ArticleJournal of animal science2024
Effects of bacterial direct-fed microbial combinations on beef cattle growth performance, feeding behavior, nutrient digestibility, ruminal morphology, and carcass characteristics.
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 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of direct-fed microbial supplementation on feedlot lamb growth performance, serum biochemical markers, fecal consistency, and fecal microbiota.Translational animal science · 2026Article
- Evaluation of direct-fed microbials as an alternative to ionophores and non-ionophore additives onTranslational animal science · 2026Article
- The effect of aVeterinary and animal science · 2025Article
- Ruminant nutrition symposium: novel microbial solutions to optimize production efficiency in beef and dairy systems.Journal of animal science · 2025Review
- 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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The effects of the dietary inclusion of a mixture of bacterial direct-fed microbial (DFM) on feedlot beef cattle growth performance, carcass characteristics, nutrient digestibility, feeding behavior, and ruminal papillae morphology were evaluated. Crossbred-Angus steers (n = 192; initial body weight (BW) = 409 kg ± 8 kg) were blocked by BW and randomly assigned into 48 pens (4 steers/pen and 16 pens/treatment) following a randomized complete block design. A steam-flaked corn-based fishing diet was offered to ad libitum intake once daily for 153 d containing the following treatments: (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 with 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 pen as the experimental unit, the fixed effect of treatment, and the random effect of BW-block, while preplanned contrasts comparing Control × treat-A or treat-B were used. Steers offered treat-A had increased carcass-adjusted average daily gain (P = 0.03) by 6.7%, gain efficiency (P < 0.01) by 6%, tended (P = 0.07) to have increased carcass-adjusted final BW by 15 kg, and hot carcass weight (P = 0.07) by 10 kg, while treat-B did not differ (P ≥ 0.17) from control. Overall dry matter (DM) intake (P = 0.36) and other carcass traits (P ≥ 0.13) were not affected by treatments. Steers offered treat-A tended to have increased digestibility of DM (P = 0.07) by 3%, neutral detergent fiber (P = 0.10), and hemicellulose (P = 0.08) by 9% compared with control, while treat-B did not differ (P ≥ 0.10) from control. No treatment × period interactions (P ≥ 0.21) or main effects of treatment (P ≥ 0.12) were observed during 24-h feeding behavior. Steers ruminated, ate, chewed, and were more active (P ≤ 0.01) during the second behavioral assessment (day 113), while drinking behavior was not affected (P ≥ 0.88). Ruminal papillae morphology and ruminal ammonia concentration (ruminal fluid collected at slaughter facility) were not affected by treatment (P ≥ 0.39). Steers offered the DFM treat-A had improved growth performance and it positively affected carcass weight and nutrient digestion. The DFM combinations did not seem to affect feedlot cattle feeding behavior or ruminal papillae morphology.
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.