Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40013300›Full record

ArticleJournal of advanced veterinary and animal research2024

Muhammad Khairul Bashar, Eva Haese, Nasrin Sultana, Markus Rodehutscord

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of advanced veterinary and animal research, 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Management Strategies for Napier Grass (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    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

4 authors.

Muhammad Khairul BasharDepartment of Animal Nutrition, Institute of Animal Science, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4867-5483
Eva HaeseDepartment of Animal Nutrition, Institute of Animal Science, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7795-1750
Nasrin SultanaBangladesh Livestock Research Institute, Savar, Bangladesh.
Markus RodehutscordDepartment of Animal Nutrition, Institute of Animal Science, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3156-7889

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This research aimed to evaluate Materials and Methods: Eighteen feedstuffs, including roughages (3 crop residues, 2 silages, 3 common grasses, and 4 leguminous fodder) and 6 concentrates, were evaluated using the Hohenheim Gas Test. Approximately 200 mg of feed were incubated with a rumen fluid-buffer solution for 72 h to test gas production (GP) and 120 mg for 24 h to determine the CH Results: Leguminous fodder contained the highest crude protein (CP) concentration (166-314 gm/kg dry matter (DM)), followed by common grasses (52-147 gm/kg DM) and silages (94-106 gm/kg DM), but the lowest concentration of detergent fiber fractions. Crushed wheat and maize had higher dOM and ME (87.8% and 90.9%, and 14.4 MJ/kg DM and 13.8 MJ/kg DM, respectively), and their CH Conclusion: Our result provides an opportunity to select feed ingredients with higher digestibility and concurrently less CH

Indexed as

In vitro digestibilitymethane emissionsnutritional compositiontropical feedstuffs

Identifiers

PMID40013300
PMCPMC11855440

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.