The effects of experimentally induced Escherichia coli mastitis and flunixin meglumine administration on activity measures, feed intake, and milk parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of flunixin meglumine (FM), a nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug, during experimentally induced Escherichia coli mastitis was evaluated. Twenty-four primiparous and multiparous lactating dairy cows were challenged with 1×10(2) cfu of E. coli 727 in 1 uninfected quarter. Of the 24 E. coli-challenged animals, 12 were administered FM [ECF; 100mg (2 cc)/45.5 kg of body weight) at the onset of clinical mastitis signs. The remaining 12 challenged cows were untreated (EC). An additional 11 cows were infused with 1 mL of sterile phosphate-buffered saline and served as the nonchallenged control (CTL) group. Activity measures, dry matter intake (DMI), milk production, milk bacterial counts from challenged mammary glands, and somatic cell score (SCS) were collected on all animals. Activity measurements were collected using both a behavior-monitoring system and data loggers. Activity was summarized by day (behavior-monitoring system) and in 3-h time periods (data loggers). An examination of animal activity indicated that EC and ECF cows stood more and lay less as compared with the CTL animals in the first 6h after FM administration. When DMI was analyzed, CTL and ECF animals had greater DMI than the EC animals on d 1 postchallenge. However, by d 2 postchallenge, DMI for ECF and EC cows was significantly less than for the CTL cows. The ECF cows had greater milk yield than did EC animals by d 3 and 4 postchallenge, and no significant difference in yield was observed between the ECF and CTL animals. No differences in SCS were observed between the parity groups. Yet, bacterial counts in milk were greater in multiparous animals compared with the primiparous cows. Therefore, it can be concluded that E. coli mastitis does alter animal activity and may have a negative effect on animal well-being. However, the improvement in DMI and milk production for ECF animals provides evidence for using a nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug as supportive therapy in alleviating the adverse effects associated with E. coli mastitis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".