This study indicated that the bite-count and fecal analysis methods give similar results for estimating major components of cattle diets in Texas. The bite-count method could not be used on large, brush-infested pastures with rough terrain; however, the fecal analysis metnod was easily used under such conditions. Other advantages of fecal analyses were: samples were collected with a minimum of field work, diets of wild and domestic animals could be obtained, and bad weather and poor field conditions were not problems. Major disadvantages of the fecal analysis technique were: forages with dense stellate trichomes were overestimated; mesquite beans were retained in the digestive tract for abnormally long periods; the laboratory phase required a trained technician; and the work was tedious.

No abstract