How does pattern of feeding and rate of nutrient delivery influence conditioned food preferences?
- 148 Downloads
Ruminant herbivores have been shown to learn about food properties by associating food flavours with the food’s post-ingestive consequences. Previous experimentation supporting the conditioned food aversion/preference hypothesis has generally employed very simple diet learning tasks which do not effectively represent the wide range of foods selected within single bouts typical of wild, free-ranging ruminant herbivores. We tested the ability of a ruminant herbivore to associate a food with artificially administered nutrient rewards in a designed experiment where we altered the temporal pattern of encounter with the food as well as the nature (fast or slow reward) of the post-ingestive outcome. Twenty-four goats were offered branches of Sitka spruce (SS) and Norway spruce (NS) for 4 h per day on two days per week for five weeks. The pattern of feeding varied with treatment such that the species on offer changed every hour (short) or every 2 h (long). The energy treatment altered the reward delivered during Sitka consumption so that animals were dosed either with predominantly sugar (rapidly fermented), predominantly starch (slower fermentation rate), or with water (placebo). Preference was measured on the day following each learning day. We expected that goats would find it easier to associate SS with post-ingestive rewards when the duration of encounter was longest, and that associations would be stronger with the most rapidly digested post-ingestive reward. In the event, goats did not alter their consumption of SS in response to the treatments. Our results suggest that at the scale of temporal resolution of encounters with different plant species (1–2 h), and at the different rates of experiencing post-ingestive consequences tested in this experiment, ruminants do not appear to discriminate the nutritive properties of foods predominantly through a post-ingestive feedback mechanism. They must, instead, use a range of cues—including post-ingestive consequences—to assess food properties.
KeywordsPost-ingestive effects Diet choice Feeding pattern Ruminant herbivore
- Agricultural Research Council (1980) The nutrient requirements of ruminant livestock. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Farnham Royal, Slough, UKGoogle Scholar
- Arnold GW (1981) Grazing behaviour. In: Morley FW (ed) Grazing animals. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 79–104Google Scholar
- Arsenos G, Kyriazakis I (1999) The continuum between preferences and aversions for flavoured foods in sheep conditioned by administration of casein doses. Anim Sci 68:605–616Google Scholar
- Bazely DR (1990) Rules and cues used by sheep foraging in monocultures. In: Hughes RN (ed) Behavioural mechanisms of food selection. Springer, Berlin, pp 343–367Google Scholar
- de Jong A (1981) Short- and long-term effects of eating on blood composition in free-feeding goats. J Agric Sci 96:659–668Google Scholar
- Duncan AJ, Ginane C, Gordon IJ, Orskov ER (2003) Why do browsing herbivores select mixed diets? In: ’t Mannetje L, Ramirez-Aviles L, Sandoval Castro CA, Ku Vera JC (eds) Matching herbivore nutrition to ecosystems biodiversity (Proc VI Int Symp on the Nutrition of Herbivores, Merida, Mexico, 19–24 Oct 2003). Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan, MeridaGoogle Scholar
- Illius AW, Gordon IJ (1992) Diet selection in mammalian herbivores-constraints and tactics. In: Hughes RN (ed) Diet selection. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 157–181Google Scholar
- MAFF (1975) Energy allowances and feeding systems for ruminants (Technical Bulletin 33). HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Mazur JE (1994) Learning and behavior. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
- Meuret M, Bruchou C (1994) Modélisation de l’ingestion selon la diversité des choix alimentaires réalisés par la chèvre au pâturage sur parcours (Modelling voluntary intake related to dietary choices diversity in goat grazing on rangeland). Rencontres Rech Rumin 1:225–228Google Scholar
- Provenza FD (1995) Postingestive feedback as an elementary determinant of food preference and intake in ruminants. J Range Manage 48:2–17Google Scholar
- Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar