Distance examination is an important part of veterinary investigation into ruminant herd health and welfare. The Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (DPIRD) explored the use of drones to conduct assessments of the health and welfare status of sheep and cattle. Three methods of distance examination were compared comprising observations; from a vehicle, a “micro” category drone and a “very small” category drone. The disturbance and behavioural reactions caused by the methods were compared. Assessments of adverse health and welfare conditions by each method were compared to observations made at yarding. The preferred method was the use of the very small drone which had the best sensitivity for detection of conditions potentially associated with adverse health or welfare and the best optics at a distance that did not disturb the animals. The optics of the very small drone enabled distance examination without disturbance in both cattle and sheep. Cattle were more sensitive to the presence of the drones than sheep. The micro drone was unable to approach cattle close enough to allow undisturbed distance examination. All methods had similar specificity, however, sensitivity varied markedly. The very small drone had the best sensitivity 86% which was statistically greater than the micro drone (44%, P = 0.05) and better than the vehicle observations, which had sensitivity of 77% (not statistically significant). The selection of an appropriate drone model is essential for accurate distance examination. Distance examination of livestock with drones of suitable optic quality and resolution represents an effective method for assessing animal health and welfare.
{"title":"Distance examination of livestock with drones - an effective method for assessing health and welfare","authors":"KL Rayner, ME Wilson","doi":"10.1111/avj.13326","DOIUrl":"10.1111/avj.13326","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Distance examination is an important part of veterinary investigation into ruminant herd health and welfare. The Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (DPIRD) explored the use of drones to conduct assessments of the health and welfare status of sheep and cattle. Three methods of distance examination were compared comprising observations; from a vehicle, a “micro” category drone and a “very small” category drone. The disturbance and behavioural reactions caused by the methods were compared. Assessments of adverse health and welfare conditions by each method were compared to observations made at yarding. The preferred method was the use of the very small drone which had the best sensitivity for detection of conditions potentially associated with adverse health or welfare and the best optics at a distance that did not disturb the animals. The optics of the very small drone enabled distance examination without disturbance in both cattle and sheep. Cattle were more sensitive to the presence of the drones than sheep. The micro drone was unable to approach cattle close enough to allow undisturbed distance examination. All methods had similar specificity, however, sensitivity varied markedly. The very small drone had the best sensitivity 86% which was statistically greater than the micro drone (44%, P = 0.05) and better than the vehicle observations, which had sensitivity of 77% (not statistically significant). The selection of an appropriate drone model is essential for accurate distance examination. Distance examination of livestock with drones of suitable optic quality and resolution represents an effective method for assessing animal health and welfare.</p>","PeriodicalId":8661,"journal":{"name":"Australian Veterinary Journal","volume":"102 6","pages":"293-295"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2024-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139717303","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Humate may be a valuable livestock feed additive, with potential effects on nutrient utilisation and animal performance. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the effect of K Humate S 100R supplementation on the feed intake, liveweight gain, and carcass parameters of Angus steers. Within individual pens, 40 weaned steers were allocated to four treatment groups (n = 10/potassium humate K Humate S100R, Omnia Specialities Australia) for 100 days. The treatment groups included Group 1, 35 g K Humate S100R/animal/day; Group 2, 70 g K Humate S100R/animal/day; Group 3, 140 g K Humate S100R/animal/day; and Control Group, which were not supplemented with K Humate S100R (0 g K Humate S100R/animal/day). Chemical and mineral composition of the feed ingredients, dry matter intake (DMI), and average daily weight gains were recorded. The steers were slaughtered as a single group at a commercial Australian abattoir. Standard measures for hot standard carcass weight, eye muscle area, fat depth and coverage, marbling, ossification, meat and fat colour, dressing percentage and loin pH values at 24-hour postmortem were recorded. It was found that the steers allocated to Group 2 had higher DMI (P = 0.003) and feed conversion ratio (FCR) (P < 0.001) compared with those allocated to Group 1 and the Control Group. The MSA marbling score was lowest for steers allocated to the Control Group (P < 0.05) and comparable for those allocated to Groups 1, 2, and 3. Together, these results demonstrate that increased levels of K Humate S100R supplementation improved the carcass quality, via an increase in MSA. However, further research is warranted on the potential effects of humates supplementation on intramuscular fat associated qualities of beef.
{"title":"The effect of humate as a feed additive on feed intake, production, and carcass parameters of Angus steers","authors":"F Ataollahi, BWB Holman, GR Casburn, JW Piltz","doi":"10.1111/avj.13317","DOIUrl":"10.1111/avj.13317","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Humate may be a valuable livestock feed additive, with potential effects on nutrient utilisation and animal performance. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the effect of K Humate S 100R supplementation on the feed intake, liveweight gain, and carcass parameters of Angus steers. Within individual pens, 40 weaned steers were allocated to four treatment groups (n = 10/potassium humate K Humate S100R, Omnia Specialities Australia) for 100 days. The treatment groups included Group 1, 35 g K Humate S100R/animal/day; Group 2, 70 g K Humate S100R/animal/day; Group 3, 140 g K Humate S100R/animal/day; and Control Group, which were not supplemented with K Humate S100R (0 g K Humate S100R/animal/day). Chemical and mineral composition of the feed ingredients, dry matter intake (DMI), and average daily weight gains were recorded. The steers were slaughtered as a single group at a commercial Australian abattoir. Standard measures for hot standard carcass weight, eye muscle area, fat depth and coverage, marbling, ossification, meat and fat colour, dressing percentage and loin pH values at 24-hour <i>postmortem</i> were recorded. It was found that the steers allocated to Group 2 had higher DMI (P = 0.003) and feed conversion ratio (FCR) (P < 0.001) compared with those allocated to Group 1 and the Control Group. The MSA marbling score was lowest for steers allocated to the Control Group (P < 0.05) and comparable for those allocated to Groups 1, 2, and 3. Together, these results demonstrate that increased levels of K Humate S100R supplementation improved the carcass quality, via an increase in MSA. However, further research is warranted on the potential effects of humates supplementation on intramuscular fat associated qualities of beef.</p>","PeriodicalId":8661,"journal":{"name":"Australian Veterinary Journal","volume":"102 5","pages":"242-248"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2024-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139717330","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}