Effect of microencapsulated organic acids-essential oils blend and protease on performance and gut health of broilers under nutritional challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the effects of microencapsulated organic acids and essential oils (EOA) combined with a protease (PRO) supplement on the growth performance and gut health of broilers subjected to nutritional challenges through a diet high in wheat and corn distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS). The treatments were: 1) corn and soybean meal-based diet with high levels of wheat and corn DDGS (WD); 2) WD+microencapsulated organic acids and essential oils at 300 mg/kg (EOA); 3) WD+PRO at 125 mg/kg (PRO); and 4) WD+EOA at 300 mg/kg+PRO at 125 mg/kg (EOA+PRO). Body weight gain, feed intake and mortality rate did not differ among treatments (p > 0.05). However, feed conversion ratio from day 1-35 was lower in the EOA+PRO group than in the WD group (p < 0.05). The EOA+PRO group had a lower jejunal crypt depth (CD) and a higher villus height/crypt depth (VH/CD) ratio than the other groups (p < 0.01). The putrescine level was higher in the WD group than in the other groups (p < 0.05). On day 35, the EOA and EOA+PRO groups had higher claudin-1 mRNA expression than the WD and PRO groups (p < 0.01). Occludin mRNA expression was higher in the EOA and PRO groups than in the WD group (p < 0.01). In summary, the combination of EOA and PRO improved feed efficiency and gut health in broilers fed a high wheat and corn DDGS diet. This was demonstrated by decreased jejunal CD, increased VH/CD ratio, increased mRNA expression of claudin-1 at the tight junction and decreased putrescine content in the hindgut, suggesting an indirect effect on pathogenic bacteria.
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) | 0.000 | 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".