Dietary Inclusion of a Mixed Powder of Medicinal Plant Leaves Enhances the Feed Efficiency and Immune Function in Broiler Chickens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The trial was designed to determine the effect of the mixed powder of leaves of Anacardium occidentale (60%), Psidium guajava (20%), and Morinda citrifolia (20%) on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, and immunoglobulin concentration in broiler chickens. A total of 80 one-day-old Ross 308 broiler chickens were randomly assigned to two dietary treatments from days 1 to 21 of age, with 8 replicates by treatments and 5 birds per replicate. Treatments consisted of a control diet (T0) and the dietary inclusion of 0.5% of mixed powder of medicinal plant leaves (T1). The inclusion of herbs decreases the feed intake (FI) and feed conversion ratio (FCR; P<0.05 ) in week 2 and in the period studied (1–21 days) compared with T0 but did not modify ( P<0.05 ) the body weight (BW) and average gain (AG). Also, the mixed powder has no influence ( P>0.05 ) on nutrient digestibility and IgA concentration; however, the IgG concentration increased by the effect of this experimental treatment. The results allow recommending the dietary inclusion of mixed powder of medicinal plant leaves as an alternative for obtaining acceptable performance in broilers.
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".