Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32687166›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2020

The impact of feed efficiency selection on the ruminal, cecal, and fecal microbiomes of Angus steers from a commercial feedlot.

Christina B Welch, Jeferson M Lourenco, Dylan B Davis, Taylor R Krause, Mia N Carmichael, Michael J Rothrock, T Dean Pringle, Todd R Callaway

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Dietary supplementation ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2023
    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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Christina B WelchDepartment of Animal and Dairy Science, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Jeferson M LourencoDepartment of Animal and Dairy Science, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Dylan B DavisDepartment of Animal and Dairy Science, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Taylor R KrauseDepartment of Animal and Dairy Science, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Mia N CarmichaelDepartment of Animal and Dairy Science, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Michael J RothrockEgg Safety and Quality Research Unit, Richard B. Russell Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Athens, GA.
T Dean PringleDepartment of Animal and Dairy Science, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Todd R CallawayDepartment of Animal and Dairy Science, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
University of Georgia · USAgricultural Research Service · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Feed is the greatest cost of animal production, so reducing it is critical to increase producer profits. In ruminants, the microbial population within the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) is critical to nutrient digestion and absorption in both the rumen and the hindgut. The objective of this study was to determine the bacterial taxonomic profile of the rumen, cecum, and feces of feedlot steers at slaughter in order to link feed efficiency and the GIT bacterial populations from these three locations. Twenty commercial Angus steers were selected and divided into two groups according to their residual feed intake (RFI) classification determined during the feedlot-finishing period: high-RFI (n = 10) and low-RFI (n = 10). After the ruminal, cecal, and fecal samples were collected at slaughter, DNA extraction and 16S rRNA gene sequencing were performed on them to determine their bacterial composition. One-way ANOVA was performed on the animal performance data, alpha diversities, and bacterial abundances using RFI classification as the fixed effect. Overall, the ruminal bacterial population was the most different in terms of taxonomic profile compared with the cecal and fecal populations as revealed by beta diversity analysis (P < 0.001). Moreover, bacterial richness (Chao1) was greatest (P = 0.01) in the rumen of the high-RFI group compared with the low-RFI group. In contrast, bacterial richness and diversity in the intestinal environment showed that Chao1 was greater (P = 0.01) in the cecum, and the Shannon diversity index was greater in both the cecum and feces of low-RFI compared with high-RFI steers (P = 0.01 and P < 0.001, respectively). Ruminococcaceae was more abundant in the low-RFI group in the cecum and feces (P = 0.01); fecal Bifidobacteriaceae was more abundant in high-RFI steers (P = 0.03). No correlations (P ≥ 0.13) between any ruminal bacterial family and RFI were detected; however, Ruminococcaceae, Mogibacteriaceae, Christensenellaceae, and BS11 were negatively correlated with RFI (P < 0.05) in the cecum and feces. Succinivibrionaceae in the cecum was positively correlated with RFI (P = 0.05), and fecal Bifidobacteriaceae was positively correlated with RFI (P = 0.03). Results collectively indicate that in addition to the ruminal bacteria, the lower gut bacterial population has a significant impact on feed efficiency and nutrient utilization in feedlot steers; therefore, the intestinal bacteria should also be considered when examining the basis of ruminant feed efficiency.

Indexed as

Animal FeedAnimal Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaAnimalsBacteriaCattleCecumDietFecesGastrointestinal TractMaleMicrobiotaRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRumenRNA, Ribosomal, 16S16S ribosomal ribonucleic acidfeedlot cattlegastrointestinal microbiotaresidual feed intakeRuminococcaceae

Identifiers

PMID32687166
PMCPMC7392532
OpenAlexW3045200854

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.