MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4327702869 · doi:10.1016/j.psj.2023.102664

Fearfulness in commercial laying hens: a meta-analysis comparing brown and white egg layers

2023· review· en· W4327702869 on OpenAlexafffund
Ana K. Rentsch, J.L. Ellis, Tina M. Widowski

Bibliographic record

VenuePoultry Science · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
KeywordsStatisticsMathematicsMixed modelNormalityRandom effects modelAnalysis of varianceEconometricsAnimal scienceMeta-analysisBiologyMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High fearfulness in commercial laying hens can negatively affect production parameters and animal welfare. Brown and white egg layers differ in several behavioral characteristics, though reported differences in fearfulness are inconsistent. A meta-analysis was conducted to determine whether there are systematic differences in measures of fearfulness between brown and white layers. Twenty-three studies that examined either 1 or both of 2 behavioral tests were included: tonic immobility (TI) (longer duration = higher fearfulness, 16 studies) and novel object (NO) test (lower approach rate = higher fearfulness, 11 studies). The 2 tests were analyzed separately. TI analyses: A generalized linear mixed effect model (GLMM) with a lognormal distribution was fitted to describe the data with experiment nested in study as a random effect. Explanatory (X) variables were considered through backward selection, where potential X-variables included color (brown vs. white layers), decade (1980s, 2000s, 2020s), age (prelay vs. in lay), genetic stock (hybrid vs. grand-/parent stock), and methodology (back vs. side position). NO test analyses: univariable GLMMs with a beta distribution were fitted with approach rate as the Y-variable and color, decade, age, stock, or 2 methodological factors (test duration, single vs. group testing) as X-variables. Models were evaluated by assessing information criteria, residuals/random effect normality, significance of X-variables and model evaluation statistics (mean square prediction error, concordance correlation coefficient). TI duration was best explained by a color-by-decade interaction (P = 0.0006). Whites in the 1980s had longer TI durations (709.43 ± 143.88 s) than browns in the 1980s (282.90 ± 59.70 s), as well as in comparison to browns (208.80 ± 50.82 s) or whites (204.85 ± 49.60 s) in the 2020s. The NO approach rate was best explained by color (P ≤ 0.05 in 3 models), age (P < 0.05 in 3 models), and decade (P = 0.04). Whites had a higher approach rate (0.7 ± 0.07) than browns (0.5 ± 0.11), birds in lay a higher rate (0.8 ± 0.07) than birds prelay (0.4 ± 0.12), and approach rate for papers published in the 2000s (0.8 ± 0.09) was higher than in the 2020s (0.2 ± 0.12). The phylogenetic difference in the 1980s was no longer detectable after enforcing an upper limit on TI durations (10 min), as became common practice in later studies. Our findings suggest that phylogenetic differences in fearfulness and changes over time are test dependent, and this raises important questions and potential consequences for assessing hen welfare in commercial egg production.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.383
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.001 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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