Behavior of feedlot cattle affects voluntary oral and physical interactions with manila ropes1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Providing cattle with access to manila ropes has shown promise as a means of monitoring zoonotic bacteria in pens of feedlot cattle. Studies were conducted to determine the impacts of climate, animal age and BW, number of ropes, duration of placement, and previous rope access on efficacy of ropes as a sampling technique for feedlot cattle. Eight pens of commercial finishing cattle (average 196 +/- 19 animals per pen, 536.7 +/- 22.9 kg) were monitored for a total of 7 d in October of 2003 (commercial study). One rope was tied on the pen railing adjacent to the feed bunk in each pen, and the proportion of animals within the pen contacting the rope was recorded. In a second study, 80 cattle housed in 8 pens (each 270 m(2); 10 animals/pen) were monitored for 1 d/wk using video cameras (video study). Video images were collected for 8 consecutive weeks immediately after weaning (average BW = 252.7 +/- 30.6 kg) and for 6 wk at the end of the finishing period (average BW 541.2 +/- 42.8 kg). In the commercial study, the proportion of cattle contacting the rope per pen increased over the first 6 h to 70% (P < 0.05), although approximately 50% of the cattle contacted the rope within 2 h after placement. A 40 degrees C reduction in ambient temperature on d 6 caused cattle to cease contact with the ropes, although after 6 d of acclimation to reduced ambient temperature, interactions with ropes recovered to 47% of previous values. In the video study, weaned calves required 2 wk of acclimation to the feedlot environment before contact with the rope was maximized. Contact with the rope was most frequent 3 to 8 wk after entry into the feedlot and decreased (P < 0.05) as cattle approached slaughter weight. It is likely that ropes will be most effective at monitoring zoonotic bacteria in pens of cattle during the mid-feeding period where the pen environment is stable and cattle are inquisitive but not highly reactive.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".