Cited by 38Microbial infections and disease researchAnimal health and immunologyAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies

Changes in feeding behavior patterns and dry matter intake before clinical symptoms associated with bovine respiratory disease in growing bulls

Jackson, K. S., Carstens, G. E., Tedeschi, L. O., Pinchak, W. E.·2016·Journal of Animal Science

Abstract

Methods to improve accuracy of preclinical detection of bovine respiratory disease (BRD) are needed to reduce the economic impact of this disease, improve animal welfare, and promote more judicious use of antimicrobials in beef cattle. The objectives of this study were to retrospectively characterize time-series deviations in DMI and feeding behavior patterns preceding the display of observed clinical symptoms associated with BRD and to identify those feeding behavior traits that would be most predictive of BRD. The study was conducted with 231 seed stock bulls (391 ± 55 kg initial BW) representing 5 breeds that were housed in a facility equipped with GrowSafe feed bunks at a commercial bull-test facility. All bulls were vaccinated against standard viral and bacterial pathogens before and on arrival at the facility. Daily DMI and feeding behavior traits (frequency and duration of bunk visit events, head-down duration, variance of nonfeeding intervals, and time to approach feed bunk following feed-truck delivery) were measured for 70 d with a GrowSafe system. During a 10-d period from Day 28 to 37 of the trial, 30 bulls were administered antimicrobial therapy for clinical symptoms of BRD (rectal temperatures > 39.5°C). All remaining bulls ( = 201) were administered metaphylactic therapy on Day 38 of the trial in response to an acute decrease in feed intake. A retrospective analysis was conducted using a 2-slope broken-line regression model to identify inflection points in DMI…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2527/jas.2015-9993

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jackson, K. S., Carstens, G. E., Tedeschi, L. O., & Pinchak, W. E.
Affiliations
Texas A&M University (US)
Corresponding author
Carstens, G. E.
Venue
Journal of Animal Science
Published
2016-04-01
Volume
94
Issue
4
Pages
1644-1652
ISSN
  • 0021-8812 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-3163
OpenAlex
W2338979271
Cited by
38
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4
FWCI
4.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Animal Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Microbial infections and disease research
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal health and immunology
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Keywords
bovine respiratory disease, preclinical detection, feeding behavior, dry matter intake, broken-line regression, metaphylactic treatment, beef cattle, antimicrobial use reduction, disease onset prediction, headspace volatile compounds
MeSH terms
Animals, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Cattle, Feeding Behavior, Male, Models, Biological, Retrospective Studies, 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