Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T09:22:24.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conditioned feeding responses of sheep towards flavoured foods associated with the administration of ruminally degradable and/or undegradable protein sources

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

G. Arsenos ,
I. Kyriazakis  and
B. J. Tolkamp
G. Arsenos
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition and Health Department, Animal Biology Division, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
I. Kyriazakis
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition and Health Department, Animal Biology Division, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
B. J. Tolkamp
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition and Health Department, Animal Biology Division, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
Get access

Abstract

The main objective of the experiment was to investigate the conditioned responses of sheep towards food flavours associated with the administration of ruminally degradable protein (RDP) and ruminally undegradable, but readily digestible protein (DUP) sources given either alone or in combination. The experiment consisted of three consecutive periods during which sheep were conditioned to associate a flavoured food with a nutritive stimulus (or water, W). Two foods (basal and novel test) with different crude protein (CP; 92 and 64 g/kg dry matter (DM) respectively) and similar metabolizable energy (≊ 9 MJ/kg DM) contents were used on a total of 48 Texel ✕ Greyface female sheep. The basal food was offered during non-experimental (rest) days whereas the test food was used in combination with two flavours, orange and aniseed, during experimental days. Food was presented for 8 h (09:00 to 17:00 h) daily throughout the experiment. Two nutritive stimuli (casein, C, and formaldehyde treated casein, FC) were chosen such as to provide major contrasts in their RDP and DUP contents, on an isonitrogenous basis. Each dose (50 g) of a particular nutritive stimulus was administered by gavage through a stomach tube twice daily (at 10:00 and 14:00 h). Sheep were randomly assigned to one of four (C v . W, FC v . W , C v . FC, C v . FC + C) treatments (no. = 12 per treatment). For the first 2 days (days 1 + 2) of each conditioning period half of the sheep within each treatment were offered one flavoured food paired with the administration of C (treatments C v . W , C v . FC and C v. FC + C) or FC (treatment FC v. W). The other half were offered the opposite flavoured food paired with the administration of water (treatments C v . W and FC v . W), FC (treatment C v . FC) or C + FC (treatment C v . FC + C). There followed 2 days (days 3 + 4) of rest and for the 2 days subsequently (days 5 and 6) received the opposite flavoured food and the opposite stimuli to that received earlier. In the morning of day 7 sheep were offered a choice between the two flavoured foods for 20 min. After the completion of the preference test sheep were offered the basal food. The same procedure was followed for each of three conditioning periods (i.e. each animal followed the same flavour/stimulus association throughout the experiment). The design was balanced for order of flavour and stimulus presentation. Sheep preferred the flavoured food associated with C (P < 0·05) or FC (P < 0·01) over the opposite flavoured food associated with water in C v . W and FC v . W treatments respectively. In the C v . FC treatment sheep showed a strong preference for food flavours associated with the administration of FC to those associated with C (P < 0·05). In the C v. FC + C treatment sheep showed equal preference towards the food flavours associated with either stimuli. These results: (i) support the view that sheep are able to form learned preferences for food flavours associated with the administration of protein, and (ii) suggest that sheep are able to distinguish between food flavours associated with the administration of both RDP and DUP sources. Sheep preferred flavours associated with DUP administration only over flavours associated with RDP administration only; however, such preferences did not develop when DUP was administered concurrently with RDP. Given the learned responses of sheep towards flavours associated with RDP and DUP the expectation is that they may be able to select their diet on the basis of these qualities when they are offered a choice.

Keywords

conditioningfood preferencesrumen-degradableproteinsheepundegradable protein
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 71 , Issue 3 , December 2000 , pp. 597 - 606
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2000

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

Agricultural and Food Research Council. 1993. Energy and protein requirements of ruminants. An advisory manual prepared by the AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Arsenos, G., Hills, J. and Kyriazakis, I. 2000. Conditioned feeding responses of sheep towards flavoured foods associated with casein administration: the rôle of long delay learning. Animal Science 70: 157—169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arsenos, G. and Kyriazakis, I. 1999. The continuum between preferences and aversions for flavoured foods in sheep conditioned by administration of casein doses. Animal Science 68: 605—616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Augner, M., Provenza, F. D. and Villalba, J. J. 1998. A rule of thumb in mammalian herbivores? Animal Behaviour 56: 337—345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, B. J. and Booth, D. A. 1989. Genuinely olfactory preferences conditioned by protein repletion. Appetite 13: 223—227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Di Battista, D. and Mercier, S. 1999. Role of learning in the selection of dietary protein in the golden hamster (Mesocricetus auratus). Behavioural Neuroscience 113: 574—586.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edwards, G. R., Newman, J. A., Parsons, A. J. and Krebs, J. R. 1997. Use of cues by grazing animals to locate food patches: an example with sheep. Applied Animal Behavioural Science 51: 59—68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faverdin, P. 1999. The effect of nutrients on feed intake in ruminants. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 58: 523—531.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Froetschel, M. A. 1996. Bio-active peptides in digesta that regulate gastrointestinal function and intake. Journal of Animal Science 74: 2500—2508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fromentin, G., Feurte, S. and Nicolaidis, S. 1998. Spatial cues are relevant for learned preference/aversion shifts due to amino-acid deficiencies. Appetite 30: 223—234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, E. L. and Booth, D. A. 1986. Acquired protein appetite in rats. Dependence on a protein-specific state. Experientia 42: 1003—1004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gietzen, D. W., McAthur, L. H., Theisen, J. C. and Rogers, Q. R. 1992. Learned preference for the limiting amino acid in rats fed a threonine-deficient diet. Physiology and Behaviour 51: 909—914.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hills, J., Kyriazakis, I., Nolan, J. V., Hinch, G. N. and Lynch, J. J. 1999. Conditioned feeding responses in sheep to flavoured foods associated with sulphur doses. Animal Science 69: 313—325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horgan, G. W. and Sword, A. M. 1995. Statistical methods for repeated measures data. Edinburgh: Biomathematics and Statistics Scotland, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Ketelaars, J. J. M. H. and Tolkamp, B. J. 1991. Toward a new theory of feed intake regulation in ruminants. Ph.D. thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University.Google Scholar
Krebs, J. R. and Inman, A. J. 1992. Learning and foraging: individuals, groups and populations. American Naturalist 140: S63-S89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kyriazakis, I. 1997. The nutritional choices of farm animals: to eat or what to eat? In Animal choices (ed. Forbes, J. M., Lawrence, T. L. J., Rodway, R. G. and Varley, M. A.), British Society of Animal Science occasional publication no. 20, pp. 55—65.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I., Anderson, D. H. and Duncan, A. J. 1998. Conditioned flavour aversions in sheep: the relationship between the dose rate of a secondary plant compound and the acquisition and persistence of aversions. British Journal of Nutrition 79: 55—62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kyriazakis, I. and 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 Scholar
Kyriazakis, I., Papachristou, T. G., Duncan, A. J. and Gordon, I. J. 1997. Mild conditioned food aversions developed by sheep towards flavours associated with plant secondary compounds. Journal of Chemical Ecology 23: 727—745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyriazakis, I., Tolkamp, B. J. and Emmans, G. 1999. Diet selection and animal state: an integrative framework. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 58: 765—772.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1993. GENSTAT 5 release 3•2 reference manual, second edition. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Lawrence, A. B. and Illius, A. W. 1997. Measuring preferences and the problems of identifying proximate needs. In Animal choices (ed. Forbes, J. M., Lawrence, T. L. J., Rodway, R. G. and Varley, M. A.), British Society of Animal Science occasional publication no. 20, pp. 19—26.Google Scholar
Leng, R. A. and Nolan, J. V. 1984. Nitrogen metabolism in the rumen. Journal of Animal Science 67: 1072—1089.Google ScholarPubMed
McBride, B., Berthiaume, R. and Lapierre, H. 1998. Nutrient flow in the lactating cow. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 78: 91—104.Google Scholar
Mackintosh, N. J. 1973. Stimulus selection: learning to ignore stimuli that predict no change in reinforcement. In Constraints on learning, limitations and predispositions (ed. Hinde, R. A. and Stevenson-Hinde, J.), pp. 75—101. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Myers, K. P. and Hall, W. G. 1998. Evidence that oral and nutrient reinforcers differentially condition appetitive and consumatory responses to flavors. Physiology and Behavior 64: 493—500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oddy, V. H., Edwards, S. R., Warren, H. M., Speck, P. A., Nicholls, P. J. and Neutze, S. A. 1997. Interrelationships between amino acid and glucose metabolism in lambs of different dietary history supplemented with rumen escape protein. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 128: 105—116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oldham, J. D., Emmans, G. C. and Kyriazakis, I. 1997. Limits and limitations to nitrogen use in farm animals. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 56: 525—534.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ørskov, E. R. 1988. Protein nutrition in ruminants, second edition. Academic Press Ltd, London.Google Scholar
Perez, C., Ackroff, K. and Sclafani, A. 1996. Carbohydrate-and protein-conditioned flavor preferences: effects of nutrient preloads. Physiology and Behavior 59: 467—474.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perez, C., Lucas, F. and Sclafani, A. 1995. Carbohydrate, fat and protein condition similar flavour preferences in rats using an oral-delay procedure. Physiology and Behavior 57: 549—554.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Ramirez, I. 1995. Stimulus specificity in flavour acceptance learning. Physiology and Behavior 60: 595—610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sclafani, A. 1995. How food preferences are learned: laboratory animal models. Symposium: ‘Basic mechanisms of food preference and linking’ Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 54: 419—427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sclafani, A. 1997. Learned controls of ingestive behaviour. Appetite 29: 153—158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tilley, J. H. A. and Terry, R. A. 1963. A two stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society 18: 104—111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolkamp, B. J. 1999. Limitations in the use of constraints for intake predictions. In Regulation of feed intake (ed. Heide, D. van der, Huisman, E. A., Kanis, E., Osse, J. W. M. and Verstegen, M. W. A.), pp. 151—166. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Tolkamp, B. J., Kyriazakis, I., Oldham, J. D., Lewis, M., Dewhurst, R. D. and Newbold, J. R. 1998. Diet choice in dairy cows. II. Selection for metabolisable protein or for rumen degradable protein? Journal of Dairy Science 81: 2670—2680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villalba, J. J. and Provenza, F. D. 1997. Preference for flavoured foods by lambs conditioned with intraruminal administration of nitrogen. British Journal of Nutrition 78: 545—561.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Villalba, J. J. and Provenza, F. D. 1999. Nutrient-specific preferences by lambs conditioned with intraruminal infusion of starch, casein, and water. Journal of Animal Science 77: 378—387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wallace, R. J., Atasoglu, C. and Newbold, C. J. 1999. Role of peptides in rumen microbial metabolism — review. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science 12: 139—147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar