A Field Trial Evaluating the Health and Performance of Lambs Fed a Bovine Colostrum Replacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: Failure of passive transfer of immunity due to insufficient and/or delayed administration of good quality colostrum is a risk for disease, death and reduced weight gain in lambs.Objective: This trial evaluated the performance and health of lambs fed a bovine source lacteal derived colostrum powder in addition to farm colostrum compared to two feedings of farm colostrum.Setting: This trial was performed on a large commercial sheep farm in Israel in 2015.Participants: Two cohorts, a total of 60 male lambs, were enrolled at birth and followed until sent to market at approximate 5.5 months of age.Interventions: The lambs randomly assigned at birth to receive either 250 ml of a bovine colostrum replacement (CR) or 250 ml of farm source ewe colostrum (FC) within half an hour of birth.Within 6 hours of birth a second feeding of 250 ml of farm source ewe colostrum was administered to both groups.Main outcome measures: Colostral Brix% and serum brix% was measured using a Brix digital refractometer and compared between treatments.Morbidity, mortality and weight gain was recorded until marketing at average 165 days of age and compared between treatments. Results:The Brix values were significantly higher in CR compared to FC. Serum% Brix was significantly higher in CR than FC lambs.There was significantly less disease in CR lambs (0%) than in FC lambs (17%) (P=0.05).Significantly more CR lambs (97%, 29 of 30 lambs) were marketed compared to FC lambs (77%, 23 of 30 lambs) (P=0.05).Conclusions: The use of this commercial colostrum replacement may facilitate colostrum management and improve health and productivity in lambs.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Non-randomized trial | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | medium |
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".