Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41200286›Full record

ArticleOpen veterinary journal2025

Potential of microbial-based feed additives on broiler carcass and fat percentages.

Mohammad Sukmanadi, Rochmah Kurnijasanti, Sunaryo Hadi Warsito, Aswin Rafif Khairullah, Imam Mustofa, Riza Zainuddin Ahmad, Adeyinka Oye Akintunde, Bima Putra Pratama, Siti Rani Ayuti, Ertika Fitri Lisnanti

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Open veterinary journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Mohammad SukmanadiDivision of Basic Veterinary Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia.
Rochmah KurnijasantiDivision of Basic Veterinary Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia.
Sunaryo Hadi WarsitoDivision of Animal Husbandry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia.
Aswin Rafif KhairullahResearch Center for Veterinary Science, National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), Bogor, Indonesia.
Imam MustofaDivision of Veterinary Reproduction, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia.
Riza Zainuddin AhmadResearch Center for Veterinary Science, National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), Bogor, Indonesia.
Adeyinka Oye AkintundeDepartment of Agriculture and Industrial Technology, Babcock University, Ilishan Remo, Nigeria.
Bima Putra PratamaResearch Center for Agroindustry, National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), South Tangerang, Indonesia.
Siti Rani AyutiFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia.
Ertika Fitri LisnantiProgram of Animal Husbandry, Faculty of Agriculture, Universitas Islam Kadiri, Kediri, Indonesia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Factors before and after slaughter can influence carcass quality. A factor that can affect carcass quality before slaughter is feed that includes additives. One alternative is to administer probiotics. Aim: This study aimed to determine the effects of liquid probiotics Methods: Twenty-four Lohmann broilers (Gallus gallus domesticus) aged 21 days. Birds were randomly divided into four treatment groups. The T0 control group was orally administered 2 ml of distilled water/head/day. T1 was orally administered 2 ml of bacterial isolate/head/day. Group T2 was orally administered with 4 ml of bacterial isolate/head/day. Group T3 was orally administered with 6 ml/head/day of bacterial isolates. Each treatment was conducted for 14 days until the age of 35 days. Broilers were physically weighed to obtain the data sample. Results: All liquid probiotic dosages (2, 4, and 6 ml) had significant differences ( Conclusion: Four milliliters of liquid probiotics (

Indexed as

Animal FeedBacillus coagulansBacillus subtilisChickensMeatProbioticsAnimalsDietMaleAbdominal fatBacillus spp.Carcass percentageFeed conversionFood producers

Identifiers

PMID41200286
PMCPMC12587876

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.