Mannan oligosaccharide as an alternative to infeed antibiotics to improve growth performance of broilers: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of mannan oligosaccharide (MOS) as an alternative to antibiotic growth promoters (AGP) on feed intake (FI), body weight gain (BWG), and feed conversion ratio (FCR) of broilers.2. Data from 75,594 broilers were extracted from 17 articles (19 trials) published between January 2010 and March 2023. The main criteria for the publication selection were as follows, at least three treatments applied (negative control group without MOS or AGP versus MOS or AGP supplementation), presence of performance results, and intra-experimental variation associated with the mean of response (such as standard error). Treatments were classified as control, MOS, or AGP, and adjusted means of treatment were compared. Additionally, the average daily gain (ADG) and average daily feed intake (ADFI) of each type of supplementation were calculated relative (Δ) to the control group (ΔADFI and ΔADG) and expressed as a percentage of the difference.3. Broilers receiving a diet supplemented with MOS had a 3.7% better BWG and 3% better FCR compared to the control diet (P < 0.001), but these variables were similar to the group receiving AGP supplementation. No significant difference was detected in FI among treatments (P > 0.050). The relationship between ΔADG and ΔADFI was linear for the MOS and AGP-supplemented group (P < 0.050). The ΔADG of broilers fed diets supplemented with MOS or AGP was 6.4% and 4.54% when ΔADFI was zero, respectively. The ΔADG of MOS increased by 0.58% for every 1% of increasing observed in ΔADFI. The corresponding value for the increased ΔADG for the AGP group was 0.69%.4. The results of this meta-analysis indicated that MOS supplementation is effective in increasing BWG and reducing FCR, similar to broilers fed a diet supplemented with AGP. Therefore, MOS is a safe and sustainable alternative for AGP-free poultry production.
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 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".