As the demand for poultry meat and eggs is increasing in the world, and the use of antibiotics is forbidden in Europe (since 2006), with countries such as the Philippines, Thailand, Bangladesh and China having imposed restriction or prohibitions, researchers and producers have sought for effective non-antibiotic alternatives. Probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics and phytobiotics are frequently used as alternatives in the field of poultry production. Phytobiotics, plant-derived substances, also referred to as botanicals or phytogenics, are used as animal diets supplements due to their wide range of bioactive compounds (menthol, curcumin, eugenol, allicin and others) and many advantages. They are classified as herbs, spices, plant extracts and essential oils. Some of the benefits offered by the dietary phytobiotics are antimicrobial, antioxidant, digestion stimulant, anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, carminative, antiseptic and appetite stimulant, the modulation of gut microbiota and improvement in the intestinal histology. Some representatives of phytobiotics are turmeric, oregano, sage, thyme, black pepper, ginger, garlic, echinacea, rosemary and others. Despite the significant potential of phytobiotics, their widespread adaptation is currently inhibited by challenges regarding cost-effectiveness (high price for raw materials), scarce regulatory frameworks, and inconsistent biological efficacy. The lack of standardization reflects a dual challenge, enclosing both the inherent chemical variability of raw botanical materials and the technical inconsistencies present throughout the industrial manufacturing, and extraction processes as producers use different machinery for extracting and producing the animal feed. To address these systemic impediments, a joint effort across the entire value chain—from primary producers to regulatory authorities—is essential for the development of unified testing protocols and standardization dosage guidelines that ensure the pharmacological safety and reliability of phytobiotic products.

In recent years, biostatistics has emerged as an indispensable tool in biomedical research, playing a very important role in the design, analysis, and interpretation of data from biological and medical studies. Biostatistics encompasses a diverse range of statistical methodologies adapted to address the unique challenges presented by complex biological systems. This paper aims to explore and contribute to the further development of biostatistics by deepening into the difference between statistical analysis tests. The general purpose of this paper is to compare different tests for the analysis of the differences between the means of the control group and the experimental groups, in order to identify the optimal biostatistical test, correlated with the study and typology of the collected data. To perform these statistical tests and subsequently compare them, data were collected from a total of 60 BALB/c mice divided into 3 groups with equal numbers of individuals (one control group and two experimental groups) in whose food was introduced monosodium glutamate at different concentrations.

Animals are used in behavioural and biological research in special and significant ways. Many medical advancements that improve human life are based on laboratory animal research studies. Scientists carefully and thoughtfully select and justify the specific animal models used in their research, adhering to current legal requirements, the principles of the 3 R´s (reduction, reuse, and refinement), and ensuring that animals are used only when no other research solution is feasible or available. The laboratory animals most often used in biomedical research so far have been rodents (mice, rats, and guinea pigs), but in the current development of research, researchers have turned their attention to alternatives such as zebra fish and the Xenopus (clawed frog), although anatomically and physiologically different from humans, following the sequencing of their genomes, it was demonstrated that the main genes involved in certain pathologies in humans are similar to those in these animal models.