MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406209447 · doi:10.1093/tas/txae182

Essential oil blend and monensin for feedlot steers consuming backgrounding and finishing diets: growth performance, methane emissions using the GreenFeed system, and feeding behavior

2025· article· en· W4406209447 on OpenAlexafffund
Stephanie A. Terry, K. A. Beauchemin

Bibliographic record

VenueTranslational Animal Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsMonensinFeedlotMethane emissionsMethaneAnimal scienceEnvironmental scienceChemistryBiologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A study was conducted to assess growth performance, methane (CH4) emissions, and feeding behavior of feedlot steers consuming backgrounding and finishing diets with an essential oil blend (EO), monensin (Mon), and their combination (EO + Mon). The study was structured as a 2 × 2 factorial, with two feed additive treatments (Control, EO) and two monensin treatments (no Monensin, Monensin). One hundred Angus × steers were evenly distributed across each treatment into four pens, and each dietary phase consisted of four, 28-d periods. Using the GreenFeed system to estimate CH4 yield (g CH4/kg dry matter intake [DMI]), the mean CV (coefficient of variation) within the same steer across measurement periods was 14.0% and 15.2% for the backgrounding and finishing phases, respectively. The mean CV of CH4 production for steer within period and time-of-day block was up to 83.4% and 102.9% for the backgrounding and finishing phases, respectively. There was no difference in overall average daily gain (P ≥ 0.22) or gain:feed ratio (P ≥ 0.26) with EO or Monensin during the backgrounding or finishing phases. There were variable period effects on CH4 emissions, but overall control had lower (EO × Mon; P ≤ 0.01) CH4 production, yield, and CH4 energy as a percentage of gross energy intake (GEI) (Ym, Mcal CH4 % GEI), during the backgrounding phase. During the finishing phase, CH4 yield (EO × Mon; P = 0.02) and Ym (EO × Mon; P ≤ 0.01) were greatest in the EO + Mon treatment. Monensin, irrespective of EO, decreased DMI (P < 0.01) and eating rate (P = 0.01), and increased intermeal interval (P < 0.01) for the backgrounding phase. In the finishing phase, Monensin decreased (P < 0.01) DMI, variation of DMI (EO × Mon), meal size, and eating rate. Number of GreenFeed visits was negatively (P < 0.01) correlated with all feeding behavior metrics in the finishing phase. In conclusion, supplementation of EO or Monensin and their combination into backgrounding and finishing diets of feedlot steers had no effect on overall feedlot performance or CH4 emissions. Additionally, the high variability in CV of CH4 production and yield suggests a need to improve the accuracy and precision of the GreenFeed system for estimating enteric CH4 emissions from cattle.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTranslational Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207