Why do animals behave the way that they do and what does their behavior mean in terms of managing the livestock which we raise for food?

The social organization and culture of animals and how they interact with the ecosystem around them are not typically considered in the development of systems to produce our meat.

Why not?

Could it be that in the interest of an industrialized agricultural model that has given us both the technology and the cheap and abundant energy necessary to turn the raising of livestock into a business, animals have become production units and the farm a factory floor?

A Varied Diet

There is more and more evidence that the social and cultural links between animals and their natural environment have an extreme effect upon the well-being and ultimately the productivity of both. That animals’ foraging behavior is a function of both their physiology (the inherent adaptations of their bodies that have evolved to make use of different foods) and the learned wisdom they acquire from their mothers and peers in a social group.

There was a time when we understood animal behavior because we lived in closer proximity to our livestock and we learned how to provide for their needs from our daily observations of them. That kind of hands-on husbandry fosters a knowledge and experience that modern agriculture has all but eliminated, but from which it could benefit. Contented, stress free animals are far more productive and, if paid the attention they deserve, will give all the clues needed to keep them that way, at a minimal dollar cost and with less intensive management.

Back to Basics

Dr Provenza of the University of Utah recently held a workshop to discuss the foraging behavior of herbivores with a group of producers, scientists and students at Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada's Research Centre in Brandon, Manitoba, Canada.

The livestock sector, if it is to be sustainable, needs to get back to the basics of animal husbandry says Dr. Frederick Provenza of the University of Utah. He has spent decades researching behavioral processes and has concentrated on the role that learning plays in food and habitat selection by herbivores.

For decades now there has been a tendency towards uniformity in our livestock management systems. We do not celebrate diversity when it comes to raising animals for food. We want them all to be uniform in their progression through their lives to make management and marketing of those animals easier. Uniformity is enshrined into out livestock production systems, whether for cattle, sheep, pigs, goats or poultry.

We want all the cows to be bred at the same time, to calve at the same time, we want them all to eat the same food, in the same quantities and gain the same amount of weight, so they can all be ready for market at the same time. Uniformity certainly makes processing and distribution much easier and more profitable for the livestock industry.

But, at the other end of that long chain to the supermarket, does uniformity hold any tangible benefits for farmers, beyond perhaps a little more convenience?  There is scant evidence in the financial statements of most livestock producers that this system is making them more profitable.

Increasingly in an industrialized cattle industry we are not raising herds, but rather ear tag numbers. This may be where many of the problems endemic in our food system, not least of which being paltry returns for farmers, are rooted.

The complex, global food system is controlled by a small number of large multinational corporations and subject to an endless number of trade agreements and yet a majority of the risk is borne by those producing the raw materials. There are few things that the farmer at the crushing base of this vast pyramid can control to help make more money, but one of them is his production costs.

And this is where his animals might be able to educate him about productivity, by making use of their natural abilities to select the most nutritious food from the cheapest source there is: nature.

Doing What Comes Naturally

When grazing animals are put into an environment where they have choices, where there is an abundance of diversity in the foods available to them, how do they select their food? How do they decide what is good to eat and avoid what will make them sick? Will they, if given a choice, choose the most nutritious or healthy foods? Do they make choices based on just the palatability of the food (whether it tastes good or is easily digestible) or are there other factors involved, like nutritional wisdom learned from their mothers or peer groups?

In the wild animals have to cope with all kinds of changes in the landscape around them, which can vary the nutritional content of the available food sources according to differences in the weather, soil quality, even the amount of competition that they have for the food available. All of these factors have an effect upon their diet and the selection of the foods they eat.

“Unlike humans who acquire nutritious foods from familiar and predictable haunts—grocery stores, restaurants, gardens— herbivores must sift through an ever-changing landscape fraught with biochemical complexity,¹” says Provenza.

Animals face any number of potential hazards when it comes to choosing which plants to eat. Over time plants have developed plenty of mechanisms to prevent themselves from winding up in the cow’s rumen, from barbs and thorns to chemical compounds that can cause illness or death. And all of these properties can change in intensity depending on the location, time of day, or season.

Provenza and other scientists believe that animals have evolved some physiological protective features to prevent them from ingesting too many toxins.

“Research with toxic compounds shows that delivering high doses of toxins via a stomach tube…following food ingestion causes strong aversions to the food eaten just prior to toxicosis,” says Provenza. “Thus the concentration of toxins in foods sets limits on the amount of a particular food animals can ingest. ¹”

Palatability is, of course, immensely important in the selection of food and the quantity consumed, but it is about more than just the taste, smell and texture of the foods on offer. Scientists have come to recognise that palatability, (whether in animals or humans), is a complex interaction between the sensory perception of the food and the feedback from the body in terms of its value to the body’s systems. In other words if our bodies tell us that a food is having a positive effect, we will seek more of it to maintain that effect.

“Feedbacks from the body influence the senses—hedonics of taste, odor, sight—that are the interface between the body’s internal environments and the external environments where animals forage, ¹” says Provenza.

This means that animals can make full use of the diversity in the landscape around them and vary their diets according to their nutritional and health needs, which are constantly changing, depending on their stage of development and activity level. A pregnant or lactating cow will have much higher nutritional requirements than a cow that is not bred or has no calf. An animal that is ill or infected with parasites will have different requirements from their food than one that is well.

Again, a foraging animal that is presented with plenty of choice, will try to balance out its nutritional needs.

“There is ample evidence that animals forage to correct nutritional imbalances and deficiencies,” says Provenza. “Animals acquire aversions to nutrient-deficient diets. Aversions cause animals to sample other familiar foods or to sample novel foods. If the consequence of eating the novel foods are positive—they help to rectify the deficit—animals acquire a preference for the new foods and forage in the new locations.” ¹

It would appear that livestock management, which starts with pasture management, can have a huge impact on productivity. Research suggests that if long term sustainability of pasture-fed livestock is the goal, diversity is the key to achieving that.

Diversity is the Key

Diversity begins with the plant species on offer.

“When we unduly constrain animals by mixing food to meet the needs of the “average” animal, by feeding total-mixed rations in confinement, by planting monocultures of forages on pastures, or by restricting the ability of animals to fully use rangelands, we will only meet the nutritional needs of a subset of individuals in a herd – and abuse the lands in the process, ¹” says Provenza.

The diversity of species in the landscape, both plant and animals, can have a significant impact on the productivity of both. Provenza uses an example of the over concentration of animal species in a system to illustrate how it can affect the landscape.

Given free choice, cows prefer to eat grass, whereas sheep will choose shrubs over other types of forage. In a pasture that contains a mixture of both shrubs and grasses, when only cows are grazed, the area will be left with an over abundance of shrubs and little grass. Conversely, if only sheep graze in the pasture, there will be fewer shrubs and more grass. A mix of cows and sheep will keep the different plant species in balance and make the pasture more productive for the longer term.

Provenza is the first to admit that although all of this research is compelling, actually achieving a locally adapted system can be problematic and the adaption period can last up to three years, which can be a daunting prospect for producers faced with reduced productivity in that transitional phase.

A Case Study

Ray Banister manages 7,200 acres of rangeland in eastern Montana. He changed his management style from short periods of rotational grazing to what he terms a “boom-bust” system of intensive grazing periods followed by two growing seasons of rest.

It took his cows three years to adapt to this new management style and during that time the weaning weights of his calves decreased to less than 350 lbs from over 500 lbs, although they did eventually return to the higher weight.

Over time the animals became less specialized in their diet selections, making use of all available plants, even the ones that were less palatable to them at the beginning. This meant that a greater diversity of plant species endured, not just the less palatable ones that the animals had not grazed.

And once the older cows had made the transition they passed the behavior to their calves that had no problems with the grazing system from the very start. The “boom-bust” cycle eventually paid off in terms of productivity and environmental benefits to Banister’s land.

“Ray has improved the land though boom-bust management,” says Provenza. “Occasional disturbance, followed by rest, creates and maintains a diversity of micro and macro habitats. It is hard to find any part of the ranch that lacks abundant plant cover even during years of drought. Heavy use of all plant species reduces undesirable plants. Abundant plant cover in the uplands and riparian areas mitigates soil erosion, which leads to clean water and great habitat for fish, waterfowl and terrestrial species of wildlife. ¹”

Further research is being conducted in the area of foraging behaviour and its implications for both livestock and pasture productivity, but it appears that diversity is the operative word when it comes to sustaining a system that benefits the producer, the animals and the land.

For more information about Dr. Provenza’s work visit http://www.behave.net/

¹ Foraging Behaviour: Managing to survive in a world of change. Behavioural principles for human, animal, vegetation and ecosystem management, by Frederick D. Provenza.

To follow is part two, which will discuss how much of animals’ nutritional wisdom is inherited or learned.