Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39656762›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2025

Evaluation of kernel processing and processor type in whole-plant sorghum silage: effects on nutrient digestibility and animal performance in backgrounding beef heifers.

Federico Podversich, Leandro Abdelhadi, Sergio Roskopf, Gleise M Silva, Emmanuel Angeli, Gustavo J Hein, Hugo H Ortega, Martin Ruiz-Moreno, Jose C B Dubeux, Nicolas DiLorenzo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

10 authors.

Federico PodversichNorth Florida Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Marianna, FL 32446, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0852-790X
Leandro AbdelhadiFacultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, La Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Sergio RoskopfFacultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, Universidad Nacional del Litoral, Esperanza, Santa Fe, Argentina.
Gleise M SilvaDepartment of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, CanadaAB T6G 2P5.ORCID 0000-0002-9113-4324
Emmanuel AngeliFacultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, Universidad Nacional del Litoral, Esperanza, Santa Fe, Argentina.
Gustavo J HeinFacultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, Universidad Nacional del Litoral, Esperanza, Santa Fe, Argentina.
Hugo H OrtegaFacultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, Universidad Nacional del Litoral, Esperanza, Santa Fe, Argentina.
Martin Ruiz-MorenoNorth Florida Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Marianna, FL 32446, USA.
Jose C B DubeuxNorth Florida Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Marianna, FL 32446, USA.
Nicolas DiLorenzoNorth Florida Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Marianna, FL 32446, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5174-3427

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Two experiments were conducted to assess the effects of feeding whole-plant sorghum silage (WPSS) with different kernel processing techniques (KP). Experiment 1 contrasted KP for WPSS on intake and apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) in beef heifers (n = 24, 13 ± 1 mo, 267 ± 10.9 kg of initial body weight [BW]) housed in individual pens (36 m2). Grain sorghum was harvested at hard dough, switching the kernel processor to obtain the WPSS treatments: A) unprocessed (UNP), B) conventionally processed (CONV), and C) shredlage processed (SHRD). Heifers (8/treatment) received ad libitum WPSS from their respective treatment, plus soybean meal top-dressed at 0.5% BW/d (DM basis). Feed, and feces were collected for 5 d; feed was offered once daily, and orts were collected the following day. Fecal samples were collected twice daily, and ATTD was determined using indigestible neutral detergent fiber (NDF) as a marker. Data were analyzed as a completely randomized design, with heifer as the experimental unit, and the following contrasts were performed 1) Processing: UNP vs. (CONV + SHRD) and 2) Processor: CONV vs. SHRD. Processing WPSS increased the ATTD of starch by 4.5% (P = 0.01), reduced fecal starch by 27.5% (P = 0.01), and reduced the change of NDF from feed to orts by 39% (P < 0.01). Heifers fed SHRD had 6.6% greater ATTD of NDF than CONV-fed heifers (P = 0.04). Experiment 2 evaluated the effects of feeding either SHRD or CONV-processed WPSS on growth performance of beef heifers. Whole-plant grain sorghum was harvested at the hard-dough stage, switching the KP as in experiment 1. Angus heifers (n = 96, 15 ± 1 mo, 249.6 ± 28.6 kg of BW) were blocked by initial BW, and randomly assigned to pens (8 heifers/pen, 6 pens/treatment). Diets consisted, all on a DM basis, of WPSS, either SHRD or CONV, at 90.5%, expeller soybean meal at 7.0%, and a vitamin-mineral-protein concentrate at 2.5%. After 14-d of adaptation, growth was measured for 56 d, and feed was offered once daily. Data were analyzed using a randomized complete block design with the pen as the experimental unit. Heifers fed CONV had a 9.6% greater gain-to-feed ratio (P = 0.05) and a 7.4% greater Kleiber ratio (P = 0.05) than SHRD-fed heifers. Apparent net energy of gain tended to be 7.1% greater in CONV-fed heifers (P = 0.06). In conclusion, kernel processing WPSS increased starch digestibility and reduced fecal starch concentration. Using SHRD increased NDF digestibility and feeding CONV-processed WPSS resulted in enhanced growth performance.

Indexed as

DigestionFood HandlingSilageSorghumAnimal FeedAnimal Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaAnimalsCattleDietFemalebeef cattlekernel processorshredlagesorghum silagestarch

Identifiers

PMID39656762
PMCPMC11725643

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.