## 4 Discussion
Although the feed intake of young chickens is small, it also makes the feed scale and the range of the drop weighing scale small, which is conducive to the improvement of weighing accuracy, so even if a small amount of intake and drop can be obtained when the young chickens are eating, this can allow us to calculate the accurate actual intake. When comparing dynamic weighing with static weighing, as shown in Figure 7, the results show that there is a significant difference between static weighing and dynamic weighing. After circuit amplification, analog filtering, and noise reduction of static weighing, when the signal reaches stability, its signal fluctuation is small, the high-frequency interference is greatly suppressed, the signal-to-noise ratio is significantly improved, and the accurate weight can be obtained. However, the swaying and shaking of poultry on the scales produce some disturbances. It is difficult to obtain accurate weights of chickens when they are eating by means of static weighing. Moreover, because such disturbances are close to the frequency of the weight signal, the analog circuit generally struggles to filter them out. It can also be concluded that the interference source of static weighing is related to the weighing system itself, and the interference source of dynamic weighing is mainly from living activities. For the weighing of static objects, the weighing signal generally fluctuates only at the moment when the static object is placed on the scale, while the signal in dynamic weighing is unstable throughout the whole weighing process. As shown in Figure 8, when the chick is eating, its weight fluctuation range can reach 56%; therefore, to improve the accuracy of live weighing, digital filtering is required. In preliminary experiments, it was found that even if a high-precision electronic scale was used to weigh live poultry, and the chicken stayed calm and did not move, balance readings also fluctuated; the larger the chicken, the greater the fluctuation of the electronic balance. On the other hand, when a load sensor with large static weighing error collected data at 5 Hz and then performed digital filtering in the median mean, the obtained poultry weight was not significantly different from the body weight data manually read out using a high-precision electronic balance. Combining the results of different researchers, it can be concluded that there are differences in the feeding behavior of different breeds of poultry at different ages. In this study, our calculation of the FCR (4.4) of yellow broilers was larger than that of [PERSON] for turkeys (2.57) [26], which may be due to the difference in breed. An adult turkey is three to four times larger than a domestic chicken, while a yellow broiler is a slightly smaller domestic chicken, and its growth rate is lower than that of the turkey. Our FCR (4.4) is also greater than the result of [PERSON], who also calculated the FCR of yellow broilers (2.6-3.7) [27], most likely due to the age difference. In their study, the initial weight of the chicken was 1774.23 g, while our initial weight was only 208 g. The experimental results are consistent with the actual situation. In the experiment, it was observed that the chick with the largestfeed intake grew the fastest, but its FCR was relatively high. This may be because when the feed exceeds a certain amount, it cannot grow into meat, but is excreted in feces. In this study, we showed for the first time the automated monitoring of body weight change and feeding behavior in group-housed chicks. We also directly measured the amount of feed falling to the ground during each feeding using a high-precision weighing scale, thereby avoiding the error caused by estimating the actual feed intake. We also developed a single passage that only allows a single chick to feed, avoiding the failure of feeding data measurement caused by multiple chicks crowding onto the scale when competing for food.