ArticlePoultry science2025
Harnessing probiotics and bacteriophages to fight Salmonella and limit the use of antibiotics in broilers: a study in commercial conditions.
Article in Poultry science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Bacillus-based direct-fed microbial impacted growth performance, immune cell presence, and in vivo Salmonella Enteritidis dissemination in growing broiler chickens.Poultry science · 2026Article
- Combination of bacteriophage-probiotics alleviates intestinal barrier dysfunction by regulating gut microbiome in a chick model of multidrug-resistant Salmonella infection.Journal of animal science and biotechnology · 2026Article
- The gut resistome in poultry production: microbial ecology, antibiotic use, and sustainable control approaches.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- Bacteriophage cocktail in drinking water suppresses systemic avian pathogenicCurrent research in microbial sciences · 2026Article
- Genomic and Biological Characterization of a NovelViruses · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The poultry industry is facing the growing need to decrease the use of antibiotics to prevent increasing antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Toward this aim, probiotics and bacteriophages have been suggested as an alternative to antibiotics to reducing Salmonella in broilers, which poses risks to food safety and public health. Previous results showed that selected Bacillus probiotics can significantly limit broiler contamination, and anti-Salmonella phages are already available in the US and EU. However, a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of probiotics and phages on commercial poultry farms is still lacking. To this aim, a pre-post study was conducted in a poultry farm experiencing recurrent Salmonella outbreaks, to assess the anti-Salmonella effectiveness of a combined probiotic-phage approach. The study included two complete rearing cycles: T1, conducted in standard conditions and used as a control, and T2, when probiotics and phages were applied. Salmonella monitoring was performed in both the environment and broilers throughout the study periods, showing a significant 90 % decrease in Salmonella presence in T2 compared to T1 cycle (P ≤ 0.001). The decrease was observed at both the environmental and animal (caeca) levels. Notably, the whole broiler caecal microbiome was modified in T2 compared to T1 broilers, evidencing a significant increase in biodiversity accompanied by an earlier appearance of Ruminococcus, Clostridium, and Faecalibacterium genera. In parallel, broiler mortality was reduced by 72 % and broiler weight was increased by 6.4 % in T2 vs. T1 broilers (P ≤ 0.01). The findings indicate that a combined probiotic/phage approach could be a promising strategy to combat the Salmonella burden, while reducing the requirement for antibiotics and improving broiler health.
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.