A novel environmental enrichment device increased physical activity and walking distance in broilers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern broilers are selected for fast growth and a large proportion of breast tissue, contributing to a top-heavy phenotype, leg disorders, and inactivity as birds reach market weight. Therefore, the objective was to motivate broilers to move through environmental enrichment. A total of 1,200 Ross 308 broilers were housed in pens of 30 for 6 wk: 600 birds were exposed to a novel laser enrichment device (LASER) and 600 were control. Each device projected 2 randomly moving red laser dots onto the floor 4 times/day for 4-min "laser periods." Seven LASER and 7 control pens, with 5 focal birds/pen (n = 70), were randomly selected to be video-recorded day 0 to 8 and once weekly for the remainder of the trial. Videos were analyzed to measure broiler time-budget and behaviors such as latency to feed and distance walked during laser periods. Focal birds were gait scored weekly on-farm. A test of the human-approach paradigm was carried out on weeks 1 and 6 on all pens. LASER birds were more active on days 0, 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8, moving 254% more on day 7 (P ≤ 0.05). Time spent active was increased in LASER treatment by 114% on week 2; 157% on week 3; 90% on week 4; and 82% on week 5. LASER birds spent more time at the feeder on days 0, 1, 2, 5, 8, and on weeks 1 and 5, with 84% more time at feeder than control on day 5 (P ≤ 0.05). LASER birds walked further during laser periods on day 0 to 8, reaching 646.5 cm greater (day 1), and on weeks 2, 3, 4, and 5, with an increase of 367.5 cm on week 2 (P ≤ 0.05). Over week 1 to 6, 60.54 ± 7.4% of focal birds in the laser treatment were at the feeder during or within 5 min following laser periods. The laser enrichment device was successful in stimulating broiler physical activity and feeding, and did not negatively impact walking ability.
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".