ArticleTropical animal health and production2026
Comparison of body weight prediction methods in Blanco Orejinegro Creole cattle.
Article in Tropical animal health and production, 2026. 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the reliability and agreement among three alternative methods for estimating body weight (BW) in Blanco Orejinegro (BON) Creole cattle (weigh tape, Schaeffer’s formula, Agarwal’s formula) under tropical conditions in Colombia. Body weight and biometric data were collected from 42 BON cattle representing different productive categories. Heart girth and body length were measured and used to estimate BW, which was compared against measurements obtained with a livestock scale as the reference method. The analysis included graphical assessments, Pearson correlation coefficients, concordance correlation coefficients (CCC), and nonparametric tests (Kruskal–Wallis and Dunn’s test with Bonferroni adjustment). High correlations were observed among methods (r ≥ 0.94); however, concordance analysis revealed poor accuracy for the formula-based estimations, particularly Schaeffer’s. The weigh tape method exhibited the highest agreement with the scale, showing the highest CCC values, lowest bias, and smallest absolute errors. Agarwal’s formula produced intermediate results, whereas Schaeffer’s formula displayed the lowest reliability. Overall, the weigh tape proved to be the most accurate and practical method for estimating BW in BON cattle. The use of Schaeffer’s and Agarwal’s formulas is not recommended for this breed under the evaluated conditions. These findings emphasize the need to develop breed-specific predictive equations to improve the accuracy of BW estimation in BON cattle populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41991761What 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.