identification and radio signal strength) and review the strengths and weaknesses of each, as well as environments or conditions for which they may be most suitable. We also describe related topics including types of analysis for the data and concerns with selecting focal birds.

[1]  Muhannad Quwaider,et al.  DEVELOPMENT OF A WIRELESS BODY-MOUNTED SENSOR TO MONITOR LOCATION AND ACTIVITY OF LAYING HENS IN A NON-CAGE HOUSING SYSTEM , 2010 .

[2]  Subir Biswas,et al.  Remote Activity Classification of Hens Using Wireless Body Mounted Sensors , 2012, 2012 Ninth International Conference on Wearable and Implantable Body Sensor Networks.

[3]  M. Toscano,et al.  Impact of a mixed chain length omega-3 fatty acid diet on production variables in commercial free-range laying hens , 2012, British poultry science.

[4]  G. Wendl,et al.  Electronic animal identification for behavioural investigations of laying hens. , 2000 .

[5]  A C Beynen,et al.  The IVOG feeding station: a tool for monitoring the individual feed intake of group-housed weanling pigs. , 2001, Journal of animal physiology and animal nutrition.

[6]  C. Nicol,et al.  Behavioural needs, priorities and preferences of laying hens , 2006 .

[7]  Yoshiharu Yonezawa,et al.  Assessment of repeatability of a wireless, inertial sensor-based lameness evaluation system for horses. , 2011, American journal of veterinary research.

[8]  H. Würbel,et al.  Modification of aviary design reduces incidence of falls, collisions and keel bone damage in laying hens , 2015 .

[9]  Steven F. Railsback,et al.  Agent-Based and Individual-Based Modeling: A Practical Introduction , 2011 .

[10]  E. Pajor,et al.  Endotoxin stress responses in chickens from different genetic lines. 1. Sickness, behavioral, and physical responses. , 2004, Poultry science.

[11]  Sabine G. Gebhardt-Henrich,et al.  Use of outdoor ranges by laying hens in different sized flocks , 2014 .

[12]  Anders Kiessling,et al.  Note on a method for individual recording of laying performance in groups of hens , 2002 .

[13]  D. Kleinbaum,et al.  Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariate Methods , 1978 .

[14]  David G. Renter,et al.  Evaluation of three-dimensional accelerometers to monitor and classify behavior patterns in cattle , 2009 .

[15]  C L Daigle,et al.  Noncaged laying hens remain unflappable while wearing body-mounted sensors: Levels of agonistic behaviors remain unchanged and resource use is not reduced after habituation. , 2012, Poultry science.

[16]  P. A. Blight.  The Analysis of Time Series: An Introduction , 1991 .

[17]  Georg Fröhlich,et al.  Individuelle und automatische Erfassung von Legeleistung und -verhalten - Weihenstephaner Muldennest für Legehennen in Gruppenhaltung , 2005 .

[18]  D. Kleinbaum,et al.  Applied regression analysis and other multivariable methods, 3rd ed. , 1998 .

[19]  M. Kolehmainen,et al.  Cow behaviour pattern recognition using a three-dimensional accelerometer and support vector machines , 2009 .

[20]  Robert W. Furness,et al.  A review of the use and the effects of marks and devices on birds , 1992 .

[21]  D. Fraser.  Understanding animal welfare , 2008, Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica.

[22]  Burgess,et al.  The preferences of laying hens for different concentrations of atmospheric ammonia. , 2000, Applied animal behaviour science.

[23]  Mauro Zaninelli,et al.  Preliminary Evaluation of a Nest Usage Sensor to Detect Double Nest Occupations of Laying Hens , 2015, Sensors.

[24]  S. Brown,et al.  Pop hole use by hens with different keel fracture status monitored throughout the laying period , 2012, Veterinary Record.

[25]  T. Blakely,et al.  Ecological effects in multi-level studies , 2000, Journal of epidemiology and community health.

[26]  R C Newberry,et al.  Hen welfare in different housing systems. , 2011, Poultry science.

[27]  Georg Wendl,et al.  Identifizierungssicherheit von bewegten HF-Transpondern bei simultaner Erfassung , 2007 .

[28]  S. Brown,et al.  Continuous monitoring of pop hole usage by commercially housed free-range hens throughout the production cycle , 2011, Veterinary Record.

[29]  B. Tobalske,et al.  Causes of keel bone damage and their solutions in laying hens , 2015 .

[30]  C. Nicol,et al.  Social influences on the comfort behaviour of laying hens , 1989 .

[31]  Sabine G. Gebhardt-Henrich,et al.  Registrierung des Auslaufverhaltens einzelner Legehennen mit einem RFID-System , 2014 .

[32]  S. Millman.  Sickness behaviour and its relevance to animal welfare assessment at the group level , 2007, Animal Welfare.

[33]  W. Browne,et al.  Mild environmental aversion is detected by a discrete-choice preference testing method but not by a free-access method , 2011 .

[34]  Marjan Hericko,et al.  Factors impacting the acceptance of mobile data services - A systematic literature review , 2015, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[35]  W. Browne,et al.  Decisions about foraging and risk trade-offs in chickens are associated with individual somatic response profiles , 2011, Animal Behaviour.

[36]  M. Dawkins,et al.  Optical flow, flock behaviour and chicken welfare , 2012, Animal Behaviour.

[37]  S Thurner,et al.  Higher precision level at individual laying performance tests in noncage housing systems. , 2013, Poultry science.

[38]  C. Daigle,et al.  Welfare Quality® parameters do not always reflect hen behaviour across the lay cycle in non-cage laying hens , 2014 .

[39]  R C Newberry,et al.  Management of spent hens. , 1999, Journal of applied animal welfare science : JAAWS.

[40]  M. Dawkins,et al.  Using behaviour to assess animal welfare , 2004, Animal Welfare.

[41]  G. Cronin,et al.  Relationships between range access as monitored by radio frequency identification technology, fearfulness, and plumage damage in free-range laying hens. , 2016, Animal : an international journal of animal bioscience.

[42]  D. Bryant,et al.  Radio-telemetry increases free-living energy costs in the endangered Takahe Porphyrio mantelli , 2003 .

[43]  Gerhard Manteuffel,et al.  Vocalization of farm animals as a measure of welfare , 2004 .

[44]  S. Hurlbert.  Pseudoreplication and the Design of Ecological Field Experiments , 1984 .

[45]  I. Duncan,et al.  Thwarting of feeding behaviour in the domestic fowl. , 1972, Animal behaviour.

[46]  B. Keene,et al.  Evaluation of an accelerometer for at-home monitoring of spontaneous activity in dogs. , 2007, American journal of veterinary research.

[47]  Donald M. Broom,et al.  Behaviour and welfare in relation to pathology , 2006 .

[48]  Jeff R M Andrews,et al.  Estimating daily walking distance of captive African elephants using an accelerometer. , 2011, Zoo biology.

[49]  A. Lawrence,et al.  The behavioural effects of undernutrition in confined farm animals , 1993, Proceedings of the Nutrition Society.

[50]  K. Hobson,et al.  Short-term effects of data-loggers on Cory’s shearwater (Calonectris diomedea) , 2005 .