Can animal performance be predicted from short-term grazing processes?
P. C. F. Carvalho A E , C. Bremm B , J. C. Mezzalira A , L. Fonseca A , J. K. da Trindade B , O. J. F. Bonnet A , M. Tischler A , T. C. M. Genro C , C. Nabinger A and E. A. Laca DA Grazing Ecology Research Group, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS 91540-000, Brazil.
B Agricultural and Livestock Research Foundation, Porto Alegre, RS 90130-060, Brazil.
C Embrapa Southern Region Animal Husbandry, Bagé, RS 96401-970, Brazil.
D Plant Science Department, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA.
E Corresponding author. Email: paulocfc@ufrgs.br
Animal Production Science 55(3) 319-327 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN14546
Submitted: 2 May 2014 Accepted: 3 October 2014 Published: 5 February 2015
Abstract
Despite all the biotic and abiotic factors affecting foraging by ruminants, there is a common and fundamental process, which is bite gathering. We hypothesised that because the mechanics of bite formation dominate the foraging process, changes in short-term bite mass are reflected in longer-term animal performance across a wide range of sward conditions. We focus at the meal level of foraging, using experiments in which the effect of abiotic factors and digestive constrains are minimised, making intake rate the main currency. We estimated bite mass across a wide range of structural challenges to large-herbivore foraging in a long-term experiment with heterogeneous native grasslands. A conceptual model was developed for average daily gain, where energy gain and energy costs were proximate causal variables. Energy gain was a function of diet quality and components of daily intake rate, where bite mass was the main component estimated. In turn, components of intake rate were determined by sward structure and bodyweight. Energy costs were a function of bodyweight and abiotic conditions. Finally, sward structure, bodyweight and abiotic conditions were determined by experimental treatments, seasons and years. Then, the conceptual model was translated into statistical models that included variables measured or estimated, and coefficients representing all links in the conceptual model. Weight gain was a function of bite mass, forage characteristics, and animal and abiotic conditions. Models were set up to test whether forage and stocking conditions affected monthly gain beyond the effects through bite mass, after correcting for abiotic factors. Forage mass, height and disappearance did help predict monthly gain after bite mass was included in the model, which supported our hypothesis. However, stocking treatments and season had significant effects not incorporated in bite mass. Although the model explained 77.9% of liveweight gain variation, only 35.2% was due to fixed effects, with 10.8% accounted by bite mass and its interactions. Concomitant experiments showed that sward structure (first with sward height and the second with tussock cover) does determine bite mass and short-term intake rate in the complex native grasslands we studied. Yet, other temporal varying components of monthly gain not correlated with bite mass, temperature or wind, added most of the observed variation in monthly animal performance. Part of the model failure to account for variation in performance may be related to a significant and temporally variable grazing of tussocks. We used a bite mass model that assumed no tussock grazing. In light of these results and a parallel experiment, we conclude that tussock grazing must be incorporated in future versions of the model.
Additional keywords: average daily gain, bite mass, intake rate, native grasslands, sward structure.
References
Agreil C, Meuret M, Fritz H (2006) Adjustment of feeding choices and intake by a ruminant foraging in varied and variable environments: new insights from continuous bite monitoring. In ‘Feeding in domestic vertebrates: from structure to behaviour’. (Ed. V Bels) pp. 302–325. (CAB International: Wageningen, The Netherlands)Amaral MF, Mezzalira JC, Bremm C, Da Trindade JK, Gibb MJ, Suñe RWM, Carvalho PCF (2013) Sward structure management for a maximum short-term intake rate in annual ryegrass. Grass and Forage Science 68, 271–277.
| Sward structure management for a maximum short-term intake rate in annual ryegrass.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bailey DW, Gross JE, Laca EA, Rittenhouse LR, Coughenour MB, Swift DM, Sims PL (1996) Mechanisms that result in large herbivore grazing distribution patterns. Journal of Range Management 49, 386–400.
| Mechanisms that result in large herbivore grazing distribution patterns.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) ‘Lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-6.’ Available at http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4 [Verified 25 April 2014]
Baumont R, Cohen-Salmon D, Prache S, Sauvant D (2004) A mechanistic model of intake and grazing behaviour in sheep integrating sward architecture and animal decisions. Animal Feed Science and Technology 112, 5–28.
| A mechanistic model of intake and grazing behaviour in sheep integrating sward architecture and animal decisions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bergman CM, Fryxell JM, Gates CC, Fortin D (2001) Ungulate foraging strategies: energy maximizing or time minimizing? Journal of Animal Ecology 70, 289–300.
| Ungulate foraging strategies: energy maximizing or time minimizing?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bilenca D, Miñaro F (2004) ‘Identificación de áreas valiosas de pastizal en las Pampas y Campos de Argentina, Uruguay y Sur de Brasil.’ (Fundación vida Silvestre: BuenosAires, AR)
Bonnet OJF, Meuret M, Tischler MR, Cezimbra IM, Azambuja JCR, Carvalho PCF (2015) Continuous bite monitoring: a method to assess the foraging dynamics of herbivores in natural grazing conditions. Animal Production Science 55, 339–349.
| Continuous bite monitoring: a method to assess the foraging dynamics of herbivores in natural grazing conditions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bremm C, Laca EA, Fonseca L, Mezzalira JC, Elejalde DAG, Gonda HL, Carvalho PCF (2012) Foraging behaviour of beef heifers and ewes in natural grasslands with distinct proportions of tussocks. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 141, 108–116.
| Foraging behaviour of beef heifers and ewes in natural grasslands with distinct proportions of tussocks.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cangiano CA, Galli JR, Pece MA, Dichio L, Rozsypalek SH (2002) Effect of live weight and pasture height on cattle bite dimensions during progressive defoliation. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 53, 541–549.
| Effect of live weight and pasture height on cattle bite dimensions during progressive defoliation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Carvalho PCF (2013) Harry Stobbs memorial lecture: can grazing behaviour support innovations in grassland management? Tropical Grasslands – Forrajes Tropicales 1, 137–155.
Da Trindade JK, Pinto CE, Neves FP, Mezzalira JC, Bremm C, Genro TCM, Tischler MR, Nabinger C, Gonda HL, Carvalho PCF (2012) Forage allowance as a target of grazing management: implications on grazing time and forage searching. Rangeland Ecology and Management 65, 382–393.
| Forage allowance as a target of grazing management: implications on grazing time and forage searching.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Delagarde R, Faverdin P, Baratte C, Peyraud JL (2011) GrazeIn: a model of herbage intake and milk production for grazing dairy cows. 2. Prediction of intake under rotational and continuously stocked grazing management. Grass and Forage Science 66, 45–60.
| GrazeIn: a model of herbage intake and milk production for grazing dairy cows. 2. Prediction of intake under rotational and continuously stocked grazing management.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dove H (1996) Constraints to the modelling of diet selection and intake in the grazing ruminant. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 47, 257–275.
| Constraints to the modelling of diet selection and intake in the grazing ruminant.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Fortin D (2006) The allometry of plant spacing that regulates food intake rate in mammalian herbivores. Ecology 87, 1861–1866.
| The allometry of plant spacing that regulates food intake rate in mammalian herbivores.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16922334PubMed |
Fortin D, Fryxell JM, Pilote R (2002) The temporal scale of foraging decisions in bison. Ecology 83, 970–982.
| The temporal scale of foraging decisions in bison.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gonçalves EN, Carvalho PCF, Kunrath TR, Carassai IJ, Bremm C, Fischer V (2009) Relações planta-animal em ambiente pastoril heterogêneo: processo de ingestão de forragem. Brazilian Journal of Animal Science 38, 1655–1662. [In Portuguese]
Gregorini P, Minnee EM, Griffiths W, Lee JM (2013) Dairy cows increase ingestive mastication and reduce ruminative chewing when grazing chicory and plantain. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 7798–7805.
| Dairy cows increase ingestive mastication and reduce ruminative chewing when grazing chicory and plantain.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3sXhs1WitbfN&md5=ea15ba1716e42a6c1b0a8b114d730fa1CAS | 24119808PubMed |
IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística) (2004) ‘Mapa da vegetação do Brasil e Mapa de Biomas do Brasil.’ Available at www.ibge.gov.br/home/geociencias/default_prod.shtm#USO [Verified 4 April 2014]
Illius AW, Gordon IJ (1987) The allometry of food intake in grazing ruminants. Journal of Applied Ecology 56, 989–999.
| The allometry of food intake in grazing ruminants.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Laca EA (2008) Foraging in a heterogeneous environment: intake and diet selection. In ‘Resource ecology: spatial and temporal dynamics of foraging’. (Ed. V Bels) pp. 81–100. (CAB International: Wageningen, The Netherlands)
Laca EA, Ungar ED, Seligman N, Demment MW (1992) Effects of sward height and bulk density on bite dimensions of cattle grazing homogeneous swards. Grass and Forage Science 47, 91–102.
| Effects of sward height and bulk density on bite dimensions of cattle grazing homogeneous swards.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Laca EA, Ungar ED, Demment MW (1994) Mechanisms of handling time and intake rate of a large mammalian grazer. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39, 3–19.
| Mechanisms of handling time and intake rate of a large mammalian grazer.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mezzalira JC, Bremm C, Da Trindade JK, Nabinger C, Carvalho PCF (2012) The ingestive behaviour of cattle in large-scale and its application to pasture management in heterogeneous pastoral environments. Journal of Agricultural Science & Technology A 2, 909–916.
Mezzalira JC, Fonseca L, Bremm C, Cangiano C, Gonda HL, Carvalho PCF, Laca EA (2014) Behavioural mechanisms of intake rate by heifers grazing swards of contrasting structures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 153, 1–9.
| Behavioural mechanisms of intake rate by heifers grazing swards of contrasting structures.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Murray MG (1991) Maximizing energy retention in grazing ruminants. Journal of Animal Ecology 60, 1029–1045.
| Maximizing energy retention in grazing ruminants.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Neves FP (2012) Oferta de forragem em pastagem natural: estrutura de pasto e taxa de ingestão de novilhas de corte. PhD Thesis, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
NRC (1996) ‘National Research Council: nutrient requeriment of beef cattle.’ 7 edn. (National Academy Press: Washington, DC)
Osuji PI (1974) The physiology of eating and the energy expenditure of the ruminant at pasture. Journal of Range Management 27, 437–443.
| The physiology of eating and the energy expenditure of the ruminant at pasture.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
R Development Core Team (2014) ‘R: a language and environment for statistical computing.’ (R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna) Available at http://www.R-project.org/ [Verified 25 April 2014]
Searle KR, Hobbs NT, Gordon IJ (2007) It’s the ‘foodscape’, not the landscape: using foraging behavior to make functional assessments of landscape condition. Israel Journal of Ecology & Evolution 53, 297–316.
| It’s the ‘foodscape’, not the landscape: using foraging behavior to make functional assessments of landscape condition.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Senft RL, Coughenour MB, Bailey DW, Rittenhouse LR, Sala OE, Swift DM (1987) Large herbivore foraging and ecological hierarchies. Bioscience 37, 789–799.
| Large herbivore foraging and ecological hierarchies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Shipley LA (2007) The influence of bite size on foraging at larger spatial and temporal scales by mammalian herbivores. Oikos 116, 1964–1974.
| The influence of bite size on foraging at larger spatial and temporal scales by mammalian herbivores.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Soder KJ, Sanderson MA, Gregorini P, Orr RJ, Rubano MD, Rook AJ (2009) Relationship of bite mass of cattle to sward structure of four temperate grasses in short-term grazing sessions. Grass and Forage Science 64, 421–431.
| Relationship of bite mass of cattle to sward structure of four temperate grasses in short-term grazing sessions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Stobbs TH (1975) A comparison of zulu sorghum, bulrush millet and white panicum in terms of yield, forage quality and milk production. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 15, 211–218.
| A comparison of zulu sorghum, bulrush millet and white panicum in terms of yield, forage quality and milk production.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DyaE2MXktVOqtbc%3D&md5=d7a4eb5930193ac4ab2d2b9eb74cb91aCAS |
Yearsley J, Tolkamp BJ, Illius AW (2001) Theoretical developments in the study and prediction of food intake. The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 60, 145–156.
| Theoretical developments in the study and prediction of food intake.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M3hsVKrsQ%3D%3D&md5=8a22dc7c3045698b2611849a4f742ed6CAS | 11310420PubMed |
