Hatch rate of laying hen strains provided a photoperiod during incubation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Implementing a photoperiod during incubation has been shown to be a potential next step to removing one more stressor for newly hatched poultry species. The distribution of hatch over time is a parameter that may be influenced by photoperiod that could benefit from a photoperiod but has not been studied at this time and is the objective of this paper. The impact on hatch rate for three strains of chicken, Barred Plymouth Rock (BR), Lohmann Brown (LB) and Lohmann Lite (LL), was measured following the provision of a 12L : 12D (12 h light : 12 h dark) photoperiod starting at 0, 9 or 17 days of incubation and compared with incubation in the dark. The cumulative number of chicks hatched eggs at four points in time (489, 498, 507 and 516 h of incubation) was analysed using repeated measures analysis in a 3 × 4 factorial arrangement of treatments. Repeated measures analysis was done to determine the main and interaction effects of photoperiod and bird strain, and a regression analysis was used to determine how these effects evolved over time. Lohmann Brown embryos provided a 12L : 12D photoperiod throughout incubation were first to reach 50% of total chicks hatched and rate of hatch from 50% to 75% of total chicks hatched as well. As the LB chicks did not begin to hatch earlier or finish later, the LB strain was the most synchronised when provided a 12L : 12D photoperiod from the beginning of incubation. Similar results were found for LL, but no difference on the percentage hatched over time was found when provided the 12L : 12D photoperiod at the beginning of incubation or at day 9. The BR strain only showed a significant difference in hatch window synchronisation when provided a 12L : 12D photoperiod at day 9 of incubation. These results indicate that the strain of chicken impacts the hatch window, and each strain responds to a photoperiod during incubation differently. This information could be useful for hatchery managers to deal with different strains of chicken for incubation.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".