Variation in litter occupancy and dust bathing patterns among layer strains following periods of litter restriction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Producers are moving toward cage-free systems to house laying hens. These include aviary styles with multilevel wire enclosures and litter areas on the floor. In aviaries with doors hens can be confined within the tiered enclosure, which can be done to promote oviposition in nests and prevent hens from laying eggs in litter. However, there are multiple genetic strains of laying hen used in the egg industry, and some show different temporal patterns for key behaviors that could affect when they want to be on litter. For example, though dust bathing by laying hens is typically considered to peak in early afternoon, there may be variation in timing of motivation to dust bathe among strains. Differences in hens' temporal patterns, coupled with aviary configurations or management practices, may restricts birds' ability to perform important behaviors, such as dust bathing (DB), when they would most prefer to do them. Our objective was to determine if there were strain differences in the temporal pattern of DB. We examined the timing of DB in 4 strains of laying hen (Hy-Line Brown [HB], Bovans Brown [BB], DeKalb White [DW], and Hy-Line W36 [W36]) housed in aviaries using 144 hens of each strain per aviary unit (4 units/strain). We recorded the number of hens DB and on litter using instantaneous scan sampling every 5 min using video collected at 26 and 28 wk of age beginning at 11:35 (when litter access began each day) to 20:00 (lights off). Brown strains acclimated to litter access more slowly than white strains. Hens of all strains DB most often soon after gaining access to litter, and more white hens (DW and W36) DB simultaneously and in the presence of more conspecifics. Further examination of diurnal rhythm of behaviors, such as dust bathing, under unconstrained conditions by a range of genetic strains of laying hens is needed to design management practices and aviary styles that best meet hens' needs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".