Efficacy of three heat-stable microbial phytases on growth performance and bone development and strength of broilers fed diets deficient in available phosphorus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 2340 as-hatched Cobb500 chicks were allocated to 9 treatments, each with 13 replicate pens to evaluate the effects of either three phytase enzymes in a P-deficient diet. Starter and finisher diets consisted of a positive control (PC) and negative control 1 and 2 (NC1 and NC2, respectively). The PC, NC1, and NC2 diets had Ca:avP (available phosphorus) ratios of 0.50, 0.33, and 0.43 in the starter feed, and 0.46, 0.22, and 0.35 in the finisher feed, respectively; NC1 diets were then supplemented with Phytaverse, Quantum Blue, and Axtra-PHY at 500 and 1000 FTU/kg. Enzyme type had significant effects on body weight gain, feed conversion ratio, and production efficiency factor during the 0–7-day period. Interactions between enzyme type and inclusion levels had a significant effect on feed intake (FI) at 1–21-day ( P = 0.02) and 1–35-day ( P = 0.031) age. While FI decreased as Axtra-PHY inclusion levels increased from 500 to 1000 FTU/kg feed, FI increased in birds supplemented with Quantum Blue, but with no effects on Phytaverse-supplemented birds. Increasing the enzyme dose to 1000 FTU/kg feed improved bone-breaking strength but did not affect growth performance, tibia ash, Ca, or P concentration of the birds.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".