ArticleJournal of animal science2023
Rumen and cecum bacteria of beef cattle that differ in feed efficiency fed a forage diet.
Article in Journal of animal science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unraveling the dynamic changes in the intestinal microbiome: impacts on pre-weaning calf health and productivity.Journal of animal science and biotechnology · 2026Review
- Microbial Biomarkers Differ for Various Feed Efficiency Metrics in Beef Cattle.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Prediction accuracy for feed intake and body weight gain using host genomic and rumen metagenomic data in beef cattle.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2025Article
- Oregano essential oil enhanced body weight and well-being by modulating the HPA axis and 23-nordeoxycholic acid of cecal microbiota in Holstein steers under cold stress.Animal microbiome · 2025Article
- Influence of Dietary Forage Neutral Detergent Fiber on Ruminal Fermentation, Chewing Activity, Nutrient Digestion, and Ruminal Microbiota of Hu Sheep.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Comparison of average daily gain, apparent digestibility, rumen fermentation parameters and bacterial communities, and serum antioxidant indices in Leizhou goats fed with or without rumen-protected fat.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Most of the research addressing feed efficiency and the microbiota has been conducted in cattle fed grain diets, although cattle evolved to consume forage diets. Our hypothesis was that the bacteria in the rumen and cecum differed in cattle that have a common feed intake but had different ^average daily body weight gains (ADG) on a forage diet. Heifers (n = 134) were 606 ± 1 d of age and weighed 476 ± 3 kg at the start of the 84-d feeding study. Heifers were offered ad libitum access to a totally mixed ration that consisted of 86% ground brome hay, 10% wet distillers grains with solubles, and 4% mineral supplement as dry matter. Feed intake and body weight gain were measured, and gain was calculated. Heifers with the least (n = 8) and greatest (n = 8) ADG within 0.32 SD of the mean daily dry matter intake were selected for sampling. Digesta samples from the rumen and cecum were collected, and subsequent 16S analysis was conducted to identify Amplicon Sequence Variants. There were no differences in Alpha and Beta diversity between ADG classification within sample sites (P > 0.05). Both sample sites contained calculated balances of sister clades using phylogenetic isometric log ratio transferred data that differed across ADG classification. These findings suggest that bacteria did not differ at the community level, but there was structural difference at the clade level.
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.