Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-26T23:52:44.005Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of a pen in group-feeding trials: modelling data from suckler cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2008

L. JAUHIAINEN ,
M. MANNINEN  and
J. ÖFVERSTEN
L. JAUHIAINEN*
Affiliation:
MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Services Unit, FI-31600 Jokioinen, Finland
M. MANNINEN
Affiliation:
MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Animal Production Research, FI-31600 Jokioinen, Finland
J. ÖFVERSTEN
Affiliation:
MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Services Unit, FI-31600 Jokioinen, Finland
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: lauri.jauhiainen@mtt.fi
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

This paper provides information on the extent and containment of intraclass correlation (ICC) concerning group-feeding trials on suckler cows. The research comprised the re-analysis of six previously reported experiments and a parallel simulation study. ICC coefficients were estimated for eight variables. They were seen to be higher in experiments on bulls compared with those on cows and more notable in the measurements of live weight gain compared with final weight. Moreover, the ICC coefficients were generally high for all variables measuring behavioural patterns. The simulation study showed that using a single animal as an experimental unit could be valid in certain situations, but it could not be extended to cover all the cases. The simulation study also showed that the common mixed model approach had significant problems when the ICC was slight. In general, the research strengthened the arguments that much more effort should be placed on the planning and statistical analysis of group-feeding experiments, especially in behavioural studies.

Type
Modelling Animal Systems Paper
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 146 , Issue 4 , August 2008 , pp. 381 - 387
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

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

Bouissou, M. F., Boissy, A., Le Neindre, P. & Veissier, I. (2001). The social behaviour of cattle. In Social Behaviour in Farm Animals (Eds Keeling, L. J. & Gonyou, H. W.), pp. 113–145. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donner, A. (1992). Sample size requirements for stratified cluster randomization designs. Statistical Medicine 11, 743–750.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gomez, K. A. & Gomez, A. A. (1984). Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research, 2nd edn.New York, USA: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Gulliford, M. C., Ukoumunne, O. C. & Chinn, S. (1999). Components of variance and intraclass correlation for the design of community-based surveys and intervention studies: data from the health survey for England. American Journal of Epidemiology 149, 876–883.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kenward, M. G. & Roger, J. H. (1997). Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics 53, 983–997.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kiker, W., Salisbury, M., Green, B. & Engdahl, G. (2005). Effects of protein and energy feeding on ovine oocyte production and developmental capacity. Proceedings, Western Section of the American Society of Animal Science 5, 312–316.Google Scholar
Kish, L. (1965). Survey Sampling. New York, USA: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Korhonen, H.T., Niemelä, P. & Jauhiainen, L. (2001). Effect of space and floor material on the behaviour of farmed blue foxes. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 81, 189–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, H. L. (1948). Techniques in animal science research. In Proceedings of the Auburn Conference on Statistics Applied to Research , pp. 62–73. Auburn, Alabama, USA: Alabama Polytechnic Institute.Google Scholar
Manninen, M., Saarijärvi, K., Huhta, H., Jauhiainen, L. & Aspila, P. (2004). Effects of winter feeding strategies with alternative feeds on the performance of mature suckler cows and their progeny. Agricultural and Food Science 13, 348–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manninen, M., Virkajärvi, P. & Jauhiainen, L. (2005). Effect of whole-crop barley and oat silages on the performance of mature suckler cows and their progeny in outdoor winter feeding. Animal Feed Science and Technology 121, 227–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manninen, M., Sormunen-Cristian, R., Jauhiainen, L., Sankari, S. & Soveri, T. (2006). Effects of feeding frequency on the performance and welfare of mature Hereford cows and their progeny. Livestock Science 100, 203–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, K. & Wood-Gush, D. G. M. (1991). Some effects of housing on the social behaviour of dairy cows. Animal Production 53, 271–278.Google Scholar
Morris, T. R. (1998). Experimental Design and Analysis in Animal Sciences. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.Google Scholar
Murray, D. M. & Blitstein, J. L. (2003). Methods to reduce the impact of intraclass correlation in group-randomised trials. Evaluation Review 27, 79–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. H., Wiseman, J., Uden, P. & Mateos, G. (2006). Some experimental design and statistical criteria for analysis of studies in manuscripts submitted for consideration for publication. Animal Feed Science and Technology 129, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute Inc. (1999). SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 8. Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Satterthwaite, F. E. (1946). An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components. Biometrics Bulletin 2, 110–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siddiqui, O., Hedeker, D., Flay, B. R. & Hu, F. B. (1996). Intraclass correlation estimates in a school-based smoking prevention study: outcome and mediating variables, by sex and ethnicity. American Journal of Epidemiology 144, 425–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swamy, H., Smith, T. & MacDonald, E. (2004). Effects of feeding blends of grains naturally contaminated with Fusarium mycotoxins on brain regional neurochemistry of starter pigs and broiler chickens. Journal of Animal Science 82, 2131–2139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed