Effects of fulvic acid on broiler performance, blood biochemistry, and intestinal microflora
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To study the effects of mineral fulvic acid (FuA) on broiler performance, slaughter performance, blood biochemistry index, antioxidant function, immune performance, and intestinal microflora, 360 Arbor Acres (AA) broiler chickens with similar body weights were randomly divided into 5 groups with 6 replicates in each group and 12 chickens in each replicate in the current study. Chickens in the control group (C) were fed with the basal diet, and chickens in the test groups (I, II, III, and IV) were fed with the diet supplemented with 0.05%, 0.1%, 0.2%, and 0.3% mineral FuA, respectively. The indicators were measured on the hatching day, d 21 and d 35. From the whole experimental period, FuA supplement significantly increased average body weight (ABW) (P < 0.05), average daily gain (ADG) of broilers (P < 0.05), and thymus weight (P < 0.05) in II and IV groups, but bascially reduced the pH value of thigh meat. FuA supplement significantly improved aspartate aminotransferase (AST) activity in the group III on d 35 (P < 0.05) and the serum levels of IgA and IgG on d 21 and d 35 (P < 0.05), but reduced glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px) level on d 21 (P < 0.05) and malondialdehyde (MDA) level in serum on d 35 (P < 0.05). FuA supplement significantly affected the abundance of Barnesiella, Lachnospiraceae, Alistipes, Lactobacillus, and Christensenellaceae on genus level. Differences between group III and other groups were significant in the genera microflora composition on d 21 and d 35. Functional analysis showed that the cecum microbiota were mainly enriched in carbohydrate metabolism, amino acid metabolism, and energy metabolism. In conclusion, FuA may potentially have significant positive effects on the growth performance and immune function of AA chickens through the modulation of the gut microbiota, and the 0.1% FuA was the best in broiler diet based on the present study.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".