Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31074787›Full record

ReviewJournal of animal science2019

BEEF SPECIES-RUMINANT NUTRITION CACTUS BEEF SYMPOSIUM: Energy and roughage levels in cattle receiving diets and impacts on health, performance, and immune responses1.

John T Richeson, Kendall L Samuelson, Dexter J Tomczak

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of animal science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Effects ofTranslational animal science · 2021
    Article
  20. Effects ofTranslational animal science · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

John T RichesonDepartment of Agricultural Sciences, West Texas A&M University, Canyon, TX.
Kendall L SamuelsonDepartment of Agricultural Sciences, West Texas A&M University, Canyon, TX.
Dexter J TomczakDepartment of Agricultural Sciences, West Texas A&M University, Canyon, TX.
West Texas A&M University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transition of newly received feedlot cattle from a forage- to grain-based diet is challenging, and the appropriate roughage level in receiving diets is debatable. Nutritionists must consider the paradox of dietary transition and roughage level to mitigate ruminal acidosis, yet concomitantly low feed intake presents difficulty in achieving nutrient requirements when metabolic demand is increased due to inherent stress and disease challenge during the receiving period. Previous research suggests that performance is improved at the expense of increased morbidity for newly received cattle consuming diets with less roughage and greater starch concentration. The clinical signs of bovine respiratory disease (BRD) and acute acidosis are analogous; therefore, it is probable that acidotic cattle are incorrectly diagnosed with BRD in both research and production settings. Additional research efforts have attempted to elucidate alterations in microbial populations and digestion, physiological response to inflammatory challenge, and immunological response to infectious bovine rhinotracheitis virus challenge in cattle consuming diets of various roughage levels. Furthermore, our understanding of the rumen microbiome is improving rapidly with culture-independent assays, products such as direct-fed microbials are available, and increased availability and use of fibrous byproduct ingredients requires further attention. Beef cattle nutritionists and producers should consider that the health benefit of receiving diets containing greater levels of roughage and lower energy may not compensate for the reduction in performance compared with feeding receiving diets with lower roughage and greater energy.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeAcidosisAnimal FeedAnimalsAnimal WelfareCattleCattle DiseasesDietDietary FiberDigestionEatingEdible GrainEnergy IntakeImmunityInfectious Bovine RhinotracheitisInflammationDietary FiberStarchcattlehealthnutritionreceivingroughage

Identifiers

PMID31074787
PMCPMC6667253
OpenAlexW2944244805

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.