MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157469723 · doi:10.3382/ps.2013-03575

Effect of supplementing direct-fed microbials on broiler performance, nutrient digestibilities, and immune responses

2014· article· en· W2157469723 on OpenAlexaff
S.M. Waititu, Esfandiar Matini, H. Echeverry, Elijah G. Kiarie, J.C. Rodríguez-Lecompte, C. M. Nyachoti

Bibliographic record

VenuePoultry Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward IslandUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmenAnimal scienceBroilerIleumNutrientChemistryFeed conversion ratioFood scienceBiologyEndocrinologyBody weightBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Direct-fed microbials (DFM) are used to improve livestock health and performance. The effects of 2 DFM products, a blend of 3 Bacillus strains (DFMB) and a Propionibacteriumspp. (DFMP), on broiler performance, nutrient utilization, and immune responses were investigated. Day-old (n = 120) male broilers were divided into 24 groups of 5 birds and fed 3 wheat-based diets in mash form (8 groups per diet) from d 1 to 22. The control diet was fed without or with 7.5 × 10(4) cfu/g of either DFMB or DFMP. From d 19 to 21 fecal samples were collected for determination of total tract apparent retention (TTAR) of nutrients and AMEn. On d 21, feed intake and BW were determined. On d 22, 5 birds per treatment were killed by cervical dislocation to collect jejunal and ileal contents for determination of digesta viscosity and apparent ileal digestibility (AID) of nutrients, respectively, and ileum, cecal tonsil, and spleen tissues for Toll-like receptors (TLR) and cytokine expressions. Compared with the control, DFM did not affect BW gain and feed intake but DFMP reduced G:F (P < 0.01). Compared with the control (2,875 kcal/kg), birds fed on DFMB and DFMP had higher AMEn (2,979 and 2,916 kcal/kg, respectively; P < 0.05), whereas both DFM reduced the AID of DM (P < 0.001) and CP (P < 0.01). Furthermore, DFMP reduced TTAR of NDF (29.0 vs. 18.4%; P < 0.001), whereas both DFM increased TTAR of DM and fat (P < 0.001). Supplementing DFMP downregulated ileal expression of TLR-2b, IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-10, and IL-13, whereas DFMB downregulated TLR-2b, IL-2, IL-4, and IL-6 in all 3 tissues, IL-10 in the spleen, and upregulated IL-13 in the spleen. In conclusion, the DFM did not improve performance but increased the AMEn of diet by possibly increasing DM and fat retention. Overall, both DFM showed an antiinflammatory effect in the ileum, but DFMB had more effects on local and systemic immunity than DFMP.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.624
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations90
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePoultry ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207