ArticleBMC microbiology2026
Animal performance and gut microbiota of cattle as affected by the unfermented or fermented total mixed ration.
Article in BMC microbiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diet regulates the gut microbiota, which in turn affects animal performance, but how diet shapes the animal performance and gut microbiota remains largely unknown. To fill this gap, the author conducted a comprehensive study of the influence of total mixed ration (TMR) or fermented TMR (FTMR) on the animal performance and gut microbiome. Sixteen Simmental male cattle were randomly allocated to two treatments (one cattle per pen). The animals were fed with the TMR and FTMR diets respectively. The results showed that the contents of ADF, NDF, cellulose and total cellulose in the FTMR were significantly decreased (p < 0.05), the average daily weight gain of the Simmental male cattle shows an increasing trend (TMR: 0.31 vs. FTMR: 0.62), while no significant (p = 0.2382) difference was found between the two treatments. The metagenomics analysis showed significant (p < 0.05) difference in the α-diversity and β-diversity, and the dominant bacterial genera were Weissella, Lactiplantibacillus, Levilactobacillus and Companilactobacillus. The 16S rRNA sequencing indicated that a significant (p = 0.018) difference in the bacterial communities between the cattle fed with TMR or FTMR diet, while no significant (p < 0.05) differences were detected on the primary genus. It can be found that the FTMR diet increased the average daily gain of cattle by improving the chemical composition and microbial functional profile of the FTMR diet, and affected the growth performance of cattle.
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.