Effect of lactic acid bacteria based product on broilers from the farm to the processing plant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The microflora of the digestive tract in poultry has not been fully characterised. The withdrawal of antibiotic growth promoters (AGPs) resulted in increased interest in the role of microflora of the digestive tract and its control, particularly in birds exposed to feed containing alternatives to AGPs. We studied the effects of a feed complement (Lactobacillus spp.) on broilers, from the farm and during processing. Growth and feeding (feed intake, daily body weight gain) were monitored regularly. The levels of digestive flora in the caeca of animals were monitored throughout the trial as follows: total coliforms, Clostridium perfringens, Enterococcus and lactic acid bacteria during the breeding period; thermophilic coliforms, Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas and lactic acid bacteria during processing. Samples were taken from neck and thigh skins. Pseudomonas and lactic acid bacteria were counted twice, i.e.: the day of slaughter and seven days after chilling at 4 °C to assess the effect of the product on the shelf life of chicken meat. No significant effect of the lactic acid feed supplement was found among the bacteria studied in caecal samples. The lactic acid feed supplement did not modify the bacterial count in animals at the processing plant level. It had no positive effect on the shelf-life duration of the products. Our findings showed a significant improvement in growth performance (P=0.049) for broilers receiving 105 cfu/ml of the lactic acid strain. At this concentration, the product had a positive effect (P=0.031) on the health of the birds, tending to prevent diarrhoea in the first days of fattening. We did not detect any significant effect of the higher (106 cfu/ml) concentration.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".