MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136581602 · doi:10.3168/jds.2020-19654

Nutraceutical intervention with colostrum replacer: Can we reduce disease hazard, ameliorate disease severity, and improve performance in preweaned dairy calves?

2021· article· en· W3136581602 on OpenAlexaff
M.C. Cantor, D.L. Renaud, J.H.C. Costa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal health and immunology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNational Institute of Food and AgricultureZinproU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsWeaningColostrumMedicinePlaceboBovine respiratory diseaseAnimal scienceDiarrheaBiologyInternal medicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this randomized clinical trial was to determine if an intervention with colostrum replacer (CR; Premolac Plus, Zinpro; 125 g/d fed for 3 d) or a placebo milk replacer (Cows Match, Land O'Lakes Inc.; 125 g/d for 3 d) following a triggered alarm could ameliorate disease bouts in dairy calves. The alarm was set to detect negative deviations of milk intake (20% reduction) or drinking speed (30% reduction) in relation to a calf's 12-d rolling average feeding behavior. Calves were enrolled on this study (n = 42 CR, n=42 placebo) when they triggered an alarm from d 14 to 50 on the feeder before weaning. Once calves were enrolled, calves received a bottle of either 125 g of CR or milk replacer mixed with 1 L of water for 3 d. Calves were enrolled on the automated milk feeder at age 4.0 ± 2.0 d (mean ± SD), were offered 10 L/d of the same milk replacer fed as a placebo, and had ad libitum access to calf starter measured by automated feeders. Weaning began at d 50, with 50% reduction of milk replacer across 14 d, and an additional 20% reduction for another 7 d before weaning at d 70. Calves were health scored from birth to 2 wk postweaning (88 ± 2.0 d of age) daily for bovine respiratory disease (BRD) and diarrhea, and were weighed and scored using lung ultrasonography twice weekly. A BRD score ≥5 and an area of consolidated lung ≥3.0 cm 2 was considered BRD positive; diarrhea was defined as a watery fecal consistency that sifted through the bedding. The effect of CR on BRD and diarrhea likelihood were calculated with logistic models; the 7 d before and after an alarm were fixed effects, with milk intake as a covariate. A Cox proportional hazards model evaluated the effect of CR on the hazard of being positive for BRD and diarrhea following enrollment, with sex as a fixed effect in the diarrhea model. The effect of CR on average daily gain the week following intervention was evaluated with linear modeling with repeated measures, and birth date was a random effect. After intervention, placebo calves had 1.64 (95% CI: 1.11–2.43) times greater odds of having a BRD bout compared with CR calves for the 7 d following intervention. Moreover, placebo calves had 1.50 (95% CI: 1.11–2.08) times greater odds of having lobar lung consolidation in the 7 d after intervention than CR calves. No difference was found in the likelihood of diarrhea in the 7 d after intervention (odds ratio: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.71–1.16). However, placebo calves had a 2.38 (95% CI: 1.30–4.33) times greater hazard of incurring BRD in the 14 d after intervention. Average daily gain was not associated with an intervention with CR for the 7 d after intervention (placebo: 0.73 ± 0.07 kg/d; CR: 0.70 ± 0.08 kg/d; LSM ± SEM). These results suggest CR may reduce BRD likelihood but did not influence growth in calves offered high allowances of milk. Future research should examine which properties of CR ameliorate BRD in calves.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicAnimal health and immunologyFrench-language works237,207