Effects of plant extracts and essential oils as feed supplements on quality and microbial traits of rabbit meat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of dietary supplementation of onion, cranberry, strawberry and essentials oils on meat quality were analysed. Five groups of 48 Grimaud female weaned rabbits received the supplemented or the control ration; the experimental unit was a cage of 6 rabbits. Each experimental diet contained 10 ppm of added active ingredients. Rabbits were fed with the experimental diets for 4 wk before determining slaughter and carcass traits and determining the pH at 1 and 24 h post mortem (pHu) of the <em>Longissimus dorsi</em> (LD) and the <em>Biceps femoris</em> (BF) muscle, left and right, respectively. Cooking loss, drip loss and L*, a* and b* color parameters were obtained of the right<em> </em>LD and for ground meat and antioxidant status (TBARS, DNPH, Folin Ciocalteu). Only the pHu of the LD muscle for the strawberry supplemented group was significantly lower when compared to the control group (P=0.04). However, we note that for the pH of the LD, the average was less than 6 for the meat of animals who received a diet enriched in polyphenols, compared to the control group. Plant extract supplementation did not influence meat quality traits, growth performance or oxidative stability. But under aerobic and anaerobic conditions, our results indicate that diet supplementation with extracts rich in polyphenols, especially with essential oils, had a small bot sporadic positive effect in reducing bacterial microflora compared to the control group (P&lt;0.05). In conclusion, plant extracts and essential oils can be used in a rabbit diet without adverse effects on performance and meat quality traits. This effect could be optimized by investigating higher doses.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".