Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39953702›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2025

Enteric methane emission classification and ranking of growing steers during the backgrounding and finishing phases.

Juan de J Vargas, Diego Manriquez, Maya Swenson, Pedro H V Carvalho, Sara E Place

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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Juan de J VargasAgNext, Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7674-3850
Diego ManriquezAgNext, Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Maya SwensonAgNext, Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Pedro H V CarvalhoAgNext, Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1620-6831
Sara E PlaceAgNext, Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4033-3681

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is limited information regarding the effect of beef cattle enteric methane (CH4) classification during the backgrounding and finishing phases and the impact of using metabolic modulators such as growth-promoting implants. This experiment aimed to determine how CH4 and residual CH4 emission (RME) classification impact gas flux and whether implanted or non-implanted growing steers maintain the same CH4 and RME classification during the backgrounding and finishing phases. A total of 46 Angus steers (approximately 8 mo of age and 244 ± 11.1 kg of initial body weight [BW]) were enrolled. During the finishing phase, 23 steers were implanted, while 23 did not receive an implant. Individual animal growth performance and gas flux (CH4 and carbon dioxide [CO2] production and oxygen [O2] consumption) were determined during the backgrounding and finishing phases. In addition, RME was individually determined using metabolic BW and dry matter intake (DMI). In the backgrounding and finishing phases, steers were ranked in ascending order according to their CH4 production (g/d), CH4 yield (g/kg of DMI), CH4 intensity (g/kg of average daily gain), and RME. Consequently, steers were classified as low, medium, and high emitters based on the quartile distribution. Then, gas flux was analyzed using a completely randomized design for each phase. The relationship between the initial CH4 and RME classification during the backgrounding and the subsequent classification during finishing was analyzed using Fisher's exact test. Steers classified as low CH4 or RME had lower (P < 0.05) CH4 production than high emitters during the backgrounding and finishing phases. The production of CO2 varies among classification groups regarding the growing phase and the use of growth-promoting implants. The consumption of O2 was lower (P < 0.05) in steers classified as low CH4 emitters during the backgrounding but not (P > 0.05) during the finishing phase. In addition, between 35% and 83% of the steers re-ranked according to CH4 and RME classification from the backgrounding to the finishing phase. In conclusion, the classification of growing steers using CH4 production, yield, intensity, or RME results in animals with lower CH4 production during the backgrounding and finishing phases. However, CH4 or RME classification should be conducted in each phase because growing steers re-ranked when changing from the backgrounding to the finishing phase.

Indexed as

MethaneAnimal FeedAnimalsCarbon DioxideCattleDietMaleCarbon DioxideMethanebackgroundingfinishinggrowing steersmethane emissionsresidual methane emissionstotal mixed ration

Identifiers

PMID39953702
PMCPMC11926535

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.