Comparative impact of conventional and alternative gut health management programs on gastrointestinal responses in broiler chickens raised in commercial and research settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gut health management programs are developed to support growth performance and livability of broiler chickens reared in the absence of antibiotics. Identifying the impact of gut health management programs on gastrointestinal responses would improve the understanding of how the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) and associated structures are affected in the absence of antibiotics. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of commercial gut health management programs on visceral organ weight, jejunal histomorphology, and concentration of cecal digesta short chain fatty acids (SCFA) in broiler chickens reared under commercial (study 1) and research settings (study 2). Broiler chickens were reared on one of 3 gut health management programs: 1) conventional (CON), 2) raised without medically important antimicrobials (RWMIA), and 3) raised without antibiotics (RWA). Studies showed no statistical differences for d 28 body weight, relative spleen weight, or villus height. Both studies showed lower relative liver weight in birds reared on the CON program compared to the other programs (P ≤ 0.04). A greater crypt depth (CD) and a lower villus height to crypt depth ratio (VH:CD) was observed in RWA compared to CON under research settings (study 2). Gut health management program influenced ceca SCFA concentration on d 28 under research settings with CON birds exhibiting higher concentration of acetic, propionic, butyric, and total SCFA than birds reared on the RWA program. Results suggest that broiler chickens reared on conventional and alternative gut health management programs showed some differences in organ weight, intestinal morphology, and cecal SCFA profile.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".