How does visible light flicker impact laying hen pullet behavior, fear, and stress levels?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many characteristics of artificial light have been evaluated; however, light-flicker frequency (F) has not been assessed extensively in poultry. Pullets (1,344 per strain [S]; Lohmann Brown-Lite [LB] and LSL-Lite [LW]) were placed into 8 light-tight rooms, containing 6 floor pens (15 pen replicates per F × S for 30 and 250 Hz; 18 pen replicates per F x S for 90 Hz), and assigned 1 of 3 F treatments (30, 90, 250 Hz). The experiment took place over 2 trials (blocks). To evaluate long-term effects of F during rearing, birds were followed through the hen phase. Data were analyzed using Proc Mixed (SAS 9.4). Differences were considered significant when P ≤ 0.05, and behaviors are expressed as percentage of time. Pullets reared under 30 Hz spent more time performing nutritive behaviors (P < 0.01) and as "unidentified" (P = 0.02) than other treatments. Active behavior demonstrated an age x F interaction, with pullets being more active at 16 wk, regardless of F (P < 0.01). Comfort behaviors were higher at 16 wk compared to other ages, regardless of F (P < 0.01). Exploratory behaviors were lowest at 4 wk in pullets under 30 Hz (P < 0.01). Aggressive behaviors (12 wk) were higher in pullets reared under 250 Hz than those under 90 Hz (P < 0.01). Comb score was unaffected by F (P = 0.79) and all birds scored had a full plumage. Heterophil-to-lymphocyte ratio was unaffected by F at 7 or 15 wk (P = 0.85 and P = 0.54, respectively). In trial 1, pullets reared under 90 Hz had higher corticosterone concentrations than those reared under 250 Hz (P = 0.02) and trial 2 there were no effects of F (P = 0.97). For novel object test, LW pullets reared under 90 Hz had a higher latency to peck than LW pullets under 30 Hz or 250 Hz (P = 0.03). Hen behavior (wk 39) and fear tests (36 wk; novel object test (P = 0.86) and tonic immobility (P = 0.37)) were unaffected by F. Overall, minimal effects of F were seen on pullet and hen behavior and stress.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".