Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T10:28:40.318Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies on the habits of Zebu cattle IV. Errors associated with recording technique

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

D. H. L. Rollinson ,
K. W. Habker ,
J. I. Taylor  and
F. B. Leech
D. H. L. Rollinson
Affiliation:
Animal Health Research Centre, Entebbe, Uganda
K. W. Habker
Affiliation:
Animal Health Research Centre, Entebbe, Uganda
J. I. Taylor
Affiliation:
Animal Health Research Centre, Entebbe, Uganda
F. B. Leech
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

To obtain records of individual animals' habits when a small herd is observed for long periods of time, several observers are essential. The errors between observers were so much less than those between animals and between periods of observation that for most purposes records made by a succession of different observers will be adequate.

The errors of observations at 1 and 4 min. intervals, using the grazing records of ten animals, were 3·20 and 7·36% of the mean respectively. The latter figure being of sufficient accuracy for practical application, it is concluded that the 4 min. interval is suitable for records of a major habit.

The errors for the minor habits were large relative to the mean time occupied on them, but still reasonable in relation to the purposes for which work of this sort would usually be required.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , February 1956 , pp. 1 - 5
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1956

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

Castle, M. E. & Halley, R. J. (1953). Brit. J. Anim. Behav. 1, 139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancock, J. (1950). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 18, 249.Google Scholar
Harker, K. W., Taylor, J. I. & Rollinson, D. H. L. (1954). J. Agric. Sci. 44, 193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, G. P. & Reid, D. (1951). J. Agric. Sci. 41, 350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnstone-Wallace, D. B. & Kennedy, K. (1944). J. Agric. Sci. 34, 190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, W. J. A., Laing, W. I. & Raivoka, E. N. (1951). Nature, Lond., 167, 610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tayler, J. C. (1953). Brit. J. Anim. Behav. 1, 72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. I., Rollinson, D. H. L. & Harker, K. W. (1955). J. Agric. Sci. 45, 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wardrop, J. C. (1953). Brit. J. Anim. Behav. 1, 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, F. (1953). Sampling Methods for Censuses and Surveys, 2nd ed.London: Griffin.Google Scholar