| Title |
Voluntary intake, chemical composition and in vitro digestibility of fresh forages fed to Guinea pigs in periurban rearing systems of Kinshasa (Democratic Republic of Congo)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Tropical Animal Health and Production, August 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11250-007-9036-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
J. Bindelle, Y. Ilunga, M. Delacollette, M. Muland Kayij, J. Umba di M’Balu, E. Kindele, A. Buldgen |
| Abstract |
The daily voluntary intake (DVI) of Guinea pigs (GP) fed 15 fresh forages used in periurban rearing systems of Kinshasa (Democratic Republic of Congo) was investigated. In order to determine the best forages combination for GP diet, DVI was compared to their nutritional value measured in vitro using (1) a pepsin-pancreatin hydrolysis, (2) an gas fermentation test on the hydrolysed residues with an inoculum prepared from GP faeces, and (3) the chemical composition of the offered feeds and the hydrolysis residues. The forages ranking based on the DVI was correlated to the NDF content, but not to their nutritional values determined in vitro. According to their high DVI (from 4.23 to 7.75 g/kg liveweigth), and their valuable in vitro nutritional values (crude protein ranging from 261 to 279 g crude protein kg(-1) DM, pepsin-pancreatin digestibilities of the dry matter from 0.55 to 0.59 and final gas production from 170 to 196 1 kg(-1) DM), Desmodium intortum, Euphorbia heterophylla or Amaranthus hybridus, can be suggested to the farmers to complement the usual diet distributed to the GP based on Panicum maximum. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 3% |
| Argentina | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 29 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 19% |
| Researcher | 5 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 13% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 19% |
| Unknown | 5 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 39% |
| Environmental Science | 3 | 10% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 3% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 16% |
| Unknown | 8 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 23 December 2014.
All research outputs
#7,942,395
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Tropical Animal Health and Production
#190
of 1,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,273
of 68,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tropical Animal Health and Production
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 68,813 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.