Effects of Bacillus subtilis var. natto and Saccharomyces cerevisiae mixed fermented feed on the enhanced growth performance of broilers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bacillus subtilis var. natto N21 (Bac; for greater proteolytic capacity) and Saccharomyces cerevisiae Y10 (Sac; for greater acidic capacity) were applied to produce a 2-stage combined fermentation feed. This study investigated whether the enhancement of Bac+Sac fermented feed on broiler growth performance was due to the probiotics per se or due to the fermentation process. Trial 1 included 1-d-old broiler chicks (n=144) randomly assigned to control, water added (same as in the fermentation feed, 23%), and Bac+Sac fermented feed (FBac+Sac) treatments with 4 replicates. Trial 2 included 21-d-old broiler chickens (n=12) assigned into control and FBac+Sac groups for a metabolic trial for nutrient availability. Trial 3 included 1-d-old male broiler chicks (n=216) randomly assigned into 6 treatments with 3 replicates. Treatments included a control, Sac fermented feed (FSac), FBac+Sac, Bac powder (PBac), Sac powder (PSac), and Bac+Sac powder (PBac+Sac). The results from trial 1 showed that FBac+Sac increased BW and feed intake (P<0.05) in 21- and 39-d-old chickens. The water-added group showed decreased BW, weight gain, and feed intake (P<0.05). Trial 2 showed that FBac+ Sac increased gross energy availability (P<0.05). Trial 3 showed that FBac+Sac increased 21- and 39-d-old BW and weight gain (P<0.05). Diets supplemented with probiotic powder or fermented with Sac did not improve broiler growth performance (P>0.05). The growth performance improvement of the FBac+Sac treatment was probably not due to the added water, probiotic powder inclusion, or through single-strain fermentation, but due to the 2-stage fermentation process using Bac and Sac strains.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".