Cited by 359Gut microbiota and healthRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyMicrobial Community Ecology and Physiology

Community structures of fecal bacteria in cattle from different animal feeding operations

Open access
Shanks, Orin C., Kelty, Catherine A., Archibeque, Shawn, Jenkins, Michael, Newton, Ryan J., McLellan, Sandra L., Huse, Susan M., Sogin, Mitchell L.·2011·Applied and Environmental Microbiology

Abstract

The fecal microbiome of cattle plays a critical role not only in animal health and productivity but also in food safety, pathogen shedding, and the performance of fecal pollution detection methods. Unfortunately, most published molecular surveys fail to provide adequate detail about variability in the community structures of fecal bacteria within and across cattle populations. Using massively parallel pyrosequencing of a hypervariable region of the rRNA coding region, we profiled the fecal microbial communities of cattle from six different feeding operations where cattle were subjected to consistent management practices for a minimum of 90 days. We obtained a total of 633,877 high-quality sequences from the fecal samples of 30 adult beef cattle (5 individuals per operation). Sequence-based clustering and taxonomic analyses indicate less variability within a population than between populations. Overall, bacterial community composition correlated significantly with fecal starch concentrations, largely reflected in changes in the Bacteroidetes, Proteobacteria, and Firmicutes populations. In addition, network analysis demonstrated that annotated sequences clustered by management practice and fecal starch concentration, suggesting that the structures of bovine fecal bacterial communities can be dramatically different in different animal feeding operations, even at the phylum and family taxonomic levels, and that the feeding operation is a more important determinant of the cattle microbiome than is the geographic location of the feedlot.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/aem.02988-10

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 58 · Cited by 359

Authors
Shanks, O. C., Kelty, C. A., Archibeque, S., Jenkins, M., Newton, R. J., McLellan, S. L., Huse, S. M., & Sogin, M. L.
Affiliations
  • Environmental Protection Agency (US)
  • Colorado State University (US)
  • Agricultural Research Service (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee (US)
  • Marine Biological Laboratory (US)
Corresponding author
Shanks, Orin C.
Venue
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
Published
2011-05
Volume
77
Issue
9
Pages
2992-3001
ISSN
  • 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-5336
OpenAlex
W1989196827
Cited by
359
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 14
FWCI
8.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Applied and Environmental Microbiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lincoln (University of Nebraska) (submittedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
Keywords
beef cattle, animal feeding operations, bacterial community structure, Bacteroidetes, Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, management practices, feedlot, microbial network analysis
MeSH terms
Animals, Bacteria, Cattle, Diet, DNA, Bacterial, DNA, Ribosomal, Feces, Phylogeny, Cluster Analysis, Biodiversity, Metagenome, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review