Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T21:21:05.725Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Digestibility and gastro-intestinal transit time of diets containing different proportions of alfalfa and oat straw given to Thoroughbreds, Shetland ponies, Highland ponies and donkeys

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

D. Cuddeford ,
R. A. Pearson ,
R. F. Archibald  and
R. H. Muirhead
D. Cuddeford
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Clinical Studies, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9RG
R. A. Pearson
Affiliation:
Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9RG
R. F. Archibald
Affiliation:
Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9RG
R. H. Muirhead
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Clinical Studies, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9RG
Get access

Abstract

A series of 4 × 4 Latin-square digestibility trials was carried out to determine whether there were any differences between different types of equid in their ability to digest diets containing different levels of fibre and protein. The equids (Thoroughbreds, Highland ponies, Shetland ponies and donkeys) were offered one of four molassed diets in turn and these contained different proportions of alfalfa and oat straw: 1·0:0, 0·67:0·33, 0·33:0·67, 0:1, respectively. The apparent digestibility of dry matter (DM), organic matter (OM), gross energy (GE), crude protein (CP), acid-detergent fibre (ADF) and neutral-detergent fibre (NDF) were estimated. The rate of passage of the different diets was measured using Cr-mordanted fibre (Cr-fibre) and Co-ethylene diamine tetra acetic acid.

All animals digested the components of the high-fibre diets less well than those of the low-fibre diets (P < 0·001 for DM, OM, GE, CP and ADF). Donkeys digested fibre more effectively than the other equids (F < 0·01 for ADF and NDF). The gastro-intestinal transit time of the high fibre diets was significantly less than that for the low fibre diets (P < 0·001) and donkeys retained food residues longer than the other equids (P < 0·01).

Keywords

dietary proteindigestibilityequidaefibretransit time
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 61 , Issue 2 , October 1995 , pp. 407 - 417
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1995

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

Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1990. Official methods of analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 15th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Virginia.Google Scholar
Barth, K. H., Williams, J. V. and Brown, D. G. 1977. Digestible energy requirements of working and non-working ponies. journal of Animal Science 44: 585–589.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cuddeford, D., Woodhead, A. and Muirhead, R. H. 1992. A comparison between the nutritive value of short-cutting cycle, high temperature-dried alfalfa and timothy hay for horses. Equine Veterinary Journal 24: 84–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fonnesbeck, P. V. 1969. Partitioning of the nutrients of forage for horses. journal of Animal Science 28: 624–633.Google Scholar
Fonnesbeck, P. V., Lydman, R. K., Van der Noot, G. W. and Symons, L. D. 1967. Digestibility of the proximate nutrients of forage by horses. journal of Animal Science 26: 1039–1045.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hintz, H. F. 1969. Review article: equine nutrition. Comparisons of digestion coefficients obtained with cattle, sheep, rabbits and horses. Veterinarian 6: 45–51.Google Scholar
Hintz, H. F. 1990. Digestion in ponies and horses. Equine Practice 12: 5–6.Google Scholar
Hintz, H. F., Schryver, H. F. and Stevens, C. E. 1978. Digestion and absorption in the hind gut of non-ruminant herbivores. Journal of Animal Science 46: 1803–1807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, I. D. and Sakaguchi, E. 1991. Patterns of digesta flow and digestion of fore gut and hind gut fermenters. In Physiological aspects of digestion and metabolism in ruminants. Proceedings of the seventh international symposium on ruminant physiology, pp. 427–451. Academic Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Illius, A. W. and Gordon, I. 1990. Constraints on diet selection and foraging behaviour in mammalian herbivores. In Behavioural mechanisms of food selection (ed. Hughes, R. N.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
Izraely, J., Chosniak, I., Stevens, C. E., Demment, M. W. and Shkolnik, A. 1989. Factors determining the digestive efficiency of the domesticated donkey (Equus asinus). Quarterly Journal of Experimental Physiology 74: 1–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Janis, C. 1976. The evolutionary strategy of the Equidae and the origins of rumen and caecal digestion. Evolution 30: 757–773.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1990. Genstat V, release 2.2. Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Hertfordshire.Google Scholar
Loewe, H. and Meyer, H. 1974. Pferdezucht und Pferdeffutterung. Ulmer, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Mueller, P. J. and Houpt, K. A. 1991. A comparison of the responses of donkeys (Equus asinus) with ponies (Equus caballus) to 36 hours of water deprivation. In Donkeys, mules and horses in tropical agricultural development (ed. Fielding, D. and Pearson, R. A.), pp. 86–95. Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Olsson, N. and Ruudvere, A. 1955. Nutrition of the horse. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews 25: 1–18.Google ScholarPubMed
Pagan, J. D. and Hintz, H. F. 1986. Equine energetics. 1. Relationship between body weight and energy requirements in horses. Journal of Animal Science 63: 815–821.Google Scholar
Pearson, R. A., Cuddeford, D., Archibald, R. F. and Muirhead, R. H. 1992. Digestibility of diets containing different proportions of alfalfa and oat straw in thoroughbreds, Shetland ponies, Highland ponies and donkeys. Pferdeheilkunde, September, pp. 153–157.Google Scholar
Pearson, R. A. and Merritt, J. 1991. Intake, digestion and gastrointestinal transit time in resting donkeys and ponies and exercised donkeys given ad libitum hay and straw diets. Equine Veterinary journal 23: 339–343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prior, R. L., Hintz, H. F., Lowe, J. E. and Visek, W. J. 1974. Urea recycling and metabolism in ponies. journal of Animal Science 38: 565–571.Google Scholar
Slade, L. H. and Hintz, H. F. 1969. Comparison of digestion in horses, ponies, rabbits and guinea pigs. journal of Animal Science 28: 842–843.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smolders, E. A. A., Steg, A. and Hindle, V. A. 1990. Organic matter digestibility in horses and its prediction. Netherlands journal of Agricultural Science 38: 435–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suhartanto, B., Julliand, V., Faurie, F. and Tisserand, J. L. 1992. Comparison of digestion in donkeys and ponies. Pferdeheilkunde, September, pp. 158–161.Google Scholar
Tisserand, J. L., Faurie, F. and Toure, M. 1991. A comparative study of donkey and pony digestive physiology. In Donkeys, mules and horses in tropical agricultural development (ed. Fielding, D. and Pearson, R. A.), pp. 67–72. Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Úden, P. and Van Soest, P. J. 1982. Comparative digestion of timothy (Phleum pratense) fibre by ruminants, equines and rabbits. British Journal of Nutrition 47: 267–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van der Noot, G. W. and Gilbreath, E. B. 1970. Comparative digestibility of components of forages by geldings and steers. journal of Animal Science 31: 351–355.Google Scholar
Wolter, R. and Velandia, J. 1970. Digestion, des fourrages chez l'Ane. Recuil de Médicine Véterinaire d'Alfort 146: 141–152.Google Scholar