Cited by 19Animal health and immunologyAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesAnimal Disease Management and Epidemiology

Short communication: Calf cleanliness does not predict diarrhea upon arrival at a veal calf facility

Open access
Graham, A.N., Renaud, D.L., Duffield, T.F., Kelton, D.F.·2018·Journal of Dairy Science

Abstract

The objective of this study was to validate the use of cleanliness scores to identify the presence of diarrhea in calves. On arrival at a milk-fed veal facility, 452 calves were scored for hide cleanliness and fecal consistency by 1 of 2 observers. Fecal consistency was scored on a scale of 0 to 3, where fecal score of 0 = normal consistency, 1 = semiformed or pasty, 2 = loose feces, and 3 = watery feces; calves with a fecal score of 2 or 3 were classified as positive for diarrhea. Hide cleanliness was also scored on a scale of 0 to 3, where 0 = clean thighs and body with little to no manure on lower legs; 1 = tail head region and back end of calf are soiled with manure; 2 = tail head region, back end of calf, and thighs or legs are soiled with manure; and 3 = tail head region, back end of calf, thighs, and legs are soiled with manure. Of the calves scored, 188 calves (42%) were identified as having diarrhea based on hide cleanliness; however, only 78 calves (17%) were identified with diarrhea based on fecal consistency. The level of agreement between the 2 scoring methods were calculated, and a weighted kappa of 0.22 indicated only fair agreement between the 2 scoring methods. However, the sensitivity and specificity, calculated using fecal consistency ≥2 as the classification variable, were 67 and 63%, respectively, when a cut point of ≥1 for cleanliness score was used. A total of 222 calves scored at arrival were scored once per day for an additional 2 d following arrival. Calves were more likely to have more days with abnormal hide cleanliness than abnormal fecal consistency; 91 calves (41%) had an abnormal cleanliness score for at least 2 d, whereas only 21 calves (9%) had an abnormal fecal score for at least 2 d. We found poor correlation between total number of days with an abnormal cleanliness score and total number of days with an abnormal fecal score, indicating that consecutive observations of hide cleanliness would not improve the validity of using hide cleanliness. Thus, hide cleanliness is not a good indicator for identifying diarrhea in calves, and scoring fecal samples for consistency should be used to more accurately identify diarrhea in calves.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3168/jds.2017-14113

Cites

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 18 · Cited by 19

Authors
Graham, A. N., Renaud, D. L., Duffield, T. F., & Kelton, D. F.
Affiliations
University of Guelph (CA)
Corresponding author
Kelton, D.F.
Venue
Journal of Dairy Science
Published
2018-04
Volume
101
Issue
4
Pages
3363-3366
ISSN
0022-0302 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2785958699
Cited by
19
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
FWCI
1.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Dairy Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Dairy Farmers of Ontario
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal health and immunology
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Animal Disease Management and Epidemiology
Keywords
calf diarrhea, stool consistency, veal calves, diagnostic accuracy
MeSH terms
Animals, Cattle, Cattle Diseases, Diarrhea, Feces, Hygiene

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