Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31740941›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2019

Characterization of water intake and water efficiency in beef cattle1,2.

Cashley M Ahlberg, Kristi Allwardt, Ashley Broocks, Kelsey Bruno, Alexandra Taylor, Levi Mcphillips, Clint R Krehbiel, Michelle Calvo-Lorenzo, Chris J Richards, Sara E Place and 7 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Mitigation and animal response to water stress in small ruminants.Animal frontiers : the review magazine of animal agriculture · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

17 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Cashley M AhlbergDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506.
Kristi AllwardtDepartment of Animal Science, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.
Ashley BroocksDepartment of Animal Science, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.
Kelsey BrunoDepartment of Animal Science, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.
Alexandra TaylorDepartment of Animal Science, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.
Levi McphillipsDepartment of Animal Science, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.
Clint R KrehbielDepartment of Animal Science, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.
Michelle Calvo-LorenzoDepartment of Animal Science, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.
Chris J RichardsDepartment of Animal Science, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.
Sara E PlaceDepartment of Animal Science, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.
Udaya DesilvaDepartment of Animal Science, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.
Deborah L VanoverbekeDepartment of Animal Science, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.
Raluca G MateescuDepartment of Animal Science, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Larry A KuehnUSDA, ARS, Roman L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE.
Robert WeaberDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506.
Jennifer BormannDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506.
Megan M RolfDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506.
Oklahoma State University · USKansas State University · USRoman L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center · USUniversity of Florida · USUniversity of Nebraska–Lincoln · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the future, water may not be as readily available due to increases in competition from a growing human population, wildlife, and other agricultural sectors, making selection for water efficiency of beef cattle increasingly important. Substantial selection emphasis has recently been placed on feed efficiency in an effort to reduce production costs, but no emphasis has been placed on making cattle more water efficient due to lack of data. Thus, the objective of this study was to calculate water efficiency metrics for cattle and evaluate their relationship to growth, feed intake (FI), and feed efficiency. Individual daily FI and water intake (WI) records were collected on 578 crossbred steers over a 70-d test period. Animals with low water intake ate less feed, had lower gains, and were more water efficient (as defined by water to gain ratio, W/G, and residual water intake, RWI). However, the amount of water consumed by animals had minimal phenotypic relationship with feed efficiency (residual feed intake [RFI], R2 = 0.1050 and feed to gain ratio (F/G) ratio R2 = 0.0726). Cattle that had low DMI consumed less water, had lower gains, had lower RFI, and had higher F/G. The level of feed consumed had minimal relationship with water efficiency. WI, W/G, RWI, and ADG had moderate heritability estimates of 0.39, 0.39, 0.37, and 0.37, respectively. High heritability estimates were observed for DMI and RFI (0.67 and 0.65, respectively). Feed to gain had a low heritability estimate of 0.16. WI had a strong positive genetic correlation with W/G (0.99) and RWI (0.88), thus selecting for decreased WI should also make cattle more water efficient. The genetic correlation between WI and ADG was 0.05; thus, selecting for low WI cattle should have little effect on growth. There is a low to moderate genetic correlation between WI and DMI (0.34). RWI has a positive genetic correlation with W/G ratio (0.89) and F/G ratio (0.42) and is negatively genetically correlated with RFI (-0.57). Water to gain and F/G had a strong positive genetic correlation (0.68). RFI has a positive genetic correlation with W/G ratio (0.37) and F/G (0.88). Minimal antagonisms seem to be present between WI and ADG, although it should be noted that standard errors were large and often not significantly different from zero due to the small sample size. However, care should be taken to ensure that unintended changes do not occur in DMI or other production traits and incorporation of WI into a selection index would likely prove to be the most effective method for selection.

Indexed as

DrinkingWaterAnimalsCattleEnergy MetabolismFeeding BehaviorMaleModels, BiologicalWaterbeef cattlewater efficiencywater intake

Identifiers

PMID31740941
PMCPMC6915210
OpenAlexW2990892268

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.