MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404636207 · doi:10.1016/j.psj.2024.104575

Laying hens prefer softer over harder mineral-based pecking stones and peck them more at the end of the light period

2024· article· en· W4404636207 on OpenAlexafffund
Madeleine McAuley, Linda Caston, Tina M. Widowski

Bibliographic record

VenuePoultry Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Agri-Food Innovation AllianceEgg Farmers of CanadaEgg Farmers of Ontario
KeywordsPeck (Imperial)Period (music)Pecking orderAnimal scienceBiologyMathematicsEcologyGeometryArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mineral-based pecking stones (PS) are edible enrichments for poultry that comprise a high proportion of calcium. We aimed to determine whether laying hens prefer a Soft (easier to ingest) versus a Hard mineral-based PS with the same calcium content, if pecking at PS follows a diurnal pattern similar to calcium appetite, and whether the PS affects eggshell quality. Shaver White laying hens housed in groups of 3 in furnished cages (N = 38) were given either a Hard or Soft PS for 15 days, followed by a 6-day washout period of no PS, and then the opposite PS type for an additional 15 days (Phase 1). After a second 6-day washout period, all cages received both Hard and Soft simultaneously for a 14-day preference test (Phase 2). PS disappearance was quantified by weighing. PS pecking and feeding behaviors were quantified from video recordings of 20 cages scanned at 15 min intervals for 2 days in each treatment period. Egg weights, shell breaking strength and thickness were determined 4 times in Phase 1. In Phase 1, disappearance increased from the first to second period (P = 0.001) and was even greater when the hens had been given Hard then Soft, compared to the opposite sequence (P = 0.0229). PS-pecking was also greater in the second treatment period compared to the first (P = 0.0027). In Phase 2, Soft disappearance was greater than Hard (P < 0.0001), but PS-pecking at the Soft was only greater than that of the Hard when the hens had received the Hard-Soft sequence in Phase 1 (P = 0.0061). The hens showed more PS-pecking behavior towards the end of the light period (∼15:00-18:00) (P < 0.0001). Both eggshell breaking strength (P < 0.0001) and thickness (P = 0.0001) were affected by treatment period suggesting improvement in eggshell quality as ingestion of PS increased. This study shows that hens' previous experience with PS influenced their use. It provides some evidence that hens' use of PS is related to their diurnal calcium appetite and affects eggshell quality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score0.694

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePoultry ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207