Behavior of Laying Hens on Alfalfa Crumble Molt Diets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several dietary alternatives to feed withdrawal have been proposed to induce a molt in laying hens. This study compared the behavior of laying hens on an alfalfa crumble diet (ALC) to hens that were either on a conventional layer diet (FF) or hens that had feed withdrawn (FW) during a 9-d trial. Each treatment consisted of 24 hens (3 hens per battery cage), and treatment began after a 2-week acclimation period. Video cameras connected to a digital multiplexer recorded the behavior of the hens. The percentages of observations performing nonnutritive pecking, feeder activity, drinking, walking, preening, head movement, and aggression were quantified for two 10-min periods at daily intervals. The FF hens spent significantly more (P < or = 0.05) time drinking than the other treatments, whereas FW hens displayed the most head movements. From d 1 through 7, FW hens walked less than ALC hens except on d 8 when FW hens walked more than ALC and FF hens. On d 4 and 6, the FW hens spent an increased amount of time preening compared with FF hens until the last few days of the molt period. For the most part, FW hens generally displayed more nonnutritive pecking than ALC and FF hens throughout the molt period. However, FW hen visits to the feeders declined as the trial proceeded, whereas ALC and FF hens generally spent more time at the feeder. In summary, the ALC diet showed potential as an alternative to FW for inducing a molt in laying hens based on reduced nonnutritive pecking behavior, head movements, and greater feeding 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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".