Comparative impact of bacitracin and select feed additives in the feeding program of Lohmann LSL-Lite pullets at the onset of lay through to 31 weeks of age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There are limited investigations on the role of feed additives in easing transition of pullets to egg production phase. We investigated the effects of supplementation of bacitracin methylene disalicylate (BMD) and select feed additives (myristic acid [MA], benzoic acid [BA], and Aspergillus niger probiotic [PRO]) in feeding program for pullets from the onset of lay through to 31 weeks of age (woa). Parameters measured included hen-day egg production (HDEP), feed intake (FI), feed conversion ratio (FCR), egg quality characteristics, ceca microbial activity, apparent retention of components, and plasma metabolites. A total of 1,200 Lohmann LSL Lite pullets were procured at 18 woa and placed in enriched cages (30 birds/cage) based on body weight (BW) and allocated to five diets. The diets were a basal diet formulated to meet specifications or basal mixed with either BMD, MA, BA, or PRO. Birds had free access to feed and water throughout the experiment. Between 18 and 20 woa, birds fed BMD ate a similar (P > 0.05) amount of feed to BA birds, but more (P = 0.0003) than birds fed basal, MA, or PRO diets. Basal birds had lower HDEP (P = 0.001) and lighter eggs (P < 0.0001) than birds fed any of the feed additives between 21 and 31 woa. The basal hens had a higher (P = 0.009) abundance of Escherichia coli than birds fed BMD, BA, and PRO diets. Consequently, BMD, BA, and PRO birds had a higher (P = 0.011) Lactobacilli: E. coli ratio (LER) than hens fed the basal diet. Specifically, relative to basal-fed hens, the LER of the BMD, MA, BA, and PRO hens was higher by 37%, 21%, 26%, and 45%, respectively. Moreover, birds fed PRO tended to have a higher concentration of ceca digesta acetic acid (P = 0.072) and a lower concentration of isobutyric acid (P = 0.096). In conclusion, supplementing pullet diets with broad-spectrum antibiotics or feed additives (MA, BA, and PRO) had a positive impact on FI, and egg production linked to modulation of indices of gut health. The results suggested supplementing feed additives in feeding programs for pullets at the onset of lay can bolster productivity outcomes.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".