Contrafreeloading in grizzly bears: implications for captive foraging enrichment

Abstract

Although traditional feeding regimens for captive animals were focused on meeting physiological needs to assure good health, more recently emphasis has also been placed on non-nutritive aspects of feeding. The provision of foraging materials to diversify feeding behavior is a common practice in zoos but selective consumption of foraging enrichment items over more balanced "chow" diets could lead to nutrient imbalance. One alternative is to provide balanced diets in a contrafreeloading paradigm. Contrafreeloading occurs when animals choose resources that require effort to exploit when identical resources are freely available. To investigate contrafreeloading and its potential as a theoretical foundation for foraging enrichment, we conducted two experiments with captive grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis). In Experiment 1, bears were presented with five foraging choices simultaneously: apples, apples in ice, salmon, salmon in ice, and plain ice under two levels of food restriction. Two measures of contrafreeloading were considered: weight of earned food consumed and time spent working for earned food. More free than earned food was eaten, with only two bears consuming food extracted from ice, but all bears spent more time manipulating ice containing salmon or apples than plain ice regardless of level of food restriction. In Experiment 2, food-restricted bears were presented with three foraging choices simultaneously: apples, apples inside a box, and an empty box. Although they ate more free than earned food, five bears consumed food from boxes and all spent more time manipulating boxes containing apples than empty boxes. Our findings support the provision of contrafreeloading opportunities as a foraging enrichment strategy for captive wildlife.

Contrafreeloading in maned wolves: Implications for their management and welfare

“…After it was first described in rats by Jensen (1963), this apparently paradoxical effect has been demonstrated in several species (Bean et al, 1999;de Jonge et al, 2008;Inglis et al, 1997;Lindqvist et al, 2002;McGowan et al, 2010;Menzel, 1991;Reinhardt, 1994;Rozek and Milam, 2011). Inglis et al (1997) have summarised the major explanations for contrafreeloading: (1) aspects of the earned food alternative become endowed with secondary rewarding value sufficient to maintain the costly performance; (2) neophobic tendencies cause withdrawal from free food offered in a familiar "working" context; (3) stimulus change associated with earned food increases its rewarding value; (4) working for food, especially if this means the performance of species-typical behaviour, may be reinforcing in its own right; (5) the Information Primacy Hypothesis states that contrafreeloading is adaptive in a natural environment, since it is advantageous for a wild animal to invest a certain amount of energy searching for possible future food sites.…”

“…Inglis et al (1997) suggested that, as optimal foraging and learning paradigms predict a total preference for the free food, any deviation from such an outcome should be explained using other theories. In the present study we shall consider contrafreeloading as any level of effort invested in obtaining a resource in the presence of this resource available in an easily accessible form (McGowan et al, 2010).…”

“…The few experimental studies of contrafreeloading in wildlife have focused on birds (Bean et al, 1999;Rozek and Milam, 2011), primates (Anderson and Chamove, 1984;Menzel, 1991;Reinhardt, 1994) and bears (McGowan et al, 2010). Some evidence of contrafreeloading has been reported in maned wolves, Chrysocyon brachyurus (Vasconcellos et al, 2009), but, until now, to our knowledge, no systematic study has been conducted to investigate this phenomenon in the species.…”

Inhibition of hippocampal plasticity in rats performing contrafreeloading for water under repeated administrations of pramipexole

“…Although the claim that CFL has an adaptive function may appear counterintuitive, data showing that CFL is highly preserved across species (Singh 1970;Tarte 1981;McGowan et al 2010;Ogura 2011) supports the view that this behavior serves a specific evolutionary function. Within this framework, the information primacy theory of CFL (Inglis and Ferguson 1986) posits that subjects placed in uncertain Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00213-015-4150-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.…”

Advancing Behavior Analysis in Zoos and Aquariums

“…Applied behavior analysis is one of the tools that facilitates the use of innovative exhibitory and helps to define useful behavioral concepts such as "contrafreeloading" (Kinzley 2009;McGowan et al 2010;Meehan and Mench 2007;Sommerfeld et al 2006), whereby animals prefer to work for food rather than have it available ad lib. Zoo and aquarium animals have to be trained to experience the environmental opportunities provided by innovations such as exhibit rotation, computerized feeding devices, and elevated, tubular pathways that generate movement and promote exploration beyond the primary exhibit (Maple and Perdue 2013;Markowitz 1973Markowitz , 2011Markowitz and Aday 1998).…”