ArticleJournal of animal science2020
Fecal bacterial community of finishing beef steers fed ruminally protected and non-protected active dried yeast.
Article in Journal of animal science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Changes of fecal microbiota with supplementation of Acremonium terricola culture and yeast culture in ewes during lactation.Journal of animal science · 2025Article
- The Changes in Fecal Bacterial Communities in Goats Offered Rumen-Protected Fat.Microorganisms · 2024Article
- Rumen and Fecal Microbiota Characteristics of Qinchuan Cattle with Divergent Residual Feed Intake.Microorganisms · 2023Article
- Comparison of rectum fecal bacterial community of finishing bulls fed high-concentrate diets with active dry yeast and yeast culture supplementation.Animal bioscience · 2023Article
- The Temporal Dynamics of Rumen Microbiota in Early Weaned Lambs.Microorganisms · 2022Article
- Composition of Fecal Microbiota in Grazing and Feedlot Angus Beef Cattle.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
- Assessing the statistical training in animal science graduate programs in the United States: survey on statistical training.Journal of animal science · 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
7 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our previous study suggested that supplementation of high-grain diets with ruminally protected and non-protected active dried yeast (ADY) may potentially reduce manure pathogen excretion by feedlot cattle. We hypothesized that feeding ruminally protected ADY might change the fecal bacterial community of finishing cattle. The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of feeding ruminally protected and non-protected ADY to finishing beef steers on their fecal bacterial community. Fresh fecal samples were collected on day 56 from 50 steers fed one of five treatments: 1) control (no monensin, tylosin, or ADY), 2) antibiotics (ANT, 330 mg monensin + 110 mg tylosin·steer-1d-1), 3) ADY (1.5 g·steer-1d-1), 4) encapsulated ADY (EDY; 3 g·steer-1d-1), and 5) a mixture of ADY and EDY (MDY; 1.5 g ADY + 3 g EDY·steer-1d-1). Bacterial DNA was extracted from fecal samples and sequenced using a MiSeq high-throughput sequencing platform. A total number of 2,128,772 high-quality V4 16S rRNA sequences from 50 fecal samples were analyzed, and 1,424 operational taxonomic units (OTU) were detected based on 97% nucleotide sequence identity among reads, with 769 OTU shared across the five treatments. Alpha diversity indices, including species observed, Chao estimate, abundance-based coverage estimator, Shannon, Simpson, and coverage, did not differ among treatments, and principal coordinate analysis revealed a high similarity among treatments without independent distribution. Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes were dominant phyla in the fecal bacterial community for all treatments, with a tendency (P < 0.10) for greater relative abundance of Bacteroidetes but lesser Firmicutes with ANT, EDY, and MDY compared with control steers. Prevotella was the dominant genus in all treatments and steers supplemented with ANT, EDY, and MDY had greater (P < 0.05) relative abundance of Prevotella than control steers, but lesser (P < 0.03) relative abundance of Oscillospira. No differences between ADY and control were observed for the aforementioned variables. Fecal starch contents were not different among treatments, but the relative abundance of Bacteroidetes, as well as Prevotella at genera level, tended (P < 0.06) to be positively correlated to fecal starch content. We conclude that supplementing ruminally protected or non-protected ADY or ANT had no effect on diversity and richness of fecal bacteria of finishing beef cattle, whereas feeding protected ADY or ANT to finishing beef steers altered the dominant fecal bacteria at phylum and genus levels. Therefore, supplementation of ruminally protected ADY may potentially improve intestinal health by stimulating the relative abundance of Prevotella.
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.