Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38438873›Full record

ReviewJournal of animal science and biotechnology2024

Novel uses of ensiled biomasses as feedstocks for green biorefineries.

Marketta Rinne

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of animal science and biotechnology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marketta RinneNatural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Jokioinen, Finland. marketta.rinne@luke.fi.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6323-0661
Natural Resources Institute Finland · FI

Funding

Maa- ja MetsätalousministeriÖ VN/7679/2021
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Perennial forage plants are efficient utilizers of solar radiation and nutrients so that there is a lot of scope to increase the production of green biomass in many areas. Currently, grasses are mainly used as feeds for ruminants and equines, but there could be higher added value use for several components of the green biomass. Interest in green biorefining has risen recently motivated by the increased sustainability pressures and need to break the reliance on fossil fuels. Novel products derived from grass, such as paper and packaging, nanofibers, animal bedding, novel protein feeds, extracted proteins, biochemicals, nutraceuticals, bioactive compounds, biogas and biochar could create new sustainable business opportunities in rural areas. Most green biorefinery concepts focus on using fresh green biomass as the feedstock, but preservation of it by ensiling would provide several benefits such as all-year-around availability of the feedstock and increased stability of the press juice and press cake. The major difference between fresh and ensiled grass is the conversion of water soluble carbohydrates into fermentation end products, mainly lactic and acetic acids, that lower the pH of the silage so that it becomes stable in anaerobic conditions. This has some important consequences on the processability and quality of products, which are partly positive and partly negative, e.g., degradation of protein into peptides, amino acids and ammonia. These aspects are discussed in this review.

Indexed as

AdditiveFermentationLiquid-solid separationProteinSilage

Identifiers

PMID38438873
PMCPMC10913225
OpenAlexW4392756931

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.