Efficacy of In-Feed Tylosin Phosphate for the Treatment of Necrotic Enteritis in Broiler Chickens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficacy of tylosin phosphate for the treatment of necrotic enteritis (NE) was investigated in a floor pen study of 2,000 broiler chickens. A model in which Clostridium perfringens was administered in the feed on Days 14 to 16 was used to initiate an outbreak of NE. Treatments, allocated at the pen level in a randomized complete block design, consisted of five levels of tylosin phosphate (0, 50, 100, 200, or 300 ppm) administered in the feed on Days 15 to 22, following the identification of an outbreak of NE on Day 15. Mortality due to NE was significantly reduced (P < 0.05) for medicated birds at all dose levels of tylosin phosphate compared to unmedicated birds. Mean NE lesion scores on Day 17 were significantly reduced (P < 0.05) by all levels of tylosin treatment compared to those of unmedicated birds, decreasing linearly from 2.66 at 0 ppm to 0.38 at 100 ppm and 0 at higher doses. Tylosin at all levels provided improvement in Day 29 body weight, average daily gain, feed to gain ratio, and average daily feed intake compared to unmedicated birds. The results of this study provide evidence that tylosin phosphate, when administered in feed, is effective in the treatment of clinical outbreaks of NE in broiler chickens and suggest that the optimal dose for this purpose is 100 ppm.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".