Influence of selective treatment on <i>Haematobia irritans</i> infestation of untreated cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To reduce the use of insecticide treatments against Haematobia irritans we evaluated the impact of treating 15% of the bovines, with the greatest number of flies including bulls, with 40% diazinon ear tags, on the infestation of untreated cows. Horn fly susceptibility to diazinon was measured before and after treatment, and peaks of infestation were recorded. Three groups of Bradford bovines were evaluated: Group 1 (control untreated), Group 2 (15% treated) and Group 3 (control 100% treated). Weekly counts of horn flies were performed on the same animals for 78 days. Two peaks of infestation were recorded, and a higher number of horn flies occurred in the untreated control group than in the untreated cows of the selectively treated group throughout the entire period of the study, except for a single week. The horn fly field population was significantly more susceptible to diazinon than the reference susceptible strain both before and after insecticide treatment. In conclusion, treatment of 15% of the most infested animals from a herd, with 40% diazinon ear tags, quickly reduced horn fly infestations of the entire herd and may be a practical approach for horn fly control, reducing costs and chemical use.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".