Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36041454›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2022

Effects of rumen-native microbial feed supplementation on milk yield, composition, and feed efficiency in lactating dairy cows.

Ainhoa Valldecabres, Sean P Gilmore, Jordan J Embree, Ivan Z Zhelev, James R Gaffney, Clarisse A Marotz, Fan Yang, Andrew S Izzo, Mallory M Embree, Alfonso Lago

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial, Veterinary
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. A retrospective evaluation on the effects of aTranslational animal science · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. JDS communications · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Effects of supplementing aJDS communications · 2024
    Article
  8. Supplementing aTranslational animal science · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

10 authors.

Ainhoa ValldecabresDairyExperts Inc., Tulare, CA 93274, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3235-2487
Sean P GilmoreNative Microbials Inc., San Diego, CA 92121, USA.
Jordan J EmbreeNative Microbials Inc., San Diego, CA 92121, USA.
Ivan Z ZhelevNative Microbials Inc., San Diego, CA 92121, USA.
James R GaffneyNative Microbials Inc., San Diego, CA 92121, USA.
Clarisse A MarotzNative Microbials Inc., San Diego, CA 92121, USA.
Fan YangNative Microbials Inc., San Diego, CA 92121, USA.
Andrew S IzzoNative Microbials Inc., San Diego, CA 92121, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2901-2315
Mallory M EmbreeNative Microbials Inc., San Diego, CA 92121, USA.
Alfonso LagoDairyExperts Inc., Tulare, CA 93274, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0380-0292

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of two rumen-native microbial feed supplements (MFS) on milk production, milk composition, and feed efficiency. A total of 90 multiparous cows between 40 and 60 d in milk were enrolled in a randomized block design study. Within each block (baseline milk yield), cows were randomly assigned to: control (no microbial feed supplementation), MFS1 (0.33 g/kg total mixed ration [TMR] of an MFS containing a minimum of Clostridium beijerinckii at 2 × 106 CFU/g and Pichia kudriavzevii at 2 × 107 CFU/g), or MFS2 (0.33 g/kg TMR of a MFS containing a minimum of C. beijerinckii at 2 × 106 CFU/g, P. kudriavzevii at 2 × 107 CFU/g, Ruminococcus bovis at 2 × 107 CFU/g, and Butyrivibrio fibrisolvens at 2 × 107 CFU/g). Cows were housed in a single group and fed the study diets ad libitum for 270 d. Individual milk yield was recorded using electronic milk meters, and milk fat and protein were measured using optical in-line analyzers at each of two daily milkings. Treatment and treatment by time effects were assessed through multiple linear regression analyses. Treatment effects were observed for milk and energy-corrected milk (ECM) yields, milk fat and protein yields and concentrations, dry matter intake (DMI), and feed efficiency; those effects were conditional to time for milk yield, DMI, and feed efficiency. Overall, milk, ECM, fat, and protein yields were higher for MFS2 compared with control cows (+3.0, 3.7, 0.12, and 0.12 kg/d, respectively). Compared with MFS1, milk yield was higher and protein yield tended to be higher for MFS2 cows (+2.9 and 0.09 kg/d, respectively). In contrast, MFS1 cows produced 0.17 and 0.08 units of percentage per day more fat and protein than MFS2 cows, and 0.07 units of percentage per day more protein than control cows. Dry matter intake and feed efficiency were higher for MFS2 cows compared with MFS1 cows (+1.3 kg/d and 0.06, respectively), and feed efficiency was higher for MFS2 cows compared with control cows (+0.04). Where observed, treatment by time effects suggest that the effects of MFS2 were more evident as time progressed after supplementation was initiated. No effects of microbial supplementation were observed on body weight, body condition score, somatic cell count, or clinical mastitis case incidence. In conclusion, the supplementation of MFS2 effectively improved economically important outcomes such as milk yield, solids, and feed efficiency.

Indexed as

MilkRumenAnimal FeedAnimalsCattleDietDietary SupplementsFemaleLactationcattlefeed additivemicrobial feed supplement

Identifiers

PMID36041454
PMCPMC9584157
OpenAlexW4293698147

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.