Moringa (M. oleifera) Leaf Meal in Diets for Broilers and Laying Hens: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cost of feed ingredients in poultry production is constantly increasing and it is one of the main constraints globally and especially in low income countries. As a consequence, scientists search for cheap and available sources of feed protein. The M. oleifera leaves have not only high protein but also excellent nutritive and biological properties. This review summarises results and findings of research related to the application of M. oleifera leaf as source of feed protein in broiler and egg production. Studies showed that leaf meals used as protein source led to improvement in growth and egg production parameters with up to 10% M. oleifera leaves in chicken diets. On the other side, there are restrictions on utilization of leaf meal in chicken diets by its high dietary fibre content and the presence of anti-nutritive compounds. This review also highlights previous results indicating a positive effect of M. oleifera leaves on carcass traits and egg quality, specially pigmentation of broiler meat and egg yolk and a tendency in cholesterol reduction in blood and eggs. A couple of studies have shown a beneficial influence on the antioxidant status and intestinal microbiota which were considered as health promoting in birds. In conclusion the use of M. oleifera leaves meal can improve growth performance and egg production. Of high interest is its potential to promote animal health. However, more research is needed to find out effects of M. oleifera leaves meal on functional traits, including ileal nutrient digestibility, especially considering amino acids, and on the gut microbiota for a better understanding of the mode of action of this plant.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".