Evaluation of HerdDogg Remote Sensing Tag on Detection of Morbidity of Newly Received Steers

Authors: Lauryn O. Smidt, Graduate Student; Rebecca L. McDermott, Research Technician; Jessica L. Sperber, Extension Assistant Professor; Josh R. Benton, Beef Feedlot Unit Director, ENREEC; Galen E. Erickson, Professor; Jim C. MacDonald, Professor, Animal Science, Lincoln.

Summary with Implication

A receiving study was conducted to evaluate the HerdDogg remote sensing tag for the detection of morbidity in newly received steers. Treatments were assigned to cattle in the order they came through the chute, and those included a treatment whereby pen-riders evaluated the cattle and made the decision on when to treat (Pen-Rider), compared to the HerdDogg remote sensing ear tag that solely identified and flagged cattle in need of treatment (TAG). Cattle were fed for 41 days before being weighed off the receiving trial. While no differences in performance were observed, the TAG treatment had a higher proportion of cattle treated. The TAG treatment had 42.2% of cattle treated vs the Pen-Rider cattle, which was 31.7%. This tends to show that when producers use the technology, they should expect to treat a higher percentage of cattle. The HerdDogg tags may be a valuable tool in identifying sick cattle, but does not replace experienced personnel. 

Introduction

Animal health remains a large economic loss in feed yards due to mortality, which is more pronounced now with higher value cattle. Early detection of health challenges is critical for improving outcomes, minimizing antibiotic use, and reducing financial losses. However, this task is challenging, as cattle are prey animals that mask their symptoms until the illness has progressed. The ongoing labor shortages in feed yards complicate effective cattle monitoring, resulting in fewer personnel with lifelong experience in detecting illness in cattle. The economic stakes are also rising as beef cow numbers decline, and the cost of feeder calves continues to increase. Wearable technologies that detect animal illness are relatively new to the marketplace. If implemented effectively, these technologies may identify signs of illness earlier and more accurately than traditional methods of human observations alone. However, adopting these technologies in commercial operations will depend on demonstrating that they are at least as effective as the current standard protocol based on human observations. The objective of this experiment is to evaluate the effectiveness of HerdDogg wearable tags on the detection of animal health, and receiving calf performance.

Procedure

A receiving study was conducted at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln Eastern Nebraska Research, Extension, and Education Center (ENREEC) near Mead, Nebraska, during November and December 2024, when temperatures averaged approximately 41.4°F and 30.3°F, respectively. A total of 638 crossbred steers (initial BW = 621 lbs; SD = 41.2) were used in a generalized randomized block design. The study consisted of two blocks based on arrival date, with processing occurring one week apart. Block one included two sources of cattle, while block two included three sources. A total of 40 pens were used in the study, with two treatments evaluated, with 16 steers per pen; however, two pens contained 15 steers due to the removal of two bulls at arrival. Steers were sourced from North Dakota and Nebraska auction markets and transported to ENREEC. Upon arrival of the first group, the steers were fed 10 lbs DM per head of grass hay and processed 14 hours later. The second group arrived overnight and was processed 6 hours later. Upon arrival of the next group, steers were penned and fed 10 lbs DM per head of grass hay and processed 24 hours later. The last group to arrive was given 10 lbs DM per head of grass hay and processed 6 hours later. During processing, steers were assigned to one of two treatments based on their order of entry through the chute and stratified by BW. The initial BW was a single weight collected at processing. 

All steers received a killed vaccine for clostridial toxins and histophulus somnus (Ultrabac 7/Somubac, Zoetis Inc, Florham Park, NJ), a modified live vaccine in prevention of IBR, BVD, PI3, and BRSV (BoviShield Gold, Zoetis Inc, Florham Park, NJ), an injectable solution for the treatment and control of gastrointestinal and external parasite control (Dectomaxx, Zoetis Inc, Florham Park, NJ), and an injectable control of lungworms, stomach worms, and intestinal worms (Safe-Guard, Merck Animal Health, Rahway, NJ). Cattle were fed a receiving diet for 35 days: 32% grass hay, 32% dry rolled corn, 32% sweet bran, and 4% supplement which provided Deccox at 125 mg/hd/d and Rumensin at 200 mg/hd/d.

Two experimental treatment strategies were used to determine steer morbidity whereby pen-riders evaluated the cattle and made the decision on when to treat (Pen-Rider) compared to the HerdDogg remote sensing ear tag that solely identified and flagged cattle in need of treatment (TAG). The HerdDogg tag is equipped with an accelerometer and to identify sick animals. It uses an algorithm based on itself and pen-mates’ activity. Steers assigned to the Pen-Rider strategy were evaluated daily for signs of Bovine Respiratory Disease (BRD) using the Depression – Appetite – Respiration – Temperature (DART) method. In the pen-rider treatment, rectal temperatures had to be equal to or greater than 104.0°F or less than 100.0°F for steers to be treated. Steers that were on the pen-rider treatment were equipped with HerdDogg tags, but they were not used in identifying sick cattle and the animal health personnel did not have access to the information generated by the tag. In the TAG group, steers were treated when first flagged by the HerdDogg tag, regardless of DART criteria. Cattle observed for signs of BRD were treated with Draxxin (Elanco Animal Health, Greenfield, IN) or Zuprevo (Merck Animal Health, Rahway, NJ). Steers were observed after the first treat and if there was no improvement, they were treated with Baytril (Elanco Animal Health, Greenfield, IN). If steers did not improve after the first two treatments, they were treated with Nuflor (Merck Animal Health, Rahway, NJ).

After 35 days, the cattle were limit fed at 2% of BW for 6 days with a diet of 50% sweet bran, 50% alfalfa hay. Cattle were weighed for two consecutive days, and body weight was averaged from the two days after subtracting initial body weight and dividing by 41-day average daily gain (ADG) was calculated. These weights were also used to calculate feed efficiency. Health data were also collected for both treatment groups. The average number of treatments per pen was calculated by categorizing cattle based on the frequency of treatments, either once, twice, or three times. A retrospective analysis compared the agreement of the HerdDogg tag with the treatments by the pen-riders in the pen-rider treatment pens. The comparison was organized into four categories: (1) treated and flagged, indicating that the steers received treatment from pen-riders and were identified by the HerdDogg tag, (2) flagged but not treated, indicating that the HerdDogg tag flagged but was not treated by pen-riders, (3) treated but not flagged, indicating that pen-riders treated the steer but the HerdDogg tag did not flag, and (4) not flagged and not treated, indicating that the pen-riders and tag identified the steer as healthy. 

Performance data were analyzed using the Mixed Procedure of SAS (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC). Pen was the experimental unit, and treatment and block were fixed effects. Proc Glimmix using a binomial distribution with a logit-link function was used for analysis of health data. Proc Univariate was used to determine the standard deviation of temperature. Significance was declared when a P < 0.05 with tendencies declared at P < 0.10.

Results

There were no differences between treatments for initial body weight, average daily gain, and feed efficiency (Table 1) for the first 41-d following receiving. For the health outcomes, a greater percentage of steers in the TAG treatment were treated one or more times compared to the Pen-Rider cattle (42.2% vs 31.7%, respectively; P = 0.01). The percentage of steers treated two or more times tended to be greater for TAG treatment compared to the Pen-Rider treatment (10.1% vs. 4.5%, respectively; P = 0.01). Additionally, a greater proportion of the cattle on the TAG treatment were treated three times compared to cattle on the Pen-Rider treatment (1.3% vs 0.2%, respectively; P = 0.10). These values were calculated by dividing the number of cattle treated by the initial number of head assigned to each pen. Rectal temperature was recorded for cattle in both treatments, and no difference was found in the average rectal temperature at the first treatment (104°F, P = 0.95). There were no differences (P = 0.71) for the standard deviation of temperature at the first treatment between the two treatment groups. This lack of variability in temperature would suggest that the steers who were pulled had rectal temperatures greater than the threshold, possibly indicating a health concern. 

In pens where the pen-riders made the treatment decision, agreement between the tag and pen-rider observations was limited. The pen-riders and HerdDogg tag agreed 43.7% of the time. Within that percentage, it can be shown that 23.7% of the cattle were treated and flagged by the pen-riders (Table 2), and 20% of the cattle were neither flagged nor treated, indicating there was agreement that the steers did not experience illness. Conversely, 42.1% of the cattle were flagged by the tag, but the pen-riders did not treat. However, within this category, it is difficult to assess how many steers needed treatment. The tag was shown to miss steers that were sick presumed sick by the animal health personnel with a percentage of 14.2%. When the HerdDogg tag and pen-riders both identified the same sick cattle within a 7-day window, the tag detected illness an average of one day earlier (32%, percent of pen). If cattle were treated outside of the 7-day agreement period, pen-riders identified sick cattle an average of 12 days earlier, suggesting that there were some calves that were missed by the tag or cattle were misdiagnosed by animal health personnel. 

Conclusions

There was no difference in body weight, average daily gain, dry matter intake, and feed efficiency. The HerdDogg tag identified a larger proportion of cattle, with a significantly greater percentage of animals being treated once. The tag also appeared to pull cattle deeper, flagging animals that may not have shown symptoms. In instances where the pen-riders and the HerdDogg tag agreed that a steer needed treatment, the tag identified the steer 1 day earlier. The HerdDogg tag is a valuable tool to support decision making when identifying sick animals.

Acknowledgment

Funding provided by HerdDogg; products supplied for use on cattle used in this experiment from Merck Animal Health, Zoetis, and Elanco Animal Health.

Copyright © 2025 The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska. All rights reserved.