Evaluating the effects of red osier dogwood extract and grape pomace on growth performance, plasma biochemistry, intestinal morphology and microbiota, and immune and antioxidant status of broiler chickens challenged with heat stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 288 1-day-old Ross 308 broiler chicks were randomly allotted into four dietary treatments: (1) Control (CON; corn–wheat–soybean-based diet), (2) CON + 0.05% bacitracin methylene disalicylate (BMD), (3) CON + 0.3% red osier dogwood extract (ROD), and (4) CON + 2.5% grape pomace (GP) and raised for 28 days. On days 21–27, birds were exposed to either a thermoneutral (TN; 24 ± 1 °C) or heat stress (HS; 32–34 °C for 8 h/day) environment. On day 28, 12 male birds per treatment/temperature group were euthanized for measuring blood and intestinal health parameters. 0.05% BMD and 0.3% ROD inclusion improved (P ≤ 0.05) the average body weight gain and feed conversion ratio, compared to CON. HS reduced ( P ≤ 0.05) average feed intake, bursa and spleen weights, plasma alanine transferase, lipase, and creatinine kinase but increased ( P ≤ 0.05) alanine phosphatase and serum immunoglobulins compared to TN birds. HS further reduced ( P ≤ 0.05) duodenal villus height (VH):crypt depth (CD), jejunal VH, and VH:CD but this was reversed by ROD and GP, and 0.05% BMD and 2.5% GP increased ( P < 0.001) the relative abundance of Blautia and Sellimonas compared to the CON diet. ROD increased ( P = 0.010) the relative abundance of Faecalibacterium compared to the BMD diet. The results suggest that 0.3% ROD extract may function as an alternative to antibiotics in improving broiler growth performance and intestinal health.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".