ArticleVeterinary world2021
Effect of novel natural feed additive containing
Article in Veterinary world, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimIn the post-antibiotic era, consumer demand for healthy and safe meats has prompted poultry producers to seek alternative effective feed additives. This study aimed to investigate the effects of a novel natural feed additive based on a mixture of MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 280 1-day-old chicks were divided into one control (CNTRL; feed without additives) and three treatment groups: NOV25, feed with 2.5 g/kg novel additive; NOV50, feed with 5.0 g/kg novel additive; and NOV100, feed with 10 g/kg novel additive. The body weight (BW), feed intake (FI), and feed conversion ratio (FCR) were measured weekly. On day 35, the chickens from each group were slaughtered, and their internal organs and breast meat samples were collected.
resultsThe BW of broilers in NOV100 was greater (p=0.016) than that in the other groups. The FCRs in the treatments groups were lower (p<0.001) than that in the control group. Elevated levels of the novel additive increased (p=0.051) the relative weight of the duodenum. The pH values in the breast meat of broilers receiving the novel additive were higher (p<0.001) than that in control. The C20:3n-6 of the NOV100 breast meat was lower (p=0.012) than that of NOV25 and NOV50, but it did not differ from that of the control. The unsaturated fatty acid-to-saturated fatty acid ratio in the breast meats of the treatments was higher (p=0.032) than that in control. The L-tyrosine content in NOV50 breast meat was higher (p=0.036) than that in CNTRL and NOV100 but did not differ from that in NOV25.
conclusionThe proposed feed additive improved the live BW and FCR of broilers and the physical and nutritional qualities of broiler breast meat.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.