Green Light During Rearing Does Not Significantly Affect the Performance of Egg-Type Pullets in the Laying Phase
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lohmann White pullets were reared in cages and illuminated with 8 h of white light at 2.6 lx or green light at 3.0 lx from commercial incandescent lamps. They were transferred to individual cages and the photo-period was increased to 14 h of white light at 15, 17, or 19 wk. Pullets grown under green light had significantly lighter BW at 6 wk than did birds grown under white light, but BW were similar at 12, 15, 17, and 19 wk. Although mean age at first egg was 1 d earlier for birds reared under white light, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups for any other performance trait. These findings do not support lamp manufacturers' claim that green fluorescent light during rearing improves performance. As expected, the birds photostimulated at 17 wk matured after the 15-wk birds but before the 19-wk birds. Subsequently, the 15-wk birds laid more eggs to 71 wk, but had a lower mean egg weight and thinner shells (higher deformation) than the other 2 groups. Albumen height and feed intake were similar for all 3 photo-stimulation ages.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".