Next Article in Journal
A Predictable-Image Solution for Copyright Protection Based on Layer-Wise Relevance Propagation
Previous Article in Journal
Mechanical Behavior of Prestressed Concrete Cylinder Pipe Joints Under Rotation Action
Previous Article in Special Issue
Ligilactobacillus salivarius UMNPBX2 Cell-Free Extract Has Antiviral Effects on H4N6 Low-Pathogenic Avian Influenza Virus Subtype in Madin–Darby Canine Kidney Cell Line and Embryonated Chicken Eggs
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 16
Issue 6
10.3390/app16062862
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effects of Phytase, Xylanase, Amylase and Protease Inclusion at Full Matrix Specifications in Diets for Broiler Chickens

by
Amy F. Moss
1,2,*,
Hiep Thi Dao
1,2,
Eunjoo Kim
1,
Natalie Morgan
1,
Yueming Dersjant-Li
3 and
Amir Ghane
4
1
School of Environmental and Rural Science, Faculty of Science, Agriculture, Business and Law, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
2
Poultry Hub Australia, CJ Hawkins Homestead, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
3
Danisco Animal Nutrition & Health, IFF, Willem Einthovenstraat 4, 2342 BH Oegstgeest, The Netherlands
4
Danisco Animal Nutrition & Health, IFF, Singapore 138567, Singapore
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2026, 16(6), 2862; https://doi.org/10.3390/app16062862
Submission received: 13 December 2025 / Revised: 14 January 2026 / Accepted: 10 March 2026 / Published: 16 March 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Applied Microbial Biotechnology for Poultry Science, 2nd Edition)
Versions Notes

Abstract

This study aimed at determining the effects of phytase alone and in combination with XAP at full matrix specifications on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, carcass yield, toe ash, gastrointestinal organ weight and pH, energy utilisation (AME, AMEn, and ME:GE), and the digestibility of key nutrients in the jejunum and ileum of broilers fed complex diets. Day-old mixed-sex Cobb 500 broilers (n = 384) were assigned to four dietary treatments with eight replicates of 12 birds per treatment from d 0 to 42, with energy utilisation determination from d19 to 21 and digestibility determination at d21. The treatments were as follows: a positive control (treatment 1, PC) formulated meeting nutritional requirements and three test diets reformulated with reduced nutrients and energy according to respective matrix values of the enzymes used. The enzymes supplemented are: treatment 2, a mixed enzyme (NC1 + XAP, 100 g/ton with activities of 2000 U/kg xylanase, 200 U amylase and 4000 U protease, respectively); treatment 3, a novel consensus bacterial 6-phytase variant (NC2 + PhyG) at 1000 FTU/kg; and treatment 4 (NC3 + XAP + PhyG, PhyG at 1000 FTU/kg and XAP combination). Overall, enzyme inclusion with full matrix application maintained overall weight gain, feed intake and the FCR. There were significant increases in starch, Ca, P and Na digestibility with almost all enzyme inclusions (p < 0.05). NC2 + PhyG and NC3 + XAP + PhyG reduced the feed cost/kg live gain compared to PC (p = 0.006). In conclusion, this study demonstrates that the full matrix values for phytase alone or in combination with XAP may lower the cost/kg live gain while maintaining the growth performance of broilers offered a complex diet with increased use of locally available ingredients (rapeseed and lupins).

1. Introduction

Phytase is a microbial technology commonly included in all poultry diets to improve the availability of phosphorus (P), calcium (Ca), sodium (Na), amino acids, and energy via direct mineral release (e.g., P) and non-direct effects, including the prevention of protein–phytate and mineral–phytate complexes [1,2,3]. However, xylanase enzymes are also commonly applied to diets containing viscous feed grains, such as wheat-based diets, to enhance the breakdown of cell walls and attenuate any issues with viscosity that may limit the transport of nutrients to the intestinal mucosa [4]. The substrate target of such enzymes, non-starch polysaccharides (NSP), may also form cross-linkages to form strong cell walls that encapsulate nutrients and prevent enzyme access [5]. The extent to which nutrient digestibility (and thus flow on effects on performance) may occur heavily depends on the diet type and substrate available; for example, a minimal impact of NSP on growth performance is seen in corn–SBM diets [4]. With the increasing cost of feed, it appears that enzyme cocktails of increasing complexity are becoming ubiquitous in poultry diets. Within the Asian Pacific, XAP is an enzyme mix (containing xylanase, protease, and amylase) that is commonly used in combination with phytase. This is likely due to the prevalence of complex diets used within the Asian Pacific, with diets containing a mix of wheat, maize, soybean meal, lupin and rapeseed. Thus, enzyme cocktails such as XAP enable the utilisation of otherwise anti-nutritional compounds.
XAP enzyme cocktails have previously been demonstrated to maintain performance in a low nutrient density diet compared to that of birds fed on a nutritionally adequate diet, namely, improving feed intake, weight gain, and P, Ca, and amino acid digestibility compared to the unsupplemented low nutrient density diet [6,7]. Furthermore, synergistic effects (more than the expected additive responses) were observed in corn–soy diets with XAP for broiler performance and nutrients [8]. In combination with phytase, the first indications that combinations of phytase and NSP-degrading enzymes were beneficial in poultry diets based on viscous grains was provided in [9], where synergistic responses were observed in ‘low-ME’ wheat. However, synergistic responses to phytase and carbohydrase in combination are not always observed [10,11,12,13,14]. The action of enzyme cocktails to enhance performance is multifactorial, including the breakdown of anti-nutritional factors, often into metabolically active products, the release of encapsulated nutrients, the enhancement of digestibility, and acting as functional analogue to microbial metabolism that modulates substrate availability and alters downstream gut microbial niches.
Due to the enhancement of performance from enzyme supplementation, the application of matrix values to enzyme inclusions is common practice within the poultry industry, but the matrix level applied and to which nutrients is specific to each individual enzyme product. Complexity also arises when more than one enzyme is included in a diet, as the response of poultry to enzyme inclusion is likely not additive. Further, each enzyme’s response will differ depending on the basal diet type and substrate present.
Thus, it is important to determine the appropriate adjusted matrix values for an enzyme combination of phytase, xylanase, amylase and protease to reduce feed costs while maintaining the performance of broilers offered complex diets. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to determine if the full matrix values for phytase alone or in combination with XAP are appropriate to lower feed costs while maintaining the growth performance of broilers offered a complex diet with increased use of locally available ingredients (rapeseed and lupins).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Design and Diets

This study met the requirements of the Australian code of practice [15] and was approved by the University of New England’s Animal Ethics Committee (AEC21-021). A total of 384 day-old mixed-sex Cobb 500 broilers were weighed and distributed to 32 equal-sized floor pens (120 × 160 cm) with 12 birds per pen on a random basis, but it was ensured that there was no significant difference in pen weights upon completing the allocation. Feed and water were provided ad libitum throughout the 42-day feeding study, and birds were raised in three temperature-controlled rooms, containing an equal number of treatment replicates per room, and with wood shavings as a bedding material within the pens at a depth of approximately 7 cm. An initial room temperature of 32 ± 1 °C was maintained for the first week, which was gradually decreased to 21 ± 1 °C by the end of the third week and maintained at this temperature until d 42. The lighting program consisted of 23 h light: 1 h dark and was applied for the first three days, followed by 20 h light: 4 h dark to d 7 and 18 h light: 6 h dark from d 7 to 42.
The enzymes supplemented are: treatment 2, a mixed enzyme (NC1 + XAP, 100 g/ton with activities of 2000 U/kg xylanase, 200 U amylase and 4000 U Protease, respectively; Axtra® XAP, Danisco Animal Nutrition & Health, Cedar Rapids, IA, USA); treatment 3, a novel consensus bacterial 6-phytase variant (NC2 + PhyG; Axtra® PHY Gold, PhyG, Danisco Animal Nutrition & Health) at 1000 FTU/kg; and treatment 4 (NC3 + XAP + PhyG, PhyG at 1000 FTU/kg and XAP combination). All analysed enzyme activity levels in the diets are provided in Table 1. Detailed information on formulated diet composition and nutrient content is presented in Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5, and the analysed nutrient content is presented in Table 6. Matrix values provided by Danisco Animal Nutrition & Health (IFF) were included in the diet formulations and are shown in Table 7 and Table 8. The matrix values were tailored by enzyme, nutrient, and phase, where matrix values were applied for the nutrients available: P (phytase only), Ca (phytase only), AMEn, crude protein (phytase only), and standard ileal digestible lysine, methionine, methionine + cysteine, threonine, isoleucine (phytase only), leucine (phytase only), tryptophan, serine (phytase only), valine (phytase only) and arginine (phytase only). Across each diet phase, treatments were formulated to contain the same AMEn, standard ileal digestible lysine, Ca, available P, phytate and NSP content. Enzyme matrix application differs across nutrient and phase, and these levels were as given by Danisco Animal Nutrition & Health (IFF), derived from several studies completed by the company. All matrix values were ascribed by assigning them to the enzyme treatment inclusion for each diet during feed formulation, where enzymes were incorporated in combination, and the matrix values were added in combination as per the matrix values in Table 7 and Table 8. Sodium, chloride and potassium were all maintained within the breed recommended range and varied due to the indirect consequence of feed formulation changes.
One unit of phytase (FTU) is defined as the amount of enzyme that releases 1 umol of inorganic phosphorus per minute from sodium phytate at 37 °C and pH 5.5. One unit of xylanase (U) is defined as the amount of enzyme required to release 0.48 μmol of reducing sugar as xylose from wheat arabinoxylan per minute at pH 4.2 and 50 °C. Feed was provided as crumbles for the starter phase (d 0 to 10) and pellets for the grower (d 10 to 21), finisher (d 21 to 35), and withdrawal (d 35 to 42) phases. The diets were maize–wheat–soy based with inclusions of rapeseed and lupin to achieve the desired phytate and total arabinoxylan content. Levels of essential amino acids and other nutrients selected were based on Cobb 500 broiler nutrition specifications [16]. Diets were cold-pelleted at 65 °C through a Palmer PP330 pellet press (Palmer Milling Engineering, Griffith, NSW, Australia). The nutritional composition of major feed ingredients was analysed by near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy (Foss NIR 6500, Denmark) standardised with Evonik AMINONIR® Advanced calibration prior to the diet formulation. Titanium dioxide (TiO2) was added in the grower diets as an inert marker for starch, protein, and mineral (Ca, P and Na) digestibility determination. Diets were thoroughly sampled and subsampled via composite sampling methods (various locations throughout the entire diet) to ensure accurate samples for digestibility determination.

2.2. Data Collection

For each diet phase, initial and final body weights were measured on a pen basis and also divided by the total bird number to determine the average individual weight. Feed intakes were recorded on a pen basis. Then, body weight gain and feed conversion ratios (expressed as feed:gain, FCRs) were calculated, where FCR was the pen weight gain divided by the pen feed intake. Dead or culled birds were recorded daily and their body weights used to adjust FCR calculations. Mortality rate was not presented as it was not influenced by treatment, but average livability for the trial was 93.3%. The cost per kilogram live weight gain (based on 2022 feed prices) for the experimental duration (d 0 to 42) were also calculated based on feed cost, final bird weight at day 42 and FCRs.
For the measurement of energy utilisation on day 16, four birds per pen were moved to bioassay cages to allow the total collection of excreta. Birds were adapted to the new environment in the cages for three days. Then, feed intake and excreta output was measured from d 19 to 21 to calculate apparent metabolizable energy (AME).
The first sampling occurred on d 21, where the four birds housed in each bioassay cage were euthanised via electrical stunning (MEFE CAT 44N, Mitchell Engineering Food Equipment, Clontarf, QLD, Australia) followed by cervical dislocation to measure organ characteristics and fat pad weights, collect jejunal and ileal digesta, and determine the sex of the birds. The gizzard, gizzard contents, fat pad and pancreas were removed and weighed to determine their absolute and relative weights. The pH of digesta within the gizzard was immediately determined in situ using a digital pH meter (Mettler-Toledo, Leicester, UK) with a spear tip piercing pH electrode (Sensorex, Garden Grove, CA, USA) by directly inserting the pH meter probe through the gizzard wall into the digesta of the gizzard. The pH probe was washed with ultra-pure water (ICW 3000 water purifier for ion chromatography; Millipore, Burlington, MA, USA) between the samples to avoid cross-contamination. The small intestine was removed, and the jejunum was demarcated by the end of the duodenal loop to Meckel’s diverticulum. The ileum was demarcated by Meckel’s diverticulum and the ileo-caecal junction. Digesta was collected from the distal 2/3rds of the jejunal and ileal segments, and samples were pooled by cage, homogenised and freeze-dried (Christ Alpha 1-4 LD plus, Osterode am Harz, Germany) for the measurement of starch, protein and mineral (Ca, P, and Na) digestibility. Toe bone samples were also collected from all sampled birds for measurement of toe ash content by severing the middle toe through the joint between the 2nd and 3rd tarsal bones from the distal end.
The second sampling occurred on day 42, where four birds per pen were selected and euthanised via electrical stunning (MEFE CAT 44N, Mitchell Engineering Food Equipment, Clontarf, QLD, Australia) followed by cervical dislocation to measure organ characteristics and absolute and relative breast, thigh, drumstick, and fat pad weights. Gizzard, gizzard contents, and the pancreas were removed and weighed to determine their absolute and relative weights. The pH of digesta within the gizzard was immediately determined following the procedures described in d 21 sampling. The sex of the sampled birds was determined, and any remaining un-sampled birds had their sex determined via their phenotypic characteristics.

2.3. Laboratory Procedures

Excreta were dried at 80 °C for 24 h in an air-forced oven. The gross energy (GE) of diets and excreta were determined via bomb calorimetry using an adiabatic calorimeter (Parr 1281 bomb calorimeter, Parr Instruments Co., Moline, IL, USA). The AME (MJ/kg) was calculated by the following equation.
AMEdiet = (Feed intake × GEdiet − Excreta output × GEexcreta)/Feed intake
N-corrected AME values were calculated by correcting to zero N retention, using the factor of 36.54 kJ/g [17]. N retention (%) was calculated by the following equation.
N retention = [(Feed intake × Ndiet − Excreta output × Nexcreta)/(Feed intake × Ndiet)] ×100
Concentrations of starch in diets and ileal digesta were determined by methods as described previously [18]. Nitrogen concentrations were determined as outlined previously [19]. Mineral concentration of diets and ileal digesta were determined by an inductively coupled plasma–optical emission spectrometry instrument (Agilent, VIC, Australia).
Toe samples were pooled per pen and the composite samples dried to a constant weight at 100 °C; then, they were ashed in a muffle furnace at 550 °C for 16 h for the determination of toe ash content.
Soluble and insoluble NSP and free oligosaccharide composition of the diets was determined following previously published procedures [20] with some modifications as described in [21,22]. Briefly, the sample was fat-extracted using hexane, and then free oligosaccharides were extracted by heating the sample at 80 °C with 80% ethanol. The starch in the resulting residue was gelatinised using acetate buffer (pH 5), and α-amylase and amyloglucosidase were added, at 95 °C and 55 °C, respectively, to remove the starch. The prepared sample was then incubated and centrifuged at 2000× g for 10 min, and the resulting supernatant and residue were used for the analysis of soluble and insoluble NSP, respectively. For the soluble NSP analysis, the sugars released by the enzymes were removed using ethanol at 4 °C; the residue was dried, and then 2 M trifluoroacetic acid was added and heated at 125 °C. For the insoluble NSP analysis, the glucose released from starch digestion was removed with water and acetone, and the resulting supernatant was removed and the residue was dried. Then, 12 M H2SO4 was added, and the sample was heated to 35 °C; then, water was added and the sample was heated to 100 °C, cooled and then centrifuged at 3000× g for 15 min to sediment the insoluble materials. For the free sugar analysis, the extracted sample was dried, hydrolysed with 1 M H2SO4 at 100 °C and centrifuged to sediment the insoluble material. Ammonium (28%) was added to an aliquot of the resulting supernatant from the insoluble NSP and free oligosaccharide samples. For all the resulting samples, an internal standard was added (allose, 4 mg/mL), and the sample was evaporated to dryness and then re-dissolved in water with slight alkalinity. Freshly prepared NaBH4 was then added, the sample was incubated, and any excess NaBH4 was decomposed with glacial acetic acid. 1-Methylimidazole and 5 mL of C4H6O3 were added, followed by water; then, dichloromethane was added, the sample was centrifuged, and the bottom layer was collected and dried. Finally, ethyl acetate and water were added, the sample was centrifuged, and the supernatant was analysed by gas chromatography (Model CP3800, Varian Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA).
Titanium dioxide concentrations in the diets and digesta samples were analysed in quadruplicate and duplicate, respectively, by previously published methods [23]. Then, the starch, protein and mineral (Ca, P and Na) digestibility in the jejunum and ileum were calculated as per dry matter basis by the following equation.
Nutrient digestibility = [1 − [(TiO2diet × Nutrientdigesta)/(TiO2digesta × Nutrientdiet)]] × 100

2.4. Data Analyses

IBM® SPSS® Statistics 20 program (IBM Corporation. Somers, NY, USA) was used to test statistical differences between the six dietary treatments using either one-way ANOVA or non-parametric ANOVA (Kruskal–Wallis test). Tukey’s post hoc test was used to identify pairwise differences between the treatments from significant ANOVA results. Data were tested for normality and variance homogeneity before analysis. The pen was considered as the experimental unit, and statistical significance was established at p ≤ 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Growth Performance

Parameters of growth performance, including body weight gain (BWG), feed intake (FI), and the feed conversion ratio (FCR), are presented in Table 9. There was no significant effect of dietary treatments on body weight gain or feed intake. There was a significant effect on the FCR at 22–35 days, where treatments NC1 + XAP and NC3 + XAP + PhyG containing XAP significantly improved the FCR compared to the PC treatment unsupplemented control (p = 0.049).

3.2. Gastrointestinal Organ Weight, pH, Carcass Yield and Energy Utilisation

The relative weights and pH of the gastrointestinal organs at day 21 and 42; breast, thigh and drumstick weight at day 42; and measures of energy utilisation over 19–21 days are shown in Table 10. There was no significant effect of dietary treatment on relative pancreas weight and relative gizzard weight, content or pH at 21 and 42 days (p > 0.05). There was a significant effect on fat pad weight at 21 days (p = 0.026), where fat pads of the NC1 + XAP treatment were significantly greater than treatments NC2 + PhyG or NC3 + XAP + PhyG. There was a significant effect of dietary treatment on relative breast weight at 42 days (p = 0.027), where NC2 + PhyG had a greater breast weight than all other treatments, but there was no significant effect of treatments on thigh or drumstick weights (p > 0.05). There was a significant reduction in cost/kg live gain for treatments NC2 + PhyG and NC3 + XAP + PhyG. Finally, there was no effect of dietary treatments on energy utilisation (AME, AMEn, ME:GE and N retention %) parameters (p > 0.05).

3.3. Nutrient Digestibility

The digestibilities of Ca, P, Na, protein and starch at day 21 in the jejunum and ileum and toe ash are given in Table 11. There was a significant effect of dietary treatment on all parameters of nutrient digestibility except ileal protein digestibility. The greatest Ca digestibility in the jejunum (p = <0.001) and ileum (p < 0.001) and the greatest starch digestibility in the jejunum (p = 0.002) and ileum (p = 0.014) was attained with the NC3 + XAP + PhyG treatment, while both treatments NC2 + PhyG and NC3 + XAP + PhyG significantly increased P digestibility in the jejunum (p < 0.001) and ileum (p < 0.001) and protein digestibility in the jejunum (p = 0.014). Further, the recoveries of sodium were best in treatment NC3 + XAP + PhyG in the jejunum (p < 0.001) and ileum (p < 0.001). There was no significant effect of dietary treatment on toe ash (p > 0.05).

4. Discussion

The main objective of this study was to determine if the full matrix values for phytase alone or in combination with XAP are appropriate to lower feed costs while maintaining the growth performance of broilers offered a complex diet with increased use of locally available by-products. The current findings showed that the matrix values included in diets generally did not affect growth performance and carcass yield, while reducing feed cost per kilo of live weight gain and across many measures improved nutrient digestibility compared to the control group. Our findings were consistent with those previously reported [6] that tandem supplementation of phytase, xylanase, amylase, and protease enzymes was effective in maintaining growth performance in birds fed low nutrient density diets compared to those offered nutritionally adequate diets. Similar results were also observed by other investigators [24,25,26,27]. Collectively, the findings of this study and others re-affirm the benefits of phytase and XAP supplementation in reducing the anti-nutritional effects and thus increasing nutrient digestibility in broilers. Thus, it can be concluded that the matrix values applied in this study were generally appropriate. The cost per kilo of live weight gain was significantly reduced for birds offered NC2 + PhyG and NC3 + XAP + PhyG in the present study, likely due to the numerical increase in weight gain and the reduction in synthetic amino acids required in the diets of these treatments. The NC3 + XAP + PhyG treatment presented the greatest saving of 4.5 cents per kilo live gain, while NC1 + XAP generated a saving of 2.2 cents per kilo live gain, and NC2 + PhyG generated a saving of 3.9 cents per kilo live gain. Over a flock of 30,000 broiler chickens with a market live weight of 3.8 kg (assumed based on breeder recommendations), the feed cost savings generated by the NC3 + XAP + PhyG treatment equates to roughly a $5130 saving per flock of broilers.
In the present study, there was limited impact of dietary treatments on the weights of the breast, thigh, drumstick, and fat pad, with an increase in day 21 fat pad weights in the NC1 + XAP treatment and an increase in day 42 breast weight in the NC2 + PhyG treatment compared to the control. The similar carcass yields between the dietary treatments in the current study suggest that the enzymes released enough nutrients to maintain muscle growth in the respective groups compared to the control group. Previous studies reported no differences in carcass and fat pad weights on either day 35 or day 42 following XAP supplementation in broiler diets [28,29,30]. While there was an increase in day 21 fat pad weight following XAP supplementation (treatment NC1 + XAP), there was no effect on energy utilisation at this time-point and no effect on the day 42 fat pad weight, suggesting that the energy matrix value for XAP is appropriate.
Improvements in digestibility were observed for the enzyme inclusions with the combination treatment (NC3 + XAP + PhyG) having the greatest nutrient digestibility for almost all measures. Sensibly, both phytase treatments (NC2 + PhyG and NC3 + XAP + PhyG) significantly improved P digestibility within the jejunum and ileum, in the order of 50 and 65%, respectively. Improved P digestibility to phytase inclusion has been reliably demonstrated in multiple accounts over the past decades [30,31,32]. Phytase inclusion also improved the digestibility of protein and starch in the present study, which demonstrates the anti-nutritive impacts of phytate and has been frequently reported [33,34,35,36,37,38]. While not directly measured in the present study, the significantly improved jejunal protein digestibility and numerically improved ileal protein digestibility is a reflection of the capacity for phytase to improve the digestibility of amino acids. An average improvement in digestibility of up to 4.79 percentage units for total amino acids with 3000 FTU/kg phytase inclusion has been demonstrated via modelling the improvement in amino acid digestibility to phytase inclusion across 13 datasets [3]. The effects of phytase on improving Na recovery have also been characterised, whereby sodium is spared through reducing the requirement of bile salt production due to the improved nutrient digestibility, and it is hypothesised that via this improved Na recovery, phytase may enhance intestinal uptake of nutrients such as amino acids through Na+-dependent transport systems [3,39,40]. Furthermore, through the breakdown of anti-nutritional products and alteration of the nutrient profile at the end of the gut, enzyme inclusion may influence microbial fermentation patterns, nutrient competition, and community function [41]. This was not explored in the present study but is an area of growing interest, as carbohydrase enzymes have been shown to alter the gut microbial community [42]. Thus, this is a factor which may also be involved in the observed performance benefits and should be explored in future studies. Nevertheless, this report provides complementary performance and economic validation to future omics-based studies in this area.
In conclusion, this study has demonstrated that the full matrix values for phytase alone or in combination with XAP may lower the cost/kilo live gain while maintaining growth performance of broilers offered a complex diet with increased use of locally available ingredients (rapeseed and lupins).

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, A.F.M., Y.D.-L. and A.G.; methodology, A.F.M., Y.D.-L. and A.G.; formal analysis, A.F.M.; investigation, A.F.M., H.T.D., E.K. and N.M.; resources, Y.D.-L., A.G., N.M. and E.K.; data curation, A.F.M.; writing—original draft preparation, A.F.M.; writing—review and editing, Y.D.-L., A.G., H.T.D., E.K. and N.M.; project administration, A.F.M.; funding acquisition, A.F.M., Y.D.-L. and A.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Danisco Animal Nutrition & Health, IFF.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The animal study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of New England (AEC21-021, approved 1 May 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data is included as presented within the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Danisco Animal Nutrition & Health (IFF) for their support of the present study.

Conflicts of Interest

Y.D. and A.G. are employees of the company Danisco Animal Nutrition & Health (IFF), which funded the study; however, this has had no impact on the interpretation or presentation of the results. The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Selle, P.H.; Ravindran, V.; Caldwell, A.; Bryden, W.L. Phytate and phytase: Consequences for protein utilisation. Nutr. Res. Rev. 2000, 13, 255–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  2. Dersjant-Li, Y.; Kwakernaak, C. Comparative effects of two phytases versus increasing the inorganic phosphorus content of the diet, on nutrient and amino acid digestibility in boilers. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2019, 253, 166–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  3. Dersjant-Li, Y.; Abdollahi, M.R.; Bello, A.; Waller, K.; Marchal, L.; Ravindran, V. Effects of a novel consensus bacterial 6-phytase variant on the apparent ileal digestibility of amino acids, total tract phosphorus retention, and tibia ash in young broilers. J. Anim. Sci. 2022, 100, skac037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  4. Slominski, B.A. Recent advances in research on enzymes for poultry diets. Poult. Sci. 2011, 90, 2013–2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  5. Edwards, M.A. Morphological Features of Wheat Grain and Genotype Affecting Flour Yield. Ph.D. Thesis, Southern Cross University, Lismore, Australia, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  6. Cowieson, A.J.; Singh, D.N.; Adeola, O. Prediction of Ingredient Quality and the Effect of a Combination of Xylanase, Amylase, Protease and Phytase in the Diets of Broiler Chicks. 1. Growth Performance and Digestible Nutrient Intake. Br. Poult. Sci. 2006, 47, 477–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  7. Cowieson, A.J.; Singh, D.N.; Adeola, O. Prediction of Ingredient Quality and the Effect of a Combination of Xylanase, Amylase, Protease and Phytase in the Diets of Broiler Chicks. 2. Energy and Nutrient Utilisation. Br. Poult. Sci. 2006, 47, 490–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  8. Amerah, A.M.; Romero, L.F.; Awati, A.; Ravindran, V. Effect of Exogenous Xylanase, Amylase, and Protease as Single or Combined Activities on Nutrient Digestibility and Growth Performance of Broilers Fed Corn/Soy Diets. Poult. Sci. 2017, 96, 807–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  9. Ravindran, V.; Selle, P.H.; Bryden, W.L. Effects of Phytase Supplementation, Individually and In Combination, with Glycanase on the Nutritive Value of Wheat and Barley. Poult. Sci. 1999, 78, 1588–1595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  10. Selle, P.H.; Ravindran, V.; Ravindran, G.; Pittolo, P.H.; Bryden, W.L. Influence of Phytase and Xylanase Supplementation on Growth Performance and Nutrient Utilisation of Broilers Offered Wheat-Based Diets. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2003, 16, 394–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  11. Wu, Y.B.; Ravindran, V.; Thomas, D.G.; Birtles, M.J.; Hendriks, W.H. Influence of Phytase and Xylanase, Individually or in Combination, on Performance, Apparent Metabolisable Energy, Digestive Tract Measurements and Gut Morphology in Broilers Fed Wheat-Based Diets Containing Adequate Level of Phosphorus. Br. Poult. Sci. 2004, 45, 76–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  12. Juanpere, J.; Pe’rez-Vendrell, A.M.; Angulo, E.; Brufau, J. Assessment of Potential Interactions between Phytase and Glycosidase Enzyme Supplementation on Nutrient Digestibility in Broilers. Poult. Sci. 2005, 84, 571–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  13. Olukosi, O.A.; Cowieson, A.J.; Adeola, O. Energy Utilization and Growth Performance of Broilers Receiving Diets Supplemented with Enzymes Containing Carbohydrase or Phytase Activity Individually or in Combination. Br. J. Nutr. 2008, 99, 682–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  14. Woyengo, T.A.; Guenter, W.; Sands, J.S.; Nyachoti, C.M.; Mirza, M.A. Nutrient Utilisation and Performance Responses of broilers Fed a Wheat-Based Diet Supplemented with Phytase and Xylanase Alone or in Combination. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2008, 146, 113–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  15. NHMRC. Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes, 8th ed.; The National Health and Medical Research Council: Canberra, Australia, 2013.
  16. Cobb-Vantress. Cobb 500 Broiler Performance and Nutrition Supplement; Cobb-Vantress: Siloam Springs, AR, USA, 2018; Available online: https://www.cobbgenetics.com/assets/Cobb-Files/2022-Cobb500-Broiler-Performance-Nutrition-Supplement.pdf (accessed on 9 July 2021).
  17. Hill, F.W.; Anderson, D.L. Comparison of metabolizable energy and productive energy determinations with growing chicks. J. Nutr. 1958, 64, 587–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  18. Mahasukhonthachat, K.; Sopade, P.A.; Gidley, M.J. Kinetics of Starch Digestion and Functional Properties of Twin-Screw Extruded Sorghum. J. Cereal Sci. 2010, 51, 392–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  19. Siriwan, P.; Bryden, W.; Mollah, Y.; Annison, E. Measurement of Endogenous Amino Acid Losses in Poultry. Br. Poult. Sci. 1993, 34, 939–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  20. Englyst, H.N.; Quigley, M.E.; Hudson, G.J. Determination of Dietary Fibre as Non-Starch Polysaccharides with Gas–Liquid Chromatographic, High-Performance Liquid Chromatographic or Spectrophotometric Measurement of Constituent Sugars. Analyst 1994, 119, 1497–1509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  21. Theander, O.; Åman, P.; Westerlund, E.; Andersson, R.; Pettersson, D. Total Dietary Fiber Determined as Neutral Sugar Residues, Uronic Acid Residues, and Klason Lignin (The Uppsala Method): Collaborative Study. J. AOAC Int. 1995, 78, 1030–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  22. Morgan, N.K.; Choct, M.; Toghyani, M.; Wu, S.-B. Effects of Dietary Insoluble and Soluble Non-Starch Polysaccharides on Performance and Ileal and Excreta Moisture Contents in Broilers. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Australian Poultry Science Symposium, Sydney, Australia, 17–20 February 2018; University of Sydney: Sydney, Australia, 2018; pp. 34–37. [Google Scholar]
  23. Short, F.J.; Gorton, P.; Wiseman, J.; Boorman, K.N. Determination of Titanium Dioxide Added as An Inert Marker in Chicken Digestibility Studies. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1996, 59, 215–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  24. Olukosi, O.A.; Cowieson, A.J.; Adeola, O. Age-Related Influence of a Cocktail of Xylanase, Amylase, and Protease or Phytase Individually or in Combination in Broilers. Poult. Sci. 2007, 86, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  25. Singh, A.K.; Berrocoso, J.D.; Dersjant-Li, Y.; Awati, A.; Jha, R. Effect of A Combination of Xylanase, Amylase and Protease on Growth Performance of Broilers Fed Low and High Fiber Diets. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2017, 232, 16–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  26. Sidiq, F.; Ghane, A.E.; Ridla, M.; Hermana, W. Supplementation of Phytase and Its Combination with Xylanase, Amylase and Protease (XAP) on Performance and Bone Mineralization of Broiler Chicken. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2022, 1020, 012017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  27. Dersjant-Li, Y.; Van de Belt, K.; Kwakernaak, C.; Marchal, L. Buttiauxella phytase maintains growth performance in broilers fed diets with reduced nutrients under a commercial setting. J. Appl. Anim. Nutr. 2020, 8, 49–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  28. Allcorn, T.G. Evaluation of Exogenous Enzyme Combinations on Broiler Performance in Reduced Energy Diets. Master’s Thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  29. Abdel Moati, Y.A.; Eissa, N.M.; Abouelezz, K.F.M.; Younis, M. Effect of Dietary Supplementation of Probiotics, Enzymes and Their Combination on Growth Performance, Meat Yield, Intestinal Microbiota and Plasma Analysis of Broiler Chicks. Arch. Agric. Sci. J. 2022, 5, 136–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  30. Yaqoob, M.U.; Yousaf, M.; Iftikhar, M.; Hassan, S.; Wang, G.; Imran, S.; Zahid, M.U.; Iqbal, W.; Wang, M. Effect of Multi-Enzymes Supplementation on Growth Performance, Meat Quality, Ileal Digestibility, Digestive Enzyme Activity and Caecal Microbiota in Broilers Fed Low-Metabolizable Energy Diet. Anim. Biosci. 2022, 35, 1059–1068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  31. Selle, P.; Ravindran, V. Microbial Phytase in Poultry Nutrition. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2007, 135, 1–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  32. Dersjant-Li, Y.; Archer, G.; Stiewert, A.M.; Brown, A.A.; Sobotik, E.B.; Jasek, A.; Marchal, L.; Bello, A.; Sorg, R.A.; Christensen, T.; et al. Functionality of a Next Generation Biosynthetic Bacterial 6-Phytase in Enhancing Phosphorus Availability to Broilers Fed a Corn-Soybean Meal-Based Diet. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2020, 264, 114481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  33. Moss, A.F.; Chrystal, P.V.; Dersjant-Li, Y.; Selle, P.H.; Liu, S.Y. Responses in Digestibilities of Macro-Minerals, Trace Minerals and Amino Acids Generated by Exogenous Phytase and XB in Canola Meal Diets Offered to Broiler Chickens Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2018, 240, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  34. Amerah, A.M.; Plumstead, P.W.; Barnard, L.P.; Kumar, A. Effect of Calcium Level and Phytase Addition on Ileal Phytate Degradation and Amino Acid Digestibility of Broilers Fed Corn-Based Diets. Poult. Sci. 2014, 93, 906–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  35. Liu, S.Y.; Cadogan, D.J.; Peron, A.; Truong, H.H.; Selle, P.H. Effects of Phytase Supplementation on Growth Performance, Nutrient Utilization and Digestive Dynamics of Starch and Protein in Broiler Chickens Offered Maize-, Sorghum- and Wheat-Based Diets. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2014, 197, 164–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  36. Truong, H.H.; Yu, S.; Peron, A.; Cadogan, D.J.; Khoddami, A.; Roberts, T.H.; Liu, S.Y.; Selle, P.H. Phytase Supplementation of Maize-, Sorghum- and Wheat-Based Broiler Diets with Identified Starch Pasting Properties Influences Phytate (IP6) and Sodium Jejunal and Ileal Digestibility. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2014, 198, 248–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  37. Liu, S.Y.; Bold, R.M.; Plumstead, P.W.; Selle, P.H. Effects of 500 and 1000 FTU/Kg Phytase Supplementation of Maize-Based Diets with Two Tiers of Nutrient Specifications on Performance of Broiler Chickens. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2015, 207, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  38. Truong, H.H.; Bold, R.M.; Liu, S.Y.; Selle, P.H. Standard phytase inclusion in maize-based broiler diets enhances digestibility coefficients of starch, amino acids and sodium in four small intestinal segments and digestive dynamics of starch and protein. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2015, 209, 240–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  39. Truong, H.H.; Yu, S.; Moss, A.F.; Partridge, G.G.; Liu, S.Y.; Selle, P.H. Phytase Inclusions of 500 and 2000 FTU/Kg in Maize-Based Broiler Diets Impact on Growth Performance, Nutrient Utilisation, Digestive Dynamics of Starch, Protein (N), Sodium and IP6 Phytate Degradation in the Gizzard and Four Small Intestinal Segments. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2017, 223, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  40. Selle, P.H.; Macelline, S.P.; Chrystal, P.V.; Liu, S.Y. The contribution of phytate-degrading enzymes to chicken-meat production. Animals 2023, 13, 603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  41. Bedford, M.R.; Apajalahti, J.H. The role of feed enzymes in maintaining poultry intestinal health. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2022, 102, 1759–1770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  42. Dersjant-Li, Y.; Van De Belt, K.; Van Der Klis, J.D.; Kettunen, H.; Rinttilä, T.; Awati, A. Effect of multi-enzymes in combination with a direct-fed microbial on performance and welfare parameters in broilers under commercial production settings. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2015, 24, 80–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
Table 1. Array of dietary treatments describing the phytase and XAP1 inclusion rates.
Table 1. Array of dietary treatments describing the phytase and XAP1 inclusion rates.
Dietary TreatmentFormulated LevelsAnalysed Levels (U/kg)
Phytase (FTU/kg)Xylanase (U/kg) from XAP 1StarterGrowerFinisherWithdrawal
1 00Phytase = 326Phytase = 369Phytase = 429Phytase = 612
(PC)Xylanase = 121Xylanase = 94Xylanase = 30Xylanase = 94
2 01200Phytase = n/aPhytase = n/aPhytase = n/aPhytase = n/a
(NC1 + XAP)Xylanase = 1344Xylanase = 1172Xylanase = 927Xylanase = 940
3 10000Phytase = 1235Phytase = 1560Phytase = 1900Phytase = 1474
(NC2 + PhyG)Xylanase = n/aXylanase = n/aXylanase = n/aXylanase = n/a
4 10001200Phytase = 1828Phytase = 1680Phytase = 2132Phytase = 2085
(NC3 + XAP + PhyG)Xylanase = 1198Xylanase = 815Xylanase = 1257Xylanase = 856
1 XAP provides 1200 units/kg xylanase, 4000 units protease, and 200 units amylase. n/a = not applicable—test not completed on sample as relevant enzyme not included in diet.
Table 2. Ingredient composition and calculated nutrient content of experimental starter diets (d 0 to 10) with matrix values ascribed to phytase and XAP inclusions (matrix values included in calculated nutrient composition).
Table 2. Ingredient composition and calculated nutrient content of experimental starter diets (d 0 to 10) with matrix values ascribed to phytase and XAP inclusions (matrix values included in calculated nutrient composition).
Ingredient, g/kg (as Fed)Dietary Treatment
1
(PC)		2
(NC1 + XAP)		3
(NC2 + PhyG)		4
(NC3 + XAP + PhyG)
Phytase--0.100.10
XAP-0.10-0.10
Soybean meal281.2281.8277.3294.4
Maize250.0250.0250.0271.9
Wheat292.9314.0356.7322.4
Lupin70.462.652.348.4
Rapeseed31.029.527.025.7
Limestone flour12.8512.9012.7912.83
Salt3.613.593.551.25
Di-calcium phosphate14.8914.834.023.81
Sodium bicarbonate0.010.030.075.90
Vegetable oil29.7117.843.622.33
L-lysine sulphate3.823.523.672.69
DL-methionine3.423.232.962.74
L-threonine1.451.281.220.86
Choline chloride (75%)0.250.250.250.25
Vitamin and mineral premix 14.504.504.504.50
Calculated nutrient, g/kg (unless otherwise indicated)
AMEn 2, MJ/kg12.4512.4512.4512.45
Crude protein219.05218.31223.32227.04
Crude fat69.9657.3642.1440.62
SID Lysine 312.2012.2012.2012.20
SID Methionine6.045.925.815.70
SID Methionine + cysteine9.109.109.109.10
SID Threonine8.308.308.308.30
SID Tryptophan2.332.392.382.49
SID Isoleucine8.348.328.548.78
SID Leucine15.0014.9915.4415.91
SID Valine8.908.909.179.41
SID Arginine14.2113.9913.9414.23
Calcium9.009.009.009.00
Total phosphorus6.866.864.614.62
Available phosphorus4.504.504.504.50
Phytate10.0010.0010.0010.00
Phytate-P2.822.822.822.82
Non-starch polysaccharide150.34150.00150.00150.00
Total arabinoxylan42.1742.7944.2043.50
Crude fibre33.7933.3832.9532.87
Sodium1.601.601.602.30
Chloride3.003.003.001.60
Potassium9.239.269.249.50
DEB 4 (mEq/kg)221221221298
1 Vitamin and mineral premix per kg diet (UNE VM, Rabar Pty Ltd., Beaudesert, QLD, Australia): vitamin A, 12 MIU; vitamin D, 5 MIU; vitamin E, 75 mg; vitamin K, 3 mg; nicotinic acid, 55 mg; pantothenic acid, 13 mg; folic acid, 2 mg; riboflavin, 8 mg; cyanocobalamin, 0.016 mg; biotin, 0.25 mg; pyridoxine, 5 mg; thiamine, 3 mg; antioxidant, 50 mg; Cu, 16 mg as copper sulphate; Mn, 60 mg as manganese sulphate; Mn, 60 mg as manganous oxide; I, 0.125 mg as potassium iodide; Se, 0.3 mg; Fe, 40 mg as iron sulphate; Zn, 50 mg as zinc oxide; Zn, 50 mg as zinc sulphate. 2 AMEn: apparent metabolizable energy corrected to zero N retention. 3 Standard ileal digestible amino acid level as determined by near-infrared spectroscopy (Foss NIR 6500, Hillerød, Denmark) standardised with Evonik AMINONIR® Advanced calibration (Evonik Industries AG, Essen 45128, Germany). 4 DEB (mEq/kg) calculated as 10,000 × (Na+ + K+ − Cl−).
Table 3. Ingredient composition and calculated nutrient content of experimental grower diets (d 10 to 21) with matrix values ascribed to phytase and XAP inclusions (nutrients and energy contribution for enzymes included in calculated nutrient composition).
Table 3. Ingredient composition and calculated nutrient content of experimental grower diets (d 10 to 21) with matrix values ascribed to phytase and XAP inclusions (nutrients and energy contribution for enzymes included in calculated nutrient composition).
Ingredient, g/kg (as Fed)Dietary Treatment
1
(PC)		2
(NC1 + XAP)		3
(NC2 + PhyG)		4
(NC3 + XAP + PhyG)
Phytase--0.100.10
XAP-0.10-0.10
Soybean meal244.2261.2296.1296.2
Maize250.0250.0268.0266.3
Wheat281.1315.3307.3308.5
Lupin108.273.652.952.8
Rapeseed35.532.226.826.8
Limestone flour11.8812.0111.9514.45
Salt3.613.613.573.57
Di-calcium phosphate13.7113.542.392.40
Sodium bicarbonate0.010.011.042.61
Vegetable oil37.5025.0818.7815.59
L-lysine sulphate2.812.341.030.70
DL-methionine3.052.772.302.17
L-threonine0.710.50--
Choline chloride (75%)0.250.250.250.25
Vitamin and mineral premix 12.502.502.502.50
TiO25.005.005.005.00
Calculated nutrient, g/kg (unless otherwise indicated)
AMEn 2, MJ/kg12.6612.6612.6612.66
Crude protein211.73210.99225.21224.91
Crude fat82.1766.2457.2454.05
SID lysine 311.2011.2011.2011.20
SID methionine5.535.395.205.12
SID methionine + cysteine8.508.508.508.50
SID threonine7.307.307.307.45
SID tryptophan2.222.312.442.48
SID isoleucine7.978.038.788.78
SID leucine14.4214.5415.9015.89
SID valine8.508.609.419.41
SID arginine14.5213.7914.3714.36
Calcium8.408.408.408.40
Total phosphorus6.576.534.314.31
Available phosphorus4.204.204.204.20
Phytate10.0010.0010.0010.00
Phytate-P2.822.822.822.82
Non-starch polysaccharide154.92150.00150.00150.00
Total arabinoxylan42.9142.9142.9142.91
Crude fibre36.6634.0633.0132.99
Sodium1.601.602.302.30
Chloride2.983.003.003.00
Potassium8.788.959.509.50
DEB 4 (mEq/kg)210213258258
1 Vitamin and mineral premix per kg diet (UNE VM, Rabar Pty Ltd.): vitamin A, 12 MIU; vitamin D, 5 MIU; vitamin E, 75 mg; vitamin K, 3 mg; nicotinic acid, 55 mg; pantothenic acid, 13 mg; folic acid, 2 mg; riboflavin, 8 mg; cyanocobalamin, 0.016 mg; biotin, 0.25 mg; pyridoxine, 5 mg; thiamine, 3 mg; antioxidant, 50 mg; Cu, 16 mg as copper sulphate; Mn, 60 mg as manganese sulphate; Mn, 60 mg as manganous oxide; I, 0.125 mg as potassium iodide; Se, 0.3 mg; Fe, 40 mg as iron sulphate; Zn, 50 mg as zinc oxide; Zn, 50 mg as zinc sulphate. 2 AMEn: apparent metabolizable energy corrected to zero N retention. 3 Standard ileal digestible amino acid level as determined by near-infrared spectroscopy (Foss NIR 6500, Denmark) standardised with Evonik AMINONIR® Advanced calibration. 4 DEB (mEq/kg) calculated as 10,000 × (Na+ + K+ − Cl−).
Table 4. Ingredient composition and calculated nutrient content of experimental finisher diets (d 21 to 35) with matrix values ascribed to phytase and XAP inclusions (matrix values included in calculated nutrient composition).
Table 4. Ingredient composition and calculated nutrient content of experimental finisher diets (d 21 to 35) with matrix values ascribed to phytase and XAP inclusions (matrix values included in calculated nutrient composition).
Ingredient, g/kg (as Fed)Dietary Treatment
1
(PC)		2
(NC1 + XAP)		3
(NC2 + PhyG)		4
(NC3 + XAP + PhyG)
Phytase--0.100.10
XAP-0.06-0.06
Soybean meal190.3233.1263.6266.6
Maize250.0250.0250.0250.0
Wheat335.0341.2344.9345.2
Lupin107.281.363.461.6
Rapeseed40.434.229.729.3
Limestone flour10.810.910.810.8
Salt3.03.32.53.6
Di-calcium phosphate12.111.80.70.7
Sodium bicarbonate0.90.40.01.8
Vegetable oil36.722.924.320.8
L-lysine sulphate2.20.90.3-
DL-methionine2.92.32.01.9
L-threonine0.7---
Choline chloride (75%)0.20.20.20.2
Vitamin and mineral premix 12.52.52.52.5
TiO25.05.05.05.0
Filler----
Calculated nutrient, g/kg (unless otherwise indicated)
AMEn 2, MJ/kg12.9712.9712.9712.97
Crude protein192.35201.61215.44215.91
Crude fat83.1565.5764.1960.39
SID lysine 310.2010.2010.2010.20
SID methionine5.184.894.784.70
SID methionine + cysteine8.008.008.008.00
SID threonine6.606.606.907.08
SID tryptophan1.992.242.322.37
SID isoleucine7.057.628.298.34
SID leucine13.0113.9215.0615.12
SID valine7.608.208.918.95
SID arginine13.0113.3013.8513.87
Calcium7.607.607.607.60
Total phosphorus6.066.103.873.88
Available phosphorus3.803.803.803.80
Phytate10.0010.0010.0010.00
Phytate-P2.822.822.822.82
Non-starch polysaccharide150.17150.00150.00150.00
Total arabinoxylan43.8743.8743.8743.87
Crude fibre36.2834.6833.5833.47
Sodium1.601.601.602.07
Chloride3.003.002.393.00
Potassium7.928.569.029.07
DEB 4 (mEq/kg)187203233237
1 Vitamin and mineral premix per kg diet (UNE VM, Rabar Pty Ltd.): vitamin A, 12 MIU; vitamin D, 5 MIU; vitamin E, 75 mg; vitamin K, 3 mg; nicotinic acid, 55 mg; pantothenic acid, 13 mg; folic acid, 2 mg; riboflavin, 8 mg; cyanocobalamin, 0.016 mg; biotin, 0.25 mg; pyridoxine, 5 mg; thiamine, 3 mg; antioxidant, 50 mg; Cu, 16 mg as copper sulphate; Mn, 60 mg as manganese sulphate; Mn, 60 mg as manganous oxide; I, 0.125 mg as potassium iodide; Se, 0.3 mg; Fe, 40 mg as iron sulphate; Zn, 50 mg as zinc oxide; Zn, 50 mg as zinc sulphate. 2 AMEn: apparent metabolizable energy corrected to zero N retention. 3 Standard ileal digestible amino acid level as determined by near-infrared spectroscopy (Foss NIR 6500, Denmark) standardised with Evonik AMINONIR® Advanced calibration. 4 DEB (mEq/kg) calculated as 10,000 × (Na+ + K+ − Cl−).
Table 5. Ingredient composition and calculated nutrient content of experimental withdrawal diets (d 35 to 42) with matrix values ascribed to phytase and XAP inclusions (matrix values included in calculated nutrient composition).
Table 5. Ingredient composition and calculated nutrient content of experimental withdrawal diets (d 35 to 42) with matrix values ascribed to phytase and XAP inclusions (matrix values included in calculated nutrient composition).
Ingredient, g/kg (as Fed)Dietary Treatment
1
(PC)		2
(NC1 + XAP)		3
(NC2 + PhyG)		4
(NC3 + XAP + PhyG)
Phytase--0.100.10
XAP-0.06-0.06
Soybean meal196.6237.0241.1231.0
Maize280.0280.0315.4344.1
Wheat286.1290.9267.5246.9
Lupin111.487.784.890.3
Rapeseed41.135.334.034.9
Limestone flour10.810.910.810.8
Salt3.23.63.63.6
Di-calcium phosphate12.011.70.70.7
Sodium bicarbonate0.5-1.02.5
Vegetable oil46.733.632.026.1
L-lysine sulphate1.4---
DL-methionine2.51.91.81.8
L-threonine0.4---
Choline chloride (75%)0.20.20.20.2
Vitamin and mineral premix 12.02.02.02.0
TiO25.05.05.05.0
Filler----
Calculated nutrient, g/kg (unless otherwise indicated)
AMEn 2, MJ/kg13.1813.1813.1813.18
Crude protein192.85201.96209.39206.73
Crude fat94.2577.6476.4972.26
SID lysine 39.709.709.709.70
SID methionine4.804.514.504.46
SID methionine + cysteine7.607.607.607.60
SID threonine6.306.676.646.70
SID tryptophan2.002.242.212.21
SID isoleucine7.157.708.037.90
SID leucine13.3014.1614.9414.87
SID valine7.698.268.618.48
SID arginine13.2913.5813.9413.86
Calcium7.607.607.607.60
Total phosphorus6.066.103.853.84
Available phosphorus3.803.803.803.80
Phytate10.0010.0010.0010.00
Phytate-P2.822.822.822.82
Non-starch polysaccharide150.00150.00150.00150.00
Total arabinoxylan42.8742.8742.8742.87
Crude fibre36.7335.2835.5336.21
Sodium1.601.602.302.30
Chloride3.002.993.003.00
Potassium8.018.628.728.61
DEB 4 (mEq/kg)189205238235
1 Vitamin and mineral premix per kg diet (UNE VM, Rabar Pty Ltd.): vitamin A, 12 MIU; vitamin D, 5 MIU; vitamin E, 75 mg; vitamin K, 3 mg; nicotinic acid, 55 mg; pantothenic acid, 13 mg; folic acid, 2 mg; riboflavin, 8 mg; cyanocobalamin, 0.016 mg; biotin, 0.25 mg; pyridoxine, 5 mg; thiamine, 3 mg; antioxidant, 50 mg; Cu, 16 mg as copper sulphate; Mn, 60 mg as manganese sulphate; Mn, 60 mg as manganous oxide; I, 0.125 mg as potassium iodide; Se, 0.3 mg; Fe, 40 mg as iron sulphate; Zn, 50 mg as zinc oxide; Zn, 50 mg as zinc sulphate. 2 AMEn: Apparent metabolizable energy corrected to zero N retention. 3 Standard ileal digestible amino acid level as determined by near-infrared spectroscopy (Foss NIR 6500, Denmark) standardised with Evonik AMINONIR® Advanced calibration. 4 DEB (mEq/kg) calculated as 10,000 × (Na+ + K+ − Cl−).
Table 6. Analysed nutrient content of experimental diets.
Table 6. Analysed nutrient content of experimental diets.
Nutrient, g/kg (Unless Otherwise Indicated)Dietary Treatment
1
(PC)		2
(NC1 + XAP)		3
(NC2 + PhyG)		4
(NC3 + XAP + PhyG)
StarterDry matter881.5881.4880.3878.3
Total phosphorus7.137.646.025.78
Calcium10.6112.168.968.83
Sodium1.871.981.621.54
Gross energy, Kcal/kg4029403840293987
Crude protein230.2243.2253.2251.8
GrowerDry matter867.0864.6866.6863.5
Total phosphorus6.376.524.614.63
Calcium10.6610.967.689.15
Sodium1.531.731.802.51
Gross energy, Kcal/kg4008391839393882
Crude protein205.7199.1220.6217.0
Starch295.6317.9311.9315.8
Soluble NSP 17.876.968.407.68
Insoluble NSP 178.9078.2776.2574.01
Total NSP 186.7785.2384.6581.69
FinisherDry matter867.0874.8877.3870.5
Total phosphorus6.186.364.544.40
Calcium8.738.996.946.60
Sodium1.591.651.172.04
Gross energy, Kcal/kg3993393939963951
Crude protein191.9200.4209.1208.8
WithdrawalDry matter865.6885.0875.6876.0
Total phosphorus6.406.434.694.14
Calcium8.929.166.806.65
Sodium1.601.711.842.32
Gross energy, Kcal/kg4107400540063987
Crude protein193.9200.8202.9201.2
1 NSP: non-starch polysaccharides.
Table 7. In feed matrix value contribution to phytase and XAP inclusions over the starter (d 0 to 10) and grower (d 10 to 21) phases where appropriate.
Table 7. In feed matrix value contribution to phytase and XAP inclusions over the starter (d 0 to 10) and grower (d 10 to 21) phases where appropriate.
Nutrient, g/kg (Unless Otherwise Indicated)StarterGrower
Phytase (1000 FTU/kg)XAPCombined (1000 FTU Phytase + XAP)Phytase (1000 FTU/kg)XAPCombined (1000 FTU Phytase + XAP)
Available Phosphorus2.19 2.192.19 2.19
Calcium2.11 2.112.11 2.11
AMEn 1, Kcal/kg90.098.0119.480.098.9109.7
Crude protein6.60 6.606.32 6.32
SID Lysine 20.310.350.480.30.350.47
SID Methionine 20.190.090.230.180.090.23
SID Methionine + cysteine 20.370.250.490.350.250.48
SID Threonine 20.330.320.490.310.310.47
SID Isoleucine 20.30 0.300.28 0.28
SID Leucine 20.56 0.560.54 0.54
SID Tryptophan 20.060.100.110.060.090.10
SID Serine 2
SID Valine 20.33 0.330.32 0.32
SID Arginine 20.35 0.350.35 0.35
1 AMEn: apparent metabolizable energy corrected to zero N retention. 2 Standard ileal digestible amino acid level (SID).
Table 8. In feed matrix value contribution to phytase and XAP inclusions over the finisher (d 21 to 35) and withdrawal (d 35 to 42) phases where appropriate.
Table 8. In feed matrix value contribution to phytase and XAP inclusions over the finisher (d 21 to 35) and withdrawal (d 35 to 42) phases where appropriate.
Nutrient, g/kg (Unless Otherwise Indicated)FinisherWithdrawal
Phytase (1000 FTU/kg)XAPCombined (1000 FTU Phytase + XAP)Phytase (1000 FTU/kg)XAPCombined (1000 FTU Phytase + XAP)
Available Phosphorus2.19 2.192.19 2.19
Calcium2.11 2.112.11 2.11
AMEn 1, Kcal/kg76.0102.9106.976.098.3105.5
Crude protein5.89 5.896.06 6.06
SID Lysine 20.270.340.440.300.340.47
SID Methionine 20.160.090.210.170.090.22
SID Methionine + cysteine 20.320.240.440.340.250.46
SID Threonine 20.290.290.430.210.300.36
SID Isoleucine 20.26 0.260.27 0.27
SID Leucine 20.50 0.500.52 0.52
SID Tryptophan 20.050.090.100.050.090.10
SID Serine 2 0.31 0.31
SID Valine 20.28 0.280.29 0.29
SID Arginine 20.33 0.330.34 0.34
1 AMEn: apparent metabolizable energy corrected to zero N retention. 2 Standard ileal digestible amino acid level (SID).
Table 9. The effect of enzyme inclusion with respective matrix reductions on weight gain (g/bird), feed intake (g/bird) and the feed conversion ratio (FCR; g/g) over the feeding phases (starter, d 0 to 10; grower, d 10 to 21; finisher, d 21 to 35; withdrawal, d 35 to 42; and cumulative periods).
Table 9. The effect of enzyme inclusion with respective matrix reductions on weight gain (g/bird), feed intake (g/bird) and the feed conversion ratio (FCR; g/g) over the feeding phases (starter, d 0 to 10; grower, d 10 to 21; finisher, d 21 to 35; withdrawal, d 35 to 42; and cumulative periods).
MeasureTreatmentSEMp-Value
1
(PC)		2
(NC1 + XAP)		3
(NC2 + PhyG)		4
(NC3 + XAP + PhyG)
Weight gain
0–102492502482523.60.992
11–2183884285685613.50.711
22–35145915411519156633.80.170
36–4276674471877930.40.840
0–21108010921101110814.80.572
0–35253926332620267439.30.138
0–42330533623338345345.80.256
Feed intake
0–103193253133098.60.557
11–21118112061178118717.10.642
22–35249525012496256849.60.804
36–42141814481385146335.90.615
0–21146815311475149527.80.399
0–35396340323971406461.60.746
0–42538154265357552785.90.744
FCR
0–101.2541.2991.2591.2290.0330.579
11–211.4091.4391.3771.3660.0250.208
22–351.711 b1.591 a1.651 ab1.615 a0.0290.049
36–421.8641.9911.9761.8830.0660.598
0–211.3581.4061.3401.3510.0270.322
0–351.5611.5351.5151.5210.0250.591
0–421.6271.6101.6051.6010.0160.690
ab Means within rows not sharing a common suffix are significantly different at the 5% level of probability.
Table 10. The effect of enzyme inclusion with respective matrix reductions on relative organ weights and pH at day 21 and 42; breast, thigh and drumstick weight at day 42; and measures of energy utilisation over 19–21 days.
Table 10. The effect of enzyme inclusion with respective matrix reductions on relative organ weights and pH at day 21 and 42; breast, thigh and drumstick weight at day 42; and measures of energy utilisation over 19–21 days.
MeasureTreatmentSEMp-Value
1
(PC)		2
(NC1 + XAP)		3
(NC2 + PhyG)		4
(NC3 + XAP + PhyG)
Day 21
Relative gizzard weight (g/kg)18.519.318.819.110.000.274
Relative gizzard content (g/kg)12.312.311.813.60.600.292
Gizzard pH2.422.652.382.582.820.453
Relative pancreas weight (g/kg)2.862.952.953.000.080.530
Relative fat pad weight (g/kg)9.65 ab10.35 b9.03 a8.58 a0.390.026
Day 42
Relative gizzard weight (g/kg)10.7210.1110.9910.310.250.068
Relative gizzard content (g/kg)5.715.617.297.310.650.130
Gizzard pH3.263.083.252.920.110.177
Relative pancreas weight (g/kg)1.551.521.591.480.050.265
Relative fat pad weight (g/kg)12.2411.9411.8511.180.670.703
Relative breast weight (g/kg)96.33 a96.69 a102.6 b97.44 a1.390.027
Relative thigh weight (g/kg)48.7149.3349.6150.750.690.279
Relative drumstick weight (g/kg)41.3640.8641.4941.910.590.475
Cost/kg live gain (AUD)0.761 b0.739 ab0.722 a0.716 a0.0110.006
Day 19–21
AME (MJ/kg)12.5412.4512.5812.380.150.691
AMEn (MJ/kg)11.9311.8711.9411.740.140.696
ME:GE ratio0.7470.7600.7630.7620.010.547
N retention (%)65.7565.2966.7065.361.520.798
ab Means within rows not sharing a common suffix are significantly different at the 5% level of probability.
Table 11. The effect of phytase (PHY: 0, 1000 FTU/kg) and XAP (0, 100 g/ton) inclusion on Ca, P, Na, protein and starch digestibility at day 21.
Table 11. The effect of phytase (PHY: 0, 1000 FTU/kg) and XAP (0, 100 g/ton) inclusion on Ca, P, Na, protein and starch digestibility at day 21.
MeasureTreatmentSEMp-Value
1
(PC)		2
(NC1 + XAP)		3
(NC2 + PhyG)		4
(NC3 + XAP + PhyG)
Toe ash11.7612.3612.1511.600.330.515
Ca digestibility jejunum35.50 b30.31 a38.75 bc43.27 c1.63<0.001
Ca digestibility ileum32.48 a30.12 a40.59 b44.34 b2.02<0.001
P digestibility jejunum36.33 a32.31 a56.36 b55.33 b2.05<0.001
P digestibility ileum38.74 a36.09 a64.10 b62.78 b1.71<0.001
Na digestibility jejunum−216.31 a−159.57 b−135.57 b−68.86 c10.81<0.001
Na digestibility ileum−103.67 a−50.61 b−62.44 b−4.04 c9.81<0.001
Protein digestibility jejunum53.42 a52.81 a60.87 b61.81 b2.340.014
Protein digestibility ileum77.9277.5580.8680.141.060.056
Starch digestibility jejunum74.45 a77.86 bc75.87 ab79.82 c1.020.002
Starch digestibility ileum94.06 a95.37 b94.81 ab95.64 b0.330.014
abc Means within rows not sharing a common suffix are significantly different at the 5% level of probability.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Moss, A.F.; Dao, H.T.; Kim, E.; Morgan, N.; Dersjant-Li, Y.; Ghane, A. Effects of Phytase, Xylanase, Amylase and Protease Inclusion at Full Matrix Specifications in Diets for Broiler Chickens. Appl. Sci. 2026, 16, 2862. https://doi.org/10.3390/app16062862

AMA Style

Moss AF, Dao HT, Kim E, Morgan N, Dersjant-Li Y, Ghane A. Effects of Phytase, Xylanase, Amylase and Protease Inclusion at Full Matrix Specifications in Diets for Broiler Chickens. Applied Sciences. 2026; 16(6):2862. https://doi.org/10.3390/app16062862

Chicago/Turabian Style

Moss, Amy F., Hiep Thi Dao, Eunjoo Kim, Natalie Morgan, Yueming Dersjant-Li, and Amir Ghane. 2026. "Effects of Phytase, Xylanase, Amylase and Protease Inclusion at Full Matrix Specifications in Diets for Broiler Chickens" Applied Sciences 16, no. 6: 2862. https://doi.org/10.3390/app16062862

APA Style

Moss, A. F., Dao, H. T., Kim, E., Morgan, N., Dersjant-Li, Y., & Ghane, A. (2026). Effects of Phytase, Xylanase, Amylase and Protease Inclusion at Full Matrix Specifications in Diets for Broiler Chickens. Applied Sciences, 16(6), 2862. https://doi.org/10.3390/app16062862

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop