CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 99Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesAnimal health and immunologySmart Agriculture and AI

Application of Feeding Behaviour to Predict Morbidity of Newly Received Calves in a Commercial Feedlot

Open access
Quimby, W. F., Sowell, B. F., Bowman, J. G. P., Branine, M. E., Hubbert, M. E., Sherwood, H. W.·2001·Canadian Journal of Animal Science
DOI 10.4141/a00-098
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The objective of this study was to use feeding behavior of newly received steers (average initial weight 191 kg) to detect morbidity in animals in a commercial feedlot. Two separate 32 d feeding trials were conducted in Wellton, Arizona, in July and November 1996. Radio frequency technology was used to record the total time spent within 50 cm of the feedbunk (animal presence every 5.25 s times 5.25 s) in 3 h intervals from 0600 to 2400 on a daily basis for 103 and 122 male calves in trial 1 and 2, respectively. Statistical procedures based on the cumulative sums (CUSUM) of the 3 h feeding intervals were used to detect morbid animals, compared with detection of animals deemed morbid by experienced pen riders. In trial 1, the CUSUM procedure detected animal morbidity 4.5 d earlier (P < 0.001) than the feedlot personnel. In trial 2, the CUSUM procedure detected animal morbidity 3.7 d earlier (P < 0.001) than feedlot pen riders. Overall accuracy, positive predictive value and sensitivity of the CUSUM prediction method were 87, 91, and 90%, respectively. Combined trial data suggest that feeding behavior during the first 30 d cattle are in a receiving pen, as collected with radio frequency technology and analyzed with CUSUM charts, may be used to detect animal morbidity approximately 4.1 d earlier (P < 0.001) than conventional methods typically employed in commercial feedlots. Key words: Feeding behavior, morbidity, quality control, feedlots

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4141/a00-098

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Feeding behavior as a predictive marker for BRD prior to visual diagnosis identified BRD with a sensitivity of 78-82% and a specificity of 78-79% as early as five to six days before the disease could be visually detected.

    “These studies found that this method could identify BRD with a sensitivity of 78–82% and a specificity of 78–79% as early as five to six days before the disease could be visually detected.”

    From Strategies for Bovine Respiratory Disease (BRD) Diagnosis and Prognosis: A Comprehensive Overview (2024) · cites this paper as [96]

    The Trial 2 discussion says feeding-behavior data analyzed with CUSUM could predict morbidity before visual appraisal. But it reports average sensitivity of 90%, not 78–82%, and approximately 4.1 days’ earlier intervention, not five to six days; its Trial 2 classification table implies 88% specificity, not 78–79%. The paper therefore supports the early-detection premise but not the claimed figures. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Cattle affected with BRD display changes in behavior and feeding patterns up to four days before visible symptoms appear.

    “Cattle affected with BRD display changes in behavior and feeding patterns up to four days before visible symptoms appear [96,97].”

    From Strategies for Bovine Respiratory Disease (BRD) Diagnosis and Prognosis: A Comprehensive Overview (2024) · cites this paper as [96]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [2]2. Basarab, J. A., Milligan, D., Hand, R. and Huisma, C. 1996. Automatic monitoring of watering behaviour in feedlot steers: Potential use in early detection of respiratory disease and in pre- dicting growth performance. Proc. Can. Soc. Anim. Sci. 46th Ann. Conf. 7-11 July 1996. Lethbridge, AB. 28 pp.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Quimby, W. F., Sowell, B. F., Bowman, J. G. P., Branine, M. E., Hubbert, M. E., & Sherwood, H. W.
Affiliations
Montana State University (US)
Corresponding author
Bowman, J. G. P.
ORCID
Venue
Canadian Journal of Animal Science
Publisher
Canadian Science Publishing
Published
2001-09-01
Volume
81
Issue
3
Pages
315-320
ISSN
  • 0008-3984 (ISSN-L)
  • 1918-1825
DOI
10.4141/a00-098
OpenAlex
W2054163076
Cited by
99
References
11
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 6
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.nrcresearchpress.com/page/about/CorporateTextAndDataMining (tdm)
Locations
  • Canadian Journal of Animal Science (publishedVersion)
  • Montana State University ScholarWorks (Montana State University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal health and immunology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Smart Agriculture and AI
Keywords
feeding behavior, feedlot cattle, radio frequency tracking, CUSUM charts, early disease detection

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