MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048455390 · doi:10.1016/j.psj.2020.06.079

Rearing cage type and dietary limestone particle size: II, effects on egg production, eggshell, and bone quality in Lohmann selected Leghorn-Lite hens

2020· article· en· W3048455390 on OpenAlexafffund
Tanka Khanal, Grégoy Y. Bédécarrats, Tina M. Widowski, Elijah G. Kiarie

Bibliographic record

VenuePoultry Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersEgg Farmers of Canada
KeywordsCageEggshellAnimal scienceBiologyBody weightLayingEcologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated effects of rearing cage type and dietary limestone particle size (LPS) on egg production, egg weight, eggshell, and bone quality in laying hens. The pullets were reared in conventional (CON; 20 chicks/cage, 270 cm2/chick) or furnished (FUR; 30 chicks/cage; 636 cm2/chick) cages and fed 3 LPS (fine, <0.595 mm; medium, 0.595 to <1.68 mm; and 1:1 mixture of F and M wt/wt) to 16 wk of age (woa). Pullets were transitioned to laying furnished cages and retained rearing treatment combination identities (n = 5, 20 hens/cage). Hens had free access to common commercial layer diet and water through to 40 woa. Eggs were recorded daily for calculation of hen day egg production (HDEP). Subsamples of eggs laid on the first day of 24, 28, 32, 36, and 40 woa were used for eggshell quality analyses. Two hens per cage were sacrificed on the last day of 24 and 40 woa for femur and tibia quality assessments. There was no interaction (P > 0.05) between rearing cage type and dietary LPS on response variables. At 19 and 20 woa, HDEP was higher (P < 0.01) for FUR than CON reared hens but was similar (P > 0.05) afterward. At 40 woa, FUR reared hens had higher (P < 0.05) body weight (BW), egg weight (EW), eggshell thickness, and eggshell weight and tended (P < 0.10) to have higher femur and tibia mineral density (BMD) and mineral content (BMC) than CON reared hens. Rearing dietary LPS had no effect (P > 0.05) on HDEP, BW, EW, and eggshell quality. Although, rearing dietary LPS did not affect (P > 0.05) femur and tibia BMD and BMC; at 24 woa, hens reared on medium LPS tended to have higher femur BMD (0.17 vs. 0.14 g/cm2; P = 0.079) and BMC (0.99 vs.0.78 g; P = 0.088) than hens reared on fine LPS. In conclusion, hens reared in furnished cages had better eggshell quality but had marginal effects on femur and tibia quality, whereas rearing dietary LPS had no effects on eggshell and bone attributes in hens.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePoultry ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207