Review: Supplementation of phytase and carbohydrases to diets for poultry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Woyengo, T. A. and Nyachoti, C. M. 2011. Review: Supplementation of phytase and carbohydrases to diets for poultry. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 91: 177–192. Feedstuffs of plant origin contain anti-nutritional factors such as phytic acid (PA) and non-starch polysaccharides (NSP), which limit nutrient utilization in poultry. Phytic acid contains phosphorus, which is poorly digested by poultry, and has the capacity to bind to and reduce the utilisation of other nutrients, whereas NSP are indigestible and have the capacity to reduce nutrient utilisation by encapsulation. Supplemental phytase and NSP-degrading enzymes (carbohydrases) can, respectively, hydrolyze PA and NSP, alleviating the negative effects of these anti-nutritional factors. In feedstuffs of plant origin, PA is located within the cells, whereas NSP are located in cell walls, and hence it has been hypothesized that phytase and carbohydrases can act synergistically in improving nutrient utilization because the carbohydrases can hydrolyze the NSP in cell walls to increase the accessibility of phytase to PA. However, the response to supplementation of a combination of these enzymes is variable and dependent on several factors, including the type of carbohydrase supplement used, dietary NSP composition, calcium and non-phytate phosphorus contents, and endogenous phytase activity. These factors are discussed, and areas that need further research for optimising the use of a combination of phytase and carbohydrases in poultry diets are suggested.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".