Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40139973›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2025

Effects of a Bacillus-based direct-fed microbial on digestibility, ruminal in situ nutrient disappearance, microbiome, and fermentation parameters in forage-fed beef cattle.

Arnaldo C Limede, Rodrigo S Marques, Fernando A A Cidrini, Vinicius A Cruz, Amanda C M Queiroz, Iorrano A Cidrini, Iasmin M S A Farias, Aline N Rodrigues, Eric J Scholljegerdes, Izadora S Souza and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Effects of feeding aTranslational animal science · 2026
    Article
  4. Effects of supplementing aTranslational animal science · 2026
    Article
  5. Effects ofTranslational animal science · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Effects of feeding aTranslational animal science · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. A retrospective evaluation on the effects of aTranslational animal science · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. The effect of aVeterinary and animal science · 2025
    Article
  12. Maternal supplementation withTranslational animal science · 2025
    Article
  13. 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

14 authors.

Arnaldo C LimedeSchool of Animal Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA.
Rodrigo S MarquesSchool of Animal Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4590-2898
Fernando A A CidriniSchool of Animal Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA.
Vinicius A CruzSchool of Animal Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA.
Amanda C M QueirozDepartment of Animal Science, Universidade Estadual Paulista "Júlio de Mesquita Filho" (UNESP), Jaboticabal, São Paulo, Brazil.
Iorrano A CidriniDepartment of Animal Science, Universidade Estadual Paulista "Júlio de Mesquita Filho" (UNESP), Jaboticabal, São Paulo, Brazil.
Iasmin M S A FariasSchool of Animal Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA.
Aline N RodriguesSchool of Animal Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA.
Eric J ScholljegerdesDepartment of Animal and Range Sciences, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA.
Izadora S SouzaDepartment of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77845, USA.
Reinaldo F CookeDepartment of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77845, USA.
Raphaele GresseNovonesis, Lyngby, Denmark.
Gisle VestergaardNovonesis, Lyngby, Denmark.
Bruno I CappellozzaNovonesis, Lyngby, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-1819-4013

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This experiment evaluated dry matter intake (DMI), ruminal in situ nutrient disappearance, total-tract apparent nutrient digestibility, microbiome, and ruminal fermentation parameters of crossbred beef cows offered forage-based diets and a Bacillus-based direct-fed microbial (DFM). Fifteen rumen-cannulated Angus × Hereford cows were used in a crossover design. Treatments consisted of forage-based diets plus 500 g of protein-mineral supplement mixed with 1) 3 g of a Bacillus-based DFM containing Bacillus licheniformis and B. subtilis (BAC; n = 15; 2.2 × 109 CFU of the mixture/g; Bovacillus, Novonesis, Lyngby, Denmark), or 2) without BAC (CON; n = 15). Each experimental period lasted 33 d with 30 d of wash-out between periods. Cows were fed daily with chopped grass-mixed hay [Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis) and Bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata)]. From days 17 to 26, 5 g of titanium dioxide (TiO2) was dosed twice daily, at 12-h intervals, as an external marker of fecal output. From days 22 to 26, fecal spot samples were collected at 12-h intervals. On day 27, ruminal fluid was collected prior to feeding (0 h) and at 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 h post-feeding to evaluate ruminal pH, volatile fatty acids (VFA), and NH3-N. From days 28 to 32, 4 g of grass-mixed hay was placed in Dacron bags and introduced through the cannulas for 0, 12, 24, 48, 72, and 96 h. A treatment effect was observed (P = 0.01) for DMI, which was greater for cows supplemented with BAC vs. CON. Cows supplemented with BAC tended (P > 0.06) to have greater dry matter (DM) and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) disappearance vs. CON. A treatment effect was observed (P ≤ 0.02) for total-tract apparent DM and CP digestibility, which were greater for BAC vs. CON cows. Also, cows supplemented with BAC tended (P ≥ 0.06) to have a greater total-tract NDF and acid detergent fiber (ADF) digestibility vs. CON cohorts. Therefore, cows supplemented with BAC had greater (P < 0.01) amounts of DM, CP, NDF, and ADF digested vs. CON cows. A treatment × time effect was observed (P = 0.02) for ruminal pH, which increased at 16 and 20 h of collection for BAC vs. CON cows. Treatment effects were not (P ≥ 0.18) observed for VFA, N-NH3, and plasma concentrations of glucose, whereas plasma concentration of urea tended (P = 0.06) to be reduced for cows supplemented with BAC vs. CON. Hence, supplementation with a Bacillus-based DFM increased forage intake, the digestibility of DM and CP, and the amount of nutrients digested by rumen-cannulated cows receiving a forage-based diet.

Indexed as

BacillusDigestionGastrointestinal MicrobiomeProbioticsRumenAnimal FeedAnimal Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaAnimalsCattleCross-Over StudiesDietDietary SupplementsFemaleFermentationNutrientsNutrientsBacillusbeef cattledigestibilitydirect-fed microbialforage-based diet

Identifiers

PMID40139973
PMCPMC12065412

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.