Simple SummaryTracking 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.AbstractTracking 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.

Beef production needs to increase from 60 million to 130 million tons by 2050 to feed a growing world population, and 70% of this production increase is expected from beef industries located in subtropical and tropical regions of the world. Bos indicus-influenced cattle predominate in these regions but are often managed using practices developed for Bos taurus breeds reared in temperate climates. Hence, a fundamental step to meet the increasing global demand for beef is to develop specific management for B. indicus-influenced cattle in tropical or subtropical environments. Bos taurus and B. indicus are different subspecies, and diverge in social and biological functions due to selection pressure caused by complex evolutionary and domestication processes. Bos indicus cattle display different social responses compared with B. taurus counterparts, which must be taken into account by management planning as these traits directly impact cattle performance and welfare. In tropical and subtropical regions, warm-season perennial C4 grasses are the dominant forages, and their availability has a significant influence on the productivity of beef cattle systems. The resilience of C4 grasses under adverse conditions is one of their most important characteristics, even though these forages have reduced nutritive value compared with forages from temperate climates. Accordingly, nutritional planning in tropical and subtropical conditions must include management to optimize the quantity and quality of C4 forages. Nutritional requirements of cattle raised within these conditions also require special attention, including inherent metabolic compromises to cope with environmental constraints and altered energy requirements due to body composition and heat tolerance. Nutritional interventions to enhance beef production need to be specifically tailored and validated in B. indicus-influenced cattle. As an example, supplementation programs during gestation or early life to elicit fetal programming or metabolic imprinting effects, respectively, yield discrepant outcomes between subspecies. Bos indicus-influenced cattle produce carcasses with less marbling than B. taurus cattle, despite recent genetic and management advances. This outcome is mostly related to reduced intramuscular adipocyte volume in B. indicus breeds, suggesting a lesser need for energy stored intramuscularly as a mechanism to improve thermotolerance in tropical and subtropical climates.

The pecking behavior [severe feather, gentle feather, and aggressive pecks (AP)] of individual White Shaver non-cage laying hens (n = 300) was examined at 21, 24, 27, 32, and 37 weeks. Hens were housed in 30 groups of 10 hens each and on 3 cm litter with access to a feeder, perch, and two nest boxes. The number of severe feather pecks given (SFPG) and received (SFPR) was used to categorize hens as feather peckers (P), victims (V), neutrals (N), or feather pecker-victims (PV) at each age. Hens categorized as PV exhibited pecking behaviors similar to P and received pecks similar to V. SFP given were correlated with APs given, but not with gentle feather pecks (GFP) given throughout the study. State-transition plot maps illustrated that 22.5% of P remained P, while 44% of PV remained PV throughout the duration of the study. Lifetime behavioral categories identified hens as a consistent feather pecker (5%), consistent neutral (3.9%), consistent victim (7.9%), consistent feather pecker-victim (29.4%), or inconsistent (53.8%) in their behavioral patterns throughout their life. Consistent feather peckers performed more SFP than hens of other categories, and consistent neutral hens received fewer GFP than consistent feather PV. No differences in corticosterone or whole blood serotonin levels were observed among the categories. Approximately, half of the population was classified as a feather pecker at least once during the study, while the remainder was never categorized as a feather pecker. Therefore, even if the development and cause of feather pecking may be multifactorial, once the behavior has been developed, some hens may persist in feather pecking. However, as some hens were observed to never receive or perform SFP, emphasis should be made to select for these hens in future breeding practices.

Unique markings or body-mounted sensors facilitate data collection from individuals in large groups of similar-looking conspecifics but may have unintended consequences on behavior. A wireless sensor attached to the back of laying hens via a harness has been developed to monitor space use and activity. Prior to collecting experimental data, effects of the sensor on resource use and social interactions were assessed. Four rooms of 135 hens each were weighed and 10 hens/room were randomly fitted with sensors at 11 wk of age (0 d). Instantaneous scan samples recorded the number of hens (SEN: sensor-wearing hen, and NON: hen without sensor) using resources (feeder, water, nest box, perch) every 5 min over 24 h on -5 d, -4 d, -2 d, -1 d, 1 d, 2 d, 4 d, 8 d, and 16 d. Logistic regression determined that SEN feeder use was less on 1 d and 2 d and more on 16 d than NON feeder use. The SEN water use was reduced only on 1 d. The SEN nest box use increased on 1 d, 2 d, and 16 d. The SEN perched more on 1 d, 2 d, and 4 d, and less on 8 d. Initial resource use was affected by wearing a sensor, but by 16 d, all resources were used similarly or more by SEN than NON. No difference in BW was observed on 17 d, suggesting that long-term resource use was not affected. No differences were observed among the number of agonistic observations -5 d, 8 d, and 16 d. With the exception of SEN hens acting as aggressors toward NON hens, agonistic interaction types occurred close to expected proportions. These factors indicate that hens habituate to wearing sensors within 2 wk.

No abstract