ArticleTropical animal health and production2023
Alternative additives associated in the feeding of laying hens: performance, biometrics, bone traits, and economic evaluation-an unsupervised machine learning approach.
Article in Tropical animal health and production, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Given the current bans on the use of some growth promoting antibiotics in poultry nutrition, the need to use alternative additives which could replace traditional promoters in diets has arisen. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of alternative additives, associated or not, in replacing the antibiotic growth promoter in the diets of laying hens on performance, egg quality, biometry, bone characteristics, and economic viability. A total of 378 birds at 97 weeks of age, weighing 1691 ± 80g with an average production of 79.96 ± 4.9%, were randomly distributed and submitted to different diets: negative control - NC (no additive); positive control - PC, conventional growth promoter (Enramycin); associated organic acids (OA); symbiotic (S); Essential oil (EO); OA + S; and S+EO. The diet did not influence (P > 0.05) performance, egg quality, biometry, and bone traits. However, the use of alternative additives and their associations with the exception of S+OA, provided better economic indices when compared to NC and CP. The first component showed a negative relationship between feed conversion per mass and dozen eggs with gut length, Seedor index, egg production, and egg mass; the second component showed a positive relationship between yolk, pancreas, proventriculus, and gizzard; and, finally, the third component showed that feed consumption has a negative relationship with bone strength and deformity. The first two canonical functions were significant and discriminated 100% of the differences between the diets. Moreover, 50% of the birds were correctly classified in their group of origin, in which the positive control group (83.3%) and OA+S presented the highest rates of correct responses (66.7%). Bone deformity and bowel length were the only two variables with discriminatory power. Natural growth promoters alone or in association do not harm performance, egg quality, digestive organs biometry or bird bone characteristics, in addition to promoting greater economic return. Thus, they can be considered possible substitutes for traditional antibiotics. Finally, unsupervised machine learning methods are useful statistical techniques to study the relationship of variables and point out the main biomarkers of poultry production.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36763201What 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.