1995
DOI: 10.15232/s1080-7446(15)32560-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

In Vitro Digestibility and Preference by Sheep for Silages Made from Whole-Plant Soybeans

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0
1

Year Published

2002
2002
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
3
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…However, Camilo et al (2015) assessed diets with an average EE content of 8.46% of DM and did not find differences for DMI, as the same way that the present study. Coffey et al (1995) assessed the preference by sheep for silages from corn and soybean, the last one at R2, R4, or R6 growth stages. The corn silage was preferred rather than soybean.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, Camilo et al (2015) assessed diets with an average EE content of 8.46% of DM and did not find differences for DMI, as the same way that the present study. Coffey et al (1995) assessed the preference by sheep for silages from corn and soybean, the last one at R2, R4, or R6 growth stages. The corn silage was preferred rather than soybean.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[ 10 ] In addition, the primary metabolites such as protein, fat and carbohydrates are abundant in the seeds, which may have their role, apart from their nutritional value, in healing gastric ulcer. [ 11 ] Our earlier studies showed that the traditional formulation (water soaked G. max grains in Drakshasava ) showed 89% reduction in ulcers and 50% inhibition in acid secretion, whereas G. max grains showed only 44% decrease in ulcers and 10% inhibition in acid secretion. G. max grains found less effective compared with traditional formulation in terms of the ulcer index and acidity decrease.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Soybean (cultivars M6410IPRO ® , Monsoy – Bayer Crop Science, São Paulo, Brazil) was seeded on 19 November 2018, in ten different plots (almost 1000 m 2 each one). 110 days after the seeding, almost 40 kg of whole-plant soybean were manually harvested from each area at the R6 stage (Coffey et al ., 1995) and chopped in a stationary hammer mill (TRF300 ® , Trapp, Jaguará do Sul, Brazil) to produce four experimental silos (one for each treatment) from each area (plot). The experimental design was a completely randomized block to evaluate the following treatments: (1) CON: WPSS without additives; (2) CHI: WPSS treated with 6 g/kg DM of chitosan; (3) LBB: WPSS treated with 5.0 × 10 7 colony-formins units (CFU) of Lactobacillus buchneri (NCIM 40788, Lasil Cana ® , Lallemand Animal Nutrition, Montreal, Canada) per kg of fresh matter; and (4) LPP: WPSS treated with 1.6 × 10 8 CFU of Lactobacillus plantarum and 1.6 × 10 8 CFU of Pediococcus acidilactici (Kera SIL ® , Kera Nutrição Animal, Bento Gonçalves, Brazil) per kg of fresh matter.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%