Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T07:44:53.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Seasonal and interannual variations in feeding station behavior of cattle: effects of sward and meteorological conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2014

M. Hirata ,
Y. Matsumoto ,
S. Izumi ,
Y. Soga ,
F. Hirota  and
M. Tobisa
M. Hirata*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Grassland Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Miyazaki, Miyazaki 889-2192, Japan
Y. Matsumoto
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Grassland Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Miyazaki, Miyazaki 889-2192, Japan
S. Izumi
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Grassland Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Miyazaki, Miyazaki 889-2192, Japan
Y. Soga
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Grassland Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Miyazaki, Miyazaki 889-2192, Japan
F. Hirota
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Grassland Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Miyazaki, Miyazaki 889-2192, Japan
M. Tobisa
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Grassland Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Miyazaki, Miyazaki 889-2192, Japan
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

A feeding station is the area of forage a grazing animal can reach without moving its forefeet. Grazing behavior can be divided into residence within feeding stations (with bites as benefits) and movement between feeding stations (with steps as costs). However, relatively little information has been reported on how grazing animals modify their feeding station behavior seasonally and interannually in response to varying environmental conditions. The feeding station behavior of beef cows (Japanese Black) stocked on a tropical grass pasture (bahiagrass dominant) was monitored for 4 years (2010 to 2013) in order to investigate the association of feeding station behavior with meteorological and sward conditions across the seasons and years. Mean air temperature during stocking often exceeded 30°C during summer months. A severe summer drought in 2013 decreased herbage mass and sward height of the pasture and increased nitrogen concentration of herbage from summer to autumn. A markedly high feeding station number per unit foraging time, low bite numbers per feeding station and a low bite rate were observed in summer 2013 compared with the other seasons and years. Bite number per feeding station was explained by a multiple regression equation, where sward height and dry matter digestibility of herbage had a positive effect, whereas air temperature during stocking had a negative effect (R2=0.658, P<0.01). Feeding station number per minute was negatively correlated with bite number per feeding station (r=–0.838, P<0.001). It was interpreted that cows modified bite number per feeding station in response to the sward and meteorological conditions, and this largely determined the number of feeding stations the animals visited per minute. The results indicate potential value of bite number per feeding station as an indicator of daily intake in grazing animals, and an opportunity for livestock and pasture managers to control feeding station behavior of animals through managements (e.g. fertilizer application, manipulation of stocking intensity and stocking time within the day).

Keywords

cattlegrazingbitestepsward condition
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , April 2015 , pp. 682 - 690
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

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

Bailey, DW, Gross, JE, Laca, EA, Rittenhouse, LR, Coughenour, MB, Swift, DM and Sims, PL 1996. Mechanisms that result in large herbivore grazing distribution patterns. Journal of Range Management 49, 386–400.Google Scholar
Boval, M, Cruz, P, Ledet, JE, Coppry, O and Archimede, H 2002. Effect of nitrogen on intake and digestibility of a tropical grass grazed by Creole heifers. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 138, 73–84.Google Scholar
Da Silva, SC, Gimenes, FMA, Sarmento, DOL, Sbrissia, AF, Oliveira, DE, Hernadez-Garay, A and Pires, AV 2013. Grazing behaviour, herbage intake and animal performance of beef cattle heifers on marandu palisade grass subjected to intensities of continuous stocking management. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 151, 727–739.Google Scholar
Dumont, B, Garel, JP, Ginane, C, Decuq, F, Farruggia, A, Pradel, P, Rigolot, C and Petit, M 2007. Effect of cattle grazing a species-rich mountain pasture under different stocking rates on the dynamics of diet selection and sward structure. Animal 1, 1042–1052.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
El Aich, A, Moukadem, A and Rittenhouse, LR 1989. Feeding station behavior of free-grazing sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 24, 259–265.Google Scholar
Fryxell, JM 1991. Forage quality and aggregation by large herbivores. American Naturalist 138, 478–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddard, J 1968. Food preferences of two black rhinoceros populations. East African Wildlife Journal 6, 1–18.Google Scholar
Goto, I and Minson, DJ 1977. Prediction of the dry matter digestibility of tropical grasses using a pepsin-cellulase assay. Animal Feed Science and Technology 2, 247–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregorini, P, Gunter, SA, Masino, CA and Beck, PA 2007. Effects of ruminal fill on short-term herbage intake rate and grazing dynamics of beef heifers. Grass and Forage Science 62, 346–354.Google Scholar
Gregorini, P, Gunter, SA, Beck, PA, Caldwell, J, Bowman, MT and Coblentz, WK 2009. Short-term foraging dynamics of cattle grazing swards with different canopy structures. Journal of Animal Science 87, 3817–3824.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gregorini, P, Clark, C, McLeod, K, Glassey, C, Romera, A and Jago, J 2011. Feeding station behavior of grazing dairy cows in response to restriction of time at pasture. Livestock Science 137, 287–291.Google Scholar
Hirata, M 1993. Response of bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum Flügge) sward to cutting height. 2. Yield and in vitro digestibility of herbage. Journal of Japanese Society of Grassland Science 39, 183–195.Google Scholar
Hirata, M 2000. Quantifying spatial heterogeneity in herbage mass and consumption in pastures. Journal of Range Management 53, 315–321.Google Scholar
Hirata, M 2004. Canopy dynamics in bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) swards. In Recent research developments in crop science (vol. 1, Part I (ed. SG Pandalai)), pp. 117–145. Research Signpost, Kerala, India.Google Scholar
Hirata, M and Ueno, M 1993. Response of bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum Flügge) sward to cutting height. 1. Dry weight of plant and litter. Journal of Japanese Society of Grassland Science 38, 487–497.Google Scholar
Hirata, M, Kunieda, E and Tobisa, M 2010a. Short-term ingestive behaviour of cattle grazing tropical stoloniferous grasses with contrasting growth forms. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 148, 615–624.Google Scholar
Hirata, M, Nakayama, Y and Tobisa, M 2010b. Interindividual variability in feeding station behavior in cattle: a preliminary study. Grassland Science 56, 108–115.Google Scholar
Hirata, M, Sakou, A, Terayama, Y, Furuya, M and Nanba, T 2008. Selection of feeding areas by cattle in a spatially heterogeneous environment: selection between two tropical grasses. Journal of Ethology 26, 327–338.Google Scholar
Hirata, M, Murakami, K, Ikeda, K, Oka, K and Tobisa, M 2012. Cattle use protein as a currency in patch choice on tropical grass swards. Livestock Science 150, 209–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirata, M, Ogawa, Y, Koyama, N, Shindo, K, Sugimoto, Y, Higashiyama, M, Ogura, S and Fukuyama, K 2006. Productivity of bahiagrass pastures in south-western Japan: synthesis of data from grazing trials. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 192, 79–91.Google Scholar
Japan Meteorological Agency 2014. Climate database. Retrieved March 5, 2014, from http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/index.html Google Scholar
Jiang, Z and Hudson, RJ 1993. Optimal grazing of wapiti (Cervus elaphus) on grassland: patch and feeding station departure rules. Evolutionary Ecology 7, 488–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazo, A and Soriguer, RC 1993. Size-biased foraging behaviour in feral cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 36, 99–110.Google Scholar
Murray, MG 1991. Maximizing energy retention in grazing ruminants. Journal of Animal Ecology 60, 1029–1045.Google Scholar
National Research Council 1987. Predicting feed intake of food-producing animals. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Ogura, S, Sekino, R and Hirata, M 2004. Foraging behavior of cattle in a bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum Flügge) pasture: investigation at a feeding station scale. Grassland Science 50, 147–153.Google Scholar
Roguet, C, Dumont, B and Prache, S 1998a. Selection and use of feeding sites and feeding stations by herbivores: a review. Annales de Zootechnie 47, 225–244.Google Scholar
Roguet, C, Prache, S and Petit, M 1998b. Feeding station behaviour of ewes in response to forage availability and sward phenological stage. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 56, 187–201.Google Scholar
Ruyle, GB and Dwyer, DD 1985. Feeding stations of sheep as an indicator of diminished forage supply. Journal of Animal Science 61, 349–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, KR, Hobbs, NT and Shipley, LA 2005. Should I stay or should I go? Patch departure decisions by herbivores at multiple scales. Oikos 111, 417–424.Google Scholar
Senft, RL, Coughenour, MB, Bailey, DW, Rittenhouse, LR, Sala, OE and Swift, DM 1987. Large herbivore foraging and ecological hierarchies. BioScience 37, 789–799.Google Scholar
Shingu, Y, Kondo, S and Hata, H 2010. Differences in grazing behavior of horses and cattle at the feeding station scale on woodland pasture. Animal Science Journal 81, 384–392.Google Scholar
Vallentine, JF 1990. Grazing management. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA.Google Scholar