Behavior Facts

The BEHAVE program began about 25 years ago. When the project began, we didn't know how or even if ruminants learned about foods. Since that time we and others have discovered that learning is crucial to the survival and productivity of ruminants. Listed below are facts about how experience, social interactions, feedback, variety and learning affect diet and habitat selection of ruminants. Most of the facts were derived from research experiments with livestock. The number(s) listed at the end of each fact corresponds to a reference found at the end of this document, simply click on a number to display a reference. This list is not all encompassing and is a work in progress. If you have references that need to be added to our list or you find errors in this document please e-mail me, Beth Burritt, at beth.burritt@usu.edu.

  1. Ruminants exposed to nutritious foods at six-weeks of age with their mothers remember those foods for at least three years. (4)
  2. Ruminants exposed to poor-quality foods with their mothers during the first three months of life remember those foods for at least five years. (5)
  3. Exposure to foods early in life can alter rumen size, rumen morphology and liver function. (1, 3, 112)
  4. Ruminants reared in different environments have different food preferences. (14)
  5. Young ruminants (less than six months of age) readily acquire preferences for unpalatable foods. (73)
  6. Flavors in milk fed to nursing ruminants influence their food preferences later in life. (69)
  7. Early exposure to flavors or foods early in life increase preferences for those foods or flavors later in life. (81, 82)
  8. Lambs exposed to barley early in life reached slaughter condition more quickly than lambs not exposed to barley. (1, 2)
  9. Ruminants must acquire foraging skills to forage efficiently. (7, 8, 9)
  10. Foraging skills are specific to plant form. (10, 11)
  11. Young naive ruminants spend more time foraging than mature experienced ruminants presumably because young ruminants have higher nutritional requirements and must acquire foraging skills. (109)
  12. Ruminants are less likely to try new foods if experiences with new foods have been unpleasant in the past. (29, 59, 61)
  13. Ruminants reared on low nitrogen diets early in life recycle nitrogen more efficiently than ruminants reared on nitrogen adequate diets. (12)
  14. Ruminants exposed to poor-quality foods (straw, woody plants, etc.) early in life readily consume those foods later in life even when other foods are available. (3, 16)
  15. Ruminants with positive experiences with nutritious high-toxin foods early in life will readily consume foods high in toxins even when nutritious low-toxin foods are available. (15)
  16. Excessive exposure to toxins early in life may damage detoxification systems which in turn may cause ruminants to reduce consumption of plants containing that toxin later in life. (112)

  1. Ruminants prefer familiar to novel foods. (17, 26, 28, 29, 30)
  2. Ruminants form preferences for flavors paired with glucose rather than saccharin. (18)
  3. Ruminants form preferences for flavors and foods paired with glucose rather than water. (74, 120)
  4. Ruminants form preferences for flavors paired with starch rather than water. (19)
  5. Ruminants form preferences for flavors paired with volatile fatty acids rather than water. (20, 21)
  6. Ruminants form preferences for flavors paired with protein or nitrogen rather than water. (22)
  7. Ruminants prefer hay cut in the afternoon rather than the morning, presumably due to higher sugar content of plant in the evening. (86)
  8. Ruminants form stronger preferences for foods when feedback occurs soon after eating. (23)
  9. Ruminants eating a meal of several familiar foods and one novel food associate changes in positive feedback with the novel food. (24, 99)
  10. When odors are paired with positive feedback (nutrients), ruminants will increase intake of foods with these odors. (83)
  11. Ruminants avoid foods paired with sodium when their sodium levels are adequate. (21)
  12. Ruminants prefer to eat foods with similar rates of protein and energy degradation. (6, 46)
  13. Ruminants are more likely to eat new foods if they contain familiar flavors. (27, 28, 99)
  14. Ruminants are more likely to eat novel foods if they have positive experiences with novel foods. (27)
  15. Ruminants are more likely to eat a new food in a familiar rather than an unfamiliar location. (26)
  16. Ruminants reared on bland foods prefer foods with weak rather than strong flavors. (70, 80, 100)
  17. Ruminants prefer either weak or strong flavors depending on their past experience (post-ingestive feedback) with the flavors. (100)
  18. In most cases, ruminants select foods based on nutritional composition rather than intake rate. (106)
  19. Ruminants will increase intake rates on highly fibrous, poor quality foods, like straw, if they receive a boost of nutrients when first exposed those foods. (58)
  20. Preferences for foods change based on the nutrient status of the animal. (25, 87, 88)
  21. Preferences for foods depend on the toxin status of the animal. (85)
  22. The phosphorus status of an animal affects its diet selection. (108)
  23. Hydrolyzed casein applied to plants reduces preference of those plants by deer. (89)
  24. Ruminants can learn to consume medicines to alleviate illness. (55, 56, 57, 64, 104)
  25. Feeding novels foods in familiar troughs increases acceptance of new foods. (123)
  26. Familiarizing animals with any grain will increase the likelihood they will eat another grain. (125)

  1. Ruminants avoid foods because they cause food aversions not because they taste bad. (52, 71, 113)
  2. Ruminants form aversions to foods that effect the emetic center in the brain and cause nausea. (39)
  3. Lithium chloride is an effective agent to create aversions to foods in ruminants. (29, 60, 62)
  4. Ruminants can be trained to avoid a palatable, nutritious, novel food (34, 60, 62)
  5. Ruminants can form aversion to foods even when illness occurs up to 12 hours after eating the food. (30)
  6. The strength of an aversion depends on the dose of the toxin. (59, 80)
  7. Ruminants averted to a food avoid that food regardless of where the food is located. (110)
  8. Ruminants exposed to an odor followed by a dose of lithium chloride avoid foods with that odor. (83, 84)
  9. Ruminants that get sick on one new food are less likely to eat another new food. (29, 59, 61)
  10. Ruminants form more persistent aversions to novel foods than to familiar foods. (31)
  11. Ruminants averse to a food avoid other foods with similar flavors. (80, 84)
  12. Food aversions breakdown when ruminants averse to a plant and ruminants that readily eat the plant forage together. (32)
  13. Food aversions are more likely to breakdown when ruminants are foraging in unfamiliar environments where most of the available foods are novel. (26)
  14. Food aversions breakdown more quickly when access to alternative foods is limited. (33, 67)
  15. Ruminants often sample small amounts of foods that have made them sick in the past. (29)
  16. Food aversions last can for years. (34, 61, 62)
  17. Food aversions are more persistent in mature versus young ruminants. (67)
  18. Food aversions can form even if animals are under anesthesia when illness occurs. (35)
  19. Ruminants associate illness with:
    1. novel foods. (30)
    2. the food last eaten. (38
    3. the food eaten in greatest quantity within a meal. (37
    4. foods that made them ill in the past. (31)
  20. Condensed tannins can cause food aversions. (52, 79)
  21. Excessive nutrients, such as sodium propionate or acetate, can cause food aversions in ruminants. (20, 74)

  1. Ruminants can regulate intake of most toxins to avoid poisoning. (36, 71, 72, 73, 85)
  2. The nutritional composition of the diets influences ingestion of different toxins. (95, 105)
  3. When alternative foods are unavailable, hungry ruminants are more likely to try a new food high in toxins than ruminants that are well-fed. (73, 95)
  4. As the nutritional quality of a diet declines, ruminants that are nutrient deprived are less able to detoxify toxins in foods and are less likely to eat foods high in toxins when alternative foods are available. (95)
  5. Starving animals are more likely to choose to eat foods low toxins even if high energy foods that contain toxins are available. (76)
  6. Ruminants in low body condition have higher levels of toxins in their blood after eating a poisonous plant compare with ruminants in average body condition. (114)
  7. Ruminants are more likely to eat toxins in nutritious foods than in less nutritious foods. (95)
  8. When ruminants are first exposed to a food containing a toxin, they form a stronger preference for toxins paired with a high-quality foods versus low-quality foods. (77, 103)
  9. Toxins infused into the blood of a ruminant cause it to stop eating (satiety). (78)
  10. Ruminants fed a high-protein supplement or a choice between a high protein and high energy supplement ate more high tannin food than ruminants offered a high-energy supplement or no supplement. (105)
  11. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) increases consumption of high tannin foods. (64, 79, 96, 97, 98, 104,105)
  12. Stock density and therefore availability of alternative forages affects acceptance and intake of new foods high in toxins (terpenes). (94)
  13. Supplemental energy can help ruminants ingest more of a toxin. (85)
  14. Supplemental energy and protein increases the palatability of forages with terpenes such as sagebrush. (53, 54, 107)
  15. The energy and protein content of the diet affects intake of foods high in toxins (terpenes). (101, 107)
  16. When eating diets high in sagebrush (terpenes), ruminants prefer to eat foods with carbohydrates that digest slowly (beet pulp) to those with rapidly digestible carbohydrates (barley). (102)
  17. Ingestion of toxin-containing plants by ruminants influences their selection of other plant species. (102)
  18. Ruminants on a high or moderate plane of energy will voluntarily ingest more lithium chloride than ruminants on a poor plane of nutrition. (76)

  1. Ruminants may eat a variety of foods to meet nutritional needs. (49)
  2. Ruminants may eat a variety of foods to avoid toxins. (44)
  3. Ruminants prefer to eat a variety of foods even when nutritional needs are met and toxins don’t limit intake. (48, 87)
  4. In many instances when consuming foods high in toxins, ruminants can eat more if they eat a variety of foods that contain different toxins. (44, 90, 92)
  5. Ruminants eating a diet high in energy prefer foods high in protein and vice versa. (75, 88)
  6. Ruminants are more likely to eat novel food that complements their basal ration. In other words, ruminants fed a diet high in energy are more likely to eat a novel food high in protein and vice versa. (75)
  7. Ruminants forced to eat a flavored diet for a day prefer a diet with an alternate flavor the following day. (45, 46, 75)
  8. Ruminants eating diets excessive or low in energy have a stronger preference for the alternate flavor than ruminants eating a balanced diet. (46)
  9. Cost per pound of gain is lower in ruminants given an appropriate choice of foods than ruminants fed a nutritionally balanced total mixed ration. (47, 93)
  10. Ruminants of similar age, sex, breed and background prefer different levels of energy and protein. (49)
  11. Activated charcoal increased consumption of shrubs by sheep and goats when they were offered a limited number of shrubs (one to three species) but not when they were offered six shrub species. (90)
  12. Tannins and saponins may be complementary toxins. (92)

  1. Young ruminants learn about foods efficiently from their mothers. (40, 41, 66, 121, 122)
  2. Lambs exposed to grain for five days with their mothers ate seven times more grain than lambs exposed to grain alone for eight weeks. (124)
  3. Food preferences formed in the presence of the mother lasted longer than those formed alone. (82)
  4. Young ruminants can learn about foods from other members of the group. (40)
  5. Six to eight-week-old lambs learn about foods more efficiently from their mothers than eleven to twelve-week-old lambs. (42, 66)
  6. Ruminants refuse to eat foods that makes them sick even if their mother eats the foods. (50)
  7. Young ruminants avoid foods their mothers avoid because of food novelty not because their mothers avoid the foods. (68)
  8. Ruminants prefer to forage with companions rather than strangers. (43)
  9. Herd mates tend to stay together but maintain their food preferences when foraging in familiar environments but food preferences tend to breakdown when herd mates forage together unfamiliar environments. (91)
  10. Younger ruminants are more likely to try new foods than older ruminants.

  1. Cattle and sheep have home ranges. (51, 63)
  2. Ruminants prefer the same habitats as their mothers. (13, 63, 117)
  3. Ruminants prefer to forage in locations that contain needed nutrients or supplements. (87, 88, 98)
  4. Ruminants prefer to forage in areas with foods in a variety of flavors provided nutritional needs are met. (87)
  5. Ruminants can be trained using proper herding techniques to minimize grazing in riparian areas and increase grazing in the uplands. (111)
  6. Supplements, like low moisture block, can change animal distribution and increase consumption of poor-quality forage. (65)
  7. Ruminants avoid locations that resulted in electric shock but shock does not condition a food aversion. Likewise, ruminants will avoid foods that made them ill in the past but not the location of those foods. (110)
  8. Ruminants use both visual cues and spatial memory (no visual cues) to track food locations, but they foraged more efficiently when visual cues were present. (115)
  9. Ruminants generalize positive feeding consequences associated with a visual cue from the pen to the field. (116)
  10. Ruminants trained to associate visual cues with positive feeding experiences were lured to new foraging locations using those cues but whether animals chose to remain at the new location depended on other behavioral influences. (116)
  11. Ruminants can remember foraging locations that contain nutritious foods. (118)
  12. Breed of sire affected foraging location of offspring. (117)
  13. Ruminants select forage patches based on nutritional quality of the patch. (119)
  14. In gentle terrain, ruminants preferred to graze near water during the heat of the day but further from water in the morning and evening. (119)

  1. Ortega-Reyes, L., F.D. Provenza, C.F. Parker and P.G. Hatfield. 1992. Drylot performance and ruminal papillae development of lambs exposed to a high concentrate diet while nursing. Small Rum. Res. 7:101-112.
  2. Hatfield, P.G., L. Ortega-Reyes, F.D. Provenza and H.A. Glimp. 1992. Post-exposure performance of lambs exposed to whole barley early in life. Sheep Res. J. 8:91-94.
  3. Distel, R.A. and F.D. Provenza. 1991. Experience early in life affects voluntary intake of blackbrush by goats. J. Chem. Ecol. 17:431-450.
  4. Green, G.C., R.L. Elwin, B.E. Mottershead and J.J. Lynch. 1984. Long-term effects of early experience to supplementary feeding in sheep. Proc. Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod. 15:373-375.
  5. Wiedmeier, R.D., F.D. Provenza, and E.A. Burritt. 2002. Exposure to ammoniated wheat straw as suckling calves improves performance of mature beef cows wintered on ammoniated wheat straw. J. Anim. Sci. 80:2340-2348.
  6. Kyriazakis, I., and J. D. Oldham. 1997. Food intake and diet selection of sheep: The effect of manipulating the rates of digestion of carbohydrates and protein of the foods offered as a choice. Br. J. Nutr. 77:243-254.
  7. Ortega-Reyes L. and F.D. Provenza. 1993. Amount of experience and age affect the development of foraging skills of goats browsing blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 36:169-183.
  8. Flores, E.R., F.D. Provenza and D.F. Balph. 1989. Role of experience in the development of foraging skills of lambs browsing the shrub serviceberry. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 23:271-278.
  9. Flores, E.R., F.D. Provenza and D.F. Balph. 1989. Relationship between plant maturity and foraging experience of lambs grazing hycrest crested wheatgrass. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 23:279-284.
  10. Ortega-Reyes L. and F.D. Provenza. 1993. Experience with blackbrush affects ingestion of shrub live oak by goats. J. Anim. Sci. 71:380-383.
  11. Flores, E.R., F.D. Provenza and D.F. Balph. 1989. The effect of experience on the foraging skill of lambs: importance of plant form. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 23:285-291.
  12. Distel, R.A., J.J. Villalba, H.E. Laborde and M.A. Burgos. 1996. Persistence of the effects of early experience on consumption of low-quality roughage by sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 74:964-968.
  13. Howery, L.D., F.D. Provenza, R.E. Banner and C.B. Scott. 1998. Social and environmental factors influence cattle distribution on rangeland. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 55:231-244.
  14. Biquand, S. and V. Biquand-Guyot. 1992. The influence of peers, lineage and environment on food selection of the criollo goat (Capra hircus). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 34:231-245.
  15. Villalba, J.J., F.D. Provenza and GouDong. 2004. Experience influences diet mixing by herbivores: Implications for plant biochemical diversity. Oikos 107:100-109.
  16. Distel, R.A., J. J. Villalba, and H. E. Laborde. 1994. Effects of Early Experience on Voluntary Intake of Low-Quality Roughage by Sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 72:1191-1195.
  17. Burritt, E.A. and F.D. Provenza. 1989. Food aversion learning: ability of lambs to distinguish safe from harmful foods. J. Anim. Sci. 67:1732-1739.
  18. Burritt, E.A. and F.D. Provenza. 1992. Lambs form preferences for non-nutritive flavors paired with glucose. J. Anim. Sci. 70:1133-1136.
  19. Villalba, J.J. and F.D. Provenza. 1997. Preference for wheat straw by lambs conditioned with intraruminal infusions of starch. Br. J. Nutr. 77:287-297.
  20. Villalba, J.J. and F.D. Provenza. 1997. Preference for flavored wheat straw by lambs conditioned with intraruminal infusions of acetate and propionate. J. Anim. Sci. 75:2905-2914.
  21. Villalba, J.J. and F.D. Provenza. 1996. Preference for flavored wheat straw by lambs conditioned with intraruminal administrations of sodium propionate. J. Anim. Sci. 74:2362-2368.
  22. Villalba, J.J. and F.D. Provenza. 1997. Preference for flavoured foods by lambs conditioned with intraruminal administration of nitrogen. Br. J. Nutr. 78:545-561.
  23. Villalba, J.J., F.D. Provenza and J. Rogosic. 1999. Preference for flavored wheat straw by lambs conditioned with intraruminal infusions of starch administered at different times after straw ingestion. J. Anim. Sci. 77:3185-3190.
  24. Villalba, J.J. and F.D. Provenza. 2000. Discriminating among novel foods: Effects of energy provision on preferences of lambs for poor-quality foods. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 66:87-106.
  25. Villalba, J.J. and F.D. Provenza. 1999. Nutrient-specific preferences by lambs conditioned with intraruminal infusions of starch, casein, and water. J. Anim. Sci. 77:378-387.
  26. Burritt, E.A. and F.D. Provenza. 1997. Effect of an unfamiliar location on the consumption of novel and familiar foods by sheep. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 54:317-325.
  27. Launchbaugh, K.L., F.D. Provenza and M.J. Werkmeister. 1997. Overcoming food neophobia. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 54:327-334.
  28. Provenza, F.D., J.J Lynch and C.D. Cheney. 1995. Effects of a flavor and food restriction on the intake of novel foods by sheep. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 43:83-93.
  29. Thorhallsdottir, A.G., F.D. Provenza and D.F. Balph. 1987. Food aversion learning in lambs with or without a mother: discrimination, novelty and persistence. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 18:327-340.
  30. Burritt, E.A. and F.D. Provenza. 1991. Ability of lambs to learn with a delay between food ingestion and consequences given meals containing novel and familiar foods. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 32:179-189.
  31. Burritt, E.A. and F.D. Provenza. 1996. Amount of experience and prior illness affects the acquisition and persistence of conditioned foods aversion in lambs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 48:73-80.
  32. Provenza, F.D. and E.A. Burritt. 1991. Socially-induced diet preference ameliorates conditioned food aversion in lambs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 31:229-236.
  33. Kimball, B.A., F.D. Provenza and E.A. Burritt. 2002. Importance of alternative foods on the persistence of flavor aversions: Implications for applied flavor avoidance learning. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 76:249-258.
  34. Ralphs, M.H. 1997. Persistence of aversions to larkspur in naive and native cattle. J. Range Manage. 50:367-370.
  35. Provenza, F.D. Provenza, F.D., J.J. Lynch and J.V. Nolan. 1994. Food aversion conditioned in anesthetized sheep. Physiology & Behavior 55:429-432.
  36. Launchbaugh, K.L., F.D. Provenza and E.A. Burritt. 1993. How herbivores track variable environments: Response to variability of phytotoxins. J. Chem. Ecol. 19:1047-1056.
  37. Provenza, F.D., J.J. Lynch, E.A. Burritt and C.B. Scott. 1994. How goats learn to distinguish between novel foods that differ in postingestive consequences. J. Chem. Ecol. 20:609-624.
  38. Provenza, F.D., J.J. Lynch and J.V. Nolan. 1993. Temporal contiguity between food ingestion and toxicosis affects the acquisition of food aversions in sheep. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 38:269-281.
  39. Provenza, F.D., L. Ortega-Reyes, C.B. Scott, J.J. Lynch and E.A. Burritt. 1994. Antiemetic drugs attenuate food aversions in sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 72:1989-1994.
  40. Thorhallsdottir, A.G., F.D. Provenza and D.F. Balph. 1990. Ability of lambs to learn about novel foods while observing or participating with social models. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 25:25-33.
  41. Mirza, S.N. and F.D. Provenza. 1992. Effects of age and conditions of exposure on maternally mediated food selection in lambs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 33:35-42.
  42. Mirza, S.N. and F.D. Provenza. 1990. Preference of the mother affects selection and avoidance of foods by lambs differing in age. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 28:255-263.
  43. Scott, C.B., F.D. Provenza, and R.E. Banner. 1995. Dietary habits and social interactions affect choice of feeding location by sheep. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 45:225-237.
  44. Burritt, E.A. and F.D. Provenza. 2000. Role of toxins in intake of varied diets by sheep. J. Chem. Ecol. 26:1991-2005.
  45. Atwood, S.B., F.D. Provenza, R.D. Wiedmeier and R.E. Banner. 2001. Changes in preferences of gestating heifers fed untreated or ammoniated straw in different flavors. J. Anim. Sci. 79:3027-3033.
  46. Early, D. and F.D. Provenza. 1998. Food flavor and nutritional characteristics alter dynamics of food preference in lambs. J. Anim. Sci. 76:728-734.
  47. Atwood, S.B., F.D. Provenza, R.D. Wiedmeier and R.E. Banner. 2001. Influence of free-choice versus mixed-ration diets on food intake and performance of fattening calves. J. Anim. Sci. 79:3034-3040.
  48. Provenza, F.D., C.B. Scott, T.S. Phy and J.J. Lynch. 1996. Preference of sheep for foods varying in flavors and nutrients. J. Anim. Sci. 74:2355-2361.
  49. Scott, L.L. and F.D. Provenza. 1999. Variation in food selection among lambs: effects of basal diet and foods offered in a meal. J. Anim. Sci. 77:2391-2397.
  50. Provenza, F.D., J.J. Lynch and J.V. Nolan. 1993. The relative importance of mother and toxicosis in the selection of foods by lambs. J. Chem. Ecol. 19:313-323.
  51. Howery, L.D., F.D. Provenza, R.E. Banner and C.B. Scott. 1996. Differences in home range and habitat use among individuals in a cattle herd. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 49:305-320.
  52. Provenza, F.D., E.A. Burritt, T.P. Clausen, J.P. Bryant, P.B. Reichardt and R.A. Distel. 1990. Conditioned flavor aversion: A mechanism for goats to avoid condensed tannins in blackbrush. Am. Nat. 136:810-828.
  53. Villalba, J.J., F.D. Provenza, and R.E. Banner. 2002. Influence of macronutrients and activated charcoal on utilization of sagebrush by sheep and goats. J. Anim. Sci. 80:2099-2109.
  54. Banner, R.E., J. Rogosic, E.A. Burritt and F.D. Provenza. 2000. Supplemental barley and activated charcoal increase intake of sagebrush by lambs. J. Range Manage. 53:415-420.
  55. Villalba, J.J., F.D. Provenza and R. Shaw. 2006. Sheep self-medicate when challenged with illness-inducing foods. Anim. Behav. 71:1131-1139.
  56. Phy, T.S. and F.D. Provenza. 1998. Sheep fed grain prefer foods and solutions that attenuate acidosis. J. Anim. Sci. 76:954-960.
  57. Phy, T.S. and F.D. Provenza. 1998. Eating barley too frequently or in excess decreases lambs' preference for barley but sodium bicarbonate and lasalocid attenuate the response. J. Anim. Sci. 76:1578-1583.
  58. Villalba, J.J. and F.D. Provenza. 2000. Postingestive feedback from starch influences the ingestive behavior of sheep consuming wheat straw. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 66:49-63.
  59. duToit, J.T., F.D. Provenza and A.S. Nastis. 1991. Conditioned taste aversions: How sick must a ruminant get before it detects toxicity in foods? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 30:35-46.
  60. Burritt, E.A. and F.D. Provenza. 1989. Food aversion learning: conditioning lambs to avoid a palatable shrub (Cercocarpus montanus). J. Anim. Sci. 67:650-653.
  61. Burritt, E.A. and F.D. Provenza. 1990. Food aversion learning in sheep: persistence of conditioned taste aversions to palatable shrubs (Cercocarpus montanus and Amelanchier alnifolia). J. Anim. Sci. 68:1003-1007.
  62. Lane, M.A., M.H. Ralphs, J.D. Olsen, F.D. Provenza and J.A. Pfister. 1990. Conditioned taste aversion: potential for reducing cattle losses to larkspur. J. Range Manage. 43:127-131.
  63. Key, C. and R.M. MacIver. 1980. The effect of maternal influences on sheep: Breed differences in grazing, resting and courtship behavior. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 6:33-48.
  64. Provenza, F.D., E.A. Burritt, A. Perevolotsky and N. Silanikove. 2000. Self-regulation of intake of polyethylene glycol by sheep fed diets varying in tannin concentrations. J. Anim. Sci. 78:1206-1212.
  65. Bailey, D.W., G.R. Welling and E.T. Miller. 2001. Cattle use foothill rangelands near dehydrated molasses supplement. J. Range Manage. 54:338-347.
  66. Thorhallsdottir, A.G., F.D. Provenza and D.F. Balph. 1990. The role of the mother in the intake of harmful foods by lambs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 25:35-44.
  67. Thorhallsdottir, A.G., F.D. Provenza and D.F. Balph. 1990. Social influences on conditioned food aversions in sheep. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 25:45-50.
  68. Mirza, S.N. and F.D. Provenza. 1994. Socially induced food avoidance in lambs: Direct or indirect maternal influence? J. Anim. Sci. 72:899-902.
  69. Nolte, D.L. and F.D. Provenza. 1992. Food preferences in lambs after exposure to flavors in milk. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 32:381-389.
  70. Augner, M., F.D. Provenza and J.J. Villalba. 1998. A rule of thumb in mammalian herbivores? Anim. Behav. 56:337-345.
  71. Pfister, J.A., F.D. Provenza and G.D. Manners. 1990. Ingestion of tall larkspur by cattle: separating the effects of flavor from post-ingestive consequences. J. Chem. Ecol. 16:1697-1705.
  72. Pfister, J.A., F.D. Provenza, G.D. Manners, D.R. Gardner and M.H. Ralphs. 1997. Tall larkspur ingestion: Can cattle regulate intake below toxic levels? J. Chem. Ecol. 23:759-777.
  73. Burritt, E.A., R.E. Banner and F.D. Provenza. 2000. Sagebrush ingestion by lambs: Effects of experience and macronutrients. J. Range. Manage. 53:91-96.
  74. Ralphs, M.H., F.D. Provenza, R.D. Wiedmeier and F.B. Bunderson. 1995. Effects of energy source and food flavor on conditioned preferences in sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 73:1651-1657.
  75. Wang, J. and F.D. Provenza. 1996. Food preference and acceptance of novel foods by lambs depend on the composition of the basal diet. J. Anim. Sci. 74:2349-2354.
  76. Wang, J. and F.D. Provenza. 1996. Food deprivation affects preference of sheep for foods varying in nutrients and a toxin. J. Chem. Ecol. 22:2011-2021.
  77. Baraza, E., J.J. Villalba and F.D. Provenza. 2005. Nutritional context influences preferences of lambs for foods with plant secondary metabolites. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 92: 293-305.
  78. Dziba, L., J.O. Hall and F.D. Provenza. 2006. Feeding behavior of lambs in relation to kinetics of 1, 8 cineole dosed intravenously or into the rumen. J. Chem. Ecol. 32:391-408.
  79. Landau, S., N. Silanikove, Z. Nitsan, D. Barkai, H. Baram, F.D. Provenza and A. Perevolotsky. 2000. Short-term changes in eating patterns explain the effects of condensed tannins on feed intake in heifers. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 69:199-213.
  80. Launchbaugh, K.L. and F.D. Provenza. 1994. The effect of flavor intensity and toxin dose on the formation and generalization of flavor aversions in sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 72:10-13.
  81. Nolte, D.L. and F.D. Provenza. 1992. Food preferences in lambs after exposure to flavors in solid foods. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 32:337-347.
  82. Nolte, D.L., F.D. Provenza and D.F. Balph. 1990. The establishment and persistence of food preferences in lambs exposed to selected foods. J. Anim. Sci. 68:998-1002.
  83. Provenza, F.D., B.R. Kimball and J.J. Villalba. 2000. Roles of odor, taste, and toxicity in the food preferences of lambs. Oikos 88:424-432.
  84. Launchbaugh, K.L. and F.D. Provenza. 1993. Can plants practice mimicry to avoid grazing by mammalian herbivores? Oikos 66:501-504.
  85. Wang, J. and F.D. Provenza. 1997. Dynamics of preference by sheep offered foods varying in flavors, nutrients, and a toxin. J. Chem. Ecol. 23:275-288.
  86. Burritt, E.A., H. F. Mayland, Provenza, F.D., R. L. Miller and J. C. Burns. 2005. Effect of added sugar on preference and intake by sheep of hay cut in the morning versus the afternoon. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 94:245-254.
  87. Scott, L.L. and F.D. Provenza. 1998. Variety of foods and flavors affects selection of foraging locations by sheep. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 61:113-122.
  88. Scott, L.L. and F.D. Provenza. 2000. Lambs fed protein or energy imbalanced diets forage in locations and on foods that rectify imbalances. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 68:293-305.
  89. Kimball, B.A.; Nolte, D.L.; and Perry, K.R. 2005. Hydrolyzed casein reduces browsing of trees and shrubs by white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). HortScience 40:1810-1814.
  90. Rogosic, J., J. A. Pfister, F. D. Provenza and D. Grbesa. 2006. The effect of activated charcoal and number of species offered on intake of Mediterranean shrubs by sheep and goats. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.101:305-317.
  91. Scott, C.B., R.E. Banner, and F.D. Provenza. 1996. Observations of sheep foraging in familiar and unfamiliar environments: familiarity with the environment influences diet selection by sheep. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 49:165-171.
  92. Rogosic, J., J.A. Pfister, F.D. Provenza and D. Grbesa. 2006. Sheep and goat preference for and nutritional value of Mediterranean maquis shrubs. Small Ruminant Res. 64:169-179.
  93. Atwood, S.B., F.D. Provenza, J.J. Villalba and R.D. Wiedmeier. 2006. Intake of lambs offered ad libitum access to one of three iso-caloric and iso-nitrogenous mixed rations or a choice of all three foods. Livestock Sci. 101:142-149.
  94. Shaw, R.A., J. J. Villalba and F. D. Provenza. 2006. Influence of stock density and rate and temporal patterns of forage allocation on the diet mixing behavior of sheep grazing sagebrush steppe. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 100:207-218.
  95. Shaw, R.A., J. J. Villalba and F. D. Provenza. 2006. Resource availability and quality influence patterns of diet mixing by sheep. J. Chem. Ecol. 32:1276-1278.
  96. Titus, C.H., F.D. Provenza, A. Perevolotsky and N. Silanikove. 2000. Preferences for foods varying in macronutrients and tannins by lambs supplemented with polyethylene glycol. J. Anim. Sci. 78:1443-1449.
  97. Titus, C.H., F.D. Provenza, A. Perevolotsky, N. Silanikov and J. Rogosic. 2001. Supplemental polyethylene glycol influences preferences of goats browsing blackbrush. J. Range. Manage 54:161-165.
  98. Villalba, J.J. and F.D. Provenza. 2002.Polyethylene glycol influences selection of foraging location by sheep consuming quebracho tannin. J. Anim. Sci. 80:1846-1851.
  99. Villalba, J.J. and F.D. Provenza. 2000. Roles of novelty, generalization and postingestive feedback in the recognition of foods by lambs. J. Anim. Sci. 78:3060-3069.
  100. Villalba, J.J. and F.D. Provenza. 2000. Roles of flavor and reward intensities in acquisition and generalization of food preferences in lambs: Do strong plant signals always deter herbivory? J. Chem. Ecol. 26:1911-1922.
  101. Villalba, J.J., and Provenza, F.D. 2005. Foraging in chemically diverse environments: Concentrations of energy and protein, and food alternatives influence ingestion of plant secondary metabolites by lambs. J. Chem. Ecol. 31:123-138.
  102. Villalba, J.J, F. D. Provenza, and K. C. Olson. 2006. Terpenes and carbohydrate source influence rumen fermentation, digestibility, intake, and preference in sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 84:2463-2473.
  103. Villalba, J.J., F.D. Provenza and R. Shaw. 2006. Initial conditions and temporal delays influence preference for foods high in tannins and for foraging locations with and without foods high in tannins by sheep. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 97:190-205.
  104. Villalba, J.J. and F.D. Provenza. 2001. Preference for polyethylene glycol by sheep fed a quebracho tannin diet. J. Anim. Sci. 79:2066-2074.
  105. Villalba, J.J., F.D. Provenza, and R.E. Banner. 2002. Influence of macronutrients and polyethylene glycol on intake of a quebracho tannin diet by sheep and goats. J. Anim. Sci. 80:3154-3164.
  106. Villalba, J.J. and F.D. Provenza. 1999. Effects of food structure and nutritional quality and animal nutritional state on intake behaviour and food preferences of sheep. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 63:145-163.
  107. Dziba L.E., Provenza F.D., J.J. Villalba and S.B. Atwood. 2007. Influence of terpenes and nutritional supplementation on intake of sagebrush by sheep. Small Rum. Res. 69:203-207.
  108. Villalba J. J., F. D. Provenza, J. O. Hall, and C. Peterson. 2006. Phosphorus appetite in sheep: Dissociating taste from postingestive effects. J. Anim. Sci. 84: 2213-2223.
  109. Provenza, F.D. and J.C. Malechek. 1986. A comparison of food selection and foraging behavior in juvenile and adult goats. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 16:49-61.
  110. Cibils, A. F., L. D. Howery, and G. B. Ruyle. 2004. Diet and habitat selection by cattle: the relationship between skin and gut defense systems. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 88: 187-208.
  111. Butler, P. J. 2000. Cattle distribution under intensive herded management. Rangelands 22(2):21–23.
  112. Pritz, R.K., K.L. Launchbaugh, and C.A. Taylor. 1997. Effects of early dietary experience on acceptance and metabolism of juniper by angora and Spanish goats. Journal of Range Management 50:600-606.
  113. Baptista, R. and K.L. Launchbaugh. 2001. Nutritive value and aversive feedback of honey mesquite leaves (Prosopis glandulosa) fed to sheep. Journal of Range Management 54:82-88.
  114. Lopez-Ortiz, S., K.E. Panter, J.A. Pfister, and K.L. Launchbaugh. 2004. The effect of body condition on disposition of alkaloids from silvery lupine (Lupinus argenteus Pursh) in sheep. Journal of Animal Science 82: 2798-2805.
  115. Howery, L. D., D. W. Bailey, G. B. Ruyle, and W. J. Renken. 2000. Cattle use visual cues to track food locations. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 67:1-14.
  116. Renken, W. J., L. D. Howery, G. B. Ruyle. M. E. Enns. 2007. Cattle generalize visual cues from the pen to the field to select initial feeding patches. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.: Accepted.
  117. VanWagoner, H.C., D.W. Bailey, D.D. Kress, D.C. Anderson and K.C. Davis. 2006. Differences among beef sire breeds and relationships between terrain use and performance when daughters graze foothill rangelands as cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 97:105-121.
  118. Bailey, D.W., L.R. Rittenhouse, R.H. Hart and R.W. Richards. 1989. Characteristics of spatial memory in cattle. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 23:331-340.
  119. Bailey, D.W. 1995. Daily selection of feeding areas by cattle in homogeneous and heterogeneous environments. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 45:183-200.
  120. Ralphs, M.H. 2005. Conditioning Sheep to Graze Duncecap Larkspur (Delphinium occidentale). Range. Ecol. Manage. 58:628–631
  121. Chapple, R.S. and J.J. Lynch. 1986. Behavioral factors modifying acceptance of supplementary foods by sheep. Res. Dev. Agric. 3:113-120.
  122. Lynch, J.J. and A.K. Bell. 1987. The transmission from generation to generation in sheep of the learned behaviour of eating grain supplements. Aust. Vet. J. 64:291-292.
  123. Chapple, R. S.. M. Wodzicka-Tomaszewska and J. J. Lynch.1987a. The learning of sheep when introduced to wheat. I. Wheat acceptance by sheep and the effects of trough familiarity. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 18:157-162.
  124. Lynch, J.J., R.C. Keogh, Elwin, G.C. Green and B.E. Mottershead. 1983. Effect of early experience on the post-weaning acceptance of whole grain wheat by fine-wool merino lambs. Anim. Prod. 36:175-183.
  125. Mottershead, B.E., J.J. Lynch, R.L. Elwin and G.C. Green. 1985. A note on the acceptance of several types of cereal grain by young sheep with and without prior experience of wheat. Anim. Prod. 1985. 41:257-259.