Providing colored photoperiodic light stimulation during incubation: 1. Effects on embryo development and hatching performance in broiler hatching eggs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Providing lighting schedule during incubation has been shown to improve chick quality and reduce stress posthatch. This study was conducted to evaluate the effects of providing light of different colors during incubation on embryo development, air cell temperature, the spread of hatch, and hatching performance. Four batches of eggs (n = 2,176, 1,664, 1,696 and 1,600) from Ross 308 broiler breeders were used in the experiment. In each trial, eggs were randomly distributed into 4 lighting treatments. The incubation lighting treatments included: incubated under dark as control, illuminated with white, red or blue lights for 12 h daily. There were no incubation lighting treatment differences in embryo development, the spread of hatch, hatchability, embryo mortality, hatch weight, chick length, navel closure quality, yolk-free body weight, or relative spleen weight. However, embryos incubated under red light had lower average air cell temperature than those in dark, white or blue light treatments. This finding may suggest higher melatonin secretion during the scotophase when illuminated with red light. Male chicks incubated under dark had a higher bursa of Fabricius weight than males illuminated with blue light. In conclusion, these results suggest that the red, white and blue light stimulation during incubation had no negative effects on hatchability, embryo mortality, spread of hatch or day-old chick quality, but may have potential impacts on immunity and energy metabolism in broiler embryos.
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 | 0.001 | 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".