Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:34:13.827Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors affecting the voluntary intake of food by sheep

4. The effect of additives representing the primary tastes on sham intakes by oesophageal-fistulated sheep*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

W. L. Grovum  and
H. W. Chapman
W. L. Grovum
Affiliation:
Department of Biomedical Sciences, Ontario Veterinary College University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada
H. W. Chapman
Affiliation:
Department of Biomedical Sciences, Ontario Veterinary College University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada
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.

1. Sheep with oesophageal fistulas were sham-fed on pelleted lucerne (Medicago sativa) hay to assess the palatability of added chemicals representing the tastes of sweet (sucrose), sour (hydrochloric acid), salt (sodium chloride), bitter (urea) and umami (monosodium glutamate; MSG).

2. Plain pellets and four concentrations of each chemical were sham-fed for 30 min after 5·5 h deprivation in 5x5 Latin-square experiments following a period of adaptation feeding.

3. Sucrose, at concentrations of 15–120 g/kg air-dried pellets, depressed intakes with a linear relation between intake (I; g) and concentration (C; g/kg): I = 1001-3·42C.

4. HCl at 6·25–25·0 g/kg pellets had no effect on sham intakes but at 50 g/kg reduced them by 50% of control (P < 0·05).

5. NaCl at 50–200 g/kg increased sham intakes by 26% (P < 0·01) with no evidence of a dose-related effect.

6. Urea at 10–80 g/kg decreased sham intakes by 26·9% (P < 0·01) with no evidence of a dose-related effect.

7. MSG at 5–40 g/kg in two experiments increased sham intakes by 16·1 and 40·8% (P < 0·05). In another experiment at 1-8 g/kg there wasno significant effect.

8. When palatability and post-ingestive effects are separated by sham-feeding, the effect of added chemicals on intake may be completely different from when they are ingestednormally (e.g. NaCl and sucrose). This newly developed technique enables the palatabilityeffect of feed additives to be tested critically and economically.

Type
General Nutrition papers
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 59 , Issue 1 , January 1988 , pp. 63 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1988

References

Arnold, G. W. (1966). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 17, 531–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, G. W., deBoer, E. S. & Boundy, C. A. P. (1980). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 31, 571–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baile, C. A. & Forbes, J. M. (1974). Physiological Reviews 54, 160–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baile, C. A. & Martin, H. F. (1972). Journal of Dairy Science 55, 1461–1463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berridge, K., Grill, H. J. & Norgren, R. (1981). Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 95, 363–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cagan, R. H. (1977). In The Chemical Senses and Nutrition, pp. 343–360 [Kare, M. R. and Maller, O., editors]. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, H. W. (1964). Australian Veterinary Journal 40, 64–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, H. W. (1965). The anatomy and surgical deprivation of the oral and nasal senses in the sheep. MSc Thesis, Kansas State University.Google Scholar
Chapman, H. W. & Grovum, W. L. (1984). Canadian Journal of Animal Science 64, Suppl., 106–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Church, D. C. & Randall, R. P. (1979). Journal of Animal Science 48, 1177–1181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goatcher, W. D. & Church, D. C. (1970 a). Journal of Animal Science 30, 784–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goatcher, W. D. & Church, D. C. (1970 b). Journal of Animal Science 31, 364–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goatcher, W. D. & Church, D. C. (1970 c). Journal of Animal Science 31, 973–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenhalgh, J. F. D. & Reid, C. W. (1967). Nature 214, 744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grovum, W. L. (1987). In The Ruminant Animal, pp. 202–216 [Church, D. C., editor]. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Grovum, W. L. & Chapman, H. W. (1982). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 41, 72A.Google Scholar
Hanson, H. L., Brushway, M. J. & Lineweaver, H. (1960). Food Technology 14, 320–327.Google Scholar
Huber, J. T. & Cook, R. M. (1972). Journal of Dairy Science 55, 1470–1473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iggo, A. & Leek, B. F. (1967). In Olfaction and Taste, vol. 2, pp. 493–507. [Hayashi, T., editor]. London: Pergamon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, W. W., Beauchamp, G. K. & Kare, M. R. (1978). In Flavor Chemistry of Animal Foods, pp. 1–20 [Bullard, R. W., editor]. Washington DC: American Chemical Society.Google Scholar
Langlands, J. P. (1975). In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant, pp. 320–332 [McDonald, I. W. and Warner, A. C. I., editors]. Armidale: University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Martz, F. A., Wilson, G., Campbell, J. R. & Hilderbrand, E. S. (1973). Journal of Animal Science 37, 351.Google Scholar
Pfaffman, C. (1959). In Handbook of Physiology Section 1, vol. 1, pp. 507–533 [Magoun, H. W., editor]. Washington, DC: American Physiological Society.Google Scholar
Rozin, P. (1976). In Advances in the Study of Behavior, vol. 6, pp. 21–76 [Rosenblatt, J. S., Hinde, R. A., Shaw, E. and Beer, C., editors]. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W., Cochran, W. G. (1980). Statistical Methods, 7th ed. Ames: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Waldern, D. E. & Van Dyk, R. D. (1971). Journal of Dairy Science 54, 262–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weingarten, H. P. & Watson, S. D. (1982). Physiology and Behavior 28, 401–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, A. D. (1966). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 17, 503–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, P. T. (1967). In Handbook of Physiology, Section 6 vol. 1, pp. 353–366 [Code, C. F., editor]. Washington, DC: American Physiological Society.Google Scholar