http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0449-1989
Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeTypographical error in the Results and Discussion
Posted by Tombesser on 29 Mar 2019 at 20:00 GMT
We have identified a typographical error in our article.
In the ‘Results and Discussion’ section, the paragraph that begins “Univariate comparisons…” includes the sentence: “Interestingly, the most pronounced group-associated differences in average daily gains occurred during the first month on feed, when average daily gains were 0.26 ± 0.16 (mean ± SD) for exposed lambs and 0.039 ± 0.13 for unexposed lambs (P = 0.008, 2-sample t-test), coinciding with the period when the prevalence of M. ovipneumoniae infection increased from 33% to 100% of the exposed lamb group.”
The average daily gain of the unexposed lambs is incorrect; the correct value is 0.39 ± 0.13 kg. This corrects the overall difference to reflect the improved weight gains of the lambs unexposed to Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae.
I and the other authors regret this error, and hope this correction clarifies the true impact of M. ovipneumoniae as was seen in this pilot trial.
Sincerely,
Thomas Besser
Professor, Washington State University College of Veterinary Medicine