MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331306629 · doi:10.1093/japr/11.3.308

Effects of Age at Photostimulation on Reproductive Efficiency in Three Strains of Broiler Breeders Varying in Breast Yield

2002· article· en· W2331306629 on OpenAlexaff
N.S. Joseph, F.E. Robinson, R.A. Renema, M.J. Zuidhof

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Applied Poultry Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture Food and Rural DevelopmentUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotostimulationBroilerYield (engineering)BiologyAnimal science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As genetic selection for growth and BW in meat-type stock continues, the age at which photostimulation occurs needs to be increased. This trial studied the relationship between age at photostimulation and egg production and egg weight. Three strains of female broiler breeders varying in potential breast muscle yields were subjected to photostimulation at two ages, 20 versus 23 wk of age. Sexual maturity, egg weight, egg production, and carcass characteristics were assessed. Hens photostimulated at 23 wk of age weighed more and were older at sexual maturity than hens photostimulated at 20 wk of age. However, the reproductive response to the lighting cue was faster among hens photostimulated at 23 versus 20 wk of age. All three strains responded similarly to both photostimulation treatments. Hens photostimulated at 23 wk of age laid larger eggs throughout the entire production cycle, but the number of small eggs was not reduced. Overall, egg production was not affected by strain or treatment. Breast muscle weight was heavier for hens of an experimental line selected for breast muscle yield (EXP) than for hens selected for high egg production (Classic) or for a slow-feathering strain selected for egg production and moderate breast muscle yield (FSY) hens at 53 wk of age. Delay of photostimulation by 3 wk was effective, as hens on this treatment matured faster and had increased egg weights throughout lay, without experiencing a decrease in egg production.

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)0.001
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 score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations5
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Applied Poultry ResearchSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207