Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:29:45.080Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Acquisition of flavour preferences in pigs through interactions with conspecifics that had previously consumed flavoured protein solutions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2020

J. Figueroa*
Affiliation:
Departamento de Ciencias Animales, Facultad de Agronomía e Ingeniería Forestal, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Macul7 820 436, Santiago, Chile
M. Müller
Affiliation:
Departamento de Fomento de la Producción Animal, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias y Pecuarias, Universidad de Chile, La Pintana8 820 000, Santiago, Chile
S. A. Guzmán-Pino
Affiliation:
Departamento de Fomento de la Producción Animal, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias y Pecuarias, Universidad de Chile, La Pintana8 820 000, Santiago, Chile
R. Franco-Rosselló
Affiliation:
Servei de Nutrició i Benestar Animal (SNiBA), Departament de Ciència Animal i dels Aliments, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08 193Bellaterra, Spain
D. Solà-Oriol
Affiliation:
Servei de Nutrició i Benestar Animal (SNiBA), Departament de Ciència Animal i dels Aliments, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08 193Bellaterra, Spain
E. Borda
Affiliation:
Bioibérica S.A.U., Palafolls08 389, Spain
D. M. Dwyer
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Cardiff University, CardiffCF10 3AT, UK
J. F. Pérez
Affiliation:
Servei de Nutrició i Benestar Animal (SNiBA), Departament de Ciència Animal i dels Aliments, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08 193Bellaterra, Spain
*
Get access

Abstract

It is known that pigs can acquire flavour preferences by brief social interactions with conspecifics that previously consumed a flavoured solid feed. However, there is no information about whether a flavoured solution could support flavour preferences through social transmission. Ninety-six pigs (49 days old) were housed in 12 pens (8 pigs/pen). Four animals per pen were randomly selected to act as observers and four as demonstrators. Demonstrator animals were temporarily moved to an empty pen where a protein solution was offered (porcine digestive peptides (PDPs), 4% weight/volume) with the addition of 0.075% aniseed (six pens) or garlic (six pens) powdered artificial flavours for 30 min. Afterwards, demonstrators were returned to interact with observer animals for 30 min. A choice test (30 min) between aniseed and garlic PDP was performed for each observer group after the interaction. Observers showed a higher intake of solutions previously consumed by their demonstrator conspecifics (648 v. 468 ml; SEM 61.36, P < 0.05). As with flavoured solid feeds, protein solutions containing artificial flavours can create preferences in pigs for those flavours through social transmission from conspecifics.

Type
Short Communication
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2020

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

Bojanowski, V and Hummel, T 2012. Retronasal perception of odors. Physiology and Behavior 107, 484487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2012.03.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collins, CL, Pluske, JR, Morrison, RS, McDonald, TN, Smits, RJ, Henman, DJ, Stensland, I and Dunshea, FR 2017. Post-weaning and whole-of-life performance of pigs is determined by live weight at weaning and the complexity of the diet fed after weaning. Animal Nutrition 3, 372379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2017.01.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figueroa, J, Solà-Oriol, D, Guzmán-Pino, SA, Chetrit, C, Borda, E and Pérez, JF 2016. The use of porcine digestible peptides and their continuity effect in nursery pigs. Journal of Animal Science 94, 15311540. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2015-0019CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figueroa, J, Solà-Oriol, D, Manteca, X and Pérez, JF, 2013. Social learning of feeding behaviour in pigs: Effects of neophobia and familiarity with the demonstrator conspecific. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 148, 120127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2013.06.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figueroa, J, Solà-Oriol, D, Pérez, JF and Manteca, X 2014. Acquisition of flavour preferences in pigs by interactions with pigs than previously drunk flavoured protein solutions. Proceedings of the 48th Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology, July 29th, Vitoria Pais Vasco Spain, pp 203.Google Scholar
Galef, BG 1983. Utilization by Norway rats (R. norvegicus) of multiple messages concerning distant foods. Journal of Comparative Psychology 97, 364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.97.4.364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galef, BG 1996. Social enhancement of food preferences in Norway rats: a brief review. In Social Learning in Animals (eds. Heyes, CM and Galef, BG), pp. 4964. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galef, BG and Whiskin, EE 1998. Limits on social influence on food choices of Norway rats. Animal Behaviour 56, 10151020. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1998.0867CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galef, BG and Whiskin, EE, 2008. Effectiveness of familiar kin and unfamiliar nonkin demonstrator rats in altering food choices of their observers. Animal Behaviour 76, 13811388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.07.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galef, BG, Mason, JR, Preti, G and Bean, NJ 1988. Carbon disulfide: a semiochemical mediating socially-induced diet choice in rats. Physiology and Behavior 42, 119124. https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9384(88)90285-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heyes, CM 1994. Social learning in animals: categories and mechanisms. Biological Reviews 69, 207231. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1994.tb01506.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Honey, PL, Varley, KR and Galef, BG 2004. Effects of ethanol consumption by adult female rats on subsequent consumption by adolescents. Appetite 42, 299306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2004.01.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laland, KN 2004. Social learning strategies. Animal Learning and Behavior 32, 414. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed