MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3103074773 · doi:10.1016/j.psj.2020.10.063

Bacillus subtilis delivery route: effect on growth performance, intestinal morphology, cecal short-chain fatty acid concentration, and cecal microbiota in broiler chickens

2020· article· en· W3103074773 on OpenAlexafffund
Samson Oladokun, Alyssa M. Koehler, Janice MacIsaac, Eveline M. Ibeagha‐Awemu, Deborah Adewole

Bibliographic record

VenuePoultry Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaDalhousie University
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaGenome Canada
KeywordsIn ovoBroilerProbioticBiologyIleumBacillus subtilisIncubationSalineShort-chain fatty acidAnimal scienceFood scienceAntibioticsFeed conversion ratioFermentationMicrobiologyBacteriaBody weightBiochemistryEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the poultry industry recedes from the use of antibiotic growth promoters, the need to evaluate the efficacy of possible alternatives and the delivery method that maximizes their effectiveness arises. This study aimed at expounding knowledge on the effect of the delivery method of a probiotic product (Bacillus subtilis fermentation extract) on performance and gut parameters in broiler chickens. A total of 450 fertile eggs sourced from Cobb 500 broiler breeders were randomly allotted to 3 groups: in ovo probiotic (n = 66), in ovo saline (n = 66), and noninjection (n = 200) and incubated for 21 d. On day 18.5 of incubation, 200 μL of either probiotic (10 × 106 cfu) or saline was injected into the amnion. At hatch, chicks were reallotted to 6 new treatment groups: in ovo probiotic, in ovo saline, in-feed antibiotics, in-water probiotic, in-feed probiotics, and control (corn-wheat-soybean diet) in 6 replicate cages and raised for 28 d. Of all hatch parameters evaluated, only percentage pipped eggs was found significant (P < 0.05) with the noninjection group having higher percentage pipped eggs than the other groups. Treatments did not affect the incidence of necrotic enteritis on day 28 (P > 0.05). Irrespective of the delivery method, the probiotic treatments had no significant effect on growth performance. The ileum villus width of the in ovo probiotic treatment was 18% higher than the in ovo saline group (P = 0.05) but not statistically higher than other groups. The jejunum villus height was 23% higher (P = 0.000) in the in ovo probiotic group than in the control group. There was no effect of treatment on total cecal short-chain fatty acid concentration and cecal gut microbiota composition and diversity (P > 0.05), although few unique bacteria differential abundance were recorded per treatment. Conclusively, although probiotic treatments (irrespective of the delivery route) did not affect growth performance, in ovo delivery of the probiotic product enhanced intestinal morphology, without compromising hatch performance and gut homeostasis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.194 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations69
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePoultry ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207