|
|
Ralston, S. L. (1984). Controls of feeding in horses. J. Anim Sci., 59(5), 1354–1361.
Abstract: Members of the genus Equus are large, nonruminant herbivores. These animals utilize the products of both enzymatic digestion in the small intestine and bacterial fermentation (volatile fatty acids) in the cecum and large colon as sources of metabolizable energy. Equine animals rely primarily upon oropharyngeal and external stimuli to control the size and duration of an isolated meal. Meal frequency, however, is regulated by stimuli generated by the presence and (or) absorption of nutrients (sugars, fatty acids, protein) in both the large and small intestine plus metabolic cues reflecting body energy stores. The control of feeding in this species reflects its evolutionary development in an environment which selected for consumption of small, frequent meals of a variety of forages.
|
|
|
|
Hawkes, J., Hedges, M., Daniluk, P., Hintz, H. F., & Schryver, H. F. (1985). Feed preferences of ponies. Equine Vet J, 17(1), 20–22.
Abstract: Preference trials were conducted with mature ponies. In Trial 1, oats were compared with oats plus sucrose. Four of six pony geldings selected oats plus sucrose, but one pony demonstrated a dislike for sucrose and one selected from the bucket on the right side regardless of content. Oats, maize, barley, rye and wheat were compared in Trial 2 using six mature pony mares. Oats were the preferred grain, with maize and barley ranking second and third respectively. Wheat and rye were the least preferred. Even though the ponies demonstrated preference, the total intake at a given meal was not greatly depressed when only the less palatable grains were fed. In Trial 3, pony mares selected a diet containing 20 per cent dried distillers' grain and 80 per cent of a basal mixed diet of maize, oats, wheat bran, soybean meal, limestone and molasses over 100 per cent basal mixed diet, but selected the basal diet over diets containing 20 per cent blood meal, beet pulp or meat and bone meal and 80 per cent basal diet. They did not differentiate against diets containing 20 per cent alfalfa meal or 10 or 5 per cent meat and bone meal when the diets were compared to the basal mixed diet.
|
|
|
|
Whiten, A., Custance, D. M., Gomez, J. C., Teixidor, P., & Bard, K. A. (1996). Imitative learning of artificial fruit processing in children (Homo sapiens) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). J Comp Psychol, 110(1), 3–14.
Abstract: Observational learning in chimpanzees and young children was investigated using an artificial fruit designed as an analog of natural foraging problems faced by primates. Each of 3 principal components could be removed in 2 alternative ways, demonstration of only one of which was watched by each subject. This permitted subsequent imitation by subjects to be distinguished from stimulus enhancement. Children aged 2-4 years evidenced imitation for 2 components, but also achieved demonstrated outcomes through their own techniques. Chimpanzees relied even more on their own techniques, but they did imitate elements of 1 component of the task. To our knowledge, this is the first experimental evidence of chimpanzee imitation in a functional task designed to simulate foraging behavior hypothesized to be transmitted culturally in the wild.
|
|
|
|
Caldwell, C. A., & Whiten, A. (2004). Testing for social learning and imitation in common marmosets, Callithrix jacchus, using an artificial fruit. Anim. Cogn., 7(2), 77–85.
Abstract: We tested for social learning and imitation in common marmosets using an artificial foraging task and trained conspecific demonstrators. We trained a demonstrator marmoset to open an artificial fruit, providing a full demonstration of the task to be learned. Another marmoset provided a partial demonstration, controlling for stimulus enhancement effects, by eating food from the outside of the apparatus. We thus compared three observer groups, each consisting of four animals: those that received the full demonstration, those that received the partial demonstration, and a control group that saw no demonstration prior to testing. Although none of the observer marmosets succeeded in opening the artificial fruit during the test periods, there were clear effects of demonstration type. Those that saw the full demonstration manipulated the apparatus more overall, whereas those from the control group manipulated it the least of the three groups. Those from the full-demonstration group also contacted the particular parts of the artificial fruit that they had seen touched (localised stimulus enhancement) to a greater extent than the other two groups. There was also an interaction between the number of hand and mouth touches made to the artificial fruit for the full- and partial-demonstration groups. Whether or not these data represent evidence for imitation is discussed. We also propose that the clear differences between the groups suggest that social learning mechanisms provide real benefits to these animals in terms of developing novel food-processing skills analogous to the one presented here.
|
|
|
|
Brosnan, S. F., Freeman, C., & De Waal, F. B. M. (2006). Partner's behavior, not reward distribution, determines success in an unequal cooperative task in capuchin monkeys. Am. J. Primatol., 68(7), 713–724.
Abstract: It was recently demonstrated that capuchin monkeys notice and respond to distributional inequity, a trait that has been proposed to support the evolution of cooperation in the human species. However, it is unknown how capuchins react to inequitable rewards in an unrestricted cooperative paradigm in which they may freely choose both whether to participate and, within the bounds of their partner's behavior, which reward they will receive for their participation. We tested capuchin monkeys with such a design, using a cooperative barpull, which has been used with great success in the past. Contrary to our expectations, the equity of the reward distribution did not affect success or pulling behavior. However, the behavior of the partner in an unequal situation did affect overall success rates: pairs that had a tendency to alternate which individual received the higher-value food in unequal reward situations were more than twice as successful in obtaining rewards than pairs in which one individual dominated the higher-value food. This ability to equitably distribute rewards in inherently biased cooperative situations has profound implications for activities such as group hunts, in which multiple individuals work together for a single, monopolizable reward.
|
|
|
|
Houpt, K. A., Zahorik, D. M., & Swartzman-Andert, J. A. (1990). Taste aversion learning in horses. J. Anim Sci., 68(8), 2340–2344.
Abstract: The ability of ponies to learn to avoid a relatively novel food associated with illness was tested in three situations: when illness occurred immediately after consuming a feed; when illness occurred 30 min after consuming a feed; and when illness was contingent upon eating one of three feeds offered simultaneously. Apomorphine was used to produce illness. The feeds associated with illness were corn, alfalfa pellets, sweet feed and a complete pelleted feed. The ponies learned to avoid all the fees except the complete feed when apomorphine injection immediately followed consumption of the feed. However, the ponies did not learn to avoid a feed if apomorphine was delayed 30 min after feed consumption. They could learn to avoid alfalfa pellets, but not corn, when these feeds were presented with the familiar “safe foods,” oats and soybean meal. Ponies apparently are able to learn a taste aversion, but there were constraints on this learning ability. Under the conditions of this study, they did not learn to avoid a food that made them sick long after consumption of the food, and they had more difficulty learning to avoid highly palatable feeds.
|
|
|
|
Fragaszy, D., & Visalberghi, E. (2004). Socially biased learning in monkeys. Learn Behav, 32(1), 24–35.
Abstract: We review socially biased learning about food and problem solving in monkeys, relying especially on studies with tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) and callitrichid monkeys. Capuchin monkeys most effectively learn to solve a new problem when they can act jointly with an experienced partner in a socially tolerant setting and when the problem can be solved by direct action on an object or substrate, but they do not learn by imitation. Capuchin monkeys are motivated to eat foods, whether familiar or novel, when they are with others that are eating, regardless of what the others are eating. Thus, social bias in learning about foods is indirect and mediated by facilitation of feeding. In most respects, social biases in learning are similar in capuchins and callitrichids, except that callitrichids provide more specific behavioral cues to others about the availability and palatability of foods. Callitrichids generally are more tolerant toward group members and coordinate their activity in space and time more closely than capuchins do. These characteristics support stronger social biases in learning in callitrichids than in capuchins in some situations. On the other hand, callitrichids' more limited range of manipulative behaviors, greater neophobia, and greater sensitivity to the risk of predation restricts what these monkeys learn in comparison with capuchins. We suggest that socially biased learning is always the collective outcome of interacting physical, social, and individual factors, and that differences across populations and species in social bias in learning reflect variations in all these dimensions. Progress in understanding socially biased learning in nonhuman species will be aided by the development of appropriately detailed models of the richly interconnected processes affecting learning.
|
|
