Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38828876›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2024

Evaluation of long-term supplementation of a Bacillus subtilis direct-fed microbial and enzymatically hydrolyzed yeast cell culture product used alone or in combination on Clostridia, Clostridium perfringens, Escherichia coli, and Salmonella prevalence in beef steers.

Erin R DeHaan, Jesse Thompson, Warren C Rusche, Mackenzie de Jesus, Elliot Block, Tom Rehberger, Zachary K Smith

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial, Veterinary
In one paragraph

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Effects of feeding aTranslational animal science · 2026
    Article
  2. 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

7 authors.

Erin R DeHaanDepartment of Animal Science, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007, USA.
Jesse ThompsonArm & Hammer Animal Nutrition, Church and Dwight Company, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA.
Warren C RuscheDepartment of Animal Science, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007, USA.
Mackenzie de JesusArm & Hammer Animal Nutrition, Church and Dwight Company, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA.
Elliot BlockArm & Hammer Animal Nutrition, Church and Dwight Company, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA.
Tom RehbergerArm & Hammer Animal Nutrition, Church and Dwight Company, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA.
Zachary K SmithDepartment of Animal Science, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective was to determine the influence of long-term supplementation (258 d) of a direct-fed microbial (DFM) and/or yeast cell wall (YCW) product on bacterial populations in beef steers. Single-sourced Charolais × Red Angus steers (n = 256; body weight = 246 ± 1.68 kg) were used in a randomized complete block design and blocked by location into one of four treatments: 1) fed no DFM and no YCW (Control); 2) fed only the DFM (DFM; Certillus CP B1801 Dry, 28 g/steer d-1 ); 3) fed only the YCW (YCW; Celmanax; 18 g/steer d-1 ); and 4) fed the DFM and the YCW (DFM+YCW). Steers were vaccinated for respiratory and clostridial diseases and treated for internal and external parasites at processing and individually weighed on days 1, 14, 42, 77, 105, 133, 161, 182, 230, and 258. To determine bacterial prevalence, fecal samples were collected on days 1, 14, 77, 133, 182, and 230 and environmental (pen area, feed, and water) samples were collected at the beginning of the week when cattle were weighed. No treatment × day interactions or treatment effects (P > 0.05) were observed between treatment groups at any sampling days for the bacterial populations. Samples on days 1, 133, and 182 had greater (P < 0.05) Clostridia levels compared to the other sampling points but were not different from each other. Clostridia levels were also greater (P < 0.05) on day 77 compared to days 14 and 230. Samples on days 77 and 230 had greater (P < 0.05) Clostridium perfringens levels compared to the other sampling points but were not different (P > 0.05) from each other. Samples on days 1 and 14 had lower (P < 0.05) total Escherichia coli levels compared to the other sampling points but were not different (P > 0.05) from each other. Escherichia coli levels on day 77 were higher (P < 0.05) compared to days 133, 182, and 230. Little Salmonella prevalence (1.5%) was observed throughout the study. This study had greater levels of Clostridia compared to small and large commercial feedlots in the Church and Dwight research database, but C. perfringens, total and pathogenic E. coli, and Salmonella prevalence were notably lower. Collectively, there were no appreciable treatment influences on bacterial populations. These data further indicate a low pathogenic bacterial challenge at the trial site, which could partially explain the lack of differences with DFM or YCW supplementation. The DFM and YCW used alone or in combination cannot be expected to show additional benefits when animals are relatively unstressed with a low pathogenic bacterial challenge.

Indexed as

Animal FeedBacillus subtilisClostridium perfringensDietDietary SupplementsProbioticsAnimalsCattleCattle DiseasesClostridiumClostridium InfectionsEscherichia coliFecesMaleRandom AllocationSalmonellabeefClostridiadirect-fed microbialE. colienzymatically hydrolyzed yeast cell culture productSalmonella

Identifiers

PMID38828876
PMCPMC11196994

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.