MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3116105391 · doi:10.1016/j.psj.2020.12.052

In pursuit of a better broiler: growth, efficiency, and mortality of 16 strains of broiler chickens

2020· article· en· W3116105391 on OpenAlexaff
Stephanie Torrey, Mohsen Mohammadigheisar, Midian Nascimento dos Santos, Daniel Rothschild, Lauren Dawson, Zhenzhen Liu, Elijah G. Kiarie, A. Michelle Edwards, I. B. Mandell, Niel A. Karrow, Dan Tulpan, Tina M. Widowski

Bibliographic record

VenuePoultry Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBroilerBiologyPoultry farmingFeed conversion ratioWelfareProductivityAnimal scienceGrowth rateAnimal welfareBiotechnologyVeterinary medicineBody weightEcologyMedicineEconomicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To meet the growing consumer demand for chicken meat, the poultry industry has selected broiler chickens for increasing efficiency and breast yield. While this high productivity means affordable and consistent product, it has come at a cost to broiler welfare. There has been increasing advocacy and consumer pressure on primary breeders, producers, processors, and retailers to improve the welfare of the billions of chickens processed annually. Several small-scale studies have reported better welfare outcomes for slower-growing strains compared to fast-growing, conventional strains. However, these studies often housed birds with range access or used strains with vastly different growth rates. Additionally, there may be traits other than growth, such as body conformation, that influence welfare. As the global poultry industries consider the implications of using slower growing strains, there was a need for a comprehensive, multidisciplinary examination of broiler chickens with a wide range of genotypes differing in growth rate and other phenotypic traits. To meet this need, our team designed a study to benchmark data on conventional and slower-growing strains of broiler chickens reared in standardized laboratory conditions. Over a 2-year period, we studied 7,528 broilers from 16 different genetic strains. In this paper, we compare the growth, efficiency, and mortality of broilers to one of two target weights (TW): 2.1 kg (TW1) and 3.2 kg (TW2). We categorized strains by their growth rate to TW2 as conventional (CONV), fastest-slow strains (FAST), moderate-slow strains (MOD), and slowest-slow strains (SLOW). When incubated, hatched, housed, managed, and fed the same, the categories of strains differed in body weights, growth rates, feed intake, and feed efficiency. At 48 d of age, strains in the CONV category were 835 to 1,264 g heavier than strains in the other categories. By TW2, differences in body weights and feed intake resulted in a 22 to 43-point difference in feed conversion ratios. Categories of strains did not differ in their overall mortality rates.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations65
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePoultry ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207