↓ Skip to main content

Ethnobotanical studies of fodder grass resources for ruminant animals, based on the traditional knowledge of indigenous communities in Central Punjab Pakistan

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
Ethnobotanical studies of fodder grass resources for ruminant animals, based on the traditional knowledge of indigenous communities in Central Punjab Pakistan
Published in
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13002-017-0184-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nidaa Harun, Abdul Shakoor Chaudhry, Shabnum Shaheen, Kifayat Ullah, Farah Khan

Abstract

Traditional knowledge of indigenous plants is pivotal in developing strategies to feed livestock sustainably in low input systems. Likewise, in Pakistan the indigenous people of Central Punjab have been using their regional grasses as a ruminant fodder for centuries. This study evaluated the indigenous traditional knowledge to ascertain the value of various fodder grasses to optimise their use to feed livestock in Central Punjab. The snowball technique was employed to identify key informants who had relevant knowledge about different grasses in the study area. Semi-structured questionnaires, face-to-face interviews and site visits were used for describing the fodder grasses. The data were then analysed by using relative frequency citation and pairwise comparison methods to determine the order of priority among the listed fodder grasses. Furthermore, SPSS 22 software was used for descriptive statistics and interpretation of associations among studied parameters. Microsoft Excel was used to present data as % values and graphs. Overall, 53 grasses were described with ethnobotanical information regarding their uses for fodder, ethnoveterinary and other purposes. All these grasses belonged to the family Poaceae where the subfamily Panicoideae had the maximum number of 30 grasses. We categorized these grasses into high (A), medium (B) and low priority (C) groups where the group A grasses were reported as not only the most abundant but also the most palatable forages to all ruminants. Their higher demand was reflected by the feeding systems of both ad libitum grazing and feeding after cutting and mixing with other feeds. The study also revealed 37 previously unreported ethnoveterinary uses of these grasses. The results have reinforced the value of conserving ethnobotanical knowledge, being poorly documented previously, in developing strategies to feed livestock. It indicated the preferred fodder grasses as well as the possible reasons of their preference. The reported data need to be validated for nutritional and health benefits. This information could help the smallholder farmers in association with regional governments to propagate suitable fodder grasses for their use in sustainable livestock feeding to produce safe and healthy food for indigenous communities.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

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 %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Other 2 6%
Other 8 26%
Unknown 3 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 29%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 5 16%

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 24 December 2017.
All research outputs
#7,718,549
of 12,346,626 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#402
of 557 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,617
of 348,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#21
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,346,626 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 557 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 348,487 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.