Effects of a protected inclusion of organic acids and essential oils as antibiotic growth promoter alternative on growth performance, intestinal morphology and gut microflora in broilers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This experiment was conducted to investigate the effects of protected essential oils and organic acids mixture on poultry feeding. A total of 450 1-day-old Cobb 500 chicks were randomly allotted into three treatments with six replicates. Birds were offered a basal diet (C), basal diet with 0.15 g/kg enramycin premix (A) and basal diet with 0.30 g/kg protected essential oils and organic acids mixture product (P). The results showed that protected essential oils and organic acids mixture supplementation reduced average daily feed intake and ratio of feed to gain (F/G) at 22-42 days of age, and F/G during 1-42 days of age also declined (P < 0.05). Product supplementation improved spleen index, villus height and crypt depth of the jejunum at 42 days when compared with the control (P < 0.05). In addition, secretory immunoglobulin A level of ileal mucosa and trypsin and chymotrypsin activities of intestinal tract were higher in the P treatment. Bacterial sequence analysis of the intestinal tract revealed that protected essential oils and organic acids mixture supplementation changed gut microflora mainly in Lactobacillus. These data suggested that dietary mixture of organic acids and essential oils addition could be used in the poultry industry as an antibiotic growth promoter alternative.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".