Welfare and performance of slower growing broiler breeders during rearing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current commercial strains of broiler breeders can only achieve an optimal reproductive performance under feed restriction. However, chronic feed restriction in broiler breeders is a welfare concern because of physiological and behavioral signs of hunger, lack of satiety, and frustrated feeding motivation. The objective of this research was to assess the welfare and performance of slower growing broiler breeders during rearing. A total of 360 broiler breeder chicks from 3 female strains (100 chicks per strain) and 2 male strains (20 and 40 chicks per strain) were raised in four identical pens per strain. Strain B and C pullets and X cockerels were slower growing strains, and strain A pullets and Y cockerels were intermediate growing strains. Birds were weighed and scored individually for footpad lesions, hock burns and feather coverage. Data were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models with pen nested in the models and age as a repeated measure. Compared to B and C pullets, strain A pullets grew faster, had poorer body weight uniformity, and started feed restriction 2 wk earlier to control growth rate. Strain A pullets also had higher feeding rate at 3 and 5 wk, higher water intake at 4 and 5 wk, and higher prevalence of footpad lesions at 6 wk than the other pullet strains. Fault bars in wing feathers (an indicator of chronic stress) were more numerous in A pullets than in B and C pullets. Our results indicate that pullets showed little feather coverage loss during early rearing and had good body weight uniformity and low cumulative feed intake at the end of rearing. Slower growing broiler breeders may still require some degree of feed restriction to control growth rate, and strains with lower feed restriction exhibited lower signs of feeding frustration and high body weight uniformity.
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".