Broiler performance and intestinal alterations when fed drug-free diets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study was carried out to investigate the effects of a drug-free feeding program on broiler performance and intestinal morphology. Chicks vaccinated against coccidia were randomly assigned to 4 dietary treatments: 1) negative control (NC), basal diet; 2) positive control (PC), diet 1 + Lincomycin; 3) program 1 (PG1); diet 1 + Bio-Mos, Vegpro, MTB-100, Acid Pak 4-Way, and All-Lac XCL; 4) and program 2 (PG2), diet 1 + Bio-Mos and All-Lac XCL, each of which were assigned to 13 pens (48 birds in each of 52 pens). Growth traits (BW, feed intake, yield, mortality, BW gain, and feed conversion rate) were obtained through 49 d. At d 14, 3 chicks per pen were challenged with coccidia. Segments of duodenum, ileum, and ceca were removed to measure intestinal morphology at d 14, 28, 35, and 49. Final BW gain of broilers on PC (2.736 kg) was numerically higher than those for NC (2.650 kg). Cumulative feed conversion rate at d 49 was improved (P < 0.05) in birds consuming PC and PG2 compared with NC. Overall, mortality was higher for birds consuming the NC (P < 0.05) than the PC, PG1, and PG2 diets. Interaction of dietary treatments with age and age alone were evident (P < 0.0001) for morphology of duodenum, ileum, and ceca. Lamina propria in ceca was thicker (P < 0.008) in broilers consuming the NC than PG1 and PG2 diets. The results of this study indicated that feeding birds without growth promoters resulted in higher mortality and decreased growth performance than did feeding a diet with an antibiotic, and the combination of Bio-Mos and All-Lac XCL helped to reduce negative effects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".