Supplementation of direct-fed microbials as an alternative to antibiotic on growth performance, immune response, cecal microbial population, and ileal morphology of broiler chickens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experiment was conducted to investigate the supplementation of direct-fed microbials (DFM) as an alternative to antibiotics on growth performance, immune response, cecal microbial population, and ileal morphology of broiler chickens. A total of 800 one-day-old male broiler chicks (Ross × Ross) were randomly allotted to 4 dietary treatments with 4 replicate pens per treatment (50 birds/replicate pen). The 4 dietary treatments fed for 35 d were a corn-soybean meal basal diet (control); control plus 0.1% virginiamycin, as an antibiotic growth promoter (AGP); control plus 0.1% direct-fed microbials that contained Lactobacillus reuteri (DFM 1); and control plus 0.1% direct-fed microbials that contained a mixture of L. reuteri, Bacillus subtilis, and Saccharomyces cerevisiae (DFM 2). Results showed that dietary AGP and DFM supplementation significantly increased (P < 0.05) the BW gain of broilers during 0 to 21 d. The feed intake was reduced, whereas the feed conversion was improved significantly when birds were fed DFM 2 at 0 to 7 d of age. The white blood cell and monocyte levels were significantly higher in the DFM 2 group compared with the control. In addition, feeding DFM significantly (P < 0.05) increased the plasma immunoglobulin levels where a higher level was observed in DFM 2 compared with those of the other treatments. Neither DFM nor AGP treatments affected the cecal Lactobacillus and Salmonella content; however, cecal Escherichia coli content significantly decreased in broiler chickens fed DFM and AGP. The ileal villus height, and width and total thickness of muscularis externa were significantly increased when birds were fed DFM compared with AGP and control. These results indicate that the dietary supplementation of DFM increases the growth performance of birds at an early age, stimulates the immune response, decreases the number of E. coli, and improves the ileal morphology of broiler chickens. Thus, DFM that contained a mixture of several beneficial microorganisms could be a viable alternative to antibiotics in the broiler diets.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".