MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171792652 · doi:10.1093/ps/79.12.1790

Effect of dietary protein intake during the pullet-to-breeder transition period on early egg weight and production in broiler breeders

2000· article· en· W2171792652 on OpenAlexaff
N.S. Joseph, F.E. Robinson, D.R. Korver, R.A. Renema

Bibliographic record

VenuePoultry Science · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlockAnimal scienceBiologySexual maturityBroilerPhotostimulationBody weightEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of CP intake on broiler breeder hen performance were evaluated. A flock of pullets was reared in floor pens from 0 d to 20 wk of age. At 20 wk of age, 96 pullets were randomly assigned to one of three feeding regimens with 14, 16, or 18% dietary CP. Daily feed allocation from 20 to 29 wk of age was identical for all three treatments and was based on the BW of the birds fed the 16% CP diet. Photostimulation occurred at 22 wk of age. At 29 wk of age, the hens were killed for determination of carcass characteristics. Dietary protein intake did not influence BW or BW gain throughout the trial. There were no differences in age at sexual maturity among treatments. From 25 to 28 wk of age, the hens on the 16 and 18% CP treatments had a significantly greater egg weight than did hens in the 14% CP group. The 14% CP treatment was unable to sustain as high a level of egg production as the other two treatments at 29 wk of age. The number of settable eggs was also lowest for the 14% CP treatment. The CP level in the diet did not affect the weights of the Pectoralis major or minor. Carcass composition was also not different among the treatments. Increased levels of CP in the prelay and early lay diets increased egg size and production rate although had minimal effect on carcass and ovarian parameters.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.197

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations69
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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