Performance and bone quality of broiler chicken fed a diet with reduced nonphytate phosphorus with bacterial phytases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the effect of three phytases in reduced nonphytate phosphorus (NPP) diets. In total, 2100 male Cobb 500® chicks were distributed in a completely randomized design. Ten experimental diets were used: NPP1 reduction of 0.12% NPP plus phytase A, B, C, or without; NPP2 reduction of 0.22% NPP plus phytase A, B, C, or without; positive control diet, attending nutrient requirements; negative control diet, deficit of 0.10% NPP. The 2 × 4 + 2 (two levels NPP, three phytases or without, and two controls) design was used, and the means were compared by Tukey’s or Dunnet’s (p < 0.05) tests. There were significant interactions on day 21 for weight gain (p < 0.01), feed conversion ratio (p < 0.01), and day 35 for weight gain (p < 0.01), feed intake (p < 0.01), feed conversion ratio (p < 0.01), European production efficiency factor (p < 0.01), and it was shown that three phytases in NPP1 diet had the same result as positive control (PC) diet. NPP2 diets without phytase promoted high calcium (p < 0.01) and low phosphorus (p < 0.01) in plasma, and the significant interaction showed higher activity for alkaline phosphatase (p = 0.023). The significant interactions for resistance (p = 0.001) and ash (p < 0.01) of femur indicate that inclusion of phytases in diet NPP1 improved the availability of minerals, suggesting that this reduction plus phytase would be enough for better results.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".