Effects of ground robot manipulation on hen floor egg reduction, production performance, stress response, bone quality, and behavior.

Journal: PloS one
PMID:

Abstract

Reducing floor eggs in cage-free (CF) housing systems is among primary concerns for egg producers. The objective of this research was to evaluate the effects of ground robot manipulation on reduction of floor eggs. In addition, the effects of ground robot manipulation on production performance, stress response, bone quality, and behavior were also investigated. Two successive flocks of 180 Hy-Line Brown hens at 34 weeks of this age were used. The treatment structure for each flock consisted of six pens with three treatments (without robot running, with one-week robot running, and with two-weeks robot running), resulting in two replicates per treatment per flock and four replicates per treatment with two flocks. Two phases were involved with each flock. Phase 1 (weeks 35-38) mimicked the normal scenario, and phase 2 (weeks 40-43) mimicked a scenario after inadvertent restriction to nest box access. Results indicate that the floor egg reduction rate in the first two weeks of phase 1 was 11.0% without the robot treatment, 18.9% with the one-week robot treatment, and 34.0% with the two-week robot treatment. The effect of robot operation on floor egg production was not significant when the two phases of data were included in the analysis. Other tested parameters were similar among the treatments, including hen-day egg production, feed intake, feed conversion ratio, live body weight, plasma corticosterone concentration, bone breaking force, ash percentage, and time spent in nest boxes. In conclusion, ground robot operation in CF settings may help to reduce floor egg production to a certain degree for a short period right after being introduced. Additionally, robot operation does not seem to negatively affect hen production performance and well-being.

Authors

  • Guoming Li
    Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS 39762, USA.
  • Xue Hui
    College of Energy and Intelligent Engineering, Henan University of Animal Husbandry and Economy, Zhengzhou, Henan Province, China.
  • Yang Zhao
    The George Institute for Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
  • Wei Zhai
    Department of Poultry Science, Mississippi State University, Starkville, Mississippi State, United States of America.
  • Joseph L Purswell
    Agricultural Research Service, Poultry Research Unit, United States Department of Agriculture, Starkville, MS 39762, USA.
  • Zach Porter
    Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Mississippi State University, Starkville, Mississippi State, United States of America.
  • Sabin Poudel
    Department of Poultry Science, Mississippi State University, Starkville, Mississippi State, United States of America.
  • Linan Jia
    Department of Poultry Science, Mississippi State University, Starkville, Mississippi State, United States of America.
  • Bo Zhang
    Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Key Laboratory of Clinical Cancer Pharmacology and Toxicology Research of Zhejiang Province, Affiliated Hangzhou First People's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310006, PR China.
  • Gary D Chesser
    Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS 39762, USA.