Cecal Populations of Lactobacilli and Bifidobacteria and Escherichia coli Populations After In Vivo Escherichia coli Challenge in Birds Fed Diets with Purified Lignin or Mannanoligosaccharides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two experiments were conducted to evaluate lignin and mannanoligosaccharides as alternatives to antibiotic growth promoters in broilers. Dietary treatments for the 2 studies were 1) negative control (CTL-, antibiotic free); 2) positive control (CTL+, diet 1 + 11 mg of virginiamycin/kg); 3) mannanoligosaccharide (MOS; diet 1 + BioMos: 0.2% to 21 d and 0.1% thereafter); 4) LL (diet 1 + 1.25% Alcell lignin); and 5) HL (diet 1 + 2.5% Alcell lignin). In experiment 1, each treatment was assigned to 4 pen replicates (52 birds each). Body weight and feed intake were recorded weekly for 38 d. At 28 and 38 d, cecal contents were assayed for lactobacilli and bifidobacteria. Body weight and feed intake did not differ among dietary treatments. At d 38, the lactobacilli population was greatest (P < 0.05) in birds fed MOS, whereas LL-fed birds had greater (P < 0.05) lactobacilli load than those fed CTL+. Bifidobacteria load was greater (P < 0.05) in birds fed MOS or LL compared with those fed CTL+ at both d 28 and 38. However, at d 28 and 38, lactobacilli and bifidobacteria loads were lowest (P < 0.05) in CTL+ or HL-fed birds. In experiment 2, 21-d-old birds from the initial flock were transferred to cages for oral Escherichia coli (O2 and O88 serotypes) challenge (12 birds/treatment). After 3, 6, and 9 d, cecal loads of E. coli were determined. Birds fed HL had a lower E. coli load (P < 0.05) than birds fed CTL- or CTL+ at d 3, and lower than birds fed CTL- at d 6. At d 9, the E. coli load was lower (P < 0.05) in birds fed MOS or HL than in those fed the CTL- or CTL+ diets; LL-fed birds had lower E. coli load than those fed CTL-. Birds fed MOS or LL had a comparative advantage over CTL+ birds in increasing populations of lactobacilli and bifidobacteria and lowering E. coli loads after challenge.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".