Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35426435›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2022

Enteric methane emissions, growth, and carcass characteristics of feedlot steers fed a garlic- and citrus-based feed additive in diets with three different forage concentrations.

Bryce Bitsie, Andrea M Osorio, Darren D Henry, Breno C Silva, Leticia A Godoi, Chanadol Supapong, Tassilo Brand, Jon P Schoonmaker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Supplementation withAnimal nutrition (Zhongguo xu mu shou yi xue hui) · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Bryce BitsieDepartment of Animal Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA.
Andrea M OsorioDepartment of Animal and Dairy Science, University of Georgia, Tifton, GA 31794, USA.
Darren D HenryDepartment of Animal and Dairy Science, University of Georgia, Tifton, GA 31794, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7636-0369
Breno C SilvaDepartment of Animal Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA.
Leticia A GodoiDepartment of Animal Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA.
Chanadol SupapongDepartment of Animal Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA.
Tassilo BrandMootral SA, Rolle, Switzerland.
Jon P SchoonmakerDepartment of Animal Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA.

Funding

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoThailand Research Fund
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One hundred and forty-four Angus × Simmental steers were allotted by body weight (BW; 363 kg), breed composition, and farm origin to a 3 × 2 factorial arrangement of six treatments (4 pens per treatment) to determine the effect of Mootral (garlic + citrus extract; 0.25% of the diet dry matter [DM] vs. 0.0%) on methane (CH4) emissions, growth, and carcass characteristics of feedlot cattle. During the first 84 d, cattle were fed three different forage concentrations in the diet (15%, 41.5%, or 68% corn silage) with or without Mootral. From day 85 to slaughter, corn silage was included at 15% of the diet DM with or without Mootral. CH4 emissions were measured on day 42 to 46 and day 203 to 207. Data were analyzed using the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS. Mootral did not affect CH4 emissions on days 42 to 46 (P ≥ 0.47), but there was a forage effect, where steers fed the 68% corn silage emitted more CH4 on a g/d (P = 0.05) and a g/kg of dry matter intake (DMI; P = 0.007) basis and tended (P = 0.07) to produce more CH4 on g/kg BW basis compared to steers fed the 15% corn silage diet. On day 203 to 207, steers fed Mootral emitted less (P ≤ 0.03) CH4 on a g/d, g/kg DMI, and g/kg BW basis compared to steers not fed Mootral. There was an interaction (P = 0.03) between forage concentration and Mootral for DMI from day 0 to 84, where Mootral decreased DMI of steers fed 15% corn silage but did not affect DMI of steers fed 41.5% or 68% corn silage. There were no effects (P ≥ 0.22) of forage concentration or Mootral on BW or average daily gain at any time, or on DMI from day 84 to slaughter and overall. However, overall calculated net energy for maintenance (NEm) and net energy for gain (NEg) tended to be greater for steers fed Mootral (P ≤ 0.10). Intake from day 0 to 84 was lower and gain:feed from day 0 to 84 and overall was greater (P = 0.04) for steers fed 68% compared to steers fed 41.5% corn silage. Calculated NEm and NEg from day 0 to 84 and overall were greater for steers fed 68% corn silage compared to steers fed 41.5% corn silage (P ≤ 0.03). Mootral tended to decrease (P ≤ 0.09) fat thickness and yield grade. In conclusion, increasing forage concentration increased CH4 emissions and Mootral decreased CH4 production in 15% corn silage diets and tended to improve carcass leanness.

Indexed as

CitrusGarlicAnimal FeedAnimalsBody WeightCattleDietMethanePlant BreedingSilageZea maysMethanebeefbitter orange flavonoidfeedlotgarlicmethane emissions

Identifiers

PMID35426435
PMCPMC9115900

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.