ArticleBMC microbiology2024
The bacterial and yeast microbiota in livestock forages in Hungary.
Article in BMC microbiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlong bacteria, yeasts are common in forages and forage fermentations as spoilage microbes or as additives, yet few studies exist with species-level data on these fungi's occurrence in feedstuff. Active dry yeast and other yeast-based products are also common feed additives in animal husbandry. Here, we aimed to characterize both fermented and non-fermented milking cow feedstuff samples from Hungary to assess their microbial diversity in the first such study from Central Europe.
resultsWe applied long-read bacterial metabarcoding to 10 fermented and 25 non-fermented types of samples to assess bacterial communities and their characteristics, surveyed culturable mold and yeast abundance, and identified culturable yeast species. Fermented forages showed the abundance of Aerococcaceae, Bacillaceae, Brucellaceae, Lactobacillaceae, Staphylococcaceae, and Thermoactinomycetaceae, non-fermented ones had Cyanothecaceae, Enterobacteriaceae, Erwiniaceae, Gomontiellaceae, Oxalobacteraceae, Rhodobiaceae, Rickettsiaceae, and Staphylococcaceae. Abundances of bacterial families showed mostly weak correlation with yeast CFU numbers, only Microcoleaceae (positive) and Enterococcaceae and Alcaligenaceae (negative correlation) showed moderate correlation. We identified 14 yeast species, most commonly Diutina rugosa, Pichia fermentans, P. kudriavzevii, and Wickerhahomyces anomalus. We recorded S. cerevisiae isolates only from animal feed mixes with added active dry yeast, while the species was completely absent from fermented forages. The S. cerevisiae isolates showed high genetic uniformity.
conclusionOur results show that both fermented and non-fermented forages harbor diverse bacterial microbiota, with higher alpha diversity in the latter. The bacterial microbiome had an overall weak correlation with yeast abundance, but yeasts were present in the majority of the samples, including four new records for forages as a habitat for yeasts. Yeasts in forages mostly represented common species including opportunistic pathogens, along with a single strain of Saccharomyces used as a feed mix additive.
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.