MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414830588 · doi:10.1093/jas/skaf300.546

PSXI-9 Using growth implants in suckling beef calves enhances their growth performance and hematological responses.

2025· article· en· W4414830588 on OpenAlexaff
H.A. Lardner, Gleise da Silva

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHematocritMean corpuscular volumeCrossbreedBeef cattleWeaningRandomized block designMean corpuscular hemoglobinHemoglobin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study evaluated growth performance and hematological parameters during two consecutive years in beef calves under two different implant treatments. Each year, 90 crossbred beef calves (121 ± 19 kg body weight (BW) and 74 d of age; Year 1 and 137 ± 17 kg BW and 73 d of age; Year 2) were stratified by birth BW and age. Then, animals were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatments (30 per treatment/year) in a randomized complete block design: Synovex C (SC; 100 mg progesterone and 10 mg estradiol benzoate), Synovex One Grower (SG; 150 mg trenbolone acetate and 21 mg estradiol benzoate), or no implant (CON). On the day of treatment implantation (day 0) and during weaning (WN), calves received a vaccination protocol that included Bovi-Shield Gold One Shot® and Ultrabac® 7. During that period, calves were managed in a grazing system along with their dams in a single pasture. After WN, calves were placed in a single pen and given ad libitum access to a total mixed ration until 60-d post-weaning (d-60PWN). Body weight for performance and blood samples for complete blood count were collected on d 0, WN, d 14-d post-weaning (d-14PWN) and d-60PWN. A treatment × day interaction was observed for leukocytes (P = 0.03), with SG having lower concentrations at WN compared with SC while CON calves were intermediate. No other differences in treatment were detected for blood parameters (P ≥ 0.05). In Year 1, hematocrit (P = 0.01), mean corpuscular volume (P = 0.0001), and mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentrations were higher than in Year 2 (P < 0.0001). Average daily gain (ADG) was greater from d 0 to WN (P = 0.02) and from d 0 to d-60PWN (P < 0.0001) for SG and SC calves compared to CON calves. However, from WN to d-60-PWN, there was a difference in ADG (P = 0.02), with SG calves outperforming the CON group, while SC calves did not differ from both groups. Differences in BW were noted on d 14, with the SC group showing greater BW (P = 0.04) than the CON, while the SG group was intermediate. At WN and d-60PWN, the SG and SC calves were heavier (P = 0.0004) than the CON calves. In conclusion, calves implanted with SG appear to experience less stress during weaning, as indicated by lower leukocyte counts. The fluctuations in hematological values observed during the first year compared to the second year may be influenced by environmental, animal, and management factors. Additionally, the implantation of suckling beef calves improved growth performance pre- and post-weaning, with the SG group showing a notably stronger performance response.

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 score0.004

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal Science→Same topicAnimal Nutrition and Health→French-language works237,207→