Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34252114›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2021

A meta-analysis of effects of dietary seaweed on beef and dairy cattle performance and methane yield.

Ian J Lean, Helen M Golder, Tianna M D Grant, Peter J Moate

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
11.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Effects of Brown Seaweed (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ian J LeanScibus, Camden, New South Wales, Australia.
Helen M GolderScibus, Camden, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1298-3107
Tianna M D GrantDairy Science Group, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, The University of Sydney, Camden, New South Wales, Australia.
Peter J MoateAgriculture Victoria Research, Ellinbank, Victoria, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AUThe University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There has been considerable interest in the use of red seaweed, and in particular Asparagopsis taxiformis, to increase production of cattle and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We hypothesized that feeding seaweed or seaweed derived products would increase beef or dairy cattle performance as indicated by average daily gain (ADG), feed efficiency measures, milk production, and milk constituents, and reduce methane emissions. We used meta-analytical methods to evaluate these hypotheses. A comprehensive search of Google Scholar, Pubmed and ISI Web of Science produced 14 experiments from which 23 comparisons of treatment effects could be evaluated. Red seaweed (Asparagopsis taxiformis) and brown seaweed (Ascophyllum nodosum) were the dominant seaweeds used. There were no effects of treatment on ADG or dry matter intake (DMI). While there was an increase in efficiency for feed to gain by 0.38 kg per kg [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.56; P = 0.001] on DerSimonian and Laird (D&L) evaluation, neither outcome was significant using the more rigorous robust regression analysis (P >0.06). The type of seaweed used was not a significant covariable for ADG and DMI, but A. nodosum fed cattle had lesser feed to gains efficiency compared to those fed A. taxiformis. Milk production was increased with treatment on weighted mean difference (WMD; 1.35 ± 0.44 kg/d; P <0.001); however, the SMD of 0.45 was not significant (P = 0.111). Extremely limited data suggest the possibility of increased percentages of milk fat (P = 0.040) and milk protein (P = 0.001) on (D&L) WMD evaluation. The limited data available indicate dietary supplementation with seaweed produced a significant and substantial reduction in methane yield by 5.28 ± 3.5 g/kg DMI (P = 0.003) on D&L WMD evaluation and a D&L SMD of -1.70 (P = 0.001); however, there was marked heterogeneity in the results (I2 > 80%). In one comparison, methane yield was reduced by 97%. We conclude that while there was evidence of potential for benefit from seaweed use to improve production and reduce methane yield more in vivo experiments are required to strengthen the evidence of effect and identify sources of heterogeneity in methane response, while practical applications and potential risks are evaluated for seaweed use.

Indexed as

Animal FeedMethaneSeaweedAnimalsCattleDairyingDietFemaleLactationMilkMethane

Identifiers

PMID34252114
PMCPMC8274914
OpenAlexW3178046301

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.