Cited by 42Microbial infections and disease researchAnimal health and immunologyAnimal Disease Management and Epidemiology

Associations between prior management of cattle and risk of bovine respiratory disease in feedlot cattle

Hay, K.E., Morton, J.M., Schibrowski, M.L., Clements, A.C.A., Mahony, T.J., Barnes, T.S.·2016·Preventive Veterinary Medicine

Abstract

Bovine respiratory disease (BRD) is the major cause of clinical disease and death in feedlot populations worldwide. A longitudinal study was conducted to assess associations between risk factors related to on-farm management prior to transport to the feedlot and risk of BRD in a population of feedlot beef cattle sourced from throughout the cattle producing regions of Australia. Exposure variables were derived from questionnaire data provided by farmers supplying cattle (N=10,721) that were a subset of the population included in a nationwide prospective study investigating numerous putative risk factors for BRD. Causal diagrams were used to inform model building to allow estimation of effects of interest. Multilevel mixed effects logistic regression models were fitted within the Bayesian framework. Animals that were yard weaned were at reduced risk (OR: 0.7, 95% credible interval: 0.5-1.0) of BRD at the feedlot compared to animals immediately returned to pasture after weaning. Animals that had previously been fed grain (OR: 0.6, 95% credible interval: 0.3-1.1) were probably at reduced risk of BRD at the feedlot compared to animals not previously fed grain. Animals that received prior vaccinations against Bovine viral diarrhoea virus 1 (OR: 0.8, 95% credible interval: 0.5-1.1) or Mannheimia haemolytica (OR: 0.8, 95% credible interval: 0.6-1.0) were also probably at reduced risk compared to non-vaccinated animals. The results of this study confirm that on-farm management before…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.02.006

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hay, K. E., Morton, J. M., Schibrowski, M. L., Clements, A. C. A., Mahony, T. J., & Barnes, T. S.
Affiliations
The University of Queensland (AU)
Corresponding author
Mahony, T.J.
Venue
Preventive Veterinary Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-05
Volume
127
Pages
37-43
ISSN
0167-5877 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2290894829
Cited by
42
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2
FWCI
2.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Preventive Veterinary Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Meat and Livestock Australia (B.FLT.0224)
  • Australian Government
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Microbial infections and disease research
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal health and immunology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Animal Disease Management and Epidemiology
Keywords
bovine respiratory disease, feedlot cattle, beef cattle, on-farm management, grain feeding, vaccination, Mannheimia haemolytica, risk factors
MeSH terms
Animals, Animal Husbandry, Australia, Cattle, Longitudinal Studies, Prospective Studies, Risk Factors, Logistic Models, Bovine Respiratory Disease Complex

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review