The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effects of Lactobacilli and an acidophilic fungus on the production performance and immune responses in broiler chickens
Open accessAbstract
Accumulated lines of evidence indicate that inactivated probiotics could have beneficial effects similar to those of live probiotics. Two strains of disrupted, cobalt-enriched, lactic acid bacteria (Lactobacillus acidophilus and Lactobacillus casei) and a disrupted fungal mycelium (Scytalidium acidophilum) were spray-mixed onto a mash basal feed, in 2 concentrations, prior to pelleting. The effects of these probiotics on production performance and immune response in broiler chickens were investigated. The production parameters, including BW, feed intake (FI), BW gain (BWG), and feed conversion ratio (FCR), were monitored weekly during a 6-wk trial. The immune response was evaluated by immunizing the birds with the antigen keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH) followed by a serological assay to measure blood IgA and IgG titers. Some of the production parameters were significantly improved by low L. casei (LCL; for BW and BWG), high L. acidophilus (LAH; for BW and BWG), and high fungal (FH; for BW, BWG, and FI) in comparison with the nonadditive control (NC-). However, these 3 treatments (LCL, LAH, and FH) did not enhance the measured immune responses. Instead, the titers of serum KLH-specific IgA in high L. casei (LCH) and low L. acidophilus (LAL) were significantly higher than those of NC-, 10 d after immunization. None of the probiotic treatments increased the titer of KLH-specific IgG in blood. Our results indicate that disrupted and cobalt-enriched L. acidophilus or L. casei was able to enhance production performance of broiler chickens. The fungal mycelium, S. acidophilum, when used at a high concentration, also demonstrated its potential for the first time to be used as a probiotic. In addition, the optimal concentration for administering probiotics is strain dependent. A higher dose does not always result in a better performance.
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
Cites
Mathieu, F., Jouany, J., Sénaud, J., Bohatier, J., Bertin, G., & Mercier, M. (1996) · Reproduction Nutrition Development · doi:10.1051/rnd:19960305 · Cited by 119
Cited by
Mountzouris, K. C., Tsirtsikos, P., Kalamara, E., Nitsch, S., Schatzmayr, G., & Fegeros, K. (2007) · Poultry Science · doi:10.1093/ps/86.2.309 · Cited by 632
Bai, K., Huang, Q., Zhang, J., He, J., Zhang, L., & Wang, T. (2017) · Poultry Science · doi:10.3382/ps/pew246 · Cited by 339
The role of direct-fed microbials in conventional livestock production
Buntyn, J. O., Schmidt, T. B., Nisbet, D. J., & Callaway, T. R. (2016) · Annual Review of Animal Biosciences · doi:10.1146/annurev-animal-022114-111123 · Cited by 75
Metadata
- Authors
- Huang, M. K., Choi, Y. J., Houde, R., Lee, J.-W., Lee, B., & Zhao, X.
- Venue
- Poultry Science
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2004-05
- Volume
- 83
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 788-795
- ISSN
- 0032-5791 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2074321820
- Cited by
- 234
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 10.58
- 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: Effects of Lactobacilli and an acidophilic fungus on the production performance and immune responses in broiler chickens. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/ps/83.5.788
- The paper
- Huang, M. K., Choi, Y. J., Houde, R., Lee, J.-W., Lee, B., & Zhao, X. (2004). Effects of Lactobacilli and an acidophilic fungus on the production performance and immune responses in broiler chickens. Poultry Science. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/83.5.788
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.