Phytase and protease supplementation for laying hens in peak egg production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of the combination of enzymes in commercial laying hens need to be more explored in literature. To determine if the type of protease affects performance, egg quality, nutrient intake, and morphometry of intestinal mucosa of laying hens in peak egg production and fed with phytase, 780 25-weeks Hy-Line W36 hens were assigned to a completely randomized design composed of five treatments/diets (one positive control, two negative controls, and negative controls plus protease A or B), with 12 replicates of 13 birds each. There was no effect of treatments (P > 0.05) on egg production, egg mass and feed conversion, even though the nutritional restriction imposed by the negative controls reduced egg weight (P = 0.02), albumen height (P < 0.01), and Haugh unit (P < 0.01). Although inclusion of proteases in negative controls did not cause the calculated intake of protein and amino acids to return to the same amount consumed by positive-control hens, egg quality parameters returned to positive control standards with protease A. Intestinal mucosa responded to treatment only at jejunum, where birds fed with protease B showed greater (P < 0.01) villus height and crypt depth than those treated with protease A. These findings suggest that different proteases and phytases interact distinctly and, in consequence, induce different responses on the birds. Moreover, the behavior of egg quality parameters after protease A inclusion in the diet indicates that the nutritional contribution of the combination of this protease with phytase is greater than the contribution of protease alone.
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".