The objective was to determine the influence of long-term supplementation (258 d) of a direct fed microbial (DFM) and/or yeast cell wall (YCW) product on bacterial populations in beef steers. Single-sourced Charolais × Red Angus steers [n = 256; body weight = 246 ± 1.68 kg] were used in a randomized complete block design and blocked by location into 1 of 4 treatments: 1) Fed no DFM and no YCW (Control); 2) Fed only the DFM (DFM; Certillus CP B1801 Dry; 28 g/steer·d-1); 3) Fed only the YCW (YCW; Celmanax; 18 g/steer·d-1); 4) Fed the DFM and the YCW (DFM + YCW). Steers were vaccinated for respiratory and clostridial diseases and treated for internal and external parasites at processing and individually weighed on d 1, 14, 42, 77, 105, 133, 161, 182, 230 and 258. To determine bacterial prevalence, fecal samples were collected on d 1, 14, 77, 133, 182 and 230 and environmental (pen area, feed, and water) samples were collected at the beginning of the week when cattle were weighed. No treatment × day interactions or treatment effects (P>0.05) were observed between treatments groups at any sampling days for the bacterial populations. Samples on d 1, 133 and 182 had greater (P<0.05) Clostridia levels compared to the other sampling points but were not different from each other. Clostridia levels were also greater (P<0.05) on d 77 compared to d 14 and 230. Samples on d 77 and 230 had greater (P<0.05) C. perfringens levels compared to the other sampling points but were not different (P>0.05) from each other. Samples on d 1 and 14 had lower (P<0.05) total E. coli levels compared to the other sampling points but were not different (P>0.05) from each other. E. coli levels on d 77 were higher (P<0.05) compared to d 133, 182, and 230. Little Salmonella prevalence (1.5%) was observed throughout the study. This study had greater levels of Clostridia compared to small and large commercial feedlots in the Church and Dwight research database, but C. perfringens, total and pathogenic E. coli, and Salmonella prevalence were notably lower. Collectively, there were no appreciable treatment influences on bacterial populations. These data further indicate a low pathogenic bacterial challenge at the trial site, which could partially explain the lack of differences with DFM or YCW supplementation. The DFM and YCW used alone or in combination cannot be expected to show additional benefits when animals are relatively unstressed with a low pathogenic bacterial challenge.