ArticleAnimal bioscience2025
Comparative effects of Dracocephalum moldavica L. and probiotic on performance and health parameters of broiler chickens challenged by dexamethasone-induced stress.
Article in Animal bioscience, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEnvironmental stressors negatively affect poultry productivity by increasing oxidative stress levels. This study evaluated the performance and health status of broilers supplemented with either the medicinal plant Dracocephalum moldavica L. powder (DP) or a commercial probiotic (Lactofeed) in the context of oxidative stress induced by dexamethasone.
methodsA total of 300 one-day-old chicks were enrolled in a completely randomized design with a factorial arrangement of six treatments, in each consisting five replicates of 10 chicks. The experimental treatments were: 1) basal diet without feed additives and no challenge, 2) basal diet supplemented with 0.01% Lactofeed, 3) basal diet with 0.4% DP, 4) basal diet and challenged with dexamethasone (2 mg/kg body weight), 5) basal diet with 0.01% Lactofeed and challenged with dexamethasone, and 6) basal diet with 0.4% DP and challenged with dexamethasone. Growth performance, carcass traits, and internal organ weights were evaluated. Gastrointestinal pH and ileum histology were assessed on days 28 and 42, while cecal microbial counts were determined on days 14, 28, and 42. Serum samples collected on days 14, 28, and 42 analyzed for antibody titers against Newcastle disease and avian influenza viruses, along with white blood cell counts.
resultsThe dexamethasone challenge negatively impacted performance, certain carcass traits, white blood cell count, and ileum villus height (p = 0.039), while it reduced cecal Escherichia coli and coliform counts (p = 0.001). It suppressed humoral immune response to the Newcastle disease virus on day 28, whereas on day 42, it enhanced the response. Lactofeed and DP additives significantly improved feed intake, body weight gain, white blood cell count, intestinal histology, and microbiota, largely irrespective of dexamethasone challenge.
conclusionWhile dexamethasone challenge induced various physiological stresses in broilers, both Lactofeed and DP feed additives demonstrated potential in mitigating these effects, improving overall performance and gut health parameters regardless of stress conditions.
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.