2017
DOI: 10.2527/jas.2016.1059
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Analysis of the gut bacterial communities in beef cattle and their association with feed intake, growth, and efficiency1,2,3

Abstract: The impetus behind the global food security challenge is direct, with the necessity to feed almost 10 billion people by 2050. Developing a food-secure world, where people have access to a safe and sustainable food supply, is the principal goal of this challenge. To achieve this end, beef production enterprises must develop methods to produce more pounds of animal protein with less. Selection for feed-efficient beef cattle using genetic improvement technologies has helped to understand and improve the stayabili… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

2
29
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 38 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
2
29
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Analysis of the structural and functional profiles of cattle GIT microbiota has gained pace recently (Mao et al, 2015), especially in the context of the rumen microbiome and feed utilization by cattle (Callaway et al, 2010;Petri et al, 2013;Myer et al, 2017;Thomas et al, 2017). In addition, reports have established a link between younger animals and GIT microbiota with Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) shedding (Mir et al, 2015(Mir et al, , 2016(Mir et al, , 2019.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Analysis of the structural and functional profiles of cattle GIT microbiota has gained pace recently (Mao et al, 2015), especially in the context of the rumen microbiome and feed utilization by cattle (Callaway et al, 2010;Petri et al, 2013;Myer et al, 2017;Thomas et al, 2017). In addition, reports have established a link between younger animals and GIT microbiota with Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) shedding (Mir et al, 2015(Mir et al, , 2016(Mir et al, , 2019.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Changes in GIT microbiota can occur due to dietary change (Myer et al, 2017), infection, or immune system failure (Ichinohe et al, 2011;Wu and Wu, 2012). In cattle under certain conditions, O157 can cause inflammation, small mucosal hemorrhages in intestine, and induce immune responses (Walle et al, 2013), suggesting that it could also be disturbing GIT microbiota during its passage.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, next-generation sequencing techniques have uncovered novel features of the rumen microbiome, and integration of these results with ruminant performance parameters has led to meaningful advances in research (Morgavi et al, 2013). However, association-based studies have focused mainly on feed efficiencies for ruminants (Perea et al, 2017), and some studies have investigated the association between the cattle rumen microbiome and ADG as well as ADFI (Myer et al, 2017;Paz et al, 2018). Few studies have focused on the association between the sheep rumen microbiome and ADG.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As diet and toxins effect ruminal fermentation and production of glucogenic precursors required for the nutrition of the animal [ 21 , 22 ], it is critical to determine the extent to which endophyte toxins in fescue may impact microbial numbers, alter microbial profiles, or influence volatile fatty acid (VFA) production and concentrations. While a phylogenetically [ 23 ] and functionally diverse rumen microbiome is essential to the health and nutritional status of ruminant animals, feed additives or plant-secondary compounds, such as isoflavones, may further improve rumen functionality in tandem with microbial populations. Isoflavones may enhance rumen function by improving fiber degradation and by reducing several microorganisms responsible for lowered ruminal pH and increased lactate production that can disrupt normal functional microflora [ 24 , 25 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%