Success and failure: The role of relative humidity levels and environmental management in liveEimeria vaccination of cage-reared replacement layer pullets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Contrary to the traditional view that layer flocks housed in conventional cages are unlikely to suffer coccidiosis caused byEimeria species, this enteric disease has become an emergent issue. Coccidiosis outbreaks in layers are frequently associated with the failure to develop protective immunity at a young age. Layer hens housed in cages are usually sourced from replacement layer pullets housed in similar cages in the rearing barn. Live coccidiosis vaccines administered to young chicks provide a small dose of vaccine oocysts that infect and replicate within the vaccinated birds, resulting in the release of progeny oocysts into the rearing environment; these oocysts must become infective (i.e., sporulate) and then reinfect the partially immune birds in order for the vaccine to generate complete protective immunity. Three factors are needed for successful oocyst sporulation: temperature (4 to 37°C; optimal 29°C), oxygen access, and adequate RH. The purpose of this study was to assess the degree of protective immunity elicited by birds spray-vaccinated with a live coccidiosis vaccine at the hatchery. During the critical period for oocyst sporulation and cycling, RH levels decreased to 13 to 19%, resulting in inadequate oocyst cycling and minimal protection against homologous challenge at 6 and 12 wk of age. This vaccination failure highlights the need to monitor RH in the barn and modify the barn environment so that conditions promote, rather than impede, the success of live coccidiosis vaccines.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".