Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-29T07:53:39.939Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison between equine faeces and caecal digesta as sources of inoculum for in vitro fermentation studies using the pressure transducer technique

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2021

R.S. Lowman ,
M.K. Theodorou ,
A.C. Longland  and
D. Cuddeford
R.S. Lowman
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh, Dept. of Vet Clinical Studies, Easter Bush, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9RG
M.K. Theodorou
Affiliation:
Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, Plas Gogerddan, Aberystwyth, Dyfed SY23 3EB
A.C. Longland
Affiliation:
Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, Plas Gogerddan, Aberystwyth, Dyfed SY23 3EB
D. Cuddeford
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh, Dept. of Vet Clinical Studies, Easter Bush, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9RG
Get access

Extract

Several studies have shown high correlations between in vtvo and in vitro degradation of fibrous feeds when preparations from either rumen fluid or ruminant faeces have been used as the inocula for the in vitro studies (El Shaer et al., 1987; Akhter et al., 1994 & 1995; Harris et al., 1995). Use of an inoculum prepared from faecal material is attractive, for unlike that obtained from rumen fluid, it precludes the need to prepare and maintain fistulated donor animals. This study investigated the use of pony faeces, as an alternative to pony caecal digesta, as a source of micro-organisms for in vitro feed degradability studies.

Type
Techniques
Information
Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science , Volume 1996 , March 1996 , pp. 225
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Science 1996

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

Akhter, S., Owen, E., Fall, A., O'Donovan, F. & Theodorou, M.K (1994) Anim. Prod., 58:452 (abstract 100).Google Scholar
Akhter, S., Owen, E., Theodorou, M.K., Tembo, S.L & Deaville, E.R (1995) Anim. Sci., 60: 540 (abstract 110).Google Scholar
El Shaer, H.M., Omed, H.M & Chamberlain, A.G (1987) J. Agric. Sci. Camb., 109: 257–259.10.1017/S0021859600080667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, D.M., Barlet, A & Chamberlain, A.T (1995) Anim. Sci., 60: 541 (abstract 113).Google Scholar
Theodorou, M.K., Williams, B.A., Dhanoa, M.S., McAllan, A.B & France, J (1994) Anim. Feed Sci. Tech., 48: 185–197.10.1016/0377-8401(94)90171-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar