The effect of phytase and fructooligosaccharide supplementation on growth performance, bone quality, and phosphorus utilization in broiler chickens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experiment was conducted to investigate the effects of phytase and 2 levels of fructooligosaccharide (FOS) supplementation on growth performance, bone mineralization, and P utilization of broiler chickens. A total of 210 day-old male broiler chickens (Ross) were randomly placed into 7 dietary treatments consisting of 6 replicates with 5 birds per pen. The experiment was designed as an augmented 2 × 3 factorial arrangement with 0 or 500 U/kg of phytase and 0, 0.5% or 1% of FOS added to a reduced Ca (0.8%) and available P (0.25%) negative control diet (NC). A positive control diet (PC) that contained 1% Ca and 0.45% available P was also included. During the entire experimental period, phytase supplementation significantly improved (P < 0.05) the feed conversion ratio (FCR), BW gain (BWG), and feed intake. Birds fed the PC diet showed significantly higher bone mineral density (BMD) and bone mineral content (BMC) in both femur and tibia bones (P < 0.0001) than those fed the NC diet. Phytase supplementation increased femur BMD (P < 0.05), whereas FOS decreased femur BMD and BMC (P < 0.05). Phosphorus utilization was significantly higher for the NC diet (P < 0.0001). Phytase alone and in combination with 0.5% FOS increased P utilization significantly when compared with other treatments (P < 0.05). Fructooligosaccharides, especially at the level of 0.5%, increased P retention. In conclusion, phytase supplementation in low Ca and P diets improved growth performance, bone quality, and P utilization. However, supplementing NC diets with phytase and FOS did not result in bone mineralization values comparable with that of the PC diet. The application of dietary FOS alone had a negative effect on broiler bone quality.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".