Note to P. Lewis. A few general formatting points. Some phrases in bold, some et al.s not in italics. 1 The first para of "Statisitical analysis" contains several 'levels'-I try to encourage authors to avoid the 2 word-it's lazy and sometimes ambiguous-wherever possible it should be replaced by the actual 3 measure-concentration, intensity, number etc and sometimes it can even be deleted altogether. Think 4 about its use here. Some probability symbols are lowercase Roman. Ampersands in some text 5 references.
Baseline information on demographics and practices on semi-intensive free-range egg farms with an outdoor stocking density of ≤1500 hens/hectare in Australia is presented. Free-range egg production is changing the structure of the egg industry in Australia and a broad variety and tiers of free-range systems have emerged due to lack of concrete legislative standards on outdoor stocking densities in the past. Information was extracted from a pre-existing online free-range poultry survey dataset, consisting of a total of 79 questions related to nutrition, pasture management, welfare and health, animal housing, environmental impact and economics. Forty-one free-range egg farms, with an outdoor stocking density of ≤1500 hens/hectare, were identified in the dataset from all major Australian states. Two types of semi-intensive free-range housing systems were documented: mobile (modified caravan/trailer) housing (56%), and fixed sheds (44%). Seventy-two percent of respondents reported >75% of the hens in the flock used the outdoor range. All respondents reported ingestion of range components by hens in the form of vegetation, insects, stones and grit. Up to 10% mortality was reported by 40% respondents with predation (34%), cannibalism (29%), heat stress (24%) and grass impaction (19.5%) as major causes. Biosecurity on farms was sub-optimal with 8 of the 10 actions implemented by <50% respondents. Customer demand, consumer sentiment and welfare were the major factors for farmers moving into free-range egg production. This study resulted in identification of current practices and key challenges on semi-intensive free-range egg farms. Applied research and communication of results to farmers is highly recommended to ensure optimum health and welfare of free-range laying hens and sustained egg production.
An observational study on range enrichment was conducted on three commercial fixed-range, free-range layer farms comprising four flocks in South Australia (flock sizes ranged from 3000 to 11700 hens). Two strategies were compared; a ‘standard’ Control treatment, typical of the type of range used in the commercial industry and a highly ‘enriched’ treatment. Both treatments were implemented on the same range with no subdivisional fences. The highly enriched side of the range incorporated shade shelters, alongside a continuum of additional enrichment structures (e.g. dust baths, peck objects and hay bales). Range treatments were investigated to determine the effects on motivating hens to use the range more effectively, and their potential to lead to a decrease in abnormal behaviours, such as injurious feather pecking and cannibalism. Additionally, two farms with high levels of tree coverage were also observed. Farms were visited monthly for 6 months. At each visit several measures were recorded live: the numbers of hens out on the range, location of hens on the range and plumage score of birds outdoors and indoors. Enrichment structure utilisation on the range was measured via video recordings and continuous counts of the number of hen visits to enrichment structures within 1 h. It was found that more hens used the ‘enriched’ side of the range, in comparison with the ‘standard’ Control range treatment (P ≤ 0.01). Overhead cover provided by constructed shelters and dust bathing pits were instrumental in enticing birds out onto the range (306 ± 27 s.e.m. and 366 ± 24 s.e.m., average number hen visits). Hay bales were also highly utilised (116 ± 14 s.e.m., average number hen visits), even though the hen numbers attracted to the hay bales were not as high as shelters and dust baths. It was also observed on one property that natural cover provided by trees attracted the greatest number of hens (1652 ± 358 s.e.m., average number of hen visits). Prevailing weather conditions and the age of the flock strongly influenced the number of hens utilising the range outdoors. Furthermore, hens outside on the range had better plumage scores with lower feather loss and decreased areas of bare skin compared with birds scored in the shed.
Feather pecking in laying hens is a major welfare and production problem for commercial egg producers, resulting in mortality, loss of production as well as welfare issues for the damaged birds. Damaging outbreaks of feather pecking are currently impossible to control, despite a number of proposed interventions. However, the ability to predict feather damage in advance would be a valuable research tool for identifying which management or environmental factors could be the most effective interventions at different ages. This paper proposes a framework for forecasting the damage caused by injurious pecking based on automated image processing and statistical analysis. By frame-by-frame analysis of video recordings of laying hen flocks, optical flow measures are calculated as indicators of the movement of the birds. From the optical flow datasets, measures of disturbance are extracted using hidden Markov models. Based on these disturbance measures and age-related variables, the levels of feather damage in flocks in future weeks is predicted. Applying the proposed method to real-world datasets, it is shown that the disturbance measures offer improved predictive values for feather damage thus enabling an identification of flocks with probable prevalence of damage and injury later in lay.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.