Phosphorus characterization in feces from broiler chicks fed low‐phytate barley diets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The inclusion of low phytate grains in poultry diets can reduce the phosphorus (P) content of poultry feces, but their influence on fecal P composition is not well established. To assess this, 100 male broiler chicks (21 days old) were fed dietary treatments based on either a wild‐type barley or one of three low phytate mutant barleys with 59, 62 and 99% reductions in phytate P, compared with the normal barley diet. The birds were housed in raised‐floor battery cages with mesh grate floors above fecal collection trays with five birds per pen and five pens per treatment. The birds were fed for 9 days and feces were collected twice a day during the last 2 days of the experiment. Total P concentrations were 14–24% lower in feces from birds fed low phytate barley diets compared with those fed the normal barley diet. Phosphorus digestibility increased (P < 0.05) as phytate in the barley diet decreased. Phosphate was the major P fraction in the feces (69–75% extracted P) regardless of the type of barley fed. Phytate constituted only 3–12% of the P in the feces, indicating its hydrolysis in the bird. Overall, these results suggest that feeding low‐phytate barley diets can reduce P concentrations in poultry feces without causing significant changes in P composition. Copyright © 2007 Society of Chemical Industry
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".