MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198061488 · doi:10.1093/jas/skab191

Effect of peripartal administration of mycobacterium cell wall fraction on health and fertility of Holstein cows under organic-certified management

2021· article· en· W3198061488 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gilberto Solano-Suárez, L.S. Caixeta, Alexander Masic, Diego Manríquez, Luciana Keiko Hatamoto-Zervoudakis, Sushil Paudyal, Ana Velásquez-Munoz, Juan Vélez, Pablo Pinedo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsFertilityCertificationAdministration (probate law)MedicineChemistryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of peripartal administration of a commercially available nonspecific immune stimulant (mycobacterium cell wall fraction; MCWF [Amplimune, NovaVive Inc., Napanee, ON, Canada]) on the incidence of disease during early lactation and subsequent fertility of dairy cows. A second objective was to characterize the dynamics of circulating white blood cells (WBC) and metabolic markers following treatment administration. Cows in an United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) organic-certified dairy herd were blocked by parity and, based on sequential calving dates, randomly assigned to receive two injections (5 mL s.c.) of either a placebo (saline solution) as a control (CON; n = 71) or MCWF (n = 65) at enrollment (7 d before expected calving) and within 24 h after calving. Blood samples were collected from a subsample of the study population (MCWF = 16; CON = 18) for WBC count at enrollment, at day 2 post enrollment, and at days 1, 3, 7, and 14 after calving. Serum fatty acids, beta-hydroxybutyrate, and Ca concentrations were determined at days 1 and 7 postpartum (MCWF = 21; CON = 21). Main outcome variables included incidence risk of peripartal and early lactation health disorders and pregnancy at first artificial insemination (AI), at 100, and at 150 days in milk (DIM). In addition, the average daily milk yield up to 90 DIM and death and live culling before 305 DIM were compared. Treatment effects were assessed using multivariable logistic regression, time-to-event analyses, and repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). A treatment effect on the incidence risk of some of the health disorders in the study was established. Incidence risk of metritis and clinical mastitis <28 DIM was smaller in MCWF than in CON cows (36.9% vs. 50.7% and 6.3% vs. 19.7%, respectively). On the contrary, the incidence risk of respiratory disease <28 DIM was smaller in CON (0%) than in MCWF (7.7%). Reproductive performance of multiparous cows was affected by MCWF administration: pregnancy at first AI and pregnancy at 100 and 150 DIM were greater in MCWF than in CON (35.6% vs. 19.2%; 51.1% vs. 25.0%; and 64.4% vs. 40.4%, respectively). Overall, median intervals from calving to pregnancy were 90 vs. 121 d in MCWF and CON cows, respectively. No treatment effects on the dynamics of circulating WBC or in postpartum metabolic status were established. No differences for milk yield or for the proportion of cows that survived up to 305 DIM were determined, although cows in MCWF left the herd earlier than cows in CON. In conclusion, incidence risks of metritis and mastitis in early lactation were smaller in cows receiving MCWF, whereas the incidence risk of respiratory disease was smaller in CON. Fertility significantly improved in MCWF compared with CON cows. As this study was performed in an organic-certified dairy, specific health and reproductive management practices may affect the external validity of the current findings.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicReproductive Physiology in LivestockFrench-language works237,207