Fertility and Hatchability of Pekin and Muscovy Duck Eggs and Performance of Their Ducklings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Five hundred ten duck eggs of Pekin and each of Muscovy duck eggs were incubated to determine fertility and hatchability. The eggs were cleaned and stored at 18-21oC for 6 days prior to setting in the incubator. The eggs were incubated in a forced-draft electric incubator and the hatching performances were recorded. Ninety Pekin and ninety Muscovy day-old ducklings were randomly selected from the hatched ducklings for a growth trial. Each breed was divided into three replications and each replication had 30 ducklings. They were reared up to 10 weeks of age. Fertility of Muscovy duck eggs tended to be higher (P>0.05) than that of Pekin duck eggs. Hatchability of Pekin egg on fertile egg was higher (P<0.05) than that of Muscovy eggs. But, dead in shell of Muscovy duckling was higher (P<0.05) than that of Pekin duckling. Feed consumption was higher (P<0.01) in Muscovy ducklings than that of Pekin ducklings. Feed conversion was slightly higher (P>0.05) in Muscovy ducklings than that of Pekin. At 10 weeks of age, Muscovy ducklings were slightly heavier (P>0.05) than that of Pekin. It was concluded that the fertility of Pekin and Muscovy ducks are more or less similar while hatchability is higher in Pekin ducks. Muscovy ducks are superior in respect of feed conversion and growth rate.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/pa.v20i1-2.16859 Progress. Agric. 20(1 & 2): 93 98, 2009
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".