Effects of dietary Lactobacillus plantarum B1 on growth performance, intestinal microbiota, and short chain fatty acid profiles in broiler chickens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two experiments were conducted to determine the effects of Lactobacillus plantarum B1 on broiler performance, cecal bacteria, and ileal and cecal short chain fatty acids (SCFA). The study also determined whether it was necessary to feed Lactobacillus throughout the entire growth period or if the beneficial effects could be obtained by supplementation during the starter or finisher period only. Experiment 1 was conducted with 72 broilers assigned to 2 treatments (N=6). One treatment was the basal diet (Con), and the other was the basal diet supplemented with 2×10(9) cfu/kg L. plantarum B1 (Wh). In experiment 2, 144 one-day-old broilers were assigned to 4 treatments (N=6) including a basal diet (Con), the basal diet supplemented with 2×10(9) cfu/kgL. plantarum B1 during d one to 21 only (St), the basal diet supplemented with L. plantarum B1 during d 22 to 42 only (Fn), and, finally, the basal diet supplemented with L. plantarum B1 from d one to 42 (Wh). Experiment 1 showed that L. plantarum B1 enhanced broiler average daily gain (ADG) and feed conversion ratio (FCR). In experiment 2, during the starter period, broilers in the Wh and St treatments had higher ADG (P<0.05) than broilers in the Con and Fn, while during the finisher period, broilers in the Wh and Fn had higher ADG (P<0.01) and improved FCR (P<0.01) compared with broilers in the Con and St. On d 42, broilers in the Wh and Fn had decreased E. coli (P<0.05) and increased lactic acid bacteria (P<0.05) in their cecal digesta. L. plantarum B1 also increased (P<0.05) ileal mucosal sIgA as well as ileal and cecal SCFA. However, L. plantarum B1 had no effect on intestinal morphology. In conclusion,L. plantarum B1 plays a positive role in broilers. Supplementation during the finisher period or the entire growth period is superior to supplementation during the starter period only.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".