Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33068399›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2020

Administering an appeasing substance to optimize performance and health responses in feedlot receiving cattle.

Eduardo A Colombo, Reinaldo F Cooke, Alice P Brandão, Jacob B Wiegand, Kelsey M Schubach, Glenn C Duff, Vinícius N Gouvêa, Bruno I Cappellozza

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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. Article
  2. Article
  3. Effects of feeding aTranslational animal science · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  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

8 authors.

Eduardo A ColomboDepartment of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
Reinaldo F CookeDepartment of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
Alice P BrandãoDepartment of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
Jacob B WiegandDepartment of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
Kelsey M SchubachDepartment of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
Glenn C DuffClayton Livestock Research Center, New Mexico State University, Clayton, NM.
Vinícius N GouvêaClayton Livestock Research Center, New Mexico State University, Clayton, NM.
Bruno I CappellozzaNutricorp, Araras, SP, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This experiment evaluated the impacts of administering a bovine appeasing substance (BAS) at feedlot entry to receiving cattle. Angus-influenced steers (n = 342) from 16 sources were purchased from an auction yard on day -1, and transported (12 hr; 4 trucks) to the feedlot. Upon arrival on day 0, shrunk body weight (BW; 240 ± 1 kg) was recorded and steers were ranked by load, shrunk BW, and source and assigned to receive BAS (IRSEA Group, Quartier Salignan, France; n = 171) or placebo (diethylene glycol monoethyl ether; CON; n = 171). The BAS is a mixture of fatty acids that replicate the composition of the bovine appeasing pheromone. Treatments (5 mL) were topically applied to each individual steer on their nuchal skin area. Steers were allocated to 1 of 24 drylot pens (12 pens/treatment) and received a free-choice diet until day 46. Steers were assessed daily for bovine respiratory disease (BRD) signs, and feed intake was recorded from each pen daily. Steer unshrunk BW was recorded on days 7, 17, 31, 45, and 46. Shrunk BW on day 0 was added an 8% shrink to represent initial BW, and final BW was calculated by averaging BW from days 45 and 46. Blood samples were collected from 5 steers/pen on days 0, 7, 11, 31, and 45. Pen was considered the experimental unit. Steer BW gain was greater (P = 0.04) in BAS vs. CON (1.01 vs. 0.86 kg/d, SEM = 0.05). Feed intake did not differ (P = 0.95) between treatments, resulting in greater (P = 0.05) feed efficiency in BAS vs. CON (171 vs. 142 g/kg, SEM = 10). Plasma cortisol concentration was greater (P = 0.05) and plasma glucose concentration was less in CON vs. BAS on day 7 (treatment × day; P = 0.07 and <0.01, respectively). Mean plasma β-hydroxybutyrate concentration was greater (P < 0.01) in BAS vs. CON (3.23 and 2.75 mg/mL; SEM = 0.12). Incidence of BRD was greater (P ≤ 0.05) in BAS vs. CON from days 6 to 10 and days 19 to 23 (treatment × day; P < 0.01), although overall BRD incidence did not differ (P = 0.20) between treatments (82.4% vs. 76.6%, respectively; SEM = 3.2). A greater proportion (P = 0.04) of BAS steers diagnosed with BRD required one antimicrobial treatment to regain health compared with CON (59.3% vs. 47.6%, SEM = 4.2). Hence, BAS administration to steers upon feedlot arrival improved BW gain during a 45-d receiving period by enhancing feed efficiency. Moreover, results suggest that BAS improved steer performance by facilitating early detection of BRD signs, lessening the disease recurrence upon first antimicrobial treatment.

Indexed as

Animal FeedAnimalsCattleCattle DiseasesDietEatingFatty AcidsHydrocortisoneMaleNew MexicoPheromonesStress, PhysiologicalWeight GainFatty AcidsHydrocortisonePheromonesappeasing substancebeef cattlefeedlot receivinghealthperformancestress

Identifiers

PMID33068399
PMCPMC7648383

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.