Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33518351›Full record

ArticlePoultry science2021

Effects of dietary supplementation of a probiotic (Bacillus subtilis) on bone mass and meat quality of broiler chickens.

A A Mohammed, R S Zaki, E A Negm, M A Mahmoud, H W Cheng

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Poultry science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 102 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Dietary supplementation with a multi-strainVeterinary and animal science · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Role of DietaryAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Effects ofBiology · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Effect ofMicroorganisms · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Winning the battle of intestinal peace withFrontiers in microbiology · 2025
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

A A MohammedDepartment of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA; Department of Animal and Poultry Behavior and Management, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Assiut University, Assiut 71526, Egypt. Electronic address: ahmed.abd_elhafez@vet.au.edu.eg.
R S ZakiDepartment of Meat Hygiene, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, New Valley University, New Valley 72711, Egypt.
E A NegmDepartment of Physiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Assiut University, Assiut 71526, Egypt.
M A MahmoudDepartment of Animal Hygiene, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Assiut University, Assiut 71526, Egypt.
H W ChengUSDA Agricultural Research Service, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA.
Assiut University · EGAgricultural Research Service · USNew Valley UniversityPurdue University West Lafayette · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of a dietary probiotic supplement on bone mass and meat quality of broiler chickens. Two hundred ten 1-day-old male Ross 708 broiler chicks were divided among 21 floor pens (10 chicks per pen). The pens were randomly distributed to 1 of 3 dietary treatments containing a probiotic, Bacillus subtilis, at 0 (control), 0.25 (0.25X), and 0.5 (0.5X) g/kg (n = 7). Gait score, footpad dermatitis (FPD), leg straightness, and hock burn (HB) were examined at day 33, and a latency-to-lie test was performed at day 34. At the end of the experiment (day 35), plasma, right leg, and litter samples were collected for mineral contents, meat quality, bone morphometric parameters, and litter quality assessments. The results indicated that probiotic-fed birds stood much longer during the latency-to-lie test with a greater tibial length, weight, and strength as well as higher plasma levels of calcium and phosphorus compared with the controls. In addition, probiotic-fed birds' leg muscle had higher color lightness at both 30 min and 5 h postmortem and greater water-holding capacity with a trend for less cooking loss (P = 0.056) and lower pH values (P < 0.05) at 5 h postmortem. Probiotic-fed birds' leg meat was tastier (P < 0.05) at 24 h after slaughter. These probiotic effects were greater in the 0.5X group than in the 0.25X group. There were no treatment effects on other measured parameters including gait score, HB, FPD, tibial lateral and medial wall thickness, diaphysis and medullary canal diameters, robusticity and tibiotarsal indexes, plasma magnesium concentrations, and litter moisture and pH values (P > 0.05). These findings indicate that the probiotic supplement could be a useful management tool for improving broiler production and welfare by enhanced bone mass and meat quality.

Indexed as

ChickensProbioticsAnimal FeedAnimalsBacillus subtilisDietDietary SupplementsMaleMeatbone healthbroilermeat qualityprobioticwelfare

Identifiers

PMID33518351
PMCPMC7936156
OpenAlexW3113120576

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.