Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32517207›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2020

Managing Free-Range Laying Hens-Part A: Frequent and Non-Frequent Range Users Differ in Laying Performance but Not Egg Quality.

Terence Zimazile Sibanda, Manisha Kolakshyapati, Mitchell Welch, Derek Schneider, Johan Boshoff, Isabelle Ruhnke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Prevalence ofFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Characterising Free-Range Layer Flocks Using Unsupervised Cluster Analysis.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Terence Zimazile SibandaSchool of Environmental and Rural Science, Faculty of Science, Agriculture, Business and Law, University of New England, Armidale NSW 2351, Australia.
Manisha KolakshyapatiSchool of Environmental and Rural Science, Faculty of Science, Agriculture, Business and Law, University of New England, Armidale NSW 2351, Australia.
Mitchell WelchPrecision Agriculture Research Group, Faculty of Science, Agriculture, Business and Law, School of Science and Technology, University of New England, Armidale NSW 2351, Australia.
Derek SchneiderPrecision Agriculture Research Group, Faculty of Science, Agriculture, Business and Law, School of Science and Technology, University of New England, Armidale NSW 2351, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1897-4175
Johan BoshoffComputation, Analytics, Software and Informatics, University of New England, Armidale NSW 2351, Australia.
Isabelle RuhnkeSchool of Environmental and Rural Science, Faculty of Science, Agriculture, Business and Law, University of New England, Armidale NSW 2351, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Little is known about the impact of ranging on laying performance and egg quality of free-range hens. The aim of this study was to characterise egg production of commercial free-range laying hen sub-populations of low-, moderate- and high-range use at an early age. A total of five flocks with 40,000 hens/flock were investigated where 1875 hens/flock were randomly selected at 16 weeks of age, monitored for their range use and subsequently grouped into "stayers" (the 20% of hens that spent the least time on the range), "roamers" (the 20% of the hens that used the range more than stayers but less than rangers) and "rangers" (the 60% of the hens that spent the most time on the range). Eggs from the individual groups were collected in 10-weekly intervals until hens were 72 weeks of age, commercially graded and tested for several quality parameters. Significant differences were noted for hen-day production. For example, at 22 weeks of age, rangers enjoyed a laying rate of 88.0% ± 1.1%, while stayers performed at 78.2% ± 1.9% but at 72 weeks of age egg production of rangers was 85.1% ± 0.9% and of stayers was 95.5% ± 0.9% (

Indexed as

behavioureconomicsefficiencyhusbandrymovementnon-cagedpoultryproductionRadio-Frequency Identification (RFID)sub-populations

Identifiers

PMID32517207
PMCPMC7341289

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.