MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196377528 · doi:10.1016/j.psj.2021.101451

In pursuit of a better broiler: a comparison of the inactivity, behavior, and enrichment use of fast- and slower growing broiler chickens

2021· article· en· W3196377528 on OpenAlexaff
Lauren Dawson, Tina M. Widowski, Zhenzhen Liu, A. Michelle Edwards, Stephanie Torrey

Bibliographic record

VenuePoultry Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBroilerAnimal scienceBiologySittingStrain (injury)MedicineAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Selection for rapid growth has produced heavier, more efficient broiler chickens, but has also introduced health and welfare issues, which may cause or be caused by inactivity. Rapid growth may also limit the performance of motivated behaviors, whereas the provision of enrichment may increase these behaviors and general activity. This study aimed to evaluate the inactivity, behavior patterns, and enrichment use of 2 fast- (CONV) and 12 slower growing broiler strains (categorized as fastest [FAST], moderate [MOD], and slowest slow [SLOW]), based on their growth rates; 4 strains/category]. To evaluate inactivity, one male and one female from 153 pens were outfitted with omni-directional accelerometers from d 21 until processing (14-24 birds/strain from 8 to 12 pens/strain). Additionally, to supplement inactivity data, 5-min continuous behavioral observations of four focal birds per pen (2 males, 2 females) were conducted on days 26, 42, and 56 (72-148 observations of 8-12 pens/strain) to quantify the duration and frequency of various behaviors; at the same time, 5 to 11 instantaneous scan samples were also performed for pen-based enrichment use. Inactivity peaked at 78 to 80% of the day for all strains; however, those with slower growth rates reached these levels at older ages. Compared to slower growing strains at the same age, faster growing strains were more inactive, spent more time sitting and feeding, spent less time standing and walking, and used enrichments less; these differences mostly occurred at younger ages. Generally, at the same age, strains with similar growth rates (within the same category) behaved similarly, with only a few exceptions. Results suggest that not all strains identified as "slow-growing" broilers behave differently from fast-growing broilers, nor do they all behave similarly to each other. As such, results suggest that improved broiler welfare, particularly with respect to reduced inactivity, the performance of a wider range of normal, motivated behaviors, and/or increased enrichment use, is related to the broiler strain's specific growth rate.

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 score0.512
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations77
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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