A comparison of 2 vaccination programs in feedlot calves at ultra-high risk of developing undifferentiated fever/bovine respiratory disease.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare 2 vaccination programs in feedlot calves at ultra-high risk of developing undifferentiated fever (UF)/bovine respiratory disease (BRD). At feedlot arrival, 3882 calves were enrolled in the study and randomly allocated to 2 groups, which were housed by group in 12 pens. At the time of allocation, 1 group (MLV3-BT2) received a multivalent, modified-live viral vaccine containing infectious bovine rhinotracheitis virus (IBRV) and types I and II bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV), as well as a Mannheimia haemolytica (MH) and Pasteurella multocida bacterin-toxoid. The other group (MLV4-BT1) received a vaccine containing IIBRV, type I BVDV, bovine respiratory syncytial virus, and parainfluenza-3 virus, as well as a MH bacterin-toxoid. At an average of 69 days post arrival, the groups received their respective viral vaccines. The initial UF treatment, overall chronicity, overall wastage, overall mortality, and BRD mortality rates were significantly (P < 0.05) lower in the MLV3-BT2 group than in the MLV4-BT1 group. Average daily gain and the proportions of yield grade Canada 3 and quality grade E carcasses were significantly (P < 0.05) higher in the MLV3-BT2 group than in the MLV4-BT1 group. No significant (P > or = 0.05) difference in the dry matter intake to gain ratio was detected between the 2 groups. In economic terms, there was a net advantage of $20.86 CDN/animal in the MLV3-BT2 group. This study demonstrates that it is more cost effective to use an MLV3-BT2 vaccination program than a MLV4-BT1 vaccination program in feedlot calves at ultra-high risk of developing UF/BRD.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".