Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35795068›Full record

ArticleTranslational animal science2022

Impacts of a post-transport/pre-processing rest period on the growth performance, anthelmintic efficacy, and serum metabolite changes in cattle entering a feed yard.

Payton L Dahmer, Charles A Zumbaugh, Macie E Reeb, Nicole B Stafford, Zachary T Buessing, Kenneth G Odde, James S Drouillard, A J Tarpoff, Cassandra K Jones

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational 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
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 48% 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Payton L DahmerKansas State University Department of Animal Sciences and Industry, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1891-513X
Charles A ZumbaughKansas State University Department of Animal Sciences and Industry, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA.
Macie E ReebKansas State University Department of Animal Sciences and Industry, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA.
Nicole B StaffordKansas State University Department of Animal Sciences and Industry, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA.
Zachary T BuessingKansas State University Department of Animal Sciences and Industry, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA.
Kenneth G OddeKansas State University Department of Animal Sciences and Industry, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3638-964X
James S DrouillardKansas State University Department of Animal Sciences and Industry, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3691-6905
A J TarpoffKansas State University Department of Animal Sciences and Industry, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA.
Cassandra K JonesKansas State University Department of Animal Sciences and Industry, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0671-8879
Kansas State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A total of 80 crossbred, high-risk heifers (initially 250 ± 4.2 kg BW), were transported from an Oklahoma City, Oklahoma sale barn to the Kansas State University Beef Cattle Research Center. Cattle were unloaded and randomly placed into one of four receiving pens and provided ad libitum hay and water. Each pen was randomly assigned to one of the four rest times before processing: (1) immediately upon arrival (0); (2) after a 6-h rest period (6); (3) after a 24-h rest period (24); and (4) after a 48-h rest period (48). After all cattle were processed, heifers were allotted into individual pens with ad libitum access to a receiving ration and water. Heifers were weighed individually on d 0, 7, 14, 21, 28, and 35 to calculate average daily gain (ADG). Feed added and refusals were measured daily to determine dry matter intake (DMI). A fecal egg count reduction test and analysis of blood serum metabolites were also conducted. All data were analyzed using the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS (v. 9.4, Cary, NC) with individual animal as the experimental unit. Processing time did not impact (

Indexed as

anthelmintic efficacydry matter intakegrowth performancereceiving calf

Identifiers

PMID35795068
PMCPMC9249139
OpenAlexW4283261975

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.