Effects of fructooligosaccharide alone or in combination with phytase on growth performance, nutrient utilization, immune response and gut development of broiler chickens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two experiments were conducted to evaluate the effect of fructooligosaccharide (FOS) supplementation in broiler chickens. In experiment 1, the effect of FOS supplementation and in combination with phytase on growth performance, bone quality and phosphorus utilization was evaluated in broiler chickens fed standard or low calcium (Ca) and phosphorus (P) diets. The phytase supplementation in low Ca and P diets improved growth performance, bone quality and P utilization. The combination of phytase and FOS increased BW gain and P retention. However, supplemental FOS alone had negative effects on bone quality. Experiment 2 investigated the effect of FOS supplementation on growth performance, immune responses, intestinal morphology and ileal microbiota with or without Salmonella Enteritidis lipopolysaccharide (LPS) challenge. Supplemental FOS improved ileal mucosa thickness, modified ileal microbiota, elevated cytokine gene expressions, altered leukocytes composition and increased serum antibody levels in response to LPS challenge. Fructooligosaccharide supplementation may play a protective role on gut development and immunity of broiler chicken.
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".