Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37283958›Full record

ArticleTranslational animal science2022

Environmental performance of commercial beef production systems utilizing conventional productivity-enhancing technologies.

Isaac A Aboagye, Marcos R C Cordeiro, Tim A McAllister, Matt L May, Sherry J Hannon, Calvin W Booker, Sandi L Parr, Oliver C Schunicht, Luis O Burciaga-Robles, Tracey M Grimson and 4 more

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, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Climate impacts of alternative beef production systems depend on the functional unit used: Weight or monetary value.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Pooled it
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

14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Isaac A AboagyeDepartment of Animal Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2N2, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1277-5079
Marcos R C CordeiroDepartment of Animal Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2N2, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1535-5096
Tim A McAllisterLethbridge Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge, Alberta T1J 4B1, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8266-6513
Matt L MayFeedlot Health Management Services Ltd, Okotoks, Alberta T1S 2A2, Canada.
Sherry J HannonFeedlot Health Management Services Ltd, Okotoks, Alberta T1S 2A2, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7698-1605
Calvin W BookerFeedlot Health Management Services Ltd, Okotoks, Alberta T1S 2A2, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7824-5065
Sandi L ParrFeedlot Health Management Services Ltd, Okotoks, Alberta T1S 2A2, Canada.
Oliver C SchunichtFeedlot Health Management Services Ltd, Okotoks, Alberta T1S 2A2, Canada.
Luis O Burciaga-RoblesFeedlot Health Management Services Ltd, Okotoks, Alberta T1S 2A2, Canada.
Tracey M GrimsonFeedlot Health Management Services Ltd, Okotoks, Alberta T1S 2A2, Canada.
Emily BoonstraDepartment of Animal Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2N2, Canada.
Genet F MengistuDepartment of Animal Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2N2, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6139-1568
Deanne L FulawkaDepartment of Animal Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2N2, Canada.
Kim H OminskiDepartment of Animal Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2N2, Canada.
Alberta Health Services · CACanadian Science Centre for Human and Animal Health · CAAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of using conventional productivity-enhancing technologies (PETs) with or without other natural PETs on the growth performance, carcass traits, and environmental impacts of feedlot cattle. A total of 768 cross-bred yearling steers (499 ± 28.6 kg;

Indexed as

ammonia emissionsbeef cattlegreenhouse gas emissionsland useproductivity-enhancing technologieswater use

Identifiers

PMID37283958
PMCPMC9278827
OpenAlexW4281777443

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.