ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2023
Nutritional quality of indigenous legume browse in southern Ethiopia: farmers' preference and correlation of local valuation of feed value with scientific indicators.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Seasonal feed deficits and low nutritional quality of major feed resources affect ruminant production in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia.Veterinary and animal science · 2026Article
- Effect ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Developing a technology for fodder trees and shrubs tailored to farmers' preferences is best done with their input, perceptions, and interests in mind. Objective: The research aimed to determine farmer preferences for indigenous legumes, fodder trees, and shrubs (ILFTS) and to examine the relationship between feed valuation and scientific parameters. Methods: A focus group discussion (FGD) was conducted with 10 farmers in each agroecological zone to determine the benchmarks for the preference ratings. The respondent farmers used the preference score sheet to rate all ILFTS on an individual basis. Twenty farmers with extensive experience in ILFTS took part in the preference score rating of each plant species in each agroecosystems. Dry matter (DM), organic matter (OM), ash, crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), acid detergent lignin (ADL), metabolizable energy (ME) and condensed tannin (CT) content of the samples were determined. The standard two-stage Results and discussions: Farmers evaluated the ILFTS using a variety of parameters, according to the study (feed value, growth rate, biomass output, compatibility, and multifunctionality). The farmers' ILFTS preference score on the evaluation criteria differed considerably ( Conclusions: Farmers' indigenous knowledge of feed value is therefore relevant for judging the nutritive value of the ILFTS and could complement the scientific indicators.
Indexed as
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.