ArticlePloS one2023
Field demonstration analyzing the implementation of individual animal electronic identification and genetic testing in western range sheep flocks.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adoption of electronic identification ear tags (EID) and DNA testing by commercial range sheep producers in the Western United States has been low, despite the availability of these technologies for over a decade. Jointly, these technologies offer an approach to provide individual animal performance data to improve flock health, genetic and reproductive management. This project involved a collaboration with five California sheep producers representing a broad geographic range, varying levels of pre-project EID adoption, and diverse operational practices. Tissue samples were collected from, and ear EIDs were placed in, a total of 2,936 rams and their potential lambs. We partnered with a commercial packing company, Superior Farms, to genotype the animals. Superior Farms used a targeted genotyping panel to assign parentage, and link individual animal identification (ID) to camera-graded carcass measurements. This enabled the collection of individual progeny carcass data and provided insight into sire performance, providing for the within-flock identification of prolific sires that were producing lambs with significantly more saleable meat as compared to their flock mates. Overall, almost 91% of lambs were successfully matched to their sire, and prolificacy ranging from 0-135 lambs per ram. There was as much as an $80 difference in the average edible product from camera-graded carcasses derived from lamb groups sired by different rams. A partial budget analysis modeling investment in an EID system coupled with an autodrafter and scale to collect individual weights and improve labor efficiency during processing, and a sheep flip chute to improve worker safety during foot trimmings, yielded a greater than 7:1 return on investment over a five-year time frame. Ideally, the data collection enabled by EIDs and DNA testing would feed into data-driven genetic evaluation programs to enable selection for more productive and profitable animals, and allow the US sheep industry to accelerate the rate of genetic improvement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.