Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 796

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Alternatives to antibiotics for maximizing growth performance and feed efficiency in poultry: a review

Open access
Gadde, U., Kim, W. H., Oh, S. T., Lillehoj, Hyun S.·2017·Animal Health Research Reviews

Abstract

With the increase in regulations regarding the use of antibiotic growth promoters and the rise in consumer demand for poultry products from ‘Raised Without Antibiotics’ or ‘No Antibiotics Ever’ flocks, the quest for alternative products or approaches has intensified in recent years. A great deal of research has focused on the development of antibiotic alternatives to maintain or improve poultry health and performance. This review describes the potential for the various alternatives available to increase animal productivity and help poultry perform to their genetic potential under existing commercial conditions. The classes of alternatives described include probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics, organic acids, enzymes, phytogenics, antimicrobial peptides, hyperimmune egg antibodies, bacteriophages, clay, and metals. A brief description of the mechanism of action, efficacy, and advantages and disadvantages of their uses are also presented. Though the beneficial effects of many of the alternatives developed have been well demonstrated, the general consensus is that these products lack consistency and the results vary greatly from farm to farm. Furthermore, their mode of action needs to be better defined. Optimal combinations of various alternatives coupled with good management and husbandry practices will be the key to maximize performance and maintain animal productivity, while we move forward with the ultimate goal of reducing antibiotic use in the animal 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 · 10.1017/s1466252316000207

Cites

7 of 7 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 7 references

Cited by

See all 796

Metadata

Authors
Gadde, U., Kim, W. H., Oh, S. T., & Lillehoj, H. S.
Venue
Animal Health Research Reviews
Published
2017-05-09
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
26-45
ISSN
  • 1466-2523 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2654
OpenAlex
W2613568424
Cited by
796
References
7
FWCI
51.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Alternatives to antibiotics for maximizing growth performance and feed efficiency in poultry: a review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s1466252316000207
The paper
Gadde, U., Kim, W. H., Oh, S. T., & Lillehoj, H. S. (2017). Alternatives to antibiotics for maximizing growth performance and feed efficiency in poultry: a review. Animal Health Research Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1466252316000207

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.