Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:44:21.883Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Validation of scan sampling techniques for behavioural observations of pastured lambs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

AN Pullin ,
MD Pairis-Garcia ,
MR Campler  and
KL Proudfoot
AN Pullin
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, 2029 Fyffe Road, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA
MD Pairis-Garcia*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, 2029 Fyffe Road, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA
MR Campler
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, 2029 Fyffe Road, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA
KL Proudfoot
Affiliation:
Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University, 1920 Coffey Road, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The study of farm animal behaviour is a critical tool for assessing animal welfare. Collecting behavioural data with continuous sampling or short scan sampling intervals (eg every 60th second) is considered ideal as this provides the most complete and accurate dataset; however, these methods are also time and labour intensive. Longer sampling intervals provide an alternative in order to increase efficiency, but these require validation to ensure accurate estimation of the data. This study aims to validate scan sampling intervals for lambs (Ovis aries) housed on pasture. Grazing, lying, standing, drinking, locomotion, and mineral consumption were evaluated from six pens of crossbred lambs (six lambs per pen) for 15 h. Data from 1-min instantaneous scan sampling were compared with data from instantaneous scan sampling intervals of 5, 10, 15, and 20 min in two statistical tests: generalised linear mixed model and regression analysis. Using the mixed model, the percentage of time each behaviour was performed did not differ amongst sampling intervals for all behaviours except grazing, which was statistically different at 20-min intervals. Using regression analysis, lying and grazing estimations were accurate up to 20-min intervals, and standing was accurate at 10- and 20-min intervals only. Locomotion, mineral consumption, and drinking demonstrated poor associations for all tested intervals. The results from this study suggest that a 10-min instantaneous scan sampling interval will accurately estimate lying, grazing, and standing behaviour for lambs on pasture. This validation will assist with the efficiency of future data collection in lamb behaviour and welfare research.

Keywords

animal welfarelambpasturescan samplingsheepvalidation
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , May 2017 , pp. 185 - 190
Copyright
© 2017 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Al-Ramamneh, D, Riek, A and Gerken, M 2012 Effect of water restriction on drinking behaviour and water intake in German black-head mutton sheep and Boer goats. Animal 6(1): 173–178. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731111001431CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Altmann, J 1974 Obervational study of behavior: sampling meth-ods. Behaviour 39(3/4): 227–267. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853974X00534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold-Meeks, C and McGlone, JJ 1986 Validating techniques to sample behavior of confined, young pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 16: 149–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(86)90107-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bojkovski, D, Tuhec, I, Kompan, D and Zupan, M 2014 The behavior of sheep and goats co-grazing on pasture with different types of vegetation in the Karst region. Journal of Animal Science 92(6): 2752–758. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2013-7199CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, Y, Luo, H, Liu, X, Wang, Z, Zhang, Y, Liu, K, Jiao, L, Chang, Y and Zuo, Z 2013 Effect of restricted grazing time on the foraging behavior and movement of Tan sheep grazed on desert steppe. Asian Australasian Journal of Animal Science 26(5): 711–715. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2012.12556CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daigle, CL and Siegford, JM 2014 When continuous observations just won't do: Developing accurate and efficient sampling strategies for the laying hen. Behavioural Processes 103: 58–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2013.11.002Google ScholarPubMed
Dwyer, CM and Lawrence, AB 1999 Ewe-ewe and ewe-lamb behaviour in a hill and a lowland breed of sheep: a study using embryo transfer. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 61: 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(98)00203-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endres, MI, DeVries, TJ, von Keyserlingk, MAG and Weary, DM 2005 Short communication: Effect of feed barrier design on the behavior of loose-housed lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 88: 2377–2380. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)72915-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gonyou, HW 1994 Why the study of animal behavior is asso-ciated with the animal welfare issue. Journal of Animal Science 72: 2171–2177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, RH, Bissio, J, Samuel, MJ and Waggoner, JW Jr 1993 Grazing systems, pasture size, and cattle grazing behavior, distri-bution and gains. Journal of Range Management 46(1): 81–87. https://doi.org/10.2307/4002452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Key, C and MacIver, RM 1980 The effects of maternal influences on sheep: breed differences in grazing, resting and courtship behaviour. Applied Animal Ethology 6: 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3762(80)90092-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitts, BL, Duncan, IJH, McBride, BW and DeVries, TJ 2011 Effect of the provision of a low-nutritive feedstuff on the behavior of dairy heifers limit fed a high-concentrate ration. Journal of Dairy Science 94: 940–950. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-3767CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kristensen, HH, Prescott, NB, Perry, GC, Ladewig, J, Ersbøll, AK, Overvad, KC and Wathes, CM 2007 The behav-iour of broiler chickens in different light sources and illuminances. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 103(1-2): 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.04.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledgerwood, DN, Winckler, C and Tucker, CB 2010 Evaluation of data loggers, sampling intervals, and editing techniques for measuring the lying behavior of dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 93: 5129–5139. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2945CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lehner, PL 1992 Sampling methods in behavior research. Poultry Science 71: 643–649. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0710643CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lin, L, Dickhoefer, U, Müller, K, Wurina, and Susenbeth, A 2011 Grazing behavior of sheep at different stocking rates in the Inner Mongolian steppe, China. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 129: 36–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, P and Bateson, P 2007 Measuring Behaviour: An Introductory Guide. Cambridge University Press: New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller-Cushon, EK and DeVries, TJ 2011 Technical note: Validation of methodology for characterization of feeding behav-ior in dairy calves. Journal of Dairy Science 94: 6103–6110. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2011-4589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitlöhner, FM, Morrow-Tesch, JL, Wilson, SC, Dailey, JW and McGlone, JJ 2001 Behavioral sampling techniques for feed-lot cattle. Journal of Animal Science 79: 1189–1193. https://doi.org/10.2527/2001.7951189xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowak, R, Porter, RH, Blache, D and Dwyer, CM 2008 Behaviour and the welfare of the sheep. In: Dwyer, CM (ed) The Welfare of Sheep pp 81–123. Springer Science: Dordrecht, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8553-6_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pokorná, P, Hejcmanová, P, Hejcman, M and Pavlů, V 2013 Activity time budget patterns of sheep and goats co-grazing on semi-natural species-rich dry grassland. Czech Journal of Animal Science 58: 208–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senft, RL, Rittenhouse, LR and Woodmansee, RG 1985 Factors influencing patterns of cattle grazing behavior on short-grass steppe. Journal of Range Management 38(1): 82–87. https://doi.org/10.2307/3899341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tait, RM and Fisher, LJ 1996 Variability in individual animal's intake of minerals offered free-choice to grazing ruminants. Animal Feed Science and Technology 62(1): 69–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(96)01007-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
USDA 2012 Sheep 2011, Part I: Reference of Sheep Management Practices in the United States. USDA-APHIS-VS-CEAH-NAHMS: Fort Collins, Colorado, USAGoogle Scholar
Villalba, JJ, Provenza, FD, Clemensen, AK, Larsen, R and Juhnke, J 2011 Preference for diverse pastures by sheep in response to intraruminal administrations of tannins, saponins and alkaloids. Grass and Forage Science 66: 224–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2494.2010.00779.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whalin, L, Pairis-Garcia, MD, Proudfoot, KL, Stalder, K and Johnson, A 2016 Validating behavioral sampling techniques for lame sows administered flunixin meglumine and meloxicam. Livestock Science 191: 103–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livs-ci.2016.07.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar