Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42161349›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2026

Low methane phenotype of feedlot steers changes throughout production and depends on diet.

Melissa S Williams, Stephanie A Terry, Karen A Beauchemin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Melissa S WilliamsLethbridge Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge, Alberta T1J 4B1, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1285-6709
Stephanie A TerryLethbridge Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge, Alberta T1J 4B1, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2567-6368
Karen A BeaucheminLethbridge Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge, Alberta T1J 4B1, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5070-4554

Funding

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A better understanding of the variability in methane (CH4; g/day) emissions from beef cattle throughout production is necessary to implement mitigation programs. One hundred Angus crossbred steers were fed diets including either barley silage (BS) or corn silage (CS) throughout a backgrounding (BG) and finishing (FN) phase feedlot study. The objectives were to characterize the variability in methane yield (CH4Y; g/kg dry matter intake) among and within steers during BG and FN phases of production, assess whether the variability in CH4Y differs by silage type, examine the stability of CH4Y ranking (Low, Intermediate, or High) of steers within and across phases, and evaluate relationships between range of CH4Y, CH4 production, and feeding behavior. Cattle were fed a BG diet (70% silage and 22%-26% barley grain on a DM basis) for 121 d followed by a FN diet (15% silage and 77%-78% barley grain on a DM basis) for 158 d, with each phase comprised of two measurement periods. Steers were assigned to one of the silage sources for the entirety of the experiment with n = 50 each. Enteric CH4 was measured using GreenFeed emissions monitoring systems (C-Lock Inc., USA) for 2 wks/period in BG and 2-3 wks/period in FN. Steers were ranked based on their CH4Y (MYR) in each period and phase and categorized as Low (<0.5 SD from the mean), Intermediate (within ±0.5 SD of the mean), or High (>0.5 SD of the mean) emitters. Statistical analysis was performed within a period or phase using PROC GLIMMIX of SAS as a mixed model with fixed effects of MYR, silage, MYR×silage, and period or phase. Steer was the experimental unit, and the random effect accounted for individual variability. Rankings of individuals were compared across periods and phases to determine whether rankings changed over time. The CH4Y of steers ranked Low in period 1 were not different from Intermediate steers in period 2 of BG, with both being lower than High steers (P < 0.01). Similarly, steers ranked as Low in BG overall were not different from those ranked as Intermediate in FN for CH4Y (P < 0.01). During FN, Low and Intermediate steers differed in period 2, whether using period 1 or 2 ranking (P < 0.001). During BG, Low and Intermediate steers had a lower (P < 0.01) proportion of caproate in rumen fluid than High steers, and cattle fed BS had increased (P ≤ 0.01) propionate and valerate and decreased (P ≤ 0.01) acetate and NH3-N. During FN, Low steers had lower (P = 0.03) acetate and higher (P ≤ 0.04) propionate and isobutyrate proportions than high steers. Steers were more likely to change MYR during BG (56%) and from BG to FN (42%), compared to during FN (20%). During BG, 14% of BS and 71% of CS steers ranked as low in period 1 changed rank in period 2. When steers were ranked as low during BG, 43% (BS) and 57% (CS) had a different MYR in FN. Pearson correlation coefficients revealed a moderate to strong positive relationship between the CH4Y range and CH4 and CH4Y during FN for both silage sources (P < 0.05). For CS steers, feed intake decreased as the CH4Y range increased (P < 0.001; r = -0.61). In conclusion, the variability in CH4Y was present throughout BG and FN, and MYR was most likely to change within BG and across phases. Therefore, these results suggest that selecting steers for their MYR based on a short-term measurement may not reflect lifetime MYR within and across phases and diets.

Indexed as

Animal FeedDietMethaneAnimal Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaAnimalsCattleHordeumMaleSilageZea maysMethanebeef steersenteric methaneGreenFeedsilage sourcevariation

Identifiers

PMID42161349
PMCPMC13264382

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.