Analyze Diet
The British journal of nutrition1982; 47(2); 267-272; doi: 10.1079/bjn19820035

Comparative digestion of timothy (Phleum pratense) fibre by ruminants, equines and rabbits.

Abstract: 1. The abilities of cattle, sheep, goats, equines and rabbits to digest mature timothy (Phleum pratense) hay were compared. Apparent digestibilities were partitioned into true digestibility, metabolic faecal output (MFO) and fibre digestibility. The aid of the study was to determine the relative effects of fermentation site (among groups) and of body-weight (within groups) on the efficiency of digestion. 2. The ruminants were superior to equines, which were in turn superior to rabbits, in digesting fibre-components of the hay. A large individual variation in digestibility was noted only for the equines. Increasing body-weight was associated with higher digestibility in ruminants, but no such trends were seen in the non-ruminants. 3. The MFO expressed as a proportion of dry matter intake gave similar values for all groups (0.085-0.118). As a proportion of available microbial substrate originating from the feed, the values were found to be 0.167 for the ruminant, 0.425 for the equines and 2.13 for the rabbits. The value for the rabbits shows that their lower tract microflora must obtain energy from non-fibre components of the feed. No appreciable digestion of the generated microbes by the host was suggested by the values obtained for the equines.
Publication Date: 1982-03-01 PubMed ID: 6279144DOI: 10.1079/bjn19820035Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
  • Comparative Study
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

This research compares the ability of cattle, sheep, goats, horses, and rabbits to digest mature timothy hay. The study found that ruminants were better at digesting the hay’s fibre components than horses, which were in turn better than rabbits.

Objective and Study Design

  • The primary aim of this study was to compare the digestion abilities of different animals – cattle, sheep, goats, horses, and rabbits – when fed mature Timothy hay. The researchers also sought to understand the impact of the animals’ body weight on digestion efficiency.
  • Specifically, the researchers measured and compared the apparent digestibility, true digestibility, metabolic faecal output (MFO), and fibre digestibility in these animals.

Results and Findings

  • The study found that ruminants (cattle, sheep, goats) were better at digesting the fibre components of the hay than the equines (horses), which were in turn superior to rabbits.
  • Among equines, there was a high variation in digestibility between individuals.
  • An increased body weight correlated with higher digestibility in ruminants, but no such trend was observed in non-ruminants (horses and rabbits).
  • The metabolic faecal output (MFO), measured as a proportion of dry matter intake, gave similar values across all animal groups studied. This suggests that the type of animal does not significantly affect the metabolic waste produced during the digestion of Timothy hay.
  • A surprising finding was that, as a proportion of available microbial substrate originating from the feed, the values were highest for rabbits. This suggests that their intestinal microflora obtain energy primarily from non-fibre components of the feed, unlike the ruminants and horses.
  • For horses, the data did not show substantial digestion of the generated microbes by the host, implying that microbial metabolism does not significantly contribute to their overall energy.

Cite This Article

APA
Udén P, Van Soest PJ. (1982). Comparative digestion of timothy (Phleum pratense) fibre by ruminants, equines and rabbits. Br J Nutr, 47(2), 267-272. https://doi.org/10.1079/bjn19820035

Publication

ISSN: 0007-1145
NlmUniqueID: 0372547
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 47
Issue: 2
Pages: 267-272

Researcher Affiliations

Udén, P
    Van Soest, P J

      MeSH Terms

      • Animals
      • Body Weight
      • Cattle
      • Coprophagia
      • Dietary Fiber / metabolism
      • Digestion
      • Feces / analysis
      • Female
      • Fermentation
      • Goats
      • Horses
      • Humans
      • Poaceae / analysis
      • Rabbits
      • Sheep
      • Species Specificity
      • Stomach, Ruminant / physiology

      Citations

      This article has been cited 8 times.
      1. Potter SJ, Bamford NJ, Baskerville CL, Harris PA, Bailey SR. Comparison of Feed Digestibility between Ponies, Standardbreds and Andalusian Horses Fed Three Different Diets. Vet Sci 2021 Dec 31;9(1).
        doi: 10.3390/vetsci9010015pubmed: 35051099google scholar: lookup
      2. Lindroth KM, Dicksved J, Vervuert I, Müller CE. Chemical composition and physical characteristics of faeces in horses with and without free faecal liquid - two case-control studies. BMC Vet Res 2022 Jan 3;18(1):2.
        doi: 10.1186/s12917-021-03096-1pubmed: 34980103google scholar: lookup
      3. Huang Z, Urriola PE, Shurson GC. Use of in vitro dry matter digestibility and gas production to predict apparent total tract digestibility of total dietary fiber for growing pigs. J Anim Sci 2017 Dec;95(12):5474-5484.
        doi: 10.2527/jas2017.1964pubmed: 29293750google scholar: lookup
      4. Ndlela LL, Schmidt S. Evaluation of wild herbivore faeces from South Africa as a potential source of hydrolytically active microorganisms. Springerplus 2016;5:118.
        doi: 10.1186/s40064-016-1739-ypubmed: 26900540google scholar: lookup
      5. Clauss M, Steuer P, Müller DW, Codron D, Hummel J. Herbivory and body size: allometries of diet quality and gastrointestinal physiology, and implications for herbivore ecology and dinosaur gigantism. PLoS One 2013;8(10):e68714.
        doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068714pubmed: 24204552google scholar: lookup
      6. Sander PM, Christian A, Clauss M, Fechner R, Gee CT, Griebeler EM, Gunga HC, Hummel J, Mallison H, Perry SF, Preuschoft H, Rauhut OW, Remes K, Tütken T, Wings O, Witzel U. Biology of the sauropod dinosaurs: the evolution of gigantism. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 2011 Feb;86(1):117-55.
      7. Karasov WH, Petrossian E, Rosenberg L, Diamond JM. How do food passage rate and assimilation differ between herbivorous lizards and nonruminant mammals?. J Comp Physiol B 1986;156(4):599-609.
        doi: 10.1007/BF00691047pubmed: 3734193google scholar: lookup
      8. Payne M, Owen E, Capper BS, Wood JF, Radwan MA. Incorporation of grass silage, whole cereal grains, cassava and cottonseed meal into diets of rabbits kept in a simulated tropical environment. Trop Anim Health Prod 1988 Nov;20(4):212-8.
        doi: 10.1007/BF02239985pubmed: 3238769google scholar: lookup