Cited by 22Animal health and immunologyMicrobial infections and disease researchAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies

Determination of value of bovine respiratory disease control using a remote early disease identification system compared with conventional methods of metaphylaxis and visual observations1

Open access
White, B. J., Amrine, D. E., Goehl, D. R.·2015·Journal of Animal Science

Abstract

Mitigation of the deleterious effects of bovine respiratory disease (BRD) is an important issue in the cattle industry. Conventional management of calves at high risk for BRD often includes mass treatment with antimicrobials at arrival followed by visual observation for individual clinical cases. These methods have proven effective; however, control program efficacy is influenced by the accuracy of visual observation. A remote early disease identification (REDI) system has been described that monitors cattle behavior to identify potential BRD cases. The objective of this research was to compare health and performance outcomes using either traditional BRD control (visual observation and metaphylaxis) or REDI during a 60-d postarrival phase in high-risk beef calves. The randomized controlled clinical trial was performed in 8 replicates at 3 different facilities over a 19-mo period. In each replicate, a single load of calves was randomly allocated to receive either conventional management (CONV; total = 8) or REDI (total = 8) as the method for BRD control. Cattle were monitored with each diagnostic method for the first 30 d on feed and performance variables were collected until approximately 60 d after arrival. Statistical differences ( 0.10) in risk of BRD treatment and REDI calves were not administered antimicrobials at arrival; therefore, REDI calves had a lower ( < 0.01) average number of doses of antimicrobials/calf (0.75 ± 0.1 doses) compared with CONV calves (1.67 ± 0.1 d…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2527/jas.2015-9079

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
White, B. J., Amrine, D. E., & Goehl, D. R.
Affiliations
Kansas State University (US)
Corresponding author
White, B. J.
Venue
Journal of Animal Science
Published
2015-08-01
Volume
93
Issue
8
Pages
4115-4122
ISSN
  • 0021-8812 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-3163
OpenAlex
W2308320745
Cited by
22
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4
FWCI
4.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Animal Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • K-State Research Exchange (Kansas State University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal health and immunology
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Microbial infections and disease research
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Keywords
bovine respiratory disease, metaphylaxis, beef calves, antimicrobial use reduction, visual observation, calf health, average daily gain, morbidity, mortality risk, early diagnosis
MeSH terms
Animals, Cattle, Telemetry, 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