Previous Article in Journal
Genetic Resistance to Newcastle Disease in Poultry: A Narrative Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Poultry
Volume 4
Issue 3
10.3390/poultry4030041
poultry-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

Broiler Chicken Response to Xylanase and Rice Bran Supplementation in Wheat- and Maize-Based Diets

by
Marko Tukša
1,
Stephen C. Mansbridge
1,
Michael R. Bedford
2,
Stephen P. Rose
1 and
Vasil R. Pirgozliev
1,*
1
The National Institute of Poultry Husbandry, Harper Adams University, Newport, Shropshire TF10 8NB, UK
2
AB Vista, 3 Woodstock Court, Blenheim Road, Marlborough SN8 4AN, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Poultry 2025, 4(3), 41; https://doi.org/10.3390/poultry4030041
Submission received: 23 July 2025 / Revised: 20 August 2025 / Accepted: 27 August 2025 / Published: 8 September 2025
Versions Notes

Abstract

A 28-day study involving 448 male Ross 308 broilers aimed to determine the effect of dietary rice bran (RB) and xylanase (XYL) in maize- and wheat-based diets on chicken growth, N-corrected apparent metabolizable energy (AMEn), and nutrient availability. Two isonitrogenic and isocaloric maize- or wheat-based basal diets (BDs) were formulated matching breeding recommendations. Each diet was then split in four parts: two parts BD was substituted with 75 g/kg RB and then one of the RB substituted and one of the original parts was supplemented with 16,000 XYL units/kg, resulting in a total of eight experimental dietary treatments. Each diet was fed to seven pens of eight birds per pen following randomization. The data were analyzed by ANOVA using a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design (cereal type × RB × XYL). Enzyme supplemented RB-free wheat-based diet had greater AMEn (p = 0.002) and fiber digestibility (p = 0.007) compared to the rest. Feeding RB reduced daily feed intake (p = 0.015) and weight gain (p < 0.001) of chicks. Birds fed wheat-based diets had greater feed efficiency, coupled with an increase in starch digestibility (SD) and energy conversion ratio (ECR). The observed differences in feed efficiency were explained only by SD and ECR.

1. Introduction

Feed costs make up 65–70% of poultry production expenses [1,2]. While maize is the dominant grain used globally as main energy source in broiler diets [3,4], wheat is more common in specific regions like the UK [5]. To reduce costs, alternative or local feed sources, including industrial by-products, such as rice bran (RB), are being increasingly used [6,7]. However, these often contain dietary fibers (DFs) with high level non-starch polysaccharides (NSPs), which are indigestible by poultry due to the lack of appropriate endogenous enzymes [8,9]. Thus, poultry rely on gut microbiota to ferment NSP into beneficial short-chain fatty acids (SCFA) [10]. Despite this, DF can increase digesta viscosity, which will reduce feed intake (FI), growth, and nutrient absorption. A key anti-nutritional factor in maize and wheat is arabinoxylan (AX) [11], which is poorly fermented naturally [12]. To improve digestibility, NSP-degrading enzymes (NSPases) like xylanase (XYL) are commonly added to poultry diets to break down AX [13,14]. Exogenous XYL breaks down AX by hydrolyzing β-1,4-D-glycosidic bonds between xylose residues, producing soluble polysaccharide AX and arabino-xylooligosaccharides (AXOSs) and xylooligosaccharides (XOSs) [15,16]. The released XOSs may exert prebiotic effects by selectively modifying the gut microbiota, enhancing intestinal immunity and gut health [17,18]. When fermented in the cecum, dietary fiber produces short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs)—especially butyrate, which supports villus development, slower gastric emptying, and improves feed efficiency [10,19,20]. However, Singh and Kim [21] suggest that the amount of XOS produced by exogenous XYL may be too low to significantly increase SCFA. Instead, XOS may act more as a bacterial activator than a true prebiotic substrate. The effect of xylanase therefore seems to be focused on increasing total soluble arabinoxylans (AXs), which serve as a fuel for fermentative bacteria, whereas XOSs act as signaling molecules. This has been confirmed by Šimić et al. [22] reporting that a combination of XOS and XYL improved WG and feed efficiency of broiler chickens. Interestingly, Kiarie et al. [23], reported that XYL improved growth performance and AMEn in maize-based diet containing 150 g/kg maize distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGSs) and wheat-based diet with the same magnitude of response independent of diet type, suggesting hydrolysis of both soluble and insoluble NSP. This suggests that birds may benefit not only from commercially produced XOS but also xylanases when the diet contains significant quantities of fibrous components.
The main objective of this experiment was to determine the effects of supplementing XYL to maize- and wheat-based diets with and without additional rice bran (RB) at 75 g/kg on daily FI, weight gain (WG), feed conversion ratio (FCR), nitrogen-corrected apparent metabolizable energy (AMEn), and nutrient digestibility in broilers. It has been hypothesized that the added dietary fiber from RB may function as an additional substrate and may provide XOS or AXOS as well when a xylanase is added, promoting gut microbial fermentation and butyrate production, which in turn could lead to improved growth performance in broilers.

2. Materials and Methods

This experiment was conducted at the National Institute of Poultry Husbandry (NIPH), Harper Adams University, United Kingdom. All procedures were reviewed and approved by the Harper Adams University Research Ethics Committee (#1082-202212-PGMPHD) on the 8 February 2023. The experiment was designed to comply with the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines [24].

2.1. Experimental Design

Two isonitrogenic and isocaloric basal diets based on maize or wheat were formulated across two feeding phases, starter (day 0 to 14) and grower/finisher (day 14 to 28), to meet or exceed breeder’s recommendations [25] (Table 1). Each diet was then split in four parts as in two parts a basal diet was substituted with 75 g/kg rice bran (RB) and then one of the RB substituted and one of the original parts were supplemented with 16,000 BXU /kg Econase XT (AB Vista, Marlborough, UK), resulting in a total of eight experimental dietary treatments (Table 2). The treatment groups were as follows: (1) maize basal diet; (2) maize + XYL; (3) maize + RB; (4) maize + RB + XYL; (5) wheat basal diet; (6) wheat + XYL; (7) wheat + RB; (8) wheat + RB + XYL. Titanium dioxide (TiO2) was included in all diets as an indigestible marker for nutrient digestibility analysis. The diets were offered in mash form and did not contain any coccidiostat, antimicrobial growth promoters, prophylactic, or other similar additives.

2.2. Growth Performance Broiler Trial

A total of 448 one-day-old male Ross 308 broiler chicks were obtained from a commercial hatchery (Annyalla Chicks Ltd., Wrexham, UK) and randomly allocated upon arrival into 56 floor pens (floor area 140 × 150 cm; height 140 cm), with 8 birds per pen. The pen floors were covered with wood shavings. Each pen was equipped with feed hopper and nipple drinkers. Each diet was fed to 7 pens following randomization. Feed and water were provided ad libitum throughout this study. Ambient temperature was maintained at 32 °C on day 1 and gradually reduced to 21 °C by day 20, remaining at this temperature until the end of the trial. A standard lighting program for broilers was used, decreasing from 23:1 h (light/dark) from 1-day-old to 18 h:6 h at 7 days of age, which was maintained until the end of this study. The starter diets were fed from day 0 to 14. Any mortality occurring up to day 4 was compensated by replacing chicks with spare birds. On day 14, birds and feed were weighed on a per-pen basis, and the starter diets were replaced with corresponding grower/finisher diets, which were offered from day 14 until the study ended on day 28. At the end of the experiment, birds and remaining feed were weighed to enable determination of dietary FI, WG, and FCR.

2.3. Metabolizable Energy Broiler Trial

During the last week of this study, on days 25, 26, and 27, four birds from each pen selected by random were transferred to raised mesh floor pens (floor area 60 cm × 60 cm; height 80 cm) equipped with trays to enable excreta collection. The pens were in a controlled environment room, and each pen was equipped with metal feeder and nipple drinkers. Treatments were randomly allocated to pens. To maintain the effect of the floor pen rearing conditions, i.e., exposure to litter, no adaptation period for cage housing was allowed. Feed and water were offered for ad libitum consumption. Excreta were collected three times (every 24 h) from the trays beneath as spilled feed and feathers were removed.
At the end of this study, two birds per cage were euthanized and digesta from distal ileum were collected and pooled in a container. Excreta were oven-dried at 60 °C and the digesta samples were freeze-dried. All samples were then milled through a 0.75 mm screen and stored for further analyses.

2.4. Laboratory Analysis and Calculations

The dry matter (DM) content of the wheat- and maize-based diets, bran, and excreta was determined by drying samples in a forced-air oven at 105 °C for 48 h until a constant weight was achieved, following AOAC International [26]. Crude protein content (N × 6.25) was analyzed using AOAC International [26] with a Leco FP-828 analyzer (Leco Corp., St. Joseph, MI, USA). Gross energy (GE) content was assessed using an isoperibol bomb calorimeter (Parr 6200, Parr Instrument Company, Moline, IL, USA) as previously described [27]. The neutral detergent fiber (NDF) content in both diets and excreta was determined using an ANKOM 200 Fiber Analyzer with ANKOM F58 filter bags, following the ANKOM Technology protocol (Macedon, New York, USA). Starch in diets and digesta was analyzed at DM Scientific Ltd. (Dalton, Thirsk, North Yorkshire, UK) using the polarimetric method following Commission Regulation (EC No 152/2009). Titanium dioxide (TiO2) concentration in digesta, excreta, and feed samples was measured using plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES) at DM Scientific Ltd. (Dalton, Thirsk, North Yorkshire, UK) as described elsewhere [28]. The activity of XYL was analyzed by product specific, validated ELISA methods, using Quantiplate Kits for Econase XT, supplied by Envirologix (AB Vista Laboratories, Innovation & Technology Centre, Ystrad Mynach, UK). The nitrogen-corrected apparent metabolizable energy (AMEn) of feed was determined following standard technique [29]. The coefficients of apparent retention of dietary dry matter (DMR), N (NR), and NDF digestibility (NDFD) measured in excreta, along with starch (SD) and nitrogen (ND) digestibility coefficients measured in digesta, were determined as previously described [30,31]. The energy conversion ratio (ECR) was also determined as the AMEn ingested to achieve the weight gain over the study period [32]. The ECR describes the relative efficiency of the use of AMEn for growth, implying that more efficient energy use towards growth is related to a lower ratio.

2.5. Statistical Analysis and Factorial Design

Data were analyzed using Genstat (23dth edition) statistical software (IACR Rothamsted, Hertfordshire, UK). Comparisons among the studied variables were performed using a three-way ANOVA based on a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design (cereal type × fiber × xylanase presence). All data were checked for the normality and homogeneity of the residuals prior to ANOVA. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05, and results are presented as means with their pooled standard errors (SEM).

3. Results

The birds were healthy throughout the study period and there was less than 2% mortality that was not affected by dietary treatments. The analyzed XYL activities in both starter and finisher diets were either above or slightly below the expected range, confirming satisfactory supplementation levels (Table 3). The proximate analyses of grower/finisher basal feeds and rice bran are presented in Table 4.
The effects of cereal type, RB inclusion, and XYL supplementation on FI, WG, and mFCR during different phases are presented in Table 5. In the starter period, FI was significantly influenced by cereal type (p < 0.001), with chicks fed maize-based diets consuming daily 6.1 g more feed that those fed wheat-based diets. Similarly, daily WG of birds fed maize-based diets were 3.1 g greater (p < 0.001). The inclusion of RB reduced daily WG by 3.1 g (p < 0.001), leading to lower feed efficiency, i.e., greater mFCR (p < 0.001) (Table 5). Dietary XYL supplementation tended (p = 0.087) to reduce mFCR, i.e., increase feed efficiency in starter phase. There was cereal by RB interaction during the grower period as adding RB to wheat-based diets led to reduced daily FI (p = 0.002) and WG (p = 0.047) (Table 5). However, birds fed wheat-based diets or RB-free diets had lower mFCR (p < 0.001; Table 5).
The overall effects of the treatments on FI, WG, and mFCR are presented in Table 6. A cereal by RB interaction was evident for overall FI that was lower in broilers fed RB in wheat-based diets (p = 0.019). Birds fed RB had 5.4 g lower overall daily WG (p < 0.001), although there was a tendency (p = 0.058) for an interaction with cereal type, suggesting that wheat-based diets are more affected than those based on maize. Overall, chickens fed wheat-based diets or RB-free diets had lower mFCR (p < 0.001), i.e., utilizing feed more efficiently. Birds fed RB-free diets had greater final body weight (p < 0.001) compared to these fed RB (Table 6). There was a tendency (p = 0.063) for cereal x RB interaction where wheat diets are more likely to reduce BW when RB is added.
The effects of dietary treatments on energy utilization and nutrient digestibility are summarized in Table 7. Dietary AMEn was influenced by a three-way interaction (p = 0.002). In the wheat diets, XYL increased AMEn in the absence of RB, but in the presence of RB there was a tendency of decreasing AMEn. On the other hand, in the maize diets, XYL did not increase AMEn in the RB-free situation and there was a tendency AMEn in the presence of RB. The lowest AMEn was among the bran-containing diets. Dietary DMR was also affected by three-way interaction (p = 0.002) as XYL-supplemented RB-containing wheat-based diet had lower DMR value compared to wheat RB-free diet and most of the maize-based diets. The bran-containing maize-based XYL-supplemented diet had lower AMEn that RB-free maize-based. A similar three-way interaction was observed for NR, as the XYL-supplemented RB-free wheat-based diet had greater NR compared to the rest of the wheat-based diets. Dietary RB reduced NR in maize-based diets (p = 0.004). There was a three-way interaction for NDFD as well, as XYL-supplemented RB-free wheat-based diet was greater in NDFD coefficient compared to the rest (p = 0.004). The NDFD coefficient of the rest of the diets were similar and the only difference was between the maize-based RB-containing XYL-supplemented diet and maize-based RB-free XYL-free diet, 0.114 vs. 0.197.
The ECR was lower, i.e., better for wheat-based (p = 0.010) and RB-free diets (p = 0.019). Wheat diets had greater SD (p < 0.001) compared to maize. Dietary XYL also tended (p = 0.058) to increase SD coefficients. There was a two-way interaction for ND, as XYL-supplemented RB-free diets had an increase compared to RB-containing diets (p = 0.006).

4. Discussion

The average body weight across treatments was lower (1.229 g) than the breeder’s guidelines of 1.697 g at this age of male Ross 308 chickens [25]. The difference can be explained by several methodological factors inherent to the experimental setup. Firstly, birds were fed mash diets throughout this study, in contrast to steam-pelleted feeds commonly used in commercial settings, which reduces both FI and WG [32,33,34]. Additionally, other deviations from standard commercial practice, such as increased handling frequency and small group housing, have been shown to suppress growth rates in broilers [31].
The response to cereal type on FI and WG during starter phase changed to primarily cereal by bran interaction during growing-finishing and overall study periods. However, during the grower/finisher period and overall, FCR was better on the wheat-based and bran-free diets. The higher FI and WG in maize fed birds during the starter period may suggest greater palatability [35] or a behavioral preference for maize-based diets, potentially due to differences in physical characteristics such as particle size, texture, and fiber content [36]. It is widely accepted that dietary soluble NSP can increase intestinal digesta viscosity and be a reason for poor growth and feed utilization in young broilers fed wheat-based diets [37]. It has been well documented that the concentration of insoluble NSP is greater in wheat compared to maize [38], thus suggesting that the greater NSP content and likely higher viscosity of the wheat-based diet reduced FI and WG in the starter although digesta viscosity was not measured in this study.
Overall, adding RB to wheat- but not to maize-based diets reduced daily FI and tended to reduce WG, and this was not improved by XYL supplementation. Despite greater NSP content of wheat, the response to diets seems to change with age, as birds fed wheat-based diets more efficiently utilized the feed, i.e., had lower FCR, which agrees with Kiarie et al. [23]. Šimić et al. [22] also reported reduced WG and feed efficiency in maize diets containing 5% wheat bran. In addition, a combination of xylooligosaccharides (XOSs) and XYL improved WG and feed efficiency of broiler chickens in the grower phase and overall [22] whereas supplementation of XOS or XYL individually did not bring the same performance benefits. Thus, it seems a combined action of XOS and XYL may be more effective in stimulating production of cecal SCFA, e.g., butyrate from beneficial fiber-degrading bacteria, which has significant implications for intestinal integrity and health [19,21,39]. However, the reduced FI and WG in birds fed wheat-based diets with RB and RB plus XYL may suggest that the supplemented XYL was insufficient to fully counteract the negative impact of the elevated fiber content. This aligns with findings by Jin et al. [40], who reported that at excessively high fiber inclusion levels (e.g., 30% DDGS), the efficacy of multienzyme supplementation was markedly reduced, with performance still declining despite enzyme use. It is likely that the fiber load in the wheat + RB diet exceeded the point at which XYL alone could maintain optimal nutrient availability and microbial fermentation balance. Thus, to improve fiber nutrition and bring benefits to modern poultry diets a very fine balance between functional fibers and NSPases is needed. Bird age and GIT development should also be considered.
Results on energy and nutrient retention showed the wheat-based diet supplemented with XYL was superior in AMEn, NR, ND, and NDFD to all others. In contrast, birds fed an RB-containing wheat-based diet supplemented with XYL had lower AMEn, DMR, and NR. However, these differences did not explain the overall growth performance of the birds; indeed, the superior FCR in wheat-fed broilers could not be explained by AMEn, for example. AMEn and the FCR are both considered important parameters in poultry nutrition, especially for broilers. While they are related in theory—since more available energy in the feed should lead to better growth and potentially improved FCR—in practice, particularly in wheat-based diets, studies often report a lack of a strong or consistent relationship between AMEn and FCR [41,42]. One issue with AMEn is that it only measures the energy content of the diet and without correction for intake it does not describe the energy intake differences between diets.
It is well accepted that XYL is effective in diets based on viscous cereals through the mechanism of gut viscosity reduction [37]. However, the lack of cereal type by XYL interaction does not confirm the validity of the theory in this study. More modern breeds of wheat have been shown to be significantly lower in viscosity and thus viscosity may be a lesser constraint in this study. The lack of a consistent relationship between XYL supplementation and FCR in broilers is a well-observed but complex issue [22,23].
However, dietary SD and ECR responded in the same way as FCR, i.e., greater SD and lower, more efficient ECR of wheat-based diet. Starch is the major energy source in broiler diets, and its digestibility plays a critical role in determining feed efficiency [43,44]. Improved SD enhances the availability of glucose for absorption in the small intestine, supporting more efficient energy utilization for growth, i.e., ECR. Consequently, diets with highly digestible starch typically result in a lower FCR, indicating better feed efficiency. Hikawczuk et al. [45] reported that high dietary fibers can increase gizzard weight and increase starch digestibility, thus suggesting an explanation for the increased SD in birds fed a wheat-based diet, which contains more fiber than diets based on maize.
So far, the majority of the studies evaluating the effect of diets on available energy have been performed using the ME system. Although dietary ME is widely used to describe the available energy concentration in poultry feedstuffs, diets with the same AME are not necessarily used with equal efficiency when fed to poultry [46,47]. Kiarie et al. [23] reported better growth in broilers fed wheat- compared to maize-based diets, despite no difference in AMEn. The caeca, where anaerobic fermentation occurs, produce volatile fatty acids (VFAs), and their concentrations vary with cereal type, fiber source, and diet processing [48,49,50,51]. Wheat diets tend to increase acetic and butyric acids, while maize increases propionic, valeric, and isovaleric acids [23]. Although VFAs do not contribute significant amount of available energy for growth [52,53,54,55], they may positively influence gut health and nutrient absorption [56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64]. While VFAs were not measured in our study, the growth differences observed may reflect diet-related shifts in microbial activity.
In agreement with other reports [22,23], feeding diets based on different cereals, i.e., wheat or maize, supplemented or not with fiber and xylanase, resulted in differences in bird growth performance that could not be explained by AMEn. Better gizzard development in wheat fed birds providing greater starch digestibility [44] may be the reason for the observed differences in FCR between wheat- and maize-based diets.

5. Conclusions

Compared to maize, feeding wheat-based diets led to better broiler growth performance, dietary starch digestibility, and energy conversion ratio. Overall, dietary rice bran suppressed bird growth performance and reduced dietary metabolizable energy, suggesting that it was poorly hydrolyzed in bird gastrointestinal tract and did not produce fermentable oligosaccharides. Dietary xylanase increased the metabolizable energy in wheat containing diet only, without affecting overall growth performance. The findings from the present study conclude that dietary metabolizable energy is not the most reliable way to describe feeding value of diets for broilers. Studies involving various fiber sources as substrates and activities of fiber-degrading enzymes in diets are warranted.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.R.P. and M.T.; methodology, V.R.P., M.R.B. and S.P.R.; software, M.T.; validation, V.R.P., S.C.M., S.P.R. and M.R.B.; formal analysis, M.T.; investigation, M.T.; resources, V.R.P.; data curation, M.T.; writing—original draft preparation, M.T.; writing—review and editing, V.R.P., M.R.B. and M.T.; visualization, M.T.; supervision, V.R.P., S.C.M. and S.P.R.; project administration, V.R.P.; funding acquisition, V.R.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This experiment was conducted at the National Institute of Poultry Husbandry (NIPH), Harper Adams University, United Kingdom. All procedures were reviewed and approved by the Harper Adams University Research Ethics Committee (#1082-202212-PGMPHD) on the 8 February 2023. This experiment was designed to comply with the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines [24].

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study may be available on reasonable request from the corresponding author due to privacy.

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank NIPH staff for the assistance in the preparation of this experiment, and Jane Copper and Eleanor Clowes for their support with the laboratory work.

Conflicts of Interest

Author M.R.B. was employed by AB Vista. The remaining authors declare that this research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
RBRice bran
XYLXylanase
AMEnNitrogen-corrected apparent metabolizable energy
BDBasal diet
NDNitrogen digestibility
SDStarch digestibility
FCRFeed conversion ratio
ECREnergy conversion ratio
DFDietary fiber
NSPNon-starch polysaccharide
DDGSsDistillers dried grains with solubles
SCFAShort-chain fatty acid
VFAVolatile fatty acid
FIFeed intake
WGWeight gain
AXArabinoxylan
AXOSArabino-xylooligosaccharide
XOSXylooligosaccharide
TiO2Titanium dioxide
DMDry matter
DMRDry matter retention
NDFNeutral detergent fiber
SEMStandard error of means

References

  1. Wongtangtintharn, S.; Chakkhambang, S.; Pootthachaya, P.; Cherdthong, A.; Wanapat, M. Challenges and constraints to the sustainability of poultry farming in Thailand. Anim. Biosci. 2025, 38, 845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Alqaisi, O.; Ndambi, O.A.; Williams, R.B. Time series livestock diet optimization: Cost-effective broiler feed substitution using the commodity price spread approach. Agric. Food Econ. 2017, 5, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Dei, H. Assessment of maize (Zea mays) as feed resource for poultry. In Poultry Science; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2017; pp. 1–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Grote, U.; Fasse, A.; Nguyen, T.T.; Erenstein, O. Food security and the dynamics of wheat and maize value chains in Africa and Asia. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 4, 617009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. AHDB. GB Animal Feed Production. 2023. Available online: https://ahdb.org.uk/cereals-oilseeds/cereal-use-in-gb-animalfeed-production (accessed on 20 May 2025).
  6. Attia, Y.A.; Ashour, E.A.; Nagadi, S.A.; Farag, M.R.; Bovera, F.; Alagawany, M. Rice bran as an alternative feedstuff in broiler nutrition and impact of Liposorb® and vitamin E-Se on sustainability of performance, carcass traits, blood biochemistry, and antioxidant indices. Vet. Sci. 2023, 10, 299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chen, X.; Zhang, L.; Xing, T.; Zhao, L.; Gao, F. Effects of corn complete replacement by broken rice, wheat, and rice bran and enzyme preparation supplementation on growth performance, meat quality, digestive function, and glucose metabolism of Langshan chickens. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2025, 105, 6126–6137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Casas, G.A.; Lærke, H.N.; Knudsen, K.E.B.; Stein, H.H. Arabinoxylan is the main polysaccharide in fiber from rice coproducts, and increased concentration of fiber decreases in vitro digestibility of dry matter. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2019, 247, 255–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Nguyen, X.H.; Nguyen, H.T.; Morgan, N.K. Dietary soluble non-starch polysaccharide level and xylanase supplementation influence performance, egg quality and nutrient utilization in laying hens fed wheat-based diets. Anim. Nutr. 2021, 7, 512–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Uerlings, J.; Schroyen, M.; Bautil, A.; Courtin, C.; Richel, A.; Sureda, E.A.; Bruggeman, G.; Tanghe, S.; Willems, E.; Bindelle, J.; et al. In vitro prebiotic potential of agricultural by-products on intestinal fermentation, gut barrier and inflammatory status of piglets. Br. J. Nutr. 2020, 123, 293–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Javed, K.; Salman, M.; Sharif, M.; Muneer, H.; Najam, T.; Iqbal, U. Effect of enzymes by substitution of corn with wheat on growth performance and digestibility of broilers. Braz. J. Sci. 2022, 1, 76–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ward, N.E. Debranching enzymes in corn/soybean meal–based poultry feeds: A review. Poult. Sci. 2021, 100, 765–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zampiga, M.; Calini, F.; Sirri, F. Importance of feed efficiency for sustainable intensification of chicken meat production: Implications and role for amino acids, feed enzymes and organic trace minerals. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 2021, 77, 639–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Moita, V.H.C.; Kim, S.W. Nutritional and functional roles of phytase and xylanase enhancing the intestinal health and growth of nursery pigs and broiler chickens. Animals 2022, 12, 3322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Stefanello, C.; Dalmoro, Y.K.; Rios, H.V.; Vieira, M.S.; Moraes, M.L.; Souza, O.F.; Araujo, M.P.; Stefanello, T.B.; García, R.S.; Boudry, C.; et al. A Bacillus subtilis xylanase improves nutrient digestibility, intestinal health and growth performance of broiler chickens undergoing an intestinal challenge. Poult. Sci. 2025, 104, 104908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Li, D.D.; Ding, X.M.; Zhang, K.Y.; Bai, S.P.; Wang, J.P.; Zeng, Q.F.; Su, Z.W.; Kang, L. Effects of dietary xylooligosaccharides on the performance, egg quality, nutrient digestibility and plasma parameters of laying hens. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2017, 225, 20–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ren, L.; Cao, Q.; Ye, H.; Dong, Z.; Zhang, C.; Yan, F.; Zhou, Y.; Zhou, H.; Zuo, J.; Wang, W. The single degree of polymerization influences the efficacy of xylooligosaccharides in shaping microbial and metabolite profiles in chicken gut to combat avian pathogenic Escherichia coli. BMC Microbiol. 2025, 25, 227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Jha, R.; Fouhse, J.M.; Tiwari, U.P.; Li, L.; Willing, B.P. Dietary fiber and intestinal health of monogastric animals. Front. Vet. Sci. 2019, 6, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Ding, X.M.; Li, D.D.; Bai, S.P.; Wang, J.P.; Zeng, Q.F.; Su, Z.W.; Xuan, Y.; Zhang, K.Y. Effect of dietary xylooligosaccharides on intestinal characteristics, gut microbiota, cecal short-chain fatty acids, and plasma immune parameters of laying hens. Poult. Sci. 2018, 97, 874–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Ali, Q.; Ma, S.; La, S.; Guo, Z.; Liu, B.; Gao, Z.; Farooq, U.; Wang, Z.; Zhu, X.; Cui, Y.; et al. Microbial short-chain fatty acids: A bridge between dietary fibers and poultry gut health—A review. Anim. Biosci. 2022, 35, 1461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Singh, A.K.; Kim, W.K. Effects of dietary fiber on nutrients utilization and gut health of poultry: A review of challenges and opportunities. Animals 2021, 11, 181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Šimić, A.; González-Ortiz, G.; Mansbridge, S.C.; Rose, S.P.; Bedford, M.R.; Yovchev, D.; Pirgozliev, V.R. Broiler chicken response to xylanase and fermentable xylooligosaccharide supplementation. Poult. Sci. 2023, 102, 103000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kiarie, E.; Romero, L.F.; Ravindran, V. Growth performance, nutrient utilization, and digesta characteristics in broiler chickens fed corn or wheat diets without or with supplemental xylanase. Poult. Sci. 2014, 93, 1186–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. du Sert, N.P.; Ahluwalia, A.; Alam, S.; Avey, M.T.; Baker, M.; Browne, W.J.; Clark, A.; Cuthill, I.C.; Dirnagl, U.; Emerson, M.; et al. The ARRIVE Guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol. 2020, 18, e3000411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Aviagen. Ross Broiler: Nutrition Specifications 2022. Available online: https://eu.aviagen.com/assets/Tech_Center/Ross_Broiler/Ross-BroilerNutritionSpecifications2022-EN.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2025).
  26. AOAC International. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International, 21st ed.; AOAC International: Rockville, MD, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  27. Pirgozliev, V.R.; Rose, S.P.; Kettlewell, P.S. Effect of ambient storage of wheat samples on their nutritive value for chickens. Br. Poult. Sci. 2006, 47, 342–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. van Harn, J.; Spek, J.W.; Bikker, P. Pre-cecal calcium digestibility of eggshell products in broilers. Poult. Sci. 2025, 104, 105090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pirgozliev, V.; Mirza, M.W.; Rose, S.P. Does the effect of pelleting depend on the wheat sample when fed to chickens? Animal 2016, 10, 571–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Whiting, I.M.; Pirgozliev, V.; Rose, S.P.; Wilson, J.; Amerah, A.M.; Ivanova, S.G.; Staykova, G.P.; Oluwatosin, O.O.; Oso, A.O. Nutrient availability of different batches of wheat distillers dried grains with solubles with and without exogenous enzymes for broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 2017, 96, 574–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Tukša, M.; Mansbridge, S.C.; Whiting, I.M.; Šimić, A.; Bedford, M.R.; Rose, S.P.; Pirgozliev, V.R. Assessing the feeding value of wheat for broilers. J. Cent. Eur. Agric. 2025, 26, 293–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pirgozliev, V.; Whiting, I.; Rose, S.P.; Ivanova, S.G.; Staykova, G.; Amerah, A.M. Variability between wheat dry distillers grains with solubles samples influence the effectiveness of exogenous enzymes when fed to broiler chickens. Vet. Med. Anim. Stud. 2016, 6, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Dhakal, S.; Hetland, H.; Svihus, B. Effect of grinding method and extent of pelleting of broiler diets on performance, feeding behaviour and digestive tract functionality. Br. Poult. Sci. 2025, 66, 227–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yameen, R.K.; Nazir, A.; Bilal, R.M.; Shahzad, A.; Tahir, M.A.; Farag, M.; Elnesr, S.S.; El-Shall, N.A.; Di Cerbo, A.; Alagawany, M. A review on feed particle size and form: Implications on the performance and gut health of poultry. Poult. Sci. J. 2025, 13, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Vogel, C.L.; Geary, E.L.; Oba, P.M.; Mioto, J.C.; Rudolph, B.C.; Rens, L.; Swanson, K.S. Effects of corn protein inclusion on apparent total tract macronutrient digestibility, palatability, and fecal characteristics, microbiota, and metabolites of healthy adult dogs. J. Anim. Sci. 2025, 103, skaf122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Katu, J.K.; Tóth, T.; Varga, L. Enhancing the nutritional quality of low-grade poultry feed ingredients through fermentation: A review. Agriculture 2025, 15, 476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Toghyani, M.; Kim, E.; Macelline, S.P.; González-Ortiz, G.; Barekatain, R.; Liu, S.Y. Xylanase and stimbiotic supplementation improve broilers performance and nutrient digestibility across both wheat-barley and corn-based diets. Poult. Sci. 2025, 104, 105224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Pirgozliev, V.R.; Hammandy, M.H.; Mansbridge, S.C.; Whiting, I.M.; Rose, S.P. Efficiency of utilization of metabolizable energy for carcass energy retention in broiler chickens fed maize, wheat or a mixture. Poultry 2024, 3, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lin, Y.; Lourenco, J.M.; Olukosi, O.A. The effects of protease, xylanase, and xylo-oligosaccharides on growth performance, nutrient utilization, short-chain fatty acids, and microbiota in Eimeria-challenged broiler chickens fed low-protein diet. Poult. Sci. 2023, 102, 102789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Jin, D.; Tugiyanti, E.; Rimbawanto, E.A.; Rosidi, R.; Widiyastuti, T.; Susanto, A.; Ismoyowati, I. Effects of high-level dietary distillers dried grains with solubles supplemented with multienzymes on growth performance, nutrient utilization, intestinal morphology, and pellet quality in broiler chickens. Vet. World 2024, 17, 1943–1954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Kandel, M.; Macelline, S.P.; Toghyani, M.; Selle, P.H.; Liu, S.Y. The impact of canola meal and canola seed inclusions in broiler diets. Poult. Sci. 2025, 104, 105017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Ning, R.; Cheng, Z.; Liu, X.; Ban, Z.; Guo, Y.; Nie, W. Evaluating and predicting net energy value of wheat and wheat bran for broiler chickens. Anim. Biosci. 2022, 35, 1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bassi, L.S.; Hejdysz, M.; Pruszyńska-Oszmałek, E.; Kołodziejski, P.A.; Cowieson, A.J.; Kaczmarek, S.A.; Svihus, B. Nutrient digestion efficiency: A comparison between broiler chickens and growing pigs fed maize, barley and oats-based diets with an emphasis on starch. Br. J. Nutr. 2025, 133, 182–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Naeem, M.; Burton, E.J.; Scholey, D.V.; Alkhtib, A.; Broadberry, S. Use of wheat dilution to improve digestive function in broilers: Application in low protein diets. Br. Poult. Sci. 2024, 65, 144–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hikawczuk, T.; Wróblewska, P.; Szuba-Trznadel, A.; Rusiecka, A.; Zinchuk, A.; Laszki-Szcząchor, K. A multiple regression model analysing additional sources of dietary fibre as a factor affecting the development of the gastrointestinal tract in broiler chickens. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 4994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Pirgozliev, V.; Bedford, M.R. Energy utilisation and growth performance of chickens fed diets containing graded levels of supplementary bacterial phytase. Br. J. Nutr. 2013, 109, 248–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Kolawole, U.K.; Kim, I.H. Effect of different metabolizable energy diets on broilers’ growth performance, nutrient digestibility, organ weight, fecal score and lesion score. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2025, 109, 957–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. de Sousa, L.S.; da Silva, D.H.L.; Cardoso, A.R.; Moreira, L.G.; Rios, D.L.; Ecco, R.; Araújo, I.C.S.; Lara, L.J.C. Cecal microbial composition and serum concentration of short-chain fatty acids in laying hens fed different fiber sources. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2025, 56, 709–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Fan, X.; Qin, Y.; Gao, Y.; Wang, P.; Chang, J.; Wang, L.; Jin, S.; Li, X.; Yin, Q.; Liu, C.; et al. Evaluation of fermentation characteristics of different dietary fiber sources using a cecum in vitro fermentation model. LWT 2025, 192, 117944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Incharoen, T.; Nopparatmaitree, M.; Kongkeaw, A.; Soisuwan, K.; Likittrakulwong, W.; Thongnum, A.; Norbu, N.; Tenzin, J.; Supatsaraphokin, N.; Loor, J.J. Dietary micronized hemp fiber enhances in vitro nutrient digestibility and cecal fermentation, antioxidant enzyme, lysosomal activity, and productivity in finisher broilers reared under thermal stress. Front. Anim. Sci. 2025, 6, 1553829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Leiber, F.; Helbing, M.; Steiner, A.K.; Amsler, Z.; Tonn, B.; Amelchanka, S.L.; Terranova, M.; Quander-Stoll, N. Effects of dietary forage on feed efficiency of poultry from a slow-growing and a dual-purpose strain for organic fattening systems. Biol. Agric. Hortic. 2025, 41, 134–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Makowski, Z.; Lipiński, K.; Mazur-Kuśnirek, M. The effects of sodium butyrate, coated sodium butyrate, and butyric acid glycerides on nutrient digestibility, gastrointestinal function, and fecal microbiota in turkeys. Animals 2022, 12, 1836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mallo, J.J.; Sol, C.; Puyalto, M.; Bortoluzzi, C.; Applegate, T.J.; Villamide, M.J. Evaluation of sodium butyrate and nutrient concentration for broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 2021, 100, 101456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Pires, M.F.; Jacob, D.V.; Leandro, N.S.M.; Mendonça, R.A.N.; Faria, I.D.S.; Carvalho, D.P.; de Oliveira, H.F.; Café, M.B.; Stringhini, J.H. Effects of protected sodium butyrate and reduced energy content in diets for broiler chickens. South Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 2022, 52, 241–251. [Google Scholar]
  55. He, Z.; Fahey, A.G.; Liu, R.; Wen, J.; Zhao, G. Research note: Investigating correlations of poultry SCFAs in duodenum, cecum, liver and serum with cecum microbiota and residual feed intake. Poult. Sci. 2025, 104, 105521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Khalil, S.; Abdellatif, H.; Al-Sagan, A.; Melegy, T.; Prince, A.; El-Banna, R. Efficiency of xylanase, emulsifier, and guanidinoacetic acid in restoring energy deficit in male broilers fed low metabolisable energy diets. J. Adv. Vet. Res. 2024, 14, 103–112. [Google Scholar]
  57. Luo, D.; Li, J.; Xing, T.; Zhang, L.; Gao, F. Combined effects of xylo-oligosaccharides and coated sodium butyrate on growth performance, immune function, and intestinal physical barrier function of broilers. Anim. Sci. J. 2021, 92, e13545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Deng, F.; Tang, S.; Zhao, H.; Zhong, R.; Liu, L.; Meng, Q.; Zhang, H.; Chen, L. Combined effects of sodium butyrate and xylo-oligosaccharide on growth performance, anti-inflammatory and antioxidant capacity, intestinal morphology and microbiota of broilers at early stage. Poult. Sci. 2023, 102, 102585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Ducatelle, R.; Goossens, E.; Eeckhaut, V.; Van Immerseel, F. The Gordon Memorial Lecture: Steering the gut microbiome for improved health and welfare in broilers. Br. Poult. Sci. 2025, 66, 419–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Jadhav, V.V.; Fasina, Y.O.; Harrison, S.H. Dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids effect on cecal microbiome profile of maturing broiler chicken. Poult. Sci. 2025, 104, 105167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Xu, P.; Liu, C.; Ding, H.; Chen, P.; Fan, X.; Wang, X.; Li, S.; Peng, J.; Zhou, Z.; Shi, D.; et al. Effect of bio-fermented distillers grain on growth, intestines, and caecal microbial community in broilers. Fermentation 2025, 11, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zardinoni, G.; Huerta, A.; Boskovic Cabrol, M.; Trocino, A.; Fonsatti, E.; Ballarin, C.; Bortoletti, M.; Birolo, M.; Bordignon, F.; Stevanato, P.; et al. Gut response to the dietary supplementation with sodium butyrate in broiler chickens: Morphology and microbiota composition and predictive functional groups. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2025, 24, 123–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Yuan, J.; Ajuwon, K.M.; Adeola, O. Impact of partially defatted black soldier fly larvae meal on coccidia-infected chickens: Effects on growth performance, intestinal health, and cecal short-chain fatty acid concentrations. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2025, 16, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Dastar, B.; Ashayerizadeh, A.; Sharifi, F.; Jazi, V. Replacement of soybean meal with fermented rapeseed meal in broiler diets: Impacts on growth performance, gut health, and nutrient digestibility. Poult. Sci. 2025, 104, 105616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Dietary formulation of starter and grower/finisher maize- and wheat-based diets.
Table 1. Dietary formulation of starter and grower/finisher maize- and wheat-based diets.
Ingredient (g/kg)Maize StarterWheat StarterMaize
Grower/Finisher		Wheat
Grower/Finisher
Maize595.60-659.40-
Wheat-604.00-667.00
Rapeseed Solv Ext50.0050.0050.0050.00
Soybean meal 48311.70278.60251.20216.40
Soy oil9.334.9014.4042.80
Salt3.13.13.13.1
Sodium Bicarbonate0.90.50.90.5
Limestone8.29.678.6
Mono Calcium Phos10.97.95.31.9
Quantum Blue0.10.10.10.1
Vitamin premix 15555
Calculated values
ME (MJ/kg)12.4512.4512.9012.90
Crude protein (g/kg)215.0219.8190.0195.8
Calcium (g/kg)9.69.67.87.8
Phosphorus (g/kg)7.97.66.56.2
Available Phosphorus (g/kg)4.84.83.63.6
Crude fat (g/kg)37.348.744.056.7
Neutral Detergent Fiber (g/kg)30.830.230.329.6
Ash (g/kg)54.454.445.145.2
Lysine (g/kg)1.72.41.52.1
Methionine + Cysteine (g/kg)9.49.17.67.2
Tryptophan (g/kg)2.42.62.12.3
1 The vitamin and mineral premix contained vitamins and trace elements to meet the requirements. The premix provided (units/kg diet) retinol 3600 μg, cholecalciferol 125 μg, α-tocopherol 34 mg, menadione 3 mg, thiamine 2 mg, riboflavin 7 mg, pyridoxine 5 mg, cobalamin 15 μg, nicotinic acid 50 mg, pantothenic acid 15 mg, folic acid 1 mg, biotin 200 μg, iron 80 mg, copper 10 mg, manganese 100 mg, cobalt 0.5 mg, zinc 80 mg, iodine 1 mg, selenium 0.2 mg, and molybdenum 0.5 mg.
Table 2. Dietary treatments and identification.
Table 2. Dietary treatments and identification.
NameCerealEconase XT (0.1 g/kg)Rice Bran (75 g/kg)
Diet 1maizenono
Diet 2maizeyesno
Diet 3maizenoyes
Diet 4maizeyesyes
Diet 5wheatnono
Diet 6wheatyesno
Diet 7wheatnoyes
Diet 8wheatyesyes
Table 3. Proximate analysis of maize, wheat, rice bran, and experimental finisher diets.
Table 3. Proximate analysis of maize, wheat, rice bran, and experimental finisher diets.
DM (g/kg)GE (MJ/kg)Nitrogen (g/kg)NDF (g/kg)Starch (g/kg)
Maize88116.5530.6292444
Wheat87917.1432.3199462
Rice bran91618.9224.58254nd
Maize + RB88416.7330.17104411
Wheat + RB88217.2731.73110427
DM = dry matter; GE = gross energy; NDF = neutral detergent fibers; RB = rice bran; nd = not determined.
Table 4. Analysis of xylanase (XYL) activity (BXU/kg) 1 in the experimental diets.
Table 4. Analysis of xylanase (XYL) activity (BXU/kg) 1 in the experimental diets.
DietXYLExpected XYL
Activity		Analyzed XYL
Activity Starter		Analyzed XYL
Activity Finisher
Diet 1No0<2000<2000
Diet 2Yes16,00022,40018,000
Diet 3No0<2000<2000
Diet 4Yes16,00016,20017,000
Diet 5No0<2000<2000
Diet 6Yes16,00014,30015,600
Diet 7No0<2000<2000
Diet 8Yes16,00015,70020,100
1 One BXU is defined as the amount of enzyme that produces 1 nmol reducing sugars from birchwood xylan in one second at 50 °C and pH 5.3.
Table 5. Effect of diets on bird growth performance during starter and growing phases.
Table 5. Effect of diets on bird growth performance during starter and growing phases.
TreatmentXYLBranFI
Starter		FI
Grower		WG
Starter		WG
Grower		mFCR
Starter		mFCR
Grower
Cereal
Wheat 33.03104.0220.5262.191.6591.663
Maize 39.13105.6623.6561.071.6451.729
SEM 0.5131.3060.8351.3200.03770.0274
Bran
No 35.94108.2423.6364.421.5321.677
Yes 36.22101.4420.5458.271.7911.732
SEM 0.5131.3060.8351.3200.03770.0274
XYL
No 35.70104.5521.5161.441.7111.711
Yes 35.97105.1322.6661.831.6131.698
SEM 0.5131.3060.8351.3200.03770.0274
Cereal × Bran
Wheat No33.26110.48 b22.6666.90 c1.4851.657
Yes32.8197.57 a18.3757.48 a1.8321.680
Maize No38.10108.00 b24.6163.09 bc1.5601.708
Yes39.17105.31 ab22.7059.06 ab1.7311.785
SEM 0.7261.8470.8351.8670.05340.0388
Cereal × XYL
WheatNo 32.53104.2219.9761.831.6921.673
Yes 33.54103.8321.0662.551.6251.653
MaizeNo 38.87104.8823.0461.051.7101.749
Yes 38.41106.4324.2761.101.5811.744
SEM 0.7261.8471.1801.8670.05340.0388
XYL × Bran
NoNo35.29106.8723.1464.271.5471.681
NoYes36.10102.2319.8758.461.8551.741
YesNo36.06109.6124.1365.571.4981.674
YesYes35.88100.6521.2058.081.7081.723
SEM 0.7261.8471.1801.8670.05340.0388
Cereal × XYL × Bran
WheatNoNo32.42110.0922.0866.141.4941.654
NoYes32.6498.3417.8757.521.8901.692
YesNo34.10110.8723.2467.661.4761.640
YesYes32.9796.7918.8857.441.7741.667
MaizeNoNo38.17103.6524.2062.411.6001.708
NoYes39.56106.1121.8859.401.8201.790
YesNo38.03108.3525.0163.481.5201.708
YesYes38.78104.5223.5258.721.6411.780
SEM 1.0262.6121.6692.6400.07550.0549
Significance
Cereal <0.0010.381<0.0010.4020.806<0.001
Bran 0.717<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001
XYL 0.7120.7540.1730.7700.0870.365
Cereal × Bran 0.3000.0020.1610.0470.1060.117
Cereal × XYL 0.3190.6020.9320.8020.5640.584
XYL × Bran 0.4970.2500.8380.5650.3920.695
Cereal × XYL × Bran 0.8050.5950.7710.9790.9950.980
XYL = xylanase; FI = feed intake (g/bird/day); WG = weight gain (g/bird/day); mFCR = mortality corrected feed conversion ratio (g:g); SEM = standard error of means; a,b,c means with different superscripts within column are statistically significant.
Table 6. Effect of diets on bird growth performance during the entire study period from 0 to 28 days of age.
Table 6. Effect of diets on bird growth performance during the entire study period from 0 to 28 days of age.
TreatmentXYLBranFIWGmFCRBW
Cereal
Wheat 68.5341.351.6541212
Maize 73.0742.501.7031245
SEM 0.9421.0680.012630.5
Bran
No 72.6744.811.6321299
Yes 68.9239.441.7431159
SEM 0.9421.0680.012630.5
XYL
No 70.6441.851.6971215
Yes 70.9542.401.6641243
SEM 0.9421.0680.012630.5
Cereal × Bran
Wheat No72.03 b44.881.6051311
Yes65.02 a37.831.7111113
Maize No73.30 b43.941.6501287
Yes72.83 b41.061.7571206
SEM 1.3321.5110.017943.1
Cereal × XYL
WheatNo 68.2640.831.6651199
Yes 68.7941.881.6431225
MaizeNo 73.0242.091.7381232
Yes 73.1142.911.7041261
SEM 1.3321.5110.017943.1
XYL × Bran
NoNo71.9243.711.6351279
NoYes69.3639.201.7681152
YesNo73.4145.111.6291320
YesYes68.4939.681.7181166
SEM 1.3321.5110.017943.1
Cereal × XYL × Bran
WheatNoNo71.1945.651.5961288
NoYes65.3337.581.7341109
YesNo72.8745.691.5961334
YesYes64.7238.071.6891117
MaizeNoNo72.6543.351.6741269
NoYes73.3840.821.7861195
YesNo73.9644.531.6621306
YesYes72.2741.291.7461216
SEM 1.8842.1370.025360.9
Significance
Cereal 0.0010.290<0.0010.264
Bran 0.008<0.001<0.001<0.001
XYL 0.8150.5910.1210.367
Cereal × Bran 0.0190.0580.7790.063
Cereal × XYL 0.8700.7830.7360.970
XYL × Bran 0.3810.9510.2220.660
Cereal × XYL × Bran 0.9800.7750.9650.870
XYL = xylanase; FI = feed intake (g/bird/day); WG = weight gain (g/bird/day); mFCR = mortality corrected feed conversion ratio (g:g); BW = body weight at 28 days of age (g/bird); SEM = standard error of means; a,b means with different superscripts within column are statistically significant.
Table 7. Effect of diets on metabolizable energy and nutrient availability (data on energy and retention coefficients is based on three days excreta collection; data on digestibility coefficients, excluding fiber digestibility, is based on last day ileal digesta collection).
Table 7. Effect of diets on metabolizable energy and nutrient availability (data on energy and retention coefficients is based on three days excreta collection; data on digestibility coefficients, excluding fiber digestibility, is based on last day ileal digesta collection).
TreatmentXYLBranAMEnDMRNRNDFDECRSDND
Cereal
Wheat 11.700.6810.5620.19819.040.9510.728
Maize 11.670.7030.6150.12219.620.9420.713
SEM 0.0550.00320.00600.01270.1510.00170.0065
Bran
No 11.890.7120.6100.19019.070.9480.725
Yes 11.480.6730.5680.13019.590.9450.715
SEM 0.0550.00320.00600.01270.1510.00170.0065
XYL
No 11.600.6840.5830.14319.340.9440.720
Yes 11.780.6930.5950.17719.310.9490.721
SEM 0.0550.00320.00600.01270.1510.00170.0065
Cereal × Bran
Wheat No11.930.7030.5850.25118.810.9510.729
Yes11.480.6540.5390.14519.270.9510.727
Maize No11.850.7230.6340.12819.330.9450.721
Yes11.490.6840.5970.11619.910.9430.704
SEM 0.0780.00530.00850.01800.2140.00250.0092
Cereal × XYL
WheatNo 11.580.6720.5580.16318.930.9470.721
Yes 11.830.6810.5670.23419.150.9560.735
MaizeNo 11.620.6910.6080.12419.750.9420.718
Yes 11.720.7050.6230.11919.480.9430.707
SEM 0.0780.00530.00850.01800.2140.00250.0092
XYL × Bran
NoNo11.730.7050.5930.14818.950.9450.711 ab
NoYes11.460.6730.5730.23119.190.9440.728 ab
YesNo12.040.7230.6360.13919.740.9510.739 b
YesYes11.510.6720.5640.12219.440.9470.702 a
SEM 0.0780.00530.00850.01800.2140.00250.0092
Cereal × XYL × Bran
WheatNoNo11.61 ab0.681 ab0.553 b0.166 a19.510.9440.701
NoYes11.54 ab0.663 ab0.563 b0.160 a20.000.9490.741
YesNo12.25 c0.714 cd0.618 cd0.337 b19.140.9580.757
YesYes11.42 a0.644 a0.517 a0.130 a19.820.9530.712
MaizeNoNo11.87 b0.711 cd0.633 d0.131 a18.390.9460.721
NoYes11.38 a0.673 ab0.583 bc0.117 a19.480.9370.715
YesNo11.84 b0.722 d0.635 d0.125 a19.240.9440.722
YesYes11.61 ab0.691 bc0.611 cd0.114 a19.060.9420.692
SEM 0.1110.00720.01210.02550.4280.00350.0131
Significance
Cereal 0.679<0.001<0.001<0.0010.010<0.0010.109
Bran <0.001<0.001<0.0010.0020.0190.2300.287
XYL 0.0270.0960.1620.0750.8890.0580.896
Cereal × Bran 0.5960.8310.6280.0130.7630.2480.415
Cereal × XYL 0.3220.6190.7430.0440.2650.1230.188
XYL × Bran 0.1300.2000.0190.0090.2110.6540.006
Cereal × XYL × Bran 0.0020.002<0.0010.0070.0950.0880.113
XYL = xylanase; AMEn = nitrogen-corrected apparent metabolizable energy (MJ/kg); DMR = dry matter retention; NR = nitrogen retention; NDFD = neutral detergent fiber digestibility; ECR = energy conversion ratio (MJ/kg); SD = starch digestibility; ND = nitrogen digestibility; SEM = standard error of means; a,b,c,d means with different superscripts within column are statistically significant.
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

Tukša, M.; Mansbridge, S.C.; Bedford, M.R.; Rose, S.P.; Pirgozliev, V.R. Broiler Chicken Response to Xylanase and Rice Bran Supplementation in Wheat- and Maize-Based Diets. Poultry 2025, 4, 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/poultry4030041

AMA Style

Tukša M, Mansbridge SC, Bedford MR, Rose SP, Pirgozliev VR. Broiler Chicken Response to Xylanase and Rice Bran Supplementation in Wheat- and Maize-Based Diets. Poultry. 2025; 4(3):41. https://doi.org/10.3390/poultry4030041

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tukša, Marko, Stephen C. Mansbridge, Michael R. Bedford, Stephen P. Rose, and Vasil R. Pirgozliev. 2025. "Broiler Chicken Response to Xylanase and Rice Bran Supplementation in Wheat- and Maize-Based Diets" Poultry 4, no. 3: 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/poultry4030041

APA Style

Tukša, M., Mansbridge, S. C., Bedford, M. R., Rose, S. P., & Pirgozliev, V. R. (2025). Broiler Chicken Response to Xylanase and Rice Bran Supplementation in Wheat- and Maize-Based Diets. Poultry, 4(3), 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/poultry4030041

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop