Go to Top Go to Bottom
Anim Biosci > Volume 36(6); 2023 > Article
Susanto, Wiryawan, Suharti, Retnani, Zahera, and Jayanegara: Evaluation of Megasphaera elsdenii supplementation on rumen fermentation, production performance, carcass traits and health of ruminants: a meta-analysis



This study was conducted to evaluate the use of Megasphaera elsdenii (M. elsdenii) as a probiotic on rumen fermentation, production performance, carcass traits and health of ruminants by integrating data from various related studies using meta-analysis.


A total of 32 studies (consisted of 136 data points) were obtained and integrated into a database. The parameters integrated were fermentation products, rumen microbes, production performance, carcass quality, animal health, blood and urine metabolites. Statistical analysis of the compiled database used a mixed model methodology. Different studies were considered random effects, while M. elsdenii supplementation doses were considered fixed effects. p-values and the Akaike information criterion were employed as model statistics. The model was deemed significant at p<0.05 or had a tendency to be significant when p-value between 0.05<p<0.10.


Supplementation with M. elsdenii increased (p<0.05) some proportion of fermented rumen products such as propionate, butyrate, isobutyrate, and valerate, and significantly reduced (p<0.05) lactic acid concentration, acetate proportion, total bacterial population and methane emission. Furthermore, the probiotic supplementation enhanced (p<0.05) livestock production performance, especially in the average daily gain and body condition score. Regarding the carcass quality, hot carcass weight and carcass gain were elevated (p< 0.05) due to the M. elsdenii supplementation. Animal health also showed improvement as indicated by the lower (p<0.05) diarrhoea and bloat incidences as well as the liver abscess. However, M. elsdenii supplementation had negligible effects on blood and urine metabolites of ruminants.


Supplementation of M. elsdenii is capable of decreasing ruminal lactic acid concentration, enhancing rumen health, elevating some favourable rumen fermentation products, and in turn, increasing production performance of ruminants.


Feeding of concentrate in sufficient quantity is widely known to increase the production performance of ruminants. However, switching to excessive concentrate feeding can reduce rumen pH, resulting in metabolic disorders such as acidosis. Rumen acidosis can be chronic with detrimental effects on livestock production and health, and even result in death of livestock. Acidosis is classified into acute and sub-acute acidosis (SARA). Sub-acute acidosis happens when the pH decreases to 5.6 to 5 [1], while acute acidosis happens when the rumen pH is lower than 5 [2,3]. The decrease in pH in sub-acute acidosis is due to the accumulation of volatile fatty acids (VFA) with little detectable lactate concentration in the rumen [3]. Whereas acute acidosis is due to the fast fermentation of feed carbohydrates, which leads to the accumulation of lactic acid concentration in the rumen [1]. This condition is related to the sudden excess intake of carbohydrates into the rumen during the transition from forage to concentrate feed. This disorder is characterized by the build-up of both organic acids and lactic acid in the rumen, as lactate-utilizing microbes are less prevalent than lactic acid-producing microbes [4]. Therefore, this condition can be prevented or alleviated by increasing the population of lactate-using microorganisms or by suppressing the population of lactate-producing microorganisms.
Acidosis must be prevented because it negatively impacts animal health, including feed intake, rumen digestibility, rumen microflora, and livestock performance, and it also raises the risk of diarrhoea, laminitis, and liver abscess [5]. One of the safe and effective ways of preventing acidosis is through probiotic supplementation. Probiotic supplementation may improve feed utilization by enhancing the digestive process in the rumen. Furthermore, probiotic can restore the colonization of microorganisms lost from the digestive tract by implanting live bacteria. Bacteria as probiotics can be classified as lactic acid producing bacteria, lactic acid user bacteria, and bacteria with other functions [6]. Megasphaera elsdenii (M. elsdenii) and Selenomonas ruminantium (S. ruminantium) are the prominent lactate-consuming species in the rumen. Of the two, S. ruminantium has been ineffective due to catabolite repression [7] and relatively intolerant to acid [8]. In addition, S. ruminantium uses less lactate and only metabolizes D-lactate because it does not have the enzyme lactate racemase or L-lactate dehydrogenase to utilize L-lactate [9]. Meanwhile, M. elsdenii is relatively more tolerant to acid and can utilize 60% to 80% lactate in the rumen [10]. M. elsdenii is also able to ferment both the L and D isomers of lactate via the enzyme racemase [11] and produce propionate through the acrylate pathway [12].
A number of experiments demonstrated favourable effects of M. elsdenii supplementation in ruminants. For instance, supplementation of M. elsdenii in cattle and sheep increased propionate production in the rumen [13,14], increased feed intake by 21% and enhanced average daily weight gain [13]. The use of M. elsdenii of 2×1010 CFU in beef cattle increased feed efficiency by 19.7%, with an increase in average daily gain (ADG) of 9.7% [15]. However, several other studies also showed that M. elsdenii supplementation did not affect the productivity and quality of the carcass [1618]. Apparently, variations of the supplementation doses may affect different responses and effectivity in the ruminants, and require further investigation. Our initial meta-analysis evaluation with few studies and limited number of parameters (rumen fermentation parameters only) indicated that the addition of M. elsdenii had a significant impact on linearly increasing rumen pH [19]. However, a more comprehensive meta-analysis study is required to integrate research findings concerning the supplementation effects of M. elsdenii on ruminants, and this should include all available literatures and parameters as well as the interactions with other covariates. Therefore, the purpose of this meta-analysis study was to comprehensively evaluate the effects of M. elsdenii administration at various doses on the characteristics of rumen fermentation, health, livestock performance and carcass quality.


Development of the database

A database was compiled based on published research articles reporting the supplementation of M. elsdenii in ruminants. The search engines of journal collections such as Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, Science Direct, Semantic Scholar, and PubMed were used to retrieve various articles on the relationship between M. elsdenii with rumen fermentability, productivity, and health of ruminants. Articles were included in the database if they met the following criteria: i) the articles employed in vivo studies in ruminants; ii) the addition of M. elsdenii should be the only factor in one treatment; and iii) the articles were published in English. The parameters integrated into the database were rumen pH, ammonia (NH3), total VFA, acetate (C2), propionate (C3), butyrate (C4), iso-butyrate (iso-C4), valerate (C5), iso-valerate (iso-C5), caproate (C6), ratio acetate to propionate (C2:C3), lactic acid concentration, total bacterial population, protozoa population, methane emission (CH4), dry matter intake (DMI), initial body weight (IBW), final body weight (FBW), ADG, body condition score (BCS), marbling, conformation, fat code, longissimus muscle area (LMA), kidney pervic and heart fat (KPH Fat), 12th rib fat, hot carcass weight, carcass gain, dressing percentage, rumen score, liver score, liver abscess, diarrhoea and bloat (DnB), pH blood, PCO2, blood metabolite (Na, K, Ca), blood glucose, beta-hydroxybutyric acid (BHBA), blood lactate, hematocrit, HCO3, excess base (BE), urine pH, urine electrolyte (Na, K, Cl), and urine electrolyte balance (EB). Outlier analysis using z-score was performed in order to ensure that the data did not have any anomaly, i.e., very different from the results of other data within a particular parameter.
The levels and strain of M. elsdenii supplementation were compiled in database. The final database was comprised of 32 in vivo studies with a total of 136 data points. The animals which received the supplementation of M. elsdenii were cattle and sheep with the inoculation method orally and rumen cannulated. These animals were fed primarily grains (corn grain, barley grain, wheat grain and other grains), hay, alfalfa silage, maize silage, soybean meal and concentrate. The M. elsdenii concentration was expressed as log 10 CFU. Measurements expressed in other units (CFU or CFU/mL) in the studies were converted to log 10 CFU using the information available in the papers. Different measuring units were used to report values for some metrics. In these situations, calculations based on the data in the articles were done to convert the values into comparable units. Methane emission was estimated using the stoichiometrical formula of VFA profiles [20]. Table 1 provides a summary of the studies included in the present meta-analysis.

Statistical analysis

Using a mixed-model meta-analysis approach [2123], the collected data were statistically examined. The analysis employed the PROC MIXED procedure of SAS 9.4 software (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) [24]. The studies were considered as random effects, while the suplementation concentrations of M. elsdenii were considered as the fixed effects. The continuous predictor variable consisted of the concentrations of M. elsdenii supplementation as follows:
where Yij = dependent variable; B0 = overall intercept across all studies (fixed effect); B1 = linear regression coefficient of Y on X (fixed effect); B2 = quadratic regression coefficient of Y on X (fixed effect); Xij = value of the continuous predictor variable (M. elsdenii concentration); si = value of random effect of study i; bi = random effect of study on the regression coefficient of Y on X in study i; and eij = the unexplained residual error. The RANDOM statement was made on the basis of different studies. The number of study replications was used to weight these models [25]. The interactions between different animals and the method of inoculation were also analyzed. To analyze the interaction, the same formula as above was employed but involving other covariates in the data, i.e., the type of livestock and the inoculation method. This model was assessed linearly as an interaction effect [26]. As for the quadratic model, when the results were not significant, the linear model was maintained. Quadratic results were selected when they were significants and had smaller AIC values. The model was deemed significant at p<0.05 or had a tendency to be significant between 0.05<p<0.10.


The administration levels of M. elsdenii in the present study ranged between 7.00 to 13.30 log 10 CFU with an average level of 10.80±1.35 log 10 CFU. The descriptive statistical results are presented in Table 2. The influences of M. elsdenii supplementation on the parameter of rumen fermentation are presented in Table 3. M. elsdenii supplementation quadratically affected (p<0.05) ammonia and total VFA concentrations, and linearly increased (p<0.05) on rumen pH, the proportion of propionate, butyrate and isobutyrate in the rumen. The probiotic supplementation linearly decreased (p<0.001) the proportion of acetate, ratio acetate:propionate and methane. The concentration of lactic acid also decreased linearly (p<0.05) with increasing level of M. elsdenii supplementation. The interactions between the supplementation level with the type of animal and the method of administration were mostly insignificants; only the interaction between M. elsdenii level and method of adimistration was found to be significant (p<0.05) for the the concentration of lactic acid.
Parameters related to M. elsdenii supplementation on livestock production performance are presented in Table 4. M. elsdenii supplementation linearly enhanced (p<0.05) FBW, hot carcass weight, carcass gain, ADG, and BCS. However, M. elsdenii supplementation linearly decreased (p<0.01) DMI and 12th rib fat, and quadratically affected the kidney pervic and heart fat (p<0.05). The probiotic did not influence marbling, body conformation, fat code, LMA and dressing percentage. The interaction between supplementation level and type of animal was significant for ADG (p<0.001). Both interactions between level and type of animal as well as level and method of administration were significant (p<0.05) for the parameters of 12th rib fat and dressing percentage.
The effect of M. elsdenii supplementation on livestock health is presented in Table 5. Increasing level of M. elsdenii supplementation reduced (p<0.05) the risk of liver abscess and also the incidence of diarrhoea and bloat. Furthermore, the interactions obtained between level and different type of animal as well as different administration method were significants (p<0.05) for these parameters. The effects of M. elsdenii supplementation on blood and urine metabolites were not significant for most parameters (Tables 6 and 7), except that it tended to decrease (p<0.1) blood lactate and urine pH.


Rumen fermentation and production performance

Rumen pH is one of the most important factors to measure the fermentability of feed in the rumen. A low pH of the rumen occurs when high-concentrated feed is fed due to the rapid fermentation of starch and the accumulation of lactic acid, since the bacteria that use lactic acid have limited capacity to utilize the organic acid properly. According to the results of the meta-analysis, the administration of M. elsdenii can increase the rumen pH. This result is supported by a review conducted by Meissner et al [16], where M. elsdenii strain 41125 successfully maintained and prevented a decrease in pH during the introduction of SARA.
Furthermore, in the digestion of ruminants, feed protein that enters the rumen will be remodelled by protease enzymes produced by rumen microbes to generate NH3 which is the end product of feed protein degradation. According to the results of the analysis, the administration of M. elsdenii gave a quadratic effect on NH3 concentration in the rumen. The increase in ammonia at the beginning of feeding was due to the feed protein being fermented rapidly by rumen microbes. In contrast, after undergoing metabolism, the ammonia concentration decreased due to increased use of concentrates reducing the use of forage ratios which resulted in a reduced number of cellulolytic microbes that utilize NH3-N in the rumen [54,55]. Meanwhile, VFA, which are the main product of rumen microbial fermentation and the primary energy source for ruminants, were found to follow a quadratic response after M. elsdenii supplementation. An increase in VFA concentration reflects an increase in protein and soluble dietary carbohydrates in the rumen, and vice versa [56]. These findings demonstrate that the administration of M. elsdenii can modulate some products of rumen fermentation.
M. elsdenii is used as a probiotic because of its ability to utilize lactate in the rumen and produce propionate through the acrylate pathway [8]. According to the results of the analysis, the proportion of propionate also linearly increased following the M. elsdenii administration. This had been confirmed in a number of literatures as well [1214]. In addition, the reduction of acetate proportion after M. elsdenii supplementation was since M. elsdenii at low rumen pH produce a greater proportion of propionate and butyrate than acetate [57]. Futhermore, the acetate produced is fermented again via the β-oxidation pathway to produce butyrate [33], which explains the increase of butyrate after the inoculation of M. elsdenii. With regard to such changes in the VFA profiles, it becomes clear that M. elsdenii is able to lower methane production since propionate formation utilizes hydrogen which is a primary substrate for methanogenesis [58].
Regarding the lower concentration of lactic acid after M. elsdenii supplementation, the bacterial species is able to metabolize 60% to 80% of lactic acid in the rumen [6], making it as a suitable probiotic candidate to help in mitigating lactic acidosis. Various in vitro and in vivo experiments have been conducted and generally they demonstrated that M. elsdenii was able to prevent the accumulation of lactic acid during the transition to high-grain diets [36,51,5962]. The interaction between M. elsdenii supplementation level and different inoculation method was significant, indicating that there is an effect of the M. elsdenii inoculation method on the concentration of lactic acid. M. elsdenii is an obligate anaerobic bacterium, so it must be administered orally or via a rumen cannula to avoid oxygen exposure [47]. Several studies with oral inoculation showed more efficient results [15,47]. Oral inoculation is easier with a large number of livestock such as in feedlots, thereby reducing maintenance costs. However, fresh oral products are limited to temporary storage, since they have 14 days shelf life, and are challenging to administer. Livestock must be brought to a chute to receive the probiotic. Research related to oral administration by processing using rehydrated lyophilized has proven to maintain the viability of M. elsdenii cultures [18].
Supplementation of M. elsdenii also quadratically influences the bacterial population in the rumen. Initially, the bacterial population increased until a certain optimal level of M. elsdenii supplementation and then decreased afterwards. Still, after using a large amount of concentrated feed, which causes the fermentation to take place rapidly, the pH decreases due to the increased concentration of lactic acid, which triggers an overly acidic pH condition and kills some bacteria intolerant of acidic conditions. However, several studies have shown that the microbial population of S. bovis and M. elsdenii increase with the increasing level of concentrate use in the diet [1,13,45]. The interactions between M. elsdenii administration and different types of animals as well as inoculation methods tended to affect the bacterial population. In the present meta-analysis, the protozoa population was not affected by M. elsdenii administration. In another study, protozoa population increased in response to M. elsdenii inoculation and this was beneficial for rumen ecology since protozoa competed with S. bovis for substrate in the rumen, therefore minimizing the risk of sub-acute acidosis [36]. According to Wiryawan and Brooker [60], protozoa in the rumen serve as a stabilizing factor for fermentation by consuming bacteria which slows fermentation, particularly in animals fed high-grain diets.
It was revealed in the present meta-analysis that M. elsdenii supplementation reduced DMI. Likewise, administration of M. elsdenii decreased dry matter consumption in heifers [47]. Furthermore, Miller et al [17] explained that the decrease in feed consumption after being given Lacticpro, which is a culture of M. elsdenii strain NCIMB 41125 (Lactipro Advance) in steers did not affect livestock growth, and this difference in feed intake only occurred in the first 18 days. In addition, cattle supplemented with M. elsdenii consumed less DMI resulting in a 19.7% increase in feed efficiency [15]. Moreover, the effect of increasing propionate production in the rumen after being given M. elsdenii also can reduce DMI [14]. This statement is supported by Allen et al [63], who reviewed several studies in which increased propionate in ruminants altered the size and frequency of meals by increasing satiety, thus decrease the DMI. In fact, the decrease in DMI due to M. elsdenii supplementation had no negative effect on livestock performance but, on the contrary, it enhanced FBW, ADG, and BCS. These results are also in line with DeClerck et al [15], in which cows given M. elsdenii had higher ADG as compared to the control treatment, which correlated with an increase in BCS. In addition, steers that received M. elsdenii had a 5.6% better ADG at 3 to 5 weeks of maintenance [40].

Carcass quality

M. elsdenii supplementation had negligible effects on marbling, conformation, fat code, and LMA. In accordance with the findings of multiple studies, administration of M. elsdenii had no effects on LMA [15], marbling scores [41], conformational scores and fat code [51]. However, several studies have shown that there is an increase in the marbling value due to increased lipogenesis [41], as a result of increased rumen fermentation products which are precursors of fat formation. The increase in fermented products as fat precursors actually had an effect on kidney pervic and heart fat which decreased before increasing quadraticly. However, this increase was not accompanied by 12th rib fat which decreased linearly. The decrease of rib fat was due to the interaction effect between different livestock types and inoculation methods. This result contradicts several previous studies, were all stated that M. elsdenii inoculation had no influence on carcass quality [39,41,42].
This study also found that M. elsdenii supplementation increased hot carcass weight and carcass gain. This supports the results on the productivity parameters, i.e., ADG and FBW, which increased due to the probiotic administration. This was in line with DeClerck et al [15] where M. elsdenii inoculation increased carcass gain by 0.20 kg as compared to control. Cattle fed M. elsdenii had an increase in carcass daily gain and hot carcass weight with a shorter adaptation time and oral inoculation [43]. Furthermore, Meisner et al [16] conducted a review regarding the use of M. elsdenii in South Africa, and it was revealed that cattle supplemented with M. elsdenii at 1×1010 CFU had a 2.2% increase in carcass ADG. An increase in ADG and the use of concentrate feed was found to be associated with dressing percentage parameters, where M. elsdenii supplementation tended to have a linear effect on increasing dressing percentage. These results certainly strengthen the use of M. elsdenii probiotics, which are not only able to utilize lactate in the rumen but also increase productivity and several parameters of carcass quality.

Livestock health

Probiotics have the ability to maintain the balance and activity of the gastrointestinal microbiota, making them beneficial for the host animal [64]. In ruminants, rumen health is an important factor that must be taken into consideration. M. elsdenii, which is capable of utilizing lactic acid in the rumen, is believed to be responsible for rumen health maintenace. In the present study, although M. elsdenii administration did not significantly affect rumen score and liver score, it reduced the risk of livestock experiencing liver abscess and the incidence of diarrhoea and bloat. This reduced risk of liver abscess reflects a mutually beneficial rumen fermentation between M. elsdenii and rumen microbes [51]. Furthermore, Miller et al [17] stated that livestock given commercial probiotic M. elsdenii Lacticpro experienced a decrease in the incidence and severity of liver abscess, which indicated that M. elsdenii was effective in preventing acidosis in cattle. Meanwhile, the number of cattle that experienced diarrhoea and bloat were lower following the M. elsdenii supplementation. Administration of M. elsdenii strain NCIMB 41125 was able to reduce morbidity or livestock experiencing health problems [40].
The last is related to blood metabolites and urine electrolytes. Based on the results on the blood parameters, the results were not significantly different (p>0.1) in pH and most blood metabolites parameters, apart from the fact that the blood lactate concentration tended to decrease linearly (p = 0.054) as the level of M. elsdenii increased. Blood pH rarely fluctuates under normal conditions, this is due to the acid-base conditions of the blood that are saturated with HCO3 [36]. HCO3 levels indicate the importance of the kidneys in maintaining the acid-base balance of the blood [65]. Plasma lactate concentrations were lower and tended to decrease more, with wheat-based concentrate feed compared to corn-based feed given the same level of M. elsdenii probiotic inoculation [36]. The decrease in blood lactate is also related to the activation response of the buffer mechanism to blood acidity after being given a high-concentrated diet. These results also prove that M. elsdenii supplementation can minimize the risk of metabolic acidosis due to excessive concentrate feeding.
Furthermore, the urine electrolyte variables Na, K, Cl, and BE were not significantly different (p>0.1). Urinary electrolytes are associated with activation of the buffering mechanism against blood acidity by inoculation of M. elsdenii [36]. This is related to the value of the dietary cation-anion difference (DCAD), where increasing the proportion of concentrate facilitates acid development and causes urinary excretion to be neutralized by ammonia and phosphorus [65]. Meanwhile, the urine pH showed that M. elsdenii supplementation tended to decrease (p = 0.064), which also affected the interaction with livestock species and inoculation methods due to the similarity of the data obtained. Decrease in urine pH was associated with a decrease in DCAD, which was related to the fraction and grain size of the feed [36,65].


The evaluation of M. elsdenii probiotic inoculation in vivo on fermentability, microbial population, performance, carcass quality, blood and urine metabolites from various articles indicates that it can increase several products of rumen fermentation, including total VFA, the proportion of propionate, butyrate, isobutyrate and valerate, while significantly decreasing lactic acid concentration, acetate proportion, bacterial population, and methane estimation. The increase in several rumen fermented products after supplementation with M. elsdenii correlated with increasing livestock performance, especially in the FBW, ADG, and BCS parameters, as well as an increase in the carcass quality parameters of hot carcass weight, carcass gain and dressing percentage. Livestock health after M. elsdenii supplementation also improved, in cattle with diarrhoea and bloat decreased, followed by a decrease in rumen score and liver score. However, probiotic supplementation had no effect on several blood and urine metabolites except for blood lactate and urine pH which tended to decrease. Since most of the parameters revealed linear trends by increasing levels of M. elsdenii, including some key parameters such as rumen pH, lactic acid concentration, ADG and DnB incidence, supplementation level of the probiotic up to 13.30 log 10 CFU was still appropriate for ruminants.



We certify that there is no conflict of interest with any financial organization regarding the material discussed in the manuscript.


This study was funded by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology, Republic of Indonesia, through the PMDSU research scheme, year 2022, contract number 082/E5/PG.02.00.PT/2022.

Table 1
Studies used for meta-analysis of Megasphaera elsdenii supplementation in ruminants in vivo
Studies Reference Animal Concentrate: forage ratio Inoculation method Strain Level M. elsdenii (log 10 CFU)
1 Henning et al [13] Sheep and cow Up to 94:6 Canula rumen CH4 0; 9.24; 10.24; and 11.24
2 Aikman et al [14] Cow 61:39 Fistula rumen NCIMB 41125 0 and 10.35
3 DeClerck et al [15] Cow Up to 90:10 Oral NCIMB 41125 0 and 10.3
4 Miller et al [17] Cow Up to 90:10 Oral NCIMB 41125 0 and 11
5 Ellerman et al [18] Cow Up to 90:10 Oral NCIMB 41125 0 and 11.7
6 Henning et al [27] Sheep - Canula rumen CH4; CH7 0 and 11
7 Alatas and Umucalilar [28] Sheep 60:40 Canula rumen ATCC 17753 0 and 12.38
8 Hagg et al [29] Cow 70:30 Oral NCIMB 41125 0 and 11.40
9 Long et al [30] Sheep 80:20 Fistula rumen H6; H6F32 0 and 10.00
10 Sedighi and Alipour [31] Cow 60:40 Oral SA3 0 and 11.18
11 Muya et al [32] Cow - Oral NCIMB 41125 0 and 9.70
12 Weimer et al [33] Cow Up to 53:47 Canula rumen YI-9; 4251; 4257; 4291 0; 12.26; 12.30; 12.34; and 12.41
13 Zebeli et al [34] Cow 55:45 Canula rumen ATCC 25940 0 and 9.54
14 Mazon et al [35] Cow Up to 71:29 Oral NCIMB 41125 0 and 10.30
15 Arik et al [36] Cow Up to 80:20 Canula rumen ATCC 17753 0 and 12.64
16 Direkvandi et al [37] Sheep 70:30 Oral GU1 0 and 8.65
17 Thieszen et al [38] Cow Up to 92:8 Oral NCIMB 41125 0; 11.40; 11.70; and 11.88
18 McDaniel et al [39] Cow 67:33 Canula rumen NCIMB 41125 0; 9.21; 10.21; and 11.21
19 Leeuw et al [40] Cow Up to 80:20 Oral NCIMB 41125 0 and 11.3
20 DeClerck et al [41] Cow Up to 90:10 Oral NCIMB 41125 0 and 10.3
21 DeClerck et al [42] Cow Up to 90:10 Oral NCIMB 41125 0 and 10
22 Drouillard et al [43] Cow Up to 94:6 Oral NCIMB 41125 0 and 13.30
23 Muya et al [44] Cow - Oral NCIMB 41125 0 and 9.69
24 Klieve et al [45] Cow Up to 75:25 Canula rumen YE34 0 and 11.74
25 Klieve et al [46] Cow Up to 89:11 Oral YE34 0 and 11.12
26 Miller et al [47] Cow Up to 90:10 Oral NCIMB 41125 0 and 11
27 Stevens et al [48] Cow Up to 60:40 Oral NCIMB 41125 0 and 10.3
28 Veloso et al [49] Cow Up to 93:7 Oral NCIMB 41125 0; 7 and 10
29 Direkvandi et al [50] Sheep 70:30 Oral GU1 0 and 8.65
30 Leeuw et al [51] Cow Up to 98:2 Oral NCIMB 41125 0 and 11.3
31 Ye and Eastridge [52] Cow 49:51 Oral NCIMB 41125 0 and 10.3
32 Lopez et al [53] Cow 75:25 Oral NCIMB 41125 0 and 11.3
Table 2
Descriptive statistics on the effects of Megasphaera elsdenii supplementation levels on rumen fermentability, productivity, health, blood, and urine metabolite of ruminants in vivo
Response parameters Unit N Min Max Mean Std. Deviation
Level M. elsdenii log10cfu 73 7.00 13.30 10.80 1.35
 pH 84 5.00 6.80 6.01 0.34
 NH3 mM 26 5.05 24.80 11.01 4.53
 Total VFA mM 81 28.40 250.00 109.66 37.00
 C2 % 76 32.53 78.90 53.28 9.60
 C3 % 81 3.90 42.30 23.04 5.83
 C4 % 76 1.12 40.40 14.62 6.45
 Iso-C4 % 33 0.24 2.65 1.47 0.62
 C5 % 43 0.20 8.71 3.03 1.83
 Iso-C5 % 29 0.61 5.00 2.83 1.33
 C6 % 10 0.00 0.93 0.41 0.26
 Ratio C2:C3 76 1.16 8.45 2.62 1.13
 Lactic acid mmol/L 65 0.05 31.00 2.07 4.55
 Bacteria log10/mL 19 7.70 9.38 8.56 0.52
 Protozoa log10/mL 19 4.95 6.26 5.69 0.41
 CH4 mM 76 13.34 34.40 23.58 3.84
 DMI kg/d BW0.75 124 1.11 13.33 6.53 2.77
 IBW kg BW0.75 124 10.94 145.46 78.03 40.06
 FBW kg BW0.75 54 15.09 120.85 87.09 32.81
 ADG kg BW0.75 56 0.30 2.24 1.46 0.45
 FCR kg/kg 36 2.50 6.63 4.60 0.91
 BCS 16 2.55 4.80 3.38 0.76
 Marbling 26 289.00 520.00 424.04 72.97
 Conformation 18 3.10 3.31 3.22 0.07
 Fatcode 18 2.15 2.30 2.21 0.04
 LMA cm2 10 66.03 101.40 82.66 12.77
 KPH Fat % 12 1.24 2.52 2.12 0.46
 12th Rib Fat cm2 24 0.38 1.78 0.68 0.32
 HCW kg BW0.75 44 52.58 90.28 70.96 11.15
 Carcass gain kg/d BW0.75 36 1.06 2.05 1.32 0.21
 Dressing % 40 50.50 63.80 58.61 3.61
 Rumen score 18 0.45 0.80 0.62 0.09
 Liver score 24 1.12 2.13 1.80 0.25
 Liver abscess % 16 4.70 2.10 12.81 5.35
 DnB 18 3.00 19.00 7.78 4.53
 pH 15 7.00 7.43 7.38 0.10
 PCO2 mmHg 15 39.74 44.79 42.57 1.55
 Na mM 13 146.00 150.00 147.23 1.09
 K mM 13 3.20 3.45 3.35 0.08
 Ca mM 13 0.72 0.86 0.80 0.05
 Glucose mg/dL 21 46.00 656.00 91.91 129.54
 BHBA mmol/L 14 0.17 18.60 5.91 7.08
 Lactate mM 17 0.38 0.87 0.57 0.15
 Hematokrit % 13 28.21 31.87 30.15 1.30
 HCO3 mmol/L 13 24.00 28.10 26.63 1.17
 BE mmol/L 13 0.34 3.80 2.02 1.02
 pH 13 6.66 7.93 7.60 0.42
 Na mEq/L 13 66.00 174.00 109.88 33.53
 K mEq/L 13 122.00 248.00 193.08 44.48
 Cl mEq/L 13 87.00 207.00 141.23 37.88
 EB mEq/L 13 75.00 281.00 162.62 57.33

N, number of observations; NH3, ammonia; VFA, volatile fatty acid; C2, acetate; C3, propionate; C4, butyrate; Iso-C4, isobutyrate; C5, valerate; Iso-C5, isovalerate; C6, caproate; CH4, methane; ns, non-significant; DMI, dry matter intake; IBW, initial body weight; FBW, final body weight; ADG, average daily gain; BCS, body condition score; LMA, longissimus muscle area; KPH Fat, kidney pervic and heart fat; HCW, hot carcas weight; DnB, diarrhoea and bloat; BHBA, β-hidroxybutiric acid; BE, base excess; EB, electrolyte balance.

Table 3
Regression equations of rumen fermentation parameters in response to Megasphaera elsdenii supplementation
Response parameters N M Parameter estimates Model estimates Interaction IT

Int SE Int Slope SE slope p-value RMSE AIC Level vs animal Level vs method
pH 84 L 5.80 0.07 0.026 0.005 <0.001 0.543 45.8 0.470 0.885 +
NH3 (mM) 26 Q 11.43 1.28 2.154 1.037 0.049
−0.188 0.089 0.046 7.832 137.8 0.346 0.169 +
Total VFA (mM) 81 Q 99.26 5.14 −15.96 4.406 <0.001
1.481 0.377 <0.001 61.313 739.4 0.961 0.886
C2 (%) 76 L 57.67 2.05 −0.628 0.105 <0.001 17.316 504.8 0.419 0.551
C3 (%) 81 L 20.52 1.22 0.507 0.081 <0.001 10.299 491.9 0.604 0.642 +
C4 (%) 76 L 11.69 1.24 0.444 0.084 <0.001 10.686 463.4 0.116 0.933 +
Iso-C4 (%) 33 L 1.18 0.24 0.027 0.009 0.011 1.039 49.4 0.168 0.694 +
C5 (%) 43 L 2.10 0.51 0.096 0.049 0.058 3.58 189.2 0.428 0.154 ns
Iso-C5 (%) 29 L 2.08 0.49 −0.013 0.016 0.437 1.498 73.4 0.958 0.533 ns
C6 (%) 10 L 0.33 0.16 0.0004 0.008 0.959 0.591 13.1 0.959 0.118 ns
Ratio C2:C3 76 L 3.02 0.24 −0.077 0.020 <0.001 2.151 247.7 0.944 0.069
Lactic acid (mmol/L) 65 L 3.44 1.04 −0.195 0.086 0.028 8.131 385.5 0.459 0.047
Bacteria (log10/mL) 19 Q 8.43 0.12 0.278 0.105 0.019
−0.022 0.009 0.041 0.697 38.0 0.059 0.056 +
Protozoa (log 10/mL) 19 L 5.73 0.26 0.01 0.014 0.512 0.548 25.9 0.379 0.083 ns
CH4 (mM) 76 L 24.96 0.84 −0.235 0.057 <0.001 7.158 405.8 0.970 0.668

n, number of observations; M, model; L, linear; Q, quadratic; Int, intercept; SE, standard error; RMSE, root mean square error; AIC, Akaike information criterion; IT, interpretation trend; NH3, amonnia; VFA, volatile fatty acid; C2, acetate; C3, propionate; C4, butyrate; Iso-C4, isobutyrate; C5, valerate; Iso-C5, isovalerate; C6, caproate; CH4, methane; ns, non-significant; +, increasing trend; −, decreasing trend.

Table 4
Regression equations of performance and carcass parameters in response to Megasphaera elsdenii supplementation
Response parameters n M Parameter estimates Model estimates Interaction IT

Int SE Int Slope SE slope p-value RMSE AIC Level vs Animal Level vs Method
DMI (kg/d BW0.75) 124 L 12.27 1.07 −0.089 0.027 0.001 13.142 592.0 0.462 0.783
IBW (kg BW0.75) 124 L 69.86 7.72 0.032 0.085 0.710 62.392 619.9 0.843 0.485 ns
FBW (kg BW0.75) 54 L 79.27 10.02 0.193 0.065 0.005 46.64 356.7 0.718 0.691 +
ADG (kg BW0.75) 56 L 1.27 0.13 0.007 0.003 0.02 0.743 −9.8 <0.001 0.823 +
FCR 36 L 4.52 0.38 −0.008 0.011 0.482 1.502 61.2 0.096 0.314 ns
BCS 16 L 3.39 0.33 0.03 0.011 0.026 1.433 29.1 0.587 0.587 +
Marbling 26 L 424.22 25.19 0.351 0.432 0.429 164.48 237 0.892 0.892 ns
Conformation 18 L 3.24 0.02 −0.003 0.003 0.37 0.051 −28.4 0.369 0.369 ns
Fat Code 18 L 2.21 0.01 −0.008 0.002 0.668 0.071 −47 0.668 0.668 ns
LMA (cm2) 10 L 81.82 7.72 −0.01 0.057 0.864 30.109 55.6 0.911 0.911 ns
KPH Fat (%) 12 Q 2.10 0.17 −0.767 0.323 0.042
0.073 0.029 0.036 0.623 8.9 0.224 0.224
12th Rib Fat (cm2) 24 L 1.02 0.12 −0.041 0.011 0.002 0.843 32.2 0.001 0.001
HCW (kg BW0.75) 44 L 72.39 3.56 0.045 0.016 0.012 29.45 160.9 0.274 0.274 +
Carcas Gain (kg/d BW 0.75) 36 L 1.38 0.1 0.004 0.001 0.048 0.353 −57 0.274 0.274 +
Dressing (%) 40 L 58.06 1.32 0.09 0.045 0.062 6.932 184.2 0.029 0.029 ns

n, number of observations; M, model; L, linear; Q, quadratic; Int, intercept; SE, standard error; RMSE, root mean square error; AIC, Akaike information criterion; IT, interpretation trend; DMI, dry matter intake; IBW, initial body weight; FBW, final body weight; ADG, average daily gain; BCS, body condition score; LMA, longissimus muscle area; KPH fat, kidney pervic and heart fat; HCW, hot carcas weight; ns, non-significant; +, increasing trend; −, decreasing trend.

Table 5
Regression equations of health parameters in response to Megasphaera elsdenii supplementation
Response parameters n M Parameter estimates Model estimates Interaction IT

Int SE Int Slope SE slope p-value RMSE AIC Level vs Animal Level vs Method
Rumen score 18 L 0.59 0.03 0.006 0.003 0.101 0.134 −24.7 0.129 0.129 ns
Liver score 24 L 1.7 0.13 −0.003 0.007 0.715 0.394 4.4 0.735 0.735 ns
Liver abscess (%) 16 L 16.64 2.34 −0.405 0.163 0.032 12.855 94.1 0.037 0.037 -
DnB 18 L 10.76 1.64 −0.573 0.148 0.001 5.774 95.3 0.002 0.002 -

n, number of observations; M, model; L, linear; Q, quadratic; Int, intercept; SE, standard error; RMSE, root mean square error; AIC, Akaike information criterion; IT, interpretation trend; DnB, diarrhoea and bloat; ns, non-significant; -, decreasing trend.

Table 6
Regression equations of blood metabolite parameters in response to Megasphaera elsdenii supplementation
Response parameters N M Parameter estimates Model estimates Interaction IT

Int SE Int Slope SE slope p-value RMSE AIC Level vs Animal Level vs Method
pH 15 L 7.41 0.01 0.0009 0.0007 0.241 0.021 −61.1 0.161 0.959 ns
PCO2 (mmHg) 15 L 42.56 0.53 −0.026 0.086 0.765 2.348 62.3 0.748 0.469 ns
Na (mM) 13 L 147.27 0.34 −0.022 0.069 0.761 1.606 44.2 0.761 0.761 ns
K (mM) 13 L 3.35 0.02 −0.004 0.004 0.451 0.112 −14.4 0.451 0.451 ns
Ca (mM) 13 L 0.79 0.01 0.003 0.002 0.289 0.065 −26.5 0.289 0.289 ns
Glucose (mg/dL) 21 L 73.58 37.71 6.744 5.384 0.228 183.14 250 0.639 0.386 ns
BHBA (mmol/L) 14 L 6.34 3.7 0.049 0.029 0.138 10.099 57.1 0.731 0.969 ns
Lactate (mM) 17 L 0.68 0.13 −0.011 0.005 0.054 0.242 −10 0.487 0.487 ns
Hematokrit (%) 13 L 30.34 0.38 −0.094 0.077 0.253 1.808 46.8 0.253 0.253 ns
HCO3 (mmol/L) 13 L 26.52 0.36 0.057 0.072 0.448 1.677 45.1 0.448 0.448 ns
BE (mmol/L) 13 L 1.92 0.34 0.053 0.066 0.442 1.535 40.1 0.442 0.442 ns

n, number of observations; M, model; L, linear; Q, quadratic; Int, intercept; SE, standard error; RMSE, root mean square error; AIC, Akaike information criterion; IT, interpretation trend; BHBA, beta-hidroxybutiric acid; BE, base excess; ns, non-significant.

Table 7
Regression equations of urine electrolyte parameters in response to Megasphaera elsdenii supplementation
Response parameters n M Parameter estimates Model estimates Interaction IT

Int SE Int Slope SE slope p-value RMSE AIC Level vs Animal Level vs Method
pH Urine 13 L 7.68 0.11 −0.046 0.022 0.064 0.523 19.5 0.064 0.064 ns
Na (mEq/L) 13 L 114.41 9.97 −2.326 2.011 0.272 46.761 118.3 0.272 0.272 ns
K (mEq/L) 13 L 195.37 13.89 −1.176 2.803 0.683 65.186 125.7 0.683 0.683 ns
Cl (mEq/L) 13 L 141.82 11.92 −0.302 2.404 0.902 55.911 122.3 0.902 0.902 ns
EB (mEq/L) 13 L 169 17.37 −3.283 3.504 0.369 81.499 130.6 0.369 0.369 ns

n, number of observations; M, model; L, linear; Q, quadratic; Int, intercept; SE, standard error; RMSE, root mean square error AIC, akaike information criterion; IT, interpretation trend; EB, electrolyte balance; ns, non-significant.


1. Nagaraja TG, Lechtenberg KF. Acidosis in feedlot cattle. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 2007; 23:333–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cvfa.2007.04.002
crossref pmid
2. Owens FN, Secrist DS, Hill WJ, Gill DR. Acidosis in cattle: a review. J Anim Sci 1998; 76:275–86. https://doi.org/10.2527/1998.761275x
crossref pmid
3. Krause KM, Oetzel GR. Understanding and preventing subacute ruminal acidosis in dairy herds: a review. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2006; 126:215–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2005.08.004
4. Dawson KA, Rasmussen MA, Allison MJ. Digestive disorders and nutritional toxicity. Kentucky, USA. Hobson PN, Stewart CS, editorsThe rumen microbial ecosystem. London, UK: Blackie Academic & Professional; 1997.

5. Plaizier JC, Krause DO, Gozho GN, McBride BW. Subacute ruminal acidosis in dairy cows: The physiological causes, incidence and consequences. Vet J 2008; 176:21–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.12.016
crossref pmid
6. Elghandour MM, Salem AZM, Castaneda JSM, Camacho LM, Kholif AE, Chagoyán JCV. Direct-fed microbes: A tool for improving the utilization of low quality roughages in ruminants. J Integr Agric 2015; 14:526–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60834-0
7. Russell JB, Baldwin RL. Substrate preferences in rumen bacteria: Evidence of catabolite regulatory mechanisms. Appl Environ Microbiol 1978; 36:319–29. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.36.2.319-329.1978
crossref pmid pmc
8. Mackie RI, Gilchrist FMC. Changes in lactate-producing and lactate-utilizing bacteria in relation to ph in the rumen of sheep during stepwise adaptation to a high-concentrate diet. Appl Environ Microbiol 1979; 38:422–30. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.38.3.422-430.1979
crossref pmid pmc
9. Asanuma N, Hino T. Ability to utilize lactate and related enzymes of a ruminal bacterium, Selenomonas ruminantium. Anim Sci J 2005; 76:345–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-0929.2005.00274.x
10. Counotte GHM, Prins RA. Regulation of lactate metabolism in the rumen. Vet Res Commun 1981; 5:101–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02214975
crossref pmid
11. Stewart CS, Bryant MP. The rumen bacteria. The rumen microbial ecosystem. Hobson PN, editorLondon and New York: Elsevier Applied Science; 1988. p. 21–75.
12. Prabhu R, Altman E, Eiteman MA. Lactate and acrylate metabolism by Megasphaera elsdenii under batch and steady-state conditions. Appl Environ Microbiol 2012; 78:8564–70. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02443-12
crossref pmid pmc
13. Henning PH, Horn CH, Leeuw KJ, Meissner HH, Hagg FM. Effect of ruminal administration of the lactate-utilizing strain Megasphaera elsdenii (Me) NCIMB 41125 on abrupt or gradual transition from forage to concentrate diets. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2010; 157:20–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2010.02.002
14. Aikman PC, Henning PH, Humpries DJ, Horn CH. Rumen pH and fermentation characteristics in dairy cows supplemented with Megasphaera elsdenii NCIMB 41125 in early lactation. J Dairy Sci 2011; 94:2840–9. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-3783
crossref pmid
15. DeClerck JC, Reeves NR, Miller MF, Johnson BJ, Ducharme GA, Rathmann RJ. Influence of dietary roughage level and Megasphaera elsdenii on feedlot performance and carcass composition of thin cull beef cows fed for a lean market. Transl Anim Sci 2020; 4:159–69. https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txz180
crossref pmid pmc
16. Meissner HH, Henning PH, Horn CH, Leeuw KJ, Hagg FM, Fouché G. Ruminal acidosis: a review with detailed reference to the controlling agent Megasphaera elsdenii NCIMB 41125. S Afr J Anim Sci 2010; 40:79–100. https://doi.org/10.4314/sajas.v40i2.57275
17. Miller K, Van Bibber-Krueger CL, Drouillard JS. Orally dosing steers with Lactipro (Megasphaera elsdenii) decreases the quantity of roughages fed during finishing. Kansas Agric Exp Station Res Rep 2013; 0:55–8. https://doi.org/10.4148/2378-5977.1446
18. Ellerman TJ, Horton LM, Katulski SL, Van Bibber-Krueger CL, Aperce CC, Drouillard JS. Ruminal characteristics and feedlot performance of feedlot steers during accelerated step-up to high-concentrate diets using Lactipro Advance. J Anim Sci 2017; 95:Ssuppl 4277–8. https://doi.org/10.2527/asasann.2017.567
19. Susanto I, Jayanegara A, Wiryawan KG. Effects of Megasphaera elsdenii supplementation on fermentation and lactic acid concentration in the rumen: a meta-analysis of in vivo experiments. The 1st International Conference on Livestock in Tropical Environment (ICLiTE-1). IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 2021; 902:012022https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/902/1/012022
20. Moss AR, Jouany JP, Newbold J. Methane production by ruminants: its contribution to global warming. Ann Zootech 2000; 49:231–53. https://doi.org/10.1051/animres:2000119
21. St-Pierre NR. Invited review. Integrating quantitative findings from multiple studies using mixed model methodology. J Dairy Sci 2001; 84:741–55. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(01)74530-4
crossref pmid
22. Sauvant D, Schmidely P, Daudin JJ, St-Pierre NR. Meta-analyses of experimental data in animal nutrition. Animal 2008; 2:1203–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731108002280
crossref pmid
23. Prihambodo TR, Sholikin MM, Qomariah N, et al. Effects of dietary flavonoids on performance, blood constituents, carcass composition and small intestinal morphology of broilers: a meta-analysis. Anim Biosci 2021; 34:434–42. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.20.0379
crossref pmid pmc
24. SAS Institute Inc. 2020. SAS/ACCES 9:4. Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute Inc; 2020.

25. Jayanegara A, Wina E, Takahashi J. Meta-analysis on methane mitigating properties of saponin-rich sources in the rumen: influence of addition levels and plant sources. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2014; 27:1426–35. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2014.14086
crossref pmid pmc
26. Irawan A, Ningsih N, Hafizuddin , et al. Supplementary n-3 fatty acids sources on performance and formation of omega-3 in egg of laying hens: a meta-analysis. Poult Sci 2022; 101:101566https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2021.101566
crossref pmid
27. Henning PH, Horn CH, Steyn DG, Meissner HH, Hagg FM. The potential of Megasphaera elsdenii isolates to control ruminal acidosis. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2010; 157:13–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2009.12.011
28. Alatas MS, Umucalilar HD. In vivo alterations in ruminal parameters by Megasphaera elsdenii inoculation on subacute ruminal acidosis (SARA). Int J Anim Vet Sci 2015; 9:776–81. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1107728
29. Hagg FM, Erasmus LJ, Henning PH, Coertze RJ. The effect of a direct fed microbial (Megasphaera elsdenii) on the productivity and health of Holstein cows. S Afr J Anim Sci 2010; 40:101–12. https://doi.org/10.4314/sajas.v40i2.57276
30. Long M, Li P, Zhang Y, Chen X, Gao Z, Liu G. Evaluation of the protective effect of the acid-tolerant engineered bacterial strain M. elsdenii H6F32 as a probiotic fed to sheep during the lactic acidosis challenge. Indian J Anim Res 2016; 50:330–4. https://doi.org/10.18805/ijar.9632
31. Sedighi R, Alipour D. Assessment of probiotic effects of isolated Megasphaera elsdenii strains in Mehraban sheep and Holstein lactating cows. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2019; 248:126–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2019.01.007
32. Muya MC, Nherera FV, Miller KA, et al. Effect of Megasphaera elsdenii NCIMB 41125 dosing on rumen development, volatile fatty acid production and blood β-hydroxybutyrate in neonatal dairy calves. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr 2015; 99:913–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.12306
33. Weimer PJ, Cabral LDS, Cacite F. Effects of ruminal dosing of Holstein cows with Megasphaera elsdenii on milk fat production, ruminal chemistry, and bacterial strain persistence. J Dairy Sci 2015; 98:8078–92. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-9721
crossref pmid
34. Zebeli Q, Terrill SJ, Mazzolari A, Dunn S, Yang W, Ametaj B. Intraruminal administration of Megasphaera elsdenii modulated rumen fermentation profile in mid-lactation dairy cows. J Dairy Res 2012; 79:16–25. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022029911000707
crossref pmid
35. Mazon G, Campler MR, Holcomb C, Bewley JM, Costa JHC. Effects of a Megasphaera elsdenii oral drench on reticulorumen pH dynamics in lactating dairy cows under subacute ruminal acidosis challenge. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2020; 216:114404http://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2020.114404
36. Arik HD, Gulsen N, Hayirli A, Alatas MS. Efficacy of Megasphaera elsdenii inoculation in subacute ruminal acidosis in cattle. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr 2019; 103:416–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.13034
37. Direkvandi E, Mohammadabadi T, Salem AZM. Effect of microbial feed additives on growth performance, microbial protein synthesis, and rumen microbial population in growing lambs. Transl Anim Sci. 2020. 4:txaa203https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txaa203
crossref pmid pmc
38. Thieszen J, Van Bibber CL, Axman JE, Drouillard JS. Lactipro (Megasphaera elsdenii) increases ruminal ph and alters volatile fatty acids and lactate during transition to an 80% concentrate diet. Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports 2015; 1:1–5. https://doi.org/10.4148/2378-5977.1036
39. McDaniel MR, Higgins JJ, Heidenreich JM, et al. Effects of Megasphaera elsdenii on ruminal pH, ruminal concentrations of organic acids, and bacterial genomes following a grain challenge. Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports 2009; 0:62–65. https://doi.org/10.4148/2378-5977.1492
40. Leeuw KJ, Siebrits F, Henning PH, Meissner HH. Effect of Megasphaera elsdenii NCIMB 41125 drenching on health and performance of steers fed high and low roughage diets in the feedlot. S Afr J Anim Sci 2009; 39:337–48. https://doi.org/10.4314/sajas.v39i4.51129
41. DeClerck JC, Reeves NR, Miller MF, Johnson BJ, Ducharme GA, Rathmann RJ. The influence of Megasphaera elsdenii on rumen morphometrics of cull cows immediately stepped up to a high-energy finishing diet. Transl Anim Sci 2020; 4:194–205. https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txz185
crossref pmid pmc
42. DeClerck JC, Wade ZE, Reeves NR, et al. Influence of Megasphaera elsdenii and feeding strategies on feedlot performance, compositional growth, and carcass parameters of early weaned, beef calves. Transl Anim Sci 2020; 4:863–75. https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txaa031
crossref pmc
43. Drouillard JS, Henning PH, Meissner HH, Leeuw KJ. Short communication: Megasphaera elsdenii on the performance of steers adapting to a high-concentrate diet, using three or five transition diets. S Afr J Anim Sci 2012; 42:195–9. https://doi.org/10.4314/sajas.v42i2.13
44. Muya MC, Erasmus LJ, Miller K, Aperce C, Nherera FV, Moshidi PM. Performance of Holstein calves having free access to milk and dosed with Megasphaera elsdenii. Sci Agric 2017; 74:189–94. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-992X-2015-0318
45. Klieve AV, Hennessy D, Ouwerkerk D, Forster RJ, Mackie RI, Attwood GT. Establishing populations of Megasphaera elsdenii YE 34 and Butyrivibrio fibrisolvens YE 44 in the rumen of cattle fed high grain diets. J Appl Microbiol 2003; 95:621–30. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2672.2003.02024.x
crossref pmid
46. Klieve AV, McLennan SR, Ouwerkerk D. Persistence of orally administered Megasphaera elsdenii and Ruminococcus bromii in the rumen of beef cattle fed a high grain (barley) diet. Anim Prod Sci 2012; 52:297–304. http://doi.org/10.1071/AN11111
47. Miller K, Van Bibber CL, Drouillard JS. Accelerated step-up regimes for feedlot heifers following oral dosing with Lactipro (Megasphaera elsdenii strain NCIMB 41125). Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports 2012; 0:71–7. https://doi.org/10.4148/2378-5977.1423
48. Stevens KD, Eastridge ML, Daniels KM, et al. Effect of oral administration of Megasphaera elsdenii on performance of Holstein cows during early lactation. Appl Anim Sci 2017; 33:120–6. https://doi.org/10.15232/pas.2016-01540
49. Veloso VA, Horton L, Baker A, Aperce C, Drouillard J. Effects of ruminally-protected lysine and Megasphaera elsdenii on performance and carcass characteristics of finishing cattle. J Anim Sci 2019; 97:Suppl 2134https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skz122.238
50. Direkvandi E, Mohammadabadi T, Salem AZM. Oral administration of lactate producing bacteria alone or combined with Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Megasphaera elsdenii on performance of fattening lambs. J Appl Anim Res 2020; 48:235–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2020.1773830
51. Leeuw KJ, Meissner HH, Henning PH, Siebrits FK, Apajalahti JHA, Kettunen A. Effects of virginiamycin and monensin administered alone or together with Megasphaera elsdenii strain NCIMB 41125 on in vitro production of lactate and VFA and the effects of monensin and M. elsdenii strain NCIMB 41125 on health and performance of feedlot steers. Livest Sci 2016; 183:54–62. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.11.014
52. Ye D, Eastridge ML. Oral administration of Megasphaera elsdenii to Jersey cows during early lactation. Appl Anim Sci 2018; 34:67–74. https://doi.org/10.15232/pas.2017-01668
53. Lopez Al, Santos FAP, Meschiatti M, et al. Effects of Megasphaera elsdenii administration on performance and carcass traits of finishing Bos indicus feedlot cattle. Transl Anim Sci. 2021. 5:txab091https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txab091
crossref pmid pmc
54. Brossard L, Martin C, Chaucheyras-Durand F, Michalet-Doreau B. Protozoa involved in butyric rather than lactic fermentative pattern during latent acidosis in sheep. Reprod Nutr Dev 2004; 44:195–206. https://doi.org/10.1051/rnd:2004023
crossref pmid
55. Goad DW, Goad CL, Nagaraja TG. Ruminal microbial and fermentative changes associated with experimentally induced subacute acidosis in steers. J Anim Sci 1998; 76:234–41. https://doi.org/10.2527/1998.761234x
crossref pmid
56. Davies HL. Australian Universities’ International Development Program, and Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee. Nutrition and growth manual. Melbourne, Australia: Australian University International Development Program; 1982.

57. Horn CH, Kistner A, Fouché G. Selective enrichment, isolation and characterization of fast growing acid-tolerant and ionophores-resistant lactate utilizers from rumen contents of animals on high-energy diets. In: Ruminant physiology – digestion, metabolism and effects of nutrition on reproduction and welfare. Wageningen, Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers; 2009. p. 216–7.

58. Jayanegara A, Leiber F, Kreuzer M. Meta-analysis of the relationship between dietary tannin level and methane formation in ruminants from in vivo and in vitro experiments. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr 2012; 96:365–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0396.2011.01172.x
59. Kung LJ, Hession AO. Preventing in vitro lactate accumulation in ruminal fermentations by inoculation with Megasphaera elsdenii. J Anim Sci 1995; 73:250–6. https://doi.org/10.2527/1995.731250x
crossref pmid
60. Wiryawan KG, Brooker JD. Probiotic control of lactate accumulation in acutely grain-fed sheep. Aust J Agric Res 1995; 46:1555–68. https://doi.org/10.1071/AR9951555
61. Long M, Feng WJ, Li P, et al. Effects of the acid-tolerant engineered bacterial strain Megasphaera elsdenii H6F32 on ruminal pH and the lactic acid concentration of simulated rumen acidosis in vitro. Res Vet Sci 2014; 96:28–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2013.11.013
crossref pmid
62. Meissner HH, Henning PH, Leeuw KJ, et al. Efficacy and mode of action of selected non-ionophore antibiotics and direct-fed microbials in relation to Megasphaera elsdenii NCIMB 41125 during in vitro fermentation of an acidosis-causing substrate. Livest Sci 2014; 162:115–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2014.01.026
63. Allen MS, Bradford BJ, Harvatine KJ. The cow as a model to study food intake regulation. Annu Rev Nutr 2005; 25:523–47. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.nutr.25.050304.092704
crossref pmid
64. Uyeno Y, Shigemori S, Shimosato T. Effect of probiotics/prebiotics on cattle health and productivity: mini review. Microbs Environ 2015; 30:126–32. https://doi.org/10.1264/jsme2.ME14176
crossref pmid pmc
65. Apper-Bossard E, Faverdin P, Meschy F, Peyraud JL. Effects of dietary cation-anion difference on ruminal metabolism and blood acid-base regulation in dairy cows receiving 2 contrasting levels of concentrate in diets. J Dairy Sci 2010; 93:4196–210. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2975
crossref pmid

Editorial Office
Asian-Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies(AAAP)
Room 708 Sammo Sporex, 23, Sillim-ro 59-gil, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08776, Korea   
TEL : +82-2-888-6558    FAX : +82-2-888-6559   
E-mail : editor@animbiosci.org               

Copyright © 2024 by Asian-Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies.

Developed in M2PI

Close layer
prev next