The Effect of Live Yeast Supplementation on Beef Cattle Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This meta-analysis evaluates the effects of yeast supplementation (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) on dry matter intake (DMI) and average daily gain (ADG) in beef cattle. The inclusion criteria were complete and randomized trials and supplementation with yeast S. cerevisiae versus no supplementation to measure DMI or ADG. Data were extracted from relevant papers via pre-defined protocols. A meta-analysis of random effects was conducted for each indicator separately including the mean of the control and treated groups. The results were presented with the pooled mean difference (MD), 95% of confidence interval, and I² (percentage of total variation between studies that is due to heterogeneity rather than chance). A total of 12 publications reporting 22 trials conducted in 1,161 cattle were analysed. The heterogeneity between studies was high and ranged from 92 to 99%. No effects were observed in ADG with the inclusion of yeast in the diet (MD = -2.849 g/day, p = 0.492). However, there was a reduction in the DMI (MD = -0.885 kg/day; p = 0.023) despite the high heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 92.4%; p < 0.001). The ADG increased when the forage level in the diet was between 30 and 50% (MD = 641.08 g/day; p = 0.001) and decreased when the level range from 51 to 75% (MD = -2.90 g/day; p < 0.001). In over 60% of the Neutral Detergent Fibre, the use of yeast in the diet decreased the ADG by 406.94 g/day (p = 0.034). Feedlot animals showed a reduction in the DMI (MD = -0.97 kg/day; p = 0.019) if supplemented with yeast. Supplementation with S. cerevisiae in the diet of beef cattle had no effect on ADG; however, it does improve the feed conversion due to the reduction in DMI.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".