ArticlePoultry science2026
Evaluation of housefly (Musca domestica) larvae meal and frass as alternative protein sources in late-phase laying hens: Effects on ileal digestibility and energy utilization.
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
The present study evaluated the effects of housefly (Musca domestica) larvae meal (HFLM) and housefly larvae plus frass (HFLF), with or without a commercial synbiotic-enzyme supplement, on apparent ileal nutrient digestibility and apparent ileal digestible energy (AIDE) in Lohmann LSL-Lite laying hens. Two 10-week feeding trials were conducted, each involving 192 hens at 56 weeks of age, using a 4 × 2 factorial design with four inclusion levels (0, 5, 10, and 15%) of HFLM or HFLF and two synbiotic-enzyme supplementation levels (0 and 0.05%). In Experiment 1, HFLM inclusion did not affect nutrient digestibility or AIDE (P > 0.05), and no HFLM × synbiotic-enzyme interactions were observed. Synbiotic-enzyme supplementation reduced ash digestibility by 24.1% (42.20 vs. 55.63%; P = 0.0312), whereas it increased nitrogen-free extract digestibility (NFE) by 37.1% (72.81 vs. 53.09%; P = 0.0099) and AIDE by 23.2% (2836.2 vs. 2301.5 kcal/kg; P = 0.0240). In Experiment 2, significant HFLF × synbiotic-enzyme interactions were detected for crude protein (CP), ether extract (EE), ash, NFE, and AIDE (P ≤ 0.0401). The 10% HFLF diet supplemented with 0.05% synbiotic-enzyme produced the highest CP (87.49%), EE (79.15%), ash (70.72%), and NFE (87.49%) digestibility values and AIDE (3402.29 kcal/kg), representing increases of 42.3%, 99.8%, 69.6%, 116.8%, and 96.1%, respectively, relative to the corresponding lowest observed values. The lowest CP, NFE, and AIDE values were observed with 5% HFLF without supplementation, whereas the lowest EE and ash digestibility occurred with 15% HFLF with and without supplementation, respectively. HFLF inclusion also affected crude fiber (P = 0.0100) and calcium (P = 0.0166) digestibility, which increased by 36.4% and 52.4%, respectively, at 10% HFLF compared with the control. Overall, under the conditions of the present study, HFLM inclusion up to 15% did not adversely affect apparent ileal nutrient digestibility or energy utilization. The responses to HFLF varied with synbiotic-enzyme supplementation, with 10% HFLF plus 0.05% supplementation showing favorable nutrient digestibility and energy utilization responses.
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.