ArticleJournal of animal science2025
Evaluation of cattle sub-species and growth-promoting technology on growth performance, carcass characteristics, and gas flux of steers finished in summer feedlot conditions.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to evaluate the comparative growth performance, carcass characteristics, and gas flux of yearling Bos indicus (BI; Brahman) and Bos taurus (BT; Angus) steers managed with (TRT) and without (CON) the use of growth-promoting technology (GPT). One hundred BI (initial body weight (IBW) = 342 ± 31 kg) and 100 BT (IBW = 341 ± 21 kg) steers were fed for 180d in 2 consecutive phases. In Phase 1, d 0-83, cattle of each sub-species were blocked by body weight and randomly assigned to a management treatment in 10-hd research pens (5 pens/treatment). In Phase 2, d 84-180, cattle were moved and randomly assigned to a 50-hd research pen (1 pen/treatment) equipped with 1 GreenFeed automated head chamber system (C-Lock, Rapid City, SD, USA) and 5 SmartFeed bunk systems (C-Lock, Rapid City, SD, USA) for measuring individual gas flux of methane (CH4), carbon dioxide (CO2), oxygen (O2), and hydrogen (H2) and feed intake, respectively. Data were analyzed with R (R Core Team, 2021, v. 4.4.1) software to assess the fixed effects of cattle sub-species, treatment, and their interaction for growth performance collected in Phase 1 and 2, and gas flux which was only measured in Phase 2. In Phase 1, IBW did not differ (P > 0.75) by sub-species or treatment. Dry matter intake (DMI), average daily gain (ADG), and feed efficiency (G:F) were greater (P < 0.01) for BT, resulting in greater final body weight (FBW) for BT compared to BI. Within sub-species, DMI did not differ (P > 0.35) between treatments in Phase 1, but ADG, G:F, and FBW were greater (P < 0.01) for TRT compared to CON. In Phase 2, DMI increased with the use of GPT. However, there was a sub-species × treatment interaction (P ≤ 0.04) where greater increases in ADG and FBW were observed between TRT and CON for BT relative to BI. Furthermore, BI had a greater proportion of Standard and Select quality grades relative to BT. Daily CH4 production (g CH4/d), CH4 yield (g CH4/kg DMI), and yield of CH4 (% of gross energy intake) were less (P < 0.01) for BI than BT. The use of GPT decreased emissions intensity per unit ADG and carcass gain; furthermore, a sub-species × treatment interaction existed (P ≤ 0.05), where a greater decrease in EI was observed between CON and TRT for BT when compared to BI. Ultimately, BT had greater growth performance and carcass quality, but BI emitted less CH4, highlighting the complex tradeoffs resulting from sustainability-related research in beef production systems.
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.