Fibre-based feed supplements – fermentation and moisture characteristics, edibility and particle size influence cage-reared laying hens’ preference based on feed consumption and time at the feeder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Past studies have shown that fibre-based feed supplements, such as silage, are well accepted by laying hens and can reduce feather pecking and cannibalism. What is uncertain is whether fermentation and moisture characteristics, edibility or particle size influence the hen’s choice for a fibre-based feed supplement or if there are more preferred materials.2. The study included three experiments on fermentation and moisture characteristics (Experiment 1), edibility (consumable; Experiment 2) and particle size (Experiment 3) on laying hen preference for different supplements.3. Experiments were conducted in conventional cages, where two cages formed one replication (six replicates per treatment) and each feeding area was subdivided into a trough (basal diet) and a supplement insert (supplements). Since the hens had a free choice between the basal diet and the supplements, feed consumption and the percentage of time hens spent at the supplement insert indicated the strength of preference. The basal diet dry matter (DM) consumption was assessed for all experiments and the supplement and total DM consumption was documented for Experiments 1 and 3. In addition, the percentage of the observed time hens spent at the trough or supplement insert was observed for Experiments 2 and 3.4. There was an increase in the supplement DM consumption for non-fermented and moist supplements (P < 0.05) and, in some cases, a smaller particle size (P < 0.05). Furthermore, hens spent more time with edible (P < 0.05) and small-sized (P < 0.05) supplements. It was concluded that a preferred material in addition to the basal diet could increase the time hens spend at the feeder by up to 1 hour per photoperiod.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".