Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T17:28:02.569Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Feeding behaviour of sheep fed lucerne v. grass hays with controlled post-ingestive consequences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2010

A. Favreau ,
C. Ginane  and
R. Baumont
A. Favreau*
Affiliation:
INRA, UR1213 Herbivores, Site de Theix, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
C. Ginane
Affiliation:
INRA, UR1213 Herbivores, Site de Theix, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
R. Baumont*
Affiliation:
INRA, UR1213 Herbivores, Site de Theix, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
*
†E-mail: angelique.favreau@clermont.inra.fr, baumont@clermont.inra.fr
†E-mail: angelique.favreau@clermont.inra.fr, baumont@clermont.inra.fr
Get access

Abstract

Understanding what determines feeding behaviour in herbivores is essential to optimise the use of forages in breeding systems. Herbivores can evaluate foods by associative learning of their pre-ingestive characteristics (taste, odour, etc.) and their post-ingestive consequences. Post-ingestive consequences are acknowledged as influencing intake and food choices, but the role of pre-ingestive characteristics is still being debated. Our experiment was designed to test their separate effects on daily dry matter intake (DMI), intake patterns and short-term choices in sheep by crossing the nature of the hay orally consumed (o) ad libitum, lucerne (L) or grass (G), with the nature of the hay introduced into the rumen (r), L or G, at a rate of half the total amount of hay received the day before. We applied four treatments, Go/Gr, Go/Lr, Lo/Gr and Lo/Lr, to test the effects of (i) post-ingestive consequences with similar pre-ingestive characteristics (Go/Gr v. Go/Lr; Lo/Gr v. Lo/Lr) and (ii) pre-ingestive characteristics with similar post-ingestive consequences at the end of the feeding period (Go/Lr v. Lo/Gr). Six rumen-fistulated sheep underwent all the treatments over 11-day periods in a latin square design. Eating time was restricted to 6 h/day, intraruminal introductions were performed just before food offer and choice tests were conducted after food removal. For similar pre-ingestive characteristics, DMI increased when L hay was introduced into the rumen rather than G (P < 0.05), possibly owing to a lower fill effect of L due to its lower NDF content and higher rumen degradability. The increased DMI resulted from longer eating time when G was orally consumed (149 v. 192 min, P < 0.05), whereas it resulted from higher intake rate with L (4.8 v. 6.1 g/min, P < 0.05). For similar post-ingestive consequences at the end of the feeding period (Go/Lr and Lo/Gr), DMI were similar (P > 0.05). Pre-ingestive characteristics or palatability per se did not therefore influence daily intake, although they influenced eating patterns. Pre-ingestive characteristics also greatly influenced short-term choices in favour of the hay that was not previously consumed, independently of any post-ingestive influence. This study confirms the effects of post-ingestive consequences on daily intake, but demonstrates that these variations are obtained by different behavioural adjustments under the influence of pre-ingestive characteristics. Preference for novelty, regardless of post-ingestive consequences, thus suggests that sheep may seek a diverse diet more for pleasure than for functional purposes, with implications for animal welfare.

Keywords

feeding behaviourintakesensory characteristicsrumensheep
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 4 , Issue 8 , August 2010 , pp. 1368 - 1377
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2010

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

Anil, MH, Mbanya, JN, Symonds, HW, Forbes, JM 1993. Responses in the voluntary intake of hay or silage by lactating cows to intraruminal infusions of sodium acetate or sodium propionate, the tonicity of rumen fluid or rumen distension. British Journal of Nutrition 69, 699–712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arsenos, G, Kyriazakis, I 1999. The continuum between preferences and aversions for flavoured foods in sheep conditioned by administration of casein doses. Animal Science 68, 605–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aufrere, J, Dudilieu, M, Poncet, C 2008. In vivo and in situ measurements of the digestive characteristics of sainfoin in comparison with lucerne fed to sheep as fresh forages at two growth stages and as hay. Animal 2, 1331–1339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baumont, R 1996. Palatability and feeding behaviour in ruminants. A review. Annales de Zootechnie 45, 385–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumont, R, Seguier, N, Dulphy, JP 1990a. Rumen fill, forage palatability and alimentary behaviour in sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science 115, 277–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumont, R, Malbert, CH, Ruckebsch, Y 1990b. Mechanical stimulation of rumen fill and alimentary behaviour in sheep. Animal Production 50, 123–128.Google Scholar
Baumont, R, Jailler, M, Dulphy, JP 1997. Dynamic of voluntary intake, feeding behaviour and rumen function in sheep fed three contrasting types of hay. Annales de Zootechnie 46, 231–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumont, R, Vimal, T, Détour, A 1998. An automatic system to record and analyse kinetics of intake in sheep fed indoors with one or two feeds offered at the same time. Proceedings of the IXth European Intake Workshop 21–22.Google Scholar
Baumont, R, Prache, S, Meuret, M, Morand-Fehr, P 2000. How forage characteristics influence behaviour and intake in small ruminants: a review. Livestock Production Science 64, 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumont, R, Chenost, M, Demarquilly, C 2004. Measurement of herbage intake and ingestive behaviour by housed animals. In Herbage intake handbook (ed. P Penning), pp. 121–150. British Grassland Society, Reading, UK.Google Scholar
Baumont, R, Doreau, M, Ingrand, S, Veissier, I 2006. Feeding and mastication behaviour in ruminants. In Feeding in domestic vertebrates: from structure to behaviour (ed. V Bels), pp. 241–262. CAB International, Paris, France.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumont, R, Jamot, J, Ginane, C 2007. Are sheep able to develop preferences or aversions in reponse to an increase of rumen fill? Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences 16 (suppl. 2), 454–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernard, L, Chaise, JP, Baumont, R, Poncet, C 2000. The effect of physical form of orchardgrass hay on the passage of particulate matter through the rumen of sheep. Journal of Animal Science 78, 1338–1354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buritt, EA, Provenza, FD 1992. Lambs form preferences for nonnutritive flavors paired with glucose. Journal of Animal Science 70, 1133–1136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campling, RC, Balch, CC 1961. Factors affecting the voluntary intake of food by cows. 1. Preliminary observations on the effect, on the voluntary intake of hay, of changes in the amount of the reticulo-rumen contents. British Journal of Nutrition 15, 523–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carro, MD, Lopez, S, Gonzalez, JS, Ovejero, FJ 1991. The use of the rumen degradation characteristics of hay as predictors of its voluntary intake by sheep. Animal Production 52, 133–139.Google Scholar
Church, DC 1988. Salivary function and production. In The ruminant animal: digestive physiology and nutrition (ed DC Church ), pp. 117–124. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.Google Scholar
Demarquilly, C, Chenost, M, Giger, S 1995. Pertes fécales et digestibilité des aliments et des rations. In Nutrition des ruminants domestiques (ed. R Jarrige, Y Ruckebusch, C Demarquilly, M-H Farce and M Journet), pp. 601–648. INRA Editions, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Du Toit, JT, Provenza, FD, Nastis, A 1991. Conditioned taste aversions: how sick must a ruminant get before it learns about toxicity in foods? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30, 35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faverdin, P, Baumont, R, Ingvartsen, KL 1995. Control and feed intake in ruminants. In Recent developments in the nutrition of herbivores (ed. M Journet, E Grenet, MH Farce, M Theriez and C Demarquilly), pp. 95–120. INRA Editions, Versailles, France.Google Scholar
Forbes, JM, Provenza, FD 2000. Integration of learning and metabolic signals into a theory of dietary choice and food intake. In Ruminant physiology: digestion, metabolism, growth and reproduction (ed. P Cronje), pp. 3–19. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, J 1989. Food for tolman: cognition and cathexis in concert. In Aversion, avoidance, and anxiety: perspectives on aversively motivated behavior (ed. T Archer and LG Nilsson), pp. 45–85. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
Ginane, C, Baumont, R, Lassalas, J, Petit, M 2002. Feeding behaviour and intake of heifers fed on hays of various quality, offered alone or in a choice situation. Animal Research 51, 177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goering, HK, Van Soest, PJ 1970. Forage fiber analyses: apparatus, reagents, procedures, and some applications. Angricultural Handbook n°379. Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Greenhalgh, JFD, Reid, GW 1971. Relative palatability to sheep of straw, hay and dried grass. British Journal of Nutrition 26, 107–116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gregorini, P, Gunter, SA, Masino, CA, Beck, PA 2007. Effects of ruminal fill on short-term herbage intake rate and grazing dynamics of beef heifers. Grass and Forage Science 62, 346–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarrige, R, Dulphy, JP, Faverdin, P, Baumont, R, Demarquilly, C 1995. Activités d’ingestion et de rumination. In Nutrition des ruminants domestiques: ingestion et digestion (ed. R Jarrige, Y Ruckebusch, C Demarquilly, MH Farce and M Journet ), pp. 123–181. INRA Editions, Versailles, France.Google Scholar
Jouany, JP 1982. Volatile fatty acid and alcohol determination in digestive contents, silage juices, bacterial cultures and anaerobic fermentor contents. Science des aliments 2, 131–144.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I, Papachristou, TG, Duncan, AJ, Gordon, IJ 1997. Mild conditioned food aversions developed by sheep towards flavors associated with plant secondary compounds. Journal of Chemical Ecology 23, 727–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, JA, Parsons, AJ, Harvey, A 1992. Not all sheep prefer clover: diet selection revisited. Journal of Agricultural Science 119, 275–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, ER, Mc Donald, I 1979. Estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. Journal of Agricultural Science 92, 499–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, AJ, Newman, JA, Penning, PD, Harvey, A, Orr, RJ 1994. Diet preference of sheep: effects of recent diet, physiological state and species abundance. Journal of Animal Ecology 63, 465–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Provenza, FD 1995. Role of learning in food preferences of ruminants: greenhalgh and reid revisited. In Ruminant physiology: digestion, metabolism, growth and reproduction (ed. WV Engelhardt, S Leonhard-Marek, G Breves and D Giesecke), pp. 231–245. Ferdinand Enke Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar
Provenza, FD, Villalba, JJ, Haskell, J, MacAdam, JW, Griggs, TC, Wiedmeier, RD 2007. The value to herbivores of plant physical and chemical diversity in time and space. Crop Science 47, 382–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ralphs, MH, Provenza, FD, Wiedmeier, RF, Bunderson, FB 1995. Effects of energy source and food flavor on conditioned preferences in sheep. Journal of Animal Science 73, 1651–1657.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rolls, BJ 1986. Sensory-specific satiety. Nutritional Reviews 44, 93–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rutter, SM 2006. Diet preference for grass and legumes in free-ranging domestic sheep and cattle: current theory and future application. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 97, 17–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shenk, JS, Westerhaus, MO 1994. The application of near infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIRS) to forage analysis. In Forage quality, evaluation, and utilization (ed. GC Fahey, M Collins, DM Mertens and ME Moser), pp. 406–449. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis System 1999. SAS/STAT user's guide, Version 8. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Villalba, JJ, Provenza, FD, Hall, JO, Peterson, C 2006. Phosphorus appetite in sheep: dissociating taste from postingestive effects. Journal of Animal Science 84, 2213–2223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Villalba, JJ, Provenza, FD, Manteca, X 2009a. Links between ruminants’ feeding behaviour and their welfare. In Proceedings of the XIth international symposium on ruminant physiology (ed. Y Chilliard, F Glasser, Y Faulconnier, F Bocquier, I Veissier and M Doreau), p. 63. Wageningen Academic Publisher, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Villalba, JJ, Provenza, FD, Stott, R 2009b. Rumen distension and contraction influence feed preference by sheep. Journal of Animal Science 87, 340–350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weatherburn, MW 1967. Phenol-hypochlorite reaction for determination of ammonia. Analytical Chemistry 39, 971–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weston, RH 1966. Factors limiting the intake of feed by sheep.1. The significance of palatability, the capacity of the alimentary tract to handle digesta, and the supply of glycogenic substrate. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 17, 939–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar