<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.4 20241031//EN" "JATS-journalpublishing1-4.dtd">
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.4" xml:lang="en">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
      <journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">ojas</journal-id>
      <journal-title-group>
        <journal-title>Open Journal of Animal Sciences</journal-title>
      </journal-title-group>
      <issn pub-type="epub">2161-7627</issn>
      <issn pub-type="ppub">2161-7597</issn>
      <publisher>
        <publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name>
      </publisher>
    </journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/ojas.2026.161010</article-id>
      <article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">ojas-148992</article-id>
      <article-categories>
        <subj-group>
          <subject>Article</subject>
        </subj-group>
        <subj-group>
          <subject>Biomedical</subject>
          <subject>Life Sciences</subject>
        </subj-group>
      </article-categories>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Selection-Specific Bioactive Metabolites from Vernonia hymenolepis Wash Water Dictate Broiler Growth and Metabolic Efficiency in a Yeast-Dominant Fermentation System</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes">
          <contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0000-0002-7807-4056</contrib-id>
          <name name-style="western">
            <surname>Ewane</surname>
            <given-names>Divine</given-names>
          </name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <name name-style="western">
            <surname>Ndam</surname>
            <given-names>Lawrence Monah</given-names>
          </name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <name name-style="western">
            <surname>Ndifor</surname>
            <given-names>Godfred Mbah Nchole</given-names>
          </name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <name name-style="western">
            <surname>Ndi</surname>
            <given-names>Brulin Aneng</given-names>
          </name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <name name-style="western">
            <surname>Keubiwou</surname>
            <given-names>Brandon Rahim Fogang</given-names>
          </name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <name name-style="western">
            <surname>Ewane</surname>
            <given-names>Emmanuella Esunge Ekwelle</given-names>
          </name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <name name-style="western">
            <surname>Ewane</surname>
            <given-names>Ekuh Bazil</given-names>
          </name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3">3</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <name name-style="western">
            <surname>Ehabe</surname>
            <given-names>Eugene E.</given-names>
          </name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4">4</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <name name-style="western">
            <surname>Chah</surname>
            <given-names>Kennedy F.</given-names>
          </name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff5">5</xref>
        </contrib>
      </contrib-group>
      <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label> Faculty of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine, University of Buea, Buea, Cameroon </aff>
      <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label> Faculty of Arts, University of Buea, Buea, Cameroon </aff>
      <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label> Centre for Food Technology and Research (CEFTER), Department of Chemistry, Benue State University, Makurdi, Nigeria </aff>
      <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label> Directorate of Scientific Research, Institute of Agricultural Research for Development, Yaoundé, Cameroon </aff>
      <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label> Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria </aff>
      <author-notes>
        <fn fn-type="conflict" id="fn-conflict">
          <p>The authors declare no competing interests in the research and the publication.</p>
        </fn>
      </author-notes>
      <pub-date pub-type="epub">
        <day>24</day>
        <month>11</month>
        <year>2025</year>
      </pub-date>
      <pub-date pub-type="collection">
        <month>11</month>
        <year>2025</year>
      </pub-date>
      <volume>16</volume>
      <issue>01</issue>
      <fpage>125</fpage>
      <lpage>143</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received">
          <day>16</day>
          <month>12</month>
          <year>2025</year>
        </date>
        <date date-type="accepted">
          <day>18</day>
          <month>01</month>
          <year>2026</year>
        </date>
        <date date-type="published">
          <day>21</day>
          <month>01</month>
          <year>2026</year>
        </date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>© 2026 by the authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2026</copyright-year>
        <license license-type="open-access">
          <license-p> This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link> ). </license-p>
        </license>
      </permissions>
      <self-uri content-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.4236/ojas.2026.161010">https://doi.org/10.4236/ojas.2026.161010</self-uri>
      <abstract>
        <p>The combined application of fermentation, phytobiotics, and endogenous probiotics offers a promising, sustainable alternative to conventional feed strategies, particularly for small-scale poultry production. This study evaluated the effects of fermenting a corn/soy diet using wash water (VhWW) derived from four distinct chemotypes of <italic>Vernonia hymenolepis</italic> (Green Bitter [GBVh, T4], Green Sweet [GSVh, T5], Purple Bitter [PBVh, T6], and Purple Sweet [PSVh, T7]) on broiler performance, nutrient utilization, and metabolism. A mandatory daily aeration step in the 72-hour staggered fermentation system created a novel Yeast-dominant, Lactic Acid Bacteria (LAB)-suppressed ecology across all VhWW treatments (≥8.00 log<sub>10</sub>CFU/mL <italic>Saccharomyces cerev</italic><italic>isiae</italic>). This ecology conferred antimicrobial selectivity, achieving the elimination of <italic>E. coli</italic> in T4, T5, and T6. The PBVh selection (T6) yielded the highest Body Weight Gain (BWG: 2191.00 g, P &lt; 0.001) and best Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR: 1.65, P = 0.053). However, its superior growth was decoupled from bulk nutrient absorption, as its corrected metabolizable dry matter (cMDM) was only intermediate. Conversely, the GBVh selection (T4) achieved the highest nutrient utilization (cMDM: 188.37 mg/g, P &lt; 0.001) but one of the lowest BWGs, indicative of metabolic antagonism. This antagonism was supported by an adverse lipid profile (highest LDL and lowest HDL, P &lt; 0.001). The PSVh selection (T7) induced metabolic stress (highest Relative Liver Weight, P &lt; 0.001), poorest utilization, yet showed a repartitioning effect with the highest Relative Breast Yield (26.03%, P &lt; 0.001). We conclude that the efficacy of VhWW fermentation is strain-dependent, with the PBVh selection maximizing performance by optimizing post-absorptive metabolic efficiency through bioactive metabolites derived from its unique phyto-microbial interaction.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group kwd-group-type="author-generated" xml:lang="en">
        <kwd>Fermentation</kwd>
        <kwd>&lt;i&gt;Vernonia hymenolepis&lt;/i&gt;</kwd>
        <kwd>Chemotype</kwd>
        <kwd>Phytobiotics</kwd>
        <kwd>Yeast-Dominant</kwd>
        <kwd>Metabolic Antagonism</kwd>
        <kwd>Nutrient Decoupling</kwd>
        <kwd>Broiler</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec1">
      <title>1. Introduction</title>
      <p>Human efforts to improve livestock feeds and feeding strategies have continuously evolved, driven by the need to enhance animal health, growth, productivity, and overall food production efficiency [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">1</xref>][<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B2">2</xref>]. This evolution has led to sophisticated, science-based approaches combining techniques such as fermentation, nutritional supplementation, and the use of feed additives [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B3">3</xref>][<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B4">4</xref>].</p>
      <p>Fermentation is a critical advancement, enhancing a feed’s nutritional profile by increasing nutrient bioavailability and breaking down anti-nutritional factors (ANFs) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B5">5</xref>]. Concurrently, feed additives (e.g., prebiotics, probiotics, enzymes, phytobiotics) are used to optimize gut health and improve performance [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B6">6</xref>]. Despite the known synergy of these techniques, their combined application in developing novel feed resources-particularly via simple, small-scale methods—is scarcely documented [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B7">7</xref>]. Most studies on fermented feeds utilize plain water or incorporate specific, pure microbial cultures (e.g., <italic>Lactobacillus</italic>), which can be technically challenging and costly for small-scale producers [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B8">8</xref>].</p>
      <p>A novel, practical alternative is to exploit the endogenous probiotic and phytobiotic potential locked within certain plant-based resources. Building on the concept of auto-detoxification observed in <italic>Jatropha curcas</italic> seed cake [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B9">9</xref>], the wash water derived from edible Vernonia species—such as <italic>Vernonia hymenolepis</italic> Wash Water (VhWW) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">10</xref>] or <italic>Vernonia amygdalina</italic> Wash Water (VaWW) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">11</xref>] offers a unique, low-cost platform. This wash water is known to possess prophylactic properties and retains numerous nutrients and phytochemicals [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">11</xref>][<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B12">12</xref>] effectively acting as both a natural supplement and feed additive.</p>
      <p>Fermenting the precise daily feed ration with VhWW provides a unique opportunity to simultaneously explore the benefits of fermentation, supplementation, endogenous probiotics, phytobiotics, and precision feeding. Afui <italic>et al.</italic> [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">13</xref>] previously identified four distinct selections of <italic>V. hymenolepis</italic>: green bitter (GBVh), green sweet (GSVh), purple bitter (PBVh), and purple sweet (PSVh). However, it remains unclear whether the wash water derived from each specific selection will differentially influence the microbial ecology of the fermentation process or the subsequent growth, carcass yield, and metabolic response of broiler chickens fed the resulting diets.</p>
      <p>This study, therefore, seeks to evaluate the effects of fermenting a standard corn/soy-based diet with wash water from these four selections of <italic>V. hymenolepis</italic> on the growth performance, carcass characteristics, nutrient utilization, and serum lipid profile of broiler chickens. The central goal is to identify a strain-specific VhWW selection that maximizes feed utilization and growth, providing a practical, sustainable, and integrated feeding strategy for small-scale poultry farmers. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref> represents a graphical abstract of the study.</p>
      <fig id="fig1">
        <label>Figure 1</label>
        <graphic xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/1401602-rId17.jpeg?20260121015147" />
      </fig>
      <p><bold>Figure 1</bold><bold>.</bold> Selective efficacy of <italic>Vernonia hymenolepis</italic> wash water fermented corn/soy diets for broilers.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec2">
      <title>2. Methodology</title>
      <sec id="sec2dot1">
        <title>2.1. Study Location and Duration</title>
        <p>The 42-day feeding trial, including a 7 day acclimatization period, was conducted at the Faculty of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine Teaching and Research Farm (FAVM-TRF), University of Buea, Cameroon (Latitude 4˚4' N-4˚12'N; Longitude 9˚9' E-9˚19'E). The site is characterized by a humid equatorial climate (altitude 870 - 1000 m a.s.l., annual rainfall 3000 - 5000 mm, temperature 20˚C - 30˚C).</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec2dot2">
        <title>
          2.2. Source and Preparation of
          <italic>Vernonia hymenolepis</italic>
          Wash Water (VhWW)
        </title>
        <p>2.2.1. Source of <italic>Vernonia hymenolepis</italic> Selections</p>
        <p>Four distinct selections were sourced from the established Vernonia unit at the FAVM-TRF [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">10</xref>]: Green Bitter (GBVh), Green Sweet (GSVh), Purple Bitter (PBVh), and Purple Sweet (PSVh).</p>
        <p>2.2.2. Preparation of Wash Water</p>
        <p>Leaves were harvested daily and prepared using a modified method [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B14">14</xref>][<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B15">15</xref>]. For 1000 g of fresh leaves:</p>
        <p>1) Leaves were manually abraded (squeezed and rubbed) without water until foaming was observed.</p>
        <p>2) Tap water was added sequentially in descending volumes (3000 mL, 2000 mL, 1000 mL, and 500 mL) to rinse out the foam.</p>
        <p>3) For sweet varieties (GSVh, PSVh), rinsing ceased immediately upon foam clearance.</p>
        <p>4) For bitter varieties (GBVh, PBVh), the process continued until the bitterness was barely perceptible to the human palate.</p>
        <p>5) The total VhWW collected from the initial 1000 g of fresh leaves averaged 6000 ± 1500 mL across all selections and was used immediately for fermentation</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec2dot3">
        <title>2.3. Experimental Diets and Treatments</title>
        <p>2.3.1. Preparation of Broiler Basal Diet</p>
        <p>Starter (Days 1 - 21) and Finisher (Days 22 - 42) mash diets were formulated to meet NRC (1994) requirements (<bold>Table 1</bold>). Titanium dioxide (0.25%) was included in the finisher diet as an indigestible marker.</p>
        <p><bold>Table 1</bold><bold>.</bold> Composition of the starter and finisher feed used in the experiment.</p>
        <table-wrap id="tbl1">
          <label>Table 1</label>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Ingredient</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Starter (%)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Finisher (%)</bold>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Corn</td>
                <td>55.20</td>
                <td>61.00</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Soybean meal</td>
                <td>40.1</td>
                <td>34.94</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Dicalcium phosphate</td>
                <td>2.80</td>
                <td>2.00</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>DL-Methionine</td>
                <td>0.15</td>
                <td>0.06</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Premix (vitamin/mineral)</td>
                <td>1.50</td>
                <td>1.50</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Salt</td>
                <td>0.25</td>
                <td>0.25</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Titanium dioxide</td>
                <td>0.00</td>
                <td>0.25</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Total</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>100</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>100</bold>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td colspan="3">
                  <bold>Calculated Chemical composition</bold>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>ME* (Kcal/kg DM)</td>
                <td>2962.00</td>
                <td>3200.00</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Crude protein (%DM)</td>
                <td>23.00</td>
                <td>20.00</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Ether extract (%DM)</td>
                <td>7.17</td>
                <td>6.18</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Crude fiber (%DM)</td>
                <td>2.42</td>
                <td>2.55</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Methionine (%DM)</td>
                <td>0.52</td>
                <td>0.38</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Ca (%DM)</td>
                <td>1.00</td>
                <td>0.90</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Available P (%DM)</td>
                <td>0.45</td>
                <td>0.35</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </table-wrap>
        <p>*ME* = Metobolisable Energy, CP = Crude Protein, CF = Crude Fiber. Premix* Premix Composition (per kg):Vit A 3000,000 UI, VIT D3 600,000 UI, Vit E 4000 mg, Vit K3 500 mg, Vit B1 320 mg, Vit B2 1000 mg, Vit B3 2400 mg, Vit B6 400 mg, Vit B12 7 mg, Vit PP/Niacin 4800 mg, Biotin 10 mg, Choline chloride 100,000 mg, Folic acid 160 mg, Copper (II) sulfate 200 mg, Zinc oxide 10,000 mg, Manganese oxide 1400 mg, Calcium iodate 200 mg, Methionine 200,000 mg, Iron sulfate 8000 mg, Sulfate 2000 mg.</p>
        <p>2.3.2. Dietary Treatment Groups</p>
        <p>A total of seven dietary treatments were tested (<bold>Table 2</bold>). All groups received the same basal diet, but differed in the fermentation medium and prophylactic coverage:</p>
        <p>T1 (Conventional Control): Fermented with tap water; received full conventional prophylactic protocol (detailed in <bold>Table 3</bold>).T2 (Positive Control): Fermented with tap water; received Oxy-tetracycline 80 (0.5 g/L water) + Vaccines.T3 (Negative Control): Fermented with tap water; received only tap water + Vaccines.T4-T7 (VhWW Test Diets): Fermented with respective VhWW selections (GBVh, GSVh, PBVh, PSVh); received only tap water + Vaccines.</p>
        <p><bold>Table 2</bold><bold>.</bold> Description of treatment groups.</p>
        <table-wrap id="tbl2">
          <label>Table 2</label>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Treatment Code</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Fermentation Medium</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Prophylaxis via drinking water</bold>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>T1: (Conventional Control)</td>
                <td>Fermented with tap Water only</td>
                <td>
                  Conventional Prophylaxis Protocol (
                  <bold>Table 3</bold>
                  )
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>T2: Positive Control</td>
                <td>Fermented with tap Water only</td>
                <td>Oxyteracycline 80 at 0.5 g/L water + Vaccines</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>T3: Negative Control</td>
                <td>Fermented with tap Water only</td>
                <td>Tap water + Vaccines</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>T4: (GBVh)</td>
                <td>Fermented with Green Bitter VhWW</td>
                <td>Tap water+ Vaccines</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>T5: (GSVh)</td>
                <td>Fermented with Green Sweet VhWW</td>
                <td>Tap water+ Vaccines</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>T6: (PBVh)</td>
                <td>Fermented with Purple Bitter VhWW</td>
                <td>Tap water+ Vaccines</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>T7: (PSVh)</td>
                <td>Fermented with Purple Sweet VhWW</td>
                <td>Tap water+ Vaccines</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </table-wrap>
        <p><bold>Table 3</bold><bold>.</bold> Conventional prophylactic protocol.</p>
        <table-wrap id="tbl3">
          <label>Table 3</label>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Day/Age</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Type of Medication</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Mode of Administration</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Dosage</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Function</bold>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>1</td>
                <td>Avinew (A), Bioral (B)and Galivac (G)</td>
                <td>Beak dipping or Intra ocular</td>
                <td>1000 D in 10 L</td>
                <td>Prevention of NCD, IB and Gumboro</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>1 - 5</td>
                <td>Anti-stress and vitamin</td>
                <td>Drinking water</td>
                <td>5 g in 5 L</td>
                <td>Against stress</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>6 - 8</td>
                <td>Antibiotic (oxy)</td>
                <td>Drinking water</td>
                <td>5 g in 2.5 L</td>
                <td>Disease prevention</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>8</td>
                <td>Vaccine; A, B, G</td>
                <td>Drinking water</td>
                <td>1000 D in 10 L</td>
                <td>Booster against viral infection</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>8 - 10</td>
                <td>Vitamin (Amin total)</td>
                <td>Drinking water</td>
                <td>5 g in 10 L</td>
                <td>Growth promoter</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>11 - 13</td>
                <td>Anti-coccidiosis</td>
                <td>Drinking water</td>
                <td>5 g in 10 L</td>
                <td>Prevention of coccidiosis</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>14 - 16</td>
                <td>Vitamin (Amin total)</td>
                <td>Drinking water</td>
                <td>5 g in 10 L</td>
                <td>Growth promoter</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>17 - 19</td>
                <td>Antibiotic (oxy)</td>
                <td>Drinking water</td>
                <td>5 g in 10 L</td>
                <td>Anti-infectious</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>20 - 22</td>
                <td>Vitamin</td>
                <td>Drinking water</td>
                <td>5 g in 10 L</td>
                <td>Growth promoter</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>21</td>
                <td>Vaccine; A, B, G</td>
                <td>Drinking water</td>
                <td>1000 D in 10 L</td>
                <td>Booster against viral infection</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>23 - 25</td>
                <td>Anti-coccidiosis</td>
                <td>Drinking water</td>
                <td>5 g in 10 L</td>
                <td>Prevention of coccidiosis</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>26 - 29</td>
                <td>Vitamin</td>
                <td>Drinking water</td>
                <td>5 g in 10 L</td>
                <td>Growth promoter</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>30</td>
                <td>Dewormer (anthelmintic)</td>
                <td>Drinking water</td>
                <td>5 g in 2.5 L</td>
                <td>Against worms</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>35 - 37</td>
                <td>Liver protector</td>
                <td>Drinking water</td>
                <td>1 ml in 1 L</td>
                <td>Diuretic</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>38 - 42</td>
                <td>Vitamin</td>
                <td>Drinking water</td>
                <td>5 g in 10 L</td>
                <td>Growth promoter</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </table-wrap>
        <p>Vaccine: A: Avinew, B: Bioral, G: Galivac, NCD; New castle disease, IB; Infectious bronchitis.</p>
        <p>2.3.3. Fermentation of Experimental Diets</p>
        <p>Fermentation followed a 72-hour continuous, staggered cycle adapted from Heres <italic>et al.</italic> [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B16">16</xref>], using a feed-to-liquid ratio of 1:3.4. Fermentation was conducted daily with the precise quantity of feed required for the next day’s feeding, using three sets of containers (Day 1, Day 2, Day 3).</p>
        <p>The daily manual transfer of the mash from one container to the next served as a mandatory aeration step, ensuring homogenization and maximal oxygen exposure throughout the 72-hour period. The decanted liquid from the Day 3 container was used to initiate the Day 1 cycle for the next batch, establishing a continuous fermentation culture.</p>
        <p>2.3.4. Identification of Microbial Diversity in the Fermentation Media</p>
        <p>Decanted fermentation fluid from the Day 3 containers (72 hours) was collected and serially diluted using sterile physiological saline. 100 μL of the appropriate dilutions was spread-plated on selective and non-selective media. Plates were incubated at 37˚C for bacteria (24 - 48 hours) and 25˚C for yeast (48 - 72 hours).</p>
        <p>Media Used: 5% Blood Agar, MacConkey Agar, Eosin Methylene Blue (EMB) Agar, Sabouraud Dextrose Agar (SDA), and Cysteine Lactose Electrolyte Deficiency (CLED) Agar.Identification: Bacterial colonies were characterized using morphological characteristics, Gram staining, and a battery of biochemical tests (e.g., Catalase test, Coagulase test, Indole, Citrate, Triple Sugar Iron) to identify genus and species. Yeast colonies were confirmed via Gram staining and characteristic morphology on SDA.Quantification: The number of viable colonies was counted on plates with 30 - 300 CFU and results were reported as log<sub>10</sub>CFU/mL using the formula:</p>
        <disp-formula id="FD1">
          <mml:math>
            <mml:mrow>
              <mml:mrow>
                <mml:mrow>
                  <mml:mtext>CFU</mml:mtext>
                </mml:mrow>
                <mml:mo>/</mml:mo>
                <mml:mrow>
                  <mml:mtext>mL</mml:mtext>
                </mml:mrow>
              </mml:mrow>
              <mml:mo>=</mml:mo>
              <mml:mfrac>
                <mml:mrow>
                  <mml:mtext>Number of colonies</mml:mtext>
                  <mml:mo>×</mml:mo>
                  <mml:mtext>Dilution factor</mml:mtext>
                </mml:mrow>
                <mml:mrow>
                  <mml:mtext>Volume of inoculum</mml:mtext>
                  <mml:mrow>
                    <mml:mo>(</mml:mo>
                    <mml:mrow>
                      <mml:mtext>mL</mml:mtext>
                    </mml:mrow>
                    <mml:mo>)</mml:mo>
                  </mml:mrow>
                </mml:mrow>
              </mml:mfrac>
            </mml:mrow>
          </mml:math>
        </disp-formula>
        <p>The limit of detection (LOD) was set based on the lowest dilution (10<sup>1</sup>) and volume plated (0.1 mL), resulting in:</p>
        <p>LOD for LAB (on CLED): 2.00 log<sub>10</sub>CFU/mL.LOD for E. coli (on EMB/MacConkey): 2.30 log<sub>10</sub>CFU/mL. Counts below this LOD were considered undetectable.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec2dot4">
        <title>2.4. Experimental Design and Management</title>
        <p>A total of 250 Ross 308 broiler day-old chicks were procured. Following acclimatization for 7 days on dry mash (non-fermented feed), 231 chicks were randomly assigned to seven dietary treatments in a Completely Randomized Design (CRD). Each treatment had three replicates of 11 birds each (7 treatments × 3 replicates × 11 birds = 231 birds). Fermented feed and the respective treatment water were offered <italic>ad libitum</italic>.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec2dot5">
        <title>2.5. Nutrient Digestibility</title>
        <p>To maintain maximal statistical power for the primary outcome (growth performance), the experimental unit (pen) was kept intact until the end of the main study (Day 42). The digestibility trial was subsequently conducted on a sub-sample of birds (n = 12 per treatment group) from Day 42 to Day 48 using the total excreta collection method. An additional “unfed” (blank) group was included to estimate basal endogenous nutrient losses. To prevent starvation-induced catabolism and ensure metabolic data was not skewed by muscle breakdown, birds in the “unfed” group were provided with a 5% glucose solution in their drinking water <italic>ad libitum</italic> as a non-protein energy source.</p>
        <p>Protocol and Calculations</p>
        <p>Birds were individually housed in metabolic cages for a 3-day acclimatization (Day 42 - 44), followed by a 4-day quantitative collection period (Day 45 - 48). Total excreta and feed consumption were measured. Nutrient utilization was calculated as:</p>
        <p>Apparent Digestibility Coefficient (ADC):</p>
        <disp-formula id="FD2">
          <mml:math display="inline">
            <mml:mrow>
              <mml:mtext>ADC</mml:mtext>
              <mml:mrow>
                <mml:mo>(</mml:mo>
                <mml:mi>%</mml:mi>
                <mml:mo>)</mml:mo>
              </mml:mrow>
              <mml:mo>=</mml:mo>
              <mml:mfrac>
                <mml:mrow>
                  <mml:mtext>Nutrient Input</mml:mtext>
                  <mml:mrow>
                    <mml:mo>(</mml:mo>
                    <mml:mtext>g</mml:mtext>
                    <mml:mo>)</mml:mo>
                  </mml:mrow>
                  <mml:mo>−</mml:mo>
                  <mml:mtext>Nutrient Excreted</mml:mtext>
                  <mml:mrow>
                    <mml:mo>(</mml:mo>
                    <mml:mtext>g</mml:mtext>
                    <mml:mo>)</mml:mo>
                  </mml:mrow>
                </mml:mrow>
                <mml:mrow>
                  <mml:mtext>Nutrient Input</mml:mtext>
                  <mml:mrow>
                    <mml:mo>(</mml:mo>
                    <mml:mtext>g</mml:mtext>
                    <mml:mo>)</mml:mo>
                  </mml:mrow>
                </mml:mrow>
              </mml:mfrac>
              <mml:mo>×</mml:mo>
              <mml:mn>100</mml:mn>
            </mml:mrow>
          </mml:math>
        </disp-formula>
        <p>Nutrient Metabolizability Corrected for Endogenous Losses (MDc)</p>
        <disp-formula id="FD3">
          <mml:math>
            <mml:mrow>
              <mml:mtext>MDc</mml:mtext>
              <mml:mrow>
                <mml:mo>(</mml:mo>
                <mml:mrow>
                  <mml:mrow>
                    <mml:mrow>
                      <mml:mtext>mg</mml:mtext>
                    </mml:mrow>
                    <mml:mo>/</mml:mo>
                    <mml:mtext>g</mml:mtext>
                  </mml:mrow>
                </mml:mrow>
                <mml:mo>)</mml:mo>
              </mml:mrow>
              <mml:mtext>
              </mml:mtext>
              <mml:mo>=</mml:mo>
              <mml:mfrac>
                <mml:mrow>
                  <mml:mtext>Nutrient Input</mml:mtext>
                  <mml:mo>−</mml:mo>
                  <mml:mrow>
                    <mml:mo>(</mml:mo>
                    <mml:mrow>
                      <mml:mtext>Nutrient Output FED</mml:mtext>
                      <mml:mo>−</mml:mo>
                      <mml:mtext>Nutrient Output UNFED</mml:mtext>
                    </mml:mrow>
                    <mml:mo>)</mml:mo>
                  </mml:mrow>
                </mml:mrow>
                <mml:mrow>
                  <mml:mtext>Nutrient input</mml:mtext>
                  <mml:mrow>
                    <mml:mo>(</mml:mo>
                    <mml:mtext>g</mml:mtext>
                    <mml:mo>)</mml:mo>
                  </mml:mrow>
                </mml:mrow>
              </mml:mfrac>
            </mml:mrow>
          </mml:math>
        </disp-formula>
        <p>where Nutrient Output FED − Nutrient Output UNFED represents the estimated total endogenous nutrient losses from the unfed group [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B17">17</xref>].</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec2dot6">
        <title>2.6. Data Collection (Carcass, Organs, and Serum)</title>
        <p>On Day 49, following a 6 to 8-hour fasting period, birds were euthanized. Data collected included:</p>
        <p>Carcass Characteristics: Dressed Weight (DW) and weight of primal cuts (Head + Neck, Thigh + Drumstick, Breast, Wing). Cuts were expressed as a percentage of Final Live Weight (LW).Organ Weights: Absolute and relative weights of gizzard, heart, lungs, liver, and intestine.Serum Lipid Profile: Blood samples were collected, and serum was analyzed for Total Triglycerides (TG), Total Cholesterol (TC), High-Density Lipoprotein (HDL), and Low-Density Lipoprotein (LDL).</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec2dot7">
        <title>2.7. Statistical Data Analysis</title>
        <p>Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics, version 22. Assumptions of normality (Shapiro-Wilk) and homogeneity of variances (Levene’s test) were verified. Treatment differences were assessed via One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). When Levene’s test indicated heterogeneity (P &lt; 0.05), Welch’s ANOVA was applied. Post-hoc separation was performed using Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT). Results are reported as Means, with significance set at P &lt; 0.05. To enhance practical significance of the findings, Effect Sizes (Partial <italic>η</italic><sup>2</sup>) and 95% Confidence Intervals (95% CI) are reported for all parameters.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec3">
      <title>3. Results</title>
      <sec id="sec3dot1">
        <title>3.1. Microbial Diversity in Fermentation Media</title>
        <p>The comparative microbial load in the 72-hour fermented corn/soy diets is presented in <bold>Table 4</bold>. The observed microbial profile of the 72-hour fermented corn/soy media was characterized by a Yeast-dominant, Lactic Acid Bacteria (LAB)-suppressed ecology in the VhWW groups (T4 - T7).</p>
        <p>Populations of <italic>Lactobacillus</italic> were below the limit of detection (&lt;2.00 log<sub>10</sub>CFU/mL) across all treatment groups (T1 - T7), indicating that the daily, mandatory aeration strategy failed to support the detectable growth and establishment of LAB.</p>
        <p><italic>Saccharomyces cerevisiae</italic> showed significant proliferation, particularly in VhWW treatments. T4, T5, and T6 (GBVh, GSVh, and PBVh) resulted in a high load of ≥8.00 log10CFU/mL, significantly exceeding the Tap Water Controls (T1 - T3: 4.00 log<sub>10</sub>CFU/mL). The maximum count reliably quantifiable was 8.00 log<sub>10</sub>CFU/mL.</p>
        <p>The VhWW treatments demonstrated a substantial inhibitory effect on <italic>E. coli</italic>. Tap Water Controls (T1 - T3) showed high counts (6.00 log<sub>10</sub>CFU/mL), but T4, T5, and T6 achieved the greatest suppression, dropping <italic>E. coli</italic> below the detection limit (&lt;2.30 log<sub>10</sub>CFU/mL). The T7 (PSVh) treatment was less effective, recording 2.00 log<sub>10</sub>CFU/mL.</p>
        <p><bold>Table 4</bold><bold>.</bold> Comparative microbial load in the 72-hour fermented corn/soy diets by tap water and VhWW.</p>
        <table-wrap id="tbl4">
          <label>Table 4</label>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td>Treatment (Vh Selection)</td>
                <td>
                  <italic>Lactobacillus</italic>
                  (log
                  <sub>10</sub>
                  CFU/mL)
                </td>
                <td>
                  <italic>Escherichia coli</italic>
                  (log
                  <sub>10</sub>
                  CFU/mL)
                </td>
                <td>
                  <italic>Saccharomyces cerevisiae</italic>
                  (log
                  <sub>10</sub>
                  CFU/mL)
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>T1: Conventional Control</td>
                <td>&lt;2.00</td>
                <td>6.00</td>
                <td>4.00</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>T2: Positive Control (Antibiotic)</td>
                <td>&lt;2.00</td>
                <td>6.00</td>
                <td>4.00</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>T3: Negative Control</td>
                <td>&lt;2.00</td>
                <td>6.00</td>
                <td>4.00</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>T4: Green Bitter Vh (GBVh)</td>
                <td>&lt;2.00</td>
                <td>&lt;2.30</td>
                <td>≥8.00</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>T5: Green Sweet Vh (GSVh)</td>
                <td>&lt;2.00</td>
                <td>&lt;2.30</td>
                <td>≥8.00</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>T6: Purple Bitter Vh (PBVh)</td>
                <td>&lt;2.00</td>
                <td>&lt;2.30</td>
                <td>≥8.00</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>T7: Purple Sweet Vh (PSVh)</td>
                <td>&lt;2.00</td>
                <td>2.00</td>
                <td>6.00</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </table-wrap>
        <p>Note: CFU = Colony-Forming Units. (Log<sub>10</sub>CFU/mL) is the concentration of viable microorganisms in the media. &lt;2.00 and &lt;2.30 denote below the limit of detection. ≥8.00 denotes at or above the reliable quantification limit. The threshold for robust, beneficial microbial cultures in feed is generally considered &gt; 6.00 log<sub>10</sub>CFU/mL.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec3dot2">
        <title>3.2. Growth Performance</title>
        <p>The comparative effect of corn/soy diets fermented with tap water and VhWW selections on broiler growth performance is presented in <bold>Table 5</bold>. Dietary treatments had a highly significant effect on Body Weight Gain (BWG) (P &lt; 0.001), with a large effect size (Partial <italic>η</italic><sup>2</sup> = 0.589).</p>
        <p>The T6 group (PBVh) achieved the highest BWG (2191.00 g), which was statistically superior (P &lt; 0.05) to T4 (GBVh) and T7 (PSVh), and numerically superior to all control groups. The T7 group (PSVh) recorded the lowest BWG (1742.33 g).</p>
        <p>A significant association (P = 0.053) was observed between the treatment diet and Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR), with the best FCR (highest efficiency) observed in T6 (1.65), which was substantially better than the poorest FCR in T7 (2.02).</p>
        <p>Feed Intake (FI) and Initial Weight showed no significant differences (P &gt; 0.8), confirming successful randomization and comparable diet consumption.</p>
        <p><bold>Table 5</bold><bold>.</bold> Comparative effect of corn/soy diets fermented with tap water and VhWW selections on broiler growth performance.</p>
        <table-wrap id="tbl5">
          <label>Table 5</label>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td>Parameter</td>
                <td>T1: Conventional Control</td>
                <td>T2: Positive Control</td>
                <td>T3: Negative Control</td>
                <td>T4: GBVh</td>
                <td>T5: GSVh</td>
                <td>T6: PBVh</td>
                <td>T7: PSVh</td>
                <td>95% CI Range (All Treatments)</td>
                <td>ANOVA p-value</td>
                <td>
                  Effect Size (Partial
                  <italic>η</italic>
                  <sup>2</sup>
                  )
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Initial Weight (g)</td>
                <td>172.67</td>
                <td>173.67</td>
                <td>173.00</td>
                <td>172.00</td>
                <td>173.00</td>
                <td>173.00</td>
                <td>173.00</td>
                <td>172.26 - 173.48</td>
                <td>0.654</td>
                <td>0.048</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Body Weight Gain (g)</td>
                <td>
                  2033.33
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  1913.66
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  1817.00
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  1811.00
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  1897.66
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  2191.00
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  1742.33
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>1850.7 - 1963.7</td>
                <td>&lt;0.001*</td>
                <td>0.589</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Feed Intake (g)</td>
                <td>3614.16</td>
                <td>3594.66</td>
                <td>3594.66</td>
                <td>3557.50</td>
                <td>3607.83</td>
                <td>3626.16</td>
                <td>3609.83</td>
                <td>3581.1 - 3617.3</td>
                <td>0.885</td>
                <td>0.032</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Feed Conversion Ratio</td>
                <td>1.77</td>
                <td>1.87</td>
                <td>1.97</td>
                <td>1.96</td>
                <td>1.90</td>
                <td>1.65</td>
                <td>2.07</td>
                <td>1.83 - 1.93</td>
                <td>0.053</td>
                <td>0.174</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </table-wrap>
        <p>Note: Means sharing the same superscript within a row are not significantly different (<italic>p</italic> &gt; 0.05). 95% CI = 95% confidence intervals range for all treatments; *Welch’s ANOVA was used when Levene’s test indicated a violation of the assumption of homogeneity of variances (<italic>p</italic> &lt; 0.05).</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec3dot3">
        <title>3.3. Nutrient Utilization</title>
        <p>The Effect of Corn/Soy Diets Fermented with Tap water and VhWW Selections on Corrected Metabolizable Nutrient Content are indicated in <bold>Table 6</bold>. Dietary treatments resulted in highly significant differences (P &lt; 0.001) for all corrected metabolizable nutrient parameters (cMDM, cMOM, cMCP, and cMCC). The Partial <italic>η</italic><sup>2</sup> values were exceptionally high (0.952 to 0.974), indicating that the <italic>V. hymenolepis</italic> selection overwhelmingly dictated nutrient utilization.</p>
        <p>The T4 (GBVh) group demonstrated the highest metabolizable content for cMDM (188.37 mg/g), cMOM (186.47%), and cMCP (48.30±%). This group showed superior breakdown and absorption for all major nutrients. The T7 (PSVh) group recorded the lowest utilization for cMDM, cMOM, and cMCP, aligning with its poor growth performance.</p>
        <p>The T6 (PBVh) diet, which delivered the best growth (Section 3.2), showed only intermediate cMDM and cMCP values, similar to the control groups. Furthermore, T6 and T7 recorded the lowest cMCC values (0.53 % and 0.35 %, respectively), suggesting these specific fermentations impaired the metabolization of cellulose.</p>
        <p><bold>Table 6</bold><bold>.</bold> Effect of Corn/Soy diets fermented with tap water and VhWW selections on corrected metabolizable nutrient content.</p>
        <table-wrap id="tbl6">
          <label>Table 6</label>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td>Parameter</td>
                <td>T1: Conventional Control</td>
                <td>T2: Positive Control</td>
                <td>T3: Negative Control</td>
                <td>T4: GBVh</td>
                <td>T5: GSVh</td>
                <td>T6: PBVh</td>
                <td>T7: PSVh</td>
                <td>95% CI Range (All Treatments)</td>
                <td>ANOVA p-value</td>
                <td>
                  Effect Size (Partial
                  <italic>η</italic>
                  <sup>2</sup>
                  )
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Corrected Metabolisable Dry Matter (cMDM (mg/g))</td>
                <td>
                  154.76
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  151.41
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  151.41
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  188.37
                  <sup>c</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  137.05
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  151.90
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  133.40
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>148.27 - 156.33</td>
                <td>&lt;0.001*</td>
                <td>0.952</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Corrected Metabolisable Organic Matter (cMOM (%))</td>
                <td>
                  55.96
                  <sup>c</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  52.34
                  <sup>c</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  52.58
                  <sup>c</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  86.47
                  <sup>d</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  37.28
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  51.70
                  <sup>c</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  32.03
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>48.25 - 56.46</td>
                <td>&lt;0.001*</td>
                <td>0.961</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Corrected Metabolisable Crude Protein (cMCP (%))</td>
                <td>
                  43.57
                  <sup>d</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  42.13
                  <sup>cd</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  42.18
                  <sup>cd</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  48.30
                  <sup>e</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  39.53
                  <sup>c</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  40.87
                  <sup>c</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  34.87
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>40.28 - 42.64</td>
                <td>&lt;0.001*</td>
                <td>0.974</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Corrected Metabolisable Cellulose (cMCC (%))</td>
                <td>
                  2.13
                  <sup>c</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  2.00
                  <sup>bc</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  2.08
                  <sup>bc</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  2.23
                  <sup>c</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  1.72
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  0.53
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  0.35
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>1.29 - 1.76</td>
                <td>&lt;0.001*</td>
                <td>0.956</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </table-wrap>
        <p>Note: Means sharing the same superscript within a row are not significantly different (<italic>p</italic> &gt; 0.05). 95% CI = 95% confidence intervals range for all treatments; *Welch’s ANOVA was used when Levene’s test indicated a violation of the assumption of homogeneity of variances (<italic>p</italic> &lt; 0.05).</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec3dot4">
        <title>3.4. Carcass Characteristics and Yield</title>
        <p>The Effect of Corn/Soy Diets Fermented with Tap water and VhWW Selections on carcass characteristics and yield of broiler chickens are shown in <bold>Table 7</bold>. The dietary treatments significantly influenced Live Weight (P &lt; 0.001). T6 (PBVh) recorded the highest Live Weight (2364.00 g), consistent with its superior BWG. The T6 consistently recorded the highest absolute weights for all major primal cuts (Head + Neck, Thigh + Drumstick, Breast, and Wing), reflecting its overall larger size.</p>
        <p>Despite having one of the lowest Live Weights, the T7 (PSVh) group achieved the significantly highest Relative Breast Yield (26.03%, P &lt; 0.001, Partial <italic>η</italic><sup>2</sup> = 0.574), which was statistically greater than all other groups. This suggests a repartitioning of muscle mass favoring the breast.</p>
        <p>The T6 had the lowest Relative Head + Neck Yield (5.14% ± 0.01%), indicating a more commercially desirable proportion.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec3dot5">
        <title>3.5. Organ Weights</title>
        <p>The Effect of Corn/Soy Diets Fermented with Tap water and VhWW Selections on Organ Weights are indicated in <bold>Table 8</bold>. Highly significant differences were observed for absolute gizzard weight, absolute liver weight, relative liver weight, absolute lung weight, absolute intestine length, and relative intestine length (P &lt; 0.001 for all).</p>
        <p>The T6 (PBVh) recorded the highest absolute gizzard weight (68.66 g) and the highest absolute liver weight (46.00 g), significantly greater than most controls. This indicates enhanced organ mass, likely proportional to its superior body size and metabolic rate, or a physiological response to feed factors.</p>
        <p>The T7 (PSVh) recorded the highest Relative Liver Weight (2.26%), suggesting possible liver hypertrophy (hepatomegaly) and metabolic stress, despite having the lowest Live Weight. This group also recorded the highest relative intestine length (117.26 mm/kg).</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec3dot6">
        <title>3.6. Serum Lipid Profile</title>
        <p>The Effect of Corn/Soy Diets Fermented with Tap water and VhWW Selections on Broiler Serum Lipid Profile are indicated in <bold>Table 9</bold>. The dietary treatments significantly affected serum Triglycerides (TG) (P = 0.002), HDL (P &lt; 0.001), and LDL (P &lt; 0.001).</p>
        <p>The T4 (GBVh) achieved the lowest TG concentration (122.03 mg/dL-a beneficial effect) but was simultaneously associated with the lowest HDL (21.03 mg/dL) and the highest LDL (73.36 mg/dL). The T3 (Negative Control) group recorded the highest TG concentration (193.93 ± 10.99 mg/dL), suggesting a baseline susceptibility to high lipid accumulation in the absence of intervention.</p>
        <p><bold>Table 7</bold><bold>.</bold> Effect of Corn/Soy Diets Fermented with Tap water and VhWW Selections on carcass characteristics and yield of broiler chickens.</p>
        <table-wrap id="tbl7">
          <label>Table 7</label>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Parameter</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>T1: Conventional Control</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>T2: Positive Control</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>T3: Negative Control</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>T4: GBVh</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>T5: GSVh</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>T6: PBVh</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>T7: PSVh</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>95% CI Range (All Treatments</bold>
                  )
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>ANOVA p-value</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Effect Size (Partial</bold>
                  <italic>
                    <bold>η</bold>
                  </italic>
                  <bold>
                    <sup>2</sup>
                  </bold>
                  <bold>)</bold>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Live Weight (g)</td>
                <td>
                  2206.00
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  2087.33
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  1990.00
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  1983.00
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  2070.66
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  2364.00
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  1915.33
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>1841.9 - 1983.1</td>
                <td>&lt;0.001*</td>
                <td>0.352</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Slaughter Weight (g)</td>
                <td>2025.33</td>
                <td>1941.00</td>
                <td>1.906</td>
                <td>1801.66</td>
                <td>1886.00</td>
                <td>2069.66</td>
                <td>1806.33</td>
                <td>1698.4 - 1801.9</td>
                <td>0.054</td>
                <td>0.179</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Dressed Weight (g)</td>
                <td>1930.33</td>
                <td>1870.66</td>
                <td>1836.33</td>
                <td>1725.33</td>
                <td>1773.00</td>
                <td>1929.66</td>
                <td>1719.33</td>
                <td>1608.2 - 1703.3</td>
                <td>0.078</td>
                <td>0.159</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Head + Neck (g)</td>
                <td>
                  113.33
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  106.66
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  110.00
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  110.00
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  113.33
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  112.66
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  93.33
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>106.3 - 111.0</td>
                <td>&lt;0.001*</td>
                <td>0.367</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Thigh + Drumstick (g)</td>
                <td>
                  180.00
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  170.00
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  153.00
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  161.66
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  136.66
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  190.00
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  144.33
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>153.4 - 171.7</td>
                <td>&lt;0.001*</td>
                <td>0.521</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Breast (g)</td>
                <td>
                  443.33
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  410.00
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  433.33
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  400.00
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  423.33
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  470.00
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  453.33
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>416.3 - 438.4</td>
                <td>&lt;0.001*</td>
                <td>0.574</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Wing (g)</td>
                <td>
                  79.66
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  75.66
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  59.33
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  68.33
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  64.00
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  85.66
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  54.00
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>64.5 - 73.8</td>
                <td>&lt;0.001*</td>
                <td>0.532</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Rel. Slaughter Weight (%)</td>
                <td>91.14</td>
                <td>92.41</td>
                <td>90.63</td>
                <td>89.96</td>
                <td>90.29</td>
                <td>86.56</td>
                <td>93.75</td>
                <td>89.5 - 91.6</td>
                <td>0.054</td>
                <td>0.179</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Rel. Dressed Weight (%)</td>
                <td>86.48</td>
                <td>88.72</td>
                <td>86.96</td>
                <td>85.76</td>
                <td>84.33</td>
                <td>80.18</td>
                <td>88.76</td>
                <td>84.1 - 86.6</td>
                <td>0.078</td>
                <td>0.159</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Rel. Head + Neck (%)</td>
                <td>5.57</td>
                <td>5.57</td>
                <td>5.75</td>
                <td>6.07</td>
                <td>5.97</td>
                <td>5.14</td>
                <td>5.36</td>
                <td>5.42 - 5.98</td>
                <td>0.005*</td>
                <td>0.367</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Rel. Thigh + Drumstick (%)</td>
                <td>8.85</td>
                <td>8.88</td>
                <td>8.00</td>
                <td>8.93</td>
                <td>7.20</td>
                <td>8.67</td>
                <td>8.29</td>
                <td>7.90 - 8.80</td>
                <td>0.003*</td>
                <td>0.228</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Rel. Breast (%)</td>
                <td>
                  20.10
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  19.65
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  21.78
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  20.18
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  20.44
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  19.88
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  23.67
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>20.24 - 21.45</td>
                <td>&lt;0.001*</td>
                <td>0.492</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Rel. Wing (%)</td>
                <td>3.92</td>
                <td>3.95</td>
                <td>3.10</td>
                <td>3.77</td>
                <td>3.37</td>
                <td>3.91</td>
                <td>3.10</td>
                <td>3.32 - 3.95</td>
                <td>0.013*</td>
                <td>0.22</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </table-wrap>
        <p>Note: Means sharing the same superscript within a row are not significantly different (<italic>p</italic> &gt; 0.05). 95% CI = 95% confidence intervals range for all treatments; *Welch’s ANOVA was used when Levene’s test indicated a violation of the assumption of homogeneity of variances (<italic>p</italic> &lt; 0.05).</p>
        <p><bold>Table 8</bold><bold>.</bold> Effect of corn/soy diets fermented with tap water and VhWW selections on the internal organs.</p>
        <table-wrap id="tbl8">
          <label>Table 8</label>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td>Parameter</td>
                <td>T1: Conventional Control</td>
                <td>T2: Positive Control</td>
                <td>T3: Negative Control</td>
                <td>T4: GBVh</td>
                <td>T5: GSVh</td>
                <td>T6: PBVh</td>
                <td>T7: PSVh</td>
                <td>95% CI Range (All Treatments)</td>
                <td>
                  ANOVA
                  <italic>p</italic>
                  -value
                </td>
                <td>
                  Effect Size
                  <bold>(</bold>
                  Partial
                  <italic>η</italic>
                  <sup>2</sup>
                  )
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Gizzard (g)</td>
                <td>
                  61.66
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  58.00
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  58.00
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  58.66
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  62.00
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  68.66
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  59.33
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>59.6 - 62.3</td>
                <td>&lt;0.001*</td>
                <td>0.447</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Rel. Gizzard (%)</td>
                <td>3.03</td>
                <td>3.03</td>
                <td>3.03</td>
                <td>3.24</td>
                <td>3.27</td>
                <td>3.13</td>
                <td>3.41</td>
                <td>3.07 - 3.31</td>
                <td>0.154</td>
                <td>0.121</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Heart (g)</td>
                <td>10.00</td>
                <td>9.00</td>
                <td>8.33</td>
                <td>7.66</td>
                <td>8.33</td>
                <td>9.33</td>
                <td>7.66</td>
                <td>8.1 - 8.9</td>
                <td>0.179</td>
                <td>0.105</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Rel. Heart (%)</td>
                <td>0.49</td>
                <td>0.47</td>
                <td>0.44</td>
                <td>0.42</td>
                <td>0.44</td>
                <td>0.43</td>
                <td>0.44</td>
                <td>0.42 - 0.47</td>
                <td>0.179</td>
                <td>0.105</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Liver (g)</td>
                <td>
                  38.00
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  38.16
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  38.00
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  38.66
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  37.66
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  46.00
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  39.33
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>38.2 - 40.3</td>
                <td>&lt;0.001*</td>
                <td>0.624</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Rel. Liver (%)</td>
                <td>
                  1.87
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  1.99
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  1.99
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  2.13
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  1.98
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  2.10
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  2.26
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>1.99 - 2.11</td>
                <td>&lt;0.001*</td>
                <td>0.305</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Lungs (g)</td>
                <td>
                  8.66
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  8.66
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  7.66
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  8.00
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  8.00
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  9.00
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  7.66
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>7.8 - 8.4</td>
                <td>&lt;0.001*</td>
                <td>0.271</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Rel. Lungs (%)</td>
                <td>0.43</td>
                <td>0.45</td>
                <td>0.40</td>
                <td>0.44</td>
                <td>0.42</td>
                <td>0.41</td>
                <td>0.44</td>
                <td>0.41 - 0.45</td>
                <td>0.545</td>
                <td>0.079</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Intestine Length (mm)</td>
                <td>
                  201.33
                  <sup>bcd</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  207.66
                  <sup>d</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  192.66
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  195.00
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  197.33
                  <sup>abc</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  207.00
                  <sup>d</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  204.33
                  <sup>cd</sup>
                </td>
                <td>198.2 - 203.6</td>
                <td>&lt;0.001*</td>
                <td>0.712</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Rel. Intestine (mm/kg)</td>
                <td>
                  99.03
                  <sup>bcd</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  108.53
                  <sup>d</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  100.68
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  107.66
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  104.00
                  <sup>abc</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  94.43
                  <sup>d</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  117.26
                  <sup>cd</sup>
                </td>
                <td>102.1 - 107.3</td>
                <td>&lt;0.001*</td>
                <td>0.712</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </table-wrap>
        <p>Note: Means sharing the same superscript within a row are not significantly different (<italic>p</italic> &gt; 0.05). 95% CI = 95% confidence intervals range for all treatments; *Welch’s ANOVA was used when Levene’s test indicated a violation of the assumption of homogeneity of variances (<italic>p</italic> &lt; 0.05).</p>
        <p><bold>Table 9</bold><bold>.</bold> Effect of corn/soy diets fermented with tap water and VhWW selections on broiler serum lipid profile.</p>
        <table-wrap id="tbl9">
          <label>Table 9</label>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td>Parameter</td>
                <td>T1: Conventional Control</td>
                <td>T2: Positive Control</td>
                <td>T3: Negative Control</td>
                <td>T4: GBVh</td>
                <td>T5: GSVh</td>
                <td>T6: PBVh</td>
                <td>T7: PSVh</td>
                <td>95% CI Range (All Treatments)</td>
                <td>ANOVA p-value</td>
                <td>
                  Effect Size (Partial
                  <italic>η</italic>
                  <sup>2</sup>
                  )
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Cholesterol (mg/dL)</td>
                <td>150.93</td>
                <td>154.50</td>
                <td>146.10</td>
                <td>172.80</td>
                <td>137.06</td>
                <td>154.46</td>
                <td>134.73</td>
                <td>142.77 - 157.49</td>
                <td>0.060</td>
                <td>0.150</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Triglyceride (mg/dL)</td>
                <td>
                  155.06
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  182.93
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  193.93
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  122.03
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  153.00
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  152.93
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  152.93
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>148.18 - 169.76</td>
                <td>0.002*</td>
                <td>0.267</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>HDL (mg/dL)</td>
                <td>
                  44.40
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  32.40
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  21.46
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  21.03
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  21.50
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  29.70
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  39.66
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>26.97 - 33.07</td>
                <td>&lt;0.001*</td>
                <td>0.330</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>LDL (mg/dL)</td>
                <td>
                  50.91
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  55.23
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  39.87
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  73.361
                  <sup>c</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  47.70
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  60.22
                  <sup>bc</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  54.04
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>48.70 - 57.26</td>
                <td>&lt;0.001*</td>
                <td>0.365</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </table-wrap>
        <p>Note: Means sharing the same superscript within a row are not significantly different (<italic>p</italic> &gt; 0.05). 95% CI = 95% confidence intervals range for all treatments; *Welch’s ANOVA was used when Levene’s test indicated a violation of the assumption of homogeneity of variances (<italic>p</italic> &lt; 0.05).</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec4">
      <title>4. Discussion</title>
      <p>The key objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of corn/soy fermentation using <italic>Vernonia hymenolepis</italic> wash water (VhWW) from four distinct <italic>V. hymenolepis</italic> selections as a novel, integrated feeding strategy. Our findings reveal a complex interplay between the specific VhWW selection, the resulting microbial profile, and the broiler’s physiological response, demonstrating that the success of this strategy hinges not merely on bulk nutrient digestibility but on the resulting bioactive metabolites [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B18">18</xref>].</p>
      <p>The observed suppression of Lactobacillus species was a consequence of the aeration strategy. However, many LAB strains are aerotolerant; thus, the total inhibition observed suggests that competitive exclusion by the hyper-proliferating yeast biomass and the specific antimicrobial components of the VhWW (such as sesquiterpene lactones) played a significant role in preventing LAB establishment, (&lt;2.00 log<sub>10</sub>CFU/mL) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B19">19</xref>]. The minimum threshold for a culture to be considered as providing a robust, beneficial effect in fermented feed is often cited at &gt;6.00 log<sub>10</sub>CFU/mL [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B20">20</xref>]; thus, the LAB population was negligible. Conversely, <italic>Saccharomyces cerevisiae,</italic> a Crabtree-positive yeast, continued the fermentation robustly in the presence of oxygen [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B21">21</xref>], facilitated by the “Pasteur Effect” [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B22">22</xref>], which describes an organism’s capacity to switch its metabolism when conditions change from anaerobic to aerobic. The more efficient aerobic respiration pathway resulted in the massive proliferation (≥8.00 log<sub>10</sub>CFU/mL) in T4, T5, and T6. This established a novel Yeast-dominant, LAB-suppressed aerobic system.</p>
      <p>Crucially, the VhWW system demonstrated a synergistic antimicrobial selectivity. Unlike conventional fermented liquid feed (FLF) where pathogen control relies almost entirely on LAB-generated organic acids, the VhWW system combines: 1) the inherent antimicrobial properties of <italic>V. hymenolepis</italic> phytochemicals (e.g., sesquiterpene lactones, saponins) effective against enteropathogens [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B12">12</xref>][<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B23">23</xref>], and 2) the yeast’s competitive exclusion and potential production of fungicidal/bactericidal peptides [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B24">24</xref>]. The complete elimination of <italic>E. coli</italic> in T4, T5, and T6 validates this sophisticated, multi-pronged approach. Furthermore, The T7 selection failed to support robust yeast growth, recording only 6.00 log<sub>10</sub>CFU/mL compared to ≥8.00 in other VhWW groups. This failure is likely due to the “sweet” variety possessing a lower concentration of the fermentable precursors required to hit the “Pasteur Effect” threshold, linking fermentation efficacy directly to the specific botanical selection. The resulting weak fermentation failed to degrade anti-nutritional factors (ANFs), leading to the recorded hepatomegaly (highest Relative Liver Weight) as the liver underwent hypertrophy to process undegraded phytochemical toxicity</p>
      <p>This superior microbiological control, achieved through a single, low-cost, non-technical intervention (daily manual aeration), is highly practical. It removes the necessity for expensive, commercially pure starter cultures required for many LAB-based FLF systems, making the PBVh fermentation a uniquely sustainable and integrated feeding technology suitable for small-scale poultry producers.</p>
      <p>Another significant finding is the decoupling of nutrient utilization efficiency and actual growth performance based on the VhWW selection:</p>
      <p>The T4 (GBVh) group achieved the highest metabolizable energy (cMDM, cMOM) and protein utilization (cMCP), indicating superior breakdown and absorption. Yet, its BWG was one of the lowest. This paradox suggests that while nutrients were efficiently absorbed, the specific fermentation products in T4 might contain factors—likely bitter compounds or secondary metabolites—that are metabolically antagonistic or growth-inhibitory at the cellular level, nullifying the realized growth potential [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B25">25</xref>]. The metabolic antagonism observed in the T4 (GBVh) group, characterized by high nutrient digestibility but poor growth, is likely driven by high concentrations of selection-specific phytochemicals, such as sesquiterpene lactones [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B12">12</xref>][<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B15">15</xref>]. While these compounds may enhance initial nutrient breakdown in the gut, literature suggests they can significantly interfere with hepatic lipid metabolism. Specifically, sesquiterpene lactones have been shown to modulate the activity of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPAR<italic>α</italic>) or interfere with the assembly of Very-Low-Density Lipoproteins (VLDL) in the liver [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B26">26</xref>][<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B27">27</xref>] and [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B28">28</xref>]. This provides a plausible biochemical mechanism for the observed dyslipidemia (highest LDL and lowest HDL), where absorbed carbon skeletons are diverted toward abnormal lipid cycling and hepatic stress rather than being channeled into protein synthesis for skeletal muscle deposition.</p>
      <p>The T6 (PBVh) group, which delivered the best growth performance and FCR, showed only intermediate metabolizable energy and protein utilization. This demonstrates that the superior growth achieved by T6 is not solely due to increased bulk nutrient availability but rather to a specific, highly beneficial mechanism. This mechanism is likely mediated by the robust Yeast biomass, which supplies highly bioavailable amino acids, <italic>β</italic>-glucans, and B-vitamins, promoting growth and gut health, thus optimizing the use of absorbed nutrients (post-absorptive metabolic efficiency) rather than merely increasing total absorption [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B29">29</xref>]</p>
      <p>The varying metabolic endpoints underscore the importance of strain-specific bioactive components: The T6 group’s superior growth is corroborated by its proportional increase in organ size (absolute gizzard, liver, and lung weights). The significant increase in gizzard size often indicates higher physiological activity related to improved mechanical digestion, contributing to better feed efficiency [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B30">30</xref>][<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B31">31</xref>]. The combination of excellent growth, efficient FCR, and a highly hygienic Yeast-dominant fermentation makes the PBVh selection the most promising candidate.</p>
      <p>The hypothesis of metabolic antagonism in the T4 (GBVh) group is strongly supported by its adverse Serum Lipid Profile. This group recorded the highest LDL (“bad cholesterol”) and lowest HDL (“good cholesterol”). This suggests that while the feed was efficiently digested, the residual GBVh metabolites interfered with hepatic lipid homeostasis, diverting absorbed resources away from muscle synthesis toward abnormal or less productive lipid cycling pathways [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B32">32</xref>][<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B33">33</xref>]. In this context, the specific profile observed in T4 (GBVh) is an example of how chemotypes (chemical profiles of a plant genotype) and processing (fermentation) can create acquired dyslipidemia that is highly specific to a single metabolic pathway.</p>
      <p>The T7 (PSVh) selection is deemed unsuitable due to its consistently poorest performance metrics. This poor outcome is further explained by the highest Relative Liver Weight (hepatomegaly), suggesting significant hepatic hypertrophy and metabolic stress [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B34">34</xref>]. This likely resulted from the liver working harder to detoxify potent anti-nutritional factors (ANFs) that were neither degraded by the selection’s weak fermentation nor tolerated by the bird. Interestingly, despite the poor overall growth, the T7 group achieved the significantly highest Relative Breast Yield, suggesting a repartitioning effect where muscle deposition was disproportionately allocated toward the commercially valuable breast muscle relative to the total body mass [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B35">35</xref>].</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec5">
      <title>5. Conclusions</title>
      <p>The study demonstrates that corn/soy fermentation using <italic>V. hymenolepis</italic> wash water is a highly selective and strain-dependent method for modifying feed quality and broiler performance. The success of this strategy is contingent upon the resulting microbial ecology and the specific bioactive metabolites produced, which dictate whether absorbed nutrients are efficiently channeled toward muscle synthesis or diverted toward detoxification and maintenance.</p>
      <p>The T6 (Purple Bitter Vh) selection is the most effective growth promoter, delivering the highest BWG and FCR, attributed to a robust, hygienic, Yeast-dominant fermentation system that promotes post-absorptive metabolic efficiency.</p>
      <p>The T4 (Green Bitter Vh) selection, despite maximizing nutrient digestibility, failed to promote growth due to suspected metabolic inhibitors that adversely affected the LDL profile.</p>
      <p>The T7 (Purple Sweet Vh) selection is unsuitable, failing to initiate effective fermentation, resulting in the poorest nutrient utilization, and inducing metabolic distress (high relative liver weight).</p>
      <p>We conclude that the PBVh selection offers a viable, novel, and practical strategy for feed processing that maximizes broiler performance by enhancing nutrient utilization at the level of post-absorptive metabolism.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec6">
      <title>6. Recommendations</title>
      <p>Focus on Purple bitter (PBVh) Elucidation: The PBVh selection should be advanced for further research, specifically focusing on its fermentation end-products (e.g., Short-Chain Fatty Acids, <italic>β</italic>-glucans, specific Yeast metabolites) to elucidate the precise mechanisms driving its superior growth.</p>
      <p>Phytochemical Analysis: A detailed chemical fingerprinting study (e.g., HPLC-MS/MS) is required to compare the PBVh and GBVh wash waters post fermentation to identify the specific bitter compounds in GBVh responsible for the observed metabolic antagonism (high LDL) despite high digestibility.</p>
      <p>Gut Morphology and Integrity: Future studies should investigate the effects of T6 on intestinal villus height, crypt depth, and tight junction protein expression to confirm the proposed improvement in gut health and integrity derived from the Yeast biomass.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec7">
      <title>Acknowledgements</title>
      <p>We acknowledge the Ministry of Higher Education, Cameroon and University of Buea that Cosponsored this research via research allowances to the corresponding author. We are also grateful to the farm facilities provided by the Faculty of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine and laboratory facilities of Professor Fujii Agroecology laboratoratory FAVM, University of Buea, Maflekumen Higher Institute, Tiko Cameroon and FASA University of Dschang, Cameroon.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec8">
      <title>Data Availability</title>
      <p>Data are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec9">
      <title>Author Contributions</title>
      <p>ED: Conceptualization; formal analysis; investigation; methodology; project administration; resources, supervision, validation, writing original draft, review and editing.</p>
      <p>NLM: Conceptualization; formal analysis, investigation; project administration; resources supervision, validation writing original draft.</p>
      <p>NGMN: Conceptualization, Data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, project administration, resources, validation, writing original draft.</p>
      <p>NBA: Conceptualization Data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, project administration, resources, validation, writing original draft.</p>
      <p>KBRF: Data curation, formal analysis; resources, supervision, validation, writing original draft, review and editing.</p>
      <p>EEEE: Data curation, formal analysis; resources, supervision, validation, writing original draft, review and editing.</p>
      <p>EBE: formal analysis; resources, supervision, validation, writing original draft, review and editing.</p>
      <p>EEE: Validation, writing original draft, review and editing.</p>
      <p>CKF: Validation, writing original draft, review and editing.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec10">
      <title>Consent to Publish</title>
      <p>All Co-authors have given their full consent to publish.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec11">
      <title>Ethical Considerations</title>
      <p>Unsexed Cobb500 broiler chickens were used as experimental animals for this study. The chickens were raised in standard pens and temperature and humidity were closely monitored using a thermo-hydrometer (model 288-ATH, SL Technologies). The experiments were carried out following the National Ethical Committee Guidelines (No. FWA-IRB00001954) and International (European Committee Council Directive of November 24, 1986 (86/69/EEC); Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (U.S. National Research Council, 1996) for the care and use of laboratory animals. All efforts were made to minimize the suffering and stress of chickens used at each stage of the study. Ethical approval was given by the University of Buea Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (UB-IACUC) via permit No.UB-IACUC No.49/2023.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <title>References</title>
      <ref id="B1">
        <label>1.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Menchaca, A. (2021) Sustainable Food Production: The Contribution of Genome Editing in Livestock. <italic>Sustainability</italic>, 13, Article 6788. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126788 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/su13126788</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126788">https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126788</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Menchaca, A.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2021</year>
            <article-title>Sustainable Food Production: The Contribution of Genome Editing in Livestock</article-title>
            <source>Sustainability</source>
            <volume>13</volume>
            <elocation-id>6788</elocation-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/su13126788</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B2">
        <label>2.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">da Costa Freitas, J. and Barbosa, M.J.B. (2025) Effective Strategies in Modern Livestock Management to Increase Productivity and Profitability. <italic>The</italic><italic>Journal</italic><italic>of</italic><italic>Academic</italic><italic>Science</italic>, 2, 1488-1495.</mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Freitas, J.</string-name>
              <string-name>Barbosa, M.J.B.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2025</year>
            <article-title>Effective Strategies in Modern Livestock Management to Increase Productivity and Profitability</article-title>
            <source>The Journal of Academic Science</source>
            <volume>2</volume>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B3">
        <label>3.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Coffey, D., Dawson, K., Ferket, P. and Connolly, A. (2016) Review of the Feed Industry from a Historical Perspective and Implications for Its Future. <italic>Journal</italic><italic>of</italic><italic>Applied</italic><italic>Animal</italic><italic>Nutrition</italic>, 4, e3. https://doi.org/10.1017/jan.2015.11 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1017/jan.2015.11</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1017/jan.2015.11">https://doi.org/10.1017/jan.2015.11</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Coffey, D.</string-name>
              <string-name>Dawson, K.</string-name>
              <string-name>Ferket, P.</string-name>
              <string-name>Connolly, A.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2016</year>
            <article-title>Review of the Feed Industry from a Historical Perspective and Implications for Its Future</article-title>
            <source>Journal of Applied Animal Nutrition</source>
            <volume>4</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1017/jan.2015.11</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B4">
        <label>4.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Akintan, O., Gebremedhin, K.G. and Uyeh, D.D. (2024) Animal Feed Formulation—Connecting Technologies to Build a Resilient and Sustainable System. <italic>Animals</italic>, 14, Article 1497. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14101497 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/ani14101497</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">38791714</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14101497">https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14101497</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Akintan, O.</string-name>
              <string-name>Gebremedhin, K.G.</string-name>
              <string-name>Uyeh, D.D.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2024</year>
            <article-title>Animal Feed Formulation—Connecting Technologies to Build a Resilient and Sustainable System</article-title>
            <source>Animals</source>
            <volume>14</volume>
            <elocation-id>1497</elocation-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/ani14101497</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">38791714</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B5">
        <label>5.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Li, B., Boukhennou, A., Shao, J., Miao, L., Du, Y. and Chen, J. (2025) Application Status and Development Prospect of Fermented Ingredients in Aquaculture. <italic>Aquaculture</italic><italic>Reports</italic>, 42, Article ID: 102842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2025.102842 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.aqrep.2025.102842</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2025.102842">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2025.102842</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Li, B.</string-name>
              <string-name>Boukhennou, A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Shao, J.</string-name>
              <string-name>Miao, L.</string-name>
              <string-name>Du, Y.</string-name>
              <string-name>Chen, J.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2025</year>
            <article-title>Application Status and Development Prospect of Fermented Ingredients in Aquaculture</article-title>
            <source>Aquaculture Reports</source>
            <volume>42</volume>
            <fpage>102842</fpage>
            <elocation-id>ID</elocation-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.aqrep.2025.102842</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B6">
        <label>6.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Chukwudi, P., Umeugokwe, P.I., Ikeh, N.E. and Amaefule, B.C. (2024) The Effects of Organic Acids on Broiler Chicken Nutrition: A Review. <italic>Animal</italic><italic>Research</italic><italic>and</italic><italic>One</italic><italic>Health</italic>, 3, 43-53. https://doi.org/10.1002/aro2.85 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1002/aro2.85</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/aro2.85">https://doi.org/10.1002/aro2.85</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Chukwudi, P.</string-name>
              <string-name>Umeugokwe, P.I.</string-name>
              <string-name>Ikeh, N.E.</string-name>
              <string-name>Amaefule, B.C.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2024</year>
            <article-title>The Effects of Organic Acids on Broiler Chicken Nutrition: A Review</article-title>
            <source>Animal Research and One Health</source>
            <volume>3</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1002/aro2.85</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B7">
        <label>7.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Choi, Y.H., Hosseindoust, A., Kim, M.J., Kim, K.Y., Lee, J.H., Kim, Y.H., <italic>et</italic><italic>al.</italic> (2019) Additional Feeding during Late Gestation Improves Initial Litter Weight of Lactating Sows Exposed to High Ambient Temperature. <italic>Revista</italic><italic>Brasileira</italic><italic>de</italic><italic>Zootecnia</italic>, 48, e20180028. https://doi.org/10.1590/rbz4820180028 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1590/rbz4820180028</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1590/rbz4820180028">https://doi.org/10.1590/rbz4820180028</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Choi, Y.H.</string-name>
              <string-name>Hosseindoust, A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Kim, M.J.</string-name>
              <string-name>Kim, K.Y.</string-name>
              <string-name>Lee, J.H.</string-name>
              <string-name>Kim, Y.H.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2019</year>
            <article-title>Additional Feeding during Late Gestation Improves Initial Litter Weight of Lactating Sows Exposed to High Ambient Temperature</article-title>
            <source>Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia</source>
            <volume>48</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1590/rbz4820180028</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B8">
        <label>8.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Sionek, B., Szydłowska, A., Küçükgöz, K. and Kołożyn-Krajewska, D. (2023) Traditional and New Microorganisms in Lactic Acid Fermentation of Food. <italic>Fermentation</italic>, 9, Article 1019. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation9121019 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/fermentation9121019</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation9121019">https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation9121019</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Sionek, B.</string-name>
              <string-name>Krajewska, D.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2023</year>
            <article-title>Traditional and New Microorganisms in Lactic Acid Fermentation of Food</article-title>
            <source>Fermentation</source>
            <volume>9</volume>
            <elocation-id>1019</elocation-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/fermentation9121019</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B9">
        <label>9.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Ewane, D., Oben, B.O., Ndamukong, K.J.N., Etchu, K.A., Ehabe, E.E., Chah, J.M., <italic>et</italic><italic>al.</italic> (2021) Toxicity of Auto-Detoxified Jatropha Curcas Linnaeus, 1753 Kernel Cake Mixtures with Bovine Blood (ADMJKC/bb) Using Brine Shrimp Artemia Salina Linnaeus, 1758. <italic>Online</italic><italic>Journal</italic><italic>of</italic><italic>Animal</italic><italic>and</italic><italic>Feed</italic><italic>Research</italic>, 11, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.51227/ojafr.2021.1 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.51227/ojafr.2021.1</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.51227/ojafr.2021.1">https://doi.org/10.51227/ojafr.2021.1</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Ewane, D.</string-name>
              <string-name>Oben, B.O.</string-name>
              <string-name>Ndamukong, K.J.N.</string-name>
              <string-name>Etchu, K.A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Ehabe, E.E.</string-name>
              <string-name>Chah, J.M.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2021</year>
            <article-title>Toxicity of Auto-Detoxified Jatropha Curcas Linnaeus, 1753 Kernel Cake Mixtures with Bovine Blood (ADMJKC/bb) Using Brine Shrimp Artemia Salina Linnaeus, 1758</article-title>
            <source>Online Journal of Animal and Feed Research</source>
            <volume>11</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.51227/ojafr.2021.1</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B10">
        <label>10.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Ewane, D., Ndam, L.M., Keubiwou, B.R.F. and Boris, N.B. (2025) Evaluation of Vernonia Hymenolepis Wash Water as Phytogenic Prophylaxis for Broiler Chicken Production. <italic>SSRN Electronic Journal</italic>. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5481002 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.2139/ssrn.5481002</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5481002">https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5481002</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Ewane, D.</string-name>
              <string-name>Ndam, L.M.</string-name>
              <string-name>Keubiwou, B.R.F.</string-name>
              <string-name>Boris, N.B.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2025</year>
            <article-title>Evaluation of Vernonia Hymenolepis Wash Water as Phytogenic Prophylaxis for Broiler Chicken Production</article-title>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.2139/ssrn.5481002</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B11">
        <label>11.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Ewane, D., Ndam, L.M., Agyingi, A.A., Ekeke, C.E.F., Ewane, E.E.E., Ewane, B.E., <italic>et</italic><italic>al.</italic> (2025) Processing <italic>Vernonia amygdalina</italic> Delile to Reduce Competition for Food between Humans and Livestock. <italic>Journal</italic><italic>of</italic><italic>Agricultural</italic><italic>Science</italic>, 17, 46-62. https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v17n12p46 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5539/jas.v17n12p46</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v17n12p46">https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v17n12p46</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Ewane, D.</string-name>
              <string-name>Ndam, L.M.</string-name>
              <string-name>Agyingi, A.A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Ekeke, C.E.F.</string-name>
              <string-name>Ewane, E.E.E.</string-name>
              <string-name>Ewane, B.E.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2025</year>
            <article-title>Processing Vernonia amygdalina Delile to Reduce Competition for Food between Humans and Livestock</article-title>
            <source>Journal of Agricultural Science</source>
            <volume>17</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5539/jas.v17n12p46</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B12">
        <label>12.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Degu, S., Meresa, A., Animaw, Z., Jegnie, M., Asfaw, A. and Tegegn, G. (2024) <italic>Vernonia amygdalina</italic>: A Comprehensive Review of the Nutritional Makeup, Traditional Medicinal Use, and Pharmacology of Isolated Phytochemicals and Compounds. <italic>Frontiers</italic><italic>in</italic><italic>Natural</italic><italic>Products</italic>, 3, Article 1347855. https://doi.org/10.3389/fntpr.2024.1347855 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3389/fntpr.2024.1347855</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fntpr.2024.1347855">https://doi.org/10.3389/fntpr.2024.1347855</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Degu, S.</string-name>
              <string-name>Meresa, A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Animaw, Z.</string-name>
              <string-name>Jegnie, M.</string-name>
              <string-name>Asfaw, A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Tegegn, G.</string-name>
              <string-name>Makeup, T</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2024</year>
            <article-title>Vernonia amygdalina: A Comprehensive Review of the Nutritional Makeup, Traditional Medicinal Use, and Pharmacology of Isolated Phytochemicals and Compounds</article-title>
            <source>Frontiers in Natural Products</source>
            <volume>3</volume>
            <elocation-id>1347855</elocation-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3389/fntpr.2024.1347855</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B13">
        <label>13.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Afui, M.M., Kinge, R., Tonjock, and Ndam, L.M. (2008) Morphological Characterization of Four Selections of <italic>Vernonia</italic><italic>hymenolepis</italic> A. Rich (Asteraceae). <italic>World</italic><italic>Journal</italic><italic>of</italic><italic>Agricultural</italic><italic>Sciences</italic>, 22, 220-223.</mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Afui, M.M.</string-name>
              <string-name>Kinge, R.</string-name>
              <string-name>Ndam, L.M.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2008</year>
            <article-title>Morphological Characterization of Four Selections of Vernonia hymenolepis A</article-title>
            <source>Rich (Asteraceae). World Journal of Agricultural Sciences</source>
            <volume>22</volume>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B14">
        <label>14.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Yakubu, N. and Amuzat, A. (2012) Effect of Processing Methods on the Nutritional Contents of Bitter Leaf ( <italic>Vernonia amygdalina</italic>). <italic>American</italic><italic>Journal</italic><italic>of</italic><italic>Food</italic><italic>and</italic><italic>Nutrition</italic>, 2, 26-30. https://doi.org/10.5251/abjna.2012.2.1.26.30 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5251/abjna.2012.2.1.26.30</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5251/abjna.2012.2.1.26.30">https://doi.org/10.5251/abjna.2012.2.1.26.30</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Yakubu, N.</string-name>
              <string-name>Amuzat, A.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2012</year>
            <article-title>Effect of Processing Methods on the Nutritional Contents of Bitter Leaf (Vernonia amygdalina)</article-title>
            <source>American Journal of Food and Nutrition</source>
            <volume>2</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5251/abjna.2012.2.1.26.30</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B15">
        <label>15.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Abioye, V.F., Akande, E.A. and Aluko, B.O. (2014) Effects of Different Local Debittering Methods on Some Chemical Components and Antioxidants in Bitter Leaf ( <italic>Vernonia amygdalina</italic>). <italic>International</italic><italic>Journal</italic><italic>of</italic><italic>Research</italic><italic>in</italic><italic>Chemistry</italic><italic>and</italic><italic>Environment</italic>, 4, 96-101.</mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Abioye, V.F.</string-name>
              <string-name>Akande, E.A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Aluko, B.O.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2014</year>
            <article-title>Effects of Different Local Debittering Methods on Some Chemical Components and Antioxidants in Bitter Leaf (Vernonia amygdalina)</article-title>
            <source>International Journal of Research in Chemistry and Environment</source>
            <volume>4</volume>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B16">
        <label>16.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Heres, L., Engel, B., Van Knapen, F., Wagenaar, J.A. and Urlings, B.A.P. (2003) Effect of Fermented Feed on the Susceptibility for <italic>Campylobacter</italic><italic>jejuni</italic> Colonisation in Broiler Chickens with and without Concurrent Inoculation of <italic>Salmonella</italic><italic>enteritidis</italic>. <italic>International</italic><italic>Journal</italic><italic>of</italic><italic>Food</italic><italic>Microbiology</italic>, 87, 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-1605(03)00055-2 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/s0168-1605(03)00055-2</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">12927709</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-1605(03)00055-2">https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-1605(03)00055-2</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Heres, L.</string-name>
              <string-name>Engel, B.</string-name>
              <string-name>Knapen, F.</string-name>
              <string-name>Wagenaar, J.A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Urlings, B.A.P.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2003</year>
            <article-title>Effect of Fermented Feed on the Susceptibility for Campylobacter jejuni Colonisation in Broiler Chickens with and without Concurrent Inoculation of Salmonella enteritidis</article-title>
            <source>International Journal of Food Microbiology</source>
            <volume>1605</volume>
            <issue>03</issue>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/s0168-1605(03)00055-2</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">12927709</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B17">
        <label>17.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Sibbald, I.R. (1979) A Bioassay for Available Amino Acids and True Metabolizable Energy in Feedingstuffs. <italic>Poultry</italic><italic>Science</italic>, 58, 668-673. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0580668 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3382/ps.0580668</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0580668">https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0580668</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Sibbald, I.R.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>1979</year>
            <article-title>A Bioassay for Available Amino Acids and True Metabolizable Energy in Feedingstuffs</article-title>
            <source>Poultry Science</source>
            <volume>58</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3382/ps.0580668</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B18">
        <label>18.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Sugiharto, S. and Ranjitkar, S. (2019) Recent Advances in Fermented Feeds Towards Improved Broiler Chicken Performance, Gastrointestinal Tract Microecology and Immune Responses: A Review. <italic>Animal</italic><italic>Nutrition</italic>, 5, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2018.11.001 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.aninu.2018.11.001</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">30899804</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2018.11.001">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2018.11.001</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Sugiharto, S.</string-name>
              <string-name>Ranjitkar, S.</string-name>
              <string-name>Performance, G</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2019</year>
            <article-title>Recent Advances in Fermented Feeds Towards Improved Broiler Chicken Performance, Gastrointestinal Tract Microecology and Immune Responses: A Review</article-title>
            <source>Animal Nutrition</source>
            <volume>5</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.aninu.2018.11.001</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">30899804</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B19">
        <label>19.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Averina, O.V., Poluektova, E.U., Marsova, M.V. and Danilenko, V.N. (2021) Biomarkers and Utility of the Antioxidant Potential of Probiotic <italic>Lactobacilli</italic>and Bifido-bacteria as Representatives of the Human Gut Microbiota. <italic>Biomedicines</italic>, 9, Article 1340. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines9101340 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/biomedicines9101340</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">34680457</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines9101340">https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines9101340</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Averina, O.V.</string-name>
              <string-name>Poluektova, E.U.</string-name>
              <string-name>Marsova, M.V.</string-name>
              <string-name>Danilenko, V.N.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2021</year>
            <article-title>Biomarkers and Utility of the Antioxidant Potential of Probiotic Lactobacilli and Bifido-bacteria as Representatives of the Human Gut Microbiota</article-title>
            <source>Biomedicines</source>
            <volume>9</volume>
            <elocation-id>1340</elocation-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/biomedicines9101340</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">34680457</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B20">
        <label>20.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Klajn, V.M., Ames, C.W., da Cunha, K.F., Lorini, A., Hackbart, H.C.D.S., Filho, P.J.S., <italic>et</italic><italic>al.</italic> (2021) Probiotic Fermented Oat Dairy Beverage: Viability of <italic>Lactobacillus</italic><italic>casei</italic>, Fatty Acid Profile, Phenolic Compound Content and Acceptability. <italic>Journal</italic><italic>of</italic><italic>Food</italic><italic>Science</italic><italic>and</italic><italic>Technology</italic>, 58, 3444-3452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-021-04973-1 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s13197-021-04973-1</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">34366461</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-021-04973-1">https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-021-04973-1</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Klajn, V.M.</string-name>
              <string-name>Ames, C.W.</string-name>
              <string-name>Cunha, K.F.</string-name>
              <string-name>Lorini, A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Hackbart, H.C.D.S.</string-name>
              <string-name>Filho, P.J.S.</string-name>
              <string-name>Profile, P</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2021</year>
            <article-title>Probiotic Fermented Oat Dairy Beverage: Viability of Lactobacillus casei, Fatty Acid Profile, Phenolic Compound Content and Acceptability</article-title>
            <source>Journal of Food Science and Technology</source>
            <volume>58</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s13197-021-04973-1</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">34366461</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B21">
        <label>21.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Merico, A., Sulo, P., Piškur, J. and Compagno, C. (2007) Fermentative Lifestyle in Yeasts Belonging to the <italic>Saccharomyces</italic> Complex. <italic>The</italic><italic>FEBS</italic><italic>Journal</italic>, 274, 976-989. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-4658.2007.05645.x <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/j.1742-4658.2007.05645.x</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">17239085</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-4658.2007.05645.x">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-4658.2007.05645.x</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Merico, A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Sulo, P.</string-name>
              <string-name>Compagno, C.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2007</year>
            <article-title>Fermentative Lifestyle in Yeasts Belonging to the Saccharomyces Complex</article-title>
            <source>The FEBS Journal</source>
            <volume>274</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/j.1742-4658.2007.05645.x</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">17239085</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B22">
        <label>22.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Harris, R.A. (2013) Glycolysis Overview. In: Lennarz, W.J. and Lane, M.D., Eds., <italic>Encyclopedia</italic><italic>of</italic><italic>Biological</italic><italic>Chemistry</italic>, Elsevier, 443-447. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-378630-2.00044-x <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/b978-0-12-378630-2.00044-x</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-378630-2.00044-x">https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-378630-2.00044-x</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Harris, R.A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Lennarz, W.J.</string-name>
              <string-name>Lane, M.D.</string-name>
              <string-name>Chemistry, E</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2013</year>
            <article-title>Glycolysis Overview</article-title>
            <source>In: Lennarz</source>
            <volume>443</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/b978-0-12-378630-2.00044-x</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B23">
        <label>23.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Matos, M.S., Anastácio, J.D. and Nunes dos Santos, C. (2021) Sesquiterpene Lactones: Promising Natural Compounds to Fight Inflammation. <italic>Pharmaceutics</italic>, 13, Article 991. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics13070991 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/pharmaceutics13070991</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">34208907</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics13070991">https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics13070991</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Matos, M.S.</string-name>
              <string-name>Santos, C.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2021</year>
            <article-title>Sesquiterpene Lactones: Promising Natural Compounds to Fight Inflammation</article-title>
            <source>Pharmaceutics</source>
            <volume>13</volume>
            <elocation-id>991</elocation-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/pharmaceutics13070991</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">34208907</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B24">
        <label>24.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">He, Y., Degraeve, P. and Oulahal, N. (2024) Bioprotective Yeasts: Potential to Limit Postharvest Spoilage and to Extend Shelf Life or Improve Microbial Safety of Processed Foods. <italic>Heliyon</italic>, 10, e24929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24929 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24929</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">38318029</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24929">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24929</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>He, Y.</string-name>
              <string-name>Degraeve, P.</string-name>
              <string-name>Oulahal, N.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2024</year>
            <article-title>Bioprotective Yeasts: Potential to Limit Postharvest Spoilage and to Extend Shelf Life or Improve Microbial Safety of Processed Foods</article-title>
            <source>Heliyon</source>
            <volume>10</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24929</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">38318029</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B25">
        <label>25.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Spina, D. and Page, C.P. (2016) Xanthines and Phosphodiesterase Inhibitors. In: Page, C. and Barnes, P., Eds., <italic>Pharmacology and Therapeutics of Asthma and COPD</italic> Springer, 63-91. https://doi.org/10.1007/164_2016_71 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/164_2016_71</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">27844172</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/164_2016_71">https://doi.org/10.1007/164_2016_71</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Spina, D.</string-name>
              <string-name>Page, C.P.</string-name>
              <string-name>Page, C.</string-name>
              <string-name>Barnes, P.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2016</year>
            <article-title>Xanthines and Phosphodiesterase Inhibitors</article-title>
            <source>In: Page</source>
            <volume>63</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/164_2016_71</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">27844172</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B26">
        <label>26.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Bernardes, A.C.F.P.F., Matosinhos, R.C., de Paula Michel Araújo, M.C., Barros, C.H., de Oliveira Aguiar Soares, R.D., Costa, D.C., <italic>et</italic><italic>al.</italic> (2021) Sesquiterpene Lactones from <italic>Lychnophora</italic> Species: Antinociceptive, Anti-Inflammatory, and Antioxidant Pathways to Treat Acute Gout. <italic>Journal</italic><italic>of</italic><italic>Ethnopharmacology</italic>, 269, Article ID: 113738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2020.113738 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.jep.2020.113738</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">33359866</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2020.113738">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2020.113738</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Bernardes, A.C.F.P.F.</string-name>
              <string-name>Matosinhos, R.C.</string-name>
              <string-name>Barros, C.H.</string-name>
              <string-name>Soares, R.D.</string-name>
              <string-name>Costa, D.C.</string-name>
              <string-name>Antinociceptive, A</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2021</year>
            <article-title>Sesquiterpene Lactones from Lychnophora Species: Antinociceptive, Anti-Inflammatory, and Antioxidant Pathways to Treat Acute Gout</article-title>
            <source>Journal of Ethnopharmacology</source>
            <volume>269</volume>
            <fpage>113738</fpage>
            <elocation-id>ID</elocation-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.jep.2020.113738</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">33359866</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B27">
        <label>27.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Yu, X.H., Zheng, X.L. and Tang, C.K. (2015) Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor <italic>α</italic> in Lipid Metabolism and Atherosclerosis. <italic>Advances in Clinical Chemistry</italic>, 71, 171-203.</mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Yu, X.H.</string-name>
              <string-name>Zheng, X.L.</string-name>
              <string-name>Tang, C.K.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2015</year>
            <article-title>Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor α in Lipid Metabolism and Atherosclerosis</article-title>
            <source>Advances in Clinical Chemistry</source>
            <volume>71</volume>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B28">
        <label>28.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Guo, Y., Wang, B., Gao, H., Hua, R., Gao, L., He, C., <italic>et</italic><italic>al.</italic> (2022) Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor- <italic>α</italic>: A Pivotal Regulator of the Gastrointestinal Tract. <italic>Frontiers</italic><italic>in</italic><italic>Molecular</italic><italic>Biosciences</italic>, 9, Article 864039. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmolb.2022.864039 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3389/fmolb.2022.864039</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">35558563</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fmolb.2022.864039">https://doi.org/10.3389/fmolb.2022.864039</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Guo, Y.</string-name>
              <string-name>Wang, B.</string-name>
              <string-name>Gao, H.</string-name>
              <string-name>Hua, R.</string-name>
              <string-name>Gao, L.</string-name>
              <string-name>He, C.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2022</year>
            <article-title>Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor-α: A Pivotal Regulator of the Gastrointestinal Tract</article-title>
            <source>Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences</source>
            <volume>9</volume>
            <elocation-id>864039</elocation-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3389/fmolb.2022.864039</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">35558563</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B29">
        <label>29.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Sampath, V., Sureshkumar, S. and Kim, I.H. (2023) The Efficacy of Yeast Supplementation on Monogastric Animal Performance—A Short Review. <italic>Life</italic>, 13, Article 2037. https://doi.org/10.3390/life13102037 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/life13102037</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">37895419</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/life13102037">https://doi.org/10.3390/life13102037</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Sampath, V.</string-name>
              <string-name>Sureshkumar, S.</string-name>
              <string-name>Kim, I.H.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2023</year>
            <article-title>The Efficacy of Yeast Supplementation on Monogastric Animal Performance—A Short Review</article-title>
            <source>Life</source>
            <volume>13</volume>
            <elocation-id>2037</elocation-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/life13102037</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">37895419</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B30">
        <label>30.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Svihus, B. (2011) The Gizzard: Function, Influence of Diet Structure and Effects on Nutrient Availability. <italic>World</italic>’ <italic>s</italic><italic>Poultry</italic><italic>Science</italic><italic>Journal</italic>, 67, 207-224. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0043933911000249 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1017/s0043933911000249</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1017/s0043933911000249">https://doi.org/10.1017/s0043933911000249</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Svihus, B.</string-name>
              <string-name>Function, I</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2011</year>
            <article-title>The Gizzard: Function, Influence of Diet Structure and Effects on Nutrient Availability</article-title>
            <source>World’s Poultry Science Journal</source>
            <volume>67</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1017/s0043933911000249</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B31">
        <label>31.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Taha, T.M., Jalal, M.A., Zakaria, H.A. and Titi, H.H. (2025) Optimizing Hammer Mill Speed: Impact on Growth Performance, Pellet Quality, and Gizzard Gene Expression in Broilers. <italic>Veterinary</italic><italic>World</italic>, 18, 2542-2552. https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2025.2542-2552 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.14202/vetworld.2025.2542-2552</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2025.2542-2552">https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2025.2542-2552</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Taha, T.M.</string-name>
              <string-name>Jalal, M.A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Zakaria, H.A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Titi, H.H.</string-name>
              <string-name>Performance, P</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2025</year>
            <article-title>Optimizing Hammer Mill Speed: Impact on Growth Performance, Pellet Quality, and Gizzard Gene Expression in Broilers</article-title>
            <source>Veterinary World</source>
            <volume>18</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.14202/vetworld.2025.2542-2552</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B32">
        <label>32.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="web">Arvind, A., Osganian, S.A., Cohen, D.E., <italic>et</italic><italic>al.</italic> (2019) Lipid and Lipoprotein Metabolism in Liver Disease. In: Feingold, K.R., Ahmed, S.F., Anawalt, B., <italic>et</italic><italic>al.</italic>, Eds., <italic>E</italic><italic>n</italic><italic>dotext</italic>, MDText.com, Inc. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK326742/</mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="web">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Arvind, A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Osganian, S.A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Cohen, D.E.</string-name>
              <string-name>Feingold, K.R.</string-name>
              <string-name>Ahmed, S.F.</string-name>
              <string-name>Anawalt, B.</string-name>
              <string-name>Endotext, M</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2019</year>
            <article-title>Lipid and Lipoprotein Metabolism in Liver Disease</article-title>
            <source>In: Feingold</source>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B33">
        <label>33.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Pirahanchi, Y., Sinawe, H. and Dimri, M. (2023) Biochemistry, LDL Cholesterol. StatPearls Publishing.</mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Pirahanchi, Y.</string-name>
              <string-name>Sinawe, H.</string-name>
              <string-name>Dimri, M.</string-name>
              <string-name>Biochemistry, L</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2023</year>
            <article-title>Biochemistry, LDL Cholesterol</article-title>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B34">
        <label>34.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Cattley, R.C. and Cullen, J.M. (2013) Liver and Gall Bladder. In: Haschek, V.R.F. and Rousseaux, C.G., Eds., <italic>Haschek</italic><italic>and</italic><italic>Rousseaux</italic>’ <italic>s</italic><italic>Handbook</italic><italic>of</italic><italic>Toxicologic</italic><italic>Pathology</italic>, Elsevier, 1509-1566. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-415759-0.00045-5 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/b978-0-12-415759-0.00045-5</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-415759-0.00045-5">https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-415759-0.00045-5</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Cattley, R.C.</string-name>
              <string-name>Cullen, J.M.</string-name>
              <string-name>Haschek, V.R.F.</string-name>
              <string-name>Rousseaux, C.G.</string-name>
              <string-name>Pathology, E</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2013</year>
            <article-title>Liver and Gall Bladder</article-title>
            <source>In: Haschek</source>
            <volume>1509</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/b978-0-12-415759-0.00045-5</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B35">
        <label>35.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Hu, Z., Xu, H., Lu, Y., He, Q., Yan, C., Zhao, X., <italic>et</italic><italic>al.</italic> (2021) MUSTN1 Is an Indispensable Factor in the Proliferation, Differentiation and Apoptosis of Skeletal Muscle Satellite Cells in Chicken. <italic>Experimental</italic><italic>Cell</italic><italic>Research</italic>, 407, Article ID: 112833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yexcr.2021.112833 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.yexcr.2021.112833</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">34536390</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yexcr.2021.112833">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yexcr.2021.112833</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Hu, Z.</string-name>
              <string-name>Xu, H.</string-name>
              <string-name>Lu, Y.</string-name>
              <string-name>He, Q.</string-name>
              <string-name>Yan, C.</string-name>
              <string-name>Zhao, X.</string-name>
              <string-name>Proliferation, D</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2021</year>
            <article-title>MUSTN1 Is an Indispensable Factor in the Proliferation, Differentiation and Apoptosis of Skeletal Muscle Satellite Cells in Chicken</article-title>
            <source>Experimental Cell Research</source>
            <volume>407</volume>
            <fpage>112833</fpage>
            <elocation-id>ID</elocation-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.yexcr.2021.112833</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">34536390</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>