Effect of space allowance and cage size on laying hens housed in furnished cages, Part I: Performance and well-being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are few published data on the effects of housing laying hens at different densities in large furnished cages (FC; a.k.a. enriched colony cages). The objective of this study was to determine the effects of housing laying hens at 2 space allowances (SA) in 2 sizes of FC on measures of production and well-being. At 18 wk of age, 1,218 LSL-Lite hens were housed in cages furnished with a curtained nesting area, perches, and scratch mat, and stocked at either 520 cm2 (Low) or 748 cm2 (High) total floor space. This resulted in 4 group sizes: 40 vs. 28 birds in smaller FC (SFC) and 80 vs. 55 in larger FC (LFC). Data were collected from 20 to 72 wks of age. There was no effect of cage size (P = 0.21) or SA (P = 0.37) on hen day egg production, egg weight (PSize = 0.90; PSA = 0.73), or eggshell deformation (PSize = 0.14; PSA = 0.053), but feed disappearance was higher in SFC than LFC (P = 0.005). Mortality to 72 wk was not affected by cage size (P = 0.78) or SA (P = 0.55). BW (P = 0.006) and BW CV (P = 0.008) increased with age but were not affected by treatment. Feather cleanliness was poorer in FC with low SA vs. high (P < 0.0001) and small vs. large FC (P < 0.0001). Feather condition was poorer in low SA (P = 0.048) and the best in small cages with high SA (P = 0.006), but deteriorated in all treatments over time (P < 0.0001). Treatments did not affect the breaking strengths of femur, tibia, or humerus, proportions of birds suffering keel deformations, or foot health scores. Overall, the SA studied in the 2 cage sizes in this trial had few effects on production parameters. However, stocking birds at the lower space allowance resulted in some measures of poorer external condition in both sizes of FC, which indicates that the welfare of hens housed at the lower space allowance may be compromised according to some welfare assessment criteria.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".