Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T13:17:07.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Limitations of palatability as a concept in food intake and diet selection studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2018

A. J. Rook ,
P. D. Penning  and
S. M. Rutter
A. J. Rook
Affiliation:
Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, North Wyke, Okehampton, Devon EX20 2SB
P. D. Penning
Affiliation:
Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, North Wyke, Okehampton, Devon EX20 2SB
S. M. Rutter
Affiliation:
Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, North Wyke, Okehampton, Devon EX20 2SB
Get access

Extract

The concept of palatability occurs frequently in studies of voluntary food intake and diet selection (see for example the numerous references in Forbes, 1986). The purpose of this paper is to suggest that the concept is of limited value. Four major areas are considered. The first is that of definition, as the term is often used in an ambiguous manner. Secondly, the use of palatability as a food descriptor is challenged since it is essentially an animal rather than a food characteristic. Thirdly, the usefulness of the concept is challenged in the context of its evolutionary and ecological significance. Finally, it is contended that the response of the animal is not necessarily a good measure either of the stimulus received or of the resulting internal state.

Type
Poster abstracts
Information
BSAP Occasional Publication , Volume 20: Animal Choices , 1997 , pp. 75 - 76
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Science 1997

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

Forbes, J. M. 1986. The voluntary food intake of farm animals. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Greenhalgh, J. F. D. and Reid, G. W. 1967. Separating the effects of digestibility and palatability on food intake in ruminant animals. Nature 214: 744.Google Scholar
Hodgson, J. 1979. Nomenclature and definitions in grazing studies. Grass and Forage Science 34: 11–18.Google Scholar
Newman, J. A., Parsons, A. J. and Harvey, A. 1992. Not all sheep prefer clover: diet selection revisited, journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 119: 275–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, J. A., Penning, P. D., Parsons, A. J., Harvey, A. and Orr, R. J. 1994. Fasting affects intake behaviour and diet preference of grazing sheep. Animal Behaviour 47: 185–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Provenza, F. D. and Balph, D. F. 1989. Applicability of five diet-selection models to various foraging challenges ruminants encounter. In Behavioural mechanisms of food selection (ed. Hughes, R. N.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
Provenza, F. D. and Burritt, E. A. 1991. Socially induced diet preference ameliorates conditioned food aversion in lambs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 31: 229–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutter, S. M. 1995. To what extent can welfare be measured? Proceedings of the 29th international congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology, 3-5 August 1995, Exeter, UK, pp. 57–58.Google Scholar