| Title |
Feeding behavior of feedlot lambs fed diets containing levels of cassava wastewater
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Tropical Animal Health and Production, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11250-017-1487-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paula de Aguiar Silva, Gleidson Giordano Pinto de Carvalho, Aureliano José Vieira Pires, Stefanie Alvarenga Santos, Douglas dos Santos Pina, Robério Rodrigues Silva, Carlindo Santos Rodrigues, Luis Henrique Almeida de Matos, Carlos Emanuel Eiras, Daiane Novais-Eiras, Wilson Souza Nunes |
| Abstract |
In this study, we evaluated the effects of including cassava wastewater in the diet on the feeding behavior of feedlot lambs in 35 male uncastrated Santa Inês × Dorper crossbred lambs at an approximate age of 3 months, with an average live weight of 20.0 ± 3.4 kg. Diets were formulated with hay of cassava shoots (roughage) and a concentrate based on corn and soybean, with a roughage:concentrate ratio of 50:50, plus inclusion of cassava wastewater at the levels of 0, 12, 24, 36, or 48 g/kg of the total diet. Feeding behavior was evaluated between the 46th and 52nd days of the experiment. Increasing cassava wastewater levels in the diet reduced (P < 0.05) the intakes (kg/day) of dry matter and neutral detergent fiber as well as the efficiency of rumination (g/cud and g/h) of dry matter and neutral detergent fiber. The other behavioral parameters were not affected by wastewater inclusion in the diet. Therefore, the inclusion of up to 48 g/kg of cassava wastewater on fresh matter of diets is not recommended for feedlot lambs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 24% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 12% |
| Researcher | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 35% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 6% |
| Engineering | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 21 December 2017.
All research outputs
#21,415,544
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Tropical Animal Health and Production
#922
of 1,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#383,398
of 446,906 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tropical Animal Health and Production
#25
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,384 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 446,906 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.