↓ Skip to main content

Beneficial microbial signals from alternative feed ingredients: a way to improve sustainability of broiler production?

Overview of attention for article published in Microbial Biotechnology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Beneficial microbial signals from alternative feed ingredients: a way to improve sustainability of broiler production?
Published in
Microbial Biotechnology, August 2017
DOI 10.1111/1751-7915.12794
Pubmed ID
Authors

Filip Van Immerseel, Venessa Eeckhaut, Robert J. Moore, Mingan Choct, Richard Ducatelle

Abstract

More sustainable broiler meat production can be facilitated by the increased use of cheap by-products and local crops as feed ingredients, while not affecting animal performance and intestinal health, or even improving intestinal health, so that antibiotic usage is further reduced. To achieve this, knowledge of the relationship between the taxonomic and functional microbiota composition and intestinal health is required. In addition, the relationship between the novel feed sources, the substrates present in these feed sources, and the breakdown by enzymes and microbial networks can be crucial, because this can form the basis for development of tailored feed-type specific solutions for optimal digestion and animal performance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 17%
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 3 6%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 10 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 31%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 6 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Environmental Science 2 4%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 13 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 May 2018.
All research outputs
#4,549,230
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Microbial Biotechnology
#438
of 1,548 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,758
of 324,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microbial Biotechnology
#31
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,548 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,511 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.