Live<i>Eimeria</i>vaccination success in the face of artificial non-uniform vaccine administration in conventionally reared pullets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Live Eimeria vaccines against coccidiosis in poultry initiate immunity using a vaccine dose containing few oocysts; protection is enhanced through subsequent faecal-oral transmission ("cycling") of parasites in the poultry house. Spray-administered Eimeria vaccines can permit wide variations in doses ingested by individual chicks; some chicks may receive no primary vaccination at all. Consequently, protective immunity for the entire flock depends on successful environmental cycling of vaccine progeny. Pullets missing primary vaccination at day of age can become protected from coccidial challenge through cycling of vaccine progeny oocysts from vaccinated (V) cage mates. This study tested whether 40% cage floor coverage (CFC) with a durable material could improve protection against challenge in these "contact-vaccinated" (CV) or successfully V pullets. The six treatment groups tested were CV, V or sham-vaccinated pullets cage-reared on either 0% or 40% CFC. Oocyst output was measured separately for each group for 30 days following vaccine administration. Lesion scores, body weights and total oocyst outputs were measured to quantify protection at 30 days of age against single or mixed Eimeria species challenge infections. Use of 40% CFC to promote low-level oocyst cycling impacted the flock in two ways: (1) more uniform flock immunity was achieved in the 40% CFC (CV similar to V pullets) compared with 0% CFC and (2) protection was enhanced in the 40% CFC compared with the 0% CFC. The use of CFC is an easily adopted means of improving live Eimeria vaccination of caged pullets.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".