Journal of Animal Science, Vol 79, Issue 5 1189-1193, Copyright © 2001 by American Society of Animal Science

EVALUATION STUDIES

Behavioral sampling techniques for feedlot cattle

F. M. Mitlohner, J. L. Morrow-Tesch, S. C. Wilson, J. W. Dailey and J. J. McGlone
Department of Animal Science & Food Technology, Texas Tech University, Lubbock 79409-2141, USA.

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.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. W. Purdy, R. N. Clark, and D. C. Straus Ambient and indoor particulate aerosols generated by dairies in the southern High Plains J Dairy Sci, December 1, 2009; 92(12): 6033 - 6045. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. M. Meiszberg, A. K. Johnson, L. J. Sadler, J. A. Carroll, J. W. Dailey, and N. Krebs Drinking behavior in nursery pigs: Determining the accuracy between an automatic water meter versus human observers J Anim Sci, December 1, 2009; 87(12): 4173 - 4180. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Ito, D. M. Weary, and M. A. G. von Keyserlingk Lying behavior: Assessing within- and between-herd variation in free-stall-housed dairy cows J Dairy Sci, September 1, 2009; 92(9): 4412 - 4420. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. M. Marcillac-Embertson, P. H. Robinson, J. G. Fadel, and F. M. Mitloehner Effects of shade and sprinklers on performance, behavior, physiology, and the environment of heifers J Dairy Sci, February 1, 2009; 92(2): 506 - 517. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. K. Bhandari, S. Li, K. H. Ominski, K. M. Wittenberg, and J. C. Plaizier Effects of the Chop Lengths of Alfalfa Silage and Oat Silage on Feed Intake, Milk Production, Feeding Behavior, and Rumen Fermentation of Dairy Cows J Dairy Sci, May 1, 2008; 91(5): 1942 - 1958. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				V. Robles, L. A. Gonzalez, A. Ferret, X. Manteca, and S. Calsamiglia Effects of feeding frequency on intake, ruminal fermentation, and feeding behavior in heifers fed high-concentrate diets J Anim Sci, October 1, 2007; 85(10): 2538 - 2547. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Rotger, A. Ferret, X. Manteca, J. L. R. de la Torre, and S. Calsamiglia Effects of dietary nonstructural carbohydrates and protein sources on feeding behavior of tethered heifers fed high-concentrate diets J Anim Sci, May 1, 2006; 84(5): 1197 - 1204. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. W. Overton, W. M. Sischo, G. D. Temple, and D. A. Moore Using Time-Lapse Video Photography to Assess Dairy Cattle Lying Behavior in a Free-Stall Barn J Dairy Sci, September 1, 2002; 85(9): 2407 - 2413. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. M. Mitlohner, M. L. Galyean, and J. J. McGlone Shade effects on performance, carcass traits, physiology, and behavior of heat-stressed feedlot heifers J Anim Sci, August 1, 2002; 80(8): 2043 - 2050. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]