2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2005.05.026
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Protein degradation kinetics of untreated and treated soybean meal using SDS-PAGE

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

8
23
0
1

Year Published

2009
2009
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
8
23
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, minimum value of CP a for ALL is equal to 2% (Table 2) because in the data set soypass samples (a commercially prepared rumen escape soybean product) were included (average CP a = 6%, with minimum and maximum value of 2% and 8%, respectively; descriptive statistics per ingredient not shown). Similar values of CP a for soybean-treated products have been reported in the literature (Harstad and Prestløkken, 2000;Sadeghi et al, 2006). Similarly, minimum value of CP b for ALL is equal to 4% because winter wheat silages were included into the database (average CP b = 6%, with minimum and maximum value of 4% and 7%, respectively; descriptive statistics per ingredient not shown).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 57%
“…For example, minimum value of CP a for ALL is equal to 2% (Table 2) because in the data set soypass samples (a commercially prepared rumen escape soybean product) were included (average CP a = 6%, with minimum and maximum value of 2% and 8%, respectively; descriptive statistics per ingredient not shown). Similar values of CP a for soybean-treated products have been reported in the literature (Harstad and Prestløkken, 2000;Sadeghi et al, 2006). Similarly, minimum value of CP b for ALL is equal to 4% because winter wheat silages were included into the database (average CP b = 6%, with minimum and maximum value of 4% and 7%, respectively; descriptive statistics per ingredient not shown).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 57%
“…The results obtained by other authors when performing SDS‐PAGE of similar proteins were used as a reference to identify the main protein fractions found in the present study; CS (Almaas, Cases, Devold, Holm, Langsrud, Aabakken, Aadnoey & Veragud 2006), FM (Chiou, Yu & Wu 1999), SQM (Valencia‐Pérez, García‐Morales, Cárdenas‐López, Herrera‐Urbina, Rouzaud‐Sández & Ezquerra‐Brauer 2008), SBC (Sadeghi, Nikkhah, Shawrang & Shahrebabak, 2006), PM (Chavan, McKenzie & Shahidi 2001) and CGM (Sadeghi & Shawrang 2006).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Thus, it is likely that the observed increase in the analysed concentration of ADF in autoclaved DDGS compared with non-autoclaved DDGS was also a result of this artefact. The concentration of NDF increased from 143.0 g/kg in non-autoclaved SBM to 171 g/kg in SBM autoclaved at 127°C for 10 min (Sadeghi et al, 2006). These observations indicate that the concentration of NDF within a source of SBM may serve as an indicator of heat damage.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 69%