Red osier dogwood extract versus Trimethoprim-sulfadiazine (Part 1). Effects on the growth performance, blood parameters, gut histomorphometry, and Salmonella excretion of broiler chickens orally challenged with Salmonella Enteritidis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The poultry industry has not been spared from the prevalent incidence of diseases caused by invasive pathogens, especially Salmonella. Due to the pressing need to identify a suitable antibiotic alternative for use in poultry production, this study investigated the efficacy of red osier dogwood (ROD) extract on the growth, blood parameters, gut morphology, and Salmonella excretion in broiler chickens orally challenged with Salmonella Enteritidis (SE). A 4 × 2 factorial experiment was conducted based on 2 main factors, namely dietary treatments, and SE challenge. A total of 404, one-day-old male Ross broiler chicks were randomly assigned to 4 dietary treatments; 1) Negative control (NC), 2) NC + 0.075 ppm of Trimethoprim-sulfadiazine (TMP/SDZ)/kg of diet, 3) NC + 0.3% ROD extract, and 4) NC + 0.5% ROD extract. The absence of SE in the fecal samples obtained from chick delivery boxes was confirmed on d 0. On d 1, half of the birds were orally gavaged with 0.5 mL of phosphate-buffered saline each (noninfected group) and the remaining with 0.5 mL of 3.1 × 105 CFU/mL SE (infected group) in all treatment groups. Dietary treatments were randomly assigned to 8 replicate cages at 6 birds/cage. On 1-, 5-, 12-, and 18-day postinfection (DPI), cloacal fecal samples were collected on the 6 birds/cage to assess SE excretion. Average weight gain (AWG), average feed intake (AFI), feed conversion ratio (FCR), and mortality were determined weekly. On d 21, 10 chickens/treatment were euthanized to perform hematology, gut histomorphometry, serum immunoglobulins G and M (IgG and IgM), and superoxide dismutase measurements. Both ROD extract levels did not affect (P > 0.05) growth performance; however, the SE-infected birds showed increased (P < 0.05) AFI and FCR throughout the experimental period. Regardless of the SE-infection, both ROD extract levels improved (P < 0.05) duodenal villus height: crypt depth compared to other treatments. 0.5% ROD extract improved (P < 0.05) ileal villus width (VW) of noninfected birds and ileal crypt depth of infected birds, but it decreased (P < 0.05) the ileal VW of infected birds, compared to other treatments. The SE-infected birds showed lower (P < 0.05) lymphocytes (L) but increased (P < 0.05) heterophils (H), H:L, and monocytes (MON). Both ROD extract levels did not affect (P > 0.05) white blood cell differential, while dietary 0.3% ROD extract increased (P < 0.05) MON of the birds, regardless of infection model. Regardless of infection model, both TMP/SDZ and 0.5% ROD extract reduced the concentration of IgM in the serum, compared to the control and 0.3% ROD (P = 0.006). Conclusively, both ROD extract levels improved duodenal histomorphology and body defense against SE infection in broiler chickens; however, the 0.3% ROD extract was better.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".