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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Cashew reject meal in diets of laying chickens: nutritional and economic suitability
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Animal Science and Technology, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40781-015-0051-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Taiwo O Akande, Akinyinka O Akinwumi, Taye O Abegunde |
| Abstract |
The present study investigated the nutritional and economic suitability of cashew reject meal (full fat and defatted) as replacement for groundnut cake (GNC) in the diets of laying chickens. A total of eighty four brown shavers at 25 weeks of age were randomly allotted into seven dietary treatments each containing 6 replicates of 2 birds each. The seven diets prepared included diet 1, a control with GNC at 220gkg(-1) as main protein source in the diet. Diets 2, 3 and 4 consist of gradual replacement of GNC with defatted cashew reject meal (DCRM) at 50%, 75% and 100% on weight for weight basis respectively while diets 5, 6 and 7 consist of gradual inclusion of full fat cashew reject meal (FCRM) to replace 25%, 35% and 50% of GNC protein respectively. Each group was allotted a diet in a completely randomized design in a study that lasted eight weeks during which records of the chemical constituent of the test ingredients, performance characteristics, egg quality traits and economic indicators were measured. Results showed that the crude protein were 22.10 and 35.4% for FCRM and DCRM respectively. Gross energy of DCRM was 5035 kcal/kg compared to GNC, 4752 kcal/kg. Result of aflatoxin B1 revealed moderate level between 10 and 17 μg/Kg in DCRM and GNC samples respectively. Birds on control gained 10 g, while those on DCRM and FCRM gained about 35 g and 120 g respectively. Feed intake declined (P < 0.05) with increased level of FCRM. Hen day production was highest in birds fed DCRM, followed by control and lowest value (P < 0.05) was recorded for FCRM. No significant change (P > 0.05) was observed for egg weight and shell thickness. Fat deposition and cholesterol content increased (P > 0.05) with increasing level of FCRM. The cost of feed per kilogram decreased gradually with increased inclusion level of CRM. The prediction equation showed the relative worth of DCRM compared to GNC was 92.3% whereas the actual market price of GNC triples that of DCRM. It was recommended that GNC could be completely replaced by DCRM in layer's diets in regions where this by product is abundant. However, FCRM should be cautiously used in diets of laying chickens. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nigeria | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 41 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 12% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 17% |
| Unknown | 14 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 7% |
| Engineering | 3 | 7% |
| Chemical Engineering | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 17 | 40% |
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 28 January 2016.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Animal Science and Technology
#101
of 190 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,487
of 279,164 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Animal Science and Technology
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 190 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 279,164 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them