Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34977388›Full record

ReviewAnimal nutrition (Zhongguo xu mu shou yi xue hui)2022

Methodologies for energy evaluation of pig and poultry feeds: A review.

Jean Noblet, Shu-Biao Wu, Mingan Choct

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animal nutrition (Zhongguo xu mu shou yi xue hui), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 46 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 86 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jean NobletINRAE, UMR 1348 PEGASE, 35590 St-Gilles, France.
Shu-Biao WuSchool of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.
Mingan ChoctSchool of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.
University of New England · AUInstitut Agro Rennes-Angers · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The cost of feed represents an important part of the total cost in swine and poultry production (>60%) with energy accounting for at least 70% of feed cost. The energy value of ingredients or compound feeds can be estimated as digestible (DE), metabolisable (ME) and net energy (NE) in pigs and ME and NE in poultry. The current paper reviews the different methods for evaluating DE, ME and NE of feeds for monogastric animals and their difficulties and limits, with a focus on NE. In pigs and poultry, energy digestibility depends on the chemical characteristics of the feed, but also on technology (pelleting, for instance) and animal factors such as their health and body weight. The ME value includes the energy losses in urine that are directly dependent on the proportion of dietary N excreted in urine resulting in the concept of ME adjusted for a zero N balance (MEn) in poultry. For poultry, the concept of true ME (TME, TMEn), which excludes the endogenous fecal and urinary energy losses from the excreta energy, was also developed. The measurement of dietary NE is more complex, and NE values of a given feed depend on the animal and environmental factors and also measurement and calculation methods. The combination of NE values of diets obtained under standardised conditions allows calculating NE prediction equations that are applicable to both ingredients and compound feeds. The abundance of energy concepts, especially for poultry, and the numerous feed and animal factors of variation related to energy digestibility or ME utilisation for NE suggest that attention must be paid to the experimental conditions for evaluating DE, ME or NE content. This also suggests the necessity of standardisations, one of them being, as implemented in pigs, an adjustment of ME values in poultry for an N retention representative of modern production conditions (MEs). In conclusion, this review illustrates that, in addition to numerous technical difficulties for evaluating energy in pigs and poultry, the absolute energy values depend on feed and animal factors, the environment, and the methods and concepts. Finally, as implemented in pigs, the use of NE values should be the objective of a more reliable energy system for poultry feeds.

Indexed as

Energy valueFeedMethodologyPigPoultry

Identifiers

PMID34977388
PMCPMC8685914
OpenAlexW3206907515

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.