Comparison of two Mannheimia haemolytica Immunization Programs in Feedlot Calves at High Risk of Developing Undifferentiated Fever/Bovine Respiratory Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A field study was conducted to compare the relative effect of a Mannheimia haemolytica toxoid (Presponse® SQ, Wyeth Animal Health, Division of Wyeth Canada, Guelph, Ontario) and a Mannheimia haemolyticaPasteurella multocida bacterin~toxoid (Pulmo-guard™ PHM-1, Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd., Burlington, Ontario). Upon arrival at the feedlot, 5,128 animals were enrolled in the study and randomly assigned to two experimental groups. Animals in the first group received Presponse® SQ (PSQ), while animals in the second group received Pulmo-guard™ PHM-1 (PHM-1). Animals in each experimental group were housed in separate pens with 10 pens per experimental group. With respect to morbidity, the first undifferentiated fever relapse, overall chronicity and overall wastage rates were significantly (P<0.05) lower in the PSQ group as compared to the PHM-1 group. There were no significant (P~0.05) differences in any of the other morbidity or mortality outcome variables between the experimental groups. In addition, there were no significant (P~0.05) differences in average daily gain or the dry matter intake-to-gain ratio between groups. The PSQ group had a higher proportion of carcasses grading YG Canada 3 (P<0.05) than the PHM-1 group. In the economic analysis, there was an advantage of $4.06 CDN/animal in the PSQ group. Based on these results, it is more cost-effective to use PSQ than PHM-1 in feedlot calves at high risk of developing bovine respiratory disease in western Canada.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".