| |
Abstract |
Four experiments were designed to find evidence of observational learning in cattle. The experiments were run on ten experimental heifers, each observing a demonstrator mate performing a task, and on ten control heifers, each observing a non-demonstrator mate. The mates and observers were separated by wire netting in Experiments 1-3, but were in the same room in Experiment 4. The task to be learned was to push a panel to get food into a box. All naive animals were able to observe while their mate performed the task. The observers in Experiments 1 and 4 were Salers heifers that had no prior experience of the testing room; those in Experiment 2 were Salers heifers that were accustomed to the room; those in Experiment 3 were Aubrac or Limousin heifers that had already eaten in the room.
The behaviour of the observers was influenced by their mates: activity at or near the boxes was enhanced by the presence of demonstrators in Experiment 2 (box contacts: 38.0 +/- 16.2 vs. 22.1 +/- 11.9 for experimental and control heifers, respectively; P<0.05), while activity in other parts of the room in Experiment 3 was enhanced when non-demonstrator mates were present (wall sniffing: 5.4 +/- 13.9 vs. 13.9 +/- 13.7; P<0.05). Overall, 26 experimental heifers vs. 19 controls learned the task (P>0.05). The time spent eating was longer when the observer only had visual contact with a demonstrator (Experiment 1: 15.9 +/- 1.6 vs. 11.6 +/- 1.8 min), but was lower when physical contacts with the demonstrator were possible (Experiment 4: 4.6 +/- 8.8 vs. 5.4 +/- 2.2 min; P<0.05).
Ten out of the 11 Limousin heifers learned the task, compared with only three out of the nine Aubrac heifers (P<0.05). The latter spent more time near the door and sniffed the walls more often than the former (2.0 +/- 1.9 vs. 0.4 +/- 0.6 min, P<0.05, and 18.1 +/- 13.4 vs. 2.7 +/- 6.5 min, P<0.01), as though they were trying to flee the situation.
When animals observed a demonstrator, their attention was drawn to stimuli involved in the task but acquisition of knowledge was not greatly improved. |
|
