Effects of Nutrient Density and Age at Photostimulation on Carcass Traits and Reproductive Efficiency in Fast- and Slow-Feathering Turkey Hens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was conducted to compare BW gain, carcass composition, and reproductive fitness in fast- and slow-feathering turkey females between 29 and 56 wk of age. A total of 452 Hybrid standard fast-feathering (FF) and experimental slow-feathering (SF) hens (226/group) were fed either a control or a high-energy, high-protein diet. Birds were photostimulated at 29 or 31 wk. Data on BW and carcass characteristics (keel and shank, keel, breast muscle, fatpad, liver, ovary, and oviduct weight) and egg production were assessed. At photostimulation, FF birds had an increased shank length (2.6%) compared with SF birds. After photostimulation, FF birds were heavier than SF birds by 7.8%. Fast-feathering hens had greater ovary weight (49%), oviduct weight (52%), keel length (2.8%), and had one more large yellow follicle at the end of lay. The number of large yellow follicles was greater in birds photostimulated at 31 wk (8.3) compared with birds photostimulated 2 wk earlier (7.8). Absolute ovary weight and oviduct weight were increased by 21 and 18%, respectively, in birds photostimulated at 31 wk compared with 29 wk. These effects of delayed photo-stimulation were greater in SF birds. Ultimately, FF hens had a greater total hen-housed egg production (55 vs. 33%), peak egg production (76 vs. 68%), and laying sequence length (5.7 vs. 3.3 d). Although delaying photostimulation did not affect total egg production, it did reduce the number of double-yolked eggs. Nutrient density had minimal effects on production in this trial. These data indicate that despite having similar BW, fleshing, and conformation traits to FF birds, the SF strain had inferior reproductive efficiency traits. This problem will need to be remedied before an SF turkey strain can become commercially viable.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".