Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T20:40:02.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The relationship between live-weight and herbage intake in grazing cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. Hodgson  and
J. M. Wilkinson
J. Hodgson
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, The University of Leeds
J. M. Wilkinson
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, The University of Leeds
Get access

Extract

Six dry cows, six in-calf heifers and six yearling calves grazed in groups of six, arranged either in single age groups or mixed age groups; the arrangements alternated, and each was repeated three times in a continuous grazing sequence with six-day periods. All the animals grazed together for a preliminary period of seven days. Under each arrangement the cattle grazed on a mature sward for two periods, and on an aftermath for one period. Access to fresh and grazed herbage was restricted by electric fences which were moved daily, but the amount of fresh herbage offered was well in excess of appetite at all times.

Records of live-weight, herbage intake, grazing behaviour and social dominance ranking were obtained for all individuals. There was a close relationship between live-weight (LW) and herbage organic matter intake (OMI) in each grazing period, and the regression equations for the six periods were very similar. The best-fit exponent of LW for the pooled results was 0·61±0·038; this was significantly different from 0·73 and 1·0. The exponent increased to 0·71±0·045 when the cow data were excluded. The inclusion of weight change as a third variable was only of value in the mature sward.

The calves ate significantly more, and the cows tended to eat more, when grazing in mixed age groups. These differences could not be explained by differences in the time spent grazing.

There were high simple correlations between LW and OMI, between social dominance rank and OMI, and between LW and rank, particularly in the mixed age groups. When variations in LW were excluded, dominance rank had little influence on OMI in the mixed age groups, but the independent effects of LW and social rank on OMI were of approximately equal importance in the single age groups.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , August 1967 , pp. 365 - 376
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1967

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

REFERENCES

Alder, F. E., 1959. Pasture experiments with animals. In The Measurement of Grassland Productivity (Ed. Ivins, J.). Proc. 6th Nottingham Easter School, pp. 109–118.Google Scholar
Baker, R. D., 1964. Grassland recording. III. A reappraisal of the use of live stock and starch equivalent standards in assessing the utilised production from grassland. J. Br. Grassld Soc., 19: 149–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beilharz, R. G., & Mylrea, P. J., 1963. Social position and behaviour of dairy heifers in yards. Anim. Behav., 11: 522–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L., 1960. Comment in Proc. 8th int. Grassld Congr., Reading, p. 490.Google Scholar
Breirem, K., 1960. Comment in Proc. 8th int. Grassld Congr., Reading, p. 490.Google Scholar
Brody, S., 1945. Bioenergetics and Growth. Reinhold, New York, pp. 383, 449, 470.Google Scholar
Conrad, H. R., Pratt, A. D., & Hibbs, J. W., 1964. Regulation of feed intake in dairy cows. I. Change in importance of physical and physiological factors with increasing digestibility. J. Dairy Sci., 47: 54–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, J. L., 1960. Faecal-index techniques for estimating herbage consumption by grazing cattle. Proc. 8th int. Grassld Congr., Reading, pp. 438–442.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A., & Yates, F., 1963. Statistical Tables for Biological, Agricultural and Medical Research. Oliver and Boyd, London.Google Scholar
Grassland Research Institute, 1961. Research Techniques in use at the Grassland Research Institute, Hurley. Commw. Bur. Past. Fld Crops Bull. no. 45.Google Scholar
Greenhalgh, J. F. D., & Corbett, J. L., 1960. The indirect estimation of the digestibility of pasture herbage. I. Nitrogen and chromogen as faecal-index substances. J. agric. Sci., Camb., 55: 371–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenhalgh, J. F. D., Reid, G. W., Aitken, J. N., & Florence, E., 1966. The effects of grazing intensity on herbage consumption and animal production. I. Short-term effects in strip-grazed dairy cows. J. agric. Sci., Camb., 67: 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guhl, A. M., 1962. The social environment and behaviour. In The Behaviour of Domestic Animals. (Ed. Hafez, E. S. E.). Bailliere, Tindall and Cox, London, pp. 96–108.Google Scholar
Hadjipieris, G., Jones, J. G. W., & Holmes, W., 1965. The effect of age and live-weight on the feed intake of grazing wether sheep. Anim. Prod., 7: 309–317.Google Scholar
Holmes, W., Jones, J. G. W., & Drake-Brockman, R. M., 1961. The feed intake of grazing cattle. II. The influence of size of animal on feed intake. Anim. Prod., 3: 251–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutton, J. B., 1962. The maintenance requirements of New Zealand dairy cattle. Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod., 22: 12–34.Google Scholar
Jones, J. G. W., Drake-Brockman, R. M., & Holmes, W., 1965. The feed intake of grazing cattle. III. The influence of level of milk yield. Anim. Prod., 7: 141–151.Google Scholar
Kilgour, R., & Scott, T. H., 1959. Leadership in dairy cows. Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod., 19: 36–43.Google Scholar
Langlands, J. P., Corbett, J. L., & McDonald, I., 1963. The indirect estimation of the digestibility of pasture herbage. III. Regressions of digestibility on faecal nitrogen concentration: effects of species and individuality of animal and of method of determining digestibility upon the relationships. J. agric. Sci., Comb., 61: 221–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McBride, G., James, J. W., & Hodgens, N., 1964. Social behaviour of domestic animals. IV. Growing pigs. Anim. Prod., 6: 129–139.Google Scholar
McPhee, C. P., McBride, G., & James, J. W., 1964. Social behaviour of domestic animals. III. Steers in small yards. Anim. Prod., 6: 9–15.Google Scholar
Schein, M. W., & Fohrmann, M. H., 1955. Social dominance relationships in a herd of dairy cattle. Br.J. Anim. Behav., 3: 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W., 1956. Statistical Methods. Iowa State College Press, Ames.Google Scholar
Wallace, L. R., 1956. The intake and utilisation of pasture by dairy cows. Proc. 7th int. Grassld Congr., New Zealand, pp. 134–145.Google Scholar
Wallace, L. R., 1961. Nutritional requirements of dairy cattle. Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod., 21: 64–78.Google Scholar
Weston, R. H., 1959. The efficiency of wool production of grazing Merino sheep. Aust. J. agric. Res., 10: 865–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar