Do flickering lights impact turkey hen behavior, stress, and fear?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about the effect of light-flicker frequency on poultry, particularly on turkeys. This experiment examined the impact of light-flicker frequency on the behavior, stress, and fear response of Nicholas Select turkey hens reared to 11 wk. The experiment was a randomized complete block design (2 trials), with a one-way factorial analysis evaluating 3 light-flicker frequencies (30, 90, or 195 Hertz; Hz). Birds (n = 3,276 per trial) were housed in 9 individual environmentally controlled rooms (3 replicates per treatment per trial). Data collected included: behavior (4, 8, and 10 wk), incidence of aggressive damage, heterophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, and novel object test (daily d 1-7 and at 4, 8, and 11 wk). Data were analyzed using Proc Mixed (SAS 9.4), with significance declared at P ≤ 0.05. Behavior data are presented as the percentage of time spent performing the behavior. At 4 wk, gentle feather pecking and exploratory behaviors were higher under 195 Hz compared to 30 Hz (P = 0.04 and P = 0.05, respectively). Preening was higher under 90 Hz compared to 30 Hz (P = 0.05). At 8 wk, wing flapping was lowest under 195 Hz (P < 0.01). Gentle feather pecking was higher under 90 and 195 Hz compared to 30 Hz (P = 0.02). Fighting (P = 0.05), aggressive pecking (P = 0.02), and aggressive behaviors (P = 0.01) were lower under 30 Hz compared to 90 Hz. At 10 wk, preening was decreased under 30 Hz (P = 0.03). Incidences of aggressive damage were reduced under 30 Hz compared to 90 Hz (0 d-4 wk; P = 0.01) and under 30 compared to both 90 and 195 Hz (4-8 wk; P = 0.01). At 11 wk, heterophil-to-lymphocyte ratios were lowest under 30 Hz (P = 0.04). The novel object test was unaffected by flicker treatment. In conclusion, many behaviors and the stress and fear responses were unaffected by either visible or non-visible flicker. However, visible flicker (30 Hz) reduced some comfort and exploratory behaviors early in life, and the impact on preening continued to older ages, suggesting minor negative impacts of flicker, particularly early in life.
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 | 0.000 | 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".