ArticleEcology and evolution2021
What, how, and how much do herbivores eat? The Continuous Bite Monitoring method for assessing forage intake of grazing animals.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- What, how, and how much do herbivores eat? The Continuous Bite Monitoring method for assessing forage intake of grazing animals.Ecology and evolution · 2021Article
- Low-Intensity, High-Frequency Grazing Positively Affects Defoliating Behavior, Nutrient Intake and Blood Indicators of Nutrition and Stress in Sheep.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Determining herbage intake is pivotal for studies on grazing ecology. Direct observation of animals allows describing the interactions of animals with the pastoral environment along the complex grazing process. The objectives of the study were to evaluate the reliability of the continuous bite monitoring (CBM) method in determining herbage intake in grazing sheep compared to the standard double-weighing technique method during 45-min feeding bouts; evaluate the degree of agreement between the two techniques; and to test the effect of different potential sources of variation on the reliability of the CBM. The CBM method has been used to describe the intake behavior of grazing herbivores. In this study, we evaluated a new approach to this method, that is, whether it is a good proxy for determining the intake of grazing animals. Three experiments with grazing sheep were carried out in which we tested for different sources of variations, such as the number of observers, level of detail of bite coding grid, forage species, forage allowance, sward surface height heterogeneity, experiment site, and animal weight, to determine the short-term intake rate (45 min). Observer (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.