Effect of wheat type grinding, heat treatment and phytase supplementation on growth efficiency and nutrient utilization of wheat-based diets for broilers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This experiment studied the effect of phytase and processing (heat treatment, grind size) on performance and nutrient utilization of broilers fed diets from 1 to 21 d that included hardred spring (HRS) and durum wheat with three grind sizes (470, 560, 630 µm) with or without heat treatment (oven dry at 80°C for 15 h) before supplementation with phytase (Natuphos ® 0 or 600 FTU kg -1 ). All 24 diets contained 0.5 g Avizyme 1302 kg -1 and were formulated (80% wheat, 20% basal diet) to supply nutrients necessary to meet the requirements of broiler chicks, except for a low level of nonphytate phosphorus (P, 2.7 g kg -1 ). The medium ground HRS-based diet produced significantly better feed conversion ratio (FCR) and body weights compared with the other two grind sizes. Heat treatment significantly improved feed conversion ratio and apparent metabolizable energy (AME), protein, and P digestibility of diets. It also significantly decreased feed intake, but produced no differences in 21 d body weight. Supplementation with phytase significantly improved AME, protein, and P digestibility of test diets. The AME of diets was influenced by wheat type, processing and grind size. Phytase increased N and P digestibility. Improvements in N and P digestibility by phytase and heat treatment were dependent on wheat type and grind size.The present results suggest an advantage of both phytase and xylanase in durum- and HRS-based diets. Heat processing destroyed endogenous phytase and xylanase in wheat-based diets, and increased the levels of soluble non-starch polysaccharides. Combined phytase, heat treatment, and grind size may synergistically improve N and P digestibility. Key words: Wheat source, grind size, heat treatment, phytase, digestibility, broiler
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".