Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 341

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 74 of the 74 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Bacillus probiotics: an alternative to antibiotics for livestock production

Mingmongkolchai, S., Panbangred, W.·2018·Journal of Applied Microbiology

Abstract

The use of probiotics as feed supplements in animal production has increased considerably over the last decade, particularly since the ban on antibiotic growth promoters in the livestock sector. Several Bacillus sp. are attractive for use as probiotic supplements in animal feed due to their ability to produce spores. Their heat stability and ability to survive the low pH of the gastric barrier represent an advantage over other probiotic micro-organisms. This review discusses important characteristics required for selection of Bacillus probiotic strains and summarizes the beneficial effect of Bacillus-based feed additives on animal production. Although the mechanism of action of Bacillus probiotics has not been fully elucidated, they are effective in improving the growth, survival and health status of terrestrial and aquatic livestock. Bacillus strains also have utility in bioremediation and can reduce nitrogenous waste, thereby improving environmental conditions and water quality. Finally, recent innovative approaches for using Bacillus spores in various applications are discussed.

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 · 10.1111/jam.13690

Cites

74 of 74 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

Cited by

See all 341

Metadata

Authors
Mingmongkolchai, S., & Panbangred, W.
Venue
Journal of Applied Microbiology
Published
2018-02-08
Volume
124
Issue
6
Pages
1334-1346
ISSN
1364-5072 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2783129095
Cited by
341
References
74
FWCI
23.91
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

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.