ArticleJournal of animal science2024
Effects of bacterial direct-fed microbial mixtures offered to beef cattle consuming finishing diets on intake, nutrient digestibility, feeding behavior, and ruminal kinetics/fermentation profile.
Article in Journal of animal science, 2024. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Ruminal tannase-producing bacteria and their effects on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, blood parameters, and rumen bacterial populations in weaning Afshar-Kurdi lambs fed pomegranate peel.Tropical animal health and production · 2026Article
- Comparison of dried and liquid direct-fed microbial (MYLO) on liveweight gain and carcass performance in feedlot cattle.Translational animal science · 2026Article
- Evaluation of direct-fed microbials as an alternative to ionophores and non-ionophore additives onTranslational animal science · 2026Article
- In Vitro Investigation of the Effects ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Supplementing yeast culture to beef heifers consuming a forage-based diet.Translational animal science · 2025Article
- Evaluation of dietary inclusion of a blend of essential oils and probiotics for growing beef cattle.Translational animal science · 2025Article
- Effects of a Bacillus-based direct-fed microbial on performance, blood parameters, fecal characteristics, rumen morphometrics, and intestinal gene expression in finishing beef bulls.Journal of animal 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Effects of bacterial direct-fed microbial (DFM) mixtures on intake, nutrient digestibility, feeding behavior, ruminal fermentation profile, and ruminal degradation kinetics of beef steers were evaluated. Crossbred Angus ruminally cannulated steers (n = 6; body weight [BW] = 520 ± 30 kg) were used in a duplicated 3 × 3 Latin square design and offered a steam-flaked corn-based finisher diet to ad libitum intake for 3, 28-d periods. Treatments were 1) Control (no DFM, lactose carrier only); 2) Treat-A (Lactobacillus animalis, Propionibacterium freudenreichii, Bacillus subtilis, and Bacillus licheniformis), at 1:1:1:3 ratio, respectively; totaling 6 × 109 CFU (50 mg)/animal-daily minimum; and 3) Treat-B, the same DFM combination, but doses at 1:1:3:1 ratio. Bacterial counts were ~30% greater than the minimum expected. Data were analyzed using the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS with the model including the fixed effect of treatment and the random effects of square, period, and animal (square). For repeated measure variables, the fixed effects of treatment, time, and their interaction, and the random effects of square, period, animal (square), and animal (treatment) were used. Preplanned contrasts comparing Control × Treat-A or Treat-B were performed. Intake and major feeding behavior variables were not affected (P ≥ 0.17) by treatments. Steers offered Treat-A had an increased (P = 0.04) ADF digestibility compared with Control. Steers offered Treat-A experienced daily 300 min less (P = 0.04) time under ruminal pH 5.6, a greater (P = 0.04) ruminal pH average and NH3-N concentration (P = 0.05) and tended (P = 0.06) to have a lower ruminal temperature compared to Control. Ruminal VFA was not affected (P ≥ 0.38) by treatments. Steers offered Treat-A increased (P = 0.02) and tended (P = 0.08) to increase the ruminal effective degradable NDF and ADF fractions of the diet-substrate, respectively. When the forage-substrate (low quality) was incubated, steers offered Treat-A tended (P = 0.09) to increase the effective degradable hemicellulose fraction compared to Control. In this experiment, the bacterial combinations did not affect intake and feeding behavior, while the combination with a greater proportion of B. licheniformis (Treat-A) elicited an improved core-fiber digestibility and a healthier ruminal pH pattern, in which the ruminal environment showed to be more prone to induce the effective degradability of fiber fractions, while also releasing more NH3-N.
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.