Cited by 58Animal Nutrition and PhysiologyAquaculture Nutrition and GrowthMeat and Animal Product Quality

Effect of feeding wet feed or wet feed fermented by bacillus licheniformis on growth performance, histopathology and growth and lipid metabolism marker genes in broiler chickens

Open access
Saleh, Ahmed A., Shukry, Mustafa, Farrag, Foad, Soliman, Mohamed M., Abdel-Moneim, Abdel-Moneim Eid·2021·Animals

Abstract

The present study evaluated the effect of three feeding methods (dry feed, wet feed or wet feed fermented with Bacillus licheniformis) on the growth performance, intestinal histomorphometry and gene expression of the lipid metabolism- and growth-related genes of broiler chickens. A total of 360 one-day-old Cobb-500 broiler chicks were randomly allotted into three groups containing four replicates with 30 birds each. The first group (control) was fed a dry mash basal diet. The second and third groups were fed wet feed and fermented wet feed. The final body weight and weight gain were reduced (p < 0.01) in the wet feed group, while they did not differ between the fermented wet feed and dry feed groups. Feed intake was not altered, and feeding on wet feed significantly (p < 0.01) increased the feed-to-gain ratio compared to the remaining groups. No differences between the three feeding methods in carcass characteristics, blood biochemistry and nutrient digestibility were observed except for crude protein digestibility, which was increased (p < 0.01) in the fermented wet feed group. Duodenal and ileal villi heights were elevated in birds fed fermented wet feeds, while crypt depth was not altered. The expression fold of IGF-1, GH and m-TOR genes in the pectoral muscle of birds fed wet feed was decreased (p < 0.05), while myostatin gene expression was elevated. Feeding on wet feed reduced the hepatic gene expression of PPARγ and increased that of FAS. In conclusion, wet feed negatively affected the broiler chickens’ efficiency under heat stress; however, fermenting the wet feed with Bacillus licheniformis improved feed utilization and birds’ performance compared to the dry feed group.

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 · 10.3390/ani11010083

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Spirulina extracts inhibit bacterial motility, invasion, biofilm formation, and quorum sensing.

    “the antibacterial action of spirulina might be attributed to its ability to prevent pathogen motility, invasion, biofilm formation, and quorum sensing.”

    From Potential of Spirulina platensis as a feed supplement for poultry to enhance growth performance and immune modulation (2023) · cites this paper as [69]

    The Introduction and Discussion (pages not provided) address Bacillus licheniformis and fermented feed, including inhibition of pathogen growth through reduced pH and competitive exclusion. Searches for Spirulina extracts and for motility, invasion, biofilm formation, and quorum sensing found no passage addressing the attributed mechanism. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 60 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [21]NRC Nutrition Requirements of Poultry 9th ed. National Academy Press Washington, DC, USA 1994

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Saleh, A. A., Shukry, M., Farrag, F., Soliman, M. M., & Abdel-Moneim, A.-M. E.
Affiliations
  • Kafrelsheikh University (EG)
  • Taif University (SA)
  • Biological Application Department, Nuclear Research Center, Atomic Energy Authority, Abu-Zaabal 13759, Egypt
Corresponding author
Saleh, Ahmed A.
Venue
Animals
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2021-01-05
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
83
ISSN
2076-2615 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3118525477
Cited by
56
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9
FWCI
6.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Animals (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
This study was supported by Taif University Researchers Supporting Project (TURSP-2020/09), Taif University, Taif, Saudi Arabia (TURSP-2020/09)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Nutrition and Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Aquaculture Nutrition and Growth
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Meat and Animal Product Quality
Keywords
wet feed, Bacillus licheniformis, fermented feed, broiler chickens, growth performance, intestinal histomorphometry, lipid metabolism genes, insulin-like growth factor I, myostatin, mTOR, PPARγ, Fas, feed-to-gain ratio, crude protein digestibility, heat stress

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