SynthesisJournal of animal science2026
The impact of supplementing quebracho and chestnut tannin extracts on the growth performance in growing and finishing beef cattle: a meta-analytical assessment.
Synthesis in Journal of animal science, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Tannin extracts (TE), composed of condensed tannins from quebracho and hydrolyzable tannins from chestnut, have been studied as functional feed additives to improve growth performance in beef cattle, but reported effects vary with TE composition, dose, dietary protein, and co-additive. This meta-analysis evaluated TE supplementation effects on average daily gain (ADG), dry matter intake (DMI), and gain:feed (G:F) in growing and finishing beef cattle, using 162 treatment records from 43 published studies involving > 22,000 animals, mostly bulls and feedlot-based studies, including grazing and individually pen trials. Additional analyses included conditional independence tests for monensin use, forest and mosaic plots, and subset analyses for diets with or without monensin. Meta-regression indicated that TE supplementation was associated with increases in ADG (P < 0.001), DMI (P < 0.001), and G:F (P = 0.024). The ADG response was nonlinear; quadratic models indicated an optimal inclusion of ∼0.30% of dietary DM for maximizing weight gain. The disproportionate increase in ADG relative to DMI is consistent with improved nutrient utilization. The TE-ADG relationship was stronger at lower crude protein intake (P = 0.0525), however, because crude protein intake is not a direct proxy for rumen-degradable nitrogen supply and may co-vary with diet formulation and co-additives (e.g., ionophores and/or NPN sources), this pattern should be interpreted as context-dependent rather than as evidence of a universal mechanism. A conditional independence test also suggested that the TE-associated ADG responses were not independent of monensin use, suggesting a possible synergy effect, though additional studies are needed to confirm this pattern. Overall, TE appears to be a context-dependent additive rather than a universal growth promoter, and responses did not necessarily require doses near the model-derived optimum; benefits were also detectable at lower inclusions (e.g., ∼0.08% of dietary DM) in some contexts. Further research is needed to refine dosing strategies, better characterize TE chemistry, and evaluate environmental outcomes in dedicated studies.
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.