MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102454448 · doi:10.3382/ps.2008-00369

Performance and welfare of laying hens in conventional and enriched cages

2009· article· en· W2102454448 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePoultry Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCageFeatherAnimal sciencePlumageBiologyNest boxLayingZoologyMathematicsSeasonal breeder

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Concerns regarding the welfare of laying hens raised in battery cages have led to the development of enriched cages that allow hens to perform natural behaviors including nesting, roosting, and scratching. This study was conducted to compare indices of production and welfare in birds housed in 2 different caging systems. Shaver White hens were housed from 21 to 61 wk in either conventional battery cages (n = 500; 10 cages; 5 hens/cage; floor space = 561.9 cm(2)/hen) or enriched cages (n = 480; 2 cages; 24 hens/cage; floor space = 642.6 cm(2)/hen) and were replicated 10 times. Enriched cages provided hens with a curtained nesting area, scratch pad, and perches. Production parameters and egg quality measures were recorded throughout the experiment. Plumage condition was evaluated at 37 and 61 wk. Bone quality traits and immunological response parameters were measured at 61 wk, and 59 and 61 wk, respectively. Hen-day egg production, feed consumption, egg weight, and percentage of cumulative mortality of laying hens were not affected by the cage designs. Specific gravity and the percentage of cracked and soft-shelled eggs were also similar between the 2 housing systems. The incidence of dirty eggs was, however, significantly higher (P < 0.0001) in enriched cages than in conventional cages. Feather scores were similar between birds except for the wing region, which was higher (P < 0.05) for hens housed in conventional cages. Bone quality measures tended to be higher for hens housed in enriched cages compared with hens in conventional cages. However, the increase was significant only for bone mineral density. Immunological response parameters did not reveal statistically significant differences. Overall, laying performance, exterior egg quality measures, plumage condition, and immunological response parameters appear to be similar for hens housed in the 2 cage systems tested. Enrichment of laying hen cages resulted in better bone quality, which could have resulted from increased activity.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.460
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.210 · 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