MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7029263306

The impact of low-nutrient and conventional diets on lameness, tibial dimensions and tibia ash concentrations for two fast-growing genotypes of broiler chickens

2020· other· en· W7029263306 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Atrium (University of Guelph) · 2020
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical and Health Sciences Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBroilerLamenessTibiaCompletely randomized designFactorial experimentBody weightNutrient
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lameness is a critical welfare issue for the broiler industry, with fast growth being a causal factor.Diets may play an important role in both growth rates and lameness.Therefore, this study evaluated the impact of 2 diets (low-nutrient and conventional diet) on lameness, tibial dimensions, weight, ash concentration, and body weight (BW) in 2 commercial lines of broiler chickens.A total of 624 mixed sex birds from 2 fast-growing strains (A and B) of broiler chickens were placed in 24 pens (26 birds/pen; 23.23 kg bird/m2) and fed either a conventional (CV) or a low nutrient (LN) diet (n = 156).The LN diet had approximately 2% lower CP level compared with the CV diet throughout the trial.From each pen, 12 birds were wing-banded and followed from hatch.Individual BW was determined biweekly.On d 28, 4 wing-banded birds/pen (sentinel birds, n = 96) were chosen based on BW.On d 42, a latency to lie test (a validated method to assess lameness in broiler chickens, with lameness being associated with a reduced latency to lie in shallow water) was performed on sentinel birds.Birds were slaughtered on d 46 (BW = 3.22 0.076 kg) and both right and left tibia from sentinel birds were removed to determine tibial length, diameter, and tibial fresh weight (total and relative to BW).Bone ash concentration (%) was measured in the left tibia to estimate bone mineralization and composition.Data were analyzed as a complete randomized design with a 2 2 factorial arrangement with strains (A and B) and diets (LN and CV) as main factors and with final BW as a covariate, using Proc Glimmix in SAS.No interactions between diet and strain were observed for any parameter evaluated (P > 0.05).There was an effect of strain on BW at d 14 (P < 0.0001), d 28 (P < 0.0001) and d 42 (P < 0.0001), with heavier BW observed in strain A compared with strain B (248 g difference at d 42).Diet only affected BW at d 42 (P = 0.01).Birds fed CV diet were 119 g heavier than birds fed the LN diet.Latency to lie was not affected by diet (P = 0.84) or strain (P = 0.40).Tibial length was not affected by strain (P = 0.08) or diet (P = 0.09).However, birds fed the CV diet had a greater tibia diameter compared with the LN diet (P = 0.04).Consistently, tibial fresh weight (P = 0.02) and tibial fresh weight:BW ratio (P = 0.01) were greater for the CV-fed group.Tibial ash concentrations were not affected by strain (P = 0.43) or diet (P = 0.52).Strain influenced BW, but did not affect tibial morphology or lameness.Diet density affected BW at d 42, tibial diameter and weight, but not lameness.Further studies should investigate if slower growing strains of broilers have improved leg health and welfare.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.705
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Atrium (University of Guelph)Same topicMedical and Health Sciences ResearchFrench-language works237,207