Abstract
Continuous sampling provides the most complete data set for behavioral research; however, it often requires a prohibitive investment of time and labor. The objectives of this study were to validate behavioral observation methods of young broiler chickens using 1) 7 scan sampling intervals (0.5, 1, 3, 5, 10, 15, and 30 min) and 2) an automated tracking software program (EthoVision XT 14) compared to continuous behavioral observation, considered the gold standard for behavior observation. Ten 19-day-old Ross 708 broiler cockerels were included in this study. All behavior was video recorded over an 8-h period, and data were collected using a continuous sampling methodology. The same video files were utilized for analysis for scan sampling and automated tracking software analysis. For both analyses, the following criteria were used to identify which method accurately reflected the true duration and frequency for each behavior, as determined by continuous observation: R2 ≥ 0.9, slope was not different from 1 (P > 0.05), and intercept was not different from 0 (P > 0.05). Active, eating, drinking, and maintenance behaviors were accurately estimated with 0.5-min scan sample intervals. Active, inactive, eating, and maintenance behaviors were accurately estimated with 1-min scan sample intervals. Inactive behavior was accurately estimated with 5-min scan sample intervals. The remainder of sampling intervals examined did not provide accurate estimates, and no scan sampling interval accurately estimated the number of behavior bouts. The automated tracking software was able to accurately detect true duration of inactive behavior but was unable to accurately detect activity. The results of this study suggest that high-frequency behaviors can be accurately observed with instantaneous scan sampling up to 1-min intervals. Automated tracking software can accurately identify inactivity in young broiler chickens, but further behavior identification will require refinement.