Reproductive Efficiency and Metabolism of Female Broiler Breeders as Affected by Genotype, Feed Allocation, and Age at Photostimulation. 3. Reproductive Efficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 3 x 4 x 2 factorial trial was performed to test the effect of 3 broiler breeder strains, 4 target BW profiles, and 2 photostimulation ages on egg and chick production. Hubbard Hi-Y, Ross 508, and Ross 708 pullets were reared on BW profiles that separated at 4 wk and converged at 32 wk: standard (approximate mean target BW profile of the 3 strains used), low (12-wk BW target = 25% lower than standard followed by rapid gain to 32 wk), moderate (12-wk BW target = 150% of standard followed by lower rate of gain to 32 wk), and high (12-wk BW target = 200% of standard followed by minimal growth to 32 wk). Birds were photostimulated at 18 (18WK) or 22 wk (22WK). Twelve birds per interaction (n = 288) were individually caged at 17 wk and monitored for egg and chick production to 58 wk of age. The low BW profile delayed onset of lay, particularly in 18WK hens. Low and standard birds had a greater initial egg weight than moderate birds. The 18WK photostimulation age resulted in production of 31 small eggs (<52 g) compared with 15 in 22-wk birds. A settable (52 g) egg weight was reached earliest by standard birds (187 d of age). Average prime sequence length was reduced by 7.0 eggs in moderate and high birds compared with other profiles. The 18WK hens laid 9 more eggs (174) than 22WK birds, with no effect on unsettable eggs. The 22WK birds laid 7 more settable eggs due to increased early egg size. Total egg output was similar among BW profile treatments, although Ross 708-high hens under-performed compared with the other 708 profiles. The Ross 508-high birds laid the same number of eggs as Ross 508-standard birds (mean = 178.7). Feeding profiles affected egg production traits differently among strains. Feed intake had more effect on egg size and early production traits than BW profile or BW.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".