ArticleAnimal bioscience2025
Novel equations for estimating gross energy in feed ingredients for non-ruminants.
Article in Animal bioscience, 2025. 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.
- Models for energy utilization of feeds for nursery and growing pigs based on conventional and multi-sample simultaneous in vitro procedures.Animal bioscience · 2026Article
- Nutritional Characterisation of Acheta domesticus at Different Developmental Stages for Application in Animal Feed.Journal of animal physiology and animal nutrition · 2026Article
- Equations for estimating ileal amino acid digestibility and digestible energy in bakery byproducts fed to nursery pigs.Animal bioscience · 2026Article
- Dampwood TermiteThe journal of poultry science · 2026Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe present study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of previous equations for estimating gross energy (GE) in feed ingredients and to develop the novel equations.
methodsA total of 2,279 ingredient samples consisted of barley (n = 58), corn (n = 319), corn distillers dried grains with solubles (n = 13), corn gluten feed (n = 583), copra expellers (n = 156), copra meal (n = 234), cottonseed meal (n = 12), palm kernel expellers (n = 504), rapeseed meal (n = 114), soybean meal (n = 138), wheat (n = 70), and wheat bran (n = 78) were analyzed for dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), ether extract (EE), crude fiber, ash, and GE. The 2,279 ingredient samples were used for evaluating the previous equations and developing novel equations. Using data from 62 ingredients in the swine NRC publication in 2012, the old equations and the novel equations were evaluated.
resultsBased on the evaluation using 2,279 samples, the equation developed by Ewan in 1989 underestimates GE by 218 kcal/kg DM (standard error = 4 and p<0.001) on average and underestimates more for low-GE ingredients (linear bias = -0.121; standard error = 0.025 and p<0.001). The equation reported by Sauvant, Perez, and Tran in 2004 also underestimates GE by 135 kcal/kg DM (standard error = 4 and p<0.001) on average. Novel equations for estimating GE concentration (kcal/kg DM) in feeds were developed: GE = 4,299+7×CP +53×EE, with R2 = 0.342 and p<0.001; GE = 4,341+11×CP+54×EE-24×ash, with R2 = 0.372 and p<0.001, where all independent variables are in % DM. In the validation using 62 feed ingredients in the NRC publication, the equations developed in the present study were accurate whereas the previous equations were not.
conclusionThe novel equations developed in the present study fairly accurately estimate gross energy concentrations in concentrate feeds.
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.