Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T07:14:50.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Choice of foraging patches by hill sheep given different opportunities to seek shelter and food

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

R.W. Mayes
Affiliation:
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, UK
S.A. Young
Affiliation:
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, UK
C.S. Lamb
Affiliation:
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, UK
P. MacEachern
Affiliation:
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, UK
Get access

Abstract

A patch choice experiment was conducted in which sheep were offered choices between patches of upland pasture which differed in their sward height and degree of shelter from the wind. Experimental plots (48 m 4 m) were divided into 4 m 4 m patches. Alternate patches were mown in advance of the experiment to create nominal sward heights of 4 and 6 cm. Portable shelters were erected on the windward side of alternate patches to reduce wind speed on sheltered patches by half. The four treatment combinations used to test the influence of sward height, shelter and their interaction on patch use were: patchy swards with and without shelters and uniform swards with and without shelters. Five adult sheep per treatment were observed while grazing the plots for 6 h/day on five occasions (days) in autumn. Patch choice was measured by video observation and using a patch marker technique. On none of the observation days was the weather condition sufficiently severe that animals were outside their thermoneutral zone. There was a strong influence of sward height on patch use with sheep spending 0·382 of their time on short swards when patchy swards were offered compared with 0·503 of their time on equivalent areas when swards were uniform. Thermal conditions did not influence patch choice with sheep spending an average of 0·442 of their time on equivalent patches whether they were sheltered or not. There was no interaction between sward conditions and thermal conditions on the amount of time spent on different patches. Data from the patch marker method supported observation data. The results confirm that sheep are resilient to extremes of cold weather commonly occurring at temperate latitudes and suggest that thermal constraints have minimal influence on the small-scale foraging movements of sheep, as long as they remain within their thermoneutral zone.

Type
Ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2001

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

Agricultural Research Council. 1980. The nutrient requirements of ruminant livestock. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Farnham Royal.Google Scholar
Bailey, D. W., Gross, J. E., Laca, E. A., Rittenhouse, L. R., Coughenour, M. B., Swift, D. M. and Sims, P. L. 1996. Mechanisms that result in large herbivore grazing distribution patterns. Journal of Range Management 49: 386400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. 1977. Environmental factors and their influence on the nutrition of farm livestock. In Nutrition and the climatic environment. (ed. Haresign, W., Swan, H. and Lewis, D.), pp. 116. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Distel, R. A., Laca, E. A., Griggs, T. C. and Demment, M. W. 1995. Patch selection by cattle: maximization of intake rate in horizontally heterogeneous pastures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 45: 1121.Google Scholar
Dove, H. and Mayes, R. W. 1996. Plant wax components: a new approach to estimating intake and diet composition in herbivores. Journal of Nutrition 126: 1326.Google Scholar
Duncan, A. J., Hartley, S.E. and Iason, G. R. 1994. Fine scale discrimination of forage quality by sheep offered a soya-bean meal or barley supplement while grazing a nitrogen-fertilized heather (Calluna vulgaris) mosaic. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 123: 363370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, A. J., Mayes, R. W., Lamb, C. S., Young, S. A. and Castillo, I. 1999. The use of naturally occurring and artificially applied n-alkanes as markers for estimation of short-term diet composition and intake in sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 132: 233246.Google Scholar
Genstat 5 Committee. 1993. Genstat 5 release 3 reference manual. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Grace, J. and Easterbee, N. 1979. The natural shelter for red deer (Cervus elaphus) in a Scottish glen. Journal of Applied Ecology 16: 3748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, S. A., Suckling, D. A., Smith, H. K., Torvel, L. J., Forbes, T. D. A. and Hodgson, J. 1985. Comparative studies of diet selection by sheep and cattle: the hill grasslands. Journal of Ecology 73: 9871004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, J., Forbes, T. D. A., Armstrong, R. H., Beattie, M. M. and Hunter, E. A. 1991. Comparative studies of the ingestive behaviour and herbage intake of sheep and cattle grazing indigenous hill plant communities. Journal of Applied Ecology 28: 205227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Illius, A. W., Gordon, I. J., Elston, D. A. and Milne, J. D. 1999. Diet selection in goats: a test on intake-rate maximization. Ecology 80: 10081018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyce, J. P. and Blaxter, K. L. 1964. The effect of air movement, air temperature and infra red radiation on the energy requirements of sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 18: 527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyce, J. P., Blaxter, K. L. and Park, C. 1966. The effect of natural outdoor environments on the energy requirements of sheep. Research in Veterinary Science 7: 342359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lynch, J. J. and Alexander, G. 1977. Sheltering behaviour of lambing Merino sheep in relation to grass hedges and artificial windbreaks. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 28: 691701.Google Scholar
Mount, L. E. and Brown, D. 1982. The use of meteorological records in estimating the effects of weather on sensible heat-loss from sheep. Agricultural Meteorology 27: 241255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mysterud, A., Larsen, P. K., Ims, R. A. and Ostbye, E. 1999. Habitat selection by roe deer and sheep: does habitat ranking reflect resource availability? Canadian Journal of Zoology 77: 776783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penning, P. D., Parsons, A. J., Orr, R. J. and Hooper, G. E. 1994. Intake and behaviour responses by sheep to changes in sward characteristics under rotational grazing. Grass and Forage Science 49: 476486.Google Scholar
Schmitz, O. J. 1991. Thermal constraints and optimization of winter feeding and habitat choice in white-tailed deer. Holarctic Ecology 14: 104111.Google Scholar
Senft, R. L. and Rittenhouse, L. R. 1985. Factors influencing selection of resting sites by cattle on short grass steppe. Journal of Range Management 38: 295299.Google Scholar
Staines, B. W. 1976. The use of natural shelter by red deer in relation to weather in north-east Scotland. Journal of Zoology, London 180: 18.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. 1963. Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. II. A rapid method for the determination of fiber and lignin. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 46: 829835.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. and Wine, R. H. 1967. Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. I V. Determination of plant cellwall constituents. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 50: 5055.Google Scholar
Webster, A. J. F. 1983. Nutrition and the thermal environment. In Nutritional physiology of farm animals (ed. Rook, J.A.F. and Thomas, P. C.), pp. 639669. Longman, London.Google Scholar
Webster, A. J. F. and Blaxter, K. L. 1966. The thermal regulation of 2 breeds of sheep exposed to air temperatures below freezing point. Research in Veterinary Science 7: 466479.Google Scholar
Wilmshurst, J. F., Fryxell, J. M. and Hudson, R. J. 1995. Forage quality and patch choice by wapiti (Cervus-elaphus). Behavioral Ecology 6: 209217.Google Scholar