Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39051136›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2024

Supplementing a Bacillus-based probiotic to high-risk stocker cattle.

Shea J Mackey, Reinaldo F Cooke, Autumn T Pickett, Bruno I Cappellozza, Kelsey M Harvey, Brandi B Karisch

Abstract read
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 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Effects of feeding aTranslational animal science · 2026
    Article
  3. Effects of supplementing aTranslational animal science · 2026
    Article
  4. Effects of feeding aTranslational animal science · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

6 authors.

Shea J MackeyDepartment of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA.
Reinaldo F CookeDepartment of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7497-3601
Autumn T PickettDepartment of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA.
Bruno I CappellozzaNovonesis, Hørsholm, 2970, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-1819-4013
Kelsey M HarveyPrairie Research Unit, Mississippi State University, Prairie, MS 39756, USA.
Brandi B KarischDepartment of Animal and Dairy Sciences, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS 39762, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This experiment evaluated the performance, health, and physiological responses of high-risk steers receiving a Bacillus-based probiotic during a 90-d grazing period. A total of 240 Angus-influenced steers were used in this experiment that was replicated over 2 yr (120 steers/year). Each year, steers were obtained from an auction yard and transported to the experimental facility (120 km). Steer body weight (BW) was recorded at arrival (day -1), and this value was averaged with BW recorded on day 0 to represent the initial BW (236.6 ± 1.5 kg). On day 0, steers were ranked by BW and allocated to 1 of 12 pastures with stockpiled native grass (4-ha pastures; 10 steers/pasture). Pastures were randomly assigned to receive daily supplementation with dried distillers' grains at 1% of BW containing either: 1) Bacillus subtilis + B. licheniformis probiotic (BOV; 2 g/steer daily of Bovacillus; Novonesis, Horsholm, Denmark) or 2) no feed additive (CON). Cattle received treatments from days 0 to 90, in addition to free-choice access to water and mineral + vitamin mix without ionophore. Steers were assessed for bovine respiratory disease (BRD) signs daily. Blood samples were collected and full BW was recorded on days 0, 14, 28, 56, and 90. Shrunk BW was recorded on day 91 after 16 h of feed and water restriction, and a 4% pencil shrink was used to calculate the final BW. Average daily gain (ADG) was calculated based on initial and final BW. No treatment effects were detected (P ≥ 0.73) for steer final BW and ADG. A treatment × day interaction was detected (P ≤ 0.05) for plasma haptoglobin concentration, which was greater for CON steers on days 14 and 28 (P ≤ 0.02). Incidence of BRD signs did not differ (P = 0.97) between treatments (51.7% and 51.3% for BOV and CON, respectively; SEM = 7.70). However, steer mortality + removals for health complications were greater (P = 0.01) in CON compared to BOV (0.00% vs. 5.04%, respectively; SEM = 1.41). Supplementing BOV improved (P ≤ 0.04) total pasture-based liveweight change (643 vs. 502 kg/pasture, respectively; SEM = 45) and final pasture-based total liveweight (3,007 vs. 2,869 kg/pasture, respectively; SEM = 46). Collectively, supplementation with a probiotic based on B. subtilis and B. licheniformis to high-risk stocker cattle did not alleviate the incidence of BRD signs nor improved ADG, but decreased acute-phase protein response, reduced steer mortality + removal, and increased pasture-based productivity during a 90-d grazing period.

Indexed as

Animal FeedDietProbioticsAnimalsBacillus licheniformisBacillus subtilisCattleCattle DiseasesDietary SupplementsMaleRandom AllocationWeight Gainbeef steersgrazinghealthproductivitystockerstress

Identifiers

PMID39051136
PMCPMC11315889

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.