MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378904150 · doi:10.3389/fanim.2023.1176702

Rearing laying hens: the effect of aviary design and genetic strain on pullet exercise and perching behavior

2023· article· en· W4378904150 on OpenAlexafffund
Ana K. Rentsch, Alexandra Harlander, Janice M. Siegford, Isabela Vitienes, Bettina M. Willie, Tina M. Widowski

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Animal Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityShriners Hospitals for Children - CanadaUniversity of Guelph
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsCanadian Poultry Research Council
KeywordsFlockBiologyCageAnimal scienceStrain (injury)White (mutation)ZoologyEcologyAnatomyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction To prepare laying hens for life in cage-free aviaries, they must be reared in aviaries that accustom them to the challenges of navigating a complex three-dimensional structure. Rearing aviaries vary in design and contain a brooding compartment in which chicks are confined during the first six weeks of age. These compartments vary greatly in their size and complexity. The present study aimed to examine the impact of environmental complexity during early life and birds’ genetic strain on their space use and forms/types of exercise. Methods Four consecutive flocks of brown and white chicks were raised in three styles of rearing aviary with low, intermediate, or high complexity. Behavioral observations were performed at three ages during the brooding phase (weeks 1, 3, and 5) and the open phase when the brooding compartments were opened (weeks 7, 11, and 17). Behaviors observed were categorized as aerial locomotion, perching, dynamic load-bearing behavior (DLB), and wing-involved load-bearing behavior (WLB). Results During the brooding phase, chicks in aviaries of high complexity exercised most frequently (e.g., DLB events/minute: 1.75 in High vs 1.11 in Mid and 0.10 in Low, p<0.0001), and the effect remained for whites, but not the browns, during the open phase. White pullets exercised more than brown pullets both in brooding (e.g., 1.47 vs 1.28 DLB events/minute, p<0.0001) and open phases in High and Mid (e.g., 1.17 vs 0.93 DLB events/minute, housing x stain interaction p=0.009). Throughout rearing, whites had higher odds of perching than browns (brooding: 0.52 vs 0.45, p=0.04, open: 0.27 vs 0.17, p=0.0007). Discussion We concluded that rearing aviary design can affect behavior during the brooding phase; however, once the brooding compartments were opened, housing differences almost exclusively affected white pullets. The data suggest that genetic strain of birds must be considered in the design of pullet housing with the goal of maximizing space use and musculoskeletal development of laying hen pullets.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207