ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2024
Simulated Swine Digestion and Gut Microbiota Fermentation of Hydrolyzed Copra Meal.
Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2024. 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the effects of hydrolyzed copra meal (HCM) inclusion at 1% on its in vitro digestibility and the microbiota and cecum fermentation using the gut microbiota of weaned swine, targeting microbial community and short-chain fatty acids (SCF). For this reason, three treatments were considered: control (no copra meal), 1% non-hydrolyzed copra meal (CM), and 1% HCM. Non-defatted copra meal was hydrolyzed and analyzed (reducing sugars and total carbohydrates) in our laboratory. For digestion, microbiota identification, and fermentation assays, fresh fecal samples from two weaned pigs (1 month old) were used. Three replicates of each treatment were employed. HCM was more digestible, with approximately 0.68 g of hydrolysate recovered after simulated digestion compared to 0.82 g of hydrolysate recovered from CM. This was shown by Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) images. Also, the three swine shared the majority of microbial species identified at the phylum and family levels. There were no differences (
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.