ArticleVeterinary world2025
Evaluating pellet and mash rumen protected soybean groat on nutrient digestibility, animal performance, carcass characteristics, and meat quality of fat-tailed sheep.
Article in Veterinary world, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aim: Optimizing feed strategies is critical in livestock production to enhance animal performance, nutrient utilization, and meat quality. Feed form, such as pelleted, mash, or blended forms, significantly influences these parameters. Investigating the optimal feed form for fat-tailed sheep production can improve economic outcomes and meat quality. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of dietary feed forms - pelleted (P10), mash (M10), and a blended form consisting of 50% pellet and 50% mash (M5P5) - on nutrient digestibility, animal performance, carcass characteristics, and meat quality attributes in fat-tailed sheep. Materials and Methods: Fifteen fat-tailed lambs were randomly allocated to three experimental groups receiving either 100% mash feed (M10), a 50:50 mixture of mash and pelleted feed (M5P5), or 100% pelleted feed (P10) for a 90-day feeding trial. Feed intake parameters (dry matter, organic matter, crude protein, crude fat, crude fiber, and nitrogen-free extract) were recorded. Nutrient digestibility was assessed, and production performance measures, including body weight gain, average daily gain (ADG), feed efficiency ratio (FER), and feeding cost per gain were determined. Post-slaughter carcass traits, proximate meat composition, cholesterol content, pH, water-holding capacity (WHC), cooking loss, and shear force values were evaluated. Results: Dietary feed forms had no significant impact (p > 0.05) on feed intake, nutrient digestibility, ADG, or FER. However, significant differences (p < 0.05) emerged in carcass traits, notably with increased hot carcass weights observed in M5P5 (19.57 kg) and P10 (19.40 kg) compared to M10 (17.10 kg). Feed form significantly influenced meat-to-bone ratio, with M5P5 and P10 groups exhibiting superior ratios relative to the mash-fed group. Meat quality analysis indicated significant variations (p < 0.05) in WHC and cooking loss; the M5P5 group demonstrated enhanced WHC (63.2%) and reduced cooking loss (18.4%) compared to other treatments. Proximate composition, cholesterol content, pH, and shear force were unaffected by feed form (p > 0.05). Conclusion: The blended mash-pellet diet (M5P5) effectively enhanced specific meat quality parameters, notably WHC and cooking loss, without compromising growth performance or nutrient utilization efficiency. These findings indicate potential for the strategic use of blended feeds in fat-tailed sheep production to optimize meat quality attributes, although further studies examining long-term economic and metabolic impacts are recommended.
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.