Comparative Effects of Two Sources and Levels of Methionine on the Performance of Broilers Under Coccidia Challenge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coccidia are pervasive in the poultry industry and cause intestinal lesions, diminished growth performance, and inflammatory responses such as oxidative stress. This study hypothesized that the use of different methionine (Met) sources and inclusion levels to control inflammation will affect growth performance and clinical coccidiosis of chickens infected with Eimeria maxima. The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of two different Met sources on growth during an E. maxima infection. Treatment groups included inoculated control (IC), low Met A (L MetA), high Met A (H MetA), low Met B (L MetB), and high Met B (H MetB). Pen and feed weights were measured on d01, d8, d16, d21 and d28 to calculate body weight gain (BWG), percent change in body weight gain relative to IC (%ChBWG), and feed conversion ratio (FCR). On d16, all treatments received an oral dose of 8x104 oocysts/bird of Eimeria maxima Guelph strain, with intestinal lesion scores (LS) recorded on d21. After d19, all mortalities were necropsied and scored as either coccidiosis-positive or coccidiosis-negative. Fresh feces were collected twice daily from each pen from d19-28 and combined to monitor average daily shedding of oocysts (ADS). The results showed improvement of BWG during the d16-d20 disease period, in which BWG increased for Met A and B diets compared to IC (p<0.05). Although no differences in mean LS were observed between treatments in either room, the distribution suggested a positive impact of Met A and Met B on reducing lesion severity. Upon evaluation of ADS, Room 1 presented a clear reduction in ADS for all Met A and Met B treatments compared to CC (p < 0.05), while no difference in ADS was observed in Room 2. In conclusion, this study suggests varying methionine levels can affect severity of coccidiosis, regardless of source, and may be beneficial in supporting healthier and more productive flocks.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".