ArticleJournal of animal science2018
Energetic efficiency and the first law: the California net energy system revisited.
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.
- Mathematical absurdities in the California net energy system.Translational animal science · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Models of energy utilization used in livestock production predict input:output relationships well, for all the wrong reasons. Predictive accuracy in such models is not due to fidelity to biochemistry and laws of thermodynamics, but because they were developed to predict accurately, often with little regard to biochemical consistency. Relatively static linear statistical models limit thermodynamically relevant descriptions of energy utilization, especially maintenance, in growing beef cattle and are inadequate research tools, in either ordinary least squares (OLS) or Bayesian frameworks. Metabolizable energy intake (MEI) at recovered energy (RE) = 0 (MEm) and efficiencies of ME utilization for maintenance (km) and gain (kg) were estimated for 3 independent data sets using OLS or Bayesian frameworks. Estimates of MEm differed (P < 0.05) between OLS and Bayesian estimates and were not unique, indicating model misspecification. Bayesian estimates of MEm were monotonic, positive, and nonlinear f(MEI); the range was from 6.74 to 14.8 Mcal/d. Estimates of km, the ratio of heat energy (HE) at MEI = 0 to MEm, for the 3 data sets averaged 0.590 for OLS solutions, or 0.616 for the first derivative (km, dHE/dMEI for RE = 0) of a first-order function. The first derivative (dHE/dMEI) of the OLS function was > 1.0 for MEI > 22.1 Mcal/d, counter to the laws of thermodynamics and indicated model misspecification. The Bayesian estimate of km (0.420) differed (P < 0.05) from the OLS estimate and was consistent with the efficiency of ATP synthesis. Efficiency of ME use for gain for RE > 0 (kg, OLS solutions) averaged 0.397, solutions were nonunique and single-variable OLS models were misspecified (P < 0.050) for 2 of the 3 data sets. The OLS estimate of kg differed (P < 0.05) from the estimate of kg (0.676) determined in a Bayesian framework; the latter was calculated as dRE/dMEI for RE > 0. For OLS estimates km > kg; for estimates determined in a Bayesian framework km < kg, the former is inconsistent, while the latter is consistent with the thermodynamic favorability of reactions underlying maintenance and gain. Our results show that the use of relatively fixed coefficients of maintenance in current feeding standards, mathematical descriptions of metabolic processes and concepts regarding efficiencies of energy utilization in those systems need modification to be consistent with animal biology and the laws of thermodynamics.
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.