Oral administration of Sauce llorón extract to growing lambs to control gastrointestinal nematodes and Moniezia spp.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore anthelmintic effects of oral administration of aqueous extract of Sauce llorón (Salix babylonica; SB) against gastrointestinal nematodes and Moniezia spp. METHODS: Sixteen Pelibuey male lambs of 3-4 months of age and (23.7 ± 3.3) kg body weight were used in a completely randomized design to be fed a total mixed ration (Control; SB0), or Control plus SB extract using 20 (SB20), 40 (SB40) and 60 (SB60) mL/lamb(/)day for 45 days. Lambs had a natural gastrointestinal nematodes and Moniezia spp. infection and had never been treated with chemical anthelmintic drugs. Individual faecal samples were collected for ova counting using McMaster procedure after 0, 7, 14, 21, 30 and 45 days post extract administration. RESULTS: No extract dose × day interactions for both gastrointestinal nematodes and Moniezia spp. egg count were found. Administration of SB extract had a higher effect (quadratic effect, P = 0.006 4) at dose of 20 mL SB/lamb/day for gastrointestinal nematode eggs during the first 21 days; however, the dose of SB40 tended (linear effect, P = 0.089 7) to be more effective than the others for Moniezia spp. egg during the first 7 days. Sampling day had a linear (P = 0.043 6) effect on Moniezia spp. egg count. CONCLUSIONS: The aqueous extract of SB could be more effective against nematodes at 20 and at 40 mL/lamb/day for Moniezia spp. The use of the SB extract could represent a promising alternative to synthetic anthelmintics for the treatment of gastrointestinal nematodes and Moniezia spp. in small ruminants from organic and conventional production systems.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".