The Effect of Light Intensity, Strain, and Age on the Behavior, Jumping Frequency and Success, and Welfare of Egg-Strain Pullets Reared in Perchery Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of light intensity (L) are not well studied in pullets. Our research objective was to study the effect of L on navigational success, behavior, and welfare of two pullet strains (S). In two repeated trials, a 3 × 2 × 4 factorial arrangement tested three L (10, 30, 50 lux) and two S (Lohmann Brown-Lite (LB), LSL-Lite (LW)) at four ages. One thousand eight hundred pullets/S (0-16 wk) were randomly assigned to floor pens within light-tight rooms (three pens/S/room, four rooms/L) containing four parallel perches and a ramp. Data collection included jumping frequency and success (24h continuous sampling), novel object tests (fear), heterophil to lymphocyte (H/L) ratios (stress), and behavior (instantaneous scan sampling) during photoperiods. L did not affect injurious behavior, fear, or H/L. Pullets reared at 50 lux spent more time preening than at 10 lux. Pullets reared at 10 lux spent more time wall pecking than at 50 lux. Time spent standing and preening and total number and accuracy of jumping increased with age. Pullets reared at 30 lux had higher jumping frequency than at 10 lux; accuracy was not affected. LW jumped more than LB, but with similar success. LB spent more time exploring and scored higher in the fear and stress assessments, suggesting S differences.
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 | 0.001 | 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".