The effects of stocking density on turkey tom performance and environment to 16 weeks of age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stocking density (SD) of turkey toms (n = 2,868 Nicholas Select) was evaluated in 2 16-wk trials. Poults were randomly allocated to 1 of 8 independently ventilated rooms (6.71 × 10.06 m) for each trial, to reach a final target SD of 30, 40, 50, or 60 kg/m2. Air quality was monitored (carbon dioxide and ammonia) throughout the trial, and ventilation was adjusted to balance these parameters across all rooms. Within each trial, body weight and feed consumption were recorded (0, 4, 8, 12, and 16 wk of age). Body weight gain and mortality-corrected feed-to-gain ratio (F: Gm) were calculated for each 4-wk interval. Uniformity was assessed at 12 and 16 wk of age (20 birds per replicate). Mortality and culled birds were recorded daily and necropsied to determine cause of death or illness. Room temperature was recorded hourly, and litter moisture and temperature (trial 2) were evaluated weekly from 12 to 16 wk. A 1-way ANOVA was performed to evaluate the effects of SD on room temperature. Regression analyses were performed to determine the relationship between SD and all other measured variables (linear, Proc Reg; quadratic, Proc RSReg in SAS 9.4). Differences were considered significant when P ≤ 0.05. Body weight decreased as SD increased at 12 (quadratic) and 16 wk (linear). Body weight gain decreased in the last 4 wk (12 to 16, linear) and over the course of the trial (0 to 12, quadratic; 0 to 16, linear) as SD increased. Feed consumption demonstrated a linear relationship with increasing SD, increasing from week 4 to 8 and decreasing from week 12 to 16. The F: Gm ratio increased linearly with increasing SD for all time periods beginning at week 4. Flock uniformity and total percent mortality were unaffected by SD. Litter moisture demonstrated a quadratic effect and litter temperature increased (quadratic) as SD increased. Overall, increasing SD negatively impacted aspects of bird performance, including body weight, body weight gain, and feed efficiency. Feed consumption was negatively impacted later in production (week 12 to 16). Finally, overall mortality and uniformity were not affected.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".