Effect of phytase and limestone particle size on mineral digestibility, performance, eggshell quality, and bone mineralization in laying hens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of microbial phytase and limestone particle size (LmPS) was assessed in Lohmann Tradition laying hens from 31 to 35 wk of age. Seventy-two hens were used in a completely randomized trial according to a 2 × 2 factorial arrangement with 2 levels of phytase/basal available P (aP); 0 FTU/kg with 0.30% aP or 300 FTU/kg with 0.15% aP, and 2 limestone particle sizes; fine particles (FL, <0.5 mm) or a mix (MIX) of 75% coarse limestone (CL, 2-4 mm) and 25% FL. Diets contained equivalent levels of Ca (3.5%), phytic P (PP; 0.18%), and aP (0.30%) considering the P equivalency of phytase. Thus, dietary treatments were FL0 and MIX0 without phytase, and FL300 and MIX300 with 300 FTU/kg phytase. Performance were recorded daily and eggshell quality (eggshell weight proportion, weight, thickness, and breaking strength) was measured weekly. At the end of the trial, bone parameters (tibia breaking strength, elasticity, and ash) and the apparent precaecal digestibility (APCD) of P and Ca were determined. No differences were observed between treatments in feed intake, FCR and bone parameters. Addition of MIX increased the eggshell proportion, weight and thickness in groups receiving no phytase (+6.5, +6.9, and +4.5%, respectively) while no effect was observed in groups receiving phytase (Phytase × LmPS, P < 0.05). In hens receiving FL, the APCD of P was lower in diets supplemented with phytase (-14 percentage points; Phytase × LmPS, P < 0.001). A higher phytate disappearance was observed in hens fed diets with phytase in combination with MIX (Phytase × LmPS, P = 0.005). Phytase and MIX together increased the APCD of Ca by 7.3 percentage points (Phytase × LmPS, P < 0.001). In conclusion, addition of CL could limit the formation of Ca-phytate complex thus improving the response of the birds to phytase compared to FL.
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) | 0.000 | 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".