Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 273

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effects of dietary prebiotics, probiotic and synbiotics on performance, caecal bacterial populations and caecal fermentation concentrations of broiler chickens

Mookiah, Saminathan, Sieo, Chin Chin, Ramasamy, Kalavathy, Abdullah, Norhani, Ho, Yin Wan·2014·Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In view of a worldwide attempt to restrict or ban the use of antibiotics as growth promoters in animal production, probiotics, prebiotics and combinations of both, as synbiotics, have been suggested as potential alternatives. In this study, the effects of a prebiotic (isomalto‐oligosaccharides, IMO), a multi‐strain probiotic (consisting of 11 Lactobacillus strains), and a combination of these dietary additives as a synbiotic on the performance, caecal bacterial populations and concentrations of caecal volatile fatty acids and non‐volatile fatty acids of broiler chickens were evaluated. RESULTS: Supplementation of 1g kg−1 probiotic (PRO); 5 g kg−1 prebiotic IMO (PRE05); 10 g kg−1 prebiotic IMO (PRE10); synbiotic consisting of 1g kg−1 probiotic + 5 g kg−1 prebiotic IMO (SYN05); or synbiotic consisting of 1g kg−1 probiotic + 10 g kg−1 prebiotic IMO (SYN10) significantly (P < 0.05) improved weight gain of broiler chickens at 22–42 and 1–42 days of age, and feed conversion rate from 1 to 21, 22–42 and 1–42 days of age. The supplementation of probiotic (PRO), prebiotics (PRE05 and PRE10) or synbiotics (SYN05 and SYN10) also significantly (P < 0.05) increased the caecal populations of lactobacilli and bifidobacteria, and decreased the caecal Escherichia coli at 21 days of age, and increased the caecal VFA at 21 and 42 days of age. In all parameters studied, synbiotics did not show a two‐fold synergistic effect, when compared to those of probiotic or prebiotic alone. CONCLUSION: The results of the study indicated that prebiotic IMO (5 g kg−1 or 10 g kg−1), probiotic and their combinations as synbiotics were effective in improving the performance of broiler chickens and in increasing the caecal beneficial bacteria and fatty acids. © 2013 Society of Chemical Industry

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jsfa.6365

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 36 references

Cited by

See all 273

Metadata

Authors
Mookiah, S., Sieo, C. C., Ramasamy, K., Abdullah, N., & Ho, Y. W.
Venue
Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-09-24
Volume
94
Issue
2
Pages
341-348
ISSN
  • 0022-5142 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0010
OpenAlex
W1927349925
Cited by
273
References
36
FWCI
12.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effects of dietary prebiotics, probiotic and synbiotics on performance, caecal bacterial populations and caecal fermentation concentrations of broiler chickens. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jsfa.6365
The paper
Mookiah, S., Sieo, C. C., Ramasamy, K., Abdullah, N., & Ho, Y. W. (2014). Effects of dietary prebiotics, probiotic and synbiotics on performance, caecal bacterial populations and caecal fermentation concentrations of broiler chickens. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.6365

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.