Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T18:12:41.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social models fail to induce diet and feeding site avoidance in naïve yearling steers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2008

A. F. Cibils ,
L. D. Howery  and
G. B. Ruyle
A. F. Cibils*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Range Sciences, Box 30003 MSC 3-I, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA
L. D. Howery
Affiliation:
School of Natural Resources, University of Arizona, 325 Biological Sciences East, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA
G. B. Ruyle
Affiliation:
School of Natural Resources, University of Arizona, 325 Biological Sciences East, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Social learning can be of critical importance to cattle grazing rangeland environments with high variability of food resources across space and time. Experienced individuals can greatly facilitate foraging decisions (what to eat and where to eat) of naïve peers in such settings. We conducted an experiment with cattle to investigate strength and persistence of socially induced food and feeding site avoidance behaviours. Sixteen naïve yearling steers were paired with 16 social models that had either not been trained (control) or been trained with an emetic (LiCl), electrical shock or both to avoid: (a) an unsafe high-quality food (LiCl); (b) an unsafe high-quality feeding site (shock); or (c) both the unsafe high-quality food and the unsafe high-quality feeding site (LiCl + shock). Ten-minute trials were conducted in an experimental arena containing three artificial feeding sites each consisting of groups of bowls with either high- (HQ) or moderate-quality (MQ) foods (HQ = barley and oat grain; MQ = Bermuda grass hay). Unsafe high-quality (UHQ, surrounded by traffic cones) and safe moderate-quality (SMQ) feeding sites consisted of nine rubber bowls containing either HQ or MQ foods. The safe high-quality (SHQ) feeding site consisted of two groups of eight bowls containing HQ food, which surrounded the UHQ and SMQ feeding sites. Social models did not induce diet and feeding site avoidance behaviours in naïve steers; they exerted small and transient changes in the feeding behaviour of their naïve counterparts. Consequences to the individual outweighed social influences; when naïve animals experienced the same punishment contingencies as their social models, their behavioural patterns closely resembled those of their social model. Conditioned food and location aversions via LiCl were apparently influenced by prior exposure to target foods and the experimental arena. Conversely, conditioned feeding site avoidance via shock was apparently not influenced by prior exposure to target foods or the experimental arena.

Keywords

cattleflavour aversionslocation avoidancesocial facilitation
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , February 2008 , pp. 255 - 264
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2008

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

Anderson DM, Nolen B, Fredrickson E, Havstad K, Hale C and Nayak P 2004. Representing spatially explicit Directional Virtual Fencing (DVF TM) data. 24th Annual ESRI International User Conference Proceedings, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
Avery, ML 1994. Finding good food and avoiding bad food: does ithelp to associate with experienced flockmates? Animal Behaviour 48, 1371–1378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, DW, Gross, JE, Laca, EA, Rittenhouse, LR, Coughenour, MB, Swift, DM, Sims, PL 1996. Mechanisms that result in large herbivore grazing distribution patterns. Journal of Range Management 49, 386–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, D, Howery, LD, Boss, D 2000. Effects of social facilitation for locating feeding sites by cattle in an eight-arm radial maze. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68, 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biquand, S, Biquand-Guyot, V 1992. The influence of peers, lineage and environment on food selection of the Criollo goat. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 34, 231–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black-Rubio, CM, Cibils, AF, Gould, WR 2007. Maternal influence of feeding site avoidance behaviour of lambs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 105, 122–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, R, Richerson, PJ 1983. The cultural transmission of acquired variation: effects on genetic fitness. Journal of Theoretical Biology 100, 567–596.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cibils, AF, Howery, LD, Ruyle, GB 2004. Diet and habitat selection by cattle: the relationship between skin- and gut-defense systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 88, 187–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fay, PK, McElligott, VT, Havstad, KM 1989. Containment of free-ranging goats using pulsed-radio-wave-activated shock collars. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 23, 165–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JrGalef, BG 1982. Studies of social learning in Norway rats: a brief review. Developmental Psychobiology 15, 279–295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
JrGalef, BG 1985. Socially induced diet preference can partially reverse a LiCl-induced diet aversion. Animal Learning and Behavior 13, 415–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JrGalef, BG 1988. Imitation in animals: history, definition, and interpretation of data from the psychological laboratory. In Social learning: psychological and biological perspectives (ed. TR Zentall and BG Galef Jr), pp. 3–28. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
JrGalef, BG, Giraldeau, LA 2001. Social influences on foraging in vertebrates: causal mechanisms and adaptive functions. Animal Behaviour 61, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
JrGalef, BG, Wigmore, SW, Kennett, DJ 1983. A failure to find socially mediated taste aversion learning in Norway rats (R. norvegicus). Journal of Comparative Psychology 97, 358–363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
JrGalef, BG, McQuoid, LM, Whiskin, EE 1990. Further evidence that Norway rats do not socially transmit learned aversions to toxic baits. Animal Learning and Behavior 18, 199–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, GR, Prince, RH 2003. Negative operant conditioning fails to deter white tailed deer foraging activity. Crop Protection 22, 893–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, J, Holder, MD 1985. Time, space and value. Human Neurobiology 4, 81–89.Google ScholarPubMed
Garcia, J, Lasiter, PA, Bermudez-Rattoni, F, Deems, D 1985. A general theory of aversion learning. In Experimental assessments and clinical applications of conditioned food aversions (ed. NS Braveman and P Bronstein), pp. 8–21. The New York Academy of Sciences, New York.Google Scholar
Howery, LD, Provenza, FD, Banner, RE, Scott, CB 1996. Differences in home range and habitat use among individuals in a cattle herd. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49, 305–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howery, LD, Provenza, FD, Banner, RE, Scott, CB 1998. Social and environmental factors influence cattle distribution on rangeland. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 55, 231–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ksiksi, T, Laca, EA 2000. Can social interactions affect food searching efficiency of cattle? Rangeland Journal 22, 235–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Launchbaugh, KL, Howery, LD 2005. Understanding landscape use patterns of livestock as a consequence of foraging behavior. Rangeland Ecology and Management 58, 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Launchbaugh, KL, Provenza, FD, Burritt, EA 1993. How herbivores track variable environments: response to variability of phytotoxins. Journal of Chemical Ecology 19, 1047–1056.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawrence, AB 1990. Mother–daughter and peer relationships of Scottish hill sheep. Animal Behaviour 39, 481–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lubow, RE, Rifkin, B, Alek, M 1976. The context effect: the relationship between stimulus preexposure and environmental preexposure determines subsequent learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 2, 38–47.Google Scholar
Mason, JR, Arzt, AH, Reidinger, RF 1984. Comparative assessment of food preferences and aversions acquired by blackbirds via observational learning. Auk 101, 796–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfister, JA, Price, KW 1996. Lack of maternal influence on lamb consumption of locoweed. Journal of Animal Science 74, 340–344.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Provenza, FD 1995. Postingestive feedback as an elementary determinant of food preference and intake in ruminants. Journal of Range Management 48, 2–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Provenza, FD, Lynch, JJ, Nolan, JV 1993. The relative importance of mother and toxicosis in the selection of foods by lambs. Journal of Chemical Ecology 19, 313–323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ralphs, MH, Olsen, JD 1990. Adverse influence of social facilitation and learning context in training cattle to avoid eating larkspur. Journal of Animal Science 68, 1944–1952.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ralphs, MH, Provenza, FD 1999. Conditioned food aversions: principles and practices with special reference to social facilitation. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 58, 813–820.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reinhardt, V, Reinhardt, A 1981. Cohesive relationships in a cattle herd (Bos indicus). Behaviour 77, 121–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, BF 1981. Selection by consequences. Science 213, 501–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sowell BF, Mosley JC and Bowman JCP 1999. Social behavior of grazing beef cattle: implications for management. Proceedings of the American Society of Animal Science. Retrieved April 24, 2006, from http://www.asas.org/jas/symposia/proceedings/0923.pdfGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute 2001. JMP IN version 4. Statistical discovery software. SAS Institute INC., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Suttie, JM, Reynolds, SG, Batello, C 2005. Grasslands of the World. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.Google Scholar
Thorhallsdottir, AG, Provenza, FD, Balph, DF 1990. Ability of lambs to learn about novel foods while observing or participating with social models. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 25, 25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiedemann AR, Quigley TM, White LD, Lauritzen WS, Thomas JW and McInnis ML 1999. Electronic (fenceless) control of livestock. Res.Pap.PNW-RP-510. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.Google Scholar