In one paragraphArticle in Tropical animal health and production, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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 registryThe 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 literatureWho cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
4 · The recordCorrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
5 · Who and what moneyAuthors and funding
13 authors.
Omar AliFaculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Postgraduate Program in Animal Science, Federal University of Mato Grosso Do Sul, UFMS, Campo Grande, MS, Brazil.
Luciana JungesFaculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Postgraduate Program in Animal Science, Federal University of Mato Grosso Do Sul, UFMS, Campo Grande, MS, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4248-1143 Eva Nara Oliveira GomesFaculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Postgraduate Program in Animal Science, Federal University of Mato Grosso Do Sul, UFMS, Campo Grande, MS, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7281-2409 Juliana Oliveira BatistotiFaculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Postgraduate Program in Animal Science, Federal University of Mato Grosso Do Sul, UFMS, Campo Grande, MS, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9243-1857 Anderson Ramires CandidoFaculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Postgraduate Program in Animal Science, Federal University of Mato Grosso Do Sul, UFMS, Campo Grande, MS, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6842-9108 Fernanda de Kássia GomesFaculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Postgraduate Program in Animal Science, Federal University of Mato Grosso Do Sul, UFMS, Campo Grande, MS, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3298-9410 Rafael de Oliveira LimaFaculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Postgraduate Program in Animal Science, Federal University of Mato Grosso Do Sul, UFMS, Campo Grande, MS, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5959-649X Amarildo Pedro da SilvaFaculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Postgraduate Program in Animal Science, Federal University of Mato Grosso Do Sul, UFMS, Campo Grande, MS, Brazil.
Jeniffer da Cruz SiqueiraFaculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Postgraduate Program in Animal Science, Federal University of Mato Grosso Do Sul, UFMS, Campo Grande, MS, Brazil.
Luís Carlos Vinhas ÍtavoFaculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Postgraduate Program in Animal Science, Federal University of Mato Grosso Do Sul, UFMS, Campo Grande, MS, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6895-8483 Gelson Dos Santos DifanteFaculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Postgraduate Program in Animal Science, Federal University of Mato Grosso Do Sul, UFMS, Campo Grande, MS, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6610-8952 Alexandre Menezes DiasFaculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Postgraduate Program in Animal Science, Federal University of Mato Grosso Do Sul, UFMS, Campo Grande, MS, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4267-9421 Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
6 · The paper itselfAbstract
This study aimed to evaluate the effect of regrowth ages and the use of powdered molasses on nutritional characteristics of Zuri grass (Megathyrsus maximus) silages. A completely randomized design was used, in a 3 × 3 factorial scheme: three regrowth ages (65, 80, and 95 days) and three inclusion levels of powdered molasses of sugarcane (0, 20, and 40 g), with four replications. The chemical composition, fermentation parameters, in vitro digestibility, and in vitro degradation kinetics of the silages were evaluated. Greater dry matter (DM) contents were observed in silages with 95 days with 40 g of molasses. The 65 days of regrowth silages with 40 g of molasses had greater in vitro digestibility of dry matter compared to other treatments. However, lower pH values, N-NH
Indexed as
MolassesSilageAnimalsFermentationKineticsNutritive ValuePoaceaePowdersPowdersAdditiveFermentationGrassQualityRegrowth age
What OpenQuestion holds
Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390