Feeding and watering behavior of healthy and morbid steers in a commercial feedlot.
Abstract
Our objective was to determine whether there were differences in feeding and watering behavior of newly received healthy and morbid feedlot steers. Two separate 32-d feeding trials were conducted in Wellton, Arizona, in July and November 1996. Radio frequency technology was used to record individual animal behaviors from 108 (average weight 139 kg) and 143 (average weight 160 kg) steers in each respective trial. Steers that were subsequently identified as morbid were present at the feed bunk in greater percentages than reported in previous studies. In Trial 1, healthy steers spent more (P < .001) time at the feed bunk and had more (P < .009) feeding bouts than morbid steers. In Trial 2, healthy steers did not spend more time at the feed bunk, but they had more (P < .02) daily feeding bouts than morbid steers. There were no differences in daily time spent at the water trough by healthy or morbid steers in either trial. The greatest proportion of feeding and watering behavior occurred during the daylight hours in response to feed delivery. The pattern of time spent at the feed bunk throughout the 32-d feeding period was similar for healthy and subsequently morbid steers, but healthy steers had more feeding bouts per day.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Cattle with BRD exhibited shorter durations at the feedlot, ranging from 1-4 days and 11-27 days.
“Studies by Buhman et al. and Sowell et al. noted that cattle with BRD exhibited shorter durations at the feedlot, ranging from 1–4 days and 11–27 days, respectively [234].”
From Strategies for Bovine Respiratory Disease (BRD) Diagnosis and Prognosis: A Comprehensive Overview (2024) · cites this paper as [234]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pardon, B., Hostens, M., Duchateau, L., Dewulf, J., De Bleecker, K., & Deprez, P. (2013) · BMC Veterinary Research · doi:10.1186/1746-6148-9-79 · Cited by 138 · see citing works
Theurer, M. E., Anderson, D. E., White, B. J., Miesner, M. D., Mosier, D. A., Coetzee, J. F., Lakritz, J., & Amrine, D. E. (2013) · Journal of Animal Science · doi:10.2527/jas.2012-5823 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
Bovine Respiratory Disease Diagnosis
Buczinski, S., & Pardon, B. (2020) · Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice · doi:10.1016/j.cvfa.2020.03.004 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Strategies for Bovine Respiratory Disease (BRD) Diagnosis and Prognosis: A Comprehensive Overview
Kamel, M. S., Davidson, J. L., & Verma, M. S. (2024) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani14040627 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
“Studies by Buhman et al. and Sowell et al. noted that cattle with BRD exhibited shorter durations at the feedlot, ranging from 1–4 days and 11–27 days, respectively [234].”
BackgroundClinical, Behavioral, and Pulmonary Changes in Calves Following Inoculation with Mycoplasma Bovis
White, B. J., Anderson, D. E., Renter, D. G., Larson, R. L., Mosier, D. A., Kelly, L. L., Theurer, M. E., Robért, B. D., & Walz, M. L. (2012) · American Journal of Veterinary Research · doi:10.2460/ajvr.73.4.490 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Behavioral changes in group-housed dairy calves infected with Mannheimia haemolytica
Hixson, C. L., Krawczel, P. D., Caldwell, J. M., & Miller-Cushon, E. K. (2018) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2018-14832 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
- Authors
- Sowell, B. F., Branine, M. E., Bowman, J. G., Hubbert, M. E., Sherwood, H. E., & Quimby, W.
- Affiliations
- Montana State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Sowell, B F
- Venue
- Journal of Animal Science
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1999
- Volume
- 77
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1105
- ISSN
- 0021-8812 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2321698070
- Cited by
- 142
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 2.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Animal Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal health and immunology
- Keywords
- feedlot steers, feeding behavior, drinking behavior, water troughs, radio frequency tracking, feeding bouts, feed delivery, cattle welfare, beef cattle
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Animal Feed, Animal Husbandry, Cattle, Cattle Diseases, Circadian Rhythm, Drinking, Feeding Behavior, Respiratory Tract Diseases
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
