Relative cost-effectiveness of treatment of feedlot calves with ivermectin versus treatment with a combination of fenbendazole, permethrin, and fenthion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare growth performance, animal health characteristics, and carcass characteristics of feedlot calves treated with ivermectin topically with that of feedlot calves treated with a combination of fenbendazole orally and permethrin and fenthion topically. DESIGN: Clinical trial. ANIMALS: 14,184 British crossbred steer calves (mean weight, 286 kg [630 lb]) in 30 pens at a commercial feedlot in Nebraska. PROCEDURE: On arrival at the feedlot, calves were randomly assigned to be treated with ivermectin topically or with a combination of fenbendazole orally and permethrin and fenthion topically (control). At the time of assignment to treatment groups, fecal samples were collected from 5% of the calves. Growth performance, carcass characteristics, and health information were recorded. RESULTS: Geometric mean fecal egg counts at the time of arrival at the feedlot were not significantly different between groups. Final weight, weight gain, average daily gain, and the dry matter intake-to-gain ratio were significantly improved for calves in the ivermectin group. The percentage of carcasses classified as quality grade choice was higher for the ivermectin group than the control group; however, the percentage of carcasses classified as yield grade 1 and the dressing percentage were higher for the control group than for the ivermectin group. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results suggest that topical administration of ivermectin to feedlot calves is relatively more cost-effective than administration of a combination of fenbendazole orally and permethrin and fenthion topically.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".