MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109394733 · doi:10.1093/ps/82.10.1500

Growth, livability, and feed conversion of 1957 versus 2001 broilers when fed representative 1957 and 2001 broiler diets

2003· article· en· W2109394733 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
GB Havenstein, PR Ferket, MA Qureshi

Bibliographic record

VenuePoultry Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBroilerStarterFeed conversion ratioAnimal scienceBody weightBiologyVeterinary medicineFood scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Body weight, feed consumption, and mortality were measured in the 1957 Athens-Canadian Randombred Control (ACRBC) strain and in the 2001 Ross 308 strain of broilers when fed representative 1957 and 2001 diets. The dietary regimens were chosen to be representative of those used in the industry in 1957 vs. 2001. The 1957 diets were fed as mash, the 2001 starter was as crumbles, and the grower and finisher diets were pellets. Feed consumption and BW were recorded at 21, 42, 56, 70, and 84 d of age to cover the two broiler strains normal span of marketing ages. Mortality was low, and the mortality of the ACRBC was approximately half that of the modem strain. Average BW for the ACRBC on the 1957 diets were 176, 539,809, 1,117, and 1,430 g vs. 743, 2,672, 3,946, 4,808, and 5,520 g for the Ross 308 on the 2001 diets at 21, 42, 56, 70, and 84 d of age, respectively. The 42-d feed conversion (FC) on the 2001 and 1957 feeds for the Ross 308 were 1.62 and 1.92 with average BW of 2,672 and 2,126 g and for the ACRBC were 2.14 and 2.34 with average BW of 578 and 539 g, respectively. The Ross 308 broiler on the 2001 feed was estimated to have reached 1,815 g BW at 32 d of age with a FC of 1.47, whereas the ACRBC on the 1957 feed would not have reached that BW until 101 d of age with a FC of 4.42.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations855
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePoultry ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207