488 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32687166)
1. The impact of feed efficiency selection on the ruminal, cecal, and fecal microbiomes of Angus steers from a commercial feedlot.
Welch CB; Lourenco JM; Davis DB; Krause TR; Carmichael MN; Rothrock MJ; Pringle TD; Callaway TR
J Anim Sci; 2020 Jul; 98(7):. PubMed ID: 32687166
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Evaluation of the Fecal Bacterial Communities of Angus Steers With Divergent Feed Efficiencies Across the Lifespan From Weaning to Slaughter.
Welch CB; Lourenco JM; Krause TR; Seidel DS; Fluharty FL; Pringle TD; Callaway TR
Front Vet Sci; 2021; 8():597405. PubMed ID: 34268344
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Predicting feed efficiency of Angus steers using the gastrointestinal microbiome.
Congiu M; Lourenco J; Cesarani A; Lamichhane U; Macciotta NPP; Dimauro C
Animal; 2024 Mar; 18(3):101102. PubMed ID: 38430665
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Rumen Microbiome and Metabolome of High and Low Residual Feed Intake Angus Heifers.
Liu Y; Wu H; Chen W; Liu C; Meng Q; Zhou Z
Front Vet Sci; 2022; 9():812861. PubMed ID: 35400092
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The Bacterial and Fungal Microbiota of Nelore Steers Is Dynamic Across the Gastrointestinal Tract and Its Fecal-Associated Microbiota Is Correlated to Feed Efficiency.
Lopes DRG; La Reau AJ; Duarte MS; Detmann E; Bento CBP; Mercadante MEZ; Bonilha SFM; Suen G; Mantovani HC
Front Microbiol; 2019; 10():1263. PubMed ID: 31293524
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Ruminal Microbiome Differences in Angus Steers with Differing Feed Efficiencies during the Feedlot Finishing Phase.
Carmichael MN; Dycus MM; Lourenco JM; Welch CB; Davis DB; Krause TR; Rothrock MJ; Fluharty FL; Pringle TD; Callaway TR
Microorganisms; 2024 Mar; 12(3):. PubMed ID: 38543587
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Fecal Microbiome Differences in Angus Steers with Differing Feed Efficiencies during the Feedlot-Finishing Phase.
Lourenco JM; Welch CB; Krause TR; Wieczorek MA; Fluharty FL; Rothrock MJ; Pringle TD; Callaway TR
Microorganisms; 2022 May; 10(6):. PubMed ID: 35744646
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Cecum microbial communities from steers differing in feed efficiency.
Myer PR; Wells JE; Smith TP; Kuehn LA; Freetly HC
J Anim Sci; 2015 Nov; 93(11):5327-40. PubMed ID: 26641052
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Cecal microbiota of feedlot cattle fed a four-species Bacillus supplement.
Fuerniss LK; Kreikemeier KK; Reed LD; Cravey MD; Johnson BJ
J Anim Sci; 2022 Oct; 100(10):. PubMed ID: 35953238
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Digestive tract microbiota of beef cattle that differed in feed efficiency.
Freetly HC; Dickey A; Lindholm-Perry AK; Thallman RM; Keele JW; Foote AP; Wells JE
J Anim Sci; 2020 Feb; 98(2):. PubMed ID: 31930312
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Associations between residual feed intake and apparent nutrient digestibility, in vitro methane-producing activity, and volatile fatty acid concentrations in growing beef cattle1.
Johnson JR; Carstens GE; Krueger WK; Lancaster PA; Brown EG; Tedeschi LO; Anderson RC; Johnson KA; Brosh A
J Anim Sci; 2019 Jul; 97(8):3550-3561. PubMed ID: 31175808
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Rumen Bacteria and Serum Metabolites Predictive of Feed Efficiency Phenotypes in Beef Cattle.
Clemmons BA; Martino C; Powers JB; Campagna SR; Voy BH; Donohoe DR; Gaffney J; Embree MM; Myer PR
Sci Rep; 2019 Dec; 9(1):19265. PubMed ID: 31848455
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Assessing the relationship between the rumen microbiota and feed efficiency in Nellore steers.
Lopes DRG; de Souza Duarte M; La Reau AJ; Chaves IZ; de Oliveira Mendes TA; Detmann E; Bento CBP; Mercadante MEZ; Bonilha SFM; Suen G; Mantovani HC
J Anim Sci Biotechnol; 2021 Jul; 12(1):79. PubMed ID: 34261531
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Effect of Propionibacterium acidipropionici P169 on the rumen and faecal microbiota of beef cattle fed a maize-based finishing diet.
Azad E; Narvaez N; Derakhshani H; Allazeh AY; Wang Y; McAllister TA; Khafipour E
Benef Microbes; 2017 Oct; 8(5):785-799. PubMed ID: 28856906
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Fecal bacterial community of finishing beef steers fed ruminally protected and non-protected active dried yeast.
Ran T; Jiao P; AlZahal O; Xie X; Beauchemin KA; Niu D; Yang W
J Anim Sci; 2020 Apr; 98(4):. PubMed ID: 32068850
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Effect of cattle breed and basal diet on digestibility, rumen bacterial communities, and eating and rumination activity.
Carvalho PHV; Pinto ACJ; Millen DD; Felix TL
J Anim Sci; 2020 May; 98(5):. PubMed ID: 32271920
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Effects of ruminal and postruminal infusion of starch hydrolysate or glucose on the microbial ecology of the gastrointestinal tract in growing steers.
Van Kessel JS; Nedoluha PC; Williams-Campbell A; Baldwin RL; McLeod KR
J Anim Sci; 2002 Nov; 80(11):3027-34. PubMed ID: 12462273
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Effect of diastatic power and processing index on the feed value of barley grain for finishing feedlot cattle.
Ribeiro GO; Swift ML; McAllister TA
J Anim Sci; 2016 Aug; 94(8):3370-3381. PubMed ID: 27695794
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The relationship between the rumen microbiome and carcass merit in Angus steers.
Krause TR; Lourenco JM; Welch CB; Rothrock MJ; Callaway TR; Pringle TD
J Anim Sci; 2020 Sep; 98(9):. PubMed ID: 32877916
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Associations of rumen parameters with feed efficiency and sampling routine in beef cattle.
Lam S; Munro JC; Zhou M; Guan LL; Schenkel FS; Steele MA; Miller SP; Montanholi YR
Animal; 2018 Jul; 12(7):1442-1450. PubMed ID: 29122053
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
