Evaluating avoidance distance and fleeing speed of broilers exposed to aerial systems

Authors

  • Pratik Parajuli Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Mississippi, USA
  • Yang Zhao Department of Animal Science, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA;
  • Tom Tabler Department of Poultry Science, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Mississippi, USA

Keywords:

aerial automated system, avoidance distance, broiler, drone, fleeing speed

Abstract

Intensive labor chores for broiler production could be reduced by using automated systems. However, broilers’ response toward automated systems remains unclear. The experiments were conducted to determine the avoidance distance (AD) and the fleeing speed (FS) of 4-8 weeks old broilers toward two aerial systems, a rail with a dummy arm and a drone, operated at different speeds (0.2-1.2 m/s), and heights (0.3-1.8 m) in a commercial broiler house. The broiler AD to a human assessor was also determined for comparison. Results show that the overall mean and standard error (SE) of broiler AD were 63±3 cm for the assessor, 58±1 cm for the rail, and 85±1 cm for the drone. As bird age increased from week 4 to week 8, broiler AD reduced significantly from 82 to 45 cm for the rail but showed no significant change for the drone. As the operational speed increased, broiler AD significantly increased from 54 cm (0.2 m/s) to 62 cm (0.4 m/s) for the rail, and from 81 cm (0.4 m/s) to 89 cm (1.2 m/s) for the drone. As the operational height increased, broiler AD increased from 54 cm (0.3 m) to 57 cm (1.5 m) for the rail and 81 cm (1.2 m) to 88 cm (1.8 m) for the drone. Overall mean and SE of broiler FS were 0.21±0.01 m/s for the rail and 0.65±0.01 m/s for the drone. As bird age increased from week 4 to week 8, the mean broiler FS decreased from 0.47 to 0.07 m/s for the rail and from 0.84 to 0.16 m/s for the drone. Increasing operational speed from 0.2 to 0.4 m/s for the rail and from 0.4 to 1.2 m/s for the drone significantly increased the mean FS from 0.18 to 0.24 m/s and from 0.52 to 0.78 m/s, respectively. Increasing the height of the rail from 0.3 to 1.5 m decreased the broiler FS from 0.27 to 0.16 m/s. However, increasing drone height from 1.2 to 1.8 m retained a similar FS. The outcomes of this study can help to better understand the interaction of broilers with aerial systems and provide insights into the optimization of robotic operational strategies while maintaining good broiler welfare production. Keywords: aerial automated system, avoidance distance, broiler, drone, fleeing speed DOI: 10.25165/j.ijabe.20201306.5591 Citation: Parajuli P, Zhao Y, Tabler T. Evaluating avoidance distance and fleeing speed of broilers exposed to aerial systems. Int J Agric & Biol Eng, 2020; 13(6): 34–40.

Author Biographies

Pratik Parajuli, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Mississippi, USA

Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Graduate Research Assistant.

Tom Tabler, Department of Poultry Science, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Mississippi, USA

Department of Poultry Science, Extension Professor.

References

[1] NCC, T.N.C.C. U.S. Broiler production. 2019. https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/statistics/u-s-broiler-production/. Accessed on [2019-11-19]
[2] NCC, T.N.C.C. Broiler chicken industry key facts 2019. 2019. https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/statistics/broiler-chicken-industry-key-facts/. Accessed on [2019-07-29]
[3] USDA-NASS. Broilers: Production and value of production by year, US. 2018. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Poultry/brprvl.php. Accessed on [2019-06-10]
[4] NCC, T.N.C.C. U.S. Broiler industry creates almost 200,000 new jobs, economic output up 11 percent in two years. 2019. https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/u-s-broiler-industry-creates-almost-200000-new-jobs-economic-output-up-11-percent-in-two-years/. Accessed on [2019-12-10]
[5] Iqbal J, Khan Z H, Khalid A. Prospects of robotics in food industry. Food Science and Technology, 2017; 37(2): 159–165.
[6] McMurray G. Robotics and automation in the poultry industry: current technology and future trends. In: Robotics and Automation in the Food Industry. Elsevier, 2013; pp.329–353.
[7] Miller R K. Poultry and eggs. In: Industrial Robot Handbook. V.C.M. Series. Boston, MA: Springer, 1989; pp.553–564.
[8] Syam R, Arsyad H, Bauna R, Renreng I, Bakhri S. Kinematics analysis of end effector for carrier robot of feeding broiler chicken system. International Conference on Nuclear Technologies and Sciences, 2018, No. 012013. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/962/1/012013.
[9] Fancom B V. Eyenamic™ behaviour monitor for broilers. 2020. https://www.fancom.com/solutions/biometrics/eyenamic-behaviour-monitor-for-broilers. Accessed on [2020-04-15]
[10] Curi, T.M.R.d.C., D. Conti, R.d.A. Vercellino, J.M. Massari, D.J.d. Moura, Z.M.d. Souza, and R. Montanari. Positioning of sensors for control of ventilation systems in broiler houses: a case study. Scientia Agricola, 2017; 74(2): 101–109.
[11] Ben Sassi N, Averos X, Estevez I.. Technology and Poultry Welfare. Animals (Basel), 2016, 6(10): https://doi.org/10.3390/ani6100062
[12] Innovative Poultry Products. The Poultry Hawk. 2019. https://innovativepoultryproducts.com/poultryhawk.html. Accessed on [2019-11-07]
[13] Octopus Robots. Robotics and artificial intelligence to prevent sanitary risks. 2019. https://octopusrobots.com/en/home/. Accessed on [2019-06-10]
[14] Tibot Technologies. The first autonomous poultry-farming robot. 2019. https://www.tibot.fr/spoutnic.php. Accessed on [2019-08-23]
[15] Parajuli P, Huang Y, Zhao Y, Tabler T, Purswell J L. Comparative
evaluation of poultry avoidance distances to human vs. robotic vehicle. 10th International Livestock Environment Symposium (ILES X). 2018, No. ILES18-142. https://doi.org/10.13031/iles.18-142.
[16] Usher C T, Daley W D, Webster A B, Ritz C. A study on quantitative metrics for evaluating animal behavior in confined environments. ASABE Annual International Meeting, 2015; No. 152190148. https://doi.org/10.13031/aim.20152190148.
[17] King A. Technology: The future of agriculture. Nature, 2017; 544(7651): S21–S23.
[18] Puri V, Nayyar A, Raja L. Agriculture drones: A modern breakthrough in precision agriculture. Journal of Statistics and Management Systems, 2017; 20(4): 507–518.
[19] van Gemert J C, Verschoor C R, Mettes P, Epema K, Koh L P, Wich S. Nature conservation drones for automatic localization and counting of animals. European Conference on Computer Vision, 2014; No. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16178-5_17.
[20] Khodabandehloo K. Robotics in meat, fish and poultry processing. Springer, 214, 1993.
[21] Gross W B, Siegel H S. Evaluation of the heterophil/lymphocyte ratio as a measure of stress in chickens. Avian Diseases, 1983; 27(4): 972–979.
[22] Thaxton J P, Stayer P, Ewing M, Rice J. Corticosterone in commercial broilers. The Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 2005; 14(4): 745–749.
[23] Cockrem J F. Stress, corticosterone responses and avian personalities. Journal of Ornithology, 2007; 148(2): 169–178.
[24] Probst J K, Neff A S, Leiber F, Kreuzer M, Hillmann E. Gentle touching in early life reduces avoidance distance and slaughter stress in beef cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 2012; 139(1-2): 42–49.
[25] NEN, N.S.I. Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for poultry. 2009. http://www.welfarequality.net/media/1019/poultry_protocol.pdf. Accessed on [2019-06-10]
[26] Graml C, Waiblinger S, Niebuhr K. Validation of tests for on-farm assessment of the hen–human relationship in non-cage systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 2008; 111(3-4): 301–310.
[27] Long H, Zhao Y, Wang T, Ning Z, Xin H. Effect of light-emitting diode vs. fluorescent lighting on laying hens in aviary hen houses: Part 1 - Operational characteristics of lights and production traits of hens. Poult Sci., 2016; 95(1): 1–11.
[28] Parajuli P, Huang Y, Tabler T, Purswell J L, DuBien J L, Zhao Y. Comparative evaluation of poultry-human and poultry-robot avoidance distances, 2019 (Unpublished).
[29] Faromatics S L. Chicken boy. 2019. https://faromatics.com/ our-product/. Accessed on [2019-12-10]
[30] Bessei W. Welfare of broilers: a review. World's Poultry Science Journal, 2006; 62(3): 455–466.
[31] Pobkrut T, Eamsa-Ard T, Kerdcharoen T. Sensor drone for aerial odor mapping for agriculture and security services. 2016 13th International Conference on Electrical Engineering/Electronics, Computer, Telecommunications and Information Technology (ECTI-CON), 2016, No. 16286331. https://doi.org/10.1109/ECTICon.2016.7561340.

Downloads

Published

2020-12-03

How to Cite

Parajuli, P., Zhao, Y., & Tabler, T. (2020). Evaluating avoidance distance and fleeing speed of broilers exposed to aerial systems. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 13(6), 34–40. Retrieved from https://ijabe.migration.pkpps03.publicknowledgeproject.org/index.php/ijabe/article/view/5591

Issue

Vol. 13 No. 6 (2020): IJABE

Section

Animal, Plant and Facility Systems

License

IJABE is an international peer reviewed open access journal, adopting Creative Commons Copyright Notices as follows.


Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:


  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).