Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36139179›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2022

Laboratory Analyses Used to Define the Nutritional Parameters and Quality Indexes of Some Unusual Forages.

Sonia Tassone, Sabah Mabrouki, Salvatore Barbera, Sara Glorio Patrucco

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Sonia TassoneDepartment of Agriculture, Forestry, and Food Sciences, University of Turin, 10095 Grugliasco, Italy.
Sabah MabroukiDepartment of Agriculture, Forestry, and Food Sciences, University of Turin, 10095 Grugliasco, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3482-4553
Salvatore BarberaDepartment of Agriculture, Forestry, and Food Sciences, University of Turin, 10095 Grugliasco, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0897-7962
Sara Glorio PatruccoDepartment of Agriculture, Forestry, and Food Sciences, University of Turin, 10095 Grugliasco, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The quality of a forage influences the production of animals, and it can be defined in many ways. Laboratory analyses are important tools because they can be used to indicate the quality of the forages, and they represent a relatively quick way of defining their nutritive values. However, specific quality indexes are necessary to evaluate and rank forages. The quality of conventional forages is predicted by different indexes, according to whether they are legumes or grasses. However, no indications are given about what formulae should be used for unusual forages. In the present study, laboratory analyses have been conducted on three unusual crops belonging to three different botanical families (amaranth, borage, and camelina) at four growth stages, and conventional quality indexes have been calculated and applied to establish their quality. The obtained results have shown that the nutritive value of the unusual forages modified during the growth, although they always maintained a high quality. Hence, the Relative Feed Value of unusual forages can be measured using the ADF content or digestibility value. The Relative Forage Quality, calculated with the legume formula, seems more appropriate for the considered unusual forages as it was able to reveal any changes that took place during maturity.

Indexed as

laboratory analysesmeasured and calculated parametersquality indexesunusual forages

Identifiers

PMID36139179
PMCPMC9494946

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.