ArticleTranslational animal science2022
Survey of feedlot nutritionists gives insight on information-seeking behavior.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The welfare of ill and injured feedlot cattle: a review of the literature and implications for managing feedlot hospital and chronic pens.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nutrition critically affects feedlot cattle health and growth, and ultimately cost of production. Feedlot producers rely on professionals such as nutritionists, extension educators, feed company representatives, and others to assist them in developing the best nutritional program for their operation. In turn, these professionals depend on feedlot nutrition research to drive decisions for their clients. A survey of feedlot professionals was conducted regarding how published resources are used. Surveys were included in the spring 2020 mailing to potential Plains Nutrition Council meeting attendees; 61 surveys were returned. The objective of this survey was to aid feedlot nutrition researchers to make more informed decisions when publishing new research to maximize impact on the feedlot industry. The survey asked 15 questions regarding the participant's career, professional organization memberships, frequency and intentions of using research, and ranking the importance of resources, peer-reviewed journals, and learning platforms. Survey respondents primarily served the Midwest and Plains regions (83.1%) with employment by feed companies (34.4%), private consulting firms (21.3%), other aspects of feedlot production (26.2%), or were self-employed (18%). Survey participants found great importance in peer-reviewed journals, though the relevance of peer-reviewed journals sometimes differed due to the professional age of respondents. The main strategies for accessing journals were via society memberships and through open access; utilizing open access publishing may increase the number of industry professionals reached. Looking to the future, we may see a shift in resources used by industry professionals due to the differences seen in preferences of early and late career survey participants, specifically increases in the use of technology-based platforms. These data may inform feedlot researchers on the information-seeking behaviors of feedlot professionals, such as the importance of publishing data in open access formats, allowing for greater impact through increased utilization of newly published research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.