ArticleVeterinary medicine and science2024
Article in Veterinary medicine and science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- In silico genome mining and characterization of putative horse feces-derived bacterial phytases as potential monogastric animal feed additive candidates.Journal, genetic engineering & biotechnology · 2026Article
- Effects of Feeding Strategies on Gut Microbial Communities in Donkeys: A Comprehensive Narrative Review.Veterinary sciences · 2025Review
- Effects of selenium enrichment on fermentation characteristics, selenium content and microbial community of alfalfa silage.BMC plant biology · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundForages are widely used in horse diets. Different in vitro techniques are being tried to determine the fermentation levels of forages in the horse digestive tract.
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the digestion levels of four dry forages commonly used in horse nutrition: alfalfa herbage, meadow hay, wheat straw, and Italian ryegrass. In vitro total digestion (TDT), in vitro Sunvold-large intestine digestion (SDT) and in vitro Menke-large intestine digestion (MDT) techniques were compared.
methodsThe study determined in vitro true dry matter digestion (T-DMD), in vitro true organic matter digestion (T-OMD) and in vitro true neutral detergent fibre digestion (T-NDFD). Additionally, concentrations of straight short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs; acetic acid - AA, propionic acid , butyric acid, and valeric acid ) and branched short-chain fatty acids (BSCFA) were assessed.
resultsThe highest in vitro T-DMD, T-OMD and T-NDFD values were determined by the in vitro TDT for the four forages (p < 0.05). In vitro T-DMD and T-OMD values of alfalfa herbage were higher than those of Italian ryegrass, meadow hay and wheat straw in the in vitro TDT (p < 0.001). In addition, in vitro T-DMD and T-OMD values of alfalfa herbage in the in vitro SDT were higher than those of meadow hay and wheat straw (p < 0.001). In the in vitro TDT, the molarity of AA, total SCFA and BSCFA in the digestion fluid of alfalfa herbage was higher than those of other forages (p < 0.05).
conclusionThe in vitro total enzymatic + fermentative digestion technique for horse forages revealed higher values than the in vitro fermentative digestion techniques. In general, the higher the non-structural carbohydrate and crude protein contents in the forage, the higher the results of the in vitro TDT compared to the other techniques.
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.