Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T03:54:04.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of five methods that estimate meal criteria for cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

B. J. Tolkamp  and
I. Kyriazakis
B. J. Tolkamp
Affiliation:
Animal Biology Division, Scottish Agricultural College, The King’s Buildings, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
I. Kyriazakis
Affiliation:
Animal Biology Division, Scottish Agricultural College, The King’s Buildings, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
Get access

Abstract

In data collected for feeding behaviour analysis, feeding events are generally separated by many very short to very long intervals during which no feeding occurs. When feeding is clustered in bouts, a meal criterion (that is the longest non-feeding interval accepted as part of a meal) must be estimated before events can be grouped into meals. Until recently, three methods that estimate quantitative meal criteria were available. These methods consist of fitting a ‘broken-stick’ (two straight intersecting lines, both with a negative slope) to the frequency distribution (method 1), the loge-transformed cumulative frequency distribution (the log-survivorship curve; method 2) or the loge-transformed frequency distribution (method 3) of intervals between events. Recently, new methods have been proposed that fit either two (method 4) or three (method 5) Gaussians to the frequency distribution of loge-transformed interval length (log-normal models). We compare the estimates obtained with these five methods when applied to a data set of 79575 intervals between visits to food dispensers. These were recorded with 16 lactating cows during an average period of 156·6 (s.d. 51·5) days per cow. Meal criteria were estimated as 1·9, 6·0, 7·5, 32·4 and 49·1 min by methods 1 to 5, respectively. Estimated daily number of meals ranged from 5·7 to 12·1 per cow and estimated average meal size from 4·0 to 8·4 kg. The observed probabilities of cows initiating feeding in relation to time since feeding last showed best agreement with the predictions of the log-normal models. We conclude that the first three methods do not, while log-normal models do, have an adequate biological basis for a clear interpretation of the estimated meal criteria. Log-normal models are, therefore, the most promising for estimating meal criteria in cattle and probably in other species as well.

Keywords

dairy cowsfeeding behaviourmeals
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 69 , Issue 3 , December 1999 , pp. 501 - 514
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Collier, G. and Johnson, D. F. 1990. The time window of reeding. Physiology and Behavior 48: 771–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collier, G. and Johnson, D. F. 1997. Who is in charge? Animal vs. experimenter control. Appetite 29: 159–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corkum, M. J., Bate, L. A., Tennessen, T. and Lirette, A. 1994. Consequences of reduction of number of feeders on reeding behaviour and stress level of feedlot steers. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 41: 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dado, R. G. and Allen, M. S. 1993. Continuous computer acquisition of feed and water intakes, chewing, reticular motility and ruminal pH of cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 76: 1589–1600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, L. E. R. and Mayne, C. S. 1998. The effect of silage fermentation characteristics on dry-matter intake of steers. Animal Science 66: 105–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durst, B., Senn, M. and Langhans, W. 1993. Eating patterns of lactating dairy cows of 3 different breeds fed grass ad lib . Physiology and Behavior 54: 625–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elizalde, H. F. and Mayne, C. S. 1993. The effect of degree of competition per feed space on the dry matter intake and eating behaviour of dairy cows offered grass silage. Proceedings of the third research conference, British Grassland Society, Greenmount College, pp. 137–138.Google Scholar
Forbes, J. M. 1985. The importance of meals in the regulation of food intake. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society of Australia 10: 14–24.Google Scholar
Forbes, J. M. 1995. Voluntary food intake and diet selection in farm animals. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Forbes, J. M., Jackson, D. A., Johnson, C. L., Stockhill, P. and Doyle, B. S. 1986. A method for monitoring of food intake and feeding behaviour of individual cattle kept in a group. Research and Development in Agriculture 3: 175–180.Google Scholar
Francké, H., Junge, W. and Kalm, E. 1990. [Roughage intake of dairy cows with special consideration of the behaviour. I. Systematic effects on the roughage intake and the behaviour at the feeding rack.] Züchtungskunde 62: 333–348.Google Scholar
Gill, M. and Romney, D. 1994. The relationship between the control of meal size and the control of daily intake in ruminants. Livestock Production Science 39: 13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonyou, H. W. and Stricklin, W. R. 1981. Eating behaviour of beef cattle groups fed from a single stall or trough. Applied Animal Ethology 7: 123–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harb, M. Y. and Campling, R. C. 1985. Variation among pregnant, non-lactating dairy cows in eating and ruminating behaviour, digestibility and voluntary intake of hay. Grass and Forage Science 40: 109–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harb, M.Y., Reynolds, V. S. and Campling, R. C. 1985. Eating behaviour, social dominance and voluntary intake of silage in group-fed milking cattle. Grass and Forage Science 40: 113–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinrichs, A. J. and Conrad, H. R. 1987. Measuring feed-intake patterns and meal size of lactating dairy-cows. Journal of Dairy Science 70: 705–711.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Houston, A. 1990. Foraging in the context of life-history: general principles and specific models. In Behavioural mechanisms of food selection (ed. Hughes, R.N.), NATO ASI series G: ecological sciences vol. 20, 886, pp. 23–38. Springer Verlag, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, N. L., Kotz, S. and Balakrishnan, N. 1994. Continuous univanate distributions, vol. 1, second edition. Wiley Interscience, London.Google Scholar
Kleinbaum, D. G., Kupper, L. L. and Muller, K. E. 1988. Applied regression analysis and other multivariate methods. PWS-KENT Pubi. Co., Boston.Google Scholar
Langton, S. D., Collett, D. and Sibly, R. M. 1995. Splitting behaviour into bouts: a maximum likelihood approach. Behaviour 132: 781–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1987. GEN STAT V mark 1.3. Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden.Google Scholar
Marubini, E. and Valsecchi, M. G. 1995. Analysing survival data from clinical trials and observational studies. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.Google Scholar
Metz, J. H. M. 1975. Time patterns of feeding and rumination in domestic cattle. Agricultural University Communications, Wageningen, no. 75-12.Google Scholar
Morita, S., Devir, S., Ketelaar-de Lauwere, C. C., Smits, A. C., Hogeveen, H. and Metz, J. H. M. 1996. Effects of concentrate intake on subsequent roughage intake and eating behaviour of cows in an automatic milking system. Journal of Dairy Science 79: 1572–1580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, D. C., Yan, T., Gordon, F. J. and Kilpatrick, D. J. 1998. Effects of bacterial inoculation of unwilted and wilted grass silages. 2. Intake, performance and eating behaviour by dairy cattle. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 131: 113–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rook, A. J. and Huckle, C. A. 1997. Activity bout criteria for grazing cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 54: 89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sibly, R. M., Nott, H. M. R. and Fletcher, D. J. 1990. Splitting behaviour into bouts. Animal Behaviour 39: 63–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slater, P. J. and Lester, N.P. 1982. Minimising errors in splitting behaviour into bouts. Behaviour 79: 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stamer, E., Junge, W. and Kalm, E. 1997. [Temporal pattern of feeding of dairv cows kept in groups.] Archiv für Tierziichtuug 40: 195–214.Google Scholar
Thiago, L. R. L., Gill, M. and Sissons, J. W. 1992. Studies of method of conserving grass herbage and frequency of feeding in cattle. 2. Eating behaviour, rumen motility and rumen fill. British Journal of Nutrition 67: 319–336.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tolkamp, B. J., Allcroft, D. J., Austin, E.J., Nielsen, B. L. and Kyriazakis, I. 1998a. Satiety splits feeding behaviour into bouts. Journal of Theoretical Biology 194: 235–250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tolkamp, B. J., Day, J. E. L. and Kyriazakis, I. 1998b. Measuring food intake in farm and laboratory animals. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 57: 313–319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tolkamp, B. J., Dewhurst, R. J., Friggens, N. C, Kyriazakis, I., Veerkamp, R. F. and Oldham, J. D. 1998c. Diet choice by dairy cows. I. Selection of feed protein content during the first half of lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 81: 2657–2669.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tolkamp, B. J. and Ketelaars, J. J. M. H. 1994. Foraging behaviour programs in ruminants. In Livestock production in the 21st century. Priorities and research needs (ed. Thacker, P. A.), pp. 11–23. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.Google Scholar
Tolkamp, B. J. and Kyriazakis, I. 1997. Measuring diet selection in dairy cows: effect of training on choice of dietary protein level. Animal Science 64: 197–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolkamp, B. J. and Kyriazakis, I. 1999. To split behaviour into bouts, log-transform the intervals. Animal Behaviour 57: 807–817.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tolkamp, B. J., Kyriazakis, I., Oldham, J. D., Lewis, M., Dewhurst, R. J. and Newbold, J. R. 1998d. Diet choice by dairy cows. II. Selection for metabolizable protein or for ruminally degradable protein? Journal of Dairy Science 81: 2670–2680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed