Select data courtesy of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

© 2026 DeepDyve, Inc. All rights reserved.

This site is protected by VikingCloud's Trusted Commerce program
      Home

    Journal of Animal Science

    Subject:
    Animal Science and Zoology
    Publisher:
    Oxford University Press
    ISSN:
    0021-8812
    Scimago Journal Rank:
    164

    2026

    Volume 104
    Supplement 4 (Jul)Supplement 3 (May)Supplement 2 (Apr)JuneMayAprilMarchFebruaryJanuary

    2025

    Volume 104
    Supplement 1 (Dec)DecemberNovember
    October
    September
    August
    June
    Volume 103
    Supplement 3 (Oct)Supplement 2 (Jun)Supplement 1 (May)DecemberNovemberOctoberSeptemberAugustJulyJuneMayAprilMarchFebruaryJanuary

    2024

    Volume 103
    DecemberNovemberSeptemberAugust
    Volume 102
    Supplement 3 (Sep)Supplement 2 (May)Supplement 1 (Mar)DecemberNovemberOctoberSeptemberAugustJulyJuneMayAprilMarchFebruaryJanuary
    Volume 101
    Supplement 3 (Jan)December

    2023

    Volume 102
    DecemberNovember
    Volume 101
    Supplement 3 (Nov)Supplement 2 (Oct)Supplement 1 (May)DecemberNovemberOctoberSeptemberAugustJulyJuneMayAprilMarchFebruaryJanuary

    2022

    Volume 101
    DecemberNovemberOctoberSeptember
    Volume 100
    Supplement 4 (Oct)Supplement 3 (Sep)Supplement 2 (Apr)Supplement 1 (Mar)Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Sep)Issue 10 (Aug)Issue 9 (Jun)Issue 8 (May)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2021

    Volume Advance Article
    NovemberOctoberSeptemberSeptemberAugustJulyJuneMayAprilMarchFebruary
    Volume 100
    Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Dec)Issue 1 (Dec)
    Volume 99
    Supplement 3 (Oct)Supplement 2 (May)Supplement 1 (May)Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2020

    Volume Advance Article
    JuneAprilMarchMarchFebruary
    Volume 2020
    March
    Volume 99
    Issue 2 (Dec)
    Volume 98
    Supplement 4 (Nov)Supplement 3 (Nov)Supplement 2 (Nov)Supplement 1 (Aug)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2019

    Volume Advance Article
    DecemberDecemberNovemberOctoberMayApril
    Volume 97
    Supplement 3 (Dec)Supplement 2 (Jul)Supplement 1 (Jul)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (May)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2018

    Volume Advance Article
    Issue 7 (May)Issue 7 (Apr)Issue 6 (Apr)Issue 6 (Apr)Issue 5 (Mar)Issue 5 (Feb)
    Volume 96
    Supplement 3 (Dec)Supplement 2 (Apr)Supplement 1 (Mar)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2017

    Volume 95
    Supplement 4 (Aug)Supplement 2 (Mar)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2016

    Volume 95
    Supplement 1 (Dec)
    Volume 94
    Supplement 6 (Nov)Supplement 5 (Oct)Supplement 4 (Sep)Supplement 3 (Sep)Supplement 2 (Apr)Supplement 1 (Feb)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2015

    Volume 93
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2014

    Volume 92
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2013

    Volume 91
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)
    Volume 88
    Issue 2 (Feb)

    2012

    Volume 90
    Supplement 4 (Dec)Issue 13 (Dec)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2011

    Volume 89
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2010

    Volume 88
    Supplement 13 (Apr)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2009

    Volume 87
    Supplement 14 (Apr)Supplement 13 (Apr)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2008

    Volume 86
    Supplement 14 (Apr)Supplement 13 (Mar)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2007

    Volume 85
    Supplement 13 (Mar)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2006

    Volume 84
    Supplement 13 (Apr)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2005

    Volume 83
    Supplement 13 (Jun)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2004

    Volume Advance Article
    March
    Volume 82
    Supplement 13 (Jan)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2003

    Volume 81
    Issue 15_suppl_3 (Mar)Issue 14_suppl_2 (Feb)Issue 13_suppl_1 (Jan)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2002

    Volume Advance Article
    June
    Volume 80
    E-suppl_1 (Jan)E (Jan)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2001

    Volume 79
    Supplement E (Jan)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2000

    Volume 79
    E (Dec)
    Volume 78
    Supplement 3 (Jan)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)
    Volume 77
    Supplement E (Jan)

    1999

    Volume 77
    Supplement 3 (Jan)Supplement 2 (Jan)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1998

    Volume 76
    Supplement 3 (Jan)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1997

    Volume 75
    Supplement 2 (Jan)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1996

    Volume 74
    Supplement 3 (Jan)Supplement 2 (Jan)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1995

    Volume 73
    Supplement 2 (Jan)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Apr)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1994

    Volume 72
    Supplement 3 (Jan)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1993

    Volume 71
    Supplement 3 (Jan)Supplement 2 (Jan)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1992

    Volume 70
    Supplement 2 (Jan)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1991

    Volume 69
    Supplement 3 (Jan)Supplement 2 (Jan)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1990

    Volume 68
    Supplement 2 (Jan)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1989

    Volume 67
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1988

    Volume 66
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1987

    Volume 65
    Supplement 2 (Jan)Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 64
    Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1986

    Volume 63
    Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 62
    Supplement 2 (Jan)Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1985

    Volume 61
    Supplement 3 (Jan)Supplement 2 (Jan)Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 60
    Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1984

    Volume 59
    Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 58
    Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1983

    Volume 57
    Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 56
    Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1982

    Volume 55
    Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 54
    Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1981

    Volume 53
    Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)
    Volume 52
    Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1980

    Volume 51
    Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 50
    Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1979

    Volume 49
    Supplement II (Jan)Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 48
    Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1978

    Volume 1978
    Symposium (Sep)
    Volume 47
    Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 46
    Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1977

    Volume 45
    Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 44
    Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1976

    Volume 43
    Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 42
    Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1975

    Volume 41
    Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 40
    Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1974

    Volume 39
    Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 38
    Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1973

    Volume 1973
    Symposium (Jan)
    Volume 37
    Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 36
    Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1972

    Volume 35
    Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 34
    Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1971

    Volume 1971
    Symposium (Jan)
    Volume 33
    Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 32
    Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1970

    Volume 31
    Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 30
    Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1969

    Volume 29
    Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 28
    Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1968

    Volume 27
    Symposium (Aug)Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1967

    Volume 26
    Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)

    1966

    Volume 25
    Supplement (Jan)Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1965

    Volume 24
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1964

    Volume 23
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1963

    Volume 22
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1962

    Volume 21
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)

    1961

    Volume 20
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1960

    Volume 19
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1959

    Volume 18
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1958

    Volume 17
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1957

    Volume 16
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1956

    Volume 15
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1955

    Volume 14
    Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1954

    Volume 13
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1953

    Volume 12
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1952

    Volume 11
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1951

    Volume 10
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)

    1950

    Volume 9
    Issue 1 (Feb)

    1949

    Volume 8
    Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1948

    Volume 7
    Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)

    1947

    Volume 6
    Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)

    1946

    Volume 5
    Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1945

    Volume 4
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1944

    Volume 3
    Issue 3 (Aug)

    1943

    Volume 2
    Issue 1 (Feb)

    1942

    Volume 1
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)

    1940

    Volume 1940
    Issue 1 (Dec)

    1931

    Volume 1931
    Issue 1 (Jan)

    1930

    Volume 1930
    Issue 1 (Jan)

    1929

    Volume 1929
    Issue 1 (Jan)
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    53 Investigating the relationship between hoof and heart abnormalities in fed cattle at slaughter.

    Hamilton, Emma M; Anderson, Karly N; Kirk, Ashlynn A; Vogel, Kurt D; Grandin, Temple

    2025 Journal of Animal Science

    doi: 10.1093/jas/skaf300.001pmid: N/A

    More than 25 million fed cattle are slaughtered each year in the United States. Animal welfare issues associated with hoof abnormalities and congestive heart failure (CHF) have increased, with minimal evaluation of the root cause and methods of mitigation for these issues. Both disorders are deleterious to animal health, welfare, and carcass quality. Our objective was to determine the prevalence of hoof abnormalities and CHF within various physical characteristics. To meet this objective, scorecards for each condition were developed based on existing literature and images from the source population of animals. Scores were recorded at a slaughter establishment in the western region of the United States (elevation: 1,417 m) on cattle < 30 mos of age (N = 398). Statistical analysis was performed to determine the prevalence of each disorder. Further analysis was completed to evaluate the differences between the prevalence of carcass characteristics (USDA quality grade (QG), USDA yield grade (YG), hot carcass weight (HCW), ribeye area (REA), and fat thickness (FT)) within each hoof abnormality or CHF score, as well as the differences between each CHF score within each hoof abnormality. Eighty-five percent of cattle had at least one hoof abnormality, 52% had CHF, and 43% had both. We did not find differences (P > 0.1463) in REA, FT, QG, YG, sex, and hide color across hoof scores. Cattle with a wide toe and inward curved hoof had lighter (P > 0.0258) carcasses (421.62 ± 11.26 kg) than cattle with only an inward curve (460.95 ± 2.92 kg). Cattle with mild CHF had heavier (P = 0.0295) HCW (463.60 ± 3.24 kg) than cattle with no CHF (451.51 ± 3.22 kg). REA for cattle with no CHF was 103.17 ± 0.93 cm2, mild CHF was 104.51 ± 0.88 cm2, and severe CHF was 98.63 ± 2.46 cm2 (P = 0.0711). There were no differences (P > 0.1846) in FT or QG between CHF scores. There was a greater proportion (P = 0.0099) of heifers without CHF (70.97 ± 8.17%) than steers (45.78 ± 2.61%). There was no difference (P > 0.4955) between the presence of CHF within each hoof score. Over half of the cattle in this study had hoof abnormalities, CHF, or both. Data suggested there are developing relationships between CHF score and carcass characteristics including HCW and sex. Further research is required to guide actions to address the animal welfare and productivity concerns associated with these issues.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    55 Maternal bovine appeasing substance improves feeding behavior, growth performance, feed efficiency, and health indicators in weaned feedlot heifers.

    Gellatly, Desiree; Lei, Yaogeng; Smith, Lyndsey; Edgar, Emilie; Neale, Alison; Bloomfield, Brittany; Elliot, Brianna; Sobrinho, Laio Silva; Baird, Lorna; Thompson, Sean

    2025 Journal of Animal Science

    doi: 10.1093/jas/skaf300.003pmid:

    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    54 The effect of weaning age on physiological, behavioral, and performance indicators of welfare in weaned piglets.

    Metallo, Bianca F; Da Selva, Lucas C Spetic; Da Fonseca, Arieli Daieny; Niblett, Richard T; Aviles-Rosa, Edgar O

    2025 Journal of Animal Science

    doi: 10.1093/jas/skaf300.002pmid: N/A

    For the past 30 years, research has been conducted to determine the effect of weaning age on piglets’ performance. Nonetheless, the literature is full of contradictory results, and thus there remains no clear consensus on the optimal weaning age. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of weaning piglets at 3 and 4 weeks of age (approximately 21 and 28 days) on a set of physiological, behavioral, and performance indicators of welfare, to gain a holistic understanding of the impact of weaning age on piglets’ overall welfare. Sixteen litters were randomly assigned to be weaned at 3 (21-25 days; n=80) or 4 (28-34 days; n=80) weeks of age. At weaning, piglets were blocked by weight and randomly housed in mixed-sex pens of 5 piglets. Blood samples were collected from one focal male and female, per pen, prior to weaning and at 24 hours and 7 days post-weaning to evaluate a treatment effect on blood leukocytes. A subset of pens was video recorded for the first 48 hours post-weaning to evaluate their behavior. Weight gain and feed intake were monitored at 7-, 14-, 21-, and 28-days post-weaning. A series of mixed models were used for statistical analysis. The models included the fixed effects of weaning age, time, and their interaction, and the random effect of pig or pen. Piglets weaned at 3 weeks expressed a higher neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (3 weeks = 1.93 ± 0.20 SE, 4 weeks = 0.98 ± 0.20 SE; P < 0.001) at 24 hours post-weaning, and less feeding behavior (3 weeks = 0.35 ± 0.08% SE, 4 weeks = 1.34 ± 0.29% SE; P < 0.05) during the first 24 hours post-weaning, compared to piglets weaned at 4 weeks. Overall, piglets weaned at 3 weeks also had lower average daily feed intake (3 weeks = 0.47 (95% CI 0.43, 0.50), 4 weeks = 0.69 (95% CI 0.64, 0.73) kg/day; P < 0.0001) and lower average daily gain (3 weeks = 0.32 (95% CI 0.28, 0.37), 4 weeks = 0.48 (95% CI 0.44, 0.52) kg/day; P < 0.0001) during the 28-day nursery phase. Our results indicate that weaning piglets at 4 weeks of age, as opposed to 3 weeks, has a positive impact not only on their performance, but also on behavioral and physiological indicators of welfare, highlighting the welfare benefits of delaying weaning.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    56 Assessing the effect of topical gels containing oleic acid and fish oil on wound healing in piglets following surgical castration.

    Olatinwo, Omowumi A; Young, Jennifer M; Shevtsova, Tetiana; Voronov, Andriy; Byrd, Christopher J

    2025 Journal of Animal Science

    doi: 10.1093/jas/skaf300.004pmid: N/A

    This study evaluated the effect of topical gels containing oleic acid and fish oil on serum-based wound healing indicators in piglets following surgical castration. Fifty-two piglets (3-7 d of age) were randomly assigned to 1 of 6 treatment groups: T1 (sham castration, n = 9); T2 (surgical castration, n = 10); T3 (surgical castration + oleic acid in its natural form, n = 8); T4 (surgical castration + 33% oleic acid gel, n = 8); T5 (surgical castration + 25% oleic acid gel, n = 8); or T6 (surgical castration + 16.5% oleic acid and 16.5% fish oil gel, n = 9). The treatments were topically applied to the incision site immediately after surgical castration. Blood samples collected immediately prior to castration (baseline) and again at +4, +8, +24, +72, and +168 h post-castration were tested for IFN-γ, IL-6, IL-8, and VEGF-α. All data were analyzed using the Proc MIXED procedure in SAS 9.4. No treatment effect was observed for IFN-γ (P > 0.10). Regardless of treatment, IFN-γ did not differ from baseline at any timepoint but was lower at 8h (P = 0.002) and 24h (P = 0.005) compared to 72h (P = 0.304). There was no effect of treatment (P > 0.09) or timepoint (P > 0.05) on IL-6. Similarly, there was no effect of treatment on IL-8 (P > 0.13). However, compared to baseline, IL-8 was lower at 4h (P = 0.001), 8h (P = 0.001), and 24h (P = 0.04) post-castration. Additionally, IL-8 was greater at 168h compared to 4h (P = 0.004), 8h (P = 0.0003), 24h (P = 0.003), and 72h (P = 0.0002) timepoints. There tended to be a treatment effect on VEGF-α (P = 0.08), where T1 exhibited lower VEGF-α concentrations compared to T2 (P = 0.012) and T3 (P = 0.005). Regardless of treatment, VEGF-α was lower at 168h compared to baseline (P = 0.04), 4h (P = 0.03), 8h (P =0.001), and 24h (P = 0.018) timepoints. Additionally, VEGF-α was lower at 72h compared to 4h (P = 0.038) and 8h (P = 0.013) timepoints. In conclusion, topical application of gels containing oleic acid and fish oil did not have an effect on blood-based wound healing indicators following surgical castration.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    58 Late-Breaking: Vision-based ResNet-50-CNN and YOLOv8 models for predicting behavioral patterns under heat stress in lactating Holstein and Jersey Cows.

    Joshi, Himani; Prasad, Gagana Sathya Narayana; Bethini, Aravind; McBride, Abigail; McGee, Marcus; Fan, Peixin

    2025 Journal of Animal Science

    doi: 10.1093/jas/skaf300.006pmid: N/A

    Lactating dairy cows, including Holstein and Jersey breeds, are particularly vulnerable to heat stress, which elicits distinct behavioral adaptations such as increased respiration, standing duration, decreased feed intake, elevated water consumption, and heightened restlessness. These behavioral responses can significantly compromise animal health, reduce productive efficiency, and impair overall welfare. While these behavioral adaptations serve as critical indicators of heat stress, their detection in real-world cattle herd settings remains challenging and prone to observer bias. Therefore, integration of advanced digital and time-efficient technologies in livestock systems is required to enhance monitoring, reduce handling, and improve welfare perceptions. Machine learning driven computer vision systems are emerging for behavioral monitoring in cattle, yet predictive applications remain limited for lactating cows exhibiting heat stress responses. This study aimed to develop artificial-intelligence-based models using Residual Network-50 Convolutional Neural Networks (ResNet-50-CNN) and You Only Look Once (YOLOv8) to predict differential behavior patterns, during heat stress conditions, among Holstein and Jersey breeds of lactating dairy cows. Twenty-four lactating Holsteins and twelve Jerseys were housed in free stalls during mid-summer (Starkville, Mississippi State, USA) and were provided with ad libitum access to feed and water during a 14-day period. Behavioral observations, i.e., standing, lying, and eating, among Holstein and Jersey lactating cows were captured via twelve stationary ReoLink 5MP PoE IP cameras during four daily intervals (06:00-08:00, 13:00-15:00, 18:00-20:00, and 01:00-03:00), from day 0 to 14, respectively. Raw video footage was processed, and unique frames were extracted at 30-second intervals for each behavior type and annotated for individual animal behaviors i.e. “Standing”, “Lying”, and “Eating”, in each frame using Roboflow software. A total of 1,120 extracted frames (730 for Holstein and 390 for Jersey) were used for training and validation (20%, 100 epochs) using the raw videos from the adaptation days. Additionally, live videos of the four-heat stress (THI>72) trial days were reserved for independent model performance testing. Our trained model, upon validation, showed high accuracy of 0.979 and precision of 0.965 in classifying multi-class behavior in a single frame. When evaluated on unlabeled independent raw videos, it maintained robust performance with an accuracy of 0.892, precision of 0.895, and recall rate of 0.874 in predicting behavior phenotypes and correctly differentiating breed types. Our findings demonstrate that the CNN and YOLOv8 models can effectively distinguish behavior classes and duration across multiple cows and breeds, with promising potential for future applications in detecting heat stress, health indicators, and targeted behavioral traits.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    57 Efficacy of a lidocaine impregnated band on pain mitigation for tail docking.

    Haggard, Ryne D; Stucke, Rachael M; Varela, Alex; Villard, Allison; Edwards-Callaway, Lily N; Cadaret, Caitlin N

    2025 Journal of Animal Science

    doi: 10.1093/jas/skaf300.005pmid: N/A

    Tail docking improves hygiene, reduces flystrike, and enhances efficiency for routine husbandry practices such as shearing, serving as an important management practice that promotes sheep health. However, the procedure is known to cause acute stress and discomfort. Thus, the objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a lidocaine impregnated band at mitigating pain when tail docking newborn lambs. Thirty-two lambs were randomly assigned to receive a lidocaine impregnated rubber O-ring band (LB; n=16) or a non-medicated standard O-ring band (CON; n=16). An elastrator was used to place CON and LB rings below the third caudal vertebrae for docking lambs at three days of life. At –1h, 0h, 2h, 12h, 24h, 3d, 7d, 14d, 21d, and 28d, behavioral observations, algometry, infrared thermography, and blood collection were performed. From birth to 30d of age, daily weights were collected and used to determine growth and average daily gain (ADG). There was a band by time (P < 0.05) interaction for behavioral response at the time of banding (0h), in which LB lambs exhibited fewer painful behaviors compared to CON. LB lambs had higher (P < 0.05) pressure thresholds above the site of docking compared to CON, while thresholds below the banding site and at the control site did not differ. Thermal imaging revealed no temperature differences between LB and CON lambs at any timepoint or location. There was a treatment by time interaction where LB lambs had decreased (P < 0.05) haptoglobin levels two days post banding compared to CON lambs. First 30d performance did not differ between groups when evaluated as growth or ADG. Length of time until the tail fell off did not differ between treatments. These results indicate that lidocaine bands reduce initial pain response, tissue sensitivity, and resolve the acute phase response faster than traditional bands, minimizing discomfort and stress while still achieving tail docking in the same amount of time. Thus, LBs may serve as a simple tool for livestock producers to incorporate into their standard management practices to enhance animal welfare.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    221 Late-Breaking: The relationship between self-reported and expert scored measures of skill in cattle handling.

    Woiwode, Ruth; Dennis, Elliott J; Akin, Heather

    2025 Journal of Animal Science

    doi: 10.1093/jas/skaf300.007pmid: N/A

    Few matters of great societal concern transcend that of a common requirement for food to survive; while everyone eats, a mere 1.36% of the U.S. workforce is employed in agriculture, which includes crop and animal production. The importance of occupational skill has long been recognized, yet attributes of cattle handling skill remain largely unresolved in the literature. For animal caretakers, there is no industry standard defining skill level, and few barriers to entry, such as requisite training. Instead, this sector of the workforce has traditionally relied on self-reported years of experience (YOE), often gained growing up on a farm or ranch, as a proxy for skill. When 50% of the population was involved in agriculture, this may have been a realistic prerequisite, but for modern agriculture, the assumption that familiarity with agriculture is a prerequisite can be deadly. While fatal injuries in crop production decline, fatal injuries steadily increase for animal workers, despite adoption of technology by both sectors. The relationship between skill level of cattle handlers and risk for injury has not been well described in the literature. We compared self-reported YOE, self-rated expertise, and self-reported scores for ten cattle handling tasks with independently assigned scores, and investigated the relationship between demographic information, prior injury history, self-reported measures, and expert assessment of skill level. A panel of experts identified ten tasks intended to be representative of a core skill set used by workers across sectors of the cattle industry. Each task included categories reflecting attributes of skill believed to be important for both animal welfare and handler safety. The skill assessment tool (SAT) developed by the panel was used to evaluate 15 participants of varied backgrounds. Participants were asked to report experience in number of years for all major livestock species; all reported ≥5 YOE. Participants were asked about prior injuries; seven reported no previous injuries; eight reported previous injuries sustained working with livestock. Participants completed 10 tasks with a group of cattle and were asked to score their own performance for each task. Classroom training covering principles of low-stress cattle handling was provided between handling trials. Following the training, participants repeated the cattle handling tasks and again scored themselves. The same expert was present to score all handling trials live. Video recordings were used post-hoc to validate live scores. Demographic information and self-reported scores were compared to expert-assigned scores, and the SAT was sensitive enough to detect differences in skill level between participants for both self-reported and expert-assessed scores. Male participants scored themselves higher than females, and all participants scored themselves higher than the expert. No differences were observed for self-reported or expert assigned scores before or after the training, suggesting this approach to training has limited efficacy.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    222 Late-Breaking: Evaluating gilts’ toy preference and the effect of their preferred toy on aggressive behaviors after mixing.

    Webberson, Emily M; Garcia, Arlene; Aviles-Rosa, Edgar O

    2025 Journal of Animal Science

    doi: 10.1093/jas/skaf300.008pmid: N/A

    An increase in aggressive behaviors is observed when unfamiliar breeding-age gilts are mixed. High incidence of aggression can lead to injuries and ultimately affect gilts’ longevity, reproductive performance, and welfare. Research has found that environmental enrichment in the form of toys can help redirect undesired behaviors. However, gilts’ preference for enrichment toys of varying size, location, and food additives with the potential to reduce aggression when breeding-age gilts are mixed has not been thoroughly studied. The objective of this study was to assess breeding-age gilts’ preference for different enrichment objects. In Experiment 1 and 2, we evaluated gilts (N=32) preference for 3 different toys (Jolly Ball, Kong, Ring ball) at different locations (floor, hanging) and either alone or with a food additive (applesauce, peanut butter). Each combination of toy, location, and food was tested individually and in random order, and gilts’ behavior was recorded for 5 hours to measure interaction time. Experiment 1 showed gilts interacted significantly more with toys on the floor (4.9%, 95% CI [3.9%, 6.2%]) than hanging (3.1%, 95% CI [2.4%, 4.0%]) (p< 0.0001). The results also showed a statistical significant interaction where gilts interacted significantly more with Jolly Balls on the floor (5.3%, 95% CI [4.1%, 6.8%]), and Kongs on the floor (5.1%, 95% CI (4.0%, 6.5%]) and hanging (4.5%, 95% CI (3.5%, 5.8%]), than any other combination of toy and location (p<0.0001). A statistically significant 3-way interaction between location, toy, and food was observed in Experiment 2 (p=0.02). Overall, gilts interacted with the Jolly Ball on the floor filled with applesauce (7.9%, 95% CI [6.6%, 9.4%]) or peanut butter (8.9%, 95% CI [7.5%, 10.5%]) more than any other permutation of food, toy, and location. We are currently evaluating if providing the Jolly Ball filled with applesauce on the floor reduces the incidence of aggression when breeding-age gilts are mixed. Our work will provide insight as to enrichment that can be utilized to potentially reduce aggression in breeding-age gilts and thus improve gilt welfare and longevity.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    218 Evaluating the scale of resource use by beef cows on winter range.

    Davis, Noah; Wyffels, Sam; Carr, Craig; Nugent, Paul; DelCurto, Tim

    2025 Journal of Animal Science

    doi: 10.1093/jas/skaf300.009pmid: N/A

    Foraging animals select for resources across spatial scales, however, information quantifying this is limited for livestock species. Therefore, this study evaluated the relative selection for resources across multiple spatial scales. Over the course of two winters, a herd of 140 mature, Angus-based cows grazed a 645-ha native rangeland pasture in southwestern Montana. Each winter, 17 cows were randomly selected and equipped with global positioning system (GPS) collars and monitored between December and February. For each animal, we generated a utilization distribution using GPS locations identified as occurring during grazing activity. We obtained gridded, 30-m resolution data on pasture attributes, including topography (elevation, slope, terrain roughness, aspect), vegetation (cover and biomass by plant functional group), and distances to water and supplement sites. To create coarser-scale data for each attribute, we used a moving window to calculate the mean value up to a 1000 m neighborhood size for each cell of the grid. Then, for each metric, we built a multi-level resource utilization function that calculated the selection coefficient for each animal at each scale. To evaluate how population-level selection varies across scales, we analyzed selection coefficients with a set of candidate linear mixed-effect models. Of the 18 attributes evaluated, 17 showed a significant relationship between scale and resource selection (P ≤ 0.03). Fourteen of the attributes indicated strongest support for a second- or third-order quadratic relationship. The remaining four showed strongest support for a linear relationship. Cows selected against the topographical attributes of elevation, slope and terrain ruggedness across all scales (P < 0.01) and most strongly at coarser scales (620-1000 m resolution). Additionally, cows selected for directional components of aspect at coarser scales (780-1000 m resolution; P < 0.01). Cows selected for annual and perennial herbaceous cover at fine scales (30-110 m resolution; P < 0.01). Cows selected against bare ground, litter, and tree cover across all scales and (P < 0.01) most strongly at the coarsest scale considered (1000 m). Cows most strongly selected for perennial herbaceous biomass at the finest scale considered (30 m; P < 0.01) and for annual herbaceous biomass at a moderate scale (620 m; P < 0.01). Cows selected against distance from water and supplement across all scales (P < 0.01). The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was highest for distance attributes (ICC = 0.99), followed by topographical attributes (ICC = 0.45), and lowest for vegetation attributes (ICC = 0.23), indicating that selection for vegetation attributes was more consistent among individuals, whereas selection for distance attributes was least consistent. This information provides insight for rangeland scientists and livestock managers to inform the development of resource use models and evaluate the effective scale for various rangeland improvements.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    219 Social network analysis of tail-biting behavior in growing-finishing pigs with intact tails.

    Li, Yuzhi; Archer, Courtney A; Anderson, Jon; Schmidt, Ty B; Mote, Benny E; Johnston, Lee J

    2025 Journal of Animal Science

    doi: 10.1093/jas/skaf300.010pmid: N/A

    Understanding the dynamics of tail biting in pigs, such as which pigs are involved and what roles these pigs play in this damaging behavior, can help us develop management strategies to minimize tail biting outbreaks. We evaluated social structures and positions of pigs involved in tail biting outbreaks (TBO) using social network analysis. Pigs (n=252, initial weight=28.9±3.4 kg) with intact tails were grouped (7 pigs/pen, 36 pens) based on litter origins (littermates, half-group littermates, non-littermates). Pigs were housed in barns with slatted floors (0.98m2/pig) for 12 weeks until market weight (123.1±11.9 kg). Behavior of pigs was recorded continuously using the NUtrack Livestock Monitoring System. Tail injury was evaluated weekly to monitor TBO. Thirteen pens (littermates=3 pens, half-littermates=5 pens, and non-littermates=5 pens) experienced TBO in which at least one pig in a pen had blood on the tail caused by tail biting. Videos for these pens, recorded the day before and during the first TBO, were manually reviewed to document tail biting events and identify the roles of the pigs involved. The top 25% of pigs responsible for the most tail-biting incidents were classified as tail-biters and others as non-biters. Network metrics were calculated using RStudio. Data were analyzed using Glimmix and NPAR1WAY procedures. No difference in network metrics at the pen-level (all P ≥ 0.128; Table 1) was detected among litter origins. Average density ranged from 0.27 to 0.33, indicating that 27 to 33% of possible pairs (dyads) of pigs engaged in tail biting. Among these pairs, 17 to 37% (reciprocity) were biting each other. Out-, in- and all-degree centralizations were closer to 0 than 1, indicating that tail biting was not performed mainly or received by few pigs. At the pig-level, no difference was detected in unweighted or weighted centralities among litter origins (all P ≥ 0.32). Compared to non-biters, tail-biters had greater unweighted out-degree, closeness, and betweenness, and greater weighted out-edge strength and betweenness centralities (all P ≤ 0.04, Table 2), indicating that tail-biters bit more pigs, were more connected to other tail-biters, and committed more tail biting events. No difference was detected in unweighted in-degree, weighted in-edge strength, out- and in-closeness centralities between tail-biters and non-biters. Both tail-biters and non-biters were bitten about 3 times (in-edge strength) by 1.76 pigs (unweighted in-degree centrality) on average, suggesting that tail-biters were bitten as often as non-biters. Gilts tended to have greater (all P ≤ 0.08) unweighted closeness and betweenness, weighted out-edge strength and betweenness centralities than barrows, suggesting that gilts were more closely connected with other pigs that were involved in tail biting and performed more tail biting than barrows. These results demonstrate that social network analysis can provide insight into the dynamics of tail biting among pigs.

    Showing 1 to 10 of 759 Articles

    Previous12345…76Next
    Articles per page
    Browse All Journals

    Related Journals:

    World's Poultry Science JournalAnimal Health Research ReviewsPrimatesZoological StudiesInvertebrate BiologyCurrent ZoologyItalian Journal of Animal ScienceEuropean Zoological JournalNew Zealand Journal of ZoologyAfrican Zoology
    N/A
    Previous studies have demonstrated that maternal bovine appeasing substance (mBAS) enhances growth while alleviating stress and illness in weaned calves. The current study builds on previous work to investigate the impact on individual metrics such as feeding intake, feeding behavior and feed efficiency. This pilot study aimed to evaluate the effects of a mBAS (FerAppease; FERA Diagnostics and Biologicals, College Station, TX) on feeding behavior, growth, feed efficiency, health and stress indicators in weaned beef cattle. Twenty-two Angus-influenced heifers (315.2 ± 30.76 kg of BW) were abruptly weaned, sampled, and randomly assigned to either a 10-mL mBAS (n = 11) or a placebo (CT; n = 11), followed by 1-hour transportation in separate trailers. Groups were then housed over 27 days (d) in two feedlot pens located 148 meters apart, with ad libitum access to water and feed. Data collection occurred at multiple sampling events: twice before treatment and immediately before transport (d 0; baseline), after transport following a 2-hour fasting period, and on d 14 and 27. On d 14, groups swapped pens in order to minimize pen effects. Behavioral assessments included dry matter intake (DMI), bunk attendance (BA) duration and frequency, feeding rate, activity, rumination and chute exit speed (ES). Physiological indicators included salivary cortisol, red blood cell (RBC), white blood cell (WBC) and neutrophil-to- lymphocyte ratio (N:L). Growth performance was evaluated using body weight (BW), shrunk BW (prior- vs. post-transportation) as well as average daily gain (ADG) and gain-to-feed ratio (G:F) for the 0-14, 14-27, and 14-27 periods. DMI, BA duration, and BA frequency were recorded daily using the Vytelle® feed bunk system, while activity and rumination were continuously monitored via an ear data logger; data was averaged weekly. A mixed-effects model (MIXED) including treatment, sampling events and their interactions were included as fixed effects; sampling events were included as repeated measures for behavioral and physiological parameters. No differences (P > 0.10) were observed for DMI, ES or salivary cortisol. Reduced (P < 0.05) BA duration in weeks 2 and 3, alongside increased (P < 0.05) BA frequency and feeding rate in week 3 were found for mBAS than CT heifers. There was a tendency for lower shrunk BW (P = 0.09) and greater (P = 0.08) ADG0-27 in mBAS than CT heifers. Greater (P < 0.05) G:F14-27, G:F0-27 and ADG14-27 were observed in mBAS compared to CT heifers. Lower (P = 0.05) N:L ratio and a tendency for reduced (P = 0.06) WBC were also found for mBAS than CT heifers. These findings suggest that mBAS at weaning enhanced adaptation to the feedlot, as evidenced by improved immune response, feeding behavior, growth, and feed efficiency, warranting further large-scale studies to confirm its efficacy under commercial conditions.