SynthesisJournal of animal science2018
Variation in animal performance explained by the rumen microbiome or by diet composition.
Synthesis in Journal of animal science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of palm kernel cake on nutrient utilization and performance of grazing and confined cattle: a meta-analysis.Tropical animal health and production · 2023Pooled it
- Effect of Different Diet Formulas on Production Performance and Rumen Bacterial Diversity of Fattening Beef Cattle.Molecular biotechnology · 2026Article
- Hindgut microbiota profiling and functional prediction of sheep (Ovis aries) fed with different dietary calcium levels.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Production responses of dairy cows to precision feeding based on historical performance during short-term changes in supplementation.Journal of animal science · 2025Article
- The Effects of Animal, Collection Time, and Interval on the Microbiota Structure, Metabolism, and Degradative Potential of Rumen Fluid Inoculum Collected by Esophageal Probe from Hay-Fed Cows.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Rumen microbiota succession throughout the perinatal period and its association with postpartum production traits in dairy cows: A review.Animal nutrition (Zhongguo xu mu shou yi xue hui) · 2024Review
- Ruminal and feces metabolites associated with feed efficiency, water intake and methane emission in Nelore bulls.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Cysteamine Supplementation In Vitro Remarkably Promoted Rumen Fermentation Efficiency towards Propionate Production viaAntioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Rumen and lower gut microbiomes relationship with feed efficiency and production traits throughout the lactation of Holstein dairy cows.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Effects of Age, Diet CP, NDF, EE, and Starch on the Rumen Bacteria Community and Function in Dairy Cattle.Microorganisms · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The central aim of this meta-analysis was to determine whether the rumen microbiome can serve as an accurate predictor of performance in beef and dairy cattle compared with predictions based on diet composition. To support this comparison, a set of models was derived and compared. Models predicted milk yield (MY), average daily gain (ADG), dry matter intake (DMI), dairy feed efficiency (FE), and beef FE using different sets of independent variables: diet (D), microbial (M), and experimental (E). Diet variables included dry matter, organic matter, neutral detergent fiber, acid detergent fiber, crude protein, ether extract, nonfiber carbohydrate, starch, and forage percentages. Microbiome variables included relative abundance of 3 major rumen bacterial phyla, species richness, and species diversity. Experimental variables included publication year, breed type (dairy, beef, or Bos indicus), and rumen sampling fraction (fluid or solid). A second set of models used D and E variables as predictors for the microbiome. For both the production and microbiome model sets, predictor variable sets were used individually and in combination. Linear mixed-effects regression, weighted by 1/standard error of the mean, was used to derive models using data from 51 peer-reviewed publications. Models for the same response variable were compared on the basis of concordance correlation coefficient with study effects removed (uCCC), root-estimated variance associated with study and error, and corrected Akaike information criterion values, wherever appropriate. The MY model using D + M + E predictors outperformed all other MY models (uCCC = 0.71). ADG was most accurately predicted by D alone (uCCC = 0.92). Interestingly, M + E was more successful at predicting DMI than any model using D variables. Similarly, dairy FE was more accurately predicted by M + E than D, albeit only slightly (uCCC = 0.69 vs. 0.65). Beef FE could only be modeled using D variables. Overall, breed type proved a better predictor of relative abundances of most rumen bacterial phyla than D. Conversely, species richness and diversity indicators were unaffected by breed type, but could be predicted by D with moderate precision and accuracy (uCCC = 0.63 to 0.69). This analysis suggests that diet and the microbiome may exert independent effects on various aspects of performance. Further research is necessary to determine the reasons for these independent influences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.