ArticleJournal of animal science2018
Performance-enhancing technologies for steers grazing tall fescue pastures with varying levels of toxicity1.
Article in Journal of animal science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate a combination of best management practices strategy for steer calves grazing tall fescue pastures with a range of toxicity. The experiment was conducted over 2 grazing seasons (fall 2015 for 91 d and spring 2016 for 84 d). Steers (n = 80 within season, body weight [BW] = 197.0 ± 15.43 kg [fall] and 116.9 ± 4.88 [spring]) were stocked at 2.45 and 4.1 calves/ha in fall and spring, respectively, to 16 pastures with varying levels of toxicity based on interim ergovaline (EV) concentration within season. Pastures were assigned to either mineral (MIN, n = 8) only management (MGMT) or a cumulative MGMT (CM, n = 8). The CM treatment included an implant containing 40-mg trenbolone acetate, 8-mg estradiol, and 29-mg tylosin tartrate (Component TE-G with Tylan, Elanco Animal Health, Greenfield, IN), 150 mg/calf daily monensin (Elanco Animal Health), and 1% BW of a 50:50 corn gluten feed:soybean hull supplement (as-is basis). Data were analyzed within season using pasture as the experimental unit. For fall and spring, the EV concentration was 1,476 ± 883.2 and 1,173 ± 620.6 ppb, respectively, and ranged from 90 to 2,180 ppb. During the fall, forage allowance did not differ (P = 0.76) between CM and MIN. In the spring, however, forage allowance only differed for the month of June (P ≤ 0.05, 2.55 vs. 3.22 ± 0.177 kg DM/kg BW, for MIN and CM, respectively). In the fall, average daily gain (ADG) responded to the simple effects of EV (P = 0.01) and MGMT (P < 0.001), and ADG for MIN steers was explained by ADG = 0.41 - 0.000064 × EV, whereas ADG for CM was explained by ADG = 1.05 - 0.000064 × EV. In the spring, there was an EV × MGMT interaction (P = 0.03) for ADG. For MIN, ADG = 0.80 - 0.000278 × EV, whereas for CM, ADG = 0.94 + 0.000001835 × EV. In spring, the ADG response to CM relative to MIN increased as EV increased. The CM strategy resulted in lower blood urea nitrogen than MIN in fall and spring (P < 0.01), but prolactin and serum Cu were not affected by MGMT in either season. In conclusion, performance was improved within the fescue belt by implementing feeding strategies using implants, ionophores, and supplementation, but a detailed economic analysis is warranted. Further research is needed to evaluate CM programs under varied stocking rates and in combination with dilution of endophyte-infected fescue pastures with nontoxic grasses or legumes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.