Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T05:04:41.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Role of early experience in the development of preference for low-quality food in sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2010

F. Catanese ,
R. A. Distel ,
R. M. Rodríguez Iglesias  and
J. J. Villalba
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
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
R. M. Rodríguez Iglesias
Affiliation:
Departamento de Agronomía, Universidad Nacional del Sur, 8000 – Bahía Blanca, Argentina
J. J. Villalba
Affiliation:
Department of Forest, Range and Wildlife Sciences, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-5230, USA
*
†E-mail: cedistel@criba.edu.ar
Get access

Abstract

Domestic ruminant selectivity induces floristic changes in pasturelands, risking sustainability and limiting the subsequent availability of susceptible plant species. Development of preferences for species of lower nutritional quality may help to overcome those problems. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that early experience of sheep with a low-quality food (LQF) in a nutritional enriched context increases preference for LQF in adulthood. We predicted a higher proportional consumption of LQF in experienced lambs (EL) than in inexperienced lambs (IL) in choice situations involving LQF and alternative foods. Additionally, we determined intake of LQF by EL and IL at different levels of high-quality food (HQF) availability. From 60 to 210 days of age, EL were fed in separated feed bunks mature oat hay (LQF) simultaneously with sunflower meal (SM) and corn grain (CG), whereas IL were fed alfalfa hay (HQF) simultaneously with SM and CG. After exposure, EL and IL were offered LQF in free choice situations involving alternative foods, and also at five levels of HQF availability (100%, 75%, 50%, 25% and 0% of ad libitum intake). Proportional consumption of LQF was lower or similar in EL than IL. Intake of LQF was also lower or similar in EL than IL at all levels of HQF availability, except when the LQF was the only food available. Our results did not support the hypothesis that early experience with a LQF in a nutritional enriched context increases preference for LQF in adulthood. On the contrary, experience with LQF diminished subsequent preference for LQF in adulthood. It is proposed that, in the conditions of our study, continuous comparison between the LQF and the high-quality supplements (CG and SM) during the early exposure period lead to devaluation of LQF by EL through a simultaneous negative contrast effect.

Keywords

diet selection, early experience, food preference, low-quality food, sheep
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 4 , Issue 5 , May 2010 , pp. 784 - 791
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2009

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

AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists) 1990. Official Methods of Analysis, 15th edition. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
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
Bergvall, UA, Balogh, ACV 2009. Consummatory simultaneous positive and negative contrast in fallow deer: implications for selectivity. Mammalian Biology 74, 236–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergvall, UA, Rautio, P, Tuomas, L, Leimar, O 2007. A test of simultaneous and successive negative contrast in fallow deer foraging behavior. Animal Behaviour 74, 395–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berteaux, D, Crete, M, Huot, J, Maltais, J, Ouellet, JP 1998. Food choice by white-tailed deer in relation to protein and energy content of the diet: a field experiment. Oecologia 115, 84–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Distel, RA, Provenza, FD 1991. Experience early in life affects voluntary intake of black brush by goats. Journal of Chemical Ecology 17, 431–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Distel, RA, Villalba, JJ, Laborde, HE, Burgos, MA 1996. Persistence of the effects of early experience on consumption of low-quality roughage by sheep. Journal of Animal Science 74, 965–968.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flaherty, CF 1996. Incentive Relativity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Flaherty, CF, Blitzer, R, Collier, GH 1978. Open field behaviors elicited by reward reduction. The American Journal of Psychology 91, 429–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flaherty, CF, Troncoso, B, Deschu, N 1979. Open field behaviors correlated with reward availability and reward shift in three rat strains. American Journal of Psychology 92, 385–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goering, HK, Van Soest, PJ 1970. Forage Fiber Analyses, Agricultural Handbook 379. USDA, Washington, DC, USA.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
McEachern, MB, Eagles-Sith, CA, Efferson, CM, Van Vuren, DH 2006. Evidence for local specialization in a generalist mammalian herbivore, Neotoma fuscipes. Oikos 113, 440–448.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
Milne, JA, Macrae, JC, Spence, AM, Wilson, S 1978. A comparison of the voluntary intake and digestion of a range of forages at different times of the year by the sheep and the Red deer (Cervus elaphus). The British Journal of Nutrition 40, 347–357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 (Suppl. 2), 122–135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
NRC (National Research Council) 1985. Nutrient Requirements of Sheep, 6th edition. National Academy of Sciences – National Research Council, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Pellegrini, S, Mustaca, A 2000. Consummatory successive negative contrast with solid food. Learning and Motivation 31, 200–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Provenza, FD 1996. Acquired aversions as the basis for varied diets of ruminants foraging on rangelands. Journal of Animal Science 74, 2010–2020.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Provenza, FD, Balph, DF 1987. Diet learning by domestic ruminants: theory, evidence and practical implications. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 18, 211–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Provenza, FD, Balph, DF 1988. Development of dietary choice in livestock on rangelands and its implications for management. Journal of Animal Science 66, 2356–2368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Provenza, FD, Lynch, JJ, Cheney, CD 1995. Effects of a flavor and food restriction on the intake of novel foods by sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 43, 83–93.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
Russel, A 1991. Body condition scoring of sheep. In Sheep and Goat Practice (ed. E Boden), pp. 3–10. Bailliere Tindall, London, UK.Google Scholar
Shaw, RA, Provenza, FD, Villalba, JJ 2006. Resource availability and quality influence patterns of diet mixing by sheep. Journal of Chemical Ecology 32, 1267–1278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Squibb, RC, Provenza, FD, Balph, DF 1990. Effect of age of exposure on consumption of a shrub by sheep. Journal of Animal Science 68, 987–997.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Villalba, JJ, Provenza, FD 2000. Roles of novelty, generalization and post-ingestive feedback in the recognition of foods by lambs. Journal of Animal Science 78, 3060–3069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar