Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T00:58:13.864Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Induction of low-nutritious food intake by subsequent nutrient supplementation in sheep (Ovis aries)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2012

E. Freidin ,
F. Catanese ,
M. I. Cuello  and
R. A. Distel
E. Freidin*
Affiliation:
Centro de Recursos Naturales Renovables de la Zona Semiárida (CERZOS), Centro Científico Tecnológico CONICET, PC 8000, Bahía Blanca, Argentina
F. Catanese
Affiliation:
Centro de Recursos Naturales Renovables de la Zona Semiárida (CERZOS), Centro Científico Tecnológico CONICET, PC 8000, Bahía Blanca, Argentina Departamento de Agronomía, Universidad Nacional del Sur, PC 8000, Bahía Blanca, Argentina
M. I. Cuello
Affiliation:
Centro de Recursos Naturales Renovables de la Zona Semiárida (CERZOS), Centro Científico Tecnológico CONICET, PC 8000, Bahía Blanca, Argentina
R. A. Distel
Affiliation:
Centro de Recursos Naturales Renovables de la Zona Semiárida (CERZOS), Centro Científico Tecnológico CONICET, PC 8000, Bahía Blanca, Argentina Departamento de Agronomía, Universidad Nacional del Sur, PC 8000, Bahía Blanca, Argentina
*
†E-mail: efreidin@criba.edu.ar, efreidin@yahoo.com
Get access

Abstract

Acceptance of and preference for a particular food depends not only on its intrinsic (e.g. nutritional) properties but also on expected or recent food experiences. An instance of this type of phenomenon has been called induction effect, which consists of an increased intake of a type of food when it precedes a hedonically preferred food in a sequence familiar to the animal, relative to controls that have access only to the less-preferred food. The purpose of our study was to assess intake induction of a low-nutritious food when followed by different high-nutritious supplements in sheep (Ovis aries). In this experiment, we ran a supplemented phase where animals fed oat hay (a low-nutritious food) in the first part of the daily feeding sessions followed by a supplement with either a high (soya bean meal; group GS) or a low (ground corn; group GC) protein–energy ratio in the second part ate more oat hay than controls that were fed oat hay in both parts of sessions (group GH). In addition, supplemented animals presented a stronger preference for oat hay over alfalfa hay than controls in a subsequent choice. When all animals received no food in the second part of the sessions (Non-supplemented phase), intake of oat hay converged to the control's intake level in all the groups, suggesting that the presence of supplements after access to oat hay was responsible for intake induction. Lastly, we repeated the supplemented phase with a different control group where animals received oat hay in the first part of the sessions and no food in the second part (group NF), thus equalizing groups in terms of the time of access to oat hay in a session. Groups GS and GC still developed higher intake of oat hay than group NF. In both supplemented phases of the experiment, we estimated animals’ daily metabolizable energy (ME) and crude protein (CP) intake. CP intake was higher in group GS than in groups GC, GH and NF, but there was no difference between group GC and the controls. In turn, groups did not differ in ME intake in the First supplemented phase, and only group GS presented higher ME intake than the rest of the groups in the Second supplemented phase. Therefore, a nutritional account of the present induction effect seems insufficient. We propose that a learned association between oat hay and the post-ingestive feedback from the subsequent high-nutritious supplements underlay sheep's intake induction and increased preference for oat hay.

Keywords

intake inductionlow-nutritious foodnutrient supplementationruminantssheep
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 6 , Issue 8 , August 2012 , pp. 1307 - 1315
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackroff, K 2008. Learned flavor preferences. The variable potency of post-oral nutrient reinforcers. Appetite 51, 743–746.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour/Animal Behavior Society 2006. Guidelines for the treatment of animals in behavioural research and teaching. Animal Behaviour 71, 245–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 1990. Official methods of analysis, 15th edition. AOAC, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Bergvall, UA, Rautio, P, Kesti, K, Tuomi, J, Leimar, O 2006. Associational effects of plant defences in relation to within- and between-patch food choice by a mammalian herbivore: neighbour contrast susceptibility and defence. Oecologia 147, 253–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergvall, UA, Rautio, P, Luotola, T, Leimar, O 2007. A test of simultaneous and successive negative contrast in fallow deer foraging behaviour. Animal Behaviour 74, 395–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Catanese, F, Distel, RA, Rodríguez Iglesias, RM, Villalba, JJ 2010. Role of early experience in the development of preference for low-quality food in sheep. Animal 4, 784–791.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Catanese, F, Freidin, E, Cuello, MI, Distel, RA 2011. Devaluation of low-quality food during early experience by sheep. Animal 5, 938–942.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flaherty, CF 1996. Incentive relativity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Flaherty, CF, Grigson, PS 1988. From contrast to reinforcement: role of response contingency in anticipatory contrast. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 14, 165–176.Google ScholarPubMed
Goering, HKand Van Soest, PJ 1970. Forage fiber analyses (apparatus, reagents, procedures, and some applications). Agricultural handbook no. 379. ARS, USDA, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Koster, HH, Cochran, RC, Titgemeyer, EC, Vanzant, ES, Abdelgadir, I, St-Jean, G 1996. Effect of increasing degradable intake protein on intake and digestion of low-quality, tall grass-prairie forage by beef cows. Journal of Animal Science 74, 2473–2481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Launchbaugh, KL, Provenza, FD, Werkmeister, MJ 1997. Overcoming food neophobia in domestic ruminants through addition of a familiar flavor and repeated exposure to novel foods. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 54, 327–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littell, RC, Henry, PR, Ammerman, CB 1998. Statistical analysis of repeated measures data using SAS procedures. Journal of Animal Science 76, 1216–1231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, GA, Timberlake, W, Gawley, DJ, Drew, J 1990. Anticipation of future food: suppression and facilitation of saccharin intake depending on the delay and type of future food. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 16, 169–177.Google ScholarPubMed
Matejovsky, KM, Sanson, DW 1995. Intake and ingestion of low-, medium-, and high-quality grass hays by lambs receiving increasing levels of corn supplementation. Journal of Animal Science 73, 2156–2163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meuret, M 1996. Organizing a grazing route to motivate intake on coarse resources. Annales de Zootechnie 45 (Suppl 1), 87–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meuret, M, Viaux, C, Chadoeuf, J 1994. Land heterogeneity stimulates intake rates during grazing trips. Annales de Zootechnie 43, 296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milchunas, DG, Sala, OE, Lauenroth, WK 1988. A generalized model of the effects of grazing by large herbivores on grassland community structure. American Naturalist 132, 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, JE, Brant, MH, Kunkle, WE, Hopkins, DI 1999. Performance effects of supplementation on voluntary forage intake, diet digestibility, and animal performance. Journal of Animal Science 77, 122–135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mote, T, Villalba, JJ, Provenza, FD 2008. Foraging sequence influences the ability of lambs to consume foods containing tannins and terpenes. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113, 57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council 1985. Nutrient requirements of sheep, 6th edition. National Academy of Sciences – National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
O’ Connor, TG 1991. Local extinction in perennial grasslands: a life-history approach. American Naturalist 137, 753–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Provenza, FD, Villalba, JJ, Dziba, LE, Atwood, SB, Banner, RE 2003. Linking herbivore experience, varied diets, and plant biochemical diversity. Small Ruminant Research 49, 257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanson, DW, Clanton, DC, Rush, IG 1990. Intake and digestion of low-quality meadow hay by steers and performance of cows on native range when fed protein supplements containing various levels of corn. Journal of Animal Science 68, 595–603.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sclafani, A, Nissenbaum, JW 1988. Robust conditioned flavor preference produced by intragastric starch infusions in rats. American Journal of Physiology 255, 672–675.Google ScholarPubMed
Villalba, JJ, Provenza, FD 1997. Preference for flavored foods by lambs conditioned with intraruminal administrations of nitrogen. British Journal of Nutrition 78, 545–561.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Villalba, JJ, Provenza, FD 1999. Nutrient-specific preferences by lambs conditioned with intraruminal infusions of starch, casein, and water. Journal of Animal Science 77, 378–387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Villalba, JJ, Provenza, FD 2005. Foraging in chemically diverse environments: concentrations of energy and protein, and food alternatives influence ingestion of plant secondary metabolites by lambs. Journal of Chemical Ecology 31, 123–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weatherly, JN, Nurnberger, JT, Hanson, BC 2005. Investigating the procedural variables that determine whether rats will display negative anticipatory contrast or positive induction. Behavioural Processes 70, 10–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weatherly, JN, Huls, A, Kulland, A 2007. Pursuing the Pavlovian contributions to induction in rats responding for 1% sucrose reinforcement. The Psychological Record 57, 577–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar