Effect of Dietary Supplementation with Coarse or Extruded Oat Hulls on Growth Performance, Blood Biochemical Parameters, Ceca Microbiota and Short Chain Fatty Acids in Broiler Chickens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of dietary supplementation with coarse or extruded oat hulls on growth performance, blood biochemistry, cecal microbiota, and short chain fatty acids (SCFA) in broiler chickens. Chickens were randomly allotted to four dietary treatments consisting of a corn-wheat-soybean meal-based diet (Basal), Basal + Bacitracin methylenedisalicylate (BMD), Basal +3% coarse OH (COH), and basal +3% extruded OH (EOH). Feed intake (FI), body weight gain (BWG), and feed conversion ratio (FCR) were recorded weekly. On day 36, eight chickens/treatment were euthanized, blood samples were collected, and organ weights were determined. Cecal digesta samples were collected for the determination of SCFA concentration and microbial DNA sequence. Data were subjected to ANOVA using the mixed procedure of SAS. Alpha diversity was estimated with the Shannon index, and the significance of diversity differences was tested with ANOVA. Birds fed COH and EOH had reduced (p < 0.05) BWG, but there was no effect of treatment on FCR. There was a significant increase (p = 0.0050) in relative gizzard empty weight among birds that were fed COH, compared to the other treatments. Dietary treatments had no effect on blood biochemical parameters and SCFA concentration. Cecal microbial composition of chickens was mostly comprised of Firmicutes and Tenericutes. Seven OTUs that were differentially abundant among treatments were identified. In conclusion, supplementation of broiler chickens’ diets with 3% COH or EOH did not affect the FCR, blood biochemical parameters and SCFA concentration, but modified few cecal microbiota at the species level. Dietary supplementation with COH but not EOH significantly increased the relative gizzard weight.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".