ArticleTropical animal health and production2024
Performance, ruminal and fecal microbiome of lambs fed diets supplemented with probiotics.
Article in Tropical animal health and production, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Host-Adapted Ruminal Microbiota Investigation and Functional Validation of Duolang Sheep-DerivedVeterinary sciences · 2025Article
- Alternatives to antibiotics for sustainable livestock production in the context of the One Health approach: tackling a common foe.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The present study aimed to investigate the impact of adding two doses of a commercial probiotic on productive performance, ruminal and fecal microbiome in growing lambs. Forty-two Texel or Ile de France crossbred lambs aged 86.9 ± 8.0 days (body weight: 27.4 ± 3.7 kg) were distributed into three groups: basal diet without probiotic supplementation (CG); basal diet + 1 g/animal/day of probiotic (GP1) and basal diet + 5 g/animal/day of probiotic (GP5). The experimental period was 84 days. The weight was evaluated weekly and dry matter intake (DMI) and leftovers were measured daily. At the end of the experiment, lambs were slaughtered. Feces and rumen fluid were collected for microbiome analysis and rumen fragments for histological evaluation. The use of probiotics did not affect weight gain, but GP1 showed a higher silage and DMI intake than CG (p < 0.001). The CG had a greater thickness of keratinized epithelium and stratum corneum (< 0.001) than GP1 and GP5, and greater total papilla width (p = 0.039) than GP1. There was no difference in the general abundance in the rumen and fecal microbiomes. GP5 had a higher proportion of Azoarcus and Dialister taxa in the rumen fluid (p = 0.012 and p = 0.017, respectively) and higher proportion of Treponema and Fibrobacter taxa in the fecal microbiome (p = 0.015 and p = 0.026, respectively), whereas CG had a higher proportion of Anaeroplasma than the other groups (p = 0.032). These results demonstrated the benefits of probiotics for ruminal epithelium protection and microbial diversity. However, there was no effect on performance parameters.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39358665What 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.