A data envelope analysis to assess factors affecting technical and economic efficiency of individual broiler breeder hens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the effect of feed allocation and energetic efficiency on technical and economic efficiency of broiler breeder hens using the data envelope analysis methodology and quantified the effect of variables affecting technical efficiency. A total of 288 Ross 708 pullets were placed in individual cages at 16 wk of age and assigned to 1 of 4 feed allocation groups. Three of them had feed allocated on a group basis with divergent BW targets: standard, high (standard x 1.1), and low (standard x 0.9). The fourth group had feed allocated on an individual bird basis following the standard BW target. Birds were classified in 3 energetic efficiency categories: low, average, and high, based on estimated maintenance requirements. Technical efficiency considered saleable chicks as output and cumulative ME intake and time as inputs. Economic efficiency of feed allocation treatments was analyzed under different cost scenarios. Birds with low feed allocation exhibited a lower technical efficiency (69.4%) than standard (72.1%), which reflected a reduced egg production rate. Feed allocation of the high treatment could have been reduced by 10% with the same chick production as the standard treatment. The low treatment exhibited reduced economic efficiency at greater capital costs, whereas high had reduced economic efficiency at greater feed costs. The average energetic efficiency hens had a lower technical efficiency in the low compared with the standard feed allocation. A 1% increment in estimated maintenance requirement changed technical efficiency by -0.23%, whereas a 1% increment in ME intake had a -0.47% effect. The negative relationship between technical efficiency and ME intake was counterbalanced by a positive correlation of ME intake and egg production. The negative relationship of technical efficiency and maintenance requirements was synergized by a negative correlation of hen maintenance and egg production. Economic efficiency methodologies are effective tools to assess the economic effect of selection and flock management programs because biological, allocative, and economic factors can be independently analyzed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".