Feeding motivation on the incidence of floor eggs and extraneously calcified eggs laid by broiler breeder hens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Commercial broiler breeder hens lay many eggs on the floor rather than in nest boxes provided. A study was conducted to determine whether feeding feed-restricted broiler breeder hens during the sitting phase of nesting results in a higher incidence of floor eggs and/or retained eggs. 2. Sixty broiler breeder females (Ross 308) were randomly assigned to 6 deep litter pens containing 10 nest-boxes. At 35 weeks of age and for 9 weeks, feed was distributed to all pens at lights-on every second day (fed normally, FN). On alternate days (feeding delay, FD), feed was distributed when 2-3 hens/pen were sitting in a nest box. Behaviour was sampled at 41 weeks of age, for 26 d. Eggs and egg location data were collected daily, and eggs were scored for extra-cuticular calcium. 3. Of 81 instances in which the hen was sitting firmly in a nest box at the time of feeding, on 80 instances the hen left the nest-box to feed, and on one instance the hen laid her egg then exited to the feeder. Of these 80 instances, on 58 occasions the hen returned to a nest-box to lay her egg; on 12 the hen returned to the nest-box but laid no egg; on 7 the hen did not return to the nest box and laid no egg; and on three the hen laid her egg on the floor. 4. Mean floor egg percentage was 13·3 ± 3·2% on FN and 13·3 ± 4·7% on FD days; these did not differ significantly. 5. The mean extra-cuticular calcium score over all pens was 0·9 ± 0·06 on FN days and 1·2 ± 0·06 on FD days; these differed significantly. 6. In conclusion, feeding broiler breeder hens during nesting results in a conflict between feeding and nesting motivation and higher numbers of extraneously calcified eggs, but does not result in a significant increase in floor eggs even though nesting hens will leave the nest box for food.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".