Comparative performance, blood chemistry, and carcass composition of two lines of Pekin ducks reared mixed or separated by sex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Male and female Pekin ducks selected (F2 generation) for greater breast muscle thickness (MT) and an unselected control (C) were used in this study under mixed- or separated-sex rearing. Ducks in the separated-sex program had significantly higher body weights than the birds in the mixed-sex program. The ducks selected for greater breast muscle thickness exhibited superior (P < 0.05) body weight up to 42 d of age. Males from the MT line reached market weight at 6 wk, but the breast muscle thickness, measured by ultrasound scanning, improved significantly from 6 to 7 wk of age. Males had greater (P < 0.05) breast muscle thickness than females. At both ages and for both sexes, the MT line had greater (P < 0.05) breast muscle thickness than the C line. The MT ducks consumed more (P < 0.05) feed up to 6 wk, but no significant difference was found in cumulative feed consumption at 7 wk, and the lines did not differ (P > 0.05) in feed:gain ratio. Males had significantly higher cumulative feed consumption at 6 wk but had a more desirable (P < 0.05) feed:gain ratio than females at 7 wk. Compared with females from the C line, MT females had significantly higher carcass yield, higher body protein, and lower fat. The MT females had higher plasma glucose and lower uric acid than the C females, but no significant difference was found between the MT and C lines for plasma triglycerides and total cholesterol. The results of this study support the utility of ultrasound scanning in duck selection, the separated rearing of ducklings, and the possibility of reducing the slaughter age of lean males.
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 | 0.001 | 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".