Impact of protease supplementation on growth performance and economic efficiency in broiler chicks.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was conducted to determine the effect of protease enzyme supplementation on improvement in growth performance and economic returns for broiler chicks fed standard and low-protein diets. A total of 396 one-day-old Ross 308 broiler chicks were randomly allotted to nine dietary treatments according to a 3 × 3 factorial arrangement that consisted of three basal rations, the standard broiler ration (SBR), a low-protein ration with 4% less protein (4% LPR), and a low-protein ration with 8% less protein (8% LPR) each supplemented with 0, 125, or 250 mg/kg of exogenous protease enzyme (JEFO, Canada). Chicks were raised over 35 days of phased feeding (pre-starter, starter, finisher) and were evaluated for changes in body weight, body weight gain, feed intake, feed conversion ratio (FCR), and economic efficiency (EEF). The results showed that protease supplementation had no effect on body weight in the early phases but enhanced (p < 0.05) body weight in the later stages, especially in T6 (4% LPR + 250 mg/kg protease), which performed nearly similar to the control group (T1). Feed intake increased with enzyme supplementation, particularly in T8 (8% LPR + 125 mg/kg). The FCR was greatly enhanced by protease supplementation, much like in T6. From the economic analysis, it transpired that treatment T6 yielded the highest EEF (1.11), the same as the control, that is, the herbal medication; however, it is statistically higher than the unsupplemented LPR group (T4). Thus, it may be inferred that supplementation of the diet with protease would help reduce crude protein levels without the growth or profit of broilers being unduly affected, hence aiding sustainable poultry nutrition. Use of protease is a means of reducing feed cost and nitrogen emissions while maintaining production efficiency.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".