Prestorage Incubation of Long-Term Stored Broiler Breeder Eggs: 1. Effects on Hatchability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two thousand eight hundred broiler breeder eggs were used to determine if prestorage incubation (PRESI) treatments of 0, 6, 12, or 18 h (at 37.5 C) could improve the hatchability of eggs stored (at 11.5 C) for 4 vs. 14 d. Embryonic development of 30 eggs was established after exposing the eggs to each PRESI treatment. The remaining eggs were cold-stored for 4 or 14 d and then incubated for 21 d. Unhatched eggs were broken open to determine fertility, and if fertile, stage of embryonic death was determined. Statistical significance was assessed at P < 0.05. Embryonic development significantly advanced (P = 0.00001) as the number of PRESI h increased. Therefore, embryos from each of the four PRESI treatments were placed into cold storage at different stages of development. Egg storage for 14 vs. 4 d significantly reduced the hatchability of all eggs set (58.4 and 88.2%, respectively). The PRESI treatments did not have a significant beneficial or detrimental effect on the hatchability of all eggs set for the eggs stored 4 d. However, in eggs stored for 14 d, PRESI for 6 h significantly improved hatchability of all eggs set (79.0%) when compared to eggs that were not PRESI (70.5%). The hatchability of all eggs set for eggs PRESI for 18 h and stored for 14 d was significantly reduced (9.1%) when compared to the other 14-d stored PRESI treatments. The results of this study provide evidence that embryos of eggs that have completed hypoblast formation (PRESI for 6 h) and are stored for 14 d have a survival advantage over embryos of 14-d stored eggs that have not been subjected to any PRESI treatments.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".