The effects of floor space and nest box access on the physiology and behavior of caged laying hens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Confinement housing appears to be at the forefront of concern about laying hen welfare. This experiment examined the effects of floor space during rearing (315 or 945 cm2/bird) and adulthood (542 or 1648 cm2/bird) and access to a nest box on the welfare of caged laying hens. Measurements of the normality of biological functioning, such as plasma, egg albumen and yolk and fecal corticosterone concentrations, and heterophil to lymphocyte ratios, behavioral time budgets, mortality and efficiency of productivity, and measurement of hen preferences, such as choice behavior in Y maze tests, were used to assess hen welfare. There were no effects of treatment on physiological measurements. Hens given less space during adulthood spent less time mobile, inedible pecking, drinking, and preening and spent more time resting and feed pecking and sitting (P < 0.05). Hens with access to a nest box spent more time resting (P = 0.046) and less time sham dust bathing (P = 0.044) than hens without access to a nest box. There were no effects of space allowance on choice behavior for space or a nest box over food; however, hens with access to a nest box chose the nest box over food more than hens without access to a nest box (P = 0.0053). The present experiment provides no convincing evidence that either reducing space allowance in adulthood from 1648 to 542 cm2/bird or eliminating access to a nest box results in disruption of biological function. Less space and no access to a nest box did not increase the choice for more space or a nest box, respectively, over food in the preference tests. However, reduced floor space reduced behavioral freedom and denying access to a nest box eliminated the opportunity for the motivated behavior of laying their eggs in a discrete enclosed nest box, both of which presumably provide hens with the opportunity for positive affective experiences.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".