Feeding subtherapeutic antimicrobials to low-risk cattle does not confer consistent performance benefits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stanford, K., Gibb, D. J., Schwartzkopf-Genswein, K. S., Van Herk, F. and McAllister, T. A. 2015. Feeding subtherapeutic antimicrobials to low-risk cattle does not confer consistent performance benefits. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 95: 589-597. Two-hundred and forty steers were obtained from the same ranch in each of 2 yr. Growth performance, health status and carcass characteristics from steers fed subtherapeutic antimicrobials were compared with those of control steers without antimicrobial metaphylaxis. Experimental groups included Control, not fed antimicrobials; CTCS-700, fed 350 mg head-1 d-1 chlortetracycline (CTC) and 350 mg head-1 d-1 sulfamethazine; CTC-11, fed 11 mg kg-1 CTC; TYL, fed 11 mg kg-1 tylosin phosphate; and CTC-350, fed 350 mg head-1 d-1 CTC. Steers were housed in pens of 10 steers and fed antimicrobials during both backgrounding and finishing periods. The incidence of bovine respiratory disease, pinkeye and bloat did not differ among experimental groups, although the incidence of foot rot was lower in Control steers (P<0.05) than in steers receiving TYL. In both years of the study, overall performance (backgrounding+finishing) was not improved by subtherapeutic antimicrobials. Similarly, carcass characteristics and the incidence and severity of liver abscesses were not improved compared with Control steers by feeding subtherapeutic antimicrobials. The results of the present study demonstrate that low-risk steers may be managed in small pens with equivalent growth performance, carcass characteristics and health status to steers fed subtherapeutic antimicrobials.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.007 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".