Dual Benefits For Energy Conservation Measures In Turkey Farming: MI Turkey Farm Increases Energy Efficiency and Turkey Conditions Simultaneously
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<b><sc>Abstract.</sc></b> After having a farm energy audit conducted, GDW Turkey Farms of Ottawa County, Michigan decided to pursue energy conservation measures (ECMs). One finisher barn was upgraded with ECMs while the other was left as a control. In the test barn, GDW implemented 5 different ECMs GDW‘s biggest change was replacing all of their high pressure sodium (HPS) lights with LEDs. This saved energy and benefitted the turkeys. Since the color output of the LEDs can be adjusted, young birds are exposed to red light, increasing their rate of gain. In the test barn, the birds experienced a rate of gain of 0.337 lbs/day, versus 0.307 lbs/day in the control. Older, more aggressive birds are exposed to blue light, calming them down and making them more comfortable. Since these birds were more comfortable, they had a lower feed conversion, 2.32 lb feed/lb turkey in the test barn, versus 2.45 lb feed/lb turkey in the control. The test barn‘s box heaters were also replaced with radiant tube heaters. This project eliminated 3 million BTUs, or about 880 kWh, of unnecessary energy consumption since instillation. It also resulted in drier bedding since the heaters add less moisture to the interior of the barn. The use of radiant heaters decreased the occurrence of breast blister on the turkeys, increasing profits. The results from the test barn have demonstrated that ECMs can save energy, trim costs, and benefit turkeys. ECMs created a healthier environment, which increases farm profits by minimizing the amount of meat condemned.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".