ArticleJournal of animal science2024
Utilizing gas flux from automated head chamber systems to estimate dietary energy values for beef cattle fed a finishing diet.
Article in Journal of animal science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The carbon footprint of beef and beef × dairy crossbred steers under different growing regimens.Journal of animal science · 2026Article
- Effects of cow efficiency phenotype on performance, energy partitioning, ultrasound carcass composition, and gas exchange during gestation and lactation.Translational animal science · 2026Article
- Estimation of the sample size to determine gas flux in finishing steers under confined conditions using alternative statistical approaches.Translational animal science · 2026Article
- Experimental and experiential recommendations for using the GreenFeed systems to measure gas flux in grazing and confined cattle.MethodsX · 2025Article
- Use of animal performance and gas flux for estimating dry matter intake in growing steers.Translational animal science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dietary net energy for maintenance (NEm) and gain (NEg) can be estimated using calculations based on live performance or adjusted-final body weight, which is calculated based on carcass characteristics. These values are commonly referred to as performance-adjusted (pa) NEm (paNEm) and NEg (paNEg). The NEm and NEg of a diet can also be estimated by adding recovered energy (RE) with heat production (HP) derived from an automated head chamber system (AHCS), which we will term gas-adjusted (ga) NEm (gaNEm) and NEg (gaNEg). Furthermore, HP from the Brouwer equation requires an estimate of urinary nitrogen (UN) excretion, which can be calculated based on N intake, blood urea N, UN concentration, and urine creatinine, or it could be zeroed. Alternatively, HP can be calculated using an alternative equation based on the respiratory quotient. Demonstrating agreement between pa and ga derived dietary energy values provides an opportunity to validate using the AHCS for energetic experiments and this comparison has not been conducted previously. Accordingly, the objective of this experiment was to assess the agreement between live and carcass paNEm and paNEg with gaNEm and gaNEg, where HP was calculated using 4 different approaches. Estimates of HP were not different (P = 0.99) between the 4 approaches employed, indicating that all options investigated are appropriate. Live paNEm and paNEg had a higher agreement (Lin's concordance correlation coefficient [CCC] = 0.91) with gaNEm and gaNEg than carcass values (CCC ≤ 0.84). These results suggest that researchers can implement the AHCS to provide good estimates of dietary energy values in finishing beef cattle that are unrestrained.
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.