MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979855687 · doi:10.3382/ps/pev039

On-farm comparison of keel fracture prevalence and other welfare indicators in conventional cage and floor-housed laying hens in Ontario, Canada

2015· article· en· W1979855687 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mike Petrik, Michele T. Guerin, Tina M. Widowski

Bibliographic record

VenuePoultry Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlockKeelCageAnimal scienceFeatherVeterinary medicineBiologyMedicineMathematicsGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to compare the flock-level prevalence of healed keel bone fractures and to benchmark other indicators of well-being in laying hens housed in conventional cages and single-tier floor housing systems at several points during the production period. Commercial farms in Ontario, Canada, that housed hens in cages (n=9) or floor barns (n=8) were included. Flocks were beak-trimmed brown hens of various strains. Each flock was visited at 20, 35, 50, and 65 wk of age. At each visit, 50 hens were weighed, palpated for healed keel fractures, and feather scored over 4 areas of the body. Data were collected from the farm records on cumulative mortality. Keel fracture prevalence was higher in floor-housed flocks compared to cage-housed flocks (48.3±0.04% vs. 24.8±0.03%; P<0.001). The majority of keel fractures occurred by 50 wk. Cumulative mortality tended to be higher in floor-housed flocks compared to cage-housed flocks (2.13±0.42% vs. 1.29±0.19%; P=0.078). Mean BW was lower (1,827±28.8 g vs. 1,888±26.8 g; P=0.02) yet more uniform (CV of BW 9.43±0.40% vs. 10.10±0.32%; P<0.001) in floor-housed flocks compared to cage-housed flocks. Feather condition was not affected by housing system type (P=0.618), although it declined with age (P<0.001). Individual hen factors assessed using Pearson partial correlations indicated that hens with fractures were heavier at 65 wk in both housing types (P<0.05) and that heavier hens housed on the floor had better feather scores (P<0.001) from 35 wk onward. Floor-housed hens with fractures had lower feather scores at 35 wk (P<0.05) but not at 50 or 65 wk. Housing hens in single-tier floor systems increased the flock-level prevalence of keel fractures and resulted in a lower, yet more uniform, BW compared to hens in conventional cages under commercial conditions in Ontario. Benchmarking welfare indicators from alternative housing systems for laying hens is important to ensure that progress is made in improving their well-being.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.197

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations108
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePoultry ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207