ArticlePoultry science2026
The potential of in-ovo probiotics to replace antibiotic growth promoters in broiler diets: Effect on performance, meat quality, cecal fermentation and oxidative stress indicators.
Article in Poultry science, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated whether selected probiotic strains administered in-ovo could achieve performance and physiological outcomes comparable to those obtained with in-feed antibiotic growth promoters in broiler chickens. A preliminary in-ovo screening trial was conducted to identify probiotic strains and doses that did not negatively affect hatch performance. Based on this trial, two probiotic combinations were selected for an animal trial: a two-strain mixture (Prob1: Bacillus subtilis and Enterococcus faecium) and a four-strain mixture (Prob2: E. faecium, Pediococcus acidilactici, Bifidobacterium animalis, and Lactobacillus reuteri), both administered in-ovo on embryonic day 18 at 1.5 × 10⁷ CFU/egg. After hatch, birds were placed in a completely randomized block design and assigned to four treatments (n = 18 pens/group, 9 pens/sex, 45 birds/pen): negative control (CTRL-), antibiotic control (CTRL+, 0.5 kg bacitracin methylene disalicylate/ton of feed), and the two in-ovo probiotic treatments fed antibiotic-free diets. Growth performance, breast meat yield, meat quality traits, liver lipid peroxidation, and cecal short-chain fatty acids (SCFA) were evaluated. The mixed-effects model revealed that under the experimental conditions of this study, neither in-feed antibiotics nor in-ovo probiotics significantly affected final body weight, feed intake, or feed efficiency relative to CTRL- birds. However, Prob1 increased (P = 0.014) breast meat yield compared with CTRL+ birds. Prob1 exhibited higher (P < 0.001) breast meat ultimate pH and lower (P = 0.013) shear force than CTRL+. Both probiotic treatments reduced (P < 0.001) liver malondialdehyde concentrations compared with both control groups, indicating improved oxidative status. The Prob2 mixture increased (P < 0.038) cecal butyric acid concentration on d 10, although this effect did not persist at market age. Overall, Prob2 exhibited the most consistent effects on physiological and microbial-related parameters without affecting growth performance. These results indicate that neither in-ovo probiotics nor in-feed BMD act as classical growth promoters under controlled conditions but in-ovo probiotics may support bird health and resilience. Further validation under commercial production conditions is warranted.
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.