Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37085272›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2023

Nutritional values of cottonseed meal from different sources fed to gestating and non-pregnant sows.

Yong Zhuo, Xiangyang Zou, Ya Wang, Xuemei Jiang, Mengmeng Sun, Shengyu Xu, Yan Lin, Lun Hua, Jian Li, Bin Feng and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Nutritional values of soybean meal from different sources in multiparous sows.Animal nutrition (Zhongguo xu mu shou yi xue hui) · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

13 authors.

Yong ZhuoInstitute of Animal Nutrition, Key Laboratory for Animal Disease-Resistance Nutrition of Ministry of Education of China and Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, Sichuan 611130, China.
Xiangyang ZouInstitute of Animal Nutrition, Key Laboratory for Animal Disease-Resistance Nutrition of Ministry of Education of China and Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, Sichuan 611130, China.
Ya WangInstitute of Animal Nutrition, Key Laboratory for Animal Disease-Resistance Nutrition of Ministry of Education of China and Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, Sichuan 611130, China.
Xuemei JiangInstitute of Animal Nutrition, Key Laboratory for Animal Disease-Resistance Nutrition of Ministry of Education of China and Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, Sichuan 611130, China.
Mengmeng SunInstitute of Animal Nutrition, Key Laboratory for Animal Disease-Resistance Nutrition of Ministry of Education of China and Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, Sichuan 611130, China.
Shengyu XuInstitute of Animal Nutrition, Key Laboratory for Animal Disease-Resistance Nutrition of Ministry of Education of China and Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, Sichuan 611130, China.
Yan LinInstitute of Animal Nutrition, Key Laboratory for Animal Disease-Resistance Nutrition of Ministry of Education of China and Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, Sichuan 611130, China.
Lun HuaInstitute of Animal Nutrition, Key Laboratory for Animal Disease-Resistance Nutrition of Ministry of Education of China and Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, Sichuan 611130, China.
Jian LiInstitute of Animal Nutrition, Key Laboratory for Animal Disease-Resistance Nutrition of Ministry of Education of China and Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, Sichuan 611130, China.
Bin FengInstitute of Animal Nutrition, Key Laboratory for Animal Disease-Resistance Nutrition of Ministry of Education of China and Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, Sichuan 611130, China.ORCID 0000-0002-9581-5418
Zhengfeng FangInstitute of Animal Nutrition, Key Laboratory for Animal Disease-Resistance Nutrition of Ministry of Education of China and Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, Sichuan 611130, China.
Lianqiang CheInstitute of Animal Nutrition, Key Laboratory for Animal Disease-Resistance Nutrition of Ministry of Education of China and Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, Sichuan 611130, China.
De WuInstitute of Animal Nutrition, Key Laboratory for Animal Disease-Resistance Nutrition of Ministry of Education of China and Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, Sichuan 611130, China.ORCID 0000-0002-8348-4199

Funding

China Agriculture Research System CARS-35Major Scientific and Technological Special Project of Sichuan Province 2021ZDZX0009Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of the People's Republic of China 125D0203National Key Research and Development Program of China 2021YFD1300202
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study set out to determine the apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of the nutrients and energy in six cottonseed meal (CSM) feedstuffs fed to pregnant and non-pregnant sows. The six types of CSM were: two expelled CSMs with crude protein (CP) levels of 40.67% and 44.64%, and four solvent-extracted CSMs with CP levels of 45.18%, 51.16%, 56.44%, and 59.63%. Fourteen gestating sows (at the fourth parity with body weights of 220.6 ± 18.4 kg at days 30 of gestation) and 14 non-pregnant sows (after the third parity with body weights of 219 ± 14.6 kg) were assigned to a replicated 7 × 3 Youden square design with seven diets and three periods. The seven diets included an entirely corn-based diet and six diets each containing 20.0% of the six CSMs tested. Each period included a 5-d acclimation to the experimental diets, followed by a 5-d period during which urine and feces were collected. Significant differences were found among the six CSM diets, regardless of reproductive stage, regarding 1) the ATTD of neutral detergent fiber (NDF) (P < 0.05) and 2) the ATTD of dry matter (DM), organic matter (OM), and CP and the gross energy (GE) (P < 0.01). Non-pregnant sows had a greater ATTD of OM and CP (P < 0.01) compared with gestating sows. The digestible energy (DE) and metabolizable energy (ME) of the six CSM samples ranged from 12.48 to 17.15 MJ/kg and 11.35 to 15.88 MJ/kg, respectively, for non-pregnant sows, and from 12.86 to 16.41 MJ/kg and 12.43 to 14.72 MJ/kg, respectively, for gestating sows. However, the DE, ME, and ME:DE ratios of each CSM were similar between gestating and non-pregnant sows. DE and ME were negatively correlated with NDF and ADF, respectively, but were positively corrected with CP level (P < 0.01). Collectively, the DE, ME, and nutrient digestibility of CSM varied greatly according to the chemical compositions, and CSMs with higher protein and lower fiber levels had greater DE and ME levels.

Indexed as

Cottonseed OilDigestionAnimal FeedAnimal Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaAnimalsDietEnergy MetabolismFemaleNutritive ValuePregnancySwineCottonseed Oilavailable energycottonseed mealdigestibilitysows

Identifiers

PMID37085272
PMCPMC10199790

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.