Cargando…

Using Canine Olfaction to Detect Bovine Respiratory Disease: A Pilot Study

Bovine respiratory disease (BRD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in feedlot cattle and is a major welfare and economic concern. Identification of BRD-affected cattle using clinical illness scores is problematic, and speed and cost constraints limit the feasibility of many diagnostic...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Juge, Aiden E., Hall, Nathaniel J., Richeson, John T., Daigle, Courtney L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9284318/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35847637
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.902151
_version_ 1784747534422376448
author Juge, Aiden E.
Hall, Nathaniel J.
Richeson, John T.
Daigle, Courtney L.
author_facet Juge, Aiden E.
Hall, Nathaniel J.
Richeson, John T.
Daigle, Courtney L.
author_sort Juge, Aiden E.
collection PubMed
description Bovine respiratory disease (BRD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in feedlot cattle and is a major welfare and economic concern. Identification of BRD-affected cattle using clinical illness scores is problematic, and speed and cost constraints limit the feasibility of many diagnostic approaches. Dogs can rapidly identify humans and animals affected by a variety of diseases based on scent. Canines' olfactory systems can distinguish between patterns of volatile organic compounds produced by diseased and healthy tissue. In this pilot study, two dogs (“Runnels” and “Cheaps”) were trained for 7 months to discriminate between nasal swabs from cattle that developed signs of BRD within 20 days of feedlot arrival and swabs from cattle that did not develop BRD signs within 3 months at the feedlot. Nasal swabs were collected during cattle processing upon arrival to the feedlot and were stored at −80°C. Dogs were presented with sets of one positive and two negative samples and were trained using positive reinforcement to hold their noses over the positive sample. The dogs performed moderately well in the final stage of training, with accuracy for Runnels of 0.817 and Cheaps of 0.647, both greater than the 0.333 expected by chance. During a double-blind detection test, dogs evaluated 123 unique and unfamiliar samples that were presented as 41 sets (3 samples per set), with both the dog handler and data recorder blinded to the positive sample location. Each dog was tested twice on each set of samples. Detection test accuracy was slightly better than chance for Cheaps at 0.451 (95% CI: 0.344–0.559) and was no better than chance for Runnels at 0.390 (95% CI: 0.285–0.496. Overall accuracy was 0.421 (95% CI: 0.345–0.496). When dogs' consensus response on each sample set was considered, accuracy was 0.537 (95% CI: 0.384–0.689). Detection accuracy also varied by sample lot. While dogs showed some ability to discriminate between BRD-affected and healthy cattle using nasal swabs, the complexity of this task suggests that more testing is needed before determining whether dogs could be effective as a screening method for BRD.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9284318
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92843182022-07-16 Using Canine Olfaction to Detect Bovine Respiratory Disease: A Pilot Study Juge, Aiden E. Hall, Nathaniel J. Richeson, John T. Daigle, Courtney L. Front Vet Sci Veterinary Science Bovine respiratory disease (BRD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in feedlot cattle and is a major welfare and economic concern. Identification of BRD-affected cattle using clinical illness scores is problematic, and speed and cost constraints limit the feasibility of many diagnostic approaches. Dogs can rapidly identify humans and animals affected by a variety of diseases based on scent. Canines' olfactory systems can distinguish between patterns of volatile organic compounds produced by diseased and healthy tissue. In this pilot study, two dogs (“Runnels” and “Cheaps”) were trained for 7 months to discriminate between nasal swabs from cattle that developed signs of BRD within 20 days of feedlot arrival and swabs from cattle that did not develop BRD signs within 3 months at the feedlot. Nasal swabs were collected during cattle processing upon arrival to the feedlot and were stored at −80°C. Dogs were presented with sets of one positive and two negative samples and were trained using positive reinforcement to hold their noses over the positive sample. The dogs performed moderately well in the final stage of training, with accuracy for Runnels of 0.817 and Cheaps of 0.647, both greater than the 0.333 expected by chance. During a double-blind detection test, dogs evaluated 123 unique and unfamiliar samples that were presented as 41 sets (3 samples per set), with both the dog handler and data recorder blinded to the positive sample location. Each dog was tested twice on each set of samples. Detection test accuracy was slightly better than chance for Cheaps at 0.451 (95% CI: 0.344–0.559) and was no better than chance for Runnels at 0.390 (95% CI: 0.285–0.496. Overall accuracy was 0.421 (95% CI: 0.345–0.496). When dogs' consensus response on each sample set was considered, accuracy was 0.537 (95% CI: 0.384–0.689). Detection accuracy also varied by sample lot. While dogs showed some ability to discriminate between BRD-affected and healthy cattle using nasal swabs, the complexity of this task suggests that more testing is needed before determining whether dogs could be effective as a screening method for BRD. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-07-01 /pmc/articles/PMC9284318/ /pubmed/35847637 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.902151 Text en Copyright © 2022 Juge, Hall, Richeson and Daigle. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Veterinary Science
Juge, Aiden E.
Hall, Nathaniel J.
Richeson, John T.
Daigle, Courtney L.
Using Canine Olfaction to Detect Bovine Respiratory Disease: A Pilot Study
title Using Canine Olfaction to Detect Bovine Respiratory Disease: A Pilot Study
title_full Using Canine Olfaction to Detect Bovine Respiratory Disease: A Pilot Study
title_fullStr Using Canine Olfaction to Detect Bovine Respiratory Disease: A Pilot Study
title_full_unstemmed Using Canine Olfaction to Detect Bovine Respiratory Disease: A Pilot Study
title_short Using Canine Olfaction to Detect Bovine Respiratory Disease: A Pilot Study
title_sort using canine olfaction to detect bovine respiratory disease: a pilot study
topic Veterinary Science
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9284318/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35847637
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.902151
work_keys_str_mv AT jugeaidene usingcanineolfactiontodetectbovinerespiratorydiseaseapilotstudy
AT hallnathanielj usingcanineolfactiontodetectbovinerespiratorydiseaseapilotstudy
AT richesonjohnt usingcanineolfactiontodetectbovinerespiratorydiseaseapilotstudy
AT daiglecourtneyl usingcanineolfactiontodetectbovinerespiratorydiseaseapilotstudy