Modeling life-time energy partitioning in broiler breeders with differing body weight and rearing photoperiods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding energy partitioning in broiler breeders is needed to provide efficiency indicators for breeding purposes. This study compared 4 nonlinear models partitioning metabolizable energy (ME) intake to BW, average daily gain (ADG), and egg mass (EM) and described the effect of BW and rearing photoperiod on energy partitioning. Ross 708 broiler breeders (n = 180) were kept in 6 pens, controlling individual BW of free run birds with precision feeding stations. Half of the birds in each chamber were assigned to the breeder-recommended target BW curve (Standard) or to an accelerated target BW curve reaching the 21-week BW at week 18 (High). Pairs of chambers were randomly assigned to 8L:16D, 10L:14D, or 12L:12D rearing photoschedules and photostimulated with 16L:8D at week 21. Model [I] was: MEId = a × BWb + c × ADG × BWd + e × EM + ε, where MEId = daily ME intake (kcal/day); BW in kg; ADG in g/day; EM in g/day. Models [II–IV] were nonlinear mixed versions of model [I] and included individual [II], age-related [III], or both individual and age-related [IV] random terms to explain these sources of variation in maintenance requirement (a). Differences were reported as significant at P ≤ 0.05. The mean square error was 2,111, 1,532, 1,668, and 46 for models [I–IV] respectively, inferring extra random variation was explained by incorporating 1 or 2 random terms. Estimated ME partitioned to maintenance [IV] was 130.6 ± 1.15 kcal/kg0.58, and the ME requirement for ADG and EM were 0.63 ± 0.03 kcal/g/kg0.54 and 2.42 ± 0.04 kcal/g, respectively. During the laying period, maintenance estimates were 124.2 and 137.4 kcal/kg0.58 for standard and high BW treatment, and 130.7, 132.2, and 129.5 kcal/kg0.58 for the 8L:16D, 10L:14D, or 12L:12D treatments, respectively. Although hens on the standard BW treatment with a 12L:12D rearing photoschedule were most energetically conservative, their reproductive performance was the poorest. Model IV provided a new biologically sound method for estimation of life-time energy partitioning in broiler breeders including an age-related random term.
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) | 0.000 | 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".