ArticleTropical animal health and production2026
Effects of feeding a Bacillus-based probiotic to grazing Nellore bulls finished on tropical pasture.
Article in Tropical animal health and production, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Interest in probiotics as an alternative to ionophores has increased, particularly in pasture-based systems using energy supplementation. While these additives aim to improve feed efficiency and mitigate acidosis risk, probiotics may also modulate rumen function by enhancing fiber digestion. This study evaluated the effects of including a Bacillus-based probiotic in an energy supplement on intake, performance, total tract digestibility, and rumen and cecum morphometrics of finishing Nellore cattle. Twenty-eight bulls (502.6 ± 7.0 kg) were blocked by initial body weight and assigned to four paddocks of Urochloa brizantha cv. Marandu. A ground corn-based supplement was offered daily at 0.3% of body weight for 112 d with either no probiotic (CON; n = 14) or 2 g/animal of Bacillus licheniformis and Bacillus subtilis (6.4 × 10⁹ CFU/g; n = 14) using a Calan gate system. Forage intake and fecal output were estimated using indigestible neutral detergent fiber and titanium dioxide. Probiotic supplementation reduced pasture intake (6.32 vs. 7.18 kg/d; P = 0.04), total dry matter intake (8.23 vs. 9.25 kg/d; P = 0.02), and total crude protein intake (0.83 vs. 0.92 kg/d; P = 0.02), as well as NDF intake (4.40 vs. 5.04 kg/d; P = 0.02), without affecting nutrient digestibility (P > 0.10). Average daily gain was reduced (0.75 vs. 0.91 kg/d; P = 0.02), as was final P8 fat thickness (6.47 vs. 7.49 mm; P = 0.05), whereas feed efficiency (0.098 vs. 0.101; P = 0.76), hot carcass weight (318.61 vs. 320.32 kg; P = 0.70), and dressing percentage (53.88 vs. 52.65%; P = 0.30) were unchanged. Rumen and cecum morphometrics were not affected. Supplementation with this Bacillus-based probiotic did not improve performance of pasture-finished Nellore bulls, indicating limited benefits under these conditions and highlighting the need to clarify interactions among probiotic strains, supplementation level, and rumen kinetics.
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.