Food preferences in farm animals: why don't they always choose wisely?

Forbes, J. M.; Kyriazakis, Ι.

doi:10.1079/pns19950012

Cited by 82 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In both experiments at medium term (24 h), chickens consumed both diets in the same proportions, and at short term they over-consumed high-energy feeds (isoproteic or not) during the first minutes of distribution, whereas they under-consumed lowenergy feeds after several cycles of distribution. Our findings corroborate previous results that have shown that chickens appear not to make appropriate choices in line with what would usually be considered as nutritional requirements (Forbes and Kyriazakis, 1995). This implies that their food preferences in the short term are different from those observed over periods of several days.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

“…This difference could be the consequence of a lower activity in chickens reared alone and thus the lower energy expenditure. Because social factors are major modulators of food intake in chickens (Picard et al, 1992;Forbes and Kyriazakis, 1995;Nielsen, 1999), it is also possible that keeping animals in groups accelerated the learning period. Indeed, the fast learners may influence the others, especially by attracting them to the feeder according to the feed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At 9 days of age and thereafter, chickens having a choice of two diets have a clear preference -E-mail: bouvarel.itavi@tours.inra.fr for the diet higher in energy and lower in protein than the diet lower in energy and higher in protein (Siegel et al, 1997). There are numerous examples of animals that appear not to make appropriate choices (from the standpoint of the human observer), implying that their food preferences are governed by factors other than, or additional to, nutritional wisdom (Forbes and Kyriazakis, 1995).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of various energy and protein levels during sequential feeding on feed preferences in meat-type chickens

Bouvarel

Vallée

Chagneau

et al. 2008

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Short-term feed preferences were studied in individually caged chickens fed sequentially in order to understand a previously described imbalance in the intake of diets offered. Sequential feeding (SF) was carried out for four 48 h cycles in male broiler chickens. The diets varied in energy (2800 (E2) and 3200 kcal/kg (E1)) and protein (230 (P1) and 150 g/kg (P2)) contents. SF was compared to standard feeding (C) (3000 kcal/kg ME and CP 5 190 g/kg). In experiment 1, three treatments were used: C, S E (E2 followed by E1) and S E 0 (E1 followed by E2). Four treatments were used in experiment 2: C, S P (P1 followed by P2), S E and S EP (P1E2 followed by P2E1). Total feed intake was measured during the SF period. After this, short-term preferences were evaluated with a choice test on chickens previously fed with the same feeds during the SF period (experienced birds) and in C chickens (naïve birds). In both experiments, total feed intake was similar among treatments and the percentage of each feed consumed was not significantly different from controls (50%). In experiment 1, S E and S E 0 chickens over-consumed E1 and under-consumed E2 diets only during the first 15 min of the fourth cycle. The choice test indicated that experienced chickens preferred E1, while naïve chickens preferred E2. Similarly, in experiment 2, chickens over-consumed E1 and E1P2 during the first 15 min of the fourth cycle, but the intake of diets varying in protein content was not different from controls. During the choice test, as in experiment 1, experienced chickens preferred E1, while naïve chickens preferred E2. There was a slight preference for the protein-poor diet in naïve birds and there was no preference in the diet varying in both protein and energy contents. Experience modified choice between feeds varying in energy content but not in protein. When feeds were known, preference for energy affected the feed intake immediately after switching from one diet to the other, although lower with the diet also varying in protein, it did not influence the total intake of each diet. Interactions between the nutritional properties and sensorial cues of feed could explain these results.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of various energy and protein levels during sequential feeding on feed preferences in meat-type chickens

Bouvarel

Vallée

Chagneau

et al. 2008

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One such behavioural mechanism is the development of conditioned associations between the organoleptic and the nutritional properties of foods. Certain organoleptic properties are more effective in leading to conditioned responses than others, such as the flavour or taste of the food in mammals and the colour of the food in birds (Forbes & Kyriazakis, 1995). There is good evidence in the literature for both the development of conditioned preferences for foods that are associated with positive post-ingestive consequences as a result of intake of nutrients (for example, see Arsenos & Kyriazakis, 1999), and for the conditioned aversions towards foods that are associated with toxic consequences (for example, see Kyriazakis et al 1998).…”

Section: Learning About Foodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diet selection and animal state: an integrative framework

1999

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the present paper we deal with the problems of explaining and predicting diet selection of animals under controlled conditions, i.e. conditions that can be described and in which any influences of the environment can be either controlled or at least monitored. Diet selection is considered within an integrative framework of feeding behaviour that views both food intake and diet selection as an outcome of the animal's internal state and knowledge of the feeding environment. Three questions that arise from the framework are considered: (1) how do animals learn about foods available to them as a choice? (2) what changes in internal state affect diet selection? (3) how much time is needed for a change in the animal's internal state to be detected and for it to react to this change through a modification of its diet selection? It is proposed that animals have developed behavioural mechanisms that allow them to recognize foods on the basis of their nutritional as well as other properties. The rate at which animals learn about foods depends largely on the extent of the animal's deficiency and on the extent of the post-ingestive consequences induced by the foods. There is little evidence that animals modify their diet selection in response to short-term systemic fluctuation of their internal environment. On the other hand, long-term changes in the internal state of the animal lead to consequent long-term changes in diet selection. The time needed for a change in diet selection to be observed depends on the deviation created in the animal's internal state, either as a result of a physiological change or as a consequence of feeding. Thus, a more appropriate question to consider is not 'what time period matters to the animal?' but 'how much change or deviation in the internal state is the animal prepared to accept?'

show abstract

“…These experiments have established the ability of the pig to discriminate between different foods (Forbes and Kyriazakis, 1995). Dalby et al (1995) showed that the piglet is so well able to distinguish between protein levels that it is capable of regulating protein intake during growth when offered a choice of foods differing in protein content.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does the newly weaned piglet select a zinc oxide supplemented feed, when given the choice?

Reynolds

Forbes

Miller

2010

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

animal Does the newly weaned piglet select a zinc oxide supplemented feed, when given the choice? An experiment was conducted to examine whether weaned piglets would display preference for a food containing a pharmacological level of zinc oxide (ZnO). A total of 60 piglets were weaned at 7.8 kg 6 0.14 (s.e.m.) and 27.8 6 0.11 days of age into eight mixed sex groups of seven or eight piglets per pen. Groups were balanced for litter origin, weaning weight and sex. Piglet feeding behaviour was constantly recorded by a multi-spaced feeding behaviour recording system (Leeds University Feeding Behaviour System) in each pen. Each pen of pigs was offered ad libitum access to two different foods (16.2 MJ digestible energy, 16 g lysine/kg), which differed only in the level of ZnO supplementation: unsupplemented (U) or supplemented (Z; ZnO 3100 mg/ kg). Both foods contained a basal level of zinc (100 mg/kg). Feeding time was recorded for each individual at each trough. Piglets were weighed at weaning and at 7 and 13 days thereafter. The experiment ran for 13 days. Any piglet observed with post-weaning scour (Y) was recorded and treated appropriately whereas healthy piglets were categorised as N (no scour). Preference for a food was defined as being significantly different from 50% of total feed intake or time spent feeding. There was no difference between piglet numbers selecting each food as their first meal. However, within the first 24 h, piglets preferred (P , 0.001) food U, spending only 36.3% (32.2 to 40.5; 95% confidence interval) of feeding time at food Z. Throughout the experiment, piglets showed aversion (P , 0.001) to food Z, consumption being 8.9% (5.1 to 13.6) and 15.7% (8.9 to 23.9) of total intake in weeks 1 and 2, respectively. Individual piglets showed their preference for food U with only 16.6% (14.6 to 18.5) and 21.8% (19.6 to 24.0) of feeding time spent on food Z in weeks 1 and 2, respectively. Scouring piglets did not show any difference in feeding behaviour from healthy piglets in either week. Average piglet gain (of all piglets) was low, at 0.039 6 0.03 and 0.272 6 0.04 kg/day in weeks 1 and 2, respectively. Given a choice, weaned piglets showed a clear preference for the food U even when exhibiting post-weaning scour. It can be concluded that the newly weaned, naïve, piglet is not able to recognise a food with clear health and performance benefits but selected the food U due to the reduced palatability of the food Z.

show abstract

Food preferences in farm animals: why don't they always choose wisely?

Cited by 82 publications

References 33 publications

Effects of various energy and protein levels during sequential feeding on feed preferences in meat-type chickens

Effects of various energy and protein levels during sequential feeding on feed preferences in meat-type chickens

Diet selection and animal state: an integrative framework

Does the newly weaned piglet select a zinc oxide supplemented feed, when given the choice?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About