Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28854878›Full record

ArticleBMC microbiology2017

Comparison of rumen bacterial communities in dairy herds of different production.

Nagaraju Indugu, Bonnie Vecchiarelli, Linda D Baker, James D Ferguson, Jairam K P Vanamala, Dipti W Pitta

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC microbiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Effect of supplementation withFrontiers in microbiology · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Impact of virginiamycin on the ruminal microbiota of feedlot cattle.Canadian journal of veterinary research = Revue canadienne de recherche veterinaire · 2024
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors.

Nagaraju InduguDepartment of Clinical Studies, School of Veterinary Medicine, New Bolton Center, University of Pennsylvania, Kennett Square, PA, 19348, USA.
Bonnie VecchiarelliDepartment of Clinical Studies, School of Veterinary Medicine, New Bolton Center, University of Pennsylvania, Kennett Square, PA, 19348, USA.
Linda D BakerDepartment of Clinical Studies, School of Veterinary Medicine, New Bolton Center, University of Pennsylvania, Kennett Square, PA, 19348, USA.
James D FergusonDepartment of Clinical Studies, School of Veterinary Medicine, New Bolton Center, University of Pennsylvania, Kennett Square, PA, 19348, USA.
Jairam K P VanamalaDepartment of Food Science, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, State College, PA, 16802, USA.
Dipti W PittaDepartment of Clinical Studies, School of Veterinary Medicine, New Bolton Center, University of Pennsylvania, Kennett Square, PA, 19348, USA. dpitta@vet.upenn.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3102-9119

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe purpose of this study was to compare the rumen bacterial composition in high and low yielding dairy cows within and between two dairy herds. Eighty five Holstein dairy cows in mid-lactation (79-179 days in milk) were selected from two farms: Farm 12 (M305 = 12,300 kg; n = 47; 24 primiparous cows, 23 multiparous cows) and Farm 9 (M305 = 9700 kg; n = 38; 19 primiparous cows, 19 multiparous cows). Each study cow was sampled once using the stomach tube method and processed for 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing using the Ion Torrent (PGM) platform.

resultsDifferences in bacterial communities between farms were greater (Adonis: R

conclusionsDifferences in rumen bacterial populations observed between the two farms can be attributed to dietary composition, particularly differences in forage type and proportion in the diets. A combination of corn silage and alfalfa silage may have contributed to the increased proportion of Proteobacteria in Farm 12. It was concluded that Farm 12 had a greater proportion of specialist bacteria that have the potential to enhance rumen fermentative digestion of feedstuffs to support higher milk yields.

Indexed as

Microbial ConsortiaAnimal FeedAnimalsBacteriaCattleDairyingDietDigestionDNA, BacterialFarmsFecesFemaleFermentationLactationMedicago sativaRNA, Ribosomal, 16SDNA, BacterialRNA, Ribosomal, 16SDairy cowsDairy herdsRumen microbiota

Identifiers

PMID28854878
PMCPMC5577838

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.