Dust bathing in laying hens: strain, proximity to, and number of conspecifics matter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As housing laying hens in aviaries becomes more common, understanding relationships between social context and performance of key behaviors, such as dust bathing (DB), is important. Expression of behaviors may be increased or repressed by the presence of conspecifics, and degree of behavioral synchrony can affect per hen resource allocation. We investigated relationships between number of hens on litter, number of hens simultaneously DB, and interbird distances (IBD) on space used to DB and duration of DB bouts across 4 laying hen strains (Hy-Line Brown [HB], Bovan Brown [BB], DeKalb White [DW], and Hy-Line [W36]) at 28 wk of age. Brown hens needed more space to DB than white hens (HB 1125.26; BB 1146.51 vs. DW 962.65; W36 943.39 cm2; P < 0.01). More white hens occupied litter at once (43 DW, 41 W36 vs. 28 HB, 31 BB; P < 0.01), and more white hens DB simultaneously than brown hens (11 DW, 19 W36 vs. 4 HB, 4 BB; P < 0.01). Brown hens had larger average IBD (HB 13.99, BB 15.11 vs. DW 8.39, W36 7.85 cm; P < 0.01) and larger minimum IBD (HB 6.76, BB 7.35 vs. DW 1.63, W36 1.79 cm; P < 0.01) but shorter DB durations than white hens (HB 7.37, BB 9.00 vs. DW 13.91, W36 15.16 min; P < 0.01). White hens' DB area decreased if number of hens on litter increased (DW 0.85; W36 0.79 cm; P < 0.05) or minimum IBD decreased (DW 3.66, W36 2.98 cm; P < 0.01). Brown hens' DB bout duration decreased as number of hens on litter increased (HB 0.87, BB 0.95 min; P < 0.01), number of other hens DB increased (HB 0.75, BB 0.69 min; P ≤ 0.02), or minimum IBD decreased (HB 2.39, BB 2.31 min; P < 0.01). In response to smaller IBD and more hens on litter simultaneously, DW and W36 hens minimize DB area while BB and HB hens shorten DB bouts, potentially terminating bouts before fulfilling their needs. Variations in DB behavior among strains should be considered when planning and stocking laying hen aviaries.
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".