Effects of diets containing different concentrations of mannanoligosaccharide or antibiotics on growth performance, intestinal development, cecal and litter microbial populations, and carcass parameters of broilers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of 2 levels of mannanoligosaccharide (MOS) in feed were compared with antibiotic growth promoters on growth performance, intestinal morphology, cecal and litter microbial populations, and carcass parameters in broilers raised in a sanitary environment. Dietary treatments included: 1) antibiotic growth promoter-free diet (control), 2) VIRG (diet 1 + 16.5 mg/kg of virginiamycin), 3) BACT (diet 1 + 55 mg/kg of bacitracin), 4) LMOS (diet 1 + 0.2% MOS), and 5) HMOS (diet 1 + 0.5% MOS). Birds were randomly assigned to 3 replicate pens/treatment (n = 55/pen). Body weight and feed intake were recorded weekly throughout 38 d. At d 14, 24, and 34, a 1-cm segment of duodenum, jejunum, and ileum was used in morphological analysis (n = 9 birds/d per treatment). At the same bird ages, cecal contents were assayed for lactobacilli, bifidobacteria, Salmonella, Campylobacter, and Escherichia coli, whereas litter was analyzed for Salmonella, Campylobacter, and E. coli. Carcass yields (breast fillet and tenders, thigh, drumstick, and wing) were determined at d 38. Body weight, feed conversion, and carcass yields did not differ among treatments. In contrast to birds fed VIRG or BACT, LMOS and HMOS consistently increased (P < 0.05) villi height and goblet cell number per villus in all intestinal segments at d 24 and 34. Bifidobacteria concentrations were higher (P < 0.05) in LMOS- and HMOS-fed birds at all time points. Birds and litter from all treatments were free of Salmonella. At d 14 and 24, cecal E. coli and Campylobacter counts were not different among treatments. In comparison to birds fed control, at d 34, BACT, LMOS, and HMOS significantly reduced (P < 0.05) cecal E. coli concentrations, whereas Campylobacter counts were reduced (P < 0.05) by VIRG, BACT, and LMOS. Litter bacterial counts were not altered by dietary treatments. In conclusion, under conditions of this study, MOS conferred intestinal health benefits to chickens by improving its morphological development and microbial ecology. But, there were no additional benefits of the higher MOS dosage.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".