Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T17:21:22.725Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of dietary carbohydrate composition on apparent total tract digestibility, feed mean retention time, nitrogen and water balance in horses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2014

R. B. Jensen ,
D. Austbø ,
K. E. Bach Knudsen  and
A.-H. Tauson
R. B. Jensen*
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Clinical and Animal Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, DK-1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
D. Austbø
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NO-1430 Ås, Norway
K. E. Bach Knudsen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Aarhus, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
A.-H. Tauson
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Clinical and Animal Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, DK-1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NO-1430 Ås, Norway
*
†E-mail: ralle@sund.ku.dk
Get access

Abstract

A total of four diets with different carbohydrate composition were investigated in a 4×4 Latin square design experiment with four Norwegian Coldblooded trotter horses. The objective of the present study was to increase the fermentable fibre content and reduce the starch intake of the total ration obtained by partly substituting mature hay and barley with sugar beet pulp (SBP), a soluble fibre source. The diets investigated were hay only (HAY), hay (85% of dry matter intake (DMI)) and molassed SBP (15% of DMI) (SBP), hay (68% of DMI) and barley (32% of DMI) (BAR), and hay (68% of DMI), barley (26% of DMI) and SBP (6% of DMI) (BAR+SBP). The feeding level was 18.5, 17.3, 15.7 and 15.7 g DM/kg BW per day for the HAY, SBP, BAR and BAR+SBP diets, respectively. Each diet was fed for 18 days followed by 10 days of data collection, where apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD), total mean retention time (TMRT) of ytterbium-labelled hay, water balance, digestible energy (DE) intake and nitrogen balance were measured. An enzymatic chemical dietary fibre (DF) method was used to get detailed information on the composition and ATTD of the fibre fraction. Inclusion of SBP in the diet increased the ATTD of the constituent sugars galactose and arabinose (P<0.01). Feeding the HAY and SBP diets resulted in a lower TMRT owing to a higher DF intake than the BAR and BAR+SBP diets (P<0.01). There was no difference in water intake between HAY and SBP, but faecal dry matter was lower for HAY than the other diets (P=0.017), indicating that water was more tightly bound to fibre in the HAY diet. The diets were iso-energetic and provided enough DE and protein for light to moderate exercise for a 550 kg horse. In conclusion, this study showed that the DF intake had a larger effect on TMRT than partly substituting hay or barley with SBP, and that highly fermentable pectin-rich soluble DF from SBP maintains high nutrient utilization in horses.

Keywords

horsedietary fibresugar beet pulpdigestibilitymean retention time
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 11 , November 2014 , pp. 1788 - 1796
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

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

Austbø, D and Volden, H 2006. Influence of passage model and caecal cannulation on estimated passage kinetics of roughage and concentrate in the gastrointestinal tract of horses. Livestock Science 100, 33–43.Google Scholar
Bach Knudsen, KE 1997. Carbohydrate and lignin contents of plant materials used in animal feeding. Animal Feed Science and Technology 67, 319–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach Knudsen, KE 2001. The nutritional significance of ‘dietary fibre’ analysis. Animal Feed Science and Technology 90, 3–20.Google Scholar
Brøkner, C, Austbø, D, Næsset, JA, Bach Knudsen, KE and Tauson, AH 2010. The effect of sugar beet pulp on caecal pH in Norwegian cold-blooded trotter horses. In The impact of nutrition on the health and welfare of horses (ed. AD Ellis, AC Longland, M Coenen and N Miraglia), pp. 210–212. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Brøkner, C, Bach Knudsen, KE, Karaman, I, Eybye, KL and Tauson, AH 2012a. Chemical and physicochemical characterisation of various horse feed ingredients. Animal Feed Science and Technology 177, 86–97.Google Scholar
Brøkner, C, Austbø, D, Næsset, JA, Bach Knudsen, KE and Tauson, AH 2012b. Equine pre-caecal and total tract digestibility of individual carbohydrate fractions and their effect on caecal pH response. Archives of Animal Nutrition 66, 490–506.Google Scholar
Coenen, M, Kienzle, E, Vervuert, I and Zeyner, A 2011. Recent German developments in the formulation of energy and nutrient requirements in horses and the resulting feeding recommendations. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 31, 219–229.Google Scholar
Connysson, M, Essén-Gustavsson, B, Lindberg, JE and Jansson, A 2010. Effects of feed deprivation on Standardbred horses fed a forage-only diet and a 50:50 forage-oats diet. Equine Veterinary Journal. Supplement 42, 335–340.Google Scholar
Coverdale, JA, Moore, JA, Tyler, HD and Miller-Auwerda, PA 2004. Soybean hulls as an alternative feed for horses. Journal of Animal Science 82, 1663–1668.Google Scholar
Cuddeford, D, Woodhead, A and Muirhead, R 1992. A comparison between the nutritive value of short-cutting cycle, high temperature-dried alfalfa and timothy hay for horses. Equine Veterinary Journal. Supplement 24, 84–89.Google Scholar
Drogoul, C, De Fombelle, A and Julliand, V 2001. Feeding and microbial disorders in horses: 2: Effect of three hay:grain ratios on digesta passage rate and digestibility in ponies. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 21, 487–491.Google Scholar
Ellis, JM, Hollands, T and Allen, DE 2002. Effect of forage intake on bodyweight and performance. Equine Veterinary Journal. Supplement 34, 66–70.Google Scholar
Faichney, GJ and Boston, RC 1985. Movement of water within the body of sheep fed at maintenance under thermoneutral conditions. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences 38, 85–94.Google Scholar
Fonnesbeck, PV 1968. Consumption and excretion of water by horses receiving all hay and hay-grain diets. Journal of Animal Science 27, 1350–1356.Google Scholar
Groenendyk, S, English, PB and Abetz, I 1988. External balance of water and electrolytes in the horse. Equine Veterinary Journal. Supplement 20, 189–193.Google Scholar
Harris, P 2009. Feeding management of elite endurance horses. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Equine Practice 25, 137–153.Google Scholar
Hudson, JM, Cohen, ND, Gibbs, PG and Thompson, JA 2001. Feeding practices associated with colic in horses. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 219, 1419–1425.Google Scholar
Jansson, A and Lindberg, JE 2012. A forage-only diet alters the metabolic response of horses in training. Animal 6, 1939–1946.Google Scholar
Julliand, V, De Fombelle, A and Varloud, M 2006. Starch digestion in horses: the impact of feed processing. Livestock Science 100, 44–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlsson, CP, Jansson, A, Essén-Gustavsson, B and Lindberg, JE 2002. Effect of molassed sugar beet pulp on nutrient utilisation and metabolic parameters during exercise. Equine Veterinary Journal. Supplement 34, 44–49.Google Scholar
Larsson, K and Bengtsson, S 1983. Bestämning av lättilgängeliga kolhydrater i växtmaterial [Determination of readily available carbohydrates in plant materials]. Methods Report No. 22, National Laboratory of Agricultural Chemistry, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Luthersson, N, Nielsen, KH, Harris, P and Parkin, TDH 2009. Risk factors associated with equine gastric ulceration syndrome (EGUS) in 201 horses in Denmark. Equine Veterinary Journal. Supplement 41, 625–630.Google Scholar
Meyer, H 1987. Nutrition of the equine athlete. In Equine exercise physiology 2 (ed. JR Gillespie and NE Robinson), pp. 644–673. ICEEP Publications, Davis, CA, USA.Google Scholar
Moore, JA, Pond, KR, Poore, MH and Goodwin, TG 1992. Influence of model and marker on digesta kinetic estimates for sheep. Journal of Animal Science 70, 3528–3540.Google Scholar
Moore-Colyer, MJS, Morrow, HJ and Longland, AC 2003. Mathematical modelling of digesta passage rate, mean retention time and in vivo apparent digestibility of two different lengths of hay and big-bale grass silage in ponies. The British Journal of Nutrition 90, 109–118.Google Scholar
Murray, JA, Longland, A, Hastie, PM, Moore-Colyer, M and Dunnett, C 2008. The nutritive value of sugar beet pulp-substituted lucerne for equids. Animal Feed Science and Technology 140, 110–124.Google Scholar
Murray, JA, Sanderson, R, Longland, AC, Moore-Colyer, MJS, Hastie, PM and Dunnett, C 2009. Assessment of mathematical models to describe the rate of passage of enzyme-treated or sugar beet pulp-substituted lucerne silage in equids. Animal Feed Science and Technology 154, 228–240.Google Scholar
NRC 2007. Nutrient requirements of horses, 6th edition The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Pagan, JD, Harris, P, Brewster-Barnes, T, Duren, SE and Jackson, SG 1998. Exercise affects digestibility and rate of passage of all-forage and mixed diets in Thoroughbred horses. The Journal of Nutrition 128, 2704S–2707S.Google Scholar
Pond, KR, Ellis, WC, Matis, JH, Ferreiro, HM and Sutton, JD 1988. Compartment models for estimating attributes of digesta flow in cattle. The British Journal of Nutrition 60, 571–595.Google Scholar
Redbo, I, Redbo-Torstensson, P, Ödberg, FO, Hedendahl, A and Holm, J 1998. Factors affecting behavioural disturbances in race-horses. Animal Science 66, 475–481.Google Scholar
Ringmark, S, Roepstorff, L, Essén-Gustavsson, B, Revold, T, Lindholm, A, Hedenström, U, Rundgren, M, Ögren, G and Jansson, A 2013. Growth, training response and health in Standardbred yearlings fed a forage-only diet. Animal 7, 746–753.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, I, Austbø, D and Volden, H 2006. Models for estimating digesta passage kinetics in the gastrointestinal tract of the horse. Journal of Animal Science 84, 3321–3328.Google Scholar
Serena, A and Bach Knudsen, KE 2007. Chemical and physicochemical characterisation of co-products from the vegetable food and agro industries. Animal Feed Science and Technology 139, 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siddons, RC, Paradine, J, Beever, DE and Cornell, PR 1985. Ytterbium acetate as a particulate-phase digesta-flow marker. The British Journal of Nutrition 54, 509–519.Google Scholar
Theander, O, Åman, P, Westerlund, E and Graham, H 1994. Enzymatic/chemical analysis of dietary fiber. Journal of AOAC International 77, 703–709.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB and Lewis, BA 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.Google Scholar
Van Weyenberg, S, Sales, J and Janssens, GPJ 2006. Passage rate of digesta through the equine gastrointestinal tract: a review. Livestock Science 99, 3–12.Google Scholar
Vermorel, M and Martin-Rosset, W 1997. Concepts, scientific bases, structure and validation of the French horse net energy system (UFC). Livestock Production Science 47, 261–275.Google Scholar
Warren, LK, Lawrence, LM, Brewster-Barnes, T and Powell, DM 1999. The effect of dietary fibre on hydration status after dehydration with frusemide. Equine Veterinary Journal. Supplement 31, 508–513.Google Scholar
Woodward, AD, Nielsen, BD, Liesman, J, Lavin, T and Trottier, NL 2011. Protein quality and utilization of timothy, oat-supplemented timothy, and alfalfa at differing harvest maturities in exercised Arabian horses. Journal of Animal Science 89, 4081–4092.Google Scholar
Zeyner, A, Geissler, C and Dittrich, A 2004. Effects of hay intake and feeding sequence on variables in faeces and faecal water (dry matter, pH value, organic acids, ammonia, buffering capacity) of horses. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 88, 7–19.Google Scholar