Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:28:25.945Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Light-based monitoring devices to assess range use by laying hens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2019

S. Buijs Open the ORCID record for S. Buijs [Opens in a new window] ,
C.J. Nicol ,
F. Booth ,
G. Richards  and
J.F. Tarlton
S. Buijs*
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford BS40 5DU, United Kingdom Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, Large Park, Hillsborough BT26 6DR, United Kingdom
C.J. Nicol
Affiliation:
Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, Hatfield AL9 7TA, United Kingdom
F. Booth
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford BS40 5DU, United Kingdom
G. Richards
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford BS40 5DU, United Kingdom
J.F. Tarlton
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford BS40 5DU, United Kingdom
*
†E-mail: stephanie.buijs@afbini.gov.uk
Get access

Abstract

Access to an outdoor range has many potential benefits for laying hens but range use can be poor due to factors only partly understood. Techniques to monitor individual range use within commercial flocks are crucial to increase our understanding of these factors. Direct observation of individual range use is difficult and time-consuming, and automatic monitoring currently relies on equipment that is difficult to use in an on-farm setting without itself influencing range use. We evaluated the performance of a novel small, light and readily portable light-based monitoring system by validating its output against direct observations. Six commercial houses (2000 hens/house) and their adjacent ranges were used, three of which were equipped with more structures on the range than the others (to determine whether cover would influence monitoring accuracy). In each house, 14 hens were equipped with light monitoring devices for 5 discrete monitoring cycles of 7 to 8 consecutive days (at 20, 26, 32, 36 and 41 weeks of age). Light levels were determined each minute: if the reading on the hen-mounted device exceeded indoor light levels, the hen was classified as outside. Focal hens were observed directly for 5 min/hen per week. Accuracy (% of samples where monitoring and direct observations were in agreement) was high both for ranges with more and with fewer structures, although slightly better for the latter (92% v. 96% ± 1 SEM, F1,19 = 5.2, P = 0.034). Furthermore, accuracy increased over time (89%, 94%, 95%, 98% ± 1 SEM for observations at 26, 32, 36 and 41 weeks, respectively, F3,19 = 3.2, P = 0.047), probably due to progressively reduced indoor light levels resulting from partial closing of ventilation openings to sustain indoor temperature. Light-based monitoring was sufficiently accurate to indicate a tendency for a greater percentage of monitored time spent outside when more range structures were provided (more: 67%, fewer: 56%, SEM: 4, $\chi_1^2 = 2.9$, P = 0.089). Furthermore, clear and relatively consistent individual differences were detected. Individuals that were caught outside at the start of the experiment ranged more throughout its duration (caught outside: 72%, caught inside 51%, SEM: 4, $\chi_1^2 = 10.0$, P = 0.002), and individual range use was correlated between monitoring cycles (for adjacent monitoring cycles: $r_s^2 = 0.5-0.7$, P < 0.0001). This emphasizes the importance of studying range use on an individual level. In conclusion, our light-based monitoring system can assess individual range use accurately (although accuracy was affected by house characteristics to some extent) and was used to show that both cover availability and individual characteristics affected range use.

Keywords

poultryrange useoutdoorautomatic monitoringcover
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , April 2020 , pp. 814 - 823
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bestman, MWP and Wagenaar, JP 2003. Farm level factors associated with feather pecking in organic laying hens. Livestock Production Science 80, 133–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bubier, NE and Bradshaw, RH 1998. Movement of flocks of laying hens in and out of the hen house in four free range systems. British Poultry Science 39, S5–S18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buijs, S, Booth, F, Richards, G, McGaughey, L, Nicol, CJ, Edgar, J and Tarlton, JF 2018. Behavioural and physiological responses of laying hens to automated monitoring equipment. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 199, 17–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buijs, S, Nicol, CJ, Booth, F, Richards, G and Tarlton, J 2017. Effects of automated monitoring equipment on laying hen behaviour. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level, 5–8 September 2017, Ede, The Netherlands, p. 116.Google Scholar
Campbell, DLM, Hinch, FN, Downing, JA and Lee, C 2016. Fear and coping styles of outdoor-preferring, moderate-outdoor and indoor-preferring free-range laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 185, 73–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, DLM, Hinch, FN, Downing, JA and Lee, C 2017a. Outdoor stocking density in free-range laying hens: effects on behaviour and welfare. Animal 11, 1036–1045.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, DLM, Hinch, FN, Dyall, TR, Warin, L, Little, BA, Downing, JA and Lee, C 2017b. Outdoor stocking density in free-range laying hens: radio-frequency identification of impacts on range use. Animal 11, 121–130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chielo, LI, Pike, T and Cooper, J 2016. Ranging behaviour of commercial free-range laying hens. Animals 6, article number 28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawkins, MS, Cook, PA, Whittingham, MJ, Mansell, KA and Harper, AE 2003. What makes free-range broiler chickens range? in situ measurement of habitat preference. Animal Behaviour 66, 151–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gebhardt-Henrich, SG, Toscano, MJ and Frohlich, EKF 2014. Use of outdoor ranges by laying hens in different sized flocks. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 155, 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilani, AM, Knowles, TG and Nicol, CJ 2014. Factors affecting ranging behaviour in young and adult laying hens. British Poultry Science 55, 127–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartcher, KM, Hickey, KA, Hemsworth, PH, Cronin, GM, Wilkinson, SJ and Singh, M 2016. Relationship between range access as monitored by radio frequency identification technology, fearfulness, and plumage damage in free-ranging laying hens. Animal 10, 847–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegelund, L, Sorensen, JT, Kjaer, JB and Kristensen, IS 2005. Use of the range area in organic egg production systems: effect of climatic factors, flock size age and artificial cover. British Poultry Science 46, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hochberg, Y 1988. A sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Biometrika 75, 800–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knierim, U 2006. Animal welfare aspects of outdoor runs for laying hens: a review. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 54, 133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambton, SL, Knowles, TG, Yorke, C and Nicol, CJ 2010. The risk factors affecting the development of gentle and severe feather pecking in loose housed laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 123, 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen, H, Cronin, G, Smith, CL, Hemsworth, P and Rault, J-L 2017. Behaviour of free-range laying hens in distinct outdoor environments. Animal Welfare 26, 255–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindholm, C, Karlsson, L, Johansson, A and Altimiras, J 2016. Higher fear of predators does not decrease outdoor range use in free-range Rowan Ranger broiler chickens. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A – Animal Science 66, 231–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahboub, HDH, Muller, J and Von Borell, E 2004. Outdoor use, tonic immobility, heterophil/lymphocyte ratio and feather condition in free-range laying hens of different genotype. British Poultry Science 45, 738–744.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nagle, TAD and Glatz, PC 2012. Free range hens use the range more when the outdoor environment is enriched. Asian-Australian Journal of Animal Science 25, 584–591.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicol, CJ, Potzsch, C, Lewis, K and Green, LE 2003. Matched concurrent case-control study of risk factors for feather pecking in hens on free-range commercial farms in the UK. British Poultry Science 44, 515–523.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pettersson, IC, Freire, R and Nicol, CJ 2016. Factors affecting ranging behaviour in commercial free-range hens. World’s Poultry Science Journal 72, 137–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettersson, IC, Weeks, CA and Nicol, CJ 2017. Provision of a resource package reduces feather pecking and improves ranging distribution on free-range layer farms. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 195, 60–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettersson, IC, Weeks, CA, Norman, KI and Nicol, CJ 2018. Internal roosting location is associated with differential use of the outdoor range by free-range laying hens. British Poultry Science 59, 135–140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R Core Team 2017. R: a language and environment for statistical computing, https://www.R-project.org/. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Richards, GJ, Wilkins, LJ, Knowles, TG, Booth, F, Toscano, MJ, Nicol, CJ and Brown, SN 2011. Continuous monitoring of pophole usage by commercial housed free-range hens throughout the production cycle. Veterinary Record 169, 338–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, GJ, Wilkins, LJ, Knowles, TG, Booth, F, Toscano, MJ, Nicol, CJ and Brown, SN 2012. Pophole use by hens with different keel fracture status monitored throughout the laying period. Veterinary Record 170, 494–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stadig, LM, Ampe, B, Rodenburg, TB, Reubens, B, Maselyne, J, Zhuang, S, Criel, J and Tuyttens, FAM 2018. An automated positioning system for monitoring chickens’ location: accuracy and registration success in a free-rang area. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 201, 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurner, S, Maier, S, Icken, W, Wendl, G and Preisinger, R 2010. Identification reliability of laying hens at the wide electronic pophole. Landtechnik 65, 139–141.Google Scholar
Thurner, S and Wendl, G 2005. Individual ranging behaviour of laying hens. Landtechnik 60, 30–31.Google Scholar
Zeltner, E and Hirt, H 2003. Effect of artificial structuring on the use of laying hen runs in a free-range system. British Poultry Science 44, 533–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeltner, E and Hirt, H 2008. Factors involved in the improvement of the use of hen runs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 114, 395–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar