Literature DB >> 11374538

Behavioral sampling techniques for feedlot cattle.

F M Mitlöhner1, J L Morrow-Tesch, S C Wilson, J W Dailey, J J McGlone.   

Abstract

Continuous observations are an accurate method for behavioral measurements but are difficult to conduct on large numbers of animals because of extensive labor requirements. Thus, we sought to develop methods of behavioral data collection in feedlot cattle production systems that reasonably approximated continuous sampling. Standing, lying, feeding, drinking, and walking behaviors were examined from 224 h of continuous video from 64 heifers. Experiment 1 (n = 24 heifers) compared continuous behavioral sampling techniques (Continuous) with scan sampling using intervals of 1, 5, 10, 15, 30, and 60 min and time sampling (a technique for the periodic recording of behavior) for the first 10 min out of every 60 min. Means for each scan sampling method did not differ in estimated percentage of duration of behaviors (P > 0.05) from continuous sampling, except for scan sampling with a 60-min interval. Scan sampling with a 60-min interval differed from more frequent scan sampling intervals for all behaviors except lying. Scan sampling with short intervals (1 and 5 min) was correlated highly with Continuous for all behaviors. The longer the scan interval, the lower the correlations, especially for behaviors with short duration. Time sampling was not an accurate technique for measuring the sampled behaviors. Focal animal sampling (using continuous sampling of individuals) indicated that one heifer was representative of the entire pen of 10 animals (Continuous) for all maintenance behaviors except drinking. Scan sampling methods (1-, 5-, 10-, and 15-min intervals) were accurate methods of behavioral sampling for feedlot cattle, but scan intervals of 30 or 60 min were less accurate and less precise. Time sampling was not an accurate method because it overestimated standing and underestimated lying behaviors. Experiment 2 (n = 40 heifers) investigated the number of focal animals required to accurately represent continuous behavioral sampling for all animals. Focal animal sampling was accurate for most behaviors using as few as 1 animal out of 10 but was not an accurate method for drinking behavior unless 40% of the animals in the pen were observed. Estimates of sample sizes needed for experimental protocols are provided. Behavioral means, standard deviations, and coefficients of variation are presented along with estimates of required sample sizes. These results validate accurate, precise, and efficient methods for quantifying feedlot cattle behavior.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11374538     DOI: 10.2527/2001.7951189x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anim Sci        ISSN: 0021-8812            Impact factor:   3.159


  21 in total

1.  The effects of shade on performance, carcass classes and behaviour of heat-stressed feedlot cattle at the finisher phase.

Authors:  K L Blaine; Ignatius Verla Nsahlai
Journal:  Trop Anim Health Prod       Date:  2010-11-21       Impact factor: 1.559

2.  Technical note: validation of a system for monitoring individual behavior in beef heifers.

Authors:  Victória R Merenda; Odinei Marques; Emily K Miller-Cushon; Nicolas Dilorenzo; Jimena Laporta; Ricardo C Chebel
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2019-12-17       Impact factor: 3.159

3.  Estimating optimal observational sampling frequency of behaviors for cattle fed high- and low-forage diets.

Authors:  R L Dong; G E Chibisa; K A Beauchemin
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2018-04-03       Impact factor: 3.159

4.  The effect of body weight on some welfare indicators in feedlot cattle in a hot environment.

Authors:  Serdal Dikmen; Hakan Ustuner; Abdulkadir Orman
Journal:  Int J Biometeorol       Date:  2011-05-01       Impact factor: 3.787

5.  The effect of shearing in a hot environment on some welfare indicators in Awassi lambs.

Authors:  Serdal Dikmen; Abdulkadir Orman; Hakan Ustuner
Journal:  Trop Anim Health Prod       Date:  2011-04-21       Impact factor: 1.559

6.  Administering an appeasing substance to beef calves at weaning to optimize productive and health responses during a 42-d preconditioning program.

Authors:  Kelsey M Schubach; Reinaldo F Cooke; Courtney L Daigle; Alice P Brandão; Bruna Rett; Vitor S M Ferreira; Giovanna N Scatolin; Eduardo A Colombo; Genevieve M D'Souza; Ky G Pohler; Bruno I Cappellozza
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2020-09-01       Impact factor: 3.159

7.  Technical note: Instantaneous sampling intervals validated from continuous video observation for behavioral recording of feedlot lambs.

Authors:  A N Pullin; M D Pairis-Garcia; B J Campbell; M R Campler; K L Proudfoot
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 3.159

8.  Impact of exercise on productivity, behavior, and immune functioning of weaned Bos indicus-cross calves housed in drylots.

Authors:  C L Daigle; B Jackson; R Gill; T A Wickersham; J E Sawyer
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 3.159

9.  Water spray cooling during handling of feedlot cattle.

Authors:  Tami M Brown-Brandl; Roger A Eigenberg; John A Nienaber
Journal:  Int J Biometeorol       Date:  2009-12-04       Impact factor: 3.787

10.  Movement Behaviour of Traditionally Managed Cattle in the Eastern Province of Zambia Captured Using Two-Dimensional Motion Sensors.

Authors:  Caesar H Lubaba; Arata Hidano; Susan C Welburn; Crawford W Revie; Mark C Eisler
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-09-14       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.