Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • 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 distances to discrimination targets. This study aimed to assess how cattle discriminate between patches of green and dead forages by means of senses, with a particular attention to the role of vision in relation to the distance to the forages. Thirteen Japanese Black cows were allowed to choose between the two forages from a distance of about 1 m without (− BF) or with (+ BF) a blindfold. The green forage differed from the dead forage in color, texture, odor, quality, and animals’ preference. Cows located and ate the green forage as the first choice (Type 1), or as the second choice after touching (Type 2) or further biting (Type 3) the dead forage in error. Overall, the proportion of [Type 1]/[Types 1 + 2 + 3] was above the chance for both − BF and + BF with a decrease by blindfolding. The proportion of [Type 2]/[Types 2 + 3] was above the chance for both − BF and + BF with no effect of blindfolding. The results indicate that cattle discriminating green forage against dead forage rely greatly on vision and to a lesser degree on olfaction when away from the forages, but rely no longer on vision and at least on tactility on the muzzle or in the mouth when in contact with a wrong choice.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adamczyk K, Górecka-Bruzda A, Nowicki J, Gumułka M, Molik E, Schwarz T, Earley B, Klocek C (2015) Perception of environment in farm animals—a review. Ann Anim Sci 15:565–589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chacon E, Stobbs TH (1976) Influence of progressive defoliation of a grass sward on the eating behaviour of cattle. Aust J Agric Res 27:709–727

    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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Guy MC, Watkin BR, Clark DA (1981) Effects of season, stocking rate, and grazing duration on diet selected by hoggets grazing mixed grass–clover pastures. N Z J Exp Agric 9:141–146

    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, 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 

  • 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 

  • Mitchell KD, Stookey JM, Laturnas DK, Watts JM, Haley DB, Huyde T (2004) The effects of blindfolding on behavior and heart rate in beef cattle during restraint. Appl Anim Behav Sci 85:233–245

    Article  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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 statement

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. 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 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-019-01344-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-019-01344-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation