Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31156599›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2019

Fecal Microbial Communities in a Large Representative Cohort of California Dairy Cows.

Jill V Hagey, Srijak Bhatnagar, Jennifer M Heguy, Betsy M Karle, Patricia L Price, Deanne Meyer, Elizabeth A Maga

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Effects of aAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Gut Microbiota of Ruminants and Monogastric Livestock: An Overview.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Review
  10. Phylogenetic diversity and community structure ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

7 authors.

Jill V HageyDepartment of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States.
Srijak BhatnagarGeomicrobiology Group, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Jennifer M HeguyDivision of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California Cooperative Extension, Hayward, CA, United States.
Betsy M KarleDivision of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California Cooperative Extension, Hayward, CA, United States.
Patricia L PriceDepartment of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States.
Deanne MeyerDepartment of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States.
Elizabeth A MagaDepartment of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States.

Funding

EPA EP-C-15-004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Improved sequencing and analytical techniques allow for better resolution of microbial communities; however, the agriculture field lacks an updated analysis surveying the fecal microbial populations of dairy cattle in California. This study is a large-scale survey to determine the composition of the bacterial community present in the feces of lactating dairy cattle on commercial dairy operations. For the study, 10 dairy farms across northern and central California representing a variety of feeding and management systems were enrolled. The farms represented three typical housing types including five freestall, two drylot and three pasture-based management systems. Fresh feces were collected from 15 randomly selected cows on each farm and analyzed using 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing. This study found that housing type, individual farm, and dietary components significantly affected the alpha diversity of the fecal microbiota. While only one Operational Taxonomic Unit (OTU) was common among all the sampled individuals, 15 bacterial families and 27 genera were shared among 95% of samples. The ratio of the families

Indexed as

16S/18S ribosomal RNA gene analysisCalifornia dairiesdairy cattlemicrobiomerumenrumen microbial analysis

Identifiers

PMID31156599
PMCPMC6532609

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.