Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35595509›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2022

Effects of administration of a growth promoting implant during the suckling phase or at weaning on growth, reproduction, and ovarian development in replacement heifers grazing native range.

Shelby L Rosasco, Emily A Melchior-Tiffany, Cierrah J Kassetas, Shad H Cox, Richard L Dunlap, Jennifer A Hernandez Gifford, Eric J Scholljegerdes, Robert A Cushman, Adam F Summers

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial, Veterinary
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 94% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Shelby L RosascoDepartment of Animal and Range Sciences New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA.
Emily A Melchior-TiffanyDepartment of Animal and Range Sciences New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA.
Cierrah J KassetasDepartment of Animal and Range Sciences New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA.
Shad H CoxCorona Range and Livestock Research Center, Corona, NM 88318, USA.
Richard L DunlapCorona Range and Livestock Research Center, Corona, NM 88318, USA.
Jennifer A Hernandez GiffordDepartment of Animal and Range Sciences New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA.
Eric J ScholljegerdesDepartment of Animal and Range Sciences New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA.
Robert A CushmanUSDA, ARS, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE 68933, USA.
Adam F SummersDepartment of Animal and Range Sciences New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA.
New Mexico State University · USFort Keogh Livestock and Range Research Laboratory · USRoman L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Management strategies utilized during pre-breeding development of replacement heifers can impact fertility and the ovarian reserve. Angus-Hereford crossbred heifers (n = 233) were utilized over a 3-yr period to determine the effects of administration of a growth promoting implant at either branding or weaning on growth, reproduction, and ovarian development. Heifer calves were randomly assigned to one of three treatments: 1) nonimplanted controls (CON; n = 79), 2) implanted at approximately 2 mo of age (average calf age = 58 d) with Synovex-C (BIMP, n = 82), or 3) implanted at approximately 7 mo of age (average calf age = 210 d) with Synovex-C (WIMP; n = 72). In years 2 and 3, a subset of heifers (year 2 n = 16; year 3 n = 14) were unilaterally ovariectomized. Heifers implanted at 2 mo of age were heavier at weaning, yearling (mid-February; average calf age = 332 d), and at the beginning of the breeding season (P < 0.01) compared to CON and WIMP heifers. Average daily gain (ADG) was similar among treatments from weaning to yearling and weaning to the start of the breeding season (P ≥ 0.61); however, WIMP heifers had increased (P = 0.05) ADG from yearling to the start of the breeding season compared to BIMP heifers. Antral follicle count and reproductive tract scores were not influenced by implant treatment (P ≥ 0.18). Response to synchronization of estrus was increased (P = 0.02) in WIMP compared to CON heifers, with BIMP heifers similar to all other treatments. First service conception rates tended to be increased (P = 0.09) in CON heifers compared to WIMP heifers, with BIMP heifers similar to CON and WIMP. Final pregnancy rates were similar (P = 0.54) among treatments. A treatment × yr interaction was detected (P = 0.01) for the number of primordial follicles/section with increased primordial follicles in WIMP heifers in year 3 compared to BIMP and WIMP heifers in year 2 and CON heifers in year 3, as well as in BIMP compared to WIMP heifers in year 2. Utilization of growth promoting implants did not negatively impact postweaning reproductive development or compromise pregnancy rates in beef heifers. Based on these results, administration of a growth promoting Synovex-C implant at 2 mo of age may allow for increased body weight at weaning, without hindering reproductive performance.

Indexed as

EstrusReproductionAnimalsCattleFemaleFertilityPregnancyWeaningWeight Gaingrowth promoting implantsheifer developmentreproduction

Identifiers

PMID35595509
PMCPMC9183200
OpenAlexW4281256172

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.