Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T12:54:00.223Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Testing responses to novelty in cattle: behavioural and physiological responses to novel food

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

M.S. Herskin ,
L. Munksgaard  and
A.-M. Kristensen
M.S. Herskin
Affiliation:
Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Health and Welfare, Research Centre Foulum, PO Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
L. Munksgaard
Affiliation:
Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Health and Welfare, Research Centre Foulum, PO Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
A.-M. Kristensen
Affiliation:
Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Health and Welfare, Research Centre Foulum, PO Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
Get access

Abstract

In order to develop a behavioural test as well as gain information about behavioural response to novel food, we performed four experiments with cattle kept in tie-stalls and observed the behaviour (approach/avoidance, self-grooming and consummatory behaviour) for 10 (experiment 3 and 4) or 30 (experiment 1 and 2) min after provision of novel food.

In experiment 1, the effects of the novelty of the feeding method were tested using nine heifers provided with 2 kg of their usual food from the usual fodder truck or from a basket made of plastic. The novel feeding method induced increased sniffing, decreased duration of eating and increased self-grooming.

The effects of the degree of novelty of a food were examined in experiment 2 using heifers (no. = 8 to 12) and three concentrations of fish oil (1•5, 6 or 24 g/kg) and eucalyptus oil (5, 20 or 80 drops per kg) added to the usual food. Increasing the concentration of eucalyptus oil in the food led to changes in behaviour, while the addition of fish oil led to a less clear response. However, both suggested that the behaviour reflected the degree of novelty in the food. Behavioural responses to two novel foods (4 kg carrots v. 80 drops per kg of eucalyptus oil added to the usual food) as well as individual characteristics and repeatability within 72 h were examined in experiment 3. The behavioural responses to the novel foods differed, showing a higher level of approach and attempts to eat the carrots, and responses to the two different novel foods were not correlated. At the second provision, the acceptability of the carrots was greater, however responses to carrots showed an acceptable repeatability.

Finally, the cardiac (heart rate) and behavioural responses to usual food and novel food (4 kg carrots) were compared in experiment 4. Provision of novel food led to behavioural signs of motivational conflict and neophobia while the heart rate tended to be lower than when the cows were provided with usual food.

These results provide evidence that behavioural responses to novel food in cattle include signs of motivational conflict between eating motivation and neophobia, reflecting the degree of novelty in the test situation including the feeding method. However, palatability of the food might also affect the responses, and the data on heart rate suggest that novel food is not a fear-inducing stimulus.

Keywords

behaviourcattlenovel foods.
Type
Ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Information
Animal Science , Volume 76 , Issue 2 , April 2003 , pp. 327 - 340
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2003

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

Albright, J. L. 1993. Feeding behavior of dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 76: 485–498.Google Scholar
Augner, M., Provenza, F. D. and Villalba, J. J. 1998. A rule of thumb in mammalian herbivores? Animal Behavior 56: 337–345.Google Scholar
Baldock, N. M. and Sibly, R. M. 1990. Effects of handling and transportation on the heart rate and behaviour of sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 28: 15–39.Google Scholar
Boissy, A. 1995. Fear and fearfulness in animals. Quarterly Review of Biology 70: 165–191.Google Scholar
Boissy, A. and Bouissou, M.-F. 1988. Effects of early handling on heifer’s subsequent reactivity to humans and to unfamiliar situations. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20: 259–273.Google Scholar
Boissy, A. and Bouissou, M.-F. 1995. Assessment of individual differences in behavioural reactions of heifers exposed to various fear-eliciting situations. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 46: 17–31.Google Scholar
Broom, D. M. 1988. The scientific assessment of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20: 5–19.Google Scholar
Brosh, A., Aharoni, Y., Degen, A. A., Wright, D. and Young, B. A. 1998. Effects of solar radiation, dietary energy, and time of feeding on thermoregulatory responses and energy balance in cattle in a hot environment. Journal of Animal Science 76: 2671–2677.Google Scholar
Buchanan-Smith, J.G. 1990. An investigation into palatability as a factor responsible for reduced intake of silage by sheep. Animal Production 50: 253–260.Google Scholar
Chapple, R. S. and Lynch, J. J. 1986. Behavioural factors modifying acceptance of supplementary foods by sheep. Research and Development in Agriculture 3: 113–120.Google Scholar
Cooper, S. J. and Crummy, Y. M. T. 1978. Enhanced choice of familiar food in a food preference test after chlordiazepoxide administration. Psychopharmacology 59: 51–56.Google Scholar
Dam van Tien, J. J., Lynch, G. N. and Hinch, J. V. N. 1999. Grass odor and flavor overcome feed neophobia in sheep. Small Ruminant Research 32: 223–229.Google Scholar
Dougherty, C. T., Smith, E. M., Bradley, N. W., Forbes, T. D. A., Cornelius, P. L., Lauriault, L. M. and Arnold, C.D. 1988. Ingestive behaviour of beef cattle grazing alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.). Grass and Forage Science 43: 121–130.Google Scholar
File, S.E. 1982. Pharmacological manipulations of responses to novelty and their habituation. In Theory in psychopharmacology (ed. Cooper, S. J.), pp. 197–232. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Ganskopp, D. and Cruz, R. 1999. Selective differences between naive and experienced cattle foraging among eight grasses. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 62: 293–303.Google Scholar
Harb, M. Y. and Campling, R. C. 1985. Variation among pregnant, non-lactating dairy cows in eating and ruminating behaviour, digestibility and voluntary intake of hay. Grass and Forage Science 40: 109–111.Google Scholar
Herskin, M. S. and Munksgaard, L. 2000. Behavioral reactivity of cattle toward novel food: effects of testing time and food type of neighbors. Journal of Animal Science 78: 2323–2328.Google Scholar
Herskin, M. S., Munksgaard, L. and Kristensen, A. M. 2000. Behavioural reactivity of dairy cows toward novel food: effects of milking frequency and energy level in the food ration. Book of abstracts of the 51st annual meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, The Hague, 21-24 August 2000, p. 188.Google Scholar
Hinde, R. A. 1970. Animal behaviour – a synthesis of ethology and comparative psychology. McGraw-Hill, Tokyo.Google Scholar
Hopster, H. and Blokhuis, H. J. 1994. Validation of a heart-rate monitor for measuring a stress response in dairy cows. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 74: 465–474.Google Scholar
Hopster, H., Werf, J. T. N. van der, Engel, B. and Blokhuis, H. J. 1998. Short- and long-term consistency of behavioural and physiological stress responses in dairy cows during a novel environment test. In Coping strategies in dairy cows Ph.D. thesis, Agricultural University of Wageningen.Google Scholar
Inglis, I. R., Shepherd, D. S., Smith, P., Haynes, P. J., Bull, D.S., Cowan, D. P. and Whitehead, D. 1996. Foraging behaviour of wild rats to new foods and bait containers. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 47: 175–190.Google Scholar
Jensen, M.B., Munksgaard, L., Mogensen, L. and Krohn, C. C. 1999. Effects of housing in different social environments on open-field and social responses of female dairy calves. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 49: 113–120.Google Scholar
Kleinbaum, D. G. 1996. Survival analysis – a self-learning text. Springer Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
Kondo, S. and Hurnik, J.F. 1988. Behavioral and physiological responses to spatial novelty in dairy cows. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 68: 339–343.Google Scholar
Kristensen, A.-M. 2000. Behavioural reactivity of dairy cows to novel stimuli. Masters thesis, University of Århus.Google Scholar
Launchbaugh, K. L. and Provenza, F. D. 1994. The effect of flavor concentration and toxin dose on the formation and generalization of flavor aversions in lambs. Journal of Animal Science 72: 10–13.Google Scholar
Launchbaugh, K. L., Provenza, F. D. and Werkmeister, M. J. 1997. Overcoming food neophobia in domestic ruminants through addition of a familiar flavor and repeated exposure to novel foods. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 54: 327–334.Google Scholar
Lehner, P. N. 1996. Handbook of ethological methods. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Le Neindre, P. 1989. Influence of rearing conditions and breed on social behaviour and activity of cattle in novel environments. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 23: 129–140.Google Scholar
Littell, R. C., Miliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W. and Wolfinger, R. S. 1996. SAS system for mixed models. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Martin, P. and Bateson, P. 1993. Measuring behaviour – an introductory guide, second edition. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munksgaard, L. and Jensen, M. B. 1996. The use of open field tests in the assessment of welfare of cattle. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 27: 82–85.Google Scholar
Munksgaard, L. and Simonsen, H. B. 1996. Behavioral and pituitary adrenal-axis responses of dairy cows to social isolation and deprivation of lying down. Journal of Animal Science 74: 769–778.Google Scholar
Ortega-Reyes, L. and Provenza, F. D. 1993. Amount of experience and age affect the development of foraging skills of goats browsing blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 36: 169–183.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. M., McGilloway, D. A., Cushnahan, A., Mayne, C. S. and Laidlaw, A. S. 1998. Effect of duration of fasting period on short-term intake rates of lactating dairy cows. Animal Science 66: 299–305.Google Scholar
Provenza, F. D. 1995. Postingestive feedback as an elementary determinant of food preference and intake in ruminants. Journal of Range Management 48: 2–17.Google Scholar
Provenza, F. D. and Balph, D. F. 1987. Diet learning by domestic ruminants: theory, evidence and practical implications. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 18: 211–232.Google Scholar
Provenza, F. D., Lynch, J. J. and Cheney, C. D. 1995. Effects of a flavor and food restriction on the response of sheep to novel foods. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 43: 83–93.Google Scholar
Provenza, F. D., Pfister, J. A. and Cheney, C. D. 1992. Mechanisms of learning in diet selection with reference to phytotoxicosis in herbivores. Journal of Range Management 45: 36–45.Google Scholar
Rekilä, T., Harri, M. and Ahola, L. 1997. Validation of the feeding test as an index of fear in farmed blue and silver foxes. Physiology and Behavior 62: 805–810.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1996. SAS/STAT user’s guide, release 6.12. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Veissier, I. and le Neindre, P. 1992. Reactivity of Aubrac heifers exposed to a novel environment alone or in groups of four. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 33: 11–15.Google Scholar
Villalba, J. J. and Provenza, F. D. 2000. Roles of novelty, generalization, and postingestive feedback in the recognition of foods by lambs. Journal of Animal Science 78: 3060–3069.Google Scholar