Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T23:07:17.385Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Expression of conditioned preference for low-quality food in sheep is modulated by foraging costs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2015

F. Catanese ,
R. A. Distel  and
J. J. Villalba
F. Catanese*
Affiliation:
Departamento de Agronomía, Universidad Nacional del Sur and CERZOS, CONICET, 8000-Bahía Blanca, Argentina
R. A. Distel
Affiliation:
Departamento de Agronomía, Universidad Nacional del Sur and CERZOS, CONICET, 8000-Bahía Blanca, Argentina
J. J. Villalba
Affiliation:
Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-5230, USA
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Past positive experiences can increase herbivores’ motivation to eat low-quality foods. However, this is not always translated into a higher preference for low-quality foods in choice tests among foods of higher nutritional quality. Foraging behavior is also affected by properties of the feeding context because the quality and abundance of foods in nature change in time and space. We hypothesized that in a choice situation, the expression of a past positive experience with a low-quality food is modulated by the costs associated with selecting a high-quality food option. A total of 24 sheep were randomly assigned into two groups (n=12). During conditioning phase, one group (CS+; i.e., conditioned group) was fed with oat hay (a low-quality food) for 20 min and immediately after a ration of soybean meal (a nutritious food), whereas the other group was also fed with oat hay but the offer of soybean meal was delayed 5 h (CS−; i.e., control group). After conditioning, we assessed sheep motivation to eat the oat hay in an experimental arena in which accessibility to alfalfa hay (a high-quality food) was increasingly restricted. When alfalfa hay was readily accessible, CS+ and CS− sheep almost exclusively selected this food, showing a small and similar preference for oat hay. However, when accessibility to alfalfa hay decreased, intake and selection of oat hay was greater in the CS+ sheep than in the CS− sheep. The latter was a consequence of differential changes in behavior between groups; for example, sheep in CS+ spent more time foraging oat hay and were more likely to switch to oat hay if they had previously been eating alfalfa hay than sheep in CS−. Our results show that behavioral expression of the conditioned preference for a low-quality food depends on parameters of the feeding context (e.g., availability). We suggest that this can be the link between learning models and optimal foraging models of diet selection.

Keywords

low-quality foodslearningforaging behaviordiet selectionsheep
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Issue 6 , June 2015 , pp. 1045 - 1052
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

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

ASAB/ABS 2006. Guidelines for the treatment of animals in behavioural research and teaching. Animal Behaviour 71, 245–253.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists 2002. Official methods of analysis, 17th edition Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.Google Scholar
Bailey, DW, Gross, JE, Laca, EA, Rittenhouse, LR, Coughenour, MB, Swift, DM and Sims, PL 1996. Mechanisms that result in large herbivore grazing distribution patterns. Journal of Range Management 49, 386–400.Google Scholar
Catanese, F, Distel, RA, Rodriguez Iglesias, RM and Villalba, JJ 2010. Role of early experience in the development of preference for low-quality food in sheep. Animal 4, 784–791.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dickinson, A 1980. Contemporary animal learning theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Distel, RA, Laca, EA, Griggs, TC and Demment, MW 1995. Patch selection by cattle: maximization of intake rate in horizontally heterogeneous pastures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 45, 11–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dumont, B and Boissy, A 2000. Grazing behaviour of sheep in a situation of conflict between feeding and social motivations. Behavioural Processes 49, 131–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dumont, B, Dutronc, A and Petit, M 1998. How readily will sheep walk for a preferred forage? Journal of Animal Science 76, 965–971.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eder, AB, Elliot, AJ and Harmon-Jones, E 2013. Approach and avoidance motivation: issues and advances. Emotion Review 5, 227–229.Google Scholar
Farnsworth, KD and Illius, AW 1998. Optimal diet choice for large herbivores: an extended contingency model. Functional Ecology 12, 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Favreau, A, Ginane, C and Baumont, A 2010. Feeding behaviour of sheep fed lucerne v. grass hays with controlled postingestive consequences. Animal 4, 1368–1377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Focardi, S, Marcellini, P and Montanaro, P 1996. Do ungulates exhibit a food density threshold? A field study of optimal foraging and movement patterns. Journal of Animal Ecology 65, 606–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freidin, E, Catanese, F, Didoné, N and Distel, RA 2011. Mechanisms of intake induction of a low-nutritious food in sheep (Ovies aries). Behavioural Processes 87, 246–252.Google Scholar
Freidin, E, Catanese, F, Cuello, MI and Distel, RA 2012. Induction of low-nutritious food intake by subsequent nutrient supplementation in sheep (Ovis aries). Animal 6, 1307–1315.Google Scholar
Illius, AW, Gordon, IJ, Elston, DA and Milne, JD 1999. Diet selection in goats: a test of intake-rate maximization. Ecology 80, 1008–1018.Google Scholar
Jackson, CH 2011. Multi-State Models for Panel Data: the msm package for R. Journal of Statistical Software 38, 1–29.Google Scholar
Lenth, RV 2012. Least-squares means. R package version 1.05-00. Retrieved April 5, 2013, from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lsmeans Google Scholar
Lynch, JJ, Hinch, GN and Adams, DB 1992. The behaviour of sheep: biological principles and implications for production. CAB International, Wallingford, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Martin, P and Bateson, P 1993. Measuring behaviour. An introductory guide, 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Matthews, LR and Temple, W 1979. Concurrent schedule assessment of food preference in cows. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour 32, 245–254.Google Scholar
Meier, JS, Kreuzer, M and Marquardt, S 2012. Design and methodology of choice feeding experiments with ruminant livestock. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 140, 105–120.Google Scholar
National Research Council 1985. Nutrient requirements of sheep, 6th edition. The National Academies Press, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
O’Reagain, PJ and Grau, EA 1995. Sequence of species selection by cattle and sheep on South African sourveld. Journal of Range Management 48, 314–321.Google Scholar
O’Reagain, PJ and Schwartz, J 1995. Dietary selection and foraging strategies of animals on rangelands. Coping with spatial and temporal variability. In Recent developments in the nutrition of hervivores (ed. M Journet, E Grenet, MH Farce, M Theriez and C Demarquilly), pp 407–423. INRA Editions, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Parsons, AJ, Newman, JA, Penning, PD, Harvey, A and Orr, RJ 1994. Diet preference of sheep: effect of recent diet, physiological state and species abundance. Journal of Animal Ecology 63, 465–478.Google Scholar
Pinheiro, J, Bates, D, DebRoy, S and Sarkar, D 2012. Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-105. Retrieved April 5, 2013, from http://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=nlme Google Scholar
Prache, S, Gordon, IJ and Rook, AJ 1998. Foraging behaviour and diet selection in domestic herbivores. Annales De Zootechnie 47, 335–345.Google Scholar
Provenza, FD, Villalba, JJ, Dziba, LE, Atwood, SB and Banner, RE 2003. Linking herbivore experience, varied diets, and plant biochemical diversity. Small Ruminant Research 49, 257–274.Google Scholar
R Core Team 2012. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. Retrieved April 5, 2013 from, http://www.R-project.org/ Google Scholar
Ralphs, MH 2005. Conditioning sheep to graze duncecap larkspur (Delphinium occidentale). Rangeland Ecology and Management 58, 628–631.Google Scholar
Sclafani, A 1997. Learned controls of ingestive behaviour. Appetite 29, 153–158.Google Scholar
Senft, RL, Coughenour, MB, Bailey, DW, Rittenhouse, LR, Sala, OE and Swift, DM 1987. Large herbivore foraging and ecological hierarchies. Bioscience 37, 789–799.Google Scholar
Shaw, RA, Villalba, JJ and Provenza, FD 2006. Influence of stock density and rate and temporal patterns of forage allocation on the diet mixing behavior of sheep grazing sagebrush steppe. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 100, 207–218.Google Scholar
Shettleworth, SJ 1998. Cognition, evolution and behavior. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA. pp. 127–128.Google Scholar
Sibbald, AM and Hooper, RJ 2004. Sociability and the willingness of sheep to move away from their companions in order to graze. Applied Animal Behavior Science 86, 51–62.Google Scholar
Stephens, DW and Krebs, JR 1986. Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB and Lewis, BA 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.Google Scholar
Villalba, JJ and Provenza, FD 1999. Nutrient-specific preferences by lambs conditioned with intraruminal infusions of starch, casein, and water. Journal of Animal Science 77, 378–387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitney, TR and Olson, BE 2007. Will molasses or conditioning increase consumption of spotted knapweed by sheep? Rangeland Ecology and Management 60, 533–537.Google Scholar
Zuur, AF, Ieno, EN, Walker, N, Saveliev, AA and Smith, GM 2009. Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New York, NY, USA, pp. 120–122.Google Scholar