Comparison of the Performance of Hybrids Obtained from Reciprocal Crosses between Anadolu–T and Cobb500 Parent Stocks

Comparison of the Performance of Hybrids Obtained from Reciprocal Crosses between Anadolu–T and Cobb500 Parent Stocks | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Comparison of the Performance of Hybrids Obtained from Reciprocal Crosses between Anadolu–T and Cobb500 Parent Stocks Beyhan Yeter, Hasan Eleroğlu This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8669688/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 4 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study aimed to compare the performance of hybrids obtained from crosses between Anadolu–T hybrid breeders and commercial parent stocks. The hybrid combinations evaluated were Anadolu–T × Anadolu–T (AA), Cobb × Cobb (CC), Anadolu–T male × Cobb female (AC), and Cobb male × Anadolu–T female (CA). Throughout the 6-week growth period, including the initial body weight, significant differences were observed among all hybrid lines in terms of weekly live weights and body weight gains (p 0.05). The average slaughter weights were 3005.00 g for CC and 2952.81 g for AC, respectively. Statistical analyses indicated that differences in weekly feed intake (WFI) among the hybrids were significant during the first four weeks (p < 0.01 and p < 0.05), while cumulative feed intake (CFI) values differed significantly during the first three weeks (p < 0.01). Cumulative feed conversion ratio (FCR) values at 6 weeks of slaughter age, which form the basis of economic efficiency indices, were examined, statistically significant differences were determined among the hybrids (p < 0.01). The values of the CC and AC genotypes were similar, with cumulative FCRs of 1.61 and 1.63, respectively, whereas the cumulative FCR values obtained from the CA and AA genotypes were calculated as 1.68 and 1.78, respectively. Anadolu–T Cobb 500 Reciprocal Crosses Broiler Performance Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 INTRODUCTION Between 2017 and 2029, worldwide poultry meat production is forecast to increase by approximately 20.3 million tons (Chatellier 2021), highlighting the urgent need for research and development efforts aimed at the efficient and sustainable use of available resources to meet this growing demand. Advances in poultry genetics, driven by over a century of accumulated research, the sequencing of the chicken genome, and the incorporation of molecular genetic information into commercial breeding programs, have ushered in a new era particularly regarding improvements in body weight gain (Mebratie et al. 2019). Within this framework, there has been increasing interest in developing new hybrid genotypes through crossbreeding different genetic lines. Consequently, crossbreeding programs that integrate local chicken populations with more productive strains have been systematically evaluated, with observed performance enhancements largely attributed to heterotic effects (Sungkhapreecha et al. 2022; Wang et al. 2022; Mancinelli et al. 2023). Live weight gain has long been recognized as a key trait in meat-type chicken breeding, serving as a primary indicator of growth performance and production efficiency (Uçar et al. 2018; Nyalala et al. 2021). Over time, selective breeding programs have heavily focused on enhancing this trait, resulting in significant genetic progress and improved feed conversion ratios. Given its moderate to high heritability and direct economic relevance, live weight gain remains central to broiler genetics and breeding strategies (Zerehdaran et al., 2005; Prakash et al. 2020). Therefore, a thorough understanding of the factors influencing live weight gain, alongside efforts to optimize these factors, is essential for advancing poultry production systems. In this context, unlike layer breeders, ensuring uniformity and precise control of live weight are particularly critical during the rearing of broiler breeders (Sweeney et al. 2022). Breeding companies strongly focus on choosing the heaviest males within their sire lines to enhance broiler weight, yet parent-stock firms often overlook this data, presuming that the selection process has been fully accomplished (Uçar et al. 2025). To maintain the effectiveness of breeding programs under directional selection, it is essential to continuously monitor the genetic variance of traits, since this type of selection can lead to a gradual reduction in genetic diversity (Sosa-Madrid et al. 2023). The reduction in genetic variation is reported to be primarily influenced by the effect of intense directional selection (Charlesworth and Charlesworth 2010; Walsh and Lynch 2018). Closed and inbred breeding systems lead to a reduction in genetic variation within breeding flocks; in contrast, migration, mutation, and recombination are important factors contributing to an increase in genetic variation (Sosa-Madrid et al. 2023). This study aimed to compare the performance of hybrids obtained by crossing Anadolu–T hybrid breeders with commercial parent stocks to the performance of Anadolu–T hybrids, thereby providing data to support selection programs implemented in breeder flocks. MATERIAL AND METHODS The study was conducted at the broiler research and development poultry house of the Animal Production Application and Research Center at Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University. As animal material, broiler chicks belonging to four different genotypes, obtained from parents of the same age (46 weeks), were used. The crossbreeding combinations of the hybrids used in the study are presented in Table 1 . Table 1 The crossbreeding combinations of the hybrids Genotype Sire Line (♂) Dam Line (♀) Genotype 1 (AA) Anadolu-T Anadolu-T Genotype 2 (CC) Cobb 500 Cobb 500 Genotype 3 (AC) Anadolu-T Cobb 500 Genotype 4 (CA) Cobb 500 Anadolu-T Each genotype constituted a treatment group, with four replicates per treatment and 24 chicks per replicate, resulting in a total of 4 × 4 × 24 = 384 chicks used in the study. The poultry house was a fully controlled, closed-type facility measuring 7 m × 19 m. The house was divided into pens using wire mesh partitions, and an area of 3 m² (2.0 m × 1.5 m) was allocated for each replicate, housing 24 birds per pen. The stocking density was 12 birds/m². Ventilation was controlled, and cooling of the poultry house was provided by evaporative cooling pads. As litter material, coarse pine wood shavings were used at a rate of 3 kg/m². A lighting program of 23 h light and 1 h dark was applied from the first day of the experiment. Lighting was provided using 15-W daylight-colored bulbs. Light intensity was measured at feeder level between two bulbs using a Lutron LX-101 lux meter and was maintained at 20 lux. Heating of the poultry house was ensured by air-blowing, thermostatically controlled electric heaters. In the study, three commercial diets commonly used in the market and produced by a commercial feed company were used as feed material. The nutrient composition of the diets and the feeding periods are presented in Table 2 . Feeding was carried out manually by weighing the feed, using one feeder per replicate. Feed was provided ad libitum throughout the experimental period. Water was supplied ad libitum through nipple drinkers, with five nipple drinkers installed in each replicate pen. A multivitamin supplement was added to the drinking water once a week at a rate of 20 g per 200 L. Live vaccines against Newcastle disease and Gumboro disease were administered via drinking water on days 6 and 13, respectively. Table 2 Feed types and nutrient composition provided to chicks at different ages Ingredient composition (%) Ingredients (%) 0–10 days 11–25 days 26–42 days Corn 45.19 51.64 60.77 Low-fat soybean meal 31.19 27.78 26.12 Wheat bran 10.00 7.62 0.18 DDGS (28%) 10.00 10.00 10.00 Marble dust 0.81 0.79 0.78 Lysine sulfate (55%) 0.63 0.46 0.51 Dicalcium phosphate (18%) 0.61 0.47 0.35 Liquid methionine (88%) 0.42 0.33 0.37 Salt 0.29 0.25 0.23 Threonine (98.5%) 0.17 0.11 0.13 Na₂SO₄ 0.16 0.00 0.04 Toxin binder 0.10 0.10 0.10 Mineral premix 0.10 0.10 0.10 Enzyme 0.10 0.10 0.10 Anticoccidial (natural) 0.10 0.10 0.10 Choline chloride (75%) 0.08 0.07 0.08 Emulsifier 0.05 0.05 0.05 Calculated nutrient composition Dry matter (%) 89.63 89.42 89.26 Metabolizable energy (MJ/kg) 12.20 12.56 13.08 Crude fat (%) 4.85 4.69 4.56 Crude fiber (%) 4.86 4.57 4.00 Crude ash (%) 5.55 4.96 4.49 Calcium (%) 0.85 0.80 0.75 Available phosphorus (%) 0.43 0.40 0.38 Total phosphorus (%) 0.74 0.69 0.61 Ca:P ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 Sodium (%) 0.23 0.16 0.16 Potassium (%) 1.01 0.93 0.82 Chloride (%) 0.25 0.22 0.21 Na + K − Cl (mEq/kg) 288.80 244.45 220.00 Crude protein (%) 22.00 20.50 19.50 Lysine (%) 1.44 1.25 1.22 Methionine (%) 0.70 0.61 0.64 Methionine + cysteine (%) 1.08 0.97 0.94 Each kg of mineral premix contained: Se (sodium selenite, 4.5%) 300 mg; Mn (manganese oxide, 62%) 120,000 mg; Co (cobalt carbonate, 50%) 200 mg; I (calcium iodate, 62%) 1,250 mg; Fe (iron sulfate pentahydrate, 30%); Zn (zinc oxide, 72%) 100,000 mg; Cu (copper sulfate pentahydrate, 25%) 16,000 mg; carrier substance: CaCO₃. Each kg of enzyme–vitamin–mineral premix contained: Vitamin A, 13,000 IU; Vitamin D₃, 5,000 IU; Vitamin E, 80 IU; Vitamin K₃ (MSB), 4 mg; Vitamin B₁, 5 mg; Vitamin B₂, 9 mg; Vitamin B₆, 5 mg; Vitamin B₁₂, 20 µg; Niacin, 70 mg; Calcium D-pantothenate, 25 mg; Folic acid, 2.2 mg; Biotin, 350 µg; Cu, 16 mg; I, 1.25 mg; Fe, 20 mg; Mn, 120 mg; Se, 0.3 mg; Zn, 120 mg. At the end of each week, all birds were weighed in the afternoon, and average live weights were calculated. All experiments were conducted according to a completely randomized experimental design. Data obtained for traits were evaluated using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and comparisons among means were performed using Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (Düzgüneş et al. 1987; Özdamar 2002). Statistical analyses were carried out using the SPSS-22 statistical software package (IBM Corp.). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Weekly live weight and body weight gain values obtained from the hybrids are presented in Table 3 and Fig. 1 . Throughout the 6-week growth period, including the initial body weight, significant differences were observed among all hybrid lines in terms of weekly live weights and body weight gains (p < 0.001). Table 3 Live weights and live weight gains of hybrids Growth periods Hybrids SEM 1 P value AA CC AC CA Live Weight, g Initial weight 45.90 b 48.60 a 48.37 a 45.80 b 0.34 0.001 1. Week 159.27 c 175.94 a 168.54 b 159.79 c 1.84 0.001 2. Week 438.44 c 494.39 a 489.90 a 458.33 b 6.07 0.001 3. Week 866.90 c 981.17 a 977.61 a 893.23 b 13.27 0.001 4. Week 1439.50 b 1654.26 a 1638.65 a 1496.25 b 25.15 0.001 5. Week 2013.70 c 2366.63 a 2297.61 a 2172.79 b 38.60 0.001 6. Week 2702.64 b 3005.00 a 2952.81 a 2765.30 b 36.55 0.001 Live Weight Gain, g 1. Week 113.37 c 127.34 a 120.17 b 113.99 c 1.54 0.001 2. Week 279.16 c 318.45 a 321.36 a 298.54 b 4.58 0.001 3. Week 428.48 b 486.79 a 487.71 a 434.90 b 7.71 0.001 4. Week 572.58 b 673.08 a 661.04 a 603.02 b 12.64 0.001 5. Week 574.21 b 712.38 a 658.96 a 676.54 a 17.29 0.014 6. Week 688.94 a 638.36 ab 655.21 ab 592.51 c 13.85 0.079 AA: Anadolu – T × Anadolu – T; CC: Cobb × Cobb; AC: Anadolu – T male × Cobb female; CA: Cobb male × Anadolu – T female; 1 SEM: Standard error of the mean, Values within the same row denoted by different superscript letters differ significantly from each other. In terms of initial chick weight, the CC and AC hybrids exhibited similar values of 48.60 g and 48.37 g, respectively, while comparable initial weights were also observed in the AA and CA hybrids, at 45.90 g and 45.80 g, respectively. The difference in mean initial chick weight between the CC and AC hybrids and the AA and CA hybrids was found to be statistically significant (p 0.05). The average slaughter weights were 3005.00 g for CC and 2952.81 g for AC, respectively (Table 3 ). Similarly, comparable results were observed in the AA and CA hybrids, except during the 2nd and 5th weeks. No significant differences were detected between these hybrids in live body weight at slaughter age (6th week), with values of 2702.64 g and 2765.30 g for AA and CA, respectively (p > 0.05). Comparable patterns were also observed for weekly body weight gains. Except for the first week, CC and AC exhibited similar weekly body weight gain values, with gains of 638.36 g and 655.21 g, respectively, during the 6th week. Likewise, no statistically significant differences were detected between AA and CA hybrids in body weight gain during the 1st, 3rd, and 4th weeks of the growth period (p > 0.05). Despite having the lowest slaughter weight (2702.64 g), the AA genotype exhibited the highest body weight gain (688.94 g) during the final week (6th week) prior to slaughter (p < 0.001). By comparison, the CA hybrids exhibited the lowest body weight gain (592.51 g) during the final week prior to slaughter. Initial chick weight has been reported as a significant determinant of broiler performance, with heavier day-old chicks exhibiting improved growth performance and achieving higher body weights at later stages of rearing (Leandro et al. 2006; Mendes et al. 2011; Khulel and Sabri, 2020). Kareem-Ibrahim et al. (2023) reported that hatch weight is a reliable predictor of future body weight and can be effectively used in modelling growth performance. The results obtained from the present study are consistent with previous findings reported in the literature and highlight the influence of genotypic differences on growth performance. From the initial weight onward, CC and AC hybrids consistently exhibited higher live weights compared to AA and CA genotypes. CC chicks had the highest initial body weight, which suggests a superior starting growth potential. This advantage was maintained throughout the rearing period, with CC hybrids achieving the highest live weights at all subsequent weeks, followed closely by AC hybrids. AA hybrids consistently showed the lowest live weights, while CA hybrids generally exhibited intermediate values but remained significantly lower than CC and AC genotypes. By the 6th week, CC birds reached the highest final live weight, whereas AA and CA hybrids showed comparatively slower growth trajectories. The findings suggest that the genetic backgrounds of Cobb and Anadolu-T contribute significantly to increased body weight, with the most pronounced effect observed when Cobb serves as the female parent and Anadolu-T as the male parent (AC genotype). Sarıca et al. (2021a) compared the growth and carcass characteristics of Anadolu-T pure broiler lines that had undergone continuous breeding and selection over five generations between 2017 and 2021 with those of a commercial hybrid. Their findings showed that the average 6-week body weights of the Anadolu-T paternal lines (B1 and B2) across five generations were 2862.74 g and 2820.52 g, respectively, whereas the corresponding value for the commercial line was 3200.18 g. In contrast, the body weights of the Anadolu-T maternal lines (A1, A2, and A3) were considerably lower, measuring 2536.20 g, 2503.94 g, and 2404.10 g, respectively. Taken together, these reported results and the findings of the present study indicate that the paternal line of Anadolu-T contributes significantly to increased body weight. Among the possible reasons for this outcome is the difference in selection criteria, whereby selection in the Anadolu-T maternal lines (A1, A2, and A3) was based on average body weight, whereas in the paternal lines (B1 and B2), males and females exceeding the population mean were selected, which is thought to have contributed to the observed increase. It has been reported that males of the paternal line exert a greater influence on increases in body weight (Proudfoot and Hulan 1987; Barbato and Vasilatos-Youken 1991). In this context, Sarıca et al. (2021b) suggested that maintaining genetic variation at an appropriate level in future generations may lead to significant improvements in body weight (BW) and feed conversion ratio (FCR) through the selection of heavier males. In other words, selecting heavier males can result in the production of heavier offspring (Leeson and Summers 2010; Uçar 2020). Consistently, research conducted on Anadolu-T broiler lines and their hybrids demonstrated that Anadolu-T sire lines and their hybrids exhibited higher body weights than dam lines from approximately 21 days of age onward, providing direct empirical support for a paternal line effect on growth (Erensoy 2024). Overall, the findings obtained from the present study indicate that the paternal line represents a significant genetic and breeding factor, and the cited literature clearly supports this conclusion. Weekly (WFI) and cumulative (CFI) feed intake values of the hybrids throughout the 6-week fattening period are presented in Table 4 and Fig. 2 . Statistical analyses indicated that differences in WFI among the hybrids were significant during the first four weeks (p < 0.01 and p < 0.05), while CFI values differed significantly during the first three weeks (p < 0.01). At slaughter age (6th week), the highest WFI was recorded in the AA and CC hybrids (1453.01 g and 1417.40 g, respectively), and these values were significantly higher than those observed in the AC (1321.65 g) and CA (1336.83 g) hybrids (p 0.05), with average CFI values of 3315.67 g and 4746.20 g at the 5th and 6th weeks, respectively. The lack of significant differences in WFI during the 5th week was reflected in CFI values at the same age. Table 4 Weekly and cumulative feed intake of hybrids obtained from crossbreeding Growth periods Hybrids AA CC AC CA SEM 1 P value Weekly feed intake (WFI), g 1. Week 146.77 cb 149.48 ab 150.42 a 145.42 c 0.68 0.011 2. Week 385.06 b 405.25 a 411.46 a 385.83 b 3.35 0.001 3. Week 610.85 b 647.59 a 660.52 a 605.31 b 7.04 0.001 4. Week 901.32 b 928.98 ab 962.61 a 869.79 b 12.07 0.022 5. Week 1150.28 1204.24 1195.42 1238.49 15.52 0.263 6. Week 1453.01 a 1417.34 a 1321.65 b 1336.83 b 17.64 0.005 Cumulative feed intake (CFI), g 2. Week 533.44 b 556.36 a 561.88 a 531.25 b 3.98 0.001 3. Week 1144.29 b 1203.95 a 1222.40 a 1136.56b 10.14 0.001 4. Week 2083.50b c 2132.93 ab 2185.00 a 2006.35 c 20.85 0.004 5. Week 3279.01 3337.17 3380.42 3266.08 19.99 0.144 6. Week 4771.11 4754.51 4821.34 4637.85 35.39 0.330 AA: Anadolu – T × Anadolu – T; CC: Cobb × Cobb; AC: Anadolu – T male × Cobb female; CA: Cobb male × Anadolu – T female; 1 SEM: Standard error of the mean, Values within the same row denoted by different superscript letters differ significantly from each other. Differences in growth curves are well documented among broiler genotypes selected for rapid growth, leading to variations in live body weight and feed intake at similar ages (Havenstein et al. 2003; Zuidhof et al. 2014). In the present study, the CC hybrid was identified as the fastest-growing genotype based on body weight gain; however, both live body weight gain and feed intake tended to decline by the 6th week. This pattern is consistent with previous reports indicating that fast-growing genotypes may exhibit a plateau or reduction in feed intake as they approach physiological maturity Emmans and Kyriazakis (2001). Conversely, the pronounced increase in feed intake (FI) observed in the AA genotype, particularly during the 6th week, suggests a relatively slower growth rate compared with CC, as slower-growing genotypes typically require higher FI to sustain body weight gain (BWG) at later ages Leeson and Summers (2001). Moreover, the decrease in feed intake of the CC genotype during the 6th week relative to the previous week eliminated the difference in feed intake between AA and CC. The convergence of feed intake values observed in the AC and CA hybrids with those of CC during the 6th week may be attributed to their genetic background resulting from crossbreeding with CC, as crossbred genotypes often exhibit intermediate or parent-dominant feeding patterns due to heterosis and genetic complementarity (Fairfull 1990; Muir et al. 2008). The higher body weight of modern commercial broilers is accompanied by improved feed utilization efficiency; however, increases in body size in commercial chickens have also been associated with unintended increases in feed intake (FI) Richards and Proszkowiec-Weglarz (2007). Consequently, higher FI is generally required to achieve greater body weight gain (BWG) and improved feed efficiency (Wen et al. 2018; Yan et al. 2019), whereas lower FI is often associated with reduced body weight (Dunnington and Siegel 1997; Dunnington et al. 2013). In this context, the present findings help explain why the feed intake levels observed in the sire and dam lines used to develop the Anadolu-T genotype were at undesirable levels compared with those of commercial broiler lines. Weekly and cumulative FCR values are presented in Table 5 and Fig. 3 . Feed conversion ratio (FCR) is one of the most commonly used indicators for evaluating feed efficiency and is defined as the amount of feed consumed per unit of body weight (BW) gain (Sarıca et al. 2021b). As a trait exhibiting genetic variation, FCR can be effectively improved through breeding and selection programs (Chambers and Lin, 1988; Kubiak et al. 2017). Table 5 Weekly and cumulative feed conversion ratios of hybrids obtained from crossbreeding Growth periods Hybrids AA CC AC CA SEM 1 P value Weekly FCR 1. Week 1.29 a 1.18 c 1.25 b 1.28 ab 0.01 0.001 2. Week 1.37 a 1.27 b 1.28 b 1.30 b 0.01 0.001 3. Week 1.44 a 1.34 c 1.36 c 1.39 b 0.01 0.001 4. Week 1.57 a 1.38 c 1.46 b 1.44 ab 0.02 0.001 5. Week 2.07 a 1.69 b 1.82 b 1.84 b 0.04 0.003 6. Week 2.26 2.22 2.08 2.25 0.04 0.296 Cumulative FCR 2. Week 1.35 a 1.24 c 1.27 b 1.29 b 0.01 0.001 3. Week 1.40 a 1.29 d 1.32 c 1.34 b 0.01 0.001 4. Week 1.46 a 1.33 c 1.38 b 1.38 b 0.01 0.001 5. Week 1.63 a 1.44 c 1.50 b 1.53 b 0.02 0.001 6. Week 1.78 a 1.61 c 1.63 c 1.68 b 0.02 0.001 FCR: Feed conversion ratio, AA: Anadolu – T × Anadolu – T; CC: Cobb × Cobb; AC: Anadolu – T male × Cobb female; CA: Cobb male × Anadolu – T female; 1 SEM: Standard error of the mean, Values within the same row denoted by different superscript letters differ significantly from each other. In the present study, statistically significant differences (p 0.05) in the sixth week. Except for the AA hybrid, the feed conversion ratio values recorded in the fifth week were similar among the other hybrids. The AA genotype exhibited the highest feed conversion ratio during the first five weeks compared with the other genotypes. The higher body weight gain of this genotype in the sixth week resulted in its feed conversion ratio becoming similar to that of the other hybrids during the same period. When the results obtained in terms of the cumulative FCR values at 6 weeks of slaughter age, which form the basis of economic efficiency indices, were examined, statistically significant differences were determined among the hybrids (p < 0.01). The values of the CC and AC genotypes were similar, with cumulative FCRs of 1.61 and 1.63, respectively, whereas the cumulative FCR values obtained from the CA and AA genotypes were calculated as 1.68 and 1.78, respectively. The highest value was observed in the AA hybrids. Based on the cumulative FCR values, the genotypic ranking indicated that the CC and AC hybrids were the best-performing genotypes, followed by the CA hybrids in second place and the AA hybrids in third place. For the Anadolu–T hybrids, the dam and sire lines subjected to selection over seven generations exhibited average feed conversion ratios of 1.94 and 1.84 at 8 weeks of age, respectively Oğuzhan and Sarıca (2024). Accordingly, the cumulative FCR value of 1.78 obtained from the AA hybrids in the present study, being more favorable than that of the parental lines, indicates the presence of a heterosis effect. The observation of similar cumulative FCR values in AC hybrids, derived from crosses between Anadolu–T males and Cobb females, and CC hybrids indicates that the genetic improvement attained in Anadolu–T males has reached a level comparable to commercial broiler lines. Similarly, the second-place ranking of the CA genotype in terms of cumulative FCR may be explained by the lack of sufficient genetic improvement in the Anadolu–T dam line to induce heterosis. Weekly and cumulative viability values are presented in Table 6 . No significant differences were observed among the hybrids in terms of weekly viability values, except for those recorded in week 4. In week 4, the viability of the AA hybrid was found to be significantly lower than that of the other hybrids (p < 0.01), and this difference persisted in the cumulative viability values at weeks 4 and 5 (p 0.05). Table 6 Weekly and cumulative viability of hybrids obtained from crossbreeding Viability for broilers Hybrids SEM 1 P value AA CC AC CA Weekly, % 1. Week 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 - - 2. Week 98.96 98.96 100 100 0.36 0.588 3. Week 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 - - 4. Week 96.87 b 100.00 a 100.00 a 100.00 a 0.42 0.002 5. Week 97.92 100.00 100.00 98.96 0.42 0.248 6. Week 98.96 100.00 96.88 98.96 0.83 0.642 Cumulative, % 1. Week 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 - 2. Week 98.96 98.96 100.00 100.00 0.35 0.588 3. Week 98.96 98.96 100.00 100.00 0.36 0.588 4. Week 95.83 b 98.96 a 100.00 a 100.00 a 0.63 0.037 5. Week 93.75 b 98.96 a 100.00 a 98.96 a 0.76 0.002 6. Week 92.71 98.96 96.88 97.92 1.09 0.193 AA: Anadolu – T × Anadolu – T; CC: Cobb × Cobb; AC: Anadolu – T male × Cobb female; CA: Cobb male × Anadolu – T female; 1 SEM: Standard error of the mean, Values within the same row denoted by different superscript letters differ significantly from each other. Throughout the experimental period, it was noteworthy that the viability of hybrids obtained from AC and CA crossbreeding was similar to that of CC. Several studies have shown that repeated inbreeding in poultry can lead to inbreeding depression, resulting in reduced viability, hatchability, fertility, and overall health performance due to increased homozygosity and loss of genetic diversity (MacLaury and Nordskog 1956; Nordskog and Cheng, 1988; Kristensen and Sørensen, 2005). In line with these considerations, the fact that the AA genotype has been reproduced within its own line for a long period, whereas the AC and CA hybrids were obtained through crossbreeding with a commercial breeder line, may account for the observed differences in viability. Despite earlier differences, no statistically significant variation in viability was observed among the hybrids by slaughter age. This outcome indicates that the parental stocks used to produce AA, AC, and CA possessed viability levels comparable to CC, reflecting the high viability of the breeding parents. CONCLUSION Future research should prioritize the comprehensive evaluation of FI and FCR dynamics among diverse chicken breeds across extended growth periods. The incorporation of feeding behaviour profiles into breeding objectives and production management frameworks may enhance the identification and selection of individuals exhibiting superior growth performance. Declarations Ethical statement. All procedures were approved by the Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University, Faculty of Agriculture Animal Experiments Local Ethics Committee (Decision No: 2025/02). Conflict of interest. The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Author contribution: All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Beyhan Yeter and Hasan Eleroğlu. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Hasan Eleroğlu and Beyhan Yeter and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Acknowledgments: This study was conducted using chicks obtained from the paraent stock materials in project number TAGEM/HAYSÜD/G/22/A4/P4/6230. We extend our thanks to TAGEM. Data availability. Not applicable. References Barbato GF, Vasilatos-Youken R (1991) Sex - linked and maternal effects on growth in chickens. Poult. Sci. 70: 709–718. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0700709 Chambers JR, Lin CY (1988) Age-constant versus weight-constant feed consumption and efficiency in broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 67(4):565–576. DOI: 10.3382/ps.0670565 Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (2010) Elements of Evolutionary Genetics; Roberts and Company Publishers: Greenwood, CO, USA, Chatellier V (2021) Review: international trade in animal products and the place of the European Union: main trends over the last 20 years. Animal 15(Suppl 1): 100289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2021.100289 Dunnington EA, Honaker CF, Mc Gilliard ML, Siegel PB (2013) Phenotypic responses of chickens to long-term, bidirectional selection for juvenile body weight–historical perspective. Poult. Sci. 92(7):1724–34. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2013-03069 Dunnington EA, Siegel P (1997) Anorexia in chickens selected for low juvenile body weight. Archiv. Fur. Geflugelk. 61:201–204 Düzgüneş O, Kesici T, Gürbüz F (1987) Istatistik Metotlari. A.Ü. Zir. Fak. Yay. No: 861/229. Emmans G, Kyriazakis I (2001) Consequences of genetic change in farm animals on food intake and feeding behaviour. Proc Nutr Soc. 60(1):115 − 25. DOI: 10.1079/pns200059 Erensoy K (2024) Growth, welfare and leg soundness traits in genetically different Anadolu-T broiler pure lines and hybrids. J. of Anim. Produc. Vol: 65 (2): 149–161. https://doi.org/10.29185/hayuretim.1573738 Fairfull RW, Liljedahl LE, Gowe RS Age-regulated expression of genetic and environmental variation in fitness traits. 2. Genetic effects and variances for viability among crosses from a factorial mating of six selected Leghorn strains Can. J. Anim. Sci., 79 (1999), pp. 269–276 Havenstein GB, Ferket PR, Qureshi MA (2003) Carcass composition and yield of 1957 versus 2001 broilers when fed representative 1957 and 2001 broiler diets. Poult. Sci. 82(10): 1509-18. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/82.10.1509 Havenstein GB, Ferket PR, Qureshi MA (2003) Carcass composition and yield of 1957 versus 2001 broilers when fed representative 1957 and 2001 broiler diets. Poult. Sci. 82(10): 1509-18. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/82.10.1509 Kareem-Ibrahim KO, Abanikannda OTF, Lawal AK, Nwadialo S (2023) Influence of weight at hatching on weekly weight of broiler chickens. ADAN J. of Agric. 4: 135–142. DOI:10.36108/adanja/3202.40.0131 Khulel RMT, Sabri MA (2020) Effect of initial weight of chicks on performance of Iraqi local chicks. Plant Archives, 20:5686–90 Kristensen TN, Sørensen C. (2005) Inbreeding -- lessons from animal breeding, evolutionary biology and conservation genetics. Anim. Sci. 80(2):121–133. doi:10.1079/ASC41960121 Kubiak E, Wimmers K, Reyer H, Szwaczkowski T (2017) Genetic aspects of feed efficiency and reduction of environmental footprint in broilers:a review. J. of Appl. Genet. 58(4):487–98. doi: 10.1007/s13353-017-0392-7. Leandro NSM, Cunha WCP, Stringhini JH, Cruz CP, Barcelos Café M, Matos, MS (2006) Effect of broiler chicken initial weight on performance, carcass yield and economic viability. R. Bras. Zootec. 35(6) 2314–21. DOI:** **10.1590/S1516-35982006000800017 Leeson S, Summers JD (2010) Broiler breeder production. Nottingham University Press. Nottingham. Leeson, S., Summers, J.D. (2001). Nutrition of the Chicken. University Books, Guelph, Ontario, Canada. Maclaury DW, Nordskog AW (1956) Effects of inbreeding on mortality in the domestic fowl. Poult. Sci. 35:582–585. DOI:10.3382/ps.0350582 Mancinelli AC, Menchetti L, Birolo M, Bittante G, Chiattelli D, Castellini C. (2023) Crossbreeding to improve local chicken breeds: predicting growth performance of the crosses using the Gompertz model and estimated heterosis. Poult. Sci.102(8):102783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2023.102783 Mebratie W, Reyer H, Wimmers K, Bovenhuis H, Jensen J (2019) Genome wide association study of body weight and feed efficiency traits in a commercial broiler chicken population, a re-visitation. Sci. Repo. 9(1): 922. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-37216-z.pdf Mendes AS, Paixao SJ, Restelatto R, Reffatti R, Possenti JC, De Moura, DJ, Morello GMZ, de Carvalho TMR. (2011) Effects of initial body weight and litter material on broiler production, Braz. J. of Poult. Sci. 13(3):165–170. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-635X2011000300001 Muir et. all (2008) Genome-wide assessment of worldwide chicken SNP genetic diversity indicates significant absence of rare alleles in commercial breeds. Agri. Sci. 105 (45) 17312–17317. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0806569105 Nordskog AW, Cheng S (1988) Inbreeding effects on fertility and hatchability associated with the formation of sublines. Poult. Sci. 67:859–864. http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.0670859 Nyalala I, Okinda C, Kunjie C, Korohou T, Nyalala L, Chao Q (2021) Weight and volume estimation of poultry and products based on computer vision systems: a review. Poult. Sci., 100(5): 101072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2021.101072 Oğuzhan E, Sarıca M (2024) Live weight and egg production changes of pure lines used to obtain Anadolu-T broiler parent line. Turkish J. of Agri. - Food Sci. and Tech. 12(9):1539-47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v12i9.1539-1547.6509 Özdamar K (2002) Paket programlar ile istatistiksel veri analizi. Kaan Yayınları, 4. Baskı, Eskişehir. Prakash A, Saxena VK, Singh, MK (2020) Genetic analysis of residual feed intake, feed conversion ratio and related growth parameters in broiler chicken: a review. World's Poul. Sci. J., 76(2), 304–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/00439339.2020.1735978 Proudfoot FG, Hulan HW (1987) Parental effects on performance of broiler chicken progenies. Poult. Sci. 66(7): 1119–1122. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0661119 Richards MP, Proszkowiec-Weglarz M (2007) Mechanisms Regulating Feed Intake, Energy Expenditure, and Body Weight in Poultry. Poult. Sci. 86:1478–90. DOI: 10.1093/ps/86.7.1478 Sarıca M, Erensoy K, Oğuzhan E, Yeter B, Camci Ö (2021b) Effects of male selection for body weight on performance of offsprings in broiler pure-lines. Braz. J. Poult. Sci. 23(03). https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9061-2021-1464 Sarıca M, Erensoy K, Özkan I, Oğuzhan E, Çağlak S (2021a) Growth and carcass Traits of Anadolu-T broiler pure lines, Turkish J. of Agri. - Food Sci. and Techn. 9(11):1980-87. https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v9i11.1980-1987.4575 Sosa-Madrid, BS, Maniatis G, Ibáñez-Escriche N, Avendaño S, Kranis A (2023) Genetic variance estimation over time in broiler breeding programmes for growth and reproductive traits. Ani. 13: 3306. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13213306 Sungkhapreecha, P., Chankitisakul, V., Duangjinda, M., & Boonkum, W. (2022). Combining abilities, heterosis, growth performance, and carcass characteristics in a diallel cross from black-bone chickens and thai native chickens. Animals, 12(13), 1602. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12131602 Sweeney KM, Aranibar CD, Kim WK, Williams SM, Avila LP, Starkey JD, Wilson JL (2022) Impact of every-day versus skip-a-day feeding of broiler breeder pullets during rearing on body weight uniformity and reproductive performance. Poult. Sci. 101(8): 101959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2022.101959 Uçar A (2020) The effect of some parent stock characteristics on incubation and broiler performance. Dissertation, University of Ankara Uçar A, Elibol O, Türkoğlu M (2025). The effect of male broiler parent live weight differences during the growing period on progeny broiler performance. J of Agri. Sci. 31(2):332–343. DOI:10.15832/ankutbd.1502100 Uçar A, Türkoğlu M, Sarıca M (2018) Evolution of broilers and broiler breeders. Turkish J. of Agri. -Food Sci. and Tech., 6(1):73–77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v6i1.73-77.1751 Walsh B, Lynch M, (2018) Evolution and Selection of Quantitative Traits; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK. Wang Y, Sun Y, Ni A, Li Y, Yuan J, Ma H, Wang P, Shi L, Zong Y, Zhao J, Bian S, Chen J. (2022) Research Note: Heterosis for egg production and oviposition pattern in reciprocal crossbreeds of indigenous and elite laying chickens. Poult. Sci.101(12):102201. doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2022.102201 Wen C, Yan W, Zheng J, Ji C, Zhang D, Sun C, Yang N (2018) Feed efficiency measures and their relationships with production and meat quality traits in slower growing broilers. Poult. Sci. 97(7): 2356–64. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pey062 Yan W, Sun C, Wen C, Ji C, Zhang D, Yang N (2019) Relationships between feeding behaviors and performance traits in slow-growing yellow broilers. Poult. Sci. 98(2):548–55. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pey424. Zerehdaran S, Vereijken A, Arendonk JAM, Bovenhuis H, van der Waaij EH (2005) Broiler breeding strategies using indirect carcass measurements. Poult. Sci. 84(8):1214-21. DOI:10.1093/ps/84.8.1214 Zuidhof MJ, Schneider BL, Carney VL, Korver DR, Robinson FE (2014) Growth, efficiency, and yield of commercial broilers from 1957, 1978, and 2005. Poult. Sci. 93(12):2970-82. doi: 10.3382/ps.2014-04291. Epub 2014 Sep 26. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviewers agreed at journal 28 Mar, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 17 Feb, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 26 Jan, 2026 First submitted to journal 22 Jan, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8669688","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":593053789,"identity":"07117f41-bb5c-46fa-8f22-2d443b237013","order_by":0,"name":"Beyhan Yeter","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1741-4635","institution":"Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam Universitesi Ziraat Fakultesi","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Beyhan","middleName":"","lastName":"Yeter","suffix":""},{"id":593053790,"identity":"a392a67c-e93c-4fd9-a4a2-b32574b7ae32","order_by":1,"name":"Hasan Eleroğlu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Sivas Cumhuriyet Universitesi","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hasan","middleName":"","lastName":"Eleroğlu","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-22 12:25:30","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8669688/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8669688/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":104397352,"identity":"9a880d0f-6636-44ec-b413-e0ce564553c4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-11 11:47:02","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":65632,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eWeekly live weight gains of hybrids\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8669688/v1/e0d62f5cda0d9afc138aef52.png"},{"id":103062761,"identity":"b8372214-f978-4919-956b-2d64a450ebdf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-20 10:31:26","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":49822,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eWeekly feed intake of hybrids\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8669688/v1/b2db5dfdc3f89290c7d22fee.png"},{"id":104397175,"identity":"1672654b-d6d9-4337-b25d-bec4a496d2a9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-11 11:40:21","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":42342,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eChances weekly feed conversion ratios (FCR) of hybrids\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8669688/v1/cc7c150df3185f17e423bbbf.png"},{"id":104779101,"identity":"9e225b67-f975-462d-924c-765532ffeb30","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-17 07:34:47","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1016782,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8669688/v1/e61f0ae3-c5cc-4b30-8b19-eb446a6e60b9.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"","formattedTitle":"Comparison of the Performance of Hybrids Obtained from Reciprocal Crosses between Anadolu–T and Cobb500 Parent Stocks","fulltext":[{"header":"INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eBetween 2017 and 2029, worldwide poultry meat production is forecast to increase by approximately 20.3\u0026nbsp;million tons (Chatellier 2021), highlighting the urgent need for research and development efforts aimed at the efficient and sustainable use of available resources to meet this growing demand. Advances in poultry genetics, driven by over a century of accumulated research, the sequencing of the chicken genome, and the incorporation of molecular genetic information into commercial breeding programs, have ushered in a new era particularly regarding improvements in body weight gain (Mebratie et al. 2019). Within this framework, there has been increasing interest in developing new hybrid genotypes through crossbreeding different genetic lines. Consequently, crossbreeding programs that integrate local chicken populations with more productive strains have been systematically evaluated, with observed performance enhancements largely attributed to heterotic effects (Sungkhapreecha et al. 2022; Wang et al. 2022; Mancinelli et al. 2023).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLive weight gain has long been recognized as a key trait in meat-type chicken breeding, serving as a primary indicator of growth performance and production efficiency (U\u0026ccedil;ar et al. 2018; Nyalala et al. 2021). Over time, selective breeding programs have heavily focused on enhancing this trait, resulting in significant genetic progress and improved feed conversion ratios. Given its moderate to high heritability and direct economic relevance, live weight gain remains central to broiler genetics and breeding strategies (Zerehdaran et al., 2005; Prakash et al. 2020). Therefore, a thorough understanding of the factors influencing live weight gain, alongside efforts to optimize these factors, is essential for advancing poultry production systems. In this context, unlike layer breeders, ensuring uniformity and precise control of live weight are particularly critical during the rearing of broiler breeders (Sweeney et al. 2022).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBreeding companies strongly focus on choosing the heaviest males within their sire lines to enhance broiler weight, yet parent-stock firms often overlook this data, presuming that the selection process has been fully accomplished (U\u0026ccedil;ar et al. 2025).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo maintain the effectiveness of breeding programs under directional selection, it is essential to continuously monitor the genetic variance of traits, since this type of selection can lead to a gradual reduction in genetic diversity (Sosa-Madrid et al. 2023). The reduction in genetic variation is reported to be primarily influenced by the effect of intense directional selection (Charlesworth and Charlesworth 2010; Walsh and Lynch 2018). Closed and inbred breeding systems lead to a reduction in genetic variation within breeding flocks; in contrast, migration, mutation, and recombination are important factors contributing to an increase in genetic variation (Sosa-Madrid et al. 2023).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study aimed to compare the performance of hybrids obtained by crossing Anadolu\u0026ndash;T hybrid breeders with commercial parent stocks to the performance of Anadolu\u0026ndash;T hybrids, thereby providing data to support selection programs implemented in breeder flocks.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"MATERIAL AND METHODS","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe study was conducted at the broiler research and development poultry house of the Animal Production Application and Research Center at Kahramanmaraş S\u0026uuml;t\u0026ccedil;\u0026uuml; İmam University. As animal material, broiler chicks belonging to four different genotypes, obtained from parents of the same age (46 weeks), were used. The crossbreeding combinations of the hybrids used in the study are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe crossbreeding combinations of the hybrids\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/caption\u003e\n\u003cthead\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGenotype\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSire Line (♂)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDam Line (♀)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/thead\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGenotype 1 (AA)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnadolu-T\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnadolu-T\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGenotype 2 (CC)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCobb 500\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCobb 500\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGenotype 3 (AC)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnadolu-T\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCobb 500\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGenotype 4 (CA)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCobb 500\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnadolu-T\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEach genotype constituted a treatment group, with four replicates per treatment and 24 chicks per replicate, resulting in a total of 4 \u0026times; 4 \u0026times; 24\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;384 chicks used in the study. The poultry house was a fully controlled, closed-type facility measuring 7 m \u0026times; 19 m. The house was divided into pens using wire mesh partitions, and an area of 3 m\u0026sup2; (2.0 m \u0026times; 1.5 m) was allocated for each replicate, housing 24 birds per pen. The stocking density was 12 birds/m\u0026sup2;. Ventilation was controlled, and cooling of the poultry house was provided by evaporative cooling pads. As litter material, coarse pine wood shavings were used at a rate of 3 kg/m\u0026sup2;. A lighting program of 23 h light and 1 h dark was applied from the first day of the experiment. Lighting was provided using 15-W daylight-colored bulbs. Light intensity was measured at feeder level between two bulbs using a Lutron LX-101 lux meter and was maintained at 20 lux. Heating of the poultry house was ensured by air-blowing, thermostatically controlled electric heaters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the study, three commercial diets commonly used in the market and produced by a commercial feed company were used as feed material. The nutrient composition of the diets and the feeding periods are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. Feeding was carried out manually by weighing the feed, using one feeder per replicate. Feed was provided ad libitum throughout the experimental period. Water was supplied ad libitum through nipple drinkers, with five nipple drinkers installed in each replicate pen. A multivitamin supplement was added to the drinking water once a week at a rate of 20 g per 200 L. Live vaccines against Newcastle disease and Gumboro disease were administered via drinking water on days 6 and 13, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ctable id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFeed types and nutrient composition provided to chicks at different ages Ingredient composition (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/caption\u003e\n\u003cthead\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIngredients (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0\u0026ndash;10 days\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e11\u0026ndash;25 days\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e26\u0026ndash;42 days\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/thead\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCorn\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e45.19\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e51.64\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e60.77\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLow-fat soybean meal\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e31.19\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e27.78\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e26.12\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWheat bran\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e10.00\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e7.62\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.18\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDDGS (28%)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e10.00\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e10.00\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e10.00\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMarble dust\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.81\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.79\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.78\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLysine sulfate (55%)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.63\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.46\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.51\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDicalcium phosphate (18%)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.61\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.47\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.35\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLiquid methionine (88%)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.42\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.33\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.37\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSalt\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.29\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.25\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.23\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThreonine (98.5%)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.17\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.11\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.13\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNa₂SO₄\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.16\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.04\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eToxin binder\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.10\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.10\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.10\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMineral premix\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.10\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.10\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.10\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEnzyme\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.10\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.10\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.10\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnticoccidial (natural)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.10\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.10\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.10\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCholine chloride (75%)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.08\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.07\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.08\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmulsifier\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"4\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCalculated nutrient composition\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDry matter (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e89.63\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e89.42\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e89.26\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMetabolizable energy (MJ/kg)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e12.20\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e12.56\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e13.08\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCrude fat (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.85\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.69\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.56\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCrude fiber (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.86\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.57\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.00\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCrude ash (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5.55\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.96\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.49\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCalcium (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.85\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.80\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.75\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAvailable phosphorus (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.43\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.40\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.38\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTotal phosphorus (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.74\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.69\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.61\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCa:P ratio\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2.00\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2.00\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2.00\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSodium (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.23\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.16\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.16\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePotassium (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.01\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.93\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.82\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChloride (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.25\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.22\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.21\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNa\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;K \u0026minus; Cl (mEq/kg)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e288.80\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e244.45\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e220.00\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCrude protein (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e22.00\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e20.50\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e19.50\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLysine (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.44\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.25\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.22\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMethionine (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.70\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.61\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.64\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMethionine\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;cysteine (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.08\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.97\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.94\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003ctfoot\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003eEach kg of mineral premix contained: Se (sodium selenite, 4.5%) 300 mg; Mn (manganese oxide, 62%) 120,000 mg; Co (cobalt carbonate, 50%) 200 mg; I (calcium iodate, 62%) 1,250 mg; Fe (iron sulfate pentahydrate, 30%); Zn (zinc oxide, 72%) 100,000 mg; Cu (copper sulfate pentahydrate, 25%) 16,000 mg; carrier substance: CaCO₃.\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003eEach kg of enzyme\u0026ndash;vitamin\u0026ndash;mineral premix contained: Vitamin A, 13,000 IU; Vitamin D₃, 5,000 IU; Vitamin E, 80 IU; Vitamin K₃ (MSB), 4 mg; Vitamin B₁, 5 mg; Vitamin B₂, 9 mg; Vitamin B₆, 5 mg; Vitamin B₁₂, 20 \u0026micro;g; Niacin, 70 mg; Calcium D-pantothenate, 25 mg; Folic acid, 2.2 mg; Biotin, 350 \u0026micro;g; Cu, 16 mg; I, 1.25 mg; Fe, 20 mg; Mn, 120 mg; Se, 0.3 mg; Zn, 120 mg.\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tfoot\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the end of each week, all birds were weighed in the afternoon, and average live weights were calculated.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll experiments were conducted according to a completely randomized experimental design. Data obtained for traits were evaluated using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and comparisons among means were performed using Duncan\u0026rsquo;s Multiple Range Test (D\u0026uuml;zg\u0026uuml;neş et al. 1987; \u0026Ouml;zdamar 2002). Statistical analyses were carried out using the SPSS-22 statistical software package (IBM Corp.).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h3\u003e"},{"header":"RESULTS AND DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eWeekly live weight and body weight gain values obtained from the hybrids are presented in Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e and Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. Throughout the 6-week growth period, including the initial body weight, significant differences were observed among all hybrid lines in terms of weekly live weights and body weight gains (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLive weights and live weight gains of hybrids\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGrowth periods\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth colspan=\"4\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHybrids\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSEM\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eP value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLive Weight, g\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInitial weight\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45.90\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48.60\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48.37\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45.80\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e159.27\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e175.94\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e168.54\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e159.79\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e438.44\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e494.39\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e489.90\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e458.33\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e866.90\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e981.17\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e977.61\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e893.23\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1439.50\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1654.26\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1638.65\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1496.25\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2013.70\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2366.63\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2297.61\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2172.79\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38.60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2702.64\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3005.00\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2952.81\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2765.30\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36.55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLive Weight Gain, g\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e113.37\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e127.34\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e120.17\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e113.99\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e279.16\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e318.45\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e321.36\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e298.54\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.58\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e428.48\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e486.79\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e487.71\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e434.90\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e572.58\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e673.08\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e661.04\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e603.02\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e574.21\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e712.38\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e658.96\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e676.54\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.014\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e688.94\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e638.36\u003csup\u003eab\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e655.21\u003csup\u003eab\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e592.51\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.079\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003ctfoot\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003eAA: Anadolu \u0026ndash; T \u0026times; Anadolu \u0026ndash; T; CC: Cobb \u0026times; Cobb; AC: Anadolu \u0026ndash; T male \u0026times; Cobb female; CA: Cobb male \u0026times; Anadolu \u0026ndash; T female; \u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003eSEM: Standard error of the mean, Values within the same row denoted by different superscript letters differ significantly from each other.\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tfoot\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn terms of initial chick weight, the CC and AC hybrids exhibited similar values of 48.60 g and 48.37 g, respectively, while comparable initial weights were also observed in the AA and CA hybrids, at 45.90 g and 45.80 g, respectively. The difference in mean initial chick weight between the CC and AC hybrids and the AA and CA hybrids was found to be statistically significant (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExcept for the first week, the weekly live weight values of CC and AC were similar, with no statistically significant differences between these groups (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). The average slaughter weights were 3005.00 g for CC and 2952.81 g for AC, respectively (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, comparable results were observed in the AA and CA hybrids, except during the 2nd and 5th weeks. No significant differences were detected between these hybrids in live body weight at slaughter age (6th week), with values of 2702.64 g and 2765.30 g for AA and CA, respectively (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eComparable patterns were also observed for weekly body weight gains. Except for the first week, CC and AC exhibited similar weekly body weight gain values, with gains of 638.36 g and 655.21 g, respectively, during the 6th week. Likewise, no statistically significant differences were detected between AA and CA hybrids in body weight gain during the 1st, 3rd, and 4th weeks of the growth period (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Despite having the lowest slaughter weight (2702.64 g), the AA genotype exhibited the highest body weight gain (688.94 g) during the final week (6th week) prior to slaughter (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). By comparison, the CA hybrids exhibited the lowest body weight gain (592.51 g) during the final week prior to slaughter.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInitial chick weight has been reported as a significant determinant of broiler performance, with heavier day-old chicks exhibiting improved growth performance and achieving higher body weights at later stages of rearing (Leandro et al. 2006; Mendes et al. 2011; Khulel and Sabri, 2020). Kareem-Ibrahim et al. (2023) reported that hatch weight is a reliable predictor of future body weight and can be effectively used in modelling growth performance. The results obtained from the present study are consistent with previous findings reported in the literature and highlight the influence of genotypic differences on growth performance. From the initial weight onward, CC and AC hybrids consistently exhibited higher live weights compared to AA and CA genotypes. CC chicks had the highest initial body weight, which suggests a superior starting growth potential. This advantage was maintained throughout the rearing period, with CC hybrids achieving the highest live weights at all subsequent weeks, followed closely by AC hybrids.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAA hybrids consistently showed the lowest live weights, while CA hybrids generally exhibited intermediate values but remained significantly lower than CC and AC genotypes. By the 6th week, CC birds reached the highest final live weight, whereas AA and CA hybrids showed comparatively slower growth trajectories. The findings suggest that the genetic backgrounds of Cobb and Anadolu-T contribute significantly to increased body weight, with the most pronounced effect observed when Cobb serves as the female parent and Anadolu-T as the male parent (AC genotype).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSarıca et al. (2021a) compared the growth and carcass characteristics of Anadolu-T pure broiler lines that had undergone continuous breeding and selection over five generations between 2017 and 2021 with those of a commercial hybrid. Their findings showed that the average 6-week body weights of the Anadolu-T paternal lines (B1 and B2) across five generations were 2862.74 g and 2820.52 g, respectively, whereas the corresponding value for the commercial line was 3200.18 g. In contrast, the body weights of the Anadolu-T maternal lines (A1, A2, and A3) were considerably lower, measuring 2536.20 g, 2503.94 g, and 2404.10 g, respectively. Taken together, these reported results and the findings of the present study indicate that the paternal line of Anadolu-T contributes significantly to increased body weight. Among the possible reasons for this outcome is the difference in selection criteria, whereby selection in the Anadolu-T maternal lines (A1, A2, and A3) was based on average body weight, whereas in the paternal lines (B1 and B2), males and females exceeding the population mean were selected, which is thought to have contributed to the observed increase.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIt has been reported that males of the paternal line exert a greater influence on increases in body weight (Proudfoot and Hulan 1987; Barbato and Vasilatos-Youken 1991). In this context, Sarıca et al. (2021b) suggested that maintaining genetic variation at an appropriate level in future generations may lead to significant improvements in body weight (BW) and feed conversion ratio (FCR) through the selection of heavier males. In other words, selecting heavier males can result in the production of heavier offspring (Leeson and Summers 2010; U\u0026ccedil;ar 2020). Consistently, research conducted on Anadolu-T broiler lines and their hybrids demonstrated that Anadolu-T sire lines and their hybrids exhibited higher body weights than dam lines from approximately 21 days of age onward, providing direct empirical support for a paternal line effect on growth (Erensoy 2024). Overall, the findings obtained from the present study indicate that the paternal line represents a significant genetic and breeding factor, and the cited literature clearly supports this conclusion.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWeekly (WFI) and cumulative (CFI) feed intake values of the hybrids throughout the 6-week fattening period are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e and Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. Statistical analyses indicated that differences in WFI among the hybrids were significant during the first four weeks (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01 and p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05), while CFI values differed significantly during the first three weeks (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01). At slaughter age (6th week), the highest WFI was recorded in the AA and CC hybrids (1453.01 g and 1417.40 g, respectively), and these values were significantly higher than those observed in the AC (1321.65 g) and CA (1336.83 g) hybrids (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01). In contrast, during the final two weeks of the fattening period (5th and 6th weeks), differences among the hybrids in CFI were not statistically significant (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05), with average CFI values of 3315.67 g and 4746.20 g at the 5th and 6th weeks, respectively. The lack of significant differences in WFI during the 5th week was reflected in CFI values at the same age.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWeekly and cumulative feed intake of hybrids obtained from crossbreeding\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGrowth periods\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth colspan=\"4\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHybrids\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSEM\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eP value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWeekly feed intake\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(WFI), g\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e146.77\u003csup\u003ecb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e149.48\u003csup\u003eab\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e150.42\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e145.42\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.68\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.011\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e385.06\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e405.25\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e411.46\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e385.83\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e610.85\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e647.59\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e660.52\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e605.31\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e901.32\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e928.98\u003csup\u003eab\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e962.61\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e869.79\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1150.28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1204.24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1195.42\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1238.49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.263\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1453.01\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1417.34\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1321.65\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1336.83\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.005\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCumulative feed intake\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(CFI), g\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e533.44\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e556.36\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e561.88\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e531.25\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.98\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1144.29\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1203.95\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1222.40\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1136.56b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2083.50b\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2132.93\u003csup\u003eab\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2185.00\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2006.35\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.004\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3279.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3337.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3380.42\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3266.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.99\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.144\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4771.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4754.51\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4821.34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4637.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35.39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.330\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003ctfoot\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003eAA: Anadolu \u0026ndash; T \u0026times; Anadolu \u0026ndash; T; CC: Cobb \u0026times; Cobb; AC: Anadolu \u0026ndash; T male \u0026times; Cobb female; CA: Cobb male \u0026times; Anadolu \u0026ndash; T female; \u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003eSEM: Standard error of the mean, Values within the same row denoted by different superscript letters differ significantly from each other.\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tfoot\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDifferences in growth curves are well documented among broiler genotypes selected for rapid growth, leading to variations in live body weight and feed intake at similar ages (Havenstein et al. 2003; Zuidhof et al. 2014). In the present study, the CC hybrid was identified as the fastest-growing genotype based on body weight gain; however, both live body weight gain and feed intake tended to decline by the 6th week. This pattern is consistent with previous reports indicating that fast-growing genotypes may exhibit a plateau or reduction in feed intake as they approach physiological maturity Emmans and Kyriazakis (2001).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConversely, the pronounced increase in feed intake (FI) observed in the AA genotype, particularly during the 6th week, suggests a relatively slower growth rate compared with CC, as slower-growing genotypes typically require higher FI to sustain body weight gain (BWG) at later ages Leeson and Summers (2001). Moreover, the decrease in feed intake of the CC genotype during the 6th week relative to the previous week eliminated the difference in feed intake between AA and CC. The convergence of feed intake values observed in the AC and CA hybrids with those of CC during the 6th week may be attributed to their genetic background resulting from crossbreeding with CC, as crossbred genotypes often exhibit intermediate or parent-dominant feeding patterns due to heterosis and genetic complementarity (Fairfull 1990; Muir et al. 2008).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe higher body weight of modern commercial broilers is accompanied by improved feed utilization efficiency; however, increases in body size in commercial chickens have also been associated with unintended increases in feed intake (FI) Richards and Proszkowiec-Weglarz (2007). Consequently, higher FI is generally required to achieve greater body weight gain (BWG) and improved feed efficiency (Wen et al. 2018; Yan et al. 2019), whereas lower FI is often associated with reduced body weight (Dunnington and Siegel 1997; Dunnington et al. 2013). In this context, the present findings help explain why the feed intake levels observed in the sire and dam lines used to develop the Anadolu-T genotype were at undesirable levels compared with those of commercial broiler lines.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWeekly and cumulative FCR values are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e and Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e. Feed conversion ratio (FCR) is one of the most commonly used indicators for evaluating feed efficiency and is defined as the amount of feed consumed per unit of body weight (BW) gain (Sarıca et al. 2021b). As a trait exhibiting genetic variation, FCR can be effectively improved through breeding and selection programs (Chambers and Lin, 1988; Kubiak et al. 2017).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWeekly and cumulative feed conversion ratios of hybrids obtained from crossbreeding\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGrowth periods\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth colspan=\"4\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHybrids\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSEM\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eP value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWeekly FCR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.29\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.18\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.25\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.28\u003csup\u003eab\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.37\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.27\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.28\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.30\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.44\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.34\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.36\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.39\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.57\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.38\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.46\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.44\u003csup\u003eab\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.07\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.69\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.82\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.84\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.003\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.296\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCumulative FCR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.35\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.24\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.27\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.29\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.40\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.29\u003csup\u003ed\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.32\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.34\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.46\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.33\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.38\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.38\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.63\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.44\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.50\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.53\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.78\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.61\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.63\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.68\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003ctfoot\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003eFCR: Feed conversion ratio, AA: Anadolu \u0026ndash; T \u0026times; Anadolu \u0026ndash; T; CC: Cobb \u0026times; Cobb; AC: Anadolu \u0026ndash; T male \u0026times; Cobb female; CA: Cobb male \u0026times; Anadolu \u0026ndash; T female; \u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003eSEM: Standard error of the mean, Values within the same row denoted by different superscript letters differ significantly from each other.\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tfoot\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn the present study, statistically significant differences (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.003) in feed conversion ratios among the hybrids were observed during the first five weeks, whereas these differences were not significant (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) in the sixth week. Except for the AA hybrid, the feed conversion ratio values recorded in the fifth week were similar among the other hybrids. The AA genotype exhibited the highest feed conversion ratio during the first five weeks compared with the other genotypes. The higher body weight gain of this genotype in the sixth week resulted in its feed conversion ratio becoming similar to that of the other hybrids during the same period.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhen the results obtained in terms of the cumulative FCR values at 6 weeks of slaughter age, which form the basis of economic efficiency indices, were examined, statistically significant differences were determined among the hybrids (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01). The values of the CC and AC genotypes were similar, with cumulative FCRs of 1.61 and 1.63, respectively, whereas the cumulative FCR values obtained from the CA and AA genotypes were calculated as 1.68 and 1.78, respectively. The highest value was observed in the AA hybrids. Based on the cumulative FCR values, the genotypic ranking indicated that the CC and AC hybrids were the best-performing genotypes, followed by the CA hybrids in second place and the AA hybrids in third place. For the Anadolu\u0026ndash;T hybrids, the dam and sire lines subjected to selection over seven generations exhibited average feed conversion ratios of 1.94 and 1.84 at 8 weeks of age, respectively Oğuzhan and Sarıca (2024). Accordingly, the cumulative FCR value of 1.78 obtained from the AA hybrids in the present study, being more favorable than that of the parental lines, indicates the presence of a heterosis effect. The observation of similar cumulative FCR values in AC hybrids, derived from crosses between Anadolu\u0026ndash;T males and Cobb females, and CC hybrids indicates that the genetic improvement attained in Anadolu\u0026ndash;T males has reached a level comparable to commercial broiler lines. Similarly, the second-place ranking of the CA genotype in terms of cumulative FCR may be explained by the lack of sufficient genetic improvement in the Anadolu\u0026ndash;T dam line to induce heterosis.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWeekly and cumulative viability values are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e. No significant differences were observed among the hybrids in terms of weekly viability values, except for those recorded in week 4. In week 4, the viability of the AA hybrid was found to be significantly lower than that of the other hybrids (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01), and this difference persisted in the cumulative viability values at weeks 4 and 5 (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01). However, no significant differences were observed among the hybrids in terms of viability or cumulative viability at week 6, which corresponds to the slaughter age (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab6\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 6\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWeekly and cumulative viability of hybrids obtained from crossbreeding\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eViability for broilers\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth colspan=\"4\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHybrids\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSEM\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eP value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWeekly, %\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e98.96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e98.96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.588\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e96.87\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.00\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.00\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.00\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.42\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.002\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e97.92\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e98.96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.42\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.248\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e98.96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e96.88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e98.96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.642\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCumulative, %\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e98.96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e98.96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.588\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e98.96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e98.96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.588\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95.83\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e98.96\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.00\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.00\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.63\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.037\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e93.75\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e98.96\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.00\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e98.96\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.76\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.002\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6. Week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e92.71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e98.96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e96.88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e97.92\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.193\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003ctfoot\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003eAA: Anadolu \u0026ndash; T \u0026times; Anadolu \u0026ndash; T; CC: Cobb \u0026times; Cobb; AC: Anadolu \u0026ndash; T male \u0026times; Cobb female; CA: Cobb male \u0026times; Anadolu \u0026ndash; T female; \u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003eSEM: Standard error of the mean, Values within the same row denoted by different superscript letters differ significantly from each other.\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tfoot\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThroughout the experimental period, it was noteworthy that the viability of hybrids obtained from AC and CA crossbreeding was similar to that of CC. Several studies have shown that repeated inbreeding in poultry can lead to inbreeding depression, resulting in reduced viability, hatchability, fertility, and overall health performance due to increased homozygosity and loss of genetic diversity (MacLaury and Nordskog 1956; Nordskog and Cheng, 1988; Kristensen and S\u0026oslash;rensen, 2005). In line with these considerations, the fact that the AA genotype has been reproduced within its own line for a long period, whereas the AC and CA hybrids were obtained through crossbreeding with a commercial breeder line, may account for the observed differences in viability. Despite earlier differences, no statistically significant variation in viability was observed among the hybrids by slaughter age. This outcome indicates that the parental stocks used to produce AA, AC, and CA possessed viability levels comparable to CC, reflecting the high viability of the breeding parents.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"CONCLUSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eFuture research should prioritize the comprehensive evaluation of FI and FCR dynamics among diverse chicken breeds across extended growth periods. The incorporation of feeding behaviour profiles into breeding objectives and production management frameworks may enhance the identification and selection of individuals exhibiting superior growth performance.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":" \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEthical statement.\u003c/b\u003e All procedures were approved by the Kahramanmaraş S\u0026uuml;t\u0026ccedil;\u0026uuml; İmam University, Faculty of Agriculture Animal Experiments Local Ethics Committee (Decision No: 2025/02).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eConflict of interest.\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor contribution:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Beyhan Yeter and Hasan Eleroğlu. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Hasan Eleroğlu and Beyhan Yeter and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgments:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study was conducted using chicks obtained from the paraent stock materials in project number TAGEM/HAYS\u0026Uuml;D/G/22/A4/P4/6230. We extend our thanks to TAGEM.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData availability.\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarbato GF, Vasilatos-Youken R (1991) Sex - linked and maternal effects on growth in chickens. Poult. Sci. 70: 709\u0026ndash;718. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0700709\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChambers JR, Lin CY (1988) Age-constant versus weight-constant feed consumption and efficiency in broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 67(4):565\u0026ndash;576. DOI: 10.3382/ps.0670565\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCharlesworth B, Charlesworth D (2010) Elements of Evolutionary Genetics; Roberts and Company Publishers: Greenwood, CO, USA,\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChatellier V (2021) Review: international trade in animal products and the place of the European Union: main trends over the last 20 years. Animal 15(Suppl 1): 100289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2021.100289\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDunnington EA, Honaker CF, Mc Gilliard ML, Siegel PB (2013) Phenotypic responses of chickens to long-term, bidirectional selection for juvenile body weight\u0026ndash;historical perspective. Poult. Sci. 92(7):1724\u0026ndash;34. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2013-03069\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDunnington EA, Siegel P (1997) Anorexia in chickens selected for low juvenile body weight. Archiv. Fur. Geflugelk. 61:201\u0026ndash;204\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eD\u0026uuml;zg\u0026uuml;neş O, Kesici T, G\u0026uuml;rb\u0026uuml;z F (1987) Istatistik Metotlari. A.\u0026Uuml;. Zir. Fak. Yay. No: 861/229.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEmmans G, Kyriazakis I (2001) Consequences of genetic change in farm animals on food intake and feeding behaviour. Proc Nutr Soc. 60(1):115\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;25. DOI: 10.1079/pns200059\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eErensoy K (2024) Growth, welfare and leg soundness traits in genetically different Anadolu-T broiler pure lines and hybrids. J. of Anim. Produc. Vol: 65 (2): 149\u0026ndash;161. https://doi.org/10.29185/hayuretim.1573738\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFairfull RW, Liljedahl LE, Gowe RS Age-regulated expression of genetic and environmental variation in fitness traits. 2. Genetic effects and variances for viability among crosses from a factorial mating of six selected Leghorn strains Can. J. Anim. Sci., 79 (1999), pp. 269\u0026ndash;276\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHavenstein GB, Ferket PR, Qureshi MA (2003) Carcass composition and yield of 1957 versus 2001 broilers when fed representative 1957 and 2001 broiler diets. Poult. Sci. 82(10): 1509-18. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/82.10.1509\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHavenstein GB, Ferket PR, Qureshi MA (2003) Carcass composition and yield of 1957 versus 2001 broilers when fed representative 1957 and 2001 broiler diets. Poult. Sci. 82(10): 1509-18. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/82.10.1509\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKareem-Ibrahim KO, Abanikannda OTF, Lawal AK, Nwadialo S (2023) Influence of weight at hatching on weekly weight of broiler chickens. ADAN J. of Agric. 4: 135\u0026ndash;142. DOI:10.36108/adanja/3202.40.0131\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhulel RMT, Sabri MA (2020) Effect of initial weight of chicks on performance of Iraqi local chicks. Plant Archives, 20:5686\u0026ndash;90\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKristensen TN, S\u0026oslash;rensen C. (2005) Inbreeding -- lessons from animal breeding, evolutionary biology and conservation genetics. Anim. Sci. 80(2):121\u0026ndash;133. doi:10.1079/ASC41960121\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKubiak E, Wimmers K, Reyer H, Szwaczkowski T (2017) Genetic aspects of feed efficiency and reduction of environmental footprint in broilers:a review. J. of Appl. Genet. 58(4):487\u0026ndash;98. doi: 10.1007/s13353-017-0392-7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeandro NSM, Cunha WCP, Stringhini JH, Cruz CP, Barcelos Caf\u0026eacute; M, Matos, MS (2006) Effect of broiler chicken initial weight on performance, carcass yield and economic viability. R. Bras. Zootec. 35(6) 2314\u0026ndash;21. DOI:** **10.1590/S1516-35982006000800017\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeeson S, Summers JD (2010) Broiler breeder production. Nottingham University Press. Nottingham.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeeson, S., Summers, J.D. (2001). Nutrition of the Chicken. University Books, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMaclaury DW, Nordskog AW (1956) Effects of inbreeding on mortality in the domestic fowl. Poult. Sci. 35:582\u0026ndash;585. DOI:10.3382/ps.0350582\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMancinelli AC, Menchetti L, Birolo M, Bittante G, Chiattelli D, Castellini C. (2023) Crossbreeding to improve local chicken breeds: predicting growth performance of the crosses using the Gompertz model and estimated heterosis. Poult. Sci.102(8):102783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2023.102783\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMebratie W, Reyer H, Wimmers K, Bovenhuis H, Jensen J (2019) Genome wide association study of body weight and feed efficiency traits in a commercial broiler chicken population, a re-visitation. Sci. Repo. 9(1): 922. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-37216-z.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMendes AS, Paixao SJ, Restelatto R, Reffatti R, Possenti JC, De Moura, DJ, Morello GMZ, de Carvalho TMR. (2011) Effects of initial body weight and litter material on broiler production, Braz. J. of Poult. Sci. 13(3):165\u0026ndash;170. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-635X2011000300001\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMuir et. all (2008) Genome-wide assessment of worldwide chicken SNP genetic diversity indicates significant absence of rare alleles in commercial breeds. Agri. Sci. 105 (45) 17312\u0026ndash;17317. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0806569105\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNordskog AW, Cheng S (1988) Inbreeding effects on fertility and hatchability associated with the formation of sublines. Poult. Sci. 67:859\u0026ndash;864. http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.0670859\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNyalala I, Okinda C, Kunjie C, Korohou T, Nyalala L, Chao Q (2021) Weight and volume estimation of poultry and products based on computer vision systems: a review. Poult. Sci., 100(5): 101072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2021.101072\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOğuzhan E, Sarıca M (2024) Live weight and egg production changes of pure lines used to obtain Anadolu-T broiler parent line. Turkish J. of Agri. - Food Sci. and Tech. 12(9):1539-47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v12i9.1539-1547.6509\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u0026Ouml;zdamar K (2002) Paket programlar ile istatistiksel veri analizi. Kaan Yayınları, 4. Baskı, Eskişehir.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePrakash A, Saxena VK, Singh, MK (2020) Genetic analysis of residual feed intake, feed conversion ratio and related growth parameters in broiler chicken: a review. World's Poul. Sci. J., 76(2), 304\u0026ndash;317. https://doi.org/10.1080/00439339.2020.1735978\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eProudfoot FG, Hulan HW (1987) Parental effects on performance of broiler chicken progenies. Poult. Sci. 66(7): 1119\u0026ndash;1122. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0661119\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRichards MP, Proszkowiec-Weglarz M (2007) Mechanisms Regulating Feed Intake, Energy Expenditure, and Body Weight in Poultry. Poult. Sci. 86:1478\u0026ndash;90. DOI: 10.1093/ps/86.7.1478\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSarıca M, Erensoy K, Oğuzhan E, Yeter B, Camci \u0026Ouml; (2021b) Effects of male selection for body weight on performance of offsprings in broiler pure-lines. Braz. J. Poult. Sci. 23(03). https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9061-2021-1464\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSarıca M, Erensoy K, \u0026Ouml;zkan I, Oğuzhan E, \u0026Ccedil;ağlak S (2021a) Growth and carcass Traits of Anadolu-T broiler pure lines, Turkish J. of Agri. - Food Sci. and Techn. 9(11):1980-87. https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v9i11.1980-1987.4575\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSosa-Madrid, BS, Maniatis G, Ib\u0026aacute;\u0026ntilde;ez-Escriche N, Avenda\u0026ntilde;o S, Kranis A (2023) Genetic variance estimation over time in broiler breeding programmes for growth and reproductive traits. Ani. 13: 3306. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13213306\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSungkhapreecha, P., Chankitisakul, V., Duangjinda, M., \u0026amp; Boonkum, W. (2022). Combining abilities, heterosis, growth performance, and carcass characteristics in a diallel cross from black-bone chickens and thai native chickens. Animals, 12(13), 1602. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12131602\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSweeney KM, Aranibar CD, Kim WK, Williams SM, Avila LP, Starkey JD, Wilson JL (2022) Impact of every-day versus skip-a-day feeding of broiler breeder pullets during rearing on body weight uniformity and reproductive performance. Poult. Sci. 101(8): 101959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2022.101959\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eU\u0026ccedil;ar A (2020) The effect of some parent stock characteristics on incubation and broiler performance. Dissertation, University of Ankara\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eU\u0026ccedil;ar A, Elibol O, T\u0026uuml;rkoğlu M (2025). The effect of male broiler parent live weight differences during the growing period on progeny broiler performance. J of Agri. Sci. 31(2):332\u0026ndash;343. DOI:10.15832/ankutbd.1502100\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eU\u0026ccedil;ar A, T\u0026uuml;rkoğlu M, Sarıca M (2018) Evolution of broilers and broiler breeders. Turkish J. of Agri. -Food Sci. and Tech., 6(1):73\u0026ndash;77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v6i1.73-77.1751\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWalsh B, Lynch M, (2018) Evolution and Selection of Quantitative Traits; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang Y, Sun Y, Ni A, Li Y, Yuan J, Ma H, Wang P, Shi L, Zong Y, Zhao J, Bian S, Chen J. (2022) Research Note: Heterosis for egg production and oviposition pattern in reciprocal crossbreeds of indigenous and elite laying chickens. Poult. Sci.101(12):102201. doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2022.102201\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWen C, Yan W, Zheng J, Ji C, Zhang D, Sun C, Yang N (2018) Feed efficiency measures and their relationships with production and meat quality traits in slower growing broilers. Poult. Sci. 97(7): 2356\u0026ndash;64. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pey062\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYan W, Sun C, Wen C, Ji C, Zhang D, Yang N (2019) Relationships between feeding behaviors and performance traits in slow-growing yellow broilers. Poult. Sci. 98(2):548\u0026ndash;55. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pey424.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZerehdaran S, Vereijken A, Arendonk JAM, Bovenhuis H, van der Waaij EH (2005) Broiler breeding strategies using indirect carcass measurements. Poult. Sci. 84(8):1214-21. DOI:10.1093/ps/84.8.1214\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZuidhof MJ, Schneider BL, Carney VL, Korver DR, Robinson FE (2014) Growth, efficiency, and yield of commercial broilers from 1957, 1978, and 2005. Poult. Sci. 93(12):2970-82. doi: 10.3382/ps.2014-04291. Epub 2014 Sep 26.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"tropical-animal-health-and-production","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"trop","sideBox":"Learn more about [Tropical Animal Health and Production](https://www.springer.com/journal/11250)","snPcode":"11250","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/11250/3","title":"Tropical Animal Health and Production","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Anadolu–T, Cobb 500, Reciprocal Crosses, Broiler Performance","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8669688/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8669688/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study aimed to compare the performance of hybrids obtained from crosses between Anadolu\u0026ndash;T hybrid breeders and commercial parent stocks. The hybrid combinations evaluated were Anadolu\u0026ndash;T \u0026times; Anadolu\u0026ndash;T (AA), Cobb \u0026times; Cobb (CC), Anadolu\u0026ndash;T male \u0026times; Cobb female (AC), and Cobb male \u0026times; Anadolu\u0026ndash;T female (CA). Throughout the 6-week growth period, including the initial body weight, significant differences were observed among all hybrid lines in terms of weekly live weights and body weight gains (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). Except for the first week, the weekly live weight values of CC and AC were similar, with no statistically significant differences between these groups (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). The average slaughter weights were 3005.00 g for CC and 2952.81 g for AC, respectively. Statistical analyses indicated that differences in weekly feed intake (WFI) among the hybrids were significant during the first four weeks (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01 and p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05), while cumulative feed intake (CFI) values differed significantly during the first three weeks (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01). Cumulative feed conversion ratio (FCR) values at 6 weeks of slaughter age, which form the basis of economic efficiency indices, were examined, statistically significant differences were determined among the hybrids (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01). The values of the CC and AC genotypes were similar, with cumulative FCRs of 1.61 and 1.63, respectively, whereas the cumulative FCR values obtained from the CA and AA genotypes were calculated as 1.68 and 1.78, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Comparison of the Performance of Hybrids Obtained from Reciprocal Crosses between Anadolu–T and Cobb500 Parent Stocks","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-02-20 10:31:21","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8669688/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":1},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"","date":"2026-03-28T07:23:34+00:00","index":0,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-02-18T03:32:40+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-01-27T04:16:29+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Tropical Animal Health and Production","date":"2026-01-22T07:25:16+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"tropical-animal-health-and-production","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"trop","sideBox":"Learn more about [Tropical Animal Health and Production](https://www.springer.com/journal/11250)","snPcode":"11250","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/11250/3","title":"Tropical Animal Health and Production","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"9575f073-e84f-4ee0-8988-c15ba8e3bb0c","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 20th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-20T10:31:21+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-02-20 10:31:21","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8669688","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8669688","identity":"rs-8669688","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}