Minimum phosphorus requirements for laying hen feed formulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this contribution was to summarize from scientific literature the optimal concentration of nonphytate phosphorus (NPP) in feed for laying hens. The considered studies were one meta-analysis from 2012 and original studies published since then. Dietary treatments in the studies included variation in supplementation with mineral P sources and phytase. The studies investigated different periods of production and varied in duration but data were insufficient to analyze such factors in a systematic way. No study showed a positive effect on performance and eggshell when the NPP concentration was increased above 2.2 g NPP/kg of feed without the use of phytase. At such level, no consistent impairment of various bone quality traits were found but only few studies on bone quality traits were published. Overall, the data suggested that not more than 2.2 g NPP/kg of feed is needed for laying hens in different stages of production. This value can be reduced when phytase is added to the feed. Such reduction may differ depending on factors such as phytate content of the feed and phytase dosage. However, data are insufficient for calculating precise values of reduction. While phytate degradation in laying hens was markedly increased by phytase supplementation in several studies, effects of phytase supplementation on performance and bone traits in laying hens were less conclusive probably because the hens were supplied more than their NPP requirement. Transition to a system based on digestible P for laying hens similar to broiler chickens may support more precise P nutrition and more sustainable egg production in the future.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".