ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2024
Predicting Microbial Protein Synthesis in Cattle: Evaluation of Extant Equations and Steps Needed to Improve Accuracy and Precision of Future Equations.
Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2024. 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.
- Galyean Appreciation Club review: knowledge gaps in the nutrition of grazing beef cattle.Journal of animal science · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Predictions of microbial crude protein (MCP) synthesis for beef cattle generally rely on empirical regression equations, with intakes of energy and protein as key variables. Using a database from published literature, we developed new equations based on the intake of organic matter (OM) and intakes or concentrations of crude protein (CP) and neutral detergent fiber (NDF). We compared these new equations to several extant equations based on intakes of total digestible nutrients (TDN) and CP. Regression fit statistics were evaluated using both resampling and sampling from a simulated multivariate normal population. Newly developed equations yielded similar fit statistics to extant equations, but the root mean square error of prediction averaged 155 g (28.7% of the mean MCP of 540.7 g/d) across all equations, indicating considerable variation in predictions. A simple approach of calculating MCP as 10% of the TDN intake yielded MCP estimates and fit statistics that were similar to more complicated equations. Adding a classification code to account for unique dietary characteristics did not have significant effects. Because MCP synthesis is measured indirectly, most often using surgically altered animals, literature estimates are relatively few and highly variable. A random sample of individual studies from our literature database indicated a standard deviation for MCP synthesis that averaged 19.1% of the observed mean, likely contributing to imprecision in the MCP predictions. Research to develop additional MCP estimates across various diets and production situations is needed, with a focus on developing consistent and reliable methodologies for MCP measurements. The use of new meta-omics tools might improve the accuracy and precision of MCP predictions, but further research will be needed to assess the utility of such tools.
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.