Providing laying hens in group-housed enriched cages with access to barley silage reduces aggressive and feather-pecking behaviour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two trials were conducted to study the effect of feeding barley silage on the behaviour and performance of beak-trimmed laying hens. In each trial, 20 hens and 2 roosters were housed in each of eight group-housed enriched cages, with four cages provided a laying hen diet and four cages additionally given free access to barley silage. Egg production and quality, and hen behaviour were assessed throughout the trials (Trial One 20–30 weeks; Trial Two 19–28 weeks). Data were analysed using Proc Mixed of SAS 9.4 and differences were significant when P ≤ 0.05. Silage-fed hens consumed 41 (13.9 g DM) and 50 (13.5 g DM) grams of silage per hen per day in Trials One and Two, respectively, while consuming less layer diet. Birds fed silage spent less time expressing aggressive and feather-pecking behaviours and in nest boxes, and more time feeding than control birds. Egg production, egg quality, and bird weight were not affected by treatment; yolk colour was darker for the silage treatment. Feathering quality was improved in silage-fed birds compared to control birds. It was concluded that providing hens with access to barley silage can improve welfare indicators without negatively affecting the egg production and egg quality.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".