Literature DB >> 24248877

The relative importance of mother and toxicosis in the selection of foods by lambs.

F D Provenza1, J J Lynch, J V Nolan.   

Abstract

A lamb's mother and postingestive feedback both influence learning about foods, but their relative importance is unknown. We conducted a study to compare the ingestion of elm (1) by lambs whose mothers avoided elm because ingestion of elm by mother was previously paired with the toxin lithium chloride (LiCl) (M), (2) by lambs who received a mild dose of LiCl after they ingested elm, and whose mothers also avoided elm (M + L), and (3) by lambs who received LiCl after they ingested elm, but whose mothers ate elm avidly (M vs. L); in treatment (4) neither mothers nor lambs were given LiCl (C). In all four treatments, mothers and lambs ate poplar. Each lamb was exposed with its mother for 5 min/day to poplar on days 1,2, 5, 7, 9, and 11 and to elm on days 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12. Following exposures to elm on days 8, 10, and 12, lambs in treatments M + L and M vs. L were given a low dose of LiCl (100 mg/kg body weight orally in a capsule) when they ingested elm to produce an aversion to elm. During the first test after weaning, lambs could choose between elm and poplar. Lambs in C took more bites of elm than did lambs in M, M + L, and M vs. L (13, 2, 2, < 1;P >F=0.003), and they also took a higher percentage of bites from elm (42, 11, 6, 1;P >F < 0.001). The number of bites of poplar did not differ among treatments (M=31, M + L=26, M vs. L=42, C=27;P >F =0.458). During the second test, when lambs were offered only elm, lambs in C took significantly more bites of elm than those in the other treatments, and lambs in M took more bites of elm than lambs in M + L, but not M vs. L (C=38, M=16, M + L=3, M vs. L=6;P >F < 0.001). During the third test, when lambs again could choose between elm and poplar, lambs in C again took more bites of elm (C=14, M=3, M + L=< 1, M vs. L=< 1;P >F=0.034), and they also took a higher percentage of bites from elm (C=26, M=5, M + L=2, M vs. L=2;P >F < 0.001), than did lambs in the other three treatments. The number of bites of poplar did not differ among treatments (M=47, M + L=43, M vs. L=62, C =41;P >F=0.223). We conclude that the response by lambs to the toxin LiCl was more important than was the mother as a social model because lambs that received LiCl avoided elm whether or not the mother ate it.

Entities:  

Year:  1993        PMID: 24248877     DOI: 10.1007/BF00993698

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Chem Ecol        ISSN: 0098-0331            Impact factor:   2.626


  8 in total

1.  Amino acid imbalance in the liquid-fed lamb.

Authors:  Q R Rogers; A R Egan
Journal:  Aust J Biol Sci       Date:  1975-04

2.  Experience early in life affects voluntary intake of blackbrush by goats.

Authors:  R A Distel; F D Provenza
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  1991-02       Impact factor: 2.626

3.  Defense of winter-dormant Alaska paper birch against snowshoe hares.

Authors:  Paul B Reichardt; John P Bryant; Thomas P Clausen; Gregory D Wieland
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1984-12       Impact factor: 3.225

4.  Lambs form preferences for nonnutritive flavors paired with glucose.

Authors:  E A Burritt; F D Provenza
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 3.159

5.  Food aversion learning: ability of lambs to distinguish safe from harmful foods.

Authors:  E A Burritt; F D Provenza
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  1989-07       Impact factor: 3.159

6.  Germacrone defends labrador tea from browsing by snowshoe hares.

Authors:  P B Reichardt; J P Bryant; B J Anderson; D Phillips; T P Clausen; M Meyer; K Frisby
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  1990-06       Impact factor: 2.626

7.  Winter chemical defense of Alaskan balsam poplar against snowshoe hares.

Authors:  P B Reichardt; J P Bryant; B R Mattes; T P Clausen; F S Chapin; M Meyer
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  1990-06       Impact factor: 2.626

8.  Antiemetic drugs attenuate food aversions in sheep.

Authors:  F D Provenza; L Ortega-Reyes; C B Scott; J J Lynch; E A Burritt
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 3.159

  8 in total
  3 in total

1.  Tracking variable environments: There is more than one kind of memory.

Authors:  F D Provenza
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 2.626

Review 2.  BEEF SPECIES-RUMINANT NUTRITION CACTUS BEEF SYMPOSIUM: Influence of management decisions during heifer development on enhancing reproductive success and cow longevity1.

Authors:  Adam F Summers; Shelby L Rosasco; Eric J Scholljegerdes
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2019-03-01       Impact factor: 3.159

3.  How goats learn to distinguish between novel foods that differ in postingestive consequences.

Authors:  F D Provenza; J J Lynch; E A Burritt; C B Scott
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 2.626

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.