Impact of a drug-free program on broiler chicken growth performances, gut health, Clostridium perfringens and Campylobacter jejuni occurrences at the farm level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of antimicrobial agents as feed additives in poultry production is a public health concern due to the overall increase in antimicrobial resistance. Although some alternative products are commercially available, little is known on their potential impact on flock health and productivity. A prospective study involving 1.55 million birds was conducted on eight commercial broiler farms in Québec, Canada, to evaluate the impact of replacing antibiotic growth promoters and anticoccidial drugs by a drug-free program including improved brooding conditions, anticoccidial vaccination, essential oil-based feed additives, and water acidification. Various productivity and health parameters were compared between barns allocated to the conventional and the drug-free program. Zootechnical performances were monitored as productivity criteria. Clinical necrotic enteritis and subclinical enteritis occurrences, litter and fecal moistures content were measured, and microscopic gut health was evaluated. Clostridium perfringens and Campylobacter spp. strains were recovered from fecal samples collected during farm visits. Clostridium perfringens counts were used as poultry health indicators and Campylobacter prevalence was noted as well. The drug-free program was associated with a significant increase in feed conversion ratio and a decrease in mean live weight at slaughter and in daily weight gain. An increased incidence of necrotic enteritis outbreaks and subclinical enteritis cases, as well as an increase in litter moisture content at the end of the rearing period were also observed for this program. Mean microscopic intestinal lesion scores and prevalence of Campylobacter colonization were not statistically different between the two groups but the drug-free program was associated with higher Clostridium perfringens isolation rates. According to the current study design, the results suggest that substitution of antibiotic growth promoters and anticoccidial drugs by a drug-free program impacts various broiler chicken production parameters and Clostridium perfringens carriage levels.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".