ArticleVeterinary world2024
Physiological responses and intestinal conditions of broiler chickens treated with encapsulated
Article in Veterinary world, 2024. 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.
- Supplementation of nanoencapsulatedOpen veterinary journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aim: The ban on antibiotic growth promoters adversely affects the physiological condition and health of poultry. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of encapsulated Materials and Methods: A total of 280 Cobb broiler chicks were randomly distributed into four groups: Basal feed without additives (CNTL), basal feed with 0.01% encapsulated Results: There was a tendency (p = 0.08) for EACH bird to have a higher body weight than the other groups. Feed consumption was higher (p < 0.05) in EACH than in EALE and CHIT. Feed conversion ratio (FCR) was lower (p < 0.05) in EALE, CHIT, and EACH than in CNTL. Erythrocyte numbers were lower (p < 0.05) in EALE than in CNTL and EACH. Hematocrit was lower (p < 0.05) in EALE and CHIT groups than in the other two groups. There was a tendency (p = 0.09) for heterophils to be higher in EACH than in CNTL. Thrombocyte counts were lower (p < 0.05) in EACH group than in the other groups. Serum globulin levels were higher (p < 0.05) in EACH than in CNTL and CHIT. The albumin-to-globulin ratio was higher (p < 0.05) in CNTL than in EALE and EACH. Coliform bacteria tended to be lower (p = 0.05) in the cecum of EACH broilers than that of other broilers. Similarly, the ratio of Lactic acid bacteria to coliforms tended to be higher (p = 0.08) in the cecum of EACH group than that in the other groups. Treatments did not influence the intestinal morphology of broiler chickens (p > 0.05). Conclusion: A combination of EALE and chitosan as feed additives enhanced the final body weight and feed efficiency (FCR) of broilers. These additives also increased the levels of heterophils, serum globulin, the ratio of LAB to coliforms, and reduced thrombocytes, albumin-to-globulin ratio, and cecal coliform bacteria. Hence, EALE and chitosan blend improved the growth performance, immune status, and intestinal health of broiler chickens.
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.