Effects of protease supplementation on the ileal digestibility of amino acids for protein ingredients in broiler chickens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the effects of dietary protease supplementation on the apparent ileal digestibility (AID) and standardized ileal digestibility (SID) of amino acids (AA) in five protein feedstuffs fed to broilers. A total of 504 one-day-old male broiler chickens (Cobb 500) were randomly assigned to 84 cages in Petersime battery cages (6 birds/cage). From days 0 to 14, all birds were fed a commercial starter diet. From day 14 onward, birds were randomly assigned to one of ten dietary treatments in a 5 × 2 factorial design (8 replicates/treatment), consisting of five protein sources, including soybean meal (SBM), expeller-extruded SBM (ESBM), canola meal (CM), corn dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS), and high-protein DDGS (HP-DDGS), and two protease dosages (0 and 250 mg/kg). Experimental diets were provided from days 14 to 21. Additionally, four cages were fed N-free diets with or without protease. On day 21, ileal digesta samples were collected after euthanasia. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA with the MIXED procedure of SAS to evaluate the main effects of protein source, protease dosage, and their interactions. In the present study, there were interactive effects (P < 0.05) between ingredient and protease on AID and SID of His, Ile, Leu, Phe, Thr, Val, and nonessential AA. Specifically, dietary protease improved (P < 0.05) the AID and SID of these AA for SBM and HP-DDGS. However, broilers fed ESBM, CM and DDGS diets supplemented with protease had no improvement in the AID and SID of these AA. In conclusion, protease supplementation could enhance the SID of AA in SBM and HP-DDGS in broilers, but its effects were less pronounced in ESBM, CM and DDGS. The lack of improvement in AA digestibility for ESBM, CM and DDGS may be attributed to their physiochemical properties, including the complexity and composition of the protein-fiber matrix, and antinutritional factors compared to other protein sources.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".