MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394015297 · doi:10.1016/j.psj.2024.103747

Are turkey hens affected by light flicker? Effects on performance and health

2024· article· en· W4394015297 on OpenAlexafffund
A. Hammond, K. Buchynski, T. Shynkaruk, T.G. Crowe, K. Schwean-Lardner

Bibliographic record

VenuePoultry Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Poultry Research Council
KeywordsFlickerReplicateRandomized block designAnimal scienceFeed conversion ratioArtificial lightBody weightBiologyMedicineMathematicsOpticsInternal medicineStatisticsPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Light flicker is a commonly overlooked factor of artificial light sources. This study aimed to determine the impacts of light-flicker frequency on performance, general health, and mortality of 11-wk Nicholas Select turkey hens. The experiment consisted of 2 trials (block) in a randomized complete block design, with 3 light-flicker frequency treatments (30, 90, or 195 Hz). Turkeys (n = 364 per replicate) were randomly placed into environmentally controlled rooms (3 room replicates per treatment per trial). Group body weight ( BW ) and feed consumption were measured at 0, 4, 8, and 11 wk, and feed efficiency (mortality corrected feed-to-gain; F:G m ) was calculated for each period. Mortality and culls were collected twice daily. Flock uniformity, feather condition and cleanliness, footpad score, and mobility were evaluated at 10 wk (30 birds per room). Litter quality and ocular weight and dimensions were evaluated (11 wk; 4 birds per room). Data were analyzed using Proc Mixed (SAS 9.4) and significance was declared when P < 0.05. At 8 wk, BW was lower under 30 Hz compared to 195 Hz ( P = 0.03). Feed consumption was lowest under 30 Hz (0–4 wk and 4–8 wk; P < 0.01). Mortality-corrected F:G was improved under 30 Hz for 8 to 11 wk and 0 to 11 wk ( P = 0.05 and P = 0.04, respectively). Total mortality was lower under 195 Hz compared to 30 Hz ( P = 0.02). Uniformity, gait score, feather condition, and litter quality were unaffected by flicker. Footpad scores were improved under 90 Hz ( P = 0.01), leading to an improved average footpad score ( P = 0.02). Feather cleanliness was improved under 90 Hz compared to both 30 Hz and 195 Hz ( P <0.01). Right eyeball dimensions differed across lighting treatments, with the dorso-ventral diameter being larger in birds under 30 Hz compared to 195 Hz ( P = 0.05). The anterior-posterior size also increased in birds under 30 Hz compared to 90 Hz ( P = 0.03). Light flicker impacted turkey hens, with the results demonstrating negative impacts on early growth and changes to ocular characteristics.

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 score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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