The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The effects of dietary mannaoligosaccharides on cecal parameters and the concentrations of enteric bacteria in the ceca of salmonella-challenged broiler chicks
Open accessAbstract
The ability of different enteric pathogens and coliforms to trigger agglutination of yeast cells (Saccharomyces cerevisiae, NCYC 1026) and a yeast cell wall preparation (MOS) was examined. Five of seven strains of Escherichia coli and 7 of 10 strains of Salmonella typhimurium and Salmonella enteritidis agglutinated MOS and Sac. cerevisiae cells. Strains of Salmonella choleraesuis, Salmonella pullorum, and Campylobacter did not lead to agglutination. Two strains that agglutinated MOS (S. typhimurium 29E and Salmonella dublin) and one nonagglutinating strain (S. typhimurium 27A) were selected as challenge organisms for in vivo studies in chicks under controlled conditions. In a series of three trials in which 3-d-old chicks were orally challenged with 10(4) cfu of S. typhimurium 29E, birds receiving 4,000 ppm of dietary MOS had reduced cecal S. typhimurium 29E concentrations (5.40 vs 4.01 log cfu/ g; P < 0.05) at Day 10. In a second series of three trials with S. dublin as challenge organism, the number of birds that tested salmonella positive in the ceca at Day 10 was less when MOS was part of the diet (90 vs 56%; P < 0.05). To test the effect of MOS on concentrations of bacteria that do not express Type 1 fimbriae, a challenge trial was conducted with S. typhimurium 27A. However, strain 27A did not colonize the birds sufficiently to evaluate whether MOS affected its cecal concentration. Mannanoligosaccharide did not significantly reduce the concentrations of cecal coliforms (P < 0.10) although they were numerically lower. It had no effect on cecal concentrations of lactobacilli, enterococci, anaerobic bacteria, lactate, volatile fatty acid, or cecal pH.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Probiotics and prebiotics in animal feeding for safe food production
Gaggìa, F., Mattarelli, P., & Biavati, B. (2010) · International Journal of Food Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2010.02.031 · Cited by 992
Baurhoo, B., Phillip, L., & Ruiz-Feria, C. A. (2007) · Poultry Science · doi:10.1093/ps/86.6.1070 · Cited by 441
Enzymes for the feed industry: past, present and future
Choct, M. (2006) · World's Poultry Science Journal · doi:10.1079/wps200480 · Cited by 432
Pignataro, G., Di Prinzio, R., Crisi, P. E., Belà, B., Fusaro, I., Trevisan, C., De Acetis, L., & Gramenzi, A. (2021) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani11061484 · Cited by 29
Milewski, S., Wójcik, R., Zaleska, B., Małaczewska, J., Tański, Z., & Siwicki, A. K. (2013) · Acta Veterinaria Brno · doi:10.2754/avb201382020147 · Cited by 14
Metadata
- Authors
- Spring, P., Wenk, C., Dawson, K. A., & Newman, K. E.
- Venue
- Poultry Science
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2000-02
- Volume
- 79
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 205-211
- ISSN
- 0032-5791 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2041909544
- Cited by
- 798
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 19.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: The effects of dietary mannaoligosaccharides on cecal parameters and the concentrations of enteric bacteria in the ceca of salmonella-challenged broiler chicks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/ps/79.2.205
- The paper
- Spring, P., Wenk, C., Dawson, K. A., & Newman, K. E. (2000). The effects of dietary mannaoligosaccharides on cecal parameters and the concentrations of enteric bacteria in the ceca of salmonella-challenged broiler chicks. Poultry Science. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/79.2.205
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.