Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-vt8vv Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-08-15T05:20:16.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Feeding behaviour and diet choices and diet choices of cattle with physical and temporal constraints on forage accessibility: an indoor experiment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

C. Ginane  and
M. Petit
C. Ginane*
Affiliation:
INRA, Unité de Recherches sur les Herbivores, Centre de Theix, 63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
M. Petit
Affiliation:
INRA, Unité de Recherches sur les Herbivores, Centre de Theix, 63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
*
†E-mail: ginane@sancy.clermont.inra.fr
Get access

Abstract

An indoor choice experiment was conducted to assess the extent to which heifers offered two forages of different quality will attempt to consume the better quality forage when the weight/number of constraints applied on its harvesting increase. The experiment involved six Salers heifers, a leafy (L) and a coarse (C) hay, and two combined or single accessibility constraints. A physical constraint consisted of reducing the prehensibility of L by covering the trough with a steel grid of either 4 cm or 6 cm mesh size (L4 or L6 v. L ∞ for no grid). A temporal constraint limited the daily access time to both hays to 4 v. 24 h. The hays were either offered alone or together over 2-week periods. Dry-matter intake and feeding time were recorded daily.

As expected, the physical constraint (only L4 was efficient) made the heifers decrease their choice (proportion of feeding time or intake) for L regardless of access time, whereas the temporal constraint had no significant effect on choice. The heifers greatly modulated their intake rate of L even under strong physical constraint (L4), and then unexpectedly managed to ingest L faster than C. This emphasizes their motivation to keep ingesting the better quality forage, and underlines the difficulties in comparing diet choices with the optimal foraging theory predictions based on the relative values of a behavioural component subject to large variation, i.e. intake rate. In a very constraining situation (L4 and 4-h access), heifers made a choice that allowed them to increase their total daily digestible organic matter (DOM) intake compared with L4 or C offered alone because of an inverse relationship between feeding time and intake rate on L4. They did not however maximize their total daily DOM intake in a less constraining situation (L ∞ or L6 and C, with 4-h access), since they did not consume L exclusively and showed a marked preference for a mixed diet.

Keywords

cattlefeeding behaviourfood intakefood preferences
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 81 , Issue 1 , August 2005 , pp. 3 - 10
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2005

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

Allden, W. G. and Whittaker, I. A. 1970. The determinants of herbage intake by grazing sheep: the interrelations of factors influencing herbage intake and availability. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 21: 755–766.Google Scholar
Black, J. L. and Kenney, P. A. 1984. Factors affecting diet selection by sheep. II. Height and density of pasture. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 35: 565–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Champion, R. A., Orr, R. J., Penning, P. D. and Rutter, S. M. 2004. The effect of the spatial scale of heterogeneity of two herbage species on the grazing behaviour of lactating sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 88: 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chilibroste, P., Tamminga, S. and Boer, H. 1997. Effects of length of grazing session, rumen fill and starvation time before grazing on dry-matter intake, ingestive behaviour and dry-matter rumen pool sizes of grazing lactating dairy cows. Grass and Forage Science 52: 249–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, S. D. B., Kyriazakis, I. and Nolan, J. V. 1995. Diet selection in sheep: the role of the rumen environment in the selection of a diet from two feeds that differ in their energy density. British Journal of Nutrition 74: 39–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, S. D. B., Kyriazakis, I. and Oldham, J. D. 1996. The effects of physical form of feed, carbohydrate source, and inclusion of sodium bicarbonate on the diet selections of sheep. Journal of Animal Science 74: 1240–1251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coughenour, M. B. 1991. Spatial components of plant-herbivore interactions in pastoral, ranching and native ungulate ecosystems. Journal of Range Management 44: 530–542.Google Scholar
Dumont, B. and Petit, M. 1995. An indoor method for studying the preferences of sheep and cattle at pasture. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 46: 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginane, C. and Petit, M. 2005. Constraining the time available to graze reinforces heifers' preference for sward of high quality despite low availability. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. In press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginane, C., Petit, M. and D'Hour, P. 2003. How do grazing heifers choose between maturing reproductive and tall or short vegetative swards? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 83: 15–27.Google Scholar
Ginane, C., Petit, M. and D'Hour, P. 2003. How do grazing heifers choose between maturing reproductive and tall or short vegetative swards? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 83: 15–27.Google Scholar
Gordon, I. J. and Illius, A. W. 1992. Foraging strategy: from monoculture to mosaic. In Progress in sheep and goat research (ed. Speedy, A. W.), pp. 153–177. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Hidari, H. 1981. The relationships between rumen load and diurnal eating pattern of sheep fed in various time of access to feed. Japanese Journal of Zootechnical Science 52: 219–226.Google Scholar
Hirata, M., Sato, R. and Ogura, S. I. 2002. Effects of progressive grazing of a pasture on the spatial distributions of herbage mass and utilization by cattle: a preliminary study. Ecological Research 17: 381–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iason, G. R., Mantecon, A. R., Sim, D. A., Gonzalez, J., Foreman, E., Bermudez, F. F. and Elston, D. A. 1999. Can grazing sheep compensate for a daily foraging time constraint? Journal of Animal Ecology 68: 87–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Illius, A. W. and Gordon, I. J. 1987. The allometry of food intake in grazing ruminants. Journal of Animal Ecology 56: 989–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Illius, A. W. and Gordon, I. J. 1990. Constraints on diet selection and foraging behaviour in mammalian herbivores. In Behavioural mechanisms of food selection (ed. Hughes, R. N.), pp. 369–392. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Illius, A. W. and Gordon, I. J. 1999. The physiological ecology of mammalian herbivory. In Nutritional ecology of herbivores (ed. Jung, H. G. and Fahey, G. C.), fifth international symposium on the nutrition of herbivores, San Antonio, Texas, pp. 71–96.Google Scholar
Ingrand, S., Vimal, T., Fléchet, J., Agabriel, J., Brun, J. P., Lassalas, J. and Dedieu, B. 1998. A free-access system for the long-term monitoring of individual intake of beef cows kept in a group. Proceedings of the IXth European intake workshop, Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, North Wyke, UK, pp. 17–20.Google Scholar
Kenney, P. A. and Black, J. L. 1984. Factors affecting diet selection by sheep. I. Potential intake rate and acceptability of feed. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 35: 551–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Komarek, A. R., Fairport NY ANKOM Co., Robertson, J. B. and Van Soest, P. J. 1994. A comparison of methods for determining ADF using the filter bag technique versus conventional filtration. Journal of Animal Science 72: (suppl. 1) 114.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I. and Oldham, J. D. 1993. Diet selection in sheep: the ability of growing lambs to select a diet that meets their crude protein (nitrogen × 6·25) requirements. British Journal of Nutrition 69: 617–629.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laca, E. A., Ortega, I. M. and Soca, P. 1997. Controlling diet selection of sheep by restricting eating time. Proceedings of the 50th annual meeting of the Society for Range Management p. 30.Google Scholar
Laca, E. A., Ungar, E. D., Seligman, N. and Demment, M. W. 1992. Effects of sward height and bulk density on bite dimensions of cattle grazing homogeneous swards. Grass and Forage Science 47: 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, J. A., Parsons, A. J., Thornley, J. H. M., Penning, P. D. and Krebs, J. R. 1995. Optimal diet selection by a generalist grazing herbivore. Functional Ecology 9: 255–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penning, P. D. 1986. Some effects of sward conditions on grazing behaviour and intake by sheep. In Grazing research at northern latitudes (ed. Gudmundsson, O), pp. 219–226. Plenum Publishing Co., NY.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penning, P. D., Parsons, A. J., Orr, R. J. and Treacher, T. T. 1991. Intake and behaviour responses by sheep to changes in sward characteristics under continuous stocking. Grass and Forage Science 46: 15–28.Google Scholar
Peyraud, J. L. 1998. Techniques for measuring faecal flow, digestibility and intake of herbage in grazing ruminants. Proceedings of the ninth European intake workshop, North Wyke, UK, pp. 39–43.Google Scholar
Provenza, F. D. and Balph, D. F. 1990. Applicability of five diet-selection models to various foraging challenges ruminants encounter. In Behavioural mechanisms of food selection (ed. Hughes, R. N.), pp. 424–460. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
Rolls, B. J. 1986. Sensory-specific satiety. Nutritional Review 44: 93–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Romney, D. L., Sendalo, D. S. C., Owen, E., Mtenga, L. A., Penning, P. D., Mayes, R. W. and Hendy, C. R. C. 1996. Effects of tethering management on feed intake and behaviour of Tanzanian goats. Small Ruminant Research 19: 113–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rook, A. J., Huckle, C. A. and Penning, P. D. 1994. Effects of sward height and concentrate supplementation on the ingestive behaviour of spring-calving dairy cows grazing grass-clover swards. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 40: 101–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, L. L. and Provenza, F. D. 1998. Variety of foods and flavors affects selection of foraging location by sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 61: 113–122.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1999. SAS/STAT user's guide, version 8. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Stephens, D. W. and Krebs, J. R. 1986. Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Suzuki, S., Shinde, Y. and Hidari, H. 1970. Effects of change in the daily time of access to hay on the rate of eating and feed intake of dairy cows. Japanese Journal of Zootechnical Science 41: 423–429.Google Scholar
WallisDeVries, M. F. and Daleboudt, C. 1994. Foraging strategy of cattle in patchy grassland. Oecologia 100: 98–106.Google Scholar
Westoby, M. 1978. What are the biological bases of varied diets? The American Naturalist 112: 627–631.Google Scholar
Willms, W. D., Dormaar, J. F. and Schaaltje, G. B. 1988. Stability of grazed patches on rough fescue grasslands. Journal of Range Management 41: 503–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilmshurst, J. F., Fryxell, J. M. and Hudson, R. J. 1995. Forage quality and patch choice by wapiti (Cervus elaphus). Behavioural Ecology 6: 209–217.Google Scholar