Comparative efficacy of evaporative cooling pad and fogger system on behaviour of broiler chicken
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High environmental temperature affects behaviour in poultry due to alteration in microclimate. The experiment was conducted for a period of six weeks to access the comparative efficacy of evaporative cooling pad and fogger system on behaviour of VenCobb broiler chicken (n=180) in semiarid region of Rajasthan. The birds were randomly divided into three treatment groups i.e. T1, T2 and T3 comprising three replications of 20 birds each. The control group T1 had pen without cooling device, while other treatment groups T2 and T3 had evaporative cooling pad and fogger systems, respectively. The behavioural status of broiler birds was recorded using handy cam video recorder. Instantaneous sampling technique was used for recording the behaviour of broiler chicks. The observations were taken for 15 minutes in each replicate between 01.00-03.00 pm, twice a week starting from the 3rd week and continued throughout the experiment. Feeding activities of broilers in evaporative cooling pad and fogger system were significantly (p<0.01) higher than in control group. Panting, drinking and resting activities were significantly (p<0.05) higher in control group as compared to evaporative cooling pad and fogger system groups but no significant difference was observed in resting behaviour. The leg stretching, scratching, preening and dust bathing activities were significantly (p<0.05) lower in control group than evaporative cooling pad and fogger system whereas, wing flapping was not significantly different among groups. It was concluded that the evaporative cooling pad and fogger system ensured significant improvement in the behavioural performance of broilers during heat stress period.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".