Early photostimulation at the recommended body weight reduced broiler breeder performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To synchronize the onset of sexual maturity in the face of high BW variation, the age at photostimulation has been increasing in the broiler breeder industry. This experiment studied the effects of increased BW and earlier photostimulation on broiler breeder reproductive performance where within-treatment BW uniformity was very high. The experiment tested BW and age at photostimulation treatments in a 2 × 2 factorial arrangement. Hens (n = 120) were fed with a precision feeding system to allocate feed individually following the breeder-recommended target BW (Standard) or to a 22% heavier target BW curve reaching the Standard 21 wk BW at 18 wk (High). Hens were photostimulated at either 18 wk (18WK) or 21 wk (21WK) with a 16L:8D photoschedule. Age at first egg (AFE) and individual egg production to 55 wk were recorded. Differences were reported as significant if P ≤ 0.05. The AFE was decreased and maturation interval between photostimulation and AFE was shorter for hens on the High BW treatment compared to the Standard BW treatment (178.1 vs. 194.7 d and 41.8 vs. 58.2 d, respectively). Hens on the 21WK treatment had a decreased AFE compared to the 18WK treatment (177.0 d vs. 195.9 d) and their maturation interval was shorter (30.0 d vs. 69.9 d). The CV for AFE was higher in the 18WK treatment compared to the 21WK treatment (28.2% vs. 11.2%). Total egg production was higher for hens on the High BW treatment compared to the Standard BW treatment (129.4 vs. 92.8, respectively). Total egg production was higher for hens on the 21WK treatment compared to the 18WK treatment (138.4 vs. 83.8, respectively). Egg weight of Standard BW × 18WK hens was lower compared to High BW × 18WK hens. Current recommended breeder BW may be too low for optimal sexual maturation after photostimulation. It is concluded that even when BW variation is minimized, photostimulation at 18 wk of age is not recommended.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".