Providing colored photoperiodic light stimulation during incubation: 2. Effects on early posthatch growth, immune response, and production performance in broiler chickens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Previous findings have reported that providing light during incubation can affect hatchability and chick quality. This study was conducted to investigate the effects of providing light during incubation on posthatch broiler production parameters, thermoregulation and immune response. Lights with different wavelengths were used over the course of four separate hatches. Ross 308 broiler hatching eggs were randomly distributed into 4 lighting treatments for each hatch. The incubation lighting treatments included: dark as control, white, red, or blue lights for 12 h d −1 (200 lux at egg level). Broilers hatched from each incubator with the same gender were placed into one of 8 sets of pens (3 pens/set) and raised under 18 h d −1 photoperiod. Six birds per pen were immunized intraocularly with AviPro ND-IB Polybanco vaccine on d 10 and 21 posthatch. Chicks hatched under white and blue lights had heavier ( P < 0.05) body weight and higher ( P < 0.05) feed consumption than the control group during the first 6 h postplacement. No differences in vent temperature were found among treatments at 24 h posthatch ( P > 0.05). Chicks hatched with light stimulation however had more stable ( P < 0.05) cloaca temperature at 36 h posthatch. No differences in average body weight gain, feed consumption or feed conversion ratio were found among lighting treatments between d 7 and d 35. On d 14 of age, birds hatched from red light had higher ( P < 0.05) total IgG concentration than those hatched under dark, blue or white light. These results indicated that in ovo light stimulation with different wavelengths did not affect growth parameters of broilers at market age. Providing photoperiodic blue and white light during incubation improved the production parameters of broilers during the first week posthatch.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".