↓ Skip to main content

In vitro and in vivo evaluation of protein quality of enzymatic treated feather meals

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
In vitro and in vivo evaluation of protein quality of enzymatic treated feather meals
Published in
SpringerPlus, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40064-016-2626-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Warintorn Eaksuree, Akkharadet Prachayakitti, Tewa Upathanpreecha, Rutjawate Taharnklaew, Sunee Nitisinprasert, Suttipun Keawsompong

Abstract

Feeding trials were designed to evaluate the nutritive value of feather meal treated by K6 and K82 keratinase. There were five treatments in feather meal preparation: CFM (non-enzymatically treated feather meal), K6FM (K6 keratinase treated feather meal), K82FM (K82 keratinase treated feather meal), K6:K82FM [K6 and K82 keratinase (5:1) treated feather meal] and CMFM (commercial enzyme treated feather meal). The pepsin digestibility of CFM (70 %) and CMFM (68 %) was significantly higher than K6FM (60 %), K82FM (61 %) and K6:K82FM (63 %). Total amino acid content of K82FM (89.65/100 g) was the highest compared with the other treatments. The nutrient digestibility of the feather meals was determined for broiler chicks between 21 and 27 days old. The apparent nitrogen retention of K82FM (85.82 %) and K6FM (77.31 %) was significantly higher than K6:K82FM (55.42 %), CMFM (45.70 %) and CFM (48.16 %). The apparent metabolisable energy (AMEn) was not significantly different between the feather meal treatments, although K82FM, K6FM and K6:K82FM showed AMEn higher than CMFM and CFM. The results indicated that both K6 and K82 keratinase had a positive effect on the protein quality of the feather meal produced by the enzymatic-hydrothermal method.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 19%
Researcher 6 19%
Student > Master 5 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Other 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 5 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 34%
Environmental Science 3 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 9%
Chemical Engineering 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 6 19%

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 09 February 2017.
All research outputs
#7,838,504
of 9,043,752 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#1,294
of 1,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,385
of 260,832 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#7
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,043,752 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 1,681 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. 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 260,832 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 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.