Housing and Management of Turkey Flocks in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An increased understanding of the turkey sector and how farmers manage flocks can help maintain and improve the health and welfare of turkeys. We conducted a cross-sectional survey among turkey farmers in Canada to gain information regarding general farm characteristics, housing aspects (incl. lighting, ventilation), litter management, feed and water management, flock characteristics, and flock health management. The survey was distributed to 500 farmers through the Turkey Farmers of Canada in April-December 2019. A total of 83 final responses (response rate approx. 20%) were used for a descriptive analysis to determine the frequency of housing and management practices (77 commercial flocks, 6 breeder flocks). Hen flocks (n = 53) had a median age of eight weeks (IQR: 7-12 weeks) and tom flocks (n = 30) had a median age of 12 weeks (IQR: 9-14 weeks). Turkey flocks within Canada are typically kept in indoor barn systems on a concrete floor (87.5%), with bedding (e.g., straw, wood shavings) provided (100%). The majority followed a brood and move growing system (68.8%), and a large proportion of farmers indicated that they raised turkeys under the 'Raised Without Antibiotics/Antibiotic Free' or the 'Responsible Use of Antibiotics' certification (70.5%). Possible room for improvement could be found in terms of litter management and biosecurity practices, however, further research is needed to make clear recommendations.
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".