Timing of growth affected broiler breeder feeding motivation and reproductive traits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The amount and timing of growth are important factors that affect age at first egg, body conformation, reproductive performance, and hunger in broiler breeders. To investigate the effect of growth pattern on feeding motivation and reproductive performance, 10 unique growth trajectories were designed with 2 levels of the amount of early growth and 5 levels of timing of growth around puberty. A 3-phase Gompertz model that described growth in phase 1 (prepubertal), phase 2 (pubertal), and phase 3 (postpubertal) was used to design the growth trajectories. Second growth phase inflection point (I2) was advanced by 0, 5, 10, 15, or 20% of the coefficient estimated from the breeder-recommended target BW. The growth trajectories were designed with 2 discrete levels of total gain in the prepubertal phase (g1); g1 was either the prepubertal phase gain coefficient, estimated from the breeder-recommended BW (Standard g1) target, or 10% higher (High g1). Forty females were randomly assigned to the growth trajectories using a precision feeding (PF) system. Analysis of covariance was conducted on dependent variables in ten 4-wk periods with g1 and periods as discrete fixed effects, I2 as a continuous fixed effect, and age as a random effect. Differences were reported at P ≤ 0.05. For every week of earlier I2, body weight at photostimulation (BWPS) increased by 126 g; BW at first egg (BWFE) increased by 94 g; 24 wk shank length increased by 0.038 and 1.495 mm in the Standard g1 and High g1 treatments; 24 wk body fat increased by 0.38%; pullets came to lay earlier by 0.49 d; egg weight (EW) increased by 0.27 g; egg production and egg mass (EM) increased by 0.33 egg/hen/d and 0.916 g/d in the High g1 treatment but decreased by 0.27 egg/hen/d and 0.29 g/d in the Standard g1 treatment, respectively. Increasing g1 reduced feeding motivation index by 1.6 and 0.8 visits/meal during rearing and laying phase, respectively. Earlier pubertal growth showed prominent effects on the reproductive performance.
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".