Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 225

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effects of bacterial direct-fed microbials on ruminal fermentation, blood variables, and the microbial populations of feedlot cattle1,2

Ghorbani, G. R., Morgavi, D. P., Beauchemin, K. A., Leedle, J. A. Z.·2002·Journal of Animal Science

Abstract

A study was conducted to determine whether bacterial direct-fed microbials (DFM) could be used to minimize the risk of acidosis in feedlot cattle receiving high concentrate diets. Six ruminally cannulated steers, previously adapted to a high concentrate diet, were used in a double 3 x 3 Latin square to study the effects of DFM on feed intake, ruminal pH, and ruminal and blood characteristics. Steers were provided ad libitum access to a diet containing steam-rolled barley, barley silage, and a protein-mineral supplement at 87, 9, and 4% (DM basis), respectively. Treatments were as follows: control, Propionibacterium P15 (P15), and Propionibacterium P15 and Enterococcus faecium EF212 (PE). The bacterial treatments (10(9) cfu/g) plus whey powder carrier, or whey powder alone for control, were top-dressed once daily at the time of feeding (10 g/[steer/d]). Periods consisted of 2 wk of adaptation and 1 wk of measurements. Ruminal pH was continuously measured for 6 d using indwelling electrodes. Dry matter intake and ruminal pH (mean, minimum, hours, and area pH < 5.8 or < 5.5) were not affected by treatment (P > 0.05). However, supplementation with P15 increased protozoal numbers (P < 0.05) with a concomitant increase in ruminal NH3 concentration (P < 0.01) and a decrease in the number of amylolytic bacteria (P < 0.05) compared with the control. Streptococcus bovis, enumerated using a selective medium, was numerically reduced with supplementation of PE. Although blood pH and blood glucose were not affected by DFM supplementation, steers fed PE had numerically lower concentrations of blood CO2 than control steers, which is consistent with a reduced risk of metabolic acidosis. Although the bacterial DFM used in this study did not induce changes in DMI or ruminal and blood pH, some rumen and blood variables indicated that the bacterial DFM used in this study may decrease the risk of acidosis in feedlot cattle.

Overview

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 · 10.2527/2002.8071977x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 225

Metadata

Authors
Ghorbani, G. R., Morgavi, D. P., Beauchemin, K. A., & Leedle, J. A. Z.
Venue
Journal of Animal Science
Published
2002-07-01
Volume
80
Issue
7
Pages
1977-1985
ISSN
  • 0021-8812 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-3163
OpenAlex
W2397394470
Cited by
225
References
3
FWCI
14.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effects of bacterial direct-fed microbials on ruminal fermentation, blood variables, and the microbial populations of feedlot cattle1,2. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2527/2002.8071977x
The paper
Ghorbani, G. R., Morgavi, D. P., Beauchemin, K. A., & Leedle, J. A. Z. (2002). Effects of bacterial direct-fed microbials on ruminal fermentation, blood variables, and the microbial populations of feedlot cattle1,2. Journal of Animal Science. https://doi.org/10.2527/2002.8071977x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.