Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-6jg5l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-17T13:25:12.452Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does the study of feeding behaviour benefit from a teleonomic framework?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 December 2007

Ilias Kyriazakis  and
Jon E. L. Day
Ilias Kyriazakis
Affiliation:
Animal Biology Division, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
Jon E. L. Day
Affiliation:
ADAS Terrington, Terrington St. Clements, King's Lynn, Norfolk PE34 4PW, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

In this paper we respond to the criticisms of Provenza et al. (1998) that our framework of learning and feeding motivation (Day et al. 1998) resorts to higher order goals, which cannot be falsified by experimentation. We assert that in order to be able to predict the feeding behaviour of animals we first need to understand what they are trying to achieve (i.e. invoke teleonomy). We then detail our framework in such terms that one could envisage experiments that could quantitatively test its predictions. We contend that the framework of ‘the self-organization of behaviour’ proposed by Provenza et al. (1998) cannot lead to such quantitative predictions, since it is invoked to describe feeding behaviour of animals a posteriori. It is our own desire, by contrast, to assess feeding behaviour a priori, which leads us to propose and defend our framework of learning and feeding motivation.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Nutrition Research Reviews , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , December 1998 , pp. 223 - 229
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1998

References

Arsenos, G.& Kyriazakis, I. (1998). The continuum between preferences and aversions for flavoured foods in sheep conditioned with administration of casein doses. Animal Science (in press).Google Scholar
Bazely, D. R. (1990). Rules and cues used by sheep foraging in monocultures. In Behuvioural Mechanisms of Food Selection, pp. 343–367 [Hughes, R. N., editor]. London: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, J. J., Emmans, G. C.& Friggens, N. C. (1994). Effect of diet on behaviour of individually penned lambs. Animal Production 58, 441 (abstr.)Google Scholar
Dardaillon, M. (1989). Age-class influences on feeding choices of free-ranging wild boars (Sus scrofa). Canadian Journal of Zoology 67, 2792–2796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, J. E. L., Kyriazakis, I.& Lawrence, A.B. (1986). An investigation into the causation of chewing behaviour in growing pigs: the role of exploration and feeding motivation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 48, 47–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, J. E. L., Kyriazakis, I.& Rogers, P. J. (1998). Food choice and intake: towards a unifying framework of learning and feeding motivation. Nutrition Research Reviews 11, 25–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Jong, A. (1981). Short- and long-term effects of eating on blood composition in free-feeding goats. Journal of Agricultrural Science 96, 659–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmans, G. C.& Kyriazakis, I. (1995). The idea of optimisation in animals: uses and dangers. Livestock Production Science 44, 189–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friggens, N. C., Nielsen, B. L., Kyriazakis, I., Tolkamp, B. J.& Emmans, G. C. (1998). Effects of food composition and stage of lactation on the short-term feeding behavior of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science (in press).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hull, D. (1974). Philosophy of Biological Science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Illius, A. W.& Jessop, N. S. (1996). Metabolic constraints on voluntary intake in ruminants. Journal of Animal Science 74, 3052–3062.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Inglis, I. R., Forkman, B.& Lazarus, J. (1997). Free food or earned food? A review and fuzzy model of contrafreeloading. Animal Behaviour 53, 1171–1191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kyriazakis, I. (1997). The nutritional choices of farm animals: to eat or what to eat? In Animal Choices. pp. 55–65 [Forbes, J M, Lawrence, T. L. J., Rodway, R. G. and Varley, M. A., editors]. Edinburgh: British Society of Animal Science.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I.& Emmans, G. C. (1998). Voluntary food intake and diet selection. In A Quantitative Biology of the Pig [Kyriazakis, I, editor]. Wallingford: CAB International (in press).Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I., Emmans, G. C.& Whittemore, C. T. (1990). Diet selection in pigs: choices made by growing pigs given foods of different protein concentrations. Animal Production 51, 189–199.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I. & Oldham, J. D. (1993). Diet selection in sheep: the ability of growing lambs to select a diet that meets their crude protein (nitrogen × 6.25) requirements. British Journal of Nutrition 69, 617–629.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mach, E. (1960). The Science of Mechanics: a critical and historical account of its development (original English translation published 1893). LaSalle: Open Court Publishing.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. M. (1964). The evolution of living systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 51, 934–941.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayr, E. M. (1988). Towards a New Philosophy of Biology: observations of an evolutionist. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nielsen, B. L., Lawrence, A. B.& Whittemore, C. T. (1995). Effects of group-size on feeding behaviour, social behaviour, and performance of growing pigs using single-space feeders. Livestock Production Science 44, 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. (1988). Protein Nutrition in Ruminants, 2nd edn. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Provenza, F. D. (1995). Postingestive feedback as an elementary determinant of food preference and intake in ruminants. Journal of Range Management 48, 2–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Provenza, F. D.& Cincotta, R. P. (1993). Foraging as a self-organization learning process: accepting adaptability at the expense of predictability. In Diet Selection, pp. 78–101 [Hughes, R N, editor]. London: Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Provenza, F. D., Villalba, J. J., Cheney, C. D.& Werner, S. J. (1998). Self-organization of foraging behaviour: From simplicity to complexity without goals. Nutrition Research Reviews 11, 199–222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sibly, R. M. (1975). How incentive and deficit determine feeding tendency. Animal Behaviour 23, 437–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sibly, R. M.& McCleery, R. H. (1976). The dominance boundary method of determining motivational state. Animal Behaviour 24, 108–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolkamp, B. J., Day, J. E. L.& Kyriazakis, I (1998). Measuring nutrient intake in farm and laboratory animals. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 57, 313–319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tolkamp, B. J.& Ketelaars, J. J. M. H. (1992). Toward a new theory of feed intake regulation in ruminants. 2. Costs and benefits of feed consumption: an optimisation approach. Livestock Production Science 30, 297–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolkamp, B. J.& Kyriazakis, I. (1997). Measuring diet selection in dairy cows: effects of training on choice of dietary protein level. Animal Science 64, 197–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villalba, J. J.& Provenza, F. D. (1996). Preference for flavoured wheat straw by lambs conditioned with intraruminal administrations of sodium propionate. Journal of Animal Science 74, 2362–2368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Villalba, J. J. & Provenza, F. D. (1997). Preference for flavoured foods by lambs conditioned with intraruminal administrations of nitrogen. British Journal of Nutrition 78, 545–561.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed