Hatchability and Early Chick Growth Potential of Broiler Breeder Eggs with Hairline Cracks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eggs with hairline cracks are often placed in incubators, as they can appear structurally sound and, hence, capable of producing a saleable chick. The relative incubation weight loss, embryonic mortality, hatchability, and early chick growth rates associated with normally shelled broiler eggs and those with hairline cracks under practical conditions are not known. To determine the incidence of hairline cracks, eggs from 5 commercial flocks of various strains were candled, and equal numbers of hairline-cracked and normal eggs were collected and incubated for 21 d. All eggs were weighed and candled at 18 d, and any nonviable eggs were removed. All unhatched eggs remaining after 21 d of incubation were broken open to assess the stage of embryonic development. Transfer weights, hatchability, and chick hatch weights were lower (P < 0.05) in hairline-cracked as compared with normal eggs, whereas the percentage of weight loss was higher in hairline-cracked eggs. Hatchability was 74.37% for normal eggs as compared with 50.52% for hairline-cracked eggs. The incidence of mid (8 to 14 d of incubation) and late (over and including 15 d of incubation) embryonic mortality was higher in hairline-cracked eggs as compared with normal eggs. Significantly more hairline-cracked eggs were contaminated, broken, or both during incubation as compared with normal eggs. An increase in chick mortality was associated with hairline-cracked eggs compared with the normal eggs during the 14-d chick growth trial. Hairline cracks reduced hatchability of hatching eggs, increased the likelihood of contamination in the incubator due to putrefaction, and resulted in greater chick mortality. For these reasons, hairline-cracked eggs should not be incubated.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".