Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:33:38.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Devaluation of low-quality food during early experience by sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 January 2011

F. Catanese ,
E. Freidin ,
M. I. Cuello  and
R. A. Distel
F. Catanese
Affiliation:
Centro de Recursos Naturales Renovables de la Zona Semiárida, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas de la República Argentina, Mailbox 738, 8000-Bahía Blanca, Argentina Departamento de Agronomía, Universidad Nacional del Sur, 8000-Bahía Blanca, Argentina
E. Freidin
Affiliation:
Centro de Recursos Naturales Renovables de la Zona Semiárida, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas de la República Argentina, Mailbox 738, 8000-Bahía Blanca, Argentina
M. I. Cuello
Affiliation:
Centro de Recursos Naturales Renovables de la Zona Semiárida, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas de la República Argentina, Mailbox 738, 8000-Bahía Blanca, Argentina
R. A. Distel*
Affiliation:
Centro de Recursos Naturales Renovables de la Zona Semiárida, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas de la República Argentina, Mailbox 738, 8000-Bahía Blanca, Argentina Departamento de Agronomía, Universidad Nacional del Sur, 8000-Bahía Blanca, Argentina
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

A ruminant's early experience with low-quality food (LQF) is expected to increase its acceptance and preference in adulthood. Contrarily, we found that experienced sheep (ES) exposed to mature oat hay early in life ate less of this LQF than inexperienced sheep (IS). A possibility is that ES might have devaluated the LQF through continuous comparisons against high-quality food (HQF) supplements (sunflower meal and ground corn) that were simultaneously available during early experience. In this study, we tested the devaluation hypothesis with a successive negative contrast (SNC) procedure. In a consummatory SNC procedure, ‘shift’ subjects are unexpectedly changed from HQF to LQF, and their consumption is then compared against the consumption of ‘unshift’ subjects that receive LQF all throughout the SNC procedure. The magnitude of the difference in consumption between preshift and postshift is regarded as a measure of the degree to which both foods (HQF and LQF) are perceived to differ hedonically. When sheep from our previous study were 300 days old, both ES and IS were randomly assigned to either shift (ES-S and IS-S) or unshift conditions (ES-U and IS-U; n = 6 in each group). Groups ES-S and IS-S were fed HQF (alfalfa hay) during the preshift phase, and then suddenly changed to LQF (oat hay) in the postshift phase. Groups ES-U and IS-U (controls) were fed only LQF throughout the SNC procedure. Subjects in ES-S showed a significantly lower intake of LQF than those in ES-U in the first postshift session (i.e. they showed an SNC effect), which was not observed in IS. These results agree with ES subjects having devalued LQF during early experience. We discuss the possibility that high levels of nutrient supplementation can result in devaluation of LQF (i.e. decrease in preference and acceptance), whereas restricted levels of supplementation may promote a positive experience with LQF.

Keywords

early experiencefood valuationlow-quality foodsheepsuccessive negative contrast
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 5 , Issue 6 , June 2011 , pp. 938 - 942
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2011

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

Baraza, E, Villalba, JJ, Provenza, FD 2005. Nutritional context influences preferences of lambs for foods with plant secondary metabolites. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92, 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateson, M 2004. Mechanisms of decision-making and the interpretation of choice tests. Animal Welfare 13, 115–120.Google Scholar
Bergvall, UA, Balogh, ACV 2009. Consummatory simultaneous positive and negative contrast in fallow deer: implications for selectivity. Mammalian Biology 74, 236–239.Google Scholar
Bergvall, UA, Rautio, P, Tuomas, L, Leimar, O 2007. A test of simultaneous and successive negative contrast in fallow deer foraging behaviour. Animal Behaviour 74, 395–402.Google 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
Distel, RA, Provenza, FD 1991. Experience early in life affects voluntary intake of blackbrush by goats. Journal of Chemical Ecology 17, 431–450.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Distel, RA, Villalba, JJ, Laborde, HE 1994. Effects of early experience on voluntary intake of low-quality roughage by sheep. Journal of Animal Science 72, 1191–1195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dove, H 2002. Principles of supplementary feeding in sheep-grazing systems. In Sheep nutrition (ed. M Freer and H Dove), pp. 119–142. CSIRO Plant Industry, Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
Farnswoth, KD, Illius, AW 1998. Optimal diet choice for large herbivores: an extended contingency model. Functional Ecology 12, 74–81.Google Scholar
Flaherty, CF 1996. Incentive relativity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Flaherty, CF, Largen, J 1975. Within-subjects positive and negative contrast effects. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 88, 653–664.Google Scholar
Flaherty, CF, Sepanak, SJ 1978. Bidirectional contrast, matching, and power functions obtained in sucrose consumption by rats. Animal Learning and Behavior 6, 313–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flaherty, CF, Kaplan, PS 1979. Gustatory contrast in rats. Chemical Senses and Flavour 4, 63–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flaherty, CF, Blitzer, R, Collier, GH 1978. Open field behaviors elicited by reward reduction. American Journal of Psychology 91, 429–443.Google Scholar
Freer, M, Dove, H, Axelsen, A, Donnelly, JR, McKinney, GT 1985. Responses to supplements by weaned lambs grazing mature pasture or eating hay in yards. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 25, 289–297.Google 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
Moore, JE, Brant, MH, Kunkle, WE, Hopkins, DI 1999. Effects of supplementation on voluntary forage intake, diet digestibility, and animal performance. Journal of Animal Science 77, 122–135.Google Scholar
National Research Council 1985. Nutrient requirements of sheep, 6th edition. National Academy of Sciences – National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Newman, JA, Penning, PD, Parsons, AJ, Harvey, A, Orr, RJ 1994. Fasting affects intake behavior and diet preference of sheep. Animal Behaviour 47, 185–193.Google Scholar
Nolte, DL, Provenza, FD, Balph, DF 1990. The establishment and persistence of food preferences in lambs exposed to selected foods. Journal of Animal Science 68, 998–1002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papini, MR, Pellegrini, S 2006. Scaling relative incentive value in consummatory behavior. Learning and Motivation 37, 357–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pecoraro, NC, Timberlake, WD, Tinsley, M 1999. Incentive downshifts evoke search repertoires in rats. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 25, 153–167.Google Scholar
Provenza, FD, Balph, DF 1987. Diet learning by domestic ruminants: theory, evidence and practical implications. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 18, 211–232.Google 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
Rosati, AG, Stevens, JR 2009. Rational decisions: the adaptive nature of context-dependent choice. In Rational animals, irrational humans (ed. S Watanabe, AP Blaisdell, L Huber and A Young), pp. 101–117. Keio University, Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
Ruxton, GD, Beauchamp, G 2008. Time for some a priori thinking about post hoc testing. Behavioral Ecology 19, 690–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, RA, Villalba, JJ, Provenza, FD 2006. Influence of stock density and rate and temporal patterns of forage allocation on the diet mixing behavior of sheep grazing sagebrush steppe. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 100, 207–218.Google Scholar
Villalba, JJ, Provenza, FD, Goudong, H 2004. Experience influences diet mixing by herbivores: implications for plant biochemical diversity. Oikos 107, 100–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villalba, JJ, Provenza, FD, Shaw, R 2006. Initial conditions and temporal delays influence preference for foods high in tannins and for foraging locations with and without foods high in tannins by sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour 97, 190–205.Google Scholar
Zellner, DA 2007. Short communication: contextual influences on liking and preference. Appetite 49, 679–682.Google Scholar
Zentall, TR, Clement, TS 2001. Simultaneous discrimination learning: stimulus interactions. Animal Learning and Behavior 29, 311–325.Google Scholar