Evaluation of Three Deworming Methods and their Long-Term Effect on the Weight of Buffaloes Raised in Silvopastoral Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose of the Study: The present work aimed to evaluate the effect of three deworming methods on body weight gains in buffaloes raised in silvopastoral systems (SPS). Methods: Thirty buffaloes were divided into three groups (ten per group) as follows: 1) Albendazole 10 g + 1.3 g of cobalt sulfate at one week of age and 14 days later; 2) Albendazole 10 g + 1.3 g of cobalt sulfate at one week of age and 14 days later, then at 6 months and 14 days later; 3) Ivermectin 1 g at 30 days of age and then at six months of age. Birth, weaning (9 months), and final (18 months) weight were registered, and daily weight gains were calculated. The McMaster technique was used to evaluate the presence of parasites. Results: The overall prevalence of parasites in the animals evaluated was 93.33%. The most common parasites were: Strongylus sp., Neoascaris sp., Moniezia sp., and Eimeria sp. Before the application of the dewormers, initial values in G1, G2, and G3 were 360, 350, and 210 hpg/opg; after the application of the treatments, 60, 25, and 20 hpg/opg were obtained, respectively. Buffaloes in G2 showed significantly (P=0.046) high final weights (415.10±23.76 kg) compared to G1 (354.80±46.71 kg) but showed no difference with G3 (374.80±43.60k). Conclusion: It is concluded that albendazole at 10 g and a repeat at six months of age can be used in buffalo breeding in SPS, which could help to implement regenerative livestock programs, decreasing the use of Ivermectin.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".