containing a certain species are counted at 
specified times. Smith and Hubbard (1954) 
timed the animals as they fed at various sta- 
tions and measured consumption by weight. 
Species were ranked in this method—those in 
certain bunks or on plots receiving the most 
use were considered more desirable. This sys- 
tem of ranking was also done by Cowlinshaw 
and Alder (1960). A replicated latin-square de- 
sign using half-acre plots separated by isola- 
tion strips is desirable for plot work. Adequate 
replication should be provided. A factorial de- 
sign including site and season of year as varia- 
bles would provide information on site X plant 
species X season interactions. 
The advantages of this method for use in re- 
search are: (1) Plant species can be easily 
ranked by the length of time animals spend on 
a plot and (2) all species are equally available. 
Disadvantages are: (1) The number of species 
to be compared is limited by the size of plot 
that can be practically and efficiently used and 
(2) the species must be grown in pure stands 
and the data must have questionable applica- 
tion for ranges with mixed-species composi- 
tion. 
This method has also been criticized be- 
cause the rate of intake varies with animal 
fill and behavior may be disturbed by the pres- 
ence of the observer (Hurd and Blaser 1962). 
It has also been criticized because the time 
spent grazing and the amount eaten may be 
poorly correlated; i.e., some foods are actively 
grazed and others are just nibbled (Jones 
1952). However, Smith and Hubbard (1954), 
working with deer, found no significant differ- 
ence between preference ranking of 15 browse 
species based on the time deer spent eating 
various species and the weight consumed. 
FEEDING-MINUTES METHOD 
The feeding-minutes method has been the 
most common method used to study feeding 
habits of livestock. The length of time spent 
grazing each species in a mixed stand is the 
index to preference and consumption. The ob- 
server must watch, with the aid of binoculars 
or a spotter scope, or at extremely close range, 
and time the animal as it bites off each plant. 
The contribution of each species to the diet is 
assumed to be proportional to the time spent 
grazing it. 
The bite-count method is similar to the feed- 
ing-minutes method. Animals are observed 
while ‘“free-grazing’’; however, instead of 
recording the minutes spent grazing each spe- 
cies, the number of bites are recorded. Differ- 
ential size bites is also a problem in this meth- 
od. Different workers have used a wide variety 
of definitions of ‘bite’; several kinds of bite 
units have resulted. Sheppard (1921) reports 
a Hereford steer he followed gave 51 bites or 
102 
“jaw wags” per mouthful while an Angus took 
only 30. This raises a question about the uni- 
formity of the bites or the mouthfuls. 
Reppert (1960) used a unit he called a 
“mouthful.” This was the forage taken in from 
the time the animal lowered its head and began 
to graze until it stepped forward or stopped 
grazing in preparation to walking. Adjust- 
ments were made for the amount of forage con- 
sumed by recording one-fourth, one-half, three- 
fourths, or one mouthful. While somewhat sub- 
jective, this method probably does a better job 
of estimating relative consumption than either 
unadjusted bites or mouthfuls. 
The sampling errors in the feeding-minutes 
or bite-count method can be similar to those as- 
sociated with the cafeteria method; i.e., it is 
difficult to differentiate between active grazing 
and mere nibbling. Jones (1952) and Bjugstad 
and Dalrymple (1968) observed that animals 
would intensively graze some plants while only 
picking at others. Consequently, availability of 
plants would influence consumption (Herbel 
and Nelson 1966). 
The feeding-minutes method plus hand 
plucking has been used not only to record spe- 
cles preference and a relative measure of con- 
sumption, but also to estimate nutrient intake. 
This method was described by Wagnon (1963) 
for California and by Bjugstad and Dalrymple 
(1968) for the Ozarks. They followed cattle 
while they were feeding and plucked hand 
samples of the same species and plant parts 
the cattle were taking. The samples were 
chemically analysed to determine the quality of 
diet. Halls (1954), using two people to closely 
observe cattle while grazing to determine diet, 
found good agreement among observers on spe- 
cies, but the amount of each species consumed 
was difficult to estimate. He also tried to esti- 
mate nutrient content of diet but concluded 
from chemical composition of plucked samples 
that a precise evaluation can be made only 
when special emphasis is placed on the selec- 
tion of the plant portion actually being grazed. 
EVALUATION OF GRAZING PATTERNS 
This method is based on knowledge of graz- 
ing use on various range types in good condi- 
tion at different seasons of the year. Deviations 
from established grazing-use patterns of range 
types indicate that desired plants are becoming 
scarce or deficient in nutrients and that more 
effort is being spent in searching for adequate 
forage. 
The grazing-pattern method requires some 
background knowledge. Once this is available, 
grazing patterns can be used to determine 
when forage is inadequate, although quantita- 
tive data cannot be obtained by this method. 
The method has been employed in several 
areas in the United States—Ozark Region 
