MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2811431047 · doi:10.3382/ps/pey252

Lifetime productivity of conventionally and precision-fed broiler breeders

2018· article· en· W2811431047 on OpenAlexafffund
M.J. Zuidhof

Bibliographic record

VenuePoultry Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta InnovatesAlberta Innovates Bio SolutionsAlberta Livestock and Meat Agency
KeywordsPhotostimulationAnimal scienceBroilerFlockAbdominal fatBiologyMealBody weightFeed conversion ratioEndocrinologyFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A precision feeding (PF) system was developed to increase broiler breeder lifetime reproductive performance through improved flock uniformity. The current study consisted of 2 rearing and 3 laying treatments. From 0 to 22 wk of age, 480 Cobb male grandparent line pullets and 80 Cobb MX males were fed once daily as a group (CON), or individually with a PF system. Pullets were housed in 6 replicate pens of 40 birds, and cockerels in one pen per treatment. During lay, CON and PF treatments continued, and a third treatment was added, where PF-reared birds were transitioned to conventional feeding (PFCON; n = 3 pens). At photostimulation (22 wk of age), all pens had 24 hens and 2 roosters. Birds were allowed to mate naturally to 52 wk. Analysis of variance was conducted, and Tukey-adjusted means were reported as different where P ≤ 0.05. Mean BW was near the target BW in all treatments. At photostimulation, PF pullet BW CV was 2% vs 14% in CON pullets. Cumulative feed conversion ratio during rearing was lower in PF treatment pullets, which ate 3% less than CON pullets. Pullets in the PF treatment received 10 meals spread throughout each day, compared with one meal per day in the CON treatment. Increased feeding frequency would reduce diurnal fluctuations in nutrient supply, which may explain why PF pullets had 1.2 times the breast muscle weight of CON pullets at 22 wk. There was no treatment difference in abdominal fatpad weight at 22 wk. The PF treatment had 3.8% higher fertility and 1.3% lower egg weight CV compared with the CON treatment. Egg production in PF and PFCON treatments was 0.73 and 0.89 times that of the CON treatment, respectively. It is hypothesized that metabolic changes in PF pullets provided an insufficient metabolic trigger for sexual maturation. It follows that relaxing feed restriction may increase fat deposition and egg production in PF broiler breeders.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations52
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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