The effect of light intensity on the body weight, keel bone quality, tibia bone strength, and mortality of brown and white feathered egg-strain pullets reared in perchery systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of the musculoskeletal system is influenced by bird activity, which can be impacted by light intensity (L). The objective of this study was to determine the effect of L on the growth and bone health of Lohmann Brown-Lite (LB) and Lohmann LSL-Lite (LW) pullets. Three L treatments (10, 30 or 50 lux, provided by white LED lights) were used in a Randomized Complete Block Design in 2 repeated trials. LB and LW (n = 1,800 per strain [S]) were randomly assigned to floor pens (50 pullets per pen; 12 pen replicates per L × S) within 6 light-tight rooms from 0 to 16 wk. Each pen contained 4 parallel perches and a ramp. Data collected include cumulative mortality, BW at 0, 8, and 16 wk, and uniformity, keel bone damage (KBD; deviations, fractures), breast muscle weight, and tibiae bone strength at 16 wk. Tibiae bone resistance to mechanical stress was assessed using a three-point-bending test. The effect of L, S, and their interactions were analyzed using Proc Mixed (SAS 9.4) and differences were considered significant when P < 0.05. L did not affect BW, KBD, or mortality. An interaction between L and S was observed for bone stress (bone strength relative to bone size), however, in general, LW pullets had greater resistance to bone stress (peak noted at 30 lux) than LB (peak at 50 lux). LB pullets were heavier than LW at 8 and 16 wk. There were no S differences on KBD from palpated or dissected keel bones. LB pullets had higher breast muscle weight and heavier tibiae than LW, however relative to BW, LW had a higher percentage of breast muscle and a longer and thicker tibiae than LB. LW had higher mortality during the first wk but there was no relationship to L. Conclusively, the results suggest that L, within a range of 10 to 50 lux, does not affect pullet BW or KBD, however S may affect both parameters, as well as bone strength.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".