ArticleJDS communications2022
Comparison of methods to estimate ruminal degradation and intestinal digestibility of protein in hydrolyzed feather meal with or without blood.
Article in JDS communications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hydrolyzed feather meal (HFM) is a feedstuff high in rumen undegraded protein (RUP) that can be used as an effective source of metabolizable protein for dairy cattle. Because the production process may vary, the rumen degradability and intestinal digestibility of HFM may also vary. Additionally, some processes may incorporate additional blood into the final product to result in feather meal with poultry blood. To determine the rumen degradability and intestinal digestibility of these products, several laboratory assays can be used; the common assays are the mobile bag (MOB), modified three-step (MTS), and Ross (ROS) assays. Although all 3 assays determine RUP digestibility, they vary in whether they are performed in situ, in vitro, or both. The objective of this study was to evaluate the ruminal degradability and intestinal digestibility of HFM originating from processes that differ in their inclusion of blood, and to compare the MOB, MTS, and ROS assays. Ten samples of HFM, which were identified by the suppliers as HFM with little blood (n = 5) and with more blood (n = 5), were spot-sampled, collected from 10 production plants across the United States, and subjected to all 3 assays. Assay type had an effect on RUP, total-tract crude protein (CP) digestibility, and the amount of RUP digested. A significant effect was observed on RDP and RUP concentrations for blood inclusion; no effect was detected for total-tract CP digestibility. We found no difference in RUP digestibility for assay or blood inclusion. There was also no interaction of the effect of assay or blood inclusion. Results suggest that even though there are differences in chemical composition in HFM associated with the inclusion of blood, such as ash and crude fat, few if any differences are observed in intestinal digestion of protein. Although the assays varied in their estimates of rumen undegraded protein, MOB and MTS yielded the most similar values. However, all 3 assays resulted in similar estimates of RUP digestibility.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.