Mob-based walk-over weights: similar to the average of individual static weights?

Article

<< Previous

Next >>

Contents Vol 52(7)

doi:10.1071/AN11306

Food, Fibre and Pharmaceuticals from Animals

	Search




	Advanced Search



	Journal Home

	About the Journal

	Editorial Board

	Contacts



	Content

	Online Early

	Current Issue

	Just Accepted

	All Issues

	Special Issues

	Research Fronts

	Reviews

	Sample Issue



	For Authors

	General Information

	Notes for Authors

	Submit Article

	Open Access



	For Referees

	Referee Guidelines

	Review Article



	For Subscribers

	Subscription Prices

	Customer Service

	Print Publication Dates

New Feature

New Commenting Tool
Join the conversation and leave comments on all new journal articles.

e-Alerts

Subscribe to our Email Alert or

feeds for the latest journal papers.

Connect with us

Mob-based walk-over weights: similar to the average of individual static weights?

D. J. Brown ^A ^B ^C ^E, D. B. Savage ^C, G. N. Hinch ^C and S. J. Semple ^D

^A Cooperative Research Centre for Sheep Industry Innovation, Australia.
^B Holmes Sackett, 34–36 Fitzmaurice Street, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2650, Australia.
^C School of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.
^D NSW Department of Primary Industries, Orange Agricultural Institute, 1447 Forest Road, Orange 2800, Australia.
^E Corresponding author. Email: davidb@holmessackett.com.au

Animal Production Science 52(7) 613-618 http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/AN11306
Submitted: 11 November 2011 Accepted: 2 March 2012 Published: 24 April 2012





	PDF (111 KB) $25



	Export Citation

Print

Abstract

Merino ewe liveweight represents an objective measure shown to have a profound effect on production outcomes and therefore research into technology that provides accurate and timely feedback of ewe liveweight change is warranted. Most sheep in Australia are not individually identified and therefore management of sheep is on a flock or ‘mob’ basis. Mob-based walk-over weighing (MBWOW) is a remote weighing concept for sheep flocks whereby animal weights are collected as they pass freely over a strategically placed weighing platform. The weights are then collected by the livestock manager, analysed and interpreted to aid nutritional decision making on a whole-flock basis. The hypothesis tested in this study was that data from MBWOW systems is comparable to data from static weighing sessions. At three sites, MBWOW data was collected simultaneously with monthly static weighing sessions. Raw data from MBWOW from each site was manipulated through a series of methodologies that were compared according to their relationship with the static weight data. All forms of MBWOW data showed a significant relationship with static weighing data (P < 0.05). Using a 25% filter (data within 25% of a predetermined central weight kept) and grouping data into 5-day groups strengthens the relationship between MBWOW data and static weighing data. In 1-day groupings, MBWOW data with a 25% filter and subjectively chosen central weight showed the strongest relationship (R² = 0.89) with static weighing data. In 5-day groupings, MBWOW data with a 25% filter and reference weight from a previous weighing event as a central weight showed the strongest relationship (R² = 0.88) to static weighing data. The former MBWOW data manipulation methodology had the least mean numerical difference (±s.d.) between MBWOW data and static weighing data (1.86 ± 0.85 kg), yet the latter had the least mean numerical difference in change-in MBWOW data and change-in static weighing data (1.51 ± 0.39 kg), and as change-in liveweight has the most application to industry, it is recommend as the preferred data manipulation technique. These findings suggest that although MBWOW is not fully congruent with static weighing, a strong relationship (R² > 0.8) between the two and low mean numerical difference in change-in liveweight indicates that MBWOW has potential to be used to established liveweight profiles for Merino ewes that aid nutritional management.

References

Anderson DM, Weeks DL (1989) Cattle liveweight sampled on a continuous versus intermittent basis. Livestock Production Science 23, 117–135.
| CrossRef |

Clarke Martin S, Barnes KK, Bashford L (1967) A step toward automatic weighing of range cattle. Journal of Range Management 20, 91–94.
| CrossRef |

Cveticanin D (2003) New approach to the dynamic weighing of livestock. Biosystems Engineering 86, 247–252.

Dove H, Freer M, Donnelly JR (1994) Effects of early to mid pregnancy nutrition of ewes on ewe and lamb liveweight and body composition, and on milk intake by lambs. Australian Society of Animal Production 20, 285–288.

Ferguson MB, Thompson AN, Gordon DJ, Hyder MW, Kearney GA, Oldham CM, Paganoni BL (2011) The wool production and reproduction of Merino ewes can be predicted from changes in liveweight during pregnancy and lactation. Animal Production Science 51, 763–775.
| CrossRef |

Filby DE, Turner MJB, Street MJ (1979) A walk through weigher for dairy cows. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 24, 67–78.

Kelly RW, Macleod I, Hynd P, Greeff J (1996) Nutrition during fetal life alters annual wool production and quality in young Merino sheep. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 36, 259–267.
| CrossRef |

Lee GL, Sladek MA, Atkins KD, Semple SJ (2008) Variance components of liveweights of pregnant ewes measured by manual or remote methods, with and without processing by data screening. In ‘Proceedings of the first joint conference of the Australian and New Zealand Societies of Animal Production (ANZSAP), the Australian Society of Animal Production (ASAP) and the New Zealand Society of Animal Production (NZSAP), Vol. 27’. (Eds DG Barber, RT Cowan, AR Anstis) p. 22. (Australian Society of Animal Production, University of Queensland: St Lucia, Qld)

Oldham CM, Thompson AN, Ferguson MB, Gordon DJ, Kearney GA, Paganoni BL (2011) The birthweight and survival of Merino lambs can be predicted from the profile of liveweight change of their mothers during pregnancy. Animal Production Science 51, 776–783.
| CrossRef |

Richards JS, Atkins KD, Thompson T, Murray WK (2006) Data from walk-over weighing – where are we at? In ‘Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 26th biennial conference. Short communication 32’. (Eds K Croker, N Adams, D Lindsay) (University of Western Australia: Crawley)

Richards JS, Semple SJ, Atkins KD (2010) Practical application of precision sheep management. In ‘Proceedings of the 25th annual conference of The Grassland Society of NSW’. (Eds C Waters, D Garden) pp. 53–56.

Schofield CP (1990) Evaluation of image as a means of estimating the weight of pigs. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 47, 287–296.
| CrossRef |

Slader RW, Gregory AMS (1988) An automatic feeding and weighing system for ad libitum fed pigs. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 3, 157–170.
| CrossRef |

Thompson AN, Ferguson MB, Gordon DJ, Kearney GA, Oldham CM, Paganoni BL (2011) Improving the nutrition of Merino ewes during pregnancy increases the fleece weight and reduces the fibre diameter of their progeny’s wool during their lifetime and these effects can be predicted from the ewe’s liveweight profile. Animal Production Science 51, 794–804.
| CrossRef |

Trompf JP, Thomson AN, Gordon DJ, Dunstan M, Kildey L (2009) ‘Lifetime ewe management: a program for producers.’ (Rural Skills Training, Department of Primary Industries: Hamilton, Vic.)

Turner MJB, Gurney P, Crowther JSW, Sharp JR (1984) An automated weighing system for poultry. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 29, 17–24.
| CrossRef |

Wheeler JL, Reardon TF, Hedges DA, Rocks RL (1971) The contribution of the conceptus to weight change in pregnant Merino ewes at pasture. The Journal of Agricultural Science 76, 347–353.
| CrossRef |

Subscriber Login

	Username: Password:

Legal & Privacy | Contact Us | Help