Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Similar(60)
Recent findings [ 32] suggest that approximately 23% of calves in US operations that fed pooled MC experienced FPT compared with 70% of calves fed the pooled MC in this study.
After birth, calves were fed pooled colostrum from control or supranutritional Se-yeast-supplemented cows to which 0 or 3 mg of Se/L (in the form of Na selenite) was added.
In a completely randomised design, thirty Holstein calves were fed pooled colostrum and then milk containing zero (control), 0.5 (T1.0 1.5 (T2), 1.5 (T3) and 2.0 (T4) g clinoptilolite per kg body weight per day through day 45.
Of these, 273 (48%) were fed pooled MC while 295 (52%) were fed lacteal derived-CR.
* OR is the ratio of the odds of outcome in calves fed lacteal-derived CR to the odds of outcome in calves fed pooled maternal colostrum.
The preweaning mean daily weight gain was significantly higher (P < 0.0001, Table 1) in calves fed lacteal-derived CR compared with calves fed pooled MC.
The proportion of calves with diarrhea, and those treated with antibiotics were significantly higher for calves fed pooled MC compared with calves fed lacteal-derived CR.
We recently completed a study comparing IgG and serum total protein (TP) in calves fed pooled MC or lacteal-derived CR [ 24].
Similarly, calves fed lacteal-derived CR were less likely to be treated with antibiotics during the preweaning period (OR =0.66; 95% CI = 0.47 to 0.93), compared with calves fed pooled MC.
The lacteal-derived CR fed at the study dose was a viable colostrum alternative in the event of poor quality pooled MC for the prevention of preweaning diarrhea and resulted in higher growth rates in comparison to calves fed pooled MC in the study herd.
Calves fed CR were significantly less likely to be affected with a diarrhea event (OR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.88; P value = 0.011) and had a higher rate of daily weight gain (0.051 kg/day; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.08; P value <0.001) compared to calves fed pooled MC.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com