Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28423885›Full record

ArticleAsian-Australasian journal of animal sciences2017

Effect of fermented biogas residue on growth performance, serum biochemical parameters, and meat quality in pigs.

Xiang Xu, Lv-Mu Li, Bin Li, Wen-Jie Guo, Xiao-Ling Ding, Fa-Zhi Xu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Asian-Australasian journal of animal sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Effects of Dietary Probiotic (Frontiers in veterinary science · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Fermented Feed Modulates Meat Quality and Promotes the Growth ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Xiang XuSchool of Animal Science and Technology, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei, Anhui 230036, China.
Lv-Mu LiSchool of Animal Science and Technology, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei, Anhui 230036, China.
Bin LiAnhui Ruifuxiang Food Co. Ltd., Bozhou, Anhui 236800, China.
Wen-Jie GuoAnhui Ruifuxiang Food Co. Ltd., Bozhou, Anhui 236800, China.
Xiao-Ling DingSchool of Animal Science and Technology, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei, Anhui 230036, China.
Fa-Zhi XuSchool of Animal Science and Technology, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei, Anhui 230036, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study investigated the effect of fermented biogas residue (FBR) of wheat on the performance, serum biochemical parameters, and meat quality in pigs.

methodsWe selected 128 pigs (the mean initial body weight was 40.24±3.08 kg) and randomly allocated them to 4 groups (1 control group and 3 treatment groups) with 4 replicates per group and 8 pigs per pen in a randomized complete block design based on initial body weight and sex. The control group received a corn-soybean meal-based diet, the treatment group fed diets containing 5%, 10%, and 15% FBR, respectively (abbreviated as FBR5, FBR10, and FBR15, respectively). Every group received equivalent-energy and nitrogen diets. The test lasted 60 days and was divided into early and late stages. Blood and carcass samples were obtained on 60 d. Meat quality was collected from two pigs per pen.

resultsDuring the late stage, the average daily feed intake and average daily gain of the treatment groups was greater than that of the control group (p<0.05). During the entire experiment, the average daily gain of the treatment groups was higher than that of the control group (p<0.05). Fermented biomass residue did not significantly affect serum biochemical parameters or meat quality, but did affect amino acid profiles in pork. The contents of Asp, Arg, Tyr, Phe, Leu, Thr, Ser, Lys, Pro, Ala, essential amino acids, non-essential amino acids, and total amino acids in pork of FBR5 and FBR10 were greater than those of the control group (p<0.05).

conclusionThese combined results suggest that feeding FBR could increase the average daily gain and average daily feed intake in pigs and the content of several flavor-promoting amino acids.

Indexed as

Fermented Biogas ResidueGrowth PerformanceMeat QualityPigsSerum Biochemical Parameters

Identifiers

PMID28423885
PMCPMC5582332

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.