MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160609240 · doi:10.1637/8114-091807-reg

The Role of Penicillin G Potassium in Managing Clostridium perfringens in Broiler Chickens

2008· article· en· W2160609240 on OpenAlexaff
Pierre Gadbois, John J. Brennan, Heather L. Bruce, Jeff Wilson, Jeff Aramini

Bibliographic record

VenueAvian Diseases · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphNutreco (Canada)Vétoquinol (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBroilerClostridium perfringensPenicillinBiologyLesionVeterinary medicineAnimal scienceMedicineAntibioticsMicrobiologySurgeryBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The efficacy of penicillin G potassium (Pot-Pen) administered via drinking water to manage necrotic enteritis (NE) was investigated in a Clostridium perfringens (CP) challenge study using 1600 broiler chickens assigned to one of four treatment groups: nonchallenged, nonmedicated; challenged, nonmedicated; challenged, Pot-Pen 0.2 g/L; challenged, Pot-Pen 0.4 g/L. Overall mortality due to NE was significantly reduced among Pot-Pen–treated pens; mortality due to other causes did not differ among the treatment groups. Among all birds, growth performance parameters were significantly improved among Pot-Pen–treated pens. When considering birds randomly sacrificed 4 days post-Pot-Pen initiation, mean NE lesion scores were greatest among the challenged, nonmedicated pens; only one of 80 randomly sacrificed birds treated with Pot-Pen had NE lesions. Among the nonmedicated control pens, body weight (BW) was significantly greater among birds that did not have NE-associated lesions. When sacrificed birds were stratified by NE lesion score, there were no significant differences in BW among the treatment groups. Results of this study suggest that CP-associated subclinical disease can significantly reduce broiler performance. Furthermore, the positive effects of treatment with Pot-Pen appeared to be associated with the prevention and/or treatment of NE-specific lesions.El papel de la penicilina G potásica en el manejo del Clostridium perfringens en pollos de engorde.Mediante un estudio de desafío de Clostridium perfringens, se investigó la eficacia de la penicilina G potásica administrada en el agua de bebida para el manejo de la enteritis necrótica. Se utilizaron 1600 pollos de engorde asignados a cuatro tratamientos: 1) no desafiados / no medicados; 2) desafiados / no medicados; 3) desafiados / medicados con penicilina G 0.2 g/L; 4) desafiados / medicados con penicilina G 0.4 g/L. En general, la mortalidad debido a enteritis necrótica se redujo en los corrales tratados con penicilina G, mientras la mortalidad por otras causas no difirió entre tratamientos. Los parámetros productivos se incrementaron significativamente en los grupos tratados. Analizando aves sacrificadas aleatoriamente 4 días posteriores a la administración de la penicilina G, el promedio del registro de lesiones entre las aves desafiadas / no medicadas fue el más alto; solo una de 80 aves tratadas con penicilina G mostró lesiones de enteritis necrótica. Entre los corrales no medicados, el peso corporal fue mayor en las aves que no mostraron lesiones asociadas con enteritis necrótica. Una vez sacrificadas, las aves se clasificaron en base al registro de lesiones. No se observaron diferencias significativas en el peso corporal entre los tratamientos. Los resultados de este estudio sugieren que la enfermedad subclínica asociada con Clostridium perfringens puede reducir significativamente el rendimiento productivo de los pollos de engorde. Además, los efectos positivos del tratamiento con penicilina G están aparentemente asociados con la prevención y/o tratamiento de lesiones específicas de enteritis necrótica.Abbreviations: BW = body weight; CP = Clostridium perfringens; FCR = feed conversion ratio; NE = necrotic enteritis; Pot-Pen = penicillin G potassium

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.817

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations16
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAvian DiseasesSame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207