Effects of rearing and adult laying housing systems on medullary, pneumatic and radius bone attributes in 73-wk old Lohmann LSL lite hens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We determine interactive effect of a combined model of housing systems for rearing pullets and raising adult birds on bone quality. The LSL-Lite pullets were reared in either an aviary system (A) or conventional cages (C). At week 16, the birds were transferred either to the same housing type through the adult stage (A-A or C-C, for rearing and adult phase, respectively) or to enriched system (A-E or C-E, respectively). In the rearing stage, C cages housed 16 pullets/cage (week 0 to 6) and 8 pullets/cage (week 6 to 16) with a space allowance of 145 and 290 cm2/pullet, respectively; the rearing aviary housed 756 pullets/enclosure allowing 285 cm2/pullet (week 0 to 6) and 754 cm2/pullet (week 6 to 16). In the adult phase, C cages were 58.4 cm wide × 66.0 cm deep (482 cm2/pullet, 8 pullets/cage). For adult A, a commercial multi-tier aviary provided a space allowance >1000 cm2/hen system with litter area. Enriched system housed 60 birds/cage at 750 cm2/bird with perches, nest, and scratch mat. Bone samples were collected from the adult phase (week 73) and analysed for bone quality indices including bone breaking strength (BBS), total bone weight (TBW), ash content of the medullary (femur and tibia), pneumatic (humerus and keel), and radius bones. The A-A hens had the greatest (P < 0.05) TBW for medullary (femur and tibia) and pneumatic (humerus and keel) bones compared with hens from other housing models with exception of C-E hens. In addition, ash content was heavier (P = 0.048) for both A-A and C-E managed birds compared to the other housing. Birds in C-C system had the least score (P < 0.05) for TBW and ash content in all bone types. Regardless of the housing system, BBS was correlated (r = 0.60; P < 0.01) with the amount of ash and TBW, particularly for humerus and tibia. The results provide an insight on the impact of type of housing system in rearing and production stages on late cycle bone 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 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".