↓ Skip to main content

The ability of laying pullets to negotiate two ramp designs as measured by bird preference and behaviour

Overview of attention for article published in PeerJ, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The ability of laying pullets to negotiate two ramp designs as measured by bird preference and behaviour
Published in
PeerJ, November 2017
DOI 10.7717/peerj.4069
Pubmed ID
Authors

Isabelle C. Pettersson, Claire A. Weeks, Kate I. Norman, Christine J. Nicol

Abstract

Laying hens are often kept in barn or free-range systems where they must negotiate level changes in the house to access resources. However, collisions and resultant keel fractures are commonplace. Producers sometimes add ramps to make raised areas more accessible but designs vary and very little research has investigated bird preference or behaviour when using different ramp designs, or the effect of ramp design on falls and collisions. Two ramp designs were studied in an experimental setting-a ramp made of plastic poultry slats (grid ramp, GR) and a ramp made of wooden rungs (ladder ramp, LR). Sixty-four young female hens were trained to move to a food reward and this was used to test their behavioural responses when first negotiating the two different ramps during individual tests. Both upward and downward transitions were studied. Ramp preference was also tested using a room that replicated a commercial single-tier system with both types of ramp available. Birds were placed in this room in groups of 16 for three days and their use of the ramps studied. A greater percentage of birds successfully completed (reached the reward bowl) on the GR than the LR during both upward (58% vs 37%) and downward (83% vs 73%) transitions, and a smaller percentage of birds made zero attempts to use the GR than the LR (upwards: 13% vs 56%, downwards: 8% vs 26%). When making a downward transition, more hesitation behaviours were seen (head orientations, stepping on the spot, moving away) for the LR. However, more head orientations were seen for the GR during the upward transition. Birds were more likely to abort attempts (an attempt began when a bird placed both feet on the ramp) to move up the GR than the LR. Birds took longer to negotiate the LR than the GR in both directions, and more pauses were seen during a successful upward transition on the LR. Birds were more likely to move down the GR by walking/running whereas birds tended to jump over the entire LR. More collisions with the food reward bowl were seen for the LR. In the group tests, birds preferred to use the GR, with more transitions seen at all timepoints. However, in these tests, birds preferred to rest on the LR with greater numbers of birds counted on this type of ramp during scan sampling at all timepoints. Behavioural results suggest that the GR was easier for the birds to use than the LR, particularly on the downward transition. The GR was also less likely to result in collisions. However, the upward transition may be more difficult on the GR for some birds, potentially because of the inability to pause on a level surface during the transition. The results suggest that the GR was preferred by pullets for moving between a raised area and the ground but the LR was preferred for resting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 18%
Researcher 6 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 9 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 26%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 9%
Unspecified 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 12 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 February 2018.
All research outputs
#2,635,588
of 25,660,026 outputs
Outputs from PeerJ
#2,755
of 15,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,753
of 447,429 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PeerJ
#88
of 332 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,660,026 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,283 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 447,429 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 332 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.