ArticlePloS one2026
Effects of selected feed additives on rumen pH dynamics, physiological responses, and rumen and cecum morphometrics in feedlot beef cattle.
Article in PloS one, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The search for alternatives to ionophore antibiotics such as monensin has increased due to regulatory restrictions and consumer demand for natural feed additives. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of feed additive combinations compared with sodium monensin on performance, carcass traits, ruminal and cecal health, and meat quality in feedlot-finished cattle. Twenty-four F1 Angus-Nellore crossbred bulls (BW = 456 ± 21.77 kg) were randomly assigned to one of three treatments: 1) sodium monensin (MON; 26 mg/kg DM); 2) a blend of essential oils plus α-amylase (BEO, 90 and 560 mg/kg of DM, respectively); and 3) BEO + 25-hydroxicholecalciferol (BEO + HyD; 1 mg/animal/day). Animals were considered the experimental units, and data were analyzed using a mixed model with treatment as fixed effect and animal as random effect. Feeding BEO and BEO + HyD increased DMI (P < 0.0001), HCW (P = 0.01), and dressing percentage (P = 0.03), and tended to increase ADG (P = 0.07) and final BW (P = 0.08) compared with MON, with no differences in feed efficiency (P > 0.50). Feed additives did not affect most meat quality traits (P > 0.05). During the adaptation period and overall, animals fed BEO and BEO + HyD maintained higher mean and minimum ruminal pH, spent less time below pH 6.2 and 6.0, and had a lower area under the curve below these thresholds, along with lower ruminal temperature compared with MON (P ≤ 0.05). Additionally, over the entire feeding period, animals fed BEO and BEO + HyD spent less time below pH 5.8 (P = 0.02). Animals fed MON and BEO exhibited greater ruminal absorptive surface area (P = 0.007) than those fed BEO + HyD. Cecal morphometric parameters were not affected by treatments (P > 0.05). In conclusion, the combination of a blend of essential oils and α-amylase improved ruminal health and enhanced performance and carcass production without affecting meat quality or cecal morphology compared with monensin. Supplementation with 1 mg of 25-(OH)D3 showed limited additional effects on carcass traits.
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.