Rearing and laying performance following various step-down lighting regimens in the rearing period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is frequently recommended that commercial laying pullets are reared on step-down lighting regimens, rather than on constant short photoperiods, to help achieve BW targets during rear and optimal performance in lay. To evaluate the effectiveness of this strategy, Shaver White pullets were maintained on 8-h day lengths or given a step-down lighting regimen from 23 to 8 h over periods of between 1 and 15 wk. Other pullets, which were initially maintained on 8 h of light, were given an abrupt increase in day length prior to transfer to step-down lighting at various ages between 1 and 13 wk. All birds were given abrupt increments to 14 h at 18 wk and to 16 h at 20 wk to stimulate appetite and optimize uniformity of sexual development. Body weights at 6 and 12 wk were generally heavier and cumulative feed intakes to 6 wk were greater for birds given step-down lighting from 1 wk of age than for constant 8-h controls or birds given an initial period on 8-h day lengths prior to step-down lighting. Sexual maturity for birds on step-down lighting from 1 wk and for those on < or =5 wk of 8-h day lengths before transfer to step-down lighting was delayed by about a week compared with the constant 8-h controls or birds on 9 wk or more of 8-h day lengths before step-down lighting. These delays in sexual maturity resulted in a lower BW at 18 wk. Body weight uniformity at 18 wk was improved by step-down lighting, whether it was given from 1 wk or after a period of 8-h day lengths. Despite step-down lighting resulting in larger initial feed intakes and improved early growth, there was no significant improvement in egg numbers, egg weight, egg mass, feed intake, shell deformation, or albumen height compared with constant 8-h controls. Differences in egg output were generally the consequence of photoperiodically induced changes in sexual maturity.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".