Efficiency of a prebiotic and a plant extract alone or in combination on broiler performance and intestinal physiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 36-d trial was conducted to evaluate two potential alternatives to antibiotic growth promoters in broilers. The products tested were a prebiotic (PROFEED®) and a plant extract (XTRACT™). Ross male broiler performance and digestive tract function responses were studied. To evaluate the effect of these potential alternatives alone or in combination, seven diets were tested: positive control avilamycin 10 ppm (PC); negative control antibiotic-free (NC); NC + PROFEED® 600 ppm (P); NC + XTRACT™ 100 ppm (X); NC + PROFEED®/XTRACT™ 600/100 ppm (XPH); NC + PROFEED® /XTRACT™ 450/75 ppm (XPM); NC + PROFEED®/XTRACT™ 300/50 ppm (XPL). From 22 to 36 d of age, body weight gain (BWG) was improved by P, X, and XPM compared with NC (P < 0.05). Throughout the trial, broilers fed PC, P, X and XPL had a better feed conversion ratio (FCR) than those fed NC (P < 0.1). No relevant negative effect was observed for the parameters relative to the digestive tract function: ileal histomorphometry, anaerobic sulphite-reducing bacteria count (ASR), intestinal and caecal pH, caecal volatile fatty acids production (VFA) and litter score (LS). With the higher mixture dose (XPH), no improvement in broiler performance was observed, suggesting no synergistic effect of the two additives. Key words: Broiler, antibiotic growth promoter, plant extract, prebiotic
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".