Literature DB >> 6205334

Preference for sugars and nonnutritive sweeteners in young beagles.

F Ferrell.   

Abstract

Two-bowl choice tests were used to examined preference of puppies aged two to four months for compounds tasting sweet to humans. Puppies found many, but not all of the compounds highly palatable, and were sensitive to both type and amount of sugar or nonnutritive sweetener contained in a semi-moist dog food recipe. Lactose, fructose, and sucrose were well accepted, whereas maltose elicited indifference or rejection. Sodium cyclamate, but not sodium saccharin, was preferred at some concentrations to 15 percent sucrose sweetened semi-moist food used as the standard. Solutions of lactose, fructose, glucose and galactose were preferred to plain tap water.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1984        PMID: 6205334     DOI: 10.1016/0149-7634(84)90041-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev        ISSN: 0149-7634            Impact factor:   8.989


  9 in total

Review 1.  Cats lack a sweet taste receptor.

Authors:  Xia Li; Weihua Li; Hong Wang; Douglas L Bayley; Jie Cao; Danielle R Reed; Alexander A Bachmanov; Liquan Huang; Véronique Legrand-Defretin; Gary K Beauchamp; Joseph G Brand
Journal:  J Nutr       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 4.798

2.  Analyses of sweet receptor gene (Tas1r2) and preference for sweet stimuli in species of Carnivora.

Authors:  Xia Li; Dieter Glaser; Weihua Li; Warren E Johnson; Stephen J O'Brien; Gary K Beauchamp; Joseph G Brand
Journal:  J Hered       Date:  2009-04-14       Impact factor: 2.645

Review 3.  Genetics of taste receptors.

Authors:  Alexander A Bachmanov; Natalia P Bosak; Cailu Lin; Ichiro Matsumoto; Makoto Ohmoto; Danielle R Reed; Theodore M Nelson
Journal:  Curr Pharm Des       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 3.116

4.  Sweetener preference of C57BL/6ByJ and 129P3/J mice.

Authors:  A A Bachmanov; M G Tordoff; G K Beauchamp
Journal:  Chem Senses       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 3.160

5.  Genetics of sweet taste preferences.

Authors:  Alexander A Bachmanov; Natalia P Bosak; Wely B Floriano; Masashi Inoue; Xia Li; Cailu Lin; Vladimir O Murovets; Danielle R Reed; Vasily A Zolotarev; Gary K Beauchamp
Journal:  Flavour Fragr J       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 2.576

6.  Serial collection method of dog saliva: Effects of different chemical stimulants on behaviour, volume and saliva composition.

Authors:  Juan Pablo Damián; Laura Bengoa; Paula Pessina; Silvia Martínez; Fernando Fumagalli
Journal:  Open Vet J       Date:  2018-07-03

7.  Food preferences of similarly raised and kept captive dogs and wolves.

Authors:  Akshay Rao; Friederike Range; Kerstin Kadletz; Kurt Kotrschal; Sarah Marshall-Pescini
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-09-20       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Food Preferences in Dogs: Effect of Dietary Composition and Intrinsic Variables on Diet Selection.

Authors:  Raúl A Alegría-Morán; Sergio A Guzmán-Pino; Juan Ignacio Egaña; Carem Muñoz; Jaime Figueroa
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2019-05-06       Impact factor: 2.752

9.  Preference among 7 bait flavors delivered to domestic dogs in Arizona: Implications for oral rabies vaccination on the Navajo Nation.

Authors:  Are R Berentsen; Scott Bender; Peggy Bender; David Bergman; Krista Hausig; Kurt C VerCauteren
Journal:  J Vet Behav       Date:  2014-03-14       Impact factor: 1.975

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.