Loading…

Feedlot efficiency implications on greenhouse gas emissions and sustainability1

The term sustainable has many meanings, but in agriculture it generally refers to some balance between environmental, social, and economic goals. The objective of this project was to quantify inputs and outputs to assess the sustainability implications of 2 feedlot cattle management systems: Never E...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of animal science 2011-08, Vol.89 (8), p.2643-2656
Main Authors: Cooprider, K. L., Mitloehner, F. M., Famula, T. R., Kebreab, E., Zhao, Y., Van Eenennaam, A. L.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2149-d6bf6aa0b32032609a5776df62f9c8045d1462bc7bd4c54d54052c67aa121a003
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2149-d6bf6aa0b32032609a5776df62f9c8045d1462bc7bd4c54d54052c67aa121a003
container_end_page 2656
container_issue 8
container_start_page 2643
container_title Journal of animal science
container_volume 89
creator Cooprider, K. L.
Mitloehner, F. M.
Famula, T. R.
Kebreab, E.
Zhao, Y.
Van Eenennaam, A. L.
description The term sustainable has many meanings, but in agriculture it generally refers to some balance between environmental, social, and economic goals. The objective of this project was to quantify inputs and outputs to assess the sustainability implications of 2 feedlot cattle management systems: Never Ever 3 (NE3) and a conventional (CON) system using metabolic modifiers. Angus-cross steers (n = 104) were stratified by BW (337 kg ± 17) and randomly assigned to 4 pens per treatment group. The NE3 cattle received no feed additives or implants, whereas CON were implanted with 100 mg of trenbolone acetate and 14 mg of estradiol benzoate on d 1 and 70, and were additionally fed monensin [330 mg/(animal.d)] and tylosin phosphate [90 rng/(animal.d)] in their ration throughout the course of the study, and ractopamine hydrochloride at 254 mg/(animal.d) for the last 29 d on feed. Cattle were shipped on a constant average pen weight basis (596 kg ± 32 BW). The CON cattle had greater ADO (1.81 vs. 1.35 kg, P < 0.01) and were on feed fewer days (146 vs. 188 d, P < 0.01) than the NE3 cattle. No significant differences were observed in HCW (P = 0.072) or dressing percentage (P = 0.62) between treatments (P > 0.05); however, CON carcasses averaged larger ribeye area (87 vs. 80 cm2, P < 0.01), greater Warner-Bratzler shear force measurement (WBSF; 3.46 vs. 3.19 kg, P < 0.01), and smaller USDA marbling score (5.4 vs. 6.2, P < 0.01), and less backfat thickness (1.64 vs. 1.84 cm, P < 0.05) and yield grade (3.38 vs. 3.95, P < 0.01) than NE3 carcasses. Overall, CON cattle consumed 393 kg less DM in the feedlot (1,250 vs. 1,643 kg; P < 0.05). No treatment effects were observed for daily methane (CHsub4: P 0.62) or nitrous oxide (N20; P = 0.7) emissions per steer. Assuming a constant emission rate on a DMI basis throughout the course of the feedlot trial, CON feedlot management resulted in a 31% decrease in emissions per finished steer compared with NE3 management. Expressing CH4 emissions on a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-eq) basis revealed a 1.10-kg COsub2-eq difference per kilogram BW gain (5.02 kg of NE3 vs. 3.92 kg of CON) between the 2 feedlot management systems. Although the metabolic modifiers resulted in additional costs for the CON treatment group, the cost per kilogram of feedlot BW gain was significantly less ($1.12/kg vs. $1.35/kg; P < 0.05) than NE3. Both production systems satisfied some sustain- ability criteria, although neither concurrently fulfilled all of the en
doi_str_mv 10.2527/jas.2010-3539
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_883461680</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2425229271</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2149-d6bf6aa0b32032609a5776df62f9c8045d1462bc7bd4c54d54052c67aa121a003</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotkDtPwzAYRS0EEqUwskfsLp-fSUZUUUCq1AVmy_GjOErtYidD_z0NZbrDPbpXOgg9ElhRQevnXpcVBQKYCdZeoQURVGBGJLtGCwBKcNMQeovuSukBCBWtWKDdxjk7pLFy3gcTXDSnKhyOQzB6DCmWKsVqn52L32kqrtrrUrlDKOWv09FWZSqjDlF3YQjjidyjG6-H4h7-c4m-Nq-f63e83b19rF-22FDCW2xl56XW0DEKjEpotahrab2kvjUNcGEJl7QzdWe5EdwKDoIaWWtNKNEAbImeLrvHnH4mV0bVpynH86VqGsYlkc0M4QtkciolO6-OORx0PikCalamzsrUrEzNytgvoYtfFg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>883461680</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Feedlot efficiency implications on greenhouse gas emissions and sustainability1</title><source>Oxford Journals Online</source><creator>Cooprider, K. L. ; Mitloehner, F. M. ; Famula, T. R. ; Kebreab, E. ; Zhao, Y. ; Van Eenennaam, A. L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Cooprider, K. L. ; Mitloehner, F. M. ; Famula, T. R. ; Kebreab, E. ; Zhao, Y. ; Van Eenennaam, A. L.</creatorcontrib><description><![CDATA[The term sustainable has many meanings, but in agriculture it generally refers to some balance between environmental, social, and economic goals. The objective of this project was to quantify inputs and outputs to assess the sustainability implications of 2 feedlot cattle management systems: Never Ever 3 (NE3) and a conventional (CON) system using metabolic modifiers. Angus-cross steers (n = 104) were stratified by BW (337 kg ± 17) and randomly assigned to 4 pens per treatment group. The NE3 cattle received no feed additives or implants, whereas CON were implanted with 100 mg of trenbolone acetate and 14 mg of estradiol benzoate on d 1 and 70, and were additionally fed monensin [330 mg/(animal.d)] and tylosin phosphate [90 rng/(animal.d)] in their ration throughout the course of the study, and ractopamine hydrochloride at 254 mg/(animal.d) for the last 29 d on feed. Cattle were shipped on a constant average pen weight basis (596 kg ± 32 BW). The CON cattle had greater ADO (1.81 vs. 1.35 kg, P < 0.01) and were on feed fewer days (146 vs. 188 d, P < 0.01) than the NE3 cattle. No significant differences were observed in HCW (P = 0.072) or dressing percentage (P = 0.62) between treatments (P > 0.05); however, CON carcasses averaged larger ribeye area (87 vs. 80 cm2, P < 0.01), greater Warner-Bratzler shear force measurement (WBSF; 3.46 vs. 3.19 kg, P < 0.01), and smaller USDA marbling score (5.4 vs. 6.2, P < 0.01), and less backfat thickness (1.64 vs. 1.84 cm, P < 0.05) and yield grade (3.38 vs. 3.95, P < 0.01) than NE3 carcasses. Overall, CON cattle consumed 393 kg less DM in the feedlot (1,250 vs. 1,643 kg; P < 0.05). No treatment effects were observed for daily methane (CHsub4: P 0.62) or nitrous oxide (N20; P = 0.7) emissions per steer. Assuming a constant emission rate on a DMI basis throughout the course of the feedlot trial, CON feedlot management resulted in a 31% decrease in emissions per finished steer compared with NE3 management. Expressing CH4 emissions on a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-eq) basis revealed a 1.10-kg COsub2-eq difference per kilogram BW gain (5.02 kg of NE3 vs. 3.92 kg of CON) between the 2 feedlot management systems. Although the metabolic modifiers resulted in additional costs for the CON treatment group, the cost per kilogram of feedlot BW gain was significantly less ($1.12/kg vs. $1.35/kg; P < 0.05) than NE3. Both production systems satisfied some sustain- ability criteria, although neither concurrently fulfilled all of the environmental, social, and economic goals of agricultural sustainability. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]]]></description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-8812</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1525-3163</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2527/jas.2010-3539</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Champaign: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Emissions ; Greenhouse gases ; Methane ; Studies ; Sustainability</subject><ispartof>Journal of animal science, 2011-08, Vol.89 (8), p.2643-2656</ispartof><rights>Copyright American Society of Animal Science Aug 2011</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2149-d6bf6aa0b32032609a5776df62f9c8045d1462bc7bd4c54d54052c67aa121a003</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2149-d6bf6aa0b32032609a5776df62f9c8045d1462bc7bd4c54d54052c67aa121a003</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cooprider, K. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mitloehner, F. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Famula, T. R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kebreab, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhao, Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Eenennaam, A. L.</creatorcontrib><title>Feedlot efficiency implications on greenhouse gas emissions and sustainability1</title><title>Journal of animal science</title><description><![CDATA[The term sustainable has many meanings, but in agriculture it generally refers to some balance between environmental, social, and economic goals. The objective of this project was to quantify inputs and outputs to assess the sustainability implications of 2 feedlot cattle management systems: Never Ever 3 (NE3) and a conventional (CON) system using metabolic modifiers. Angus-cross steers (n = 104) were stratified by BW (337 kg ± 17) and randomly assigned to 4 pens per treatment group. The NE3 cattle received no feed additives or implants, whereas CON were implanted with 100 mg of trenbolone acetate and 14 mg of estradiol benzoate on d 1 and 70, and were additionally fed monensin [330 mg/(animal.d)] and tylosin phosphate [90 rng/(animal.d)] in their ration throughout the course of the study, and ractopamine hydrochloride at 254 mg/(animal.d) for the last 29 d on feed. Cattle were shipped on a constant average pen weight basis (596 kg ± 32 BW). The CON cattle had greater ADO (1.81 vs. 1.35 kg, P < 0.01) and were on feed fewer days (146 vs. 188 d, P < 0.01) than the NE3 cattle. No significant differences were observed in HCW (P = 0.072) or dressing percentage (P = 0.62) between treatments (P > 0.05); however, CON carcasses averaged larger ribeye area (87 vs. 80 cm2, P < 0.01), greater Warner-Bratzler shear force measurement (WBSF; 3.46 vs. 3.19 kg, P < 0.01), and smaller USDA marbling score (5.4 vs. 6.2, P < 0.01), and less backfat thickness (1.64 vs. 1.84 cm, P < 0.05) and yield grade (3.38 vs. 3.95, P < 0.01) than NE3 carcasses. Overall, CON cattle consumed 393 kg less DM in the feedlot (1,250 vs. 1,643 kg; P < 0.05). No treatment effects were observed for daily methane (CHsub4: P 0.62) or nitrous oxide (N20; P = 0.7) emissions per steer. Assuming a constant emission rate on a DMI basis throughout the course of the feedlot trial, CON feedlot management resulted in a 31% decrease in emissions per finished steer compared with NE3 management. Expressing CH4 emissions on a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-eq) basis revealed a 1.10-kg COsub2-eq difference per kilogram BW gain (5.02 kg of NE3 vs. 3.92 kg of CON) between the 2 feedlot management systems. Although the metabolic modifiers resulted in additional costs for the CON treatment group, the cost per kilogram of feedlot BW gain was significantly less ($1.12/kg vs. $1.35/kg; P < 0.05) than NE3. Both production systems satisfied some sustain- ability criteria, although neither concurrently fulfilled all of the environmental, social, and economic goals of agricultural sustainability. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]]]></description><subject>Emissions</subject><subject>Greenhouse gases</subject><subject>Methane</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Sustainability</subject><issn>0021-8812</issn><issn>1525-3163</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNotkDtPwzAYRS0EEqUwskfsLp-fSUZUUUCq1AVmy_GjOErtYidD_z0NZbrDPbpXOgg9ElhRQevnXpcVBQKYCdZeoQURVGBGJLtGCwBKcNMQeovuSukBCBWtWKDdxjk7pLFy3gcTXDSnKhyOQzB6DCmWKsVqn52L32kqrtrrUrlDKOWv09FWZSqjDlF3YQjjidyjG6-H4h7-c4m-Nq-f63e83b19rF-22FDCW2xl56XW0DEKjEpotahrab2kvjUNcGEJl7QzdWe5EdwKDoIaWWtNKNEAbImeLrvHnH4mV0bVpynH86VqGsYlkc0M4QtkciolO6-OORx0PikCalamzsrUrEzNytgvoYtfFg</recordid><startdate>20110801</startdate><enddate>20110801</enddate><creator>Cooprider, K. L.</creator><creator>Mitloehner, F. M.</creator><creator>Famula, T. R.</creator><creator>Kebreab, E.</creator><creator>Zhao, Y.</creator><creator>Van Eenennaam, A. L.</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RQ</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>U9A</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20110801</creationdate><title>Feedlot efficiency implications on greenhouse gas emissions and sustainability1</title><author>Cooprider, K. L. ; Mitloehner, F. M. ; Famula, T. R. ; Kebreab, E. ; Zhao, Y. ; Van Eenennaam, A. L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2149-d6bf6aa0b32032609a5776df62f9c8045d1462bc7bd4c54d54052c67aa121a003</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Emissions</topic><topic>Greenhouse gases</topic><topic>Methane</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Sustainability</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cooprider, K. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mitloehner, F. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Famula, T. R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kebreab, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhao, Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Eenennaam, A. L.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Career &amp; Technical Education Database</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health and Medical</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cooprider, K. L.</au><au>Mitloehner, F. M.</au><au>Famula, T. R.</au><au>Kebreab, E.</au><au>Zhao, Y.</au><au>Van Eenennaam, A. L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Feedlot efficiency implications on greenhouse gas emissions and sustainability1</atitle><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle><date>2011-08-01</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>89</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>2643</spage><epage>2656</epage><pages>2643-2656</pages><issn>0021-8812</issn><eissn>1525-3163</eissn><abstract><![CDATA[The term sustainable has many meanings, but in agriculture it generally refers to some balance between environmental, social, and economic goals. The objective of this project was to quantify inputs and outputs to assess the sustainability implications of 2 feedlot cattle management systems: Never Ever 3 (NE3) and a conventional (CON) system using metabolic modifiers. Angus-cross steers (n = 104) were stratified by BW (337 kg ± 17) and randomly assigned to 4 pens per treatment group. The NE3 cattle received no feed additives or implants, whereas CON were implanted with 100 mg of trenbolone acetate and 14 mg of estradiol benzoate on d 1 and 70, and were additionally fed monensin [330 mg/(animal.d)] and tylosin phosphate [90 rng/(animal.d)] in their ration throughout the course of the study, and ractopamine hydrochloride at 254 mg/(animal.d) for the last 29 d on feed. Cattle were shipped on a constant average pen weight basis (596 kg ± 32 BW). The CON cattle had greater ADO (1.81 vs. 1.35 kg, P < 0.01) and were on feed fewer days (146 vs. 188 d, P < 0.01) than the NE3 cattle. No significant differences were observed in HCW (P = 0.072) or dressing percentage (P = 0.62) between treatments (P > 0.05); however, CON carcasses averaged larger ribeye area (87 vs. 80 cm2, P < 0.01), greater Warner-Bratzler shear force measurement (WBSF; 3.46 vs. 3.19 kg, P < 0.01), and smaller USDA marbling score (5.4 vs. 6.2, P < 0.01), and less backfat thickness (1.64 vs. 1.84 cm, P < 0.05) and yield grade (3.38 vs. 3.95, P < 0.01) than NE3 carcasses. Overall, CON cattle consumed 393 kg less DM in the feedlot (1,250 vs. 1,643 kg; P < 0.05). No treatment effects were observed for daily methane (CHsub4: P 0.62) or nitrous oxide (N20; P = 0.7) emissions per steer. Assuming a constant emission rate on a DMI basis throughout the course of the feedlot trial, CON feedlot management resulted in a 31% decrease in emissions per finished steer compared with NE3 management. Expressing CH4 emissions on a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-eq) basis revealed a 1.10-kg COsub2-eq difference per kilogram BW gain (5.02 kg of NE3 vs. 3.92 kg of CON) between the 2 feedlot management systems. Although the metabolic modifiers resulted in additional costs for the CON treatment group, the cost per kilogram of feedlot BW gain was significantly less ($1.12/kg vs. $1.35/kg; P < 0.05) than NE3. Both production systems satisfied some sustain- ability criteria, although neither concurrently fulfilled all of the environmental, social, and economic goals of agricultural sustainability. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]]]></abstract><cop>Champaign</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><doi>10.2527/jas.2010-3539</doi><tpages>14</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0021-8812
ispartof Journal of animal science, 2011-08, Vol.89 (8), p.2643-2656
issn 0021-8812
1525-3163
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_883461680
source Oxford Journals Online
subjects Emissions
Greenhouse gases
Methane
Studies
Sustainability
title Feedlot efficiency implications on greenhouse gas emissions and sustainability1
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-20T11%3A44%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Feedlot%20efficiency%20implications%20on%20greenhouse%20gas%20emissions%20and%20sustainability1&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20animal%20science&rft.au=Cooprider,%20K.%20L.&rft.date=2011-08-01&rft.volume=89&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=2643&rft.epage=2656&rft.pages=2643-2656&rft.issn=0021-8812&rft.eissn=1525-3163&rft_id=info:doi/10.2527/jas.2010-3539&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2425229271%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2149-d6bf6aa0b32032609a5776df62f9c8045d1462bc7bd4c54d54052c67aa121a003%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=883461680&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true