Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36428342›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2022

Physicochemical Evaluations of Diets, Rumen Fluid, Blood and Faeces of Beef Cattle under Two Different Feedlot Systems.

Pedro Malafaia, Vinícius Carneiro de Souza, Diogo Fleury Azevedo Costa

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Pedro MalafaiaDepartment of Animal Nutrition and Pastures, Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRRJ), Seropédica 23897-000, RJ, Brazil.
Vinícius Carneiro de SouzaDepartment of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8893-4451
Diogo Fleury Azevedo CostaInstitute of Future Farming Systems, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, QLD 4701, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8118-8380
Central Queensland University · AUUniversidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro · BRUniversity of California, Davis · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The physicochemical characteristics of diets and faeces were evaluated in combination with data of rumen fluid and blood lactate collected from two distinct feedlot systems in Brazil to understand the causes and correlations to digestive disorders in these production systems. The data were collected during two visits to a finishing system which fed about 80,000 head per year, and four visits to two properties that fed 150 to 180 straight bred Nellore bulls per year to be sold as stud cattle. The findings suggest that ruminal acidosis occurred when there was high intake of starch-rich concentrate, and that subacute rumen acidosis (SARA) most likely occurred in situations where more than 4% of faecal dry matter was excreted as particles larger than 4 mm. The latter were associated with diets having less than 15% of particles smaller than 8 mm and faecal pH under 6.30. It is concluded that ancillary tests, such as ruminal and faecal pH, and particle size distribution in the faeces, can potentially be used in combination with information on diet nutritional composition and a series of best practice management protocols to increase not only animal productivity but to reduce the risks of SARA and ensure the welfare of animals.

Indexed as

ancillary testsdigestive disordersfeedlot practicesruminal acidosis

Identifiers

PMID36428342
PMCPMC9687041
OpenAlexW4308971241

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.