Meta-analysis of phosphorus utilisation by broilers receiving corn-soyabean meal diets: influence of dietary calcium and microbial phytase
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pollution relative to phosphorus excretion in poultry manure as well as the soaring prices of phosphate, a non-renewable resource, remain of major importance. Thus, a good understanding of bird response regarding dietary phosphorus (P) is a prerequisite to optimise the utilisation of this essential element in broiler diets. A database built from 15 experiments with 203 treatments was used to predict the response of 21-day-old broilers to dietary non-phytate P (NPP), taking into account the main factors of variation, calcium (Ca) and microbial phytase derived from Aspergillus niger, in terms of average daily feed intake (ADFI), average daily gain (ADG), gain to feed (G:F) and tibia ash concentration. All criteria evolve linearly (P < 0.001) and quadratically (P < 0.001) with dietary NPP concentration. Dietary Ca affected the intercept and linear component for ADG (P < 0.01), G:F (P < 0.05) and tibia ash concentration (P < 0.001), whereas for ADFI, it affected only the intercept (P < 0.01). Microbial phytase addition impacted on the intercept, the linear and the quadratic coefficient for ADFI (P < 0.01), ADG (P < 0.001) and G:F (P < 0.05), and on the intercept and the linear component (P < 0.001) for tibia ash concentration. An evaluation of these models was then performed on a database built from 28 experiments and 255 treatments that were not used to perform the models. Results showed that ADFI, ADG and Tibia ash concentration were predicted fairly well (slope and intercept did not deviate from 0 to 1, respectively), whereas this was not the case for G:F. The increase in dietary Ca concentration aggravated P deficiency for all criteria while phytase addition had a positive effect. The more P deficiency was marked, the more the bird response to ADFI, ADG, G:F and tibia ash concentration was exacerbated. It must also be considered that even if the decrease in dietary Ca may improve P utilisation, it could in turn become limiting for bone mineralisation. In conclusion, this meta-analysis provides ways to reduce dietary P in broiler diets without impairing performance, taking into account dietary Ca and microbial phytase.
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 | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".