| Title |
Effects of two alfalfa preparations with different particle sizes on the gastric mucosa in weanlings: alfalfa chaff versus alfalfa pellets
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Veterinary Research, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12917-016-0733-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarah Vondran, Monica Venner, Ingrid Vervuert |
| Abstract |
Feeding alfalfa hay is often recommended for its buffering components, like protein and calcium, to prevent lesions of the gastric mucosa in horses. Until now, there has been no information regarding the influence of alfalfa particle size on the gastric mucosa. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of feeding two alfalfa preparations with different particle sizes (alfalfa chaff vs alfalfa pellets) in comparison with grass hay on the gastric mucosa in weanling horses. We hypothesized that feeding a high proportion of fine alfalfa particles would negatively impact gastric mucosa and that feeding long alfalfa chaff would improve gastric mucosal health in weanlings. Before weaning, the prevalence of gastric mucosa lesions (one or more lesions considering all locations in the stomach) was 84.3 %; at 14 days after weaning, it was almost 100 %. Before and after weaning, most of the lesions were found at the greater curvature of the squamous mucosa and at the lesser curvature. After weaning, gastric mucosal lesions at the pylorus were significantly more severe in the group fed alfalfa chaff (p = 0.002). In the other regions, no differences related to the feeding regimes were observed. Feeding alfalfa failed to improve gastric mucosal lesion scores in weanlings. Furthermore, foals fed alfalfa chaff had higher lesion scores at the pylorus. Alfalfa leaves contain a superior protein source and high amounts of calcium and magnesium, providing extra nutritional advantages in growing horses. At this time, either traditional grass hay rations or grass hay with alfalfa pellets can be recommended. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 42 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 19% |
| Researcher | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 14% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 9 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 29% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 10 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Unknown | 10 | 24% |
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 16 June 2016.
All research outputs
#22,759,452
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from BMC Veterinary Research
#2,610
of 3,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#323,942
of 368,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Veterinary Research
#58
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 3,298 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. 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 368,454 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 69 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.