The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effects of probiotic inclusion levels in broiler nutrition on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, plasma immunoglobulins, and cecal microflora composition
Open accessAbstract
The aim of this work was to investigate the effect of inclusion levels of a 5-bacterial species probiotic in broiler nutrition. Five hundred twenty-five 1-d-old male Cobb broilers were allocated in 5 experimental treatments for 6 wk. The experimental treatments received a corn-soybean coccidiostat-free basal diet and depending on the addition were labeled as follows: no addition (C), 10(8) cfu probiotic/kg of diet (P1), 10(9) cfu probiotic/kg of diet (P2), 10(10) cfu probiotic/kg of diet (P3), and 2.5 mg of avilamycin/kg of diet (A). Each treatment had 3 replicates of 35 broilers each. Treatment effects on broiler growth performance and biomarkers such as ileal and total tract nutrient digestibility, plasma Ig concentration, and cecal microflora composition were determined. Differences among treatments were considered significant when P < or = 0.05. Overall BW gain was significantly higher in treatment P1 (2,293 g) compared with P2 (2,163 g), C (2,165 g), and P3 (2,167 g), with A (2,230 g) being intermediate and not different from P1. Overall feed conversion ratio values were similar and significantly better for P1 (1.80) and A (1.80) compared with P2 (1.87), C (1.89), and P3 (1.92). Ileal apparent digestibility coefficients (ADC) of CP and ether extract were higher in A. Generally, treatments A and P1 showed an improved total tract ADC for DM, organic matter, ash, ether extract, and AME(n) values. The total tract ADC of CP was higher in P1, C, and P2. There were no differences between treatments regarding plasma Ig in 14- and 42-d-old broilers. Treatments P2 and P3 were effective at beneficially modulating cecal microflora composition. In particular, the lower cecal coliform concentration (log cfu/g of wet digesta) was seen in P2 (6.12) and P3 (4.90) in 14- and 42-d-old broilers, respectively, whereas at 42 d, P3 and P2 had the highest Bifidobacterium (8.31; 8.08) and Lactobacillus concentrations (8.20; 7.86), respectively. It is concluded that probiotic inclusion level had a significant effect on broiler growth responses, nutrient ADC, AME(n), and cecal microflora composition.
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
Official Methods of Analysis of
(1980) · Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1021/ac50052a726 · Cited by 59,330
Official Methods of Analysis: 22nd Edition (2023)
(2023) · Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC INTERNATIONAL · doi:10.1093/9780197610145.002.001 · Cited by 28,007
AFRC, R. F. (1989) · Journal of Applied Bacteriology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2672.1989.tb05105.x · Cited by 4,149
The determination of chromic oxide in faeces samples by atomic absorption spectrophotometry
Williams, C. H., David, D. J., & Iismaa, O. (1962) · The Journal of Agricultural Science · doi:10.1017/s002185960001546x · Cited by 1,863
Application of prebiotics and probiotics in poultry production
Patterson, J., & Burkholder, K. (2003) · Poultry Science · doi:10.1093/ps/82.4.627 · Cited by 1,405
Comparison of Metabolizable Energy and Productive Energy Determinations with Growing Chicks
Hill, F. W., & Anderson, D. L. (1958) · The Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.1093/jn/64.4.587 · Cited by 1,207
Epidemiology of resistance to antibiotics Links between animals and humans
van den Bogaard, A. (2000) · International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents · doi:10.1016/s0924-8579(00)00145-x · Cited by 1,066
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
Self-citationAntibiotic use in animal feed and its impact on human healt
Barton, M. D. (2000) · Nutrition Research Reviews · doi:10.1079/095442200108729106 · Cited by 516
Rehman, H. U., Vahjen, W., Awad, W. A., & Zentek, J. (2007) · Archives of Animal Nutrition · doi:10.1080/17450390701556817 · Cited by 364
Cited by
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
Awais, M. M., Jamal, M. A., Akhtar, M., Hameed, M. R., Anwar, M. I., & Ullah, M. I. (2019) · Microbial Pathogenesis · doi:10.1016/j.micpath.2018.10.038 · Cited by 46
Ashayerizadeh, O., Dastar, B., Samadi, F., Khomeiri, M., Yamchi, A., & Zerehdaran, S. (2017) · Waste Management · doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2017.04.017 · Cited by 35
Zaghari, M., Zahroojian, N., Riahi, M., & Parhizkar, S. (2015) · Italian Journal of Animal Science · doi:10.4081/ijas.2015.3555 · Cited by 33
Sun, N., Ni, X., Wang, H., Xin, J., Zhao, Y., Pan, K., Jing, B., & Zeng, D. (2020) · Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins · doi:10.1007/s12602-020-09644-9 · Cited by 31
Metadata
- Authors
- Mountzouris, K. C., Tsitrsikos, P., Palamidi, I., Arvaniti, A., Mohnl, M., Schatzmayr, G., & Fegeros, K.
- Venue
- Poultry Science
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-01
- Volume
- 89
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 58-67
- ISSN
- 0032-5791 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2084164305
- Cited by
- 490
- References
- 24
- FWCI
- 23.05
- 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 probiotic inclusion levels in broiler nutrition on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, plasma immunoglobulins, and cecal microflora composition. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3382/ps.2009-00308
- The paper
- Mountzouris, K. C., Tsitrsikos, P., Palamidi, I., Arvaniti, A., Mohnl, M., Schatzmayr, G., & Fegeros, K. (2010). Effects of probiotic inclusion levels in broiler nutrition on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, plasma immunoglobulins, and cecal microflora composition. Poultry Science. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2009-00308
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.