Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:56:40.910Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does feeding area restriction inhibit social learning of toxic weed ingestion in cattle?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2010

K. T. Jackson ,
A. F. Cibils ,
W. R. Gould ,
J. D. Graham  and
C. D. Allison
K. T. Jackson
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Range Sciences, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA
A. F. Cibils*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Range Sciences, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA
W. R. Gould
Affiliation:
Department of Economics and International Business, University Statistics Center, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA
J. D. Graham
Affiliation:
Cooperative Extension Service, Union County Extension Office, Clayton, NM 88415, USA
C. D. Allison
Affiliation:
Extension Animal Sciences and Natural Resources Department, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Social learning from peers can trigger herd-wide intoxication with white locoweed (Oxytropis sericea), an alkaloid-synthesizing herbaceous legume that grows on rangelands of western North America. We conducted an experiment to test the hypothesis that restriction of the area allocated to animals to feed in would inhibit social facilitation of locoweed ingestion in yearling heifers. Eight heifers that avoided white locoweed (LA) and eight heifers that readily consumed it (LE) were selected from a pool of 40 cross-bred heifers and were randomly assigned to the social facilitation or social interference treatment groups. We conducted 200 10-min feeding trials in three 5-day phases (pre-treatment, treatment, post-treatment) during which animals were presented with a set of bowls arrayed in a test arena, some of which contained ground wheat straw and others contained air-dried ground white locoweed. During the pre-treatment (days 1 to 5) and the post-treatment phases (days 11 to 15) non-social trials were conducted in which the feeding behavior of individual animals was investigated in an 80 m2 arena containing 12 feeding bowls. During the treatment phase (days 6 to 10) social learning trials were conducted in which LA + LE pairs from the social interference group were exposed to 12 bowls of food distributed in an 80 m2 arena intended to induce social interference, and LA + LE pairs from the social facilitation group were exposed to 36 bowls of food distributed in a 240 m2 arena intended to permit social facilitation. During pre-treatment phase, LA heifers consumed detectably less locoweed and wheat straw and exhibited lower preference for locoweed than LE (P ⩽ 0.05) although wheat straw preference of LA and LE was similar. During social learning trials (treatment phase), LA in the social interference group visited similar number of locoweed bowls (mean ± s.e.m.: 0.2 ± 0.12) as they had during non-social learning (0.2 ± 0.20). Conversely, LA heifers in the social facilitation group visited detectably more locoweed bowls during social learning trials (1.6 ± 0.46) compared with the pre-treatment phase (0.2 ± 0.16). Correlation between daily number of locoweed bowls visited by LA and LE during social learning trials was detected in the social facilitation (r = 0.70; P < 0.01), but not in the social interference group (r = 0.15; P = 0.52). During testing trials (post-treatment phase), locoweed and wheat straw intake and preference of LA and LE in both treatment groups was similar. Manipulation of the feeding environment delayed, but did not inhibit social learning of toxic weed ingestion in this study.

Keywords

social facilitationsocial interferencewhite locoweeddiet selection
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 4 , Issue 9 , September 2010 , pp. 1577 - 1587
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2010

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

Akaike, H 1973. Information theory as an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In 2nd International Symposium on Information Theory (ed. BN Pterov and F Csaksi), pp. 267–281. Akadeimiai Kiado, Budapest (N).Google 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 Behavior Science 68, 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, R, Richerson, PJ 1988. An evolutionary model of social learning: the effects of spatial and temporal variation. In Social learning: psychological and biological perspectives (ed. TR Zentall), pp. 29–48. Erlbaum Publishing, Hillside, NJ.Google Scholar
Clayton, DA 1978. Socially facilitated behavior. The Quarterly Review of Biology 53, 373–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coussi-Korbel, S, Fragaszy, DM 1995. On the relation between social dynamics and social learning. Animal Behaviour 50, 1441–1453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeVries, TJ, von Keyserlingk, MAG, Weary, DM 2004. Effect of feeding space on the inter-cow distance, aggression, and feeding behaviour of free-stall housed lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 1432–1438.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Estevez, I, Anderson, IL, Naevdal, E 2007. Group size, density and social dynamics in farm animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 103, 185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galef, BG 1985. Direct and indirect behavioral pathways to the social transmission of food avoidance. Annals New York Academy of Sciences 443, 203–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galef, BG 1986. Social interaction modifies learned aversions, sodium apetite, and both palatability and handling-time induced dietary preference in rats (Rattus norvegicus). Journal of Comparative Psychology 4, 432–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galef, BG 1993. Functions of social learning about food: a casual analysis of effects of diet novelty on preference transmission. Animal Behaviour 46, 257–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galef, BG, Laland, KN 2005. Social learning in animals: empirical studies and theoretical models. BioScience 55, 489–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, DR, Molyneux, RJ, Ralphs, MH 2001. Analysis of swainsonine: extraction methods, detection and measurement in populations of locoweeds (Oxytropis spp.). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 49, 4573–4580.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ginane, C, Petit, M 2005. Feeding behaviour and diet choices of cattle with physical and temporal constraints on forage accessibility: an indoor experiment. Animal Science 81, 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giraldeau, LA, Caraco, T 2000. Social foraging theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howery, LD, Provenza, FD, Banner, RE, Scott, CB 1998. Social and environmental factors influence cattle distribution on rangeland. Applied Animal Behavior Science 55, 231–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huzzey, JM, DeVries, TJ, Valois, P, von Keyserlingk, MAG 2006. Stocking density and feed barrier design affect feeding and social behavior of dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 126–133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackson, KT, Cibils, AF, Graham, JD, Gould, WR, Allison, CD 2007. White locoweed ingestion by naive stockers: diet preference patterns of natural “eaters ” and “avoiders ”. In Poisounous plants: global research and solutions (ed. K Panter, TL Wierenga and JA Pfister), pp. 366–371. CABI Publishing, Cambridge, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, ANB, Burne, THJ, Rose, SPR 1998. Observation learning in day-old chicks using one-trial passive avoidance learning paradigm. Animal Behavior 56, 1347–1353.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaminski, J, Riedel, J, Call, J, Tomasello, M 2005. Domestic goats, Capra hircus, follow gaze direction and use social cues in an object choice task. Animal Behaviour 69, 11–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaupp, UB 2010. Olfactory signalling in vertebrates and insects: differences and commonalities. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 11, 188–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ksiksi, T, Laca, EA 2000. Can social interactions affect food searching efficiency of cattle? Rangeland Journal 22, 235–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koolhaas, JM, Korte, SM, DeBoer, SF, Van Der Vegt, BJ, Van Reenen, GG, Hopster, H, De Jong, IC, Ruis, MAW, Blokhuis, HJ 1999. Coping styles in animals: current status in behavior and stress physiology. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 23, 925–935.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laland, KN 2004. Social learning strategies. Learning & Behavior 32, 4–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Littell, RC, Milliken, GA, Stroup, WW, Wolfinger, RD, Schabenberger, O 2006. SAS for mixed models, 2nd edition. SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA. 840 p.Google Scholar
Mason, JR, Arzt, AH, Reidinger, RF 1984. Comparative assessment of food preferences and aversions acquired by blackbirds via observational learning. The Auk 101, 796–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattiello, S, Mattiangeli, V, Bianchi, L, Carenzi, C 1997. Feeding and social behavior of fallow deer under intensive pasture confinement. Journal of Animal Science 75, 338–347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McElligott, AG, Mattiangeli, V, Mattiello, S, Verga, M, Reynolds, CA, Hayden, TJ 1998. Fighting tactics of fallow bucks (Dama dama, Cervidae): reducing the risks of serious conflict. Ethology 104, 789–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council 2000. Composition of selected foods. In Nutrient requirements of beef cattle, 7th revised edition, pp. 133–148. National Academy Press, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Nilsson, PA, Lundberg, P, Brönmark, C, Persson, A, Turesson, H 2006. Behavioral interference and facilitation in the foraging cycle shape the functional response. Behavioral Ecology 18, 354–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olofsson, J 1999. Competition for total mixed diets fed for ad libitum intake using one or four cows per feeding station. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 69–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Owen, LP, Torell, LA, Graham, JD, Ralphs, MH 1999. Degree of locoweed poisoning predicts yearling stocker performance. Locoweed Research: Updates and Highlights. New Mexico State Agricultural Experiment Station Report 730.Google Scholar
Panter, KE, Ralphs, MH, James, LF, Stegelmeier, BL, Molyneux, RJ 1999. Effects of locoweed (Oxytropis sericea) on reproduction in cows with a history of locoweed consumption. Veterinary and Human Toxicology 41, 282–286.Google ScholarPubMed
Panter, KE, James, LF, Gardner, DR, Ralphs, MH, Pfister, JA, Stegelmeier, BL, Lee, ST 2002. Reproductive losses to poisonous plants: influence of management strategies. Journal of Range Management 55, 301–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfister, JA, Panter, KE, Gardner, DR, Stegelmeier, BL, Ralphs, MH, Molyneux, RJ, Lee, SL 2001. Alkaloids as anti-quality factors in plants on western US rangelands. Journal of Range Management 54, 447–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Provenza, FD 1994. Ontogeny and social transmission of food selection in domesticated ruminants. In Behavioral aspects of feeding: basic and applied research in mammals (ed. BG Galef, M Mainardi and P Valsecchi), pp. 147–163. Harword Academic Publishers, Chur.Google Scholar
Pruetz, JD, Isbell, LA 2000. Correlations of food distribution and patch size with agonistic interactions in female vervets (Chlorocebus aethiops) and patas monkeys (Erythrocebus patas) living in simple habitats. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 49, 38–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ralphs, MH, Olsen, JD 1987. Alkaloids and palatability of poisonous plants. In Comps. Proceedings of a Symposium on Plant-Herbivore Interactions (ed. FD Provenza, JT Flinders and ED McArthur), 7–9 August 1985; Snowbird, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-222. Ogden, UT: USDA FS, Intermountain Research Station, pp. 78–83.Google Scholar
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
Ralphs, MH, Graham, D, James, LF 1994. Social facilitation influences cattle to graze locoweed. Journal of Range Management 47, 123–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ralphs, MH, Graham, D, Duff, G, Stegelmeier, BL, James, LF 2000. Impact of locoweed poisoning on grazing steer weight gains. Journal of Range Management 53, 86–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute 2006. Statistical analysis system version 9.1. SAS Institute Inc., Raleigh, NC.Google Scholar
Shi, J, Dunbar, RIM 2006. Feeding competition within a feral goat population on the Isle of Rum, NW Scotland. Journal of Ethology 24, 117–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sowell, BF, Mosley, JC, Bowman, JCP 1999. Social behavior of grazing beef cattle: implications for management. Proceedings of the American Society of Animal Science. Retrieved February 22, 2010 from http://www.asas.org/symposia/9899proc/0923.pdfGoogle Scholar
von Keyserlingk, MAG, Brusius, L, Weary, DM 2004. Competition for teats and feeding behavior by group-housed dairy calves. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 4190–4194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walker, JW, Heitschmidt, RK 1989. Some effects of a rotational grazing treatment on cattle grazing behavior. Journal of Range Management 42, 337–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar