| Literature DB >> 31185625 |
Sergio A Guzmán-Pino1, Cristian Lazcano2, Valeria De Luca3, Jaime Figueroa4, Carolina Valenzuela5, Eugeni Roura6.
Abstract
Pigs show an innate preference for umami (monosodium glutamate, MSG) taste. Nevertheless, the influence of a pre and postnatal umami exposure remains unclear. An experiment was conducted to test the hypothesis that MSG inclusion into maternal diets would modify the feeding behavior of post-weaning pigs. A total of 22 sows were selected on day 85 of gestation and randomly assigned to one of two gestating and lactating programs (standard commercial diets without or with 50 g/kg of MSG). Later, 208 pigs born from these sows were selected to evaluate their preference thresholds, sensory-motivated intake, total consumption, and consumption patterns for MSG and sucrose solutions. Pigs born from MSG-fed sows showed lower (p < 0.045) preference thresholds for MSG and sucrose than did animals born from control sows, and displayed an increased (p < 0.050) sensory-motivated intake for sucrose and decreased for MSG. Conversely, no differences (p > 0.05) were observed in the total consumption or consumption patterns of MSG or sucrose solutions among pigs born from control and MSG-fed sows. It is concluded that the feeding behavior of nursery pigs can be influenced by pre and postnatal inclusion of a taste active compound into maternal diets. It would appear that a compensatory mechanism to balance dietary nutrients might be in place.Entities:
Keywords: consumption patterns; maternal diets; monosodium glutamate; post-weaned pigs; preference thresholds; sensory-motivated intake; sows’ milk; umami taste
Year: 2019 PMID: 31185625 PMCID: PMC6616912 DOI: 10.3390/ani9060336
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Animals (Basel) ISSN: 2076-2615 Impact factor: 2.752
Composition and chemical analysis of the gestating and lactating diets of sows used in the experiment.
| Item | Gestation | Lactation | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | MSG | Control | MSG | ||
|
| |||||
| Corn | 572.0 | 572.0 | 594.7 | 594.7 | |
| Wheat meal | 250.0 | 250.0 | 80.0 | 80.0 | |
| Soybean oil | - | - | 40.0 | 40.0 | |
| Soybean meal | 134.0 | 134.0 | 242.0 | 242.0 | |
| L-Lysine HCl | 2.0 | 2.0 | 6.7 | 6.7 | |
| DL-Methionine | - | - | 2.7 | 2.7 | |
| L-Threonine | - | - | 2.8 | 2.8 | |
| L-Tryptophan | - | - | 0.5 | 0.5 | |
| Mycotoxins inactivator 1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | |
| Mycotoxins absorbent 2 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | |
| Sweetener 3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | - | - | |
| Mineral-vitamin-phytase mix 4 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | |
| Calcium carbonate | 12.0 | 12.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Sodium bicarbonate | 7.0 | 7.0 | - | - | |
| Dicalcium phosphate | 7.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | |
| Salt | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | |
| Copper sulphate | - | - | 0.5 | 0.5 | |
| Ammonium chloride | 3.0 | 3.0 | - | - | |
| Vegetable choline chloride | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | |
| MSG 5 | - | 50.0 | - | 50.0 | |
|
| |||||
| Dry matter | 87.6 | 89.3 | 89.3 | 89.7 | |
| Crude protein | 15.4 | 19.7 | 18.7 | 19.9 | |
| Crude fiber | 3.8 | 4.8 | 2.6 | 3.3 | |
| Ether extract | 2.5 | 4.7 | 5.3 | 4.1 | |
| N-free extract | 60.0 | 52.4 | 56.3 | 56.1 | |
| Ash | 5.9 | 7.7 | 6.4 | 6.3 | |
1 Micofix plus (Biomin; Getzersdorf, Austria); 2 Fintox mold plus (Lípidos Toledo S.A.; Madrid, Spain); 3 Sucram C-150 (Pancosma S.A.; Geneva, Switzerland); 4 Quantum blue (AB Vista Feed Ingredients; Marlborough, UK); 5 Monosodium glutamate (Prinal S.A.; Santiago, Chile).
Effect of monosodium glutamate (MSG) inclusion into maternal gestating and lactating diets on chemical and amino acid composition of sows’ milk 1.
| Item | Group | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | MSG | SEM | Group | Parity | |
|
| |||||
| Moisture | 80.8 | 81.4 | 0.394 | 0.394 | 0.668 |
| Crude protein | 5.4 | 5.2 | 0.227 | 0.597 | 0.912 |
| Ether extract | 8.2 | 7.5 | 0.340 | 0.252 | 0.591 |
| N-free extract | 4.8 | 5.2 | 0.082 | 0.074 | 0.750 |
| Ash | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.047 | 0.667 | 1.000 |
| Energy (Kcal/100 g) | 115.0 | 109.0 | 2.858 | 0.276 | 0.570 |
|
| |||||
| Aspartic acid | 526.0 | 468.1 | 15.499 | 0.119 | 0.250 |
| Glutamic acid | 1272.5 | 1181.2 | 27.923 | 0.147 | 0.319 |
| Serine | 262.7 | 261.8 | 11.394 | 0.961 | 0.572 |
| Glycine | 164.4 | 148.2 | 6.149 | 0.202 | 0.801 |
| Histidine | 129.2 | 119.8 | 6.753 | 0.426 | 0.512 |
| Arginine | 206.9 | 201.0 | 7.585 | 0.638 | 0.228 |
| Threonine | 197.3 | 200.7 | 8.983 | 0.816 | 0.919 |
| Alanine | 211.0 | 230.2 | 15.967 | 0.485 | 0.637 |
| Proline | 485.7 | 452.8 | 19.447 | 0.355 | 0.984 |
| Tyrosine | 69.2 | 78.3 | 9.289 | 0.560 | 0.533 |
| Valine | 282.0 | 268.1 | 11.829 | 0.495 | 0.901 |
| Methionine | 53.1 | 63.7 | 2.654 | 0.106 | 0.173 |
| Cysteine | 19.9 | 20.0 | 1.638 | 0.980 | 0.231 |
| Isoleucine | 246.6 | 229.8 | 10.681 | 0.383 | 0.773 |
| Leucine | 449.0 | 435.0 | 20.482 | 0.677 | 0.974 |
| Phenylalanine | 207.4 | 202.0 | 13.158 | 0.799 | 0.947 |
| Lysine | 388.3 | 383.6 | 31.206 | 0.924 | 0.800 |
1 From ANOVA analysis, including the effects of experimental group (control (standard gestating and lactating diets) or MSG (gestating and lactating diets included with 50 g/kg of MSG)) and parity number (2, 3, or 4 parities). Treatment n = 3. Mean values are least-squares means with a significance level of p < 0.05. Six milk samples were collected on day seven after farrowing from three different sows of each group, following an intramuscular injection of 20 IU of oxytocin. Samples were analyzed for chemical and amino acid composition using standard AOAC methods [38] and White et al. 1986 [39].
Preference values for different concentrations of MSG and sucrose solutions in post-weaning pigs born from control and MSG-fed sows 1.
| Item | Control | MSG | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preference (%) | SEM | Preference (%) | SEM | |||
|
| ||||||
| 0.1 | 51.5 | 7.31 | 0.845 | 57.8 | 3.47 | 0.045 |
| 0.5 | 57.6 | 5.98 | 0.229 | 62.5 | 6.46 | 0.079 |
| 1 | 68.5 | 3.17 | <0.001 | 71.2 | 4.33 | <0.001 |
| 3 | 63.3 | 4.75 | 0.016 | 66.9 | 5.72 | 0.012 |
| 9 | 68.4 | 4.88 | 0.003 | 59.2 | 7.66 | 0.253 |
| 27 | 68.6 | 4.26 | <0.001 | 59.9 | 4.66 | 0.057 |
|
| ||||||
| 0.03 | - | - | - | 47.1 | 5.16 | 0.581 |
| 0.1 | - | - | - | 62.2 | 7.51 | 0.129 |
| 1 | 58.7 | 4.84 | 0.096 | 66.5 | 6.78 | 0.032 |
| 6 | 62.7 | 6.68 | 0.081 | 66.7 | 6.21 | 0.019 |
| 12 | 72.5 | 6.02 | 0.003 | 61.9 | 7.34 | 0.131 |
| 18 | 65.2 | 6.95 | 0.049 | 66.7 | 4.42 | 0.003 |
1 From Student’s t-test, including the effect of experimental group (control (pigs born from sows fed standard gestating and lactating diets) or MSG (pigs born from sows fed gestating and lactating diets included with 50 g/kg of MSG)). Treatment n = 13. Tests consisted of short-duration preference tests (2 min). The thresholds were identified as the lowest concentrations of MSG or sucrose resulting in preferences values significantly (p < 0.05) higher than 50%.
Sensory-motivated intake of different concentrations of MSG and sucrose solutions in post-weaning pigs born from control and MSG-fed sows 1.
| Item | Control | MSG | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensory-Motivated Intake (g) | SEM | Sensory-Motivated Intake (g) | SEM | |||
|
| ||||||
| 0.1 | −9.3 | 29.69 | 0.760 | 35.3 | 17.73 | 0.070 |
| 0.5 | 70.6 | 36.38 | 0.076 | 57.3 | 34.05 | 0.121 |
| 1 | 47.9 | 16.97 | 0.015 | 23.2 | 32.17 | 0.485 |
| 3 | 85.6 | 28.97 | 0.012 | 80.6 | 28.94 | 0.017 |
| 9 | 122.9 | 38.36 | 0.008 | 63.7 | 62.24 | 0.327 |
| 27 | 127.4 | 32.15 | 0.002 | 58.4 | 37.93 | 0.150 |
|
| ||||||
| 0.03 | - | - | - | -8.9 | 42.30 | 0.463 |
| 0.1 | - | - | - | 21.3 | 21.38 | 0.339 |
| 1 | 27.6 | 14.69 | 0.085 | 51.6 | 23.70 | 0.050 |
| 6 | 53.2 | 34.89 | 0.153 | 61.4 | 23.80 | 0.024 |
| 12 | 109.7 | 32.01 | 0.005 | 77.5 | 32.91 | 0.038 |
| 18 | 89.4 | 43.85 | 0.064 | 126.7 | 33.64 | 0.003 |
1 From Student’s t-test, including the effect of experimental group (control (pigs born from sows fed standard gestating and lactating diets) or MSG (pigs born from sows fed gestating and lactating diets included with 50 g/kg of MSG)). Treatment n = 13. Tests consisted of short-duration preference tests (2 min). Sensory-motivated intake was measured as the amount of MSG or sucrose consumed above water and was compared to the negative control (no intake).
Pigs total consumption of different concentrations of MSG and sucrose solutions in animals born from control and MSG-fed sows 1.
| Item | Intake (g) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | MSG | SEM | ||
|
| ||||
| 1 | 216.5 | 140.7 | 26.91 | 0.058 |
| 3 | 245.7 | 167.1 | 28.37 | 0.062 |
| 9 | 294.0 | 248.7 | 30.03 | 0.297 |
| 27 | 257.6 | 273.2 | 28.21 | 0.699 |
|
| ||||
| 1 | 173.1 | 134.9 | 23.11 | 0.253 |
| 6 | 172.9 | 191.8 | 26.63 | 0.621 |
| 12 | 197.0 | 185.3 | 27.3 | 0.755 |
| 18 | 237.3 | 226.4 | 28.42 | 0.790 |
1 From ANOVA analysis, including the effect of experimental group (control (pigs born from sows fed standard gestating and lactating diets) or MSG (pigs born from sows fed gestating and lactating diets included with 50 g/kg of MSG)). Treatment n = 13. Mean values are least-squares means with a significance level of p < 0.05. Tests consisted in offering a single drinker for 2 min.
Consumption time, number of approaches, and consumption patterns of different concentrations of MSG and sucrose solutions in post-weaning pigs born from control or MSG-fed sows 1.
| Item | Consumption Time (CT, s) | Number of Approaches (A) | Consumption Pattern (CT/A) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group | Group | Group | ||||||||||
| Control | MSG | SEM | Control | MSG | SEM | Control | MSG | SEM | ||||
|
| ||||||||||||
| 1 | 35.5 | 24.8 | 3.47 | 0.038 | 9.5 | 7.5 | 0.60 | 0.024 | 3.7 | 3.5 | 0.31 | 0.610 |
| 3 | 35.9 | 27.7 | 3.66 | 0.125 | 9.7 | 8.8 | 0.82 | 0.452 | 3.7 | 3.2 | 0.22 | 0.143 |
| 9 | 42.3 | 39.7 | 4.48 | 0.683 | 9.7 | 9.5 | 0.66 | 0.840 | 4.4 | 4.3 | 0.49 | 0.865 |
| 27 | 43.0 | 40.6 | 4.34 | 0.706 | 9.2 | 9.7 | 0.71 | 0.573 | 4.9 | 4.1 | 0.38 | 0.143 |
|
| ||||||||||||
| 1 | 30.4 | 24.7 | 3.14 | 0.212 | 8.5 | 7.9 | 0.68 | 0.582 | 3.6 | 3.1 | 0.29 | 0.277 |
| 6 | 26.5 | 29.8 | 4.08 | 0.571 | 7.3 | 6.8 | 0.81 | 0.668 | 3.7 | 4.5 | 0.51 | 0.275 |
| 12 | 29.9 | 31.4 | 4.12 | 0.804 | 8.5 | 8.5 | 0.71 | 0.940 | 3.5 | 3.8 | 0.47 | 0.708 |
| 18 | 35.5 | 35.2 | 5.00 | 0.974 | 8.4 | 9.2 | 0.70 | 0.444 | 4.0 | 3.8 | 0.37 | 0.825 |
1 From ANOVA analysis, including the effect of experimental group (control (pigs born from sows fed standard gestating and lactating diets) or MSG (pigs born from sows fed gestating and lactating diets included with 50 g/kg of MSG)). Treatment n = 13. Mean values are least-squares means with a significance level of p < 0.05. Pigs were recorded by 8 video cameras placed in front of the pens during total consumption tests (2 min). Consumption time (total time in seconds drinking at the drinker) and approaches (number of times the drinker was approached with a consumption result) were registered. Consumption patterns were calculated by dividing consumption time per number of approaches [48,49].