Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T06:45:25.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Association in horses of orosensory characteristics of foods with their post-ingestive consequences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

M. C. Cairns ,
J. J. Cooper ,
H. P. B. Davidson  and
D. S. Mills
M. C. Cairns
Affiliation:
De Montfort University, Caythorpe, Grantham, NG32 3EP, UK
J. J. Cooper
Affiliation:
Animal Behaviour, Cognition and Welfare Group, University of Lincoln, Department of Biological Sciences, Riseholme Park, Lincoln LN2 2LG, UK
H. P. B. Davidson
Affiliation:
Equine Studies Group, c/o WALTHAM Centre for Pet Nutrition, Freeby Lane, Waltham-on-the Wolds, LE14 4RT, UK
D. S. Mills*
Affiliation:
Animal Behaviour, Cognition and Welfare Group, University of Lincoln, Department of Biological Sciences, Riseholme Park, Lincoln LN2 2LG, UK
*
Corresponding author. E-mail:[email protected]
Get access

Abstract

In the domestic environment, horses are often presented with foods to which they are not evolutionarily adapted, such as low fibre pellets. Horses may not have the ability to learn the consequences of consuming unnatural foodstuffs and adapt their selection accordingly. This study aimed to investigate the horse’s feeding preferences when presented with concentrate pellets differing in nutrient content. Using a choice test, the relative preferences of 12 horses for mint and garlic, in iso-caloric diets, was first assessed over 29 meals. A mint preference, calculated as the proportion of mint in the total food intake, was shown by 11 horses. The horses were then divided into two groups, approximately balanced on the basis of mint preference. Group A was exposed to a choice of a mint-flavoured lower energy food or a garlic-flavoured higher energy food, while group B was exposed to mint-flavoured higher energy food and garlic-flavoured lower energy food for 29 meals. Next the flavours were presented in iso-caloric foods, initially for 10 meals, then a further 40, before the flavour-energy pairings were reversed for 30 meals. A final iso-caloric test was carried out for 30 meals. Both groups showed a preference for mint in the initial iso-caloric choice test but no such preference was shown in later iso-caloric tests. Both groups showed a higher preference for mint when paired with higher energy (proportion of mint intake to total intake was 0·75 (s.e.0·02) and 0·73 (s.e.0·02) for A and B respectively). Group B also showed a preference for garlic when paired with higher energy (proportion of mint intake: 0·32, s.e. 0·02) whilst group A showed a significant decrease in preference for mint when paired with lower energy (by 0·21 (s.e. 0·03), T = 6·88, P 0·01). The results suggest that horses can select a higher energy diet over a lower energy one and that horses can form associations between foods and their nutritional composition, even if they do not resemble those found in their natural environment.

Keywords

conditioningflavourfoodpreferenceshorses
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 75 , Issue 2 , October 2002 , pp. 257 - 265
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2002

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

Archer, M. 1971. Preliminary studies on the palatability of grasses, legumes and herbs to horses. Veterinary Record 89: 236–240.Google Scholar
Carpenter, J. A. 1956. Species differences in taste preferences. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 49: 139–144.Google Scholar
Cassini, M. H. 1994. Behavioral mechanisms of selection of diet components and their ecological implications in herbivorous mammals. Journal of Mammalogy 75: 733–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiBattista, D. and Mercier, S. 1999. Flavor-calorie learning in the golden hamster (Mesocricetus auratus). Journal of Comparative Psychology 113: 81–84.Google Scholar
Dulphy, J. P., MartinRosset, W., Dubroeucq, H., Ballet, J. M., Detour, A. and Jailler, M. 1997. Compared feeding patterns in ad libitum intake of dry forages by horses and sheep. Livestock Production Science 52: 49–56.Google Scholar
Forbes, J. M. 1999. Natural feeding behaviour and feed selection. In Regulation of feed intake (ed. M. Verstegen, W. A.), pp. 3–12. CAB Interntional Publishing, Oxon.Google Scholar
Frape, D. 1998. Equine nutrition and feeding, second edition. Blackwell Science, Oxford.Google Scholar
Galef, B. G. J. 1996. Social enhancement of food preferences in Norway rats: a brief review. In Social learning in animals: the roots of culture (ed. Heyes, L. M. and B. Galef, G. J.), pp. 49–60. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Garcia, J., McKowan, B. K. and Green, K. F. 1972. A theory of taste-aversion learning — biological constraints on conditioning. In Biological boundaries of learning (Seligman, M.E. P. and Hager, J. L.), pp. 20–43. Meredith Corporation, New York.Google Scholar
Gill, M., Beaver, D. E. and Osbourn, D. F. 1989. Feeding value of grass and grass products. In Grass: its production and utilization, second edition (ed. Holmes, W.), pp. 89–129. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.Google Scholar
Goatcher, W. D. and Church, D. C. 1970. Taste responses in ruminants. I. Reactions to sugars, saccharin, ethanol and salts. Journal of Animal Science 30: 777–783.Google Scholar
Harris, P. A. 1999. How understanding the digestive process can help minimise digestive disturbances due to diet and feeding practices. Proceedings of the BEVA specialist days on behaviour and nutrition (ed. Harris, P. A. Gomarsall, G. M. Davidson, H. P. B. and Green, R. E.), pp. 45–49. Equine Veterinary Journal Ltd, Newmarket.Google Scholar
Hirsch, E. 1973. Some determinants of intake and patterns of feeding in the guinea pig. Physiology and Behavior 11: 687–704.Google Scholar
Houpt, K. A., Zahorik, D. M. and Swartzmanandert, J. A. 1990. Taste-aversion learning in horses. Journal of Animal Science 68: 2340–2344.Google Scholar
Illius, A. W. and Gordon, I. J. 1993. Diet selection in mammalian herbivores: constraints and tactics. In Diet selection: an interdisciplinary approach to foraging behaviour (ed. Hughes, R. N.), pp. 157–181. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.Google Scholar
Janis, C. 1976. The evolutionary strategy of the equidae and the origins of rumen and caecal digestion. Evolution 30: 757–774.Google Scholar
Laut, J. E., Houpt, K. A., Hintz, H. F. and Houpt, T. R. 1985. The effects of caloric dilution on meal patterns and food intake of ponies. Physiology and Behavior 35: 549–554.Google Scholar
Mills, D. and Nankervis, K. 1999. Equine behaviour: principles and practice. Blackwell Science, Oxford.Google Scholar
Owen, J. B. 1992. Genetic-aspects of appetite and feed choice in animals. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 119: 151–155.Google Scholar
Provenza, F. D. 1995. Postingestive feedback as an elementary determinant of food preference and intake in ruminants. Journal of Range Management 48: 2–17.Google Scholar
Provenza, F. D. 1996. Acquired aversions as the basis for varied diets of ruminants foraging on rangelands. Journal of Animal Science 74: 2010–2020.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Provenza, F. D., Scott, C. B., Phy, T. S. and Lynch, J. J. 1996. Preference of sheep for foods varying in flavors and nutrients. Journal of Animal Science 74: 2355–2361.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Provenza, F. D., Villalba, J. J., Cheney, C. D. and Werner, S. J. 1998. Self-organization of foraging behaviour: from simplicity to complexity without goals. Nutrition Research Reviews 11: 199–222.Google Scholar
Pyke, G. H. 1984. Optimal foraging theory: a critical review. Annual Review of Ecological Systems 15: 523–575.Google Scholar
Robson, M. J., Parsons, A. J. and Williams, T. E. 1989. Herbage production: grasses and legumes. In Grass: its the production and utilization, second edition (ed. Holmes, W.), pp. 7–88. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.Google Scholar
Roguet, C., Dumont, B. and Prache, S. 1998. Selection and use of feeding sites and feeding stations by herbivores: a review. Annales de Zootechnie 47: 225–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sclafani, A. 1995. How food preferences are learned — laboratory-animal models. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 54: 419–427.Google Scholar
Sneddon, J. C. and Argenzio, R. A. 1998. Feeding strategy and water homeostasis in equids: the role of the hind gut. Journal of Arid Environments 38: 493–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorne, C. J. 1995. Feeding behaviour of domestic dogs and the role of experience. In The domestic dog: its evolution, behaviour and interactions with people (ed. Serpell, J.), pp. 103–114. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Tyler, S. J. 1997. The behaviour and social organisation of the New Forest ponies. Animal Behaviour Monographs 5: 87–196.Google Scholar
Wieren, S.E. van. 1996. Do large herbivores select a diet that maximizes short-term energy intake rate? Forest Ecology and Management 88: 149–156.Google Scholar
Zahorik, D. M., Houpt, K. A. and Swartzman-andert, J. 1990. Taste aversion learning in three species of ruminants. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 26: 27–39.Google Scholar