Gastrointestinal microbiome–nutrition interactions in livestock: Linking feed chemistry, microbial metabolism, host physiology and productivity with an Indian perspective

Introduction

Animal nutrition has traditionally focused on feed composition, nutrient requirements, digestibility and the quantity of nutrients ultimately available to the animal. These variables remain fundamental, but they do not fully explain the biological conversion of feed into milk, meat, eggs, growth or reproductive output. The gastrointestinal tract contains a densely populated and metabolically active ecosystem in which bacteria, archaea, fungi, protozoa and viruses interact with dietary substrates and the host. Collectively, these microorganisms provide enzymatic activities that complement host digestion and generate metabolites capable of altering energy supply, nutrient absorption, intestinal barrier function, immune activity and systemic metabolism (Tardiolo et al., 2025; Weimer, 2022; Palmonari et al., 2024; Qi et al., 2024) [1,2,3,4] . The distinction between microbiota and microbiome is useful in this context. Microbiota refers primarily to the microorganisms inhabiting a defined ecological niche, while microbiome is generally used to encompass the microorganisms together with their collective genetic and functional potential (Tardiolo et al., 2025) [1] . This functional perspective is particularly important in livestock because microbial communities can differ substantially among animals receiving similar diets, whereas some metabolic functions remain conserved because multiple taxa can perform overlapping biochemical roles. The ruminant digestive system illustrates the nutritional significance of these interactions most clearly. The rumen provides an anaerobic fermentation chamber in which microbial consortia degrade structural carbohydrates, ferment starch and soluble carbohydrates, transform nitrogen and carry out hydrogen transfer. The products include acetate, propionate, butyrate, microbial protein and gases. In monogastric species such as pigs and poultry, host enzymatic digestion accounts for a larger proportion of nutrient absorption, yet microbial fermentation in the distal gut contributes to fibre utilization, SCFA generation, barrier maintenance, immune regulation and metabolic signalling (Tardiolo et al., 2025; Jha et al., 2019) [1,5] . An important shift in recent literature is the movement from asking which microbial taxa are present toward asking which microbial functions are active and which metabolites mediate host phenotypes. A 2026 perspective in Frontiers in Physiology argues that feed efficiency should be viewed as an emergent property of diet-microbiome-host interactions, highlighting microbial mediation of nutrient transformation, methane loss, epithelial stability and inflammation (Ogwu et al., 2026) [6] . This framework is highly relevant to practical nutrition because microbial functions are potentially modifiable through feed ingredients and management even when host genetics are fixed. [7,8,9,10] . These findings create an opportunity to connect conventional feed evaluation with microbial functional assessment.

Abbreviation Meaning

The integrated feed-microbiome-host framework is summarized in Figure 1.

Literature search and scope

This manuscript was developed as a structured narrative review with emphasis on peer-reviewed literature indexed in PubMed and major scientific publisher databases. Recent literature published during 2024-2026 was preferentially considered for emerging concepts, while earlier landmark studies were retained when they established foundational evidence. Search concepts included combinations of livestock gut microbiome, rumen microbiome, animal nutrition, feed efficiency, microbial metabolism, diet-microbiome interactions, SCFA, microbial protein, methane mitigation, probiotics, prebiotics, postbiotics, metagenomics, metabolomics, precision nutrition, Indian cattle, Indian buffalo and crop residues. The purpose was not to perform a quantitative meta-analysis, but to synthesize mechanistic relationships and identify translational gaps. Particular emphasis was placed on studies that connected microbial profiles to measurable animal outcomes rather than on studies reporting microbiome composition alone.

The gastrointestinal microbiome as a nutritional organ

The gastrointestinal microbiome can be considered a functional nutritional organ because microorganisms contribute enzymes, metabolic pathways and signalling molecules unavailable to the host alone. This concept is particularly strong in ruminants, where the rumen micro biome determines how much of the plant cell-wall carbohydrate pool becomes metabolically useful to the animal. In monogastrics, the microbiome occupies a more distal role but remains important in nutrient salvage and gut homeostasis (Tardiolo et al., 2025; Jha et al., 2019) [1,5] . Bacteria constitute the best-characterized component of livestock microbiomes, but archaea, anaerobic fungi, protozoa and bacteriophages are biologically relevant. In the rumen, fibrolytic bacteria such as Ruminococcus and Fibrobacter participate in plant fibre degradation; anaerobic fungi help disrupt recalcitrant plant tissues; protozoa contribute to carbohydrate metabolism and microbial predation; and methanogenic archaea consume hydrogen during methanogenesis (Weimer, 2022; Qi et al., 2024; Pitta et al., 2022) [2,4,11] . The microbial ecosystem is spatially organized. Rumen liquid, fibreadherent communities and epithelial-associated microbes are not identical, and whole-gut studies in cattle show clear regional differences along the gastrointestinal tract. Consequently, faecal samples may be useful for some questions but should not automatically be interpreted as a complete representation of the upstream rumen or small-intestinal microbiome (Akanmu, 2026) [12] . The principal microbial groups and their nutritional functions are summarized in Table 1. [2,4] . The nutritional implications are profound. Acetate contributes to energy metabolism and lipogenesis; propionate is a major gluconeogenic precursor; butyrate supports epithelial metabolism; and microbial biomass provides a substantial source of absorbable amino acids after passage to the small intestine. At the same time, methanogenesis represents a loss of feed-derived energy and redirects hydrogen away from alternative sinks (Pitta et al., 2022; Kú-Vera et al., 2020) [11,13] .

Monogastrics: hindgut fermentation and signalling

Pigs and poultry absorb much of their starch, fat and protein before the large intestine. Nevertheless, resistant starch, non-starch polysaccharides and other fermentable substrates can reach distal regions where microbiota produce SCFAs and other compounds. Butyrate is particularly relevant to epithelial energetics and barrier regulation, whereas microbial transformation of amino acids, bile acids and other molecules creates signalling pathways linking the gut to systemic physiology (Jha et al., 2019; Lai et al., 2026; Xiong, 2025) [5,14,15] . This distinction means that the same dietary intervention should not be expected to act through identical microbial mechanisms in all livestock. In ruminants, the primary endpoint may be fermentation efficiency and microbial protein supply; in monogastrics, outcomes may be driven more strongly by intestinal barrier integrity, pathogen ecology, immune regulation and metabolite signalling. The contrasting nutritional pathways in ruminants and monogastrics are illustrated in Figure 2. Source: Conceptual schematic prepared for this review based on the cited literature.

Feed as a major determinant of microbial community structure

Diet is among the strongest controllable determinants of gastrointestinal microbial ecology. By changing substrate availability, pH, osmotic conditions, retention time, redox status and host secretions, the diet selects microorganisms and metabolic pathways that can exploit the prevailing environment (Palmonari et al., 2024; Henderson et al., 2015) [3,16] .

Fibre and carbohydrates

Fibre quality matters as much as fibre quantity. Cellulose, hemicellulose, pectin, resistant starch and soluble fermentable fibre support different microbial guilds and generate different metabolite profiles. In ruminants, increasing forage availability generally favours fibre-associated microbial functions, whereas rapidly fermentable starch can shift fermentation toward acid-producing pathways. When dietary fermentability exceeds the capacity of rumen buffering and epithelial adaptation, microbial shifts contribute to SARA (Zhang et al., 2026) [17] . In non-ruminants, fibre should not be evaluated only through apparent digestibility. Poorly digested fibre can be biologically valuable if selectively fermented to SCFAs in the hindgut. A 2026 review emphasizes the interaction among dietary fibre, intestinal microbiota and bile-acid metabolism, extending the nutritional interpretation of fibre beyond simple fermentation (Lai et al., 2026) [14] .

Protein and nitrogen

In ruminants, microbial degradation of dietary protein releases nitrogenous substrates that can be incorporated into microbial protein when sufficient fermentable energy is available. Synchronizing nitrogen supply with carbohydrate fermentation can therefore improve microbial protein synthesis and reduce ammonia losses. In pigs and poultry, excess protein reaching the distal intestine can undergo microbial putrefaction and generate ammonia, amines, phenolics and other metabolites, supporting the rationale for precision protein and amino-acid nutrition.

Lipids and bioactive compounds

Dietary lipids can alter microbial membranes and fermentation pathways, while phytochemicals such as tannins, saponins, essential oils and polyphenols may selectively inhibit or stimulate microbial groups. Their practical use requires careful dose-response assessment because strong antimicrobial activity can suppress beneficial functions along with undesirable organisms (Ntsongota et al., 2025) [18] .

Microbial metabolism: The central link between feed and performance

Microbial taxa are only an indirect indicator of biological activity. Metabolites often provide a closer mechanistic link to nutrition and host phenotype.

Volatile fatty acids and short-chain fatty acids

Acetate, propionate and butyrate are central ruminal products and important signalling molecules in the intestine. Their relative proportions depend on carbohydrate source, rate of fermentation, forage-toconcentrate ratio and other dietary factors. The goal of nutritional manipulation should therefore be productive fermentation rather than indiscriminate maximization of total fermentation (Weimer, 2022; Ogwu et al., 2026) [2,6] .

Microbial protein

Microbial protein is a central bridge between rumen nitrogen and host amino-acid supply. The efficiency of microbial protein synthesis depends on fermentable energy, nitrogen availability, ruminal pH, passage rate and microbial growth efficiency. Omics-based approaches are being explored because conventional estimates of microbial protein flow contain important uncertainty (Lima et al., 2023) [19] .

Bile acids and lipid signalling

Intestinal microbes deconjugate and otherwise transform bile acids. These modified bile acids can influence receptors involved in glucose metabolism, lipid metabolism and immune signalling. This helps explain why dietary fibre and microbial metabolism can affect physiological processes beyond the gut lumen (Lai et al., 2026; Xiong, 2025) [14,15] .

Tryptophan and indole metabolites

Gut microorganisms convert tryptophan into indole and related compounds that can interact with host receptors such as the aryl hydrocarbon receptor. These pathways have potential effects on epithelial integrity and immune homeostasis. Recent reviews in swine nutrition identify microbial tryptophan metabolism as an emerging nutritional target, while emphasizing the need for better causal evidence (Wen, 2026) [20] .

Methane and hydrogen transfer

In ruminants, methanogenic archaea act as hydrogen sinks. This interaction stabilizes fermentation but produces methane, representing an energetic and environmental loss. Redirecting hydrogen through alter-native pathways is therefore a major objective of nutritional methane mitigation (Pitta et al., 2022; Kú-Vera et al., 2020) [11,13] . The major microbial metabolites and their host-level implications are summarized in Table 2. . Studies in cattle have identified differences in rumen microbiota between animals with divergent feed efficiency. Importantly, microbial associations with efficiency are often population-and diet-dependent. The same genus may correlate with efficiency in one system and not in another because the actual causal variable may be a pathway or metabolite rather than the taxon itself (Myer et al., 2015; Li et al., 2019) [22,23] . Host genetics also contributes. Large cattle cohorts have demonstrated heritable microbial features and associations between microbial traits and feed efficiency, supporting the idea that host genetics can shape microbial ecology (Li et al., 2019) [23] . A later direction of research is therefore co-selection of host and microbial traits rather than independent treatment of nutrition and breeding. Poultry studies provide a parallel example. In laying hens with divergent residual feed intake, caecal microbial differences were observed, but microbial-efficiency relationships changed with diet. This finding cautions against searching for a universal microbial signature of feed efficiency (Bernard et al., 2024) [24] .

Microbiome, gut barrier, immunity and animal health

Productive efficiency cannot be separated from gut health. A damaged intestinal barrier increases microbial translocation and inflammatory stimulation, potentially redirecting nutrients toward immune mainte-nance instead of growth, lactation or reproduction. Microbial metabolites including butyrate can support epithelial cells and influence inflammatory signalling (Mann et al., 2024) [25] . In poultry, probiotics have been associated with changes in microbial ecology, intestinal morphology, barrier-related gene expression and immune responses, although effects are strain-, dose-and environment-dependent (Naeem et al., 2025) [26] . In pigs, the weaning transition is a particularly sensitive period because dietary and environmental changes occur simultaneously and can destabilize the intestinal ecosystem (Wang et al., 2025) [27] .

Nutritional strategies for microbiome modulation

Probiotics

Probiotics are live microorganisms administered to confer a health benefit. Lactobacilli, Bacillus species and Saccharomyces products have been widely studied. Potential mechanisms include competitive exclusion, antimicrobial metabolite production, immune modulation, barrier support and changes in fermentation. Consistency across trials remains a limitation because strain, viability, dose and diet matter (Naeem et al., 2025) [26] .

Prebiotics

Prebiotics are selectively utilized substrates that benefit the host. Fructo-oligosaccharides, inulin, mannan-oligosaccharides and related oligosaccharides can alter microbial fermentation, although the response depends on the pre-existing community and chemical structure of the substrate.

Synbiotics

Synbiotics combine a live microbial component and a substrate intended to support beneficial microbial activity. The combined response should be tested against each component individually before concluding that a true synergistic effect exists.

Postbiotics

Postbiotics have gained attention because they deliver inanimate microorganisms or microbial constituents rather than requiring the survival of a live microorganism. A 2026 systematic review in sows and piglets found promising effects on gut health and performance while emphasizing heterogeneity among preparations and the still limited evidence base (Polimeni et al., 2026) [28] .

Phytogenic feed additives

Tannins, saponins, essential oils and polyphenols may selectively alter microbial metabolism, oxidative status and immune activity. Their effects are dose-sensitive and should be evaluated jointly for perfor-mance, digestibility and microbiome outcomes rather than solely for antimicrobial activity (Ntsongota et al., 2025) [18] .

Enzymes, organic acids and fermented feeds

Exogenous enzymes modify substrate flow into microbial ecosystems; organic acids can alter intestinal conditions and pathogen ecology; fermented feeds may pre-process nutrients and alter the microbial inoculum entering the gut. These technologies can produce useful responses but require control of feed matrix, fermentation quality and inclusion rate. The principal microbiome-modulating approaches and their research considerations are summarized in Table 3.

Early-life microbiome programming

The microbiome of newborn and young animals is dynamic. Microbial colonization, dietary transition and immune maturation occur simultaneously, creating a developmental window in which nutrition may influence the trajectory of the microbial ecosystem (Song et al., 2026; Animal Microbiome, 2026) [29,30] . In calves, lambs and kids, colostrum, maternal contact, environmental exposure and the introduction of starter feeds shape microbial succession and rumen development. A 2026 review concluded that early interventions may be more effective than interventions in the relatively stable adult microbiome, but also noted that long-term mechanisms remain incompletely understood (Song et al., 2026) [29] . Early-life programming should therefore be approached as a resilience strategy rather than a guarantee of permanent microbial remodeling. Longitudinal research should ask whether early interventions generate durable improvements in feed efficiency, disease resistance, methane intensity and productivity across later life stages.

Host genetics and microbiome interactions

Host genotype influences the gastrointestinal environment through feed intake, rumen and intestinal physiology, epithelial responses, immune phenotype and metabolism. The microbiome in turn produces metabolites that can modify host physiology. This bidirectional interaction provides a biological basis for host-microbiome co-optimization (Li et al., 2019; Marie-Etancelin et al., 2026) [23,31] . The discovery of heritable microbial features in cattle is particularly important because it suggests that some microbial traits may be incorporated into breeding objectives. However, microbial phenotypes are highly context-dependent and may change with diet and management. Routine selection should therefore await stronger cross-population validation and standardized phenotyping.

Microbiome, methane and sustainability

Methanogenic archaea use hydrogen and carbon dioxide to generate methane. The pathway is an integral component of anaerobic rumen fermentation but also represents loss of feed-derived energy. Nutritional methane mitigation aims to reduce methanogenesis or redirect hydrogen to alternative sinks without compromising animal productivity (Pitta et al., 2022; Kú-Vera et al., 2020) [11,13] . Strategies include dietary lipids, plant secondary metabolites, nitrate, selected hydrogen sinks and methane-inhibiting compounds such as 3-nitrooxypropanol. Meta-analytic evidence indicates that several diet-based strategies can reduce methane, but the size of the response varies with animal, diet and experimental system (PubMed Central, 2024) [32] . Indian buffalo research is especially relevant. A recent study of a composite feed additive reported reductions in enteric methane together with changes in archaeal, bacterial and fungal profiles and improvements in nutrient utilization, illustrating the potential of combined microbial and nutritional approaches under buffalo production conditions (Paul et al., 2026) [33] .

Indian livestock perspective

Indian livestock systems present a distinct combination of nutritional variability, climatic stress and heterogeneous resource availability.

Crop residues and cereal straws may form a major component of cattle and buffalo diets, especially where high-quality forage is seasonally limited. From a microbiome perspective, these feeds represent complex polysaccharide substrates whose effective utilization depends strongly on microbial fibrolytic capacity. Indian crossbred cattle fed finger millet straw have been used to characterize rumen microbial fibrolytic enzyme repertoires, demonstrating that metagenomic approaches can reveal enzymatic potential that conventional proximate analysis cannot (Jose et al., 2017) [9] .

Mehsani [7,8,10] . These studies provide an important country-specific foundation for microbiome-informed feed evaluation. For Indian animal nutrition, an especially attractive framework is to characterize feed resources through four linked layers: chemical composition, anti-nutritional factors, fermentability and microbial response. Such a system could help identify which crop residues, agroindustrial by-products and local forages are likely to generate productive microbial fermentation rather than merely classify them according to crude nutrient content. Indigenous cattle and buffaloes also deserve more attention. Their adaptation to local climates, feed resources and management conditions may be partly related to stable host-microbe interactions.

Omics technologies for microbiome-based nutrition

16S rRNA sequencing is useful for describing bacterial community structure but does not directly measure metabolic activity. Shotgun metagenomics provides broader functional information by characterizing microbial genes, while metatranscriptomics measures expressed RNA and metaproteomics identifies microbial proteins. Metabolomics measures the chemical outputs that arise from host and microbial metabolism (Qi et al., 2024; Lima et al., 2023) [4,19] . The greatest interpretive value may come from integrating these layers. Metagenomics identifies pathway capacity; metatranscriptomics indicates which pathways are active; metaproteomics identifies enzymes; metabolomics shows the resulting chemical products; and host phenotype determines whether the response is biologically meaningful. Recent methodological reviews caution that microbiome analysis faces important issues involving sampling site, compositionality, contamination, batch effects and the distinction between relative and absolute abundance (Akanmu, 2026) [12] . These issues are especially important when comparing field animals across breeds and seasons.

Microbiome-informed precision animal nutrition

Precision nutrition traditionally matches nutrient supply to the requirements of the individual animal or production group. A next-generation approach could add microbial function as another layer of personalization. An animal could be characterized by host genotype, feed intake, production stage, microbial profile, metabolite pattern, health status and environmental exposure before selecting a diet or feed additive. For example, two cows consuming the same ration may differ in fibrolytic activity, microbial protein synthesis or methane formation. A microbial intervention that works in one animal may have little effect in another because the ecological starting point is different. Thus, the future target should be a functional state-such as efficient fibre degradation, productive SCFA formation, improved nitrogen capture or reduced methanogenesis-rather than a universal bacterial genus (Ogwu et al., 2026) [6] . Machine learning offers a potential route for integrating multi-omics with feed composition, animal phenotype and farm-level data. However, external validation across breeds, diets, seasons and commercial farms is essential before predictive models can be translated into routine feeding decisions.

Research gaps and challenges

Causality. Many microbiome studies remain observational. Demonstrating that a microorganism or pathway causes a production phenotype requires intervention experiments, targeted manipulation or mechanistic validation.

Sampling and spatial heterogeneity. Microbial profiles differ markedly along the gastrointestinal tract. Rumen fluid, fibre-associated microbes, epithelial communities and faeces answer different biological questions (Akanmu, 2026) [12] . Compositionality. Relative-abundance sequencing data can produce misleading conclusions when one organism changes and others consequently appear to change. Absolute quantification is increasingly important. Context dependence. Diet, breed, age, health status, management and climate can modify microbial responses. A universally applicable microbial biomarker remains unlikely without strong cross-environment validation. Product standardization. Probiotic and postbiotic products can differ in strain identity, viability, composition and manufacturing, limiting cross-study comparison (Polimeni et al., 2026) [28] . Indian evidence gap. Although Indian buffalo and cattle studies are increasingly informative, large longitudinal datasets across species, regions, production systems and seasons are still needed. Field translation. Multi-omics methods remain expensive and technically demanding. Low-cost biomarkers that can be deployed under field conditions will be necessary for practical microbiome-informed feeding.

Future research priorities

Future work should prioritize longitudinal, mechanistic studies that simultaneously measure feed chemistry, microbial function, metabolite production, animal performance and environmental outcomes. The research question should move from "Which taxa differ?" to "Which microbial function changes, what metabolite does it produce, and does that change improve an actionable animal trait?" Promising areas include early-life programming, host-microbiome genetics, microbiome-guided methane mitigation, microbial protein optimization, Indian crop-residue utilization, agro-industrial by-product valorization and low-cost precision nutrition tools. For India, multi-institutional datasets covering cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats and poultry under tropical and subtropical production conditions would be particularly valuable. Such datasets could help separate universal microbial principles from context-specific responses and support the development of regionally adapted feeding recommendations.

Integrative framework for livestock nutrition

The overall evidence can be represented as a systems pathway: feed chemistry determines the substrates available; microbial communities select for appropriate enzymatic and fermentation pathways; microbial metabolism generates VFAs, SCFAs, microbial protein, indoles, bile-acid derivatives and gases; these molecules alter host energy metabolism, epithelial integrity, immunity and signalling; and the combined response emerges as productivity, health, feed efficiency and environmental performance. This framework is more informative than a taxonomy-only approach because it preserves the causal sequence and highlights where nutritional intervention can occur. It also makes it possible to integrate conventional ration formulation with modern omics without abandoning practical measures such as digestibility and animal performance.

Conclusion

The gastrointestinal microbiome is a functional component of the livestock nutritional system. In ruminants, it is central to fibre digestion, VFA formation, microbial protein synthesis and hydrogen transfer. In monogastrics, it contributes to hindgut fermentation, SCFA formation, epithelial maintenance, immune regulation and metabolic signalling. Across species, these activities can influence feed efficiency, growth, milk and meat production, health and environmental sustainability. The field is moving from descriptive microbiome catalogues toward functional, metabolite-centered and multi-omics approaches. The most useful nutritional targets will therefore be reproducible microbial functions that can be manipulated through diet and verified using animal-level outcomes. Probiotics, prebiotics, postbiotics, phytogenic compounds, enzymes, fermented feeds and methane-mitigating strategies each provide potential tools, but responses remain contextdependent. Indian livestock production offers a particularly relevant setting for microbiome-informed nutrition because of diverse feed resources, widespread use of crop residues, agro-industrial by-products, buffalo production and strong environmental variation. A research program that connects feed chemistry, microbial metabolism, host physiology and field-level productivity could support more efficient use of local resources and more resilient production. Ultimately, the value of a feed should be understood not only by what it contains, but also by how the gastrointestinal microbiome transforms it and how those microbial products are used by the animal. This perspective provides a foundation for future precision nutrition in which feed, microbes and the host are treated as parts of one biological system.

References

1. Tardiolo G, La Fauci D, Riggio V, Daghio M, Di Salvo E, Zumbo A, Sutera AM. Gut Microbiota of Ruminants and Monogastric Livestock: An Overview. Animals. 2025;15(5):758.
2. Weimer PJ. Degradation of Cellulose and Hemicellulose by Ruminal Microorganisms. Microorganisms. 2022;10:2345.
3. Palmonari A, Federiconi A, Formigoni A. The effect of diet on rumen microbial composition in dairy cows. Animal. 2024;18:101319.
4. Qi W, Xue MY, Jia MH, Zhang S, Yan Q, Sun HZ. Understanding the functionality of the rumen microbiota: searching for better opportunities for rumen microbial manipulation. Animal Bioscience. 2024;37:370-384.
5. Jha R, Fouhse JM, Tiwari UP, Li L, Willing BP. Dietary Fiber and Intestinal Health of Monogastric Animals. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2019;6:48.
6. Ogwu MC, Izah SC, Alum EU, Aliu OO, Raimi MO, Kari A. Redefining feed efficiency through the livestock gut microbiome. Frontiers in Physiology. 2026;17:1852759.
7. Parmar NR, Solanki JV, Patel AB, Shah TM, Patel AK, Parnerkar S, Kumar JIN, Joshi CG. Metagenome of Mehsani buffalo rumen microbiota: an assessment of variation in feed-dependent phylogenetic and functional classification. Journal of Molecular Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2014;24:249-261.
8. Singh KM, Reddy B, Patel AK, et al. Metagenomic analysis of buffalo rumen microbiome: Effect of roughage diet on dormancy and sporulation genes. Meta Gene. 2014;2:252-268.
9. Kala A, Kamra DN, Kumar A, Agarwal N, Chaudhary LC, Joshi CG. Impact of levels of total digestible nutrients on microbiome, enzyme profile and degradation of feeds in buffalo rumen. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0172051.
10. Pitta D, Indugu N, Narayan K, Hennessy M. Understanding the role of the rumen microbiome in enteric methane mitigation and productivity in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science. 2022;105:8569-8585.
11. Akanmu AM. Beyond the Rumen: Current Evidence and Knowledge Gaps in Microbial Diversity and Function Across the Bovine Gastrointestinal Tract. Current Microbiology. 2026;83:575.
12. Kú-Vera JC, Jiménez-Ocampo R, Valencia-Salazar SS, et al. Role of secondary plant metabolites on enteric methane mitigation in ruminants. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2020;7:584.
13. Lai J, Zentek J, Grześkowiak ŁM. Dietary Fiber Regulation of Gut Microbiota and Bile Acid Metabolism in Animals: Implications for Animal Nutrition. Veterinary Sciences. 2026;13:209.
14. Xiong S. Gut-Microbiota-Driven Lipid Metabolism: Mechanisms and Applications in Swine Production. Metabolites. 2025;15(4):248.
15. Henderson G, Cox F, Ganesh S, Jonker A, Young W, Janssen PH, Global Rumen Census Collaborators. Rumen microbial community composition varies with diet and host, but a core microbiome is found across a wide geographical range. Scientific Reports. 2015;5:14567.
16. Zhang X, Xu J, Sun Y, et al. Subacute ruminal acidosis in highproducing dairy cows: an integrated diet-microbiota-epitheliumhost framework for diagnosis and nutritional management. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology. 2026;17:165.
17. Ntsongota Z, Ikusika O, Jaja IF. The role of phytogenic feed additives in growth and immune response in livestock production: a global systematic review. Frontiers in Animal Science. 2025;6:1703112.
18. Lima J, Ingabire W, Roehe R, Dewhurst RJ. Estimating Microbial Protein Synthesis in the Rumen-Can "Omics" Methods Provide New Insights into a Long-Standing Question? Veterinary Sciences. 2023;10(12):679.
19. Wen Y. Gut microbiota-derived tryptophan metabolites: molecular mechanisms, nutritional strategies and implications for swine health. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2026;13:1807477.
20. Cantalapiedra-Hijar G, Abo-Ismail M, Carstens GE, et al. Biological determinants of between-animal variation in feed efficiency of growing beef cattle. Animal. 2018;12(S2):s321-s335.
21. Myer PR, Smith TPL, Wells JE, Kuehn LA, Freetly HC. Rumen microbiome from steers differing in feed efficiency. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0129174.
22. Li F, Li C, Chen Y, et al. Host genetics influence the rumen microbiota and heritable rumen microbial features associate with feed efficiency in cattle. Microbiome. 2019;7:92.
23. Bernard M, Lecoeur A, Coville JL, et al. Relationship between feed efficiency and gut microbiota in laying chickens under contrasting feeding conditions. Scientific Reports. 2024;14:8210.
24. Mann ER, Lam YK, Uhlig HH. Short-chain fatty acids: linking diet, the microbiome and immunity. Nature Reviews Immunology. 2024;24:577-595.
25. Naeem M, Bourassa D. Probiotics in Poultry: Unlocking Productivity Through Microbiome Modulation and Gut Health. Microorganisms. 2025;13:257.
26. Wang J, Tong T, Yu C, Wu Q. The research progress on the impact of pig gut microbiota on health and production performance. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2025;12:1564519.
27. Polimeni B, Correa F, Trevisi P, Luise D. A systematic review on the use and effects of postbiotics on the general health, gut health, and performance of sows and piglets. Animal. 2026;20(2):101749.
28. Song Y, Wen S, Guan LL. Unraveling the dynamic changes in the intestinal microbiome: impacts on pre-weaning calf health and productivity. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology. 2026;17:37.
29. Harnessing the early-life gut microbiome for sustainable ruminant production. Animal Microbiome. 2026;8:42.
30. Marie-Etancelin C, Déru V, Carillier-Jacquin C, Brulin L, Estellé J, Sanchez MP, Calenge F, Larzul C. The genetic architecture of host-microbiota interactions in livestock: A comprehensive review and critical appraisal. Animal. 2026;20(5):101816.
31. Quantifying the Impact of Different Dietary Rumen Modulating Strategies on Enteric Methane Emission and Productivity in Ruminant Livestock: A Meta-Analysis. PubMed Central. 2024. International Journal of Veterinary Sciences and Animal Husbandry https://www.veterinarypaper.com 24562912, 2026, 11(10), Downloaded from https://www.doi.org/10.22271/veterinary.2026.v11.i10Sa.3839 by International Journal of Veterinary Sciences and Animal Husbandry on [12/10/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://www.veterinarypaper.com) for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
32. Yue T, Lu Y, Ding W, et al. The Role of Probiotics, Prebiotics, Synbiotics, and Postbiotics in Livestock and Poultry Gut Health: A Review. Metabolites. 2025;15(7):478.
33. Katu JK, Tóth T, Ásványi B, Hatvan Z, Varga L. Effect of Fermented Feed on Growth Performance and Gut Health of Broilers: A Review. Animals. 2025;15:1957.
34. Gadde U, Oh ST, Lee YS, et al. The Effects of Direct-Fed Microbial Supplementation, as an Alternative to Antibiotics, on Growth Performance, Intestinal Immune Status, and Epithelial Barrier Gene Expression in Broiler Chickens. Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins. 2017;9:397-405.