Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:44:10.312Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Validation of an accelerometer to quantify inactivity in laying hens with or without keel-bone fractures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

TM Casey-Trott  and
TM Widowski
TM Casey-Trott
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road E, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road E, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada
TM Widowski
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road E, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road E, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: twidowsk@uoguelph.ca
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Accelerometers are used to remotely monitor activity in various species in studies that quantify pain, document behavioural patterns, and measure individual activity differences. Studies validating accelerometers typically quantify various active states; however, targeting states specific to periods of inactivity, such as sitting, sleeping, and standing, has the potential to more accurately quantify inactive behaviours commonly associated with behavioural changes related to pain, sickness, or injury. Our objectives were two-fold: first, validate a commercially available accelerometer (Actical®) for quantifying inactivity in laying hens and, second, compare inactivity levels between hens with severely fractured keel bones and hens with minimal to no keel damage. Correlation between the inactivity level as measured by the accelerometer compared to live, focal observation of stationary, inactive behaviours was high; therefore, the Actical® accurately quantifies inactive states in laying hens. Following validation, the Actical® accelerometer was used to quantify inactivity level differences between hens with or without keel-bone damage. Severely fractured hens spent less time motionless, than hens with minimal to no keel damage. Further investigation into inactivity differences related to keel status before and after acquisition of keel fractures is warranted. Use of the accelerometer has the potential to improve animal welfare research by quantifying the effect of pain or sickness on activity level, mapping daily activity patterns, and measuring individual differences in general activity.

Keywords

accelerometeractivityanimal welfareinactivitykeel bonelaying hen
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , May 2018 , pp. 103 - 114
Copyright
© 2018 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Andrews, CJ, Potter, MA and Thomas, DG 2015 Quantification of activity in domestic cats (Felis catus) by accelerometry. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 173: 17–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2015.05.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banerjee, D, Biswas, S, Daigle, C and Siegford, JM 2012 Remote activity classification of hens using wireless body mount-ed sensors. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Wearable and Implantable Body Sensor Networks pp 107–112. 9-12 May 2012, Royal Geographical Society, London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ 1984 Rest in poultry. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 12: 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(84)90121-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, D, Boston, RC and Farrar, JT 2010 Use of an activity monitor to detect response to treatment in dogs with osteoarthritis. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 237: 66–70. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.237.1.66CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casey-Trott, TM, Guerin, MT, Sandilands, V, Torrey, S and Widowski, TM 2017a Rearing system affects prevalence of keel bone damage in laying hens: a longitudinal study of four consecutive flocks. Poultry Science 96: 2029–2039. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pex026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casey-Trott, TM, Heerkens, J, Petrik, M, Regmi, P, Schrader, L, Toscano, M and Widowski, TM 2015 Methods for assessment of keel bone damage in poultry. Poultry Science 94:2339–2350. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pev223CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casey-Trott, TM, Korver, DR, Guerin, MT, Sandilands, V, Torrey, S and Widowski, TM 2017b Opportunities for exercise during pullet rearing Part I: Effect on the musculoskeletal charac-teristics of pullets. Poultry Science 96: 2509–2517 https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pex059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casey-Trott, TM and Widowski, TM 2016 Behavioral differ-ences of laying hens with fractured keel bones within furnished cages. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 3: 42. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2016.00042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, HW, Freire, R and Pajor, EA 2004 Endotoxin stress response in chickens from different genetic lines. 1 Sickness, behavioral, and physical responses. Poultry Science 83: 707–715. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/83.5.707CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collins, SA, Tulikangas, PK and O'sullivan, DM 2012 Effect of surgical approach on physical activity and pain control after sacral colpopexy. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 206: e1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2012.01.036CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conte, S, Bergeron, R, Gonyou, H, Brown, J, Rioja-Lang, FC and Connor, ML 2015 Use of an analgesic to identify pain-relat-ed indicators of lameness in sows. Livestock Science 180: 203–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.08.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daigle, CL, Banergee, D, Biswas, S and Siegford, JM 2012 Non-caged laying hens remain unflappable while wearing body-mounted sensors: Levels of agnostic behaviors remain unchanged and resource use is not reduced after habituation. Poultry Science 91: 2415–2423. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2012-02300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, HA, Wood, BJ, Dickey, JP and Torrey, S 2016 Validation of HOBO Pendant data loggers for automated step detection in two age classes of male turkeys: growers and finish-ers. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 176: 63–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2015.12.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dantzer, R and Kelley, KW 2007 Twenty years of research on cytokine-induced sickness behavior. Brain Behavior and Immunity 21: 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2006.09.006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawkins, MS 1989 Time budgets in Red Junglefowl as a baseline for the assessment of welfare in domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 24: 77–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(89)90126-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, MD, Lombardi, ME, Benson, ER, Alphin, RL and Malone, GW 2007 Using accelerometers to determine the ces-sation of activity in broilers. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 16:583–591. https://doi.org/10.3382/japr.2007-00023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, IJH, Beatty, ER, Hocking, PM and Duff, SRI 1991 Assessment of pain associated with degenerative hip disorders in adult male turkeys. Research in Veterinary Science 50: 200–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/0034-5288(91)90106-XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fleming, RH, McCormack, HA, McTeir, L and Whitehead, CC 2004 Incidence, pathology and prevention of keel bone defor-mities in the laying hen. British Poultry Science 45: 320–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660410001730815CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gebhardt-Henrich, SG, Toscano, MJ and Frohlich, EFK 2014 Use of outdoor ranges by laying hens in different sized flocks. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 155: 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2014.03.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gebhardt-Henrich, SG, Toscano, MJ and Frohlich, EFK 2014 Use of outdoor ranges by laying hens in different sized flocks. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 155: 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2014.03.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, BD, Lascelles, BDX, Adams, AK and Thomson, AE 2007 Evaluation of an accelerometer for at-home monitoring of spontaneous activity in dogs. American Journal of Veterinary Research 68: 468–475. https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.68.5.468CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansen, I 1994 Behavioural expression of laying hens in aviaries and cages: frequencies, time budgets and facility utilisation. British Poultry Science 35: 491–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071669408417715CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hocking, PM, Gentle, MJ, Bernard, R and Dunn, LN 1997 Evaluation of a protocol for determining the effectiveness of pre-treatment with local analgesics for reducing experimentally induced articular pain in domestic fowl. Research in Veterinary Science 63: 263–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-5288(97)90031-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hocking, PM, Robertson, GW and Gentle, MJ 2001 Effects of anti-inflammatory steroid drugs on pain coping behaviours in a model of articular pain in the domestic fowl. Research in Veterinary Science 71: 161–166. https://doi.org/10.1053/rvsc.2001.0510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunnell, NA, Rockcastle, NJ, McCormick, KN, Sinko, LK, Sullivan, EL and Cameron, JL 2007 Physical activity of adult female rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) across the menstrual cycle. American Journal of Physiology - Endocrinology and Metabolism 292: E1520–E1525. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpendo.00497.2006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Inoue, Y, Kimura, T, Noro, H, Yoshikawa, M, Yumiba, T, Taniguchi, E, Ohashi, S, Souda, S and Matsuda, H 2003 Is laparoscopic colorectal surgery less invasive than classical open surgery? Surgical Endoscopy 17: 1269–1273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-002-8876-9Google ScholarPubMed
John, D and Freedson, P 2012 Actigraph and actical physical activity monitors: a peek under the hood. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 44: S86–S89. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182399f5eCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kjaer, JB 2009 Feather pecking in domestic fowl is genetically related to locomotor activity levels: Implications for a hyperactiv-ity disorder model of feather pecking. Behavior Genetics 39: 564–570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-009-9280-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klein, T, Zeltner, E and Huber-Eicher, B 2000 Are genetic dif-ferences in foraging behaviour of laying hen chicks paralleled by hybrid-specific differences in feather pecking? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 70: 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00147-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozak, M, Tobalske, B, Springethorpe, D, Szkotnicki, B and Harlander-Matauschek, A 2016 Development of physical activ-ity levels in laying hens in three-dimensional aviaries. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 185: 66–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2016.10.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lascelles, BD, Hansen, BDX, Thomson, A, Pierce, CC, Boland, E and Smith, ES 2008 Evaluation of a digitally integrat-ed accelerometer-based activity monitor for the measurement of activity in cats. Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia 35: 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2995.2007.00367.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindqvist, C 2008 Domestication effects on foraging behaviour: con-sequences for adaptability of chickens. PhD Thesis, IFM Biology, Linkoping University, SwedenGoogle Scholar
Madureira, AML, Silper, BF, Burnett, TA, Polsky, L, Cruppe, LH and Veira, DM 2015 Factors affecting expression of estrus measured by activity monitors and conception risk of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 98: 7003–7014. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-9672CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mann, TM, Williams, KE, Pearce, PC and Scott, EAM 2005 A novel method for activity monitoring in small non-human pri-mates. Laboratory Animal 39: 169–177. https://doi.org/10.1258/0023677053739783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marais, M, Maloney, SK and Gray, DA 2013 Sickness behav-iours in ducks include anorexia but not lethargy. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 145: 102–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applan-im.2013.02.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mench, JA 2009 Behaviour of fowl and other domesticated birds. In: Jensen P (ed) The Ethology of Domestic Animals Second Edition pp 121–136. CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moldofsky, H 2001 Sleep and pain. Sleep Medicine Reviews 5: 387–398. https://doi.org/10.1053/smrv.2001.0179CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nasr, MAF, Murrell, J, Wilkins, LJ and Nicol, CJ 2012a The effect of keel fractures on egg-production parameters, mobility and behaviour in individual laying hens. Animal Welfare 21: 127–135. https://doi.org/10.7120/096272812799129376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nasr, MAF, Nicol, CJ and Murrell, JC 2012b Do laying hens with keel bone fractures experience pain? PLoS ONE 7: e42420. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0042420CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newby, NC, Pearl, DL, LeBlanc, SJ, Leslie, KE, von Keyserlingk, MAG and Duffield, TF 2013 The effect of admin-istering ketoprofen on the physiology and behavior of dairy cows following surgery to correct a left displaced abomasum. Journal of Dairy Science 96: 1511–1520. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-5566CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patel, RI, Verghese, ST, Hannallah, RS, Aregawi, A and Patel, KM 2001 Fast-tracking children after ambulatory surgery. Ambulatory Anesthesia 92: 918–922. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000539-200104000-00023Google ScholarPubMed
Petrik, MT, Guerin, MT and Widowski, TM 2015 On-farm com-parison of keel fracture prevalence and other welfare indicators in conventional cage and floor-housed laying hens in Ontario, Canada. Poultry Science 94: 579–585. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pev039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quwaider, MQ, Daigle, CL, Biswas, SK, Siegford, JM and Swanson, JC 2010 Development of a wireless body-mounted sensor to monitor location and activity of laying hens in a non-cage housing system. Transactions of ASABE 53: 1705–1713. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.34890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rankin, MK, Alphin, RK, Benson, ER and Johnson, AL 2013 Comparison of water-based foam and carbon dioxide gas emer-gency depopulation methods of turkeys. Poultry Science 92: 3144–3148. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2013-03341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rialland, P, Bichot, S, Lussier, B, Moreau, M, Beaudry, F, del Castillo, JRF, Gauvin, D and Troncy, E 2013 Effect of diet enriched with green-lipid mussel on pain behavior and functioning in dogs with clinical osteoarthritis. Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research 77: 66–74Google ScholarPubMed
Rialland, P, Otis, C, de Courval, ML, Mulon, PY, Harvey, D, Bichot, S, Gauvin, D, Livingston, A, Beaudry, F, Helie, P, Frank, D, del Castillo, JRE and Troncy, E 2014 Assessing experimental visceral pain in dairy cattle: A pilot study, prospective, blinded, randomized, and controlled study focusing on spinal pain proteomics. Journal of Dairy Science 97: 2118–2134. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-7142CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richards, GL, Wilkins, LJ, Knowles, TG, Booth, F, Toscano, MJ, Nicol, CJ and Brown, SN 2012 Pop hole use by hens with different keel fracture status monitored throughout the laying period. Veterinary Record 170: 494. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.100489CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodenburg, TB, Tuyttens, FAM, Reu, KD, Herman, L, Zoons, J and Sonck, B 2008 Welfare assessment of laying hens in furnished cages and non-cage systems: an on-farm comparison. Animal Welfare 17: 363–373Google Scholar
Schutz, K, Forkman, B and Jensen, P 2001 Domestication effects on foraging strategy, social behaviour and different fear responses: a comparison between red junglefowl (Gallus gallus) and a modern layer strain. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 74: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(01)00156-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schutz, K and Jensen, P 2001 Effects of resource allocation on behavioural strategies: a comparison of Red Junglefowl (Gallus gal-lus) and two domesticated breeds of poultry. Ethology 107: 753–765. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0310.2001.00703.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegford, JM, Berezowski, J, Biswas, SK, Daigle, CL, Gebhardt-Henrich, SG, Hernadez, CE, Thurner, S and Toscano, MJ 2016 Accessing activity and location of individual laying hens in large groups using modern technology. Animals 6:10. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani6020010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, JL, Vanzant, ES, Carter, CN and Jackson, CB 2014 Discrimination of healthy versus sick steers by means of continuous remote monitoring of animal activity. American Journal of Veterinary Research 76: 739–744. https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.76.8.739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, MT and Haythronthwaite, JA 2004 How do sleep distur-bance and chronic pain inter-relate? Insights from the longitudinal and cognitive-behavioral clinical trials literature. Sleep Medicine Reviews 8: 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1087-0792(03)00044-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solano, L, Barkema, HW, Pajor, EA, Mason, S, LeBlanc, SJ, Nash, CJR and Haley, DB 2016 Associations between lying behavior and lameness in Canadian Holstein-Friesian cows housed in freestall barns. Journal of Dairy Science 99: 2086–2101. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-10336CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Hemert, WLW, Senden, R, Grimm, B, Kester, ADM, van der Linde, MJA and Heyligers, IC 2009 Patella retention versus replacement in total knee arthroplasty; functional and clini-metric aspects. Archives Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 129: 259–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-008-0640-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ware, JV, Nelson, OL, Robbins, CT and Jansen, HT 2012 Temporal organization of activity in the brown bear (Ursus arctos): roles of circadian rhythms, light, and food entrainment. American Journal of Physiology. Regulatory Integrative and Comparative Physiology 303: R890–R902. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpregu.00313.2012CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Webster, AB and Hurnik, JF 1990 An ethogram of white leghorn-type hens in battery cages Canadian Journal of Animal Science 70: 751–760. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjas90-094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wernham, BGJ, Trumpatori, R, Hash, J, Lipsett, J, Davidson, G, Wackerow, P, Thomson, A and Lascelles, BDX 2011 Dose reduction of meloxicam in dogs with osteoarthritis-associated pain and impaired mobility. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine 25: 1298–1305. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-1676.2011.00825.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilkins, LJ, McKinstry, JL, Avery, NC, Knowles, TG, Brown, SN, Tarlton, J and Nicol, CJ 2011 Influence of housing system and design on bone strength and keel bone fractures in laying hens. Veterinary Record 169: 414. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.d4831CrossRefGoogle Scholar