Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Relative importance of senses in forage discrimination by cattle depends on the sensory contrast between the discrimination targets: a preliminary study

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Animal Cognition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The ability of ungulates to discriminate among vegetation patches depends largely on the senses of vision, olfaction, tactility, and gustation. However, little is known about how ungulates rely on the respective senses in response to varying patch characteristics. This study aimed to evaluate how relative importance of senses in patch discrimination by cattle is affected by the sensory contrast between the discrimination targets. Five Japanese Black cows were allowed to choose between two forage patches from a distance of about 1 m. Two combinations of forage patches were used: one was a pair of green and dead forages of bahiagrass (BG) with clear mutual contrast in appearance and odor, and the other was a pair of green forages of BG and cogongrass (CG) with visual and olfactory resemblance. Cows preferably located and ate the green BG as the first choice (Type 1), or as the second choice after touching (Type 2) or further biting (Type 3) the alternative in error. Overall, Type 1 accounted for a high above-chance proportion of 0.94 in the green BG vs. dead BG discrimination, indicating the primary importance of vision and olfaction. By contrast, in the green BG vs. green CG discrimination, Type 1 remained at the chance level of 0.55 with proportions of 0.17 for Type 2 and 0.28 for Type 3, indicating the primary importance of tactility on the muzzle and in the mouth. The context-specific importance of the four senses in patch discrimination represents an adaptive mechanism of animals foraging in grasslands.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AOAC (1990) Official methods of analysis, 15th edn. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold GW (1966a) The special senses in grazing animals. I. Sight and dietary habits in sheep. Aust J Agric Res 17:521–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold GW (1966b) The special senses in grazing animals. II. Smell, taste, and touch and dietary habits in sheep. Aust J Agric Res 17:531–542

    Article  Google 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. J Range Manag 49:386–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker JP, de Leeuw J, van Wieren SE (1983) Micro-patterns in grassland vegetation created and sustained by sheep-grazing. Vegetatio 55:153–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergman CM, Fryxell JM, Gates CC, Fortin D (2001) Ungulate foraging strategies: energy maximizing or time minimizing? J Anim Ecol 70:289–300

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman TS, Ben-Ari M, Glasser TA, Gish M, Inbar M (2017) How goats avoid ingesting noxious insects while feeding. Sci Rep 7:14835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bukombe J, Kittle A, Senzota RB, Kija H, Mduma S, Fryxell JM, Magige F, Mligo C, Sinclair ARE (2019) The influence of food availability, quality and body size on patch selection of coexisting grazer ungulates in western Serengeti National Park. Wildlife Res 46:54–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cid MS, Brizuela MA (1998) Heterogeneity in tall fescue pastures created and sustained by cattle grazing. J Range Manag 51:644–649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dohi H, Yamada A, Entsu S (1991) Cattle feeding deterrents emitted from cattle feces. J Chem Ecol 17:1197–1203

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Edouard N, Duncan P, Dumont B, Baumont R, Fleurance G (2010) Foraging in a heterogeneous environment. An experimental study of the trade-off between intake rate and diet quality. Appl Anim Behav Sci 126:27–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fankhauser R, Galeffi C, Suter W (2008) Dung avoidance as a possible mechanism in competition between wild and domestic ungulates: two experiments with chamois Rupicapra rupicapra. Eur J Wildl Res 54:88–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia F, Carrère P, Soussana JF, Baumont R (2003) How do severity and frequency of grazing affect sward characteristics and the choices of sheep during the grazing season? Grass Forage Sci 58:138–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginane C, Baumont R, Favreau-Peigné A (2011) Perception and hedonic value of basic tastes in domestic ruminants. Physiol Behav 104:666–674

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Goddard J (1968) Food preferences of two black rhinoceros populations. E Afr Wildl J 6:1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goto I, Minson DJ (1977) Prediction of the dry matter digestibility of tropical grasses using a pepsin–cellulase assay. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2:247–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirata M, Murakami K, Ikeda K, Oka K, Tobisa M (2012) Cattle use protein as a currency in patch choice on tropical grass swards. Livest Sci 150:209–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirata M, Takeno N (2014) Do cattle (Bos taurus) retain an association of a visual cue with a food reward for a year? Anim Sci J 85:729–734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirata M, Matsumoto Y, Izumi S, Soga Y, Hirota F, Tobisa M (2015a) Seasonal and interannual variations in feeding station behavior of cattle: effects of sward and meteorological conditions. Animal 9:682–690

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hirata M, Tajiri Y, Murakami K, Ikeda K, Oka K, Tobisa M (2015b) Cattle make two-stage discriminations in patch choice. Ecol Res 30:395–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirata M, Kunieda E, Tobisa M (2017) Preference of cattle grazing conterminous monocultures of centipedegrass (Eremochloa ophiuroides) and bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) with contrasting regrowth durations. Anim Sci J 88:909–917

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hirata M, Arimoto C, Hattori N, Anzai H (2019) Can cattle visually discriminate between green and dead forages at a short distance while moving in the field? Anim Cogn 22:707–718

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirata M, Kusatake N (2020) How cattle discriminate between green and dead forages accessible by head and neck movements by means of senses: reliance on vision varies with the distance to the forages. Anim Cogn 23:405–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howery LD, Bailey DW, Ruyle GB, Renken WJ (2000) Cattle use visual cues to track food locations. Appl Anim Behav Sci 67:1–14

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Illius AW, Gordon IJ, Elston DA, Milne JD (1999) Diet selection in goats: a test of intake-rate maximization. Ecology 80:1008–1018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger WC, Laycock WA, Price DA (1974) Relationships of taste, smell, sight, and touch to forage selection. J Range Manag 27:258–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minson DJ (1990) Forage in ruminant nutrition. Academic Press, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Naujeck A, Hill J, Gibb MJ (2005) Influence of sward height on diet selection by horses. Appl Anim Behav Sci 90:49–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogura S, Hasegawa H, Hirata M (2002) Effects of herbage mass and herbage quality on spatially heterogeneous grazing by cattle in a bahia grass (Paspalum notatum) pasture. Trop Grassl 36:172–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Orr RJ, Tozer KN, Griffith BA, Champion RA, Cook JE, Rutter SM (2012) Foraging paths through vegetation patches for beef cattle in semi-natural pastures. Appl Anim Behav Sci 141:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfister JA, Müller-Schwarze D, Balph DF (1990) Effects of predator fecal odors on feed selection by sheep and cattle. J Chem Ecol 16:573–583

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Prache S, Damasceno JC (2006) Preferences of sheep grazing down conterminal monocultures of Lolium perenne–Festuca arundinacea: test of an energy intake rate maximisation hypothesis using the short-term double weighing technique. Appl Anim Behav Sci 97:206–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renken WJ, Howery LD, Ruyle GB, Enns RM (2008) Cattle generalise visual cues from the pen to the field to select initial feeding patches. Appl Anim Behav Sci 109:128–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruyle GB, Dwyer DD (1985) Feeding stations of sheep as an indicator of diminished forage supply. J Anim Sci 61:349–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt MH, Shuttleworth A, Ward D, Shrader AM (2018) African elephants use plant odours to make foraging decisions across multiple spatial scales. Anim Behav 141:17–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senft RL, Coughenour MB, Bailey DW, Rittenhouse LR, Sala OE, Swift DM (1987) Large herbivore foraging and ecological hierarchies. Bioscience 37:789–799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vallentine JF (1990) Grazing management. Academic Press, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Wal R, Madan N, van Lieshout S, Dormann C, Langvatn R, Albon SD (2000) Trading forage quality for quantity? Plant phenology and patch choice by Svalbard reindeer. Oecologia 123:108–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallis de Vries ME, Daleboudt C (1994) Foraging strategy of cattle in patchy grassland. Oecologia 100:98–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilmshurst JF, Fryxell JM, Hudson RJ (1995) Forage quality and patch choice by wapiti (Cervus elaphus). Behav Ecol 6:209–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Chie Arimoto, Yuki Oshige, Chihiro Shibata, Moeko Takenaka, Saori Maesono, Kayana Murakami, Natsumi Hattori, Misono Yamasaki, and Sayaka Yamashita for field and laboratory assistance; and Kiichi Fukuyama, Ikuo Kobayashi, Genki Ishigaki, and Koichiro Henmi for animal management. This work was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 16K08008; to M. Hirata).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Agriculture, University of Miyazaki, Miyazaki, 889-2192, Japan

    Masahiko Hirata & Noriko Kusatake

Authors
  1. Masahiko Hirata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Noriko Kusatake
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Masahiko Hirata.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest to report.

Ethical approval

All procedures used in the study were approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee of the University of Miyazaki (#2012–001–5).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hirata, M., Kusatake, N. Relative importance of senses in forage discrimination by cattle depends on the sensory contrast between the discrimination targets: a preliminary study. Anim Cogn 24, 99–106 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-020-01422-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-020-01422-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation