4.7 Article

Extra-phosphoric effects of superdoses of a novel microbial phytase

期刊

POULTRY SCIENCE
卷 92, 期 3, 页码 719-725

出版社

POULTRY SCIENCE ASSOC INC
DOI: 10.3382/ps.2012-02727

关键词

broiler; feed efficiency; phosphorus; phytase

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0512-10014] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An experiment was conducted to evaluate the influence of a novel microbial phytase on broiler performance from d 0 to 42 and tibia ash at d 21. Male Cobb 500 broilers (n = 2,016) were fed 1 of 7 experimental diets: positive control (PC) formulated to meet or exceed nutrient recommendations; PC plus dicalcium phosphate (PC+DCP) formulated to provide Ca and P at 0.10% above the PC; PC plus 500 U/kg of microbial phytase (PC+500); negative control (NC) with Ca and P reduced from the PC by 0.16 and 0.15%, respectively; and NC plus 500 (NC+500), 1,000 (NC+1,000), or 1,500 (NC+1,500) U/kg of microbial phytase. Diets were fed in 3 phases from d 0 to 21, d 22 to 42, and d 43 to 49 to 32 birds/pen and 9 replicate pens/diet. From d 0 to 21, broilers fed the NC diet had decreased (P < 0.05) BW gain and tibia ash compared with broilers fed all other diets, except tibia ash in birds fed PC+500. Phytase supplementation at 500, 1,000, or 1,500 U/kg to the NC improved (P < 0.05) BW gain and tibia ash comparable with the PC. Feed conversion ratio (FCR) was improved (P < 0.05) in broilers fed NC+1,500 compared with broilers fed all other diets. From d 0 to 49, growth performance was not influenced (P > 0.05) by diet. However, FCR was improved (P < 0.05) in broilers fed 1,500 U/kg of microbial phytase compared with broilers fed the PC, PC+DCP, and NC. There were no differences in performance or tibia ash between broilers fed the PC or PC+DCP, which would indicate the PC diet was sufficient in Ca and P. Therefore, the improvements in FCR in the NC+1500 may be associated with mitigation of the antinutrient effects of phytate rather than improved P utilization.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据