The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Liver abscesses in feedlot cattle: a review.
Abstract
Liver abscesses in slaughtered beef cattle result from aggressive grain-feeding programs. The incidence, averaging from 12 to 32% in most feedlots, is influenced by a number of dietary and management factors. Liver abscesses represent a major economic liability to producers, packers, and ultimately consumers. Besides liver condemnation, economic impacts include reduced feed intake, reduced weight gain, decreased feed efficiency, and decreased carcass yield. Fusobacterium necrophorum, a member of the ruminal anaerobic bacterial flora, is the primary etiologic agent. Actinomyces pyogenes is the second most frequently isolated pathogen. Ruminal lesions resulting from acidosis generally are accepted as the predisposing factors for liver abscesses. F. necrophorum possesses or produces a number of virulence factors that participate in the penetration and colonization of the ruminal epithelium and subsequent entry and establishment of infection in the liver. However, only a few virulence factors have been characterized well. Control of liver abscesses in feedlot cattle generally has depended on the use of antimicrobial compounds. Five antibiotics (i.e., bacitracin methylene disalicylate, chlortetracycline, oxytetracycline, tylosin, and virginiamycin) are approved for prevention of liver abscesses in feedlot cattle. Tylosin is the most effective and the most commonly used feed additive. Tylosin feeding reduces abscess incidence by 40 to 70%. The mode of action of antibiotics in preventing liver abscesses is believed to be via inhibition of ruminal F. necrophorum. Protective immunity against F. necrophorum induced by a variety of antigenic components has ranged from ineffectual to significant protection.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Ruminal Acidosis in Beef Cattle: The Current Microbiological and Nutritional Outlook
Nagaraja, T. G., & Titgemeyer, E. C. (2007) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2006-478 · Cited by 873
Self-citationStress, immunity, and the management of calves
Hulbert, L. E., & Moisá, S. J. (2016) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10198 · Cited by 370
González, L. A., Manteca, X., Calsamiglia, S., Schwartzkopf-Genswein, K. S., & Ferret, A. (2012) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.12.009 · Cited by 256
Antimicrobial usage and resistance in beef production
Cameron, A., & McAllister, T. A. (2016) · Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology · doi:10.1186/s40104-016-0127-3 · Cited by 207
“Fusobacterium necrophorum, an anaerobic rumen bacterium, is the major etiological agent isolated from condemned livers, followed closely by Trueperella pyogenes [12].”
BackgroundInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- Nagaraja, T. G., & Chengappa, M. M.
- Venue
- Journal of Animal Science
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1998
- Volume
- 76
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 287
- ISSN
- 0021-8812 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2006657506
- Cited by
- 448
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Liver abscesses in feedlot cattle: a review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2527/1998.761287x
- The paper
- Nagaraja, T. G., & Chengappa, M. M. (1998). Liver abscesses in feedlot cattle: a review. Journal of Animal Science. https://doi.org/10.2527/1998.761287x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.