FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Animals (Basel) / Dietary Energy Sources Affect Cecal and Fecal Microbiota of ...
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2024; 14(23); 3494; doi: 10.3390/ani14233494

Dietary Energy Sources Affect Cecal and Fecal Microbiota of Healthy Horses.

Abstract: Different energy sources are often used in horse diets to enhance health and performance. Understanding how diet impacts the cecal and fecal microbiota is crucial for meeting the nutritional needs of horses. High-throughput sequencing and qPCR were used to compare the fecal and cecal microbiota of five healthy horses receiving three different diets: hay diet (HAY), hay + starch and sugar (SS), and hay + fiber and oil ingredients (FO). Assessment of short-chain fatty acids, pH, and buffer capacity was also performed. The HAY diet was associated with the highest values of fecal pH; the FO and SS diets were associated with higher values of BC6 in the cecum, and the SS diet had higher BC5 values in feces ( < 0.05). HAY was associated with a lower alpha diversity in feces and with a higher abundance of Treponema, Fibrobacter, Lachnospiraceae AC2044, and Prevotellaceae UCG-003 in feces. SS was associated with a higher abundance of Desulfovibrio, the Lachnospiraceae AC2044 group, and Streptococcus in the cecum, and Streptococcus and Prevotellaceae UCG-001 in feces, while FO was associated with higher Prevotella, Prevotellaceae UCG-003, and Akkermansia in the cecum, and the Rikenellaceae RC9 gut group and Ruminococcus in feces. This study indicated that different energy sources can influence cecal and fecal microbiota composition and fecal diversity without significantly affecting fermentation processes under experimental conditions. These findings suggest that the diets studied may not pose immediate health risks; however, further research is needed to generalize these effects on gastrointestinal microbiota in broader equine populations.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2024-12-03 PubMed ID: 39682460PubMed Central: PMC11639918DOI: 10.3390/ani14233494Google 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.
LinkedInCopy
  • 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.

The research article examines how three different diets affect the gut microbiota of healthy horses. The study suggests that while different energy sources impact the composition and diversity of gut microbiota, they may not significantly affect the fermentation processes.

Methodology

  • The researchers used high-throughput sequencing and qPCR methods to conduct their study.
  • Five healthy horses were subjected to three types of diets: a hay diet (HAY), a hay diet supplemented with starch and sugar (SS), and a hay diet supplemented with fiber and oil (FO).
  • The horse’s cecal and fecal microbiota were compared after consuming these diets.
  • The levels of short-chain fatty acids, pH, and buffer capacity in the horses on different diets were also assessed.

Results

  • The HAY diet was linked to the highest fecal pH values, indicating a more alkaline environment.
  • The FO and SS diets had higher values of BC6, a type of buffer capacity, in the cecum, suggesting they may impact the overall health of this section of the gut.
  • The SS diet had higher BC5 values in the feces, pointing to increased gut health with this diet.
  • Horses on different diets harbored different compositions of fecal and cecal microbiota. For example, the HAY diet was associated with a higher abundance of certain bacterial species such as Treponema, Fibrobacter, Lachnospiraceae AC2044, and Prevotellaceae UCG-003 in the feces. Similarly, both SS and FO diets encouraged the growth of different bacterial species in the cecum and feces.

Conclusion

  • The study concluded that dietary energy sources can influence the composition and diversity of horses’ cecal and fecal microbiota, although they do not seem to significantly affect the fermentation processes under the experimental conditions.
  • The results suggest that these three diets may not pose immediate health risks to horses. However, the authors caution that further research is needed to generalize the effects of these diets on the gut microbiota in a larger equine population.

Cite This Article

APA
Brandi LA, Nunes AT, Faleiros CA, Poleti MD, Oliveira ECM, Schmidt NT, Sousa RLM, Fukumasu H, Balieiro JCC, Brandi RA. (2024). Dietary Energy Sources Affect Cecal and Fecal Microbiota of Healthy Horses. Animals (Basel), 14(23), 3494. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14233494

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 14
Issue: 23
PII: 3494

Researcher Affiliations

Brandi, Laura A
  • Department of Animal Science, School of Animal Science and Food Engineering (FZEA), University of São Paulo (USP), Pirassununga 13635-900, São Paulo, Brazil.
Nunes, Alanne T
  • Department of Veterinary Medicine, School of Animal Science and Food Engineering (FZEA), University of São Paulo (USP), Pirassununga 13635-900, São Paulo, Brazil.
Faleiros, Camila A
  • Department of Veterinary Medicine, School of Animal Science and Food Engineering (FZEA), University of São Paulo (USP), Pirassununga 13635-900, São Paulo, Brazil.
Poleti, Mirele D
  • Department of Veterinary Medicine, School of Animal Science and Food Engineering (FZEA), University of São Paulo (USP), Pirassununga 13635-900, São Paulo, Brazil.
Oliveira, Elisângela C de M
  • Department of Veterinary Medicine, School of Animal Science and Food Engineering (FZEA), University of São Paulo (USP), Pirassununga 13635-900, São Paulo, Brazil.
Schmidt, Natalia T
  • Department of Animal Science, School of Animal Science and Food Engineering (FZEA), University of São Paulo (USP), Pirassununga 13635-900, São Paulo, Brazil.
Sousa, Ricardo L M
  • Department of Veterinary Medicine, School of Animal Science and Food Engineering (FZEA), University of São Paulo (USP), Pirassununga 13635-900, São Paulo, Brazil.
Fukumasu, Heidge
  • Department of Veterinary Medicine, School of Animal Science and Food Engineering (FZEA), University of São Paulo (USP), Pirassununga 13635-900, São Paulo, Brazil.
Balieiro, Julio C C
  • Department of Animal Nutrition and Production, School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science (FMVZ), University of São Paulo (USP), Pirassununga 13635-900, São Paulo, Brazil.
Brandi, Roberta A
  • Department of Animal Science, School of Animal Science and Food Engineering (FZEA), University of São Paulo (USP), Pirassununga 13635-900, São Paulo, Brazil.

Grant Funding

  • 2020/12753-7 / Fundau00e7u00e3o de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Su00e3o Paulo (FAPESP)
  • Finance Code 001 / Coordenau00e7u00e3o de Aperfeiu00e7oamento de Pessoal de Nu00edvel Superior - Brasil (CAPES)

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

This article includes 68 references
  1. National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Nutrient Requirements of Horses. Nutrient requirements of horses.. 2007.
  2. Dougal K, De La Fuente G, Harris P.A, Girdwood S.E, Pinloche E, Geor R.J, Nielsen B.D, Schott H.C, Elzinga S, Newbold C.J. Characterisation of the Faecal Bacterial Community in Adult and Elderly Horses Fed a High Fibre, High Oil or High Starch Diet Using 454 Pyrosequencing.. PLoS ONE 2014;9:e87424.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087424pmc: PMC3913607pubmed: 24504261google scholar: lookup
  3. Kristoffersen C, Jensen R.B, Avershina E, Austbø D, Tauson A.H, Rudi K. Diet-Dependent Modular Dynamic Interactions of the Equine Cecal Microbiota.. Microbes Environ. 2016;31:378–386.
    doi: 10.1264/jsme2.ME16061pmc: PMC5158109pubmed: 27773914google scholar: lookup
  4. Warzecha C.M, Coverdale J.A, Janecka J.E, Leatherwood J.L, Pinchak W.E, Wickersham T.A, McCann J.C. Influence of short-term dietary starch inclusion on the equine cecal microbiome.. J. Anim. Sci. 2017;95:5077–5090.
    doi: 10.2527/jas2017.1754pmc: PMC6095290pubmed: 29293739google scholar: lookup
  5. Dunnett C.E, Marlin D.J, Harris R.C. Effect of dietary lipid on response to exercise: Relationship to metabolic adaptation.. Equine Vet. J. 2002;34:75–80.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2002.tb05395.xpubmed: 12405663google scholar: lookup
  6. Vervuert I, Klein S, Coenen M. Short-term effects of a moderate fish oil or soybean oil supplementation on postprandial glucose and insulin responses in healthy horses.. Vet. J. 2010;184:162–166.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.01.013pubmed: 19231259google scholar: lookup
  7. Cryan J.F, Dinan T.G. Mind-altering microorganisms: The impact of the gut microbiota on brain and behaviour.. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2012;13:701–712.
    doi: 10.1038/nrn3346pubmed: 22968153google scholar: lookup
  8. Bulmer L.S, Murray J.A, Burns N.M, Garber A, Wemelsfelder F, McEwan N.R, Hastie P.M. High-starch diets alter equine faecal microbiota and increase behavioural reactivity.. Sci. Rep. 2019;9:18621.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-54039-8pmc: PMC6901590pubmed: 31819069google scholar: lookup
  9. Santos A.S, Rodrigues M.A.M, Bessa R.J.B, Ferreira L.M, Martin-Rosset W. Understanding the equine cecum-colon ecosystem: Current knowledge and future perspectives.. Animal 2011;5:48–56.
    doi: 10.1017/S1751731110001588pubmed: 22440701google scholar: lookup
  10. dos Santos T.M, de Almeida F.Q, de Godoi F.N, Silva V.P, França A.B, Santiago J.M, dos Santos C.S. Buffer capacity, pH and faeces consistency in horses submitted to dietetic starch overload.. Ciência Rural 2009;39:1782–1788.
    doi: 10.1590/S0103-84782009005000123google scholar: lookup
  11. Julliand V, Grimm P. The Impact of Diet on the Hindgut Microbiome.. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2017;52:23–28.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2017.03.002google scholar: lookup
  12. McLean B.M.L, Hyslop J.J, Longland A.C, Cí·¯ord D, Hollands T. Physical processing of barley and its effects on intra-caecal fermentation parameters in ponies.. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2000;85:79–87.
    doi: 10.1016/S0377-8401(00)00132-2google scholar: lookup
  13. Harlow B.E, Lawrence L.M, Hayes S.H, Crum A, Flythe M.D. Effect of Dietary Starch Source and Concentration on Equine Fecal Microbiota.. PLoS ONE 2016;11:e0154037.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154037pmc: PMC4851386pubmed: 27128793google scholar: lookup
  14. Julliand V, De Fombelle A, Drogoul C, Jacotot E. Feeding and microbial disorders in horses: Part 3—Effects of three hay:grain ratios on microbial profile and activities.. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2001;21:543–546.
    doi: 10.1016/S0737-0806(01)70159-1google scholar: lookup
  15. Chaucheyras-Durand F, Sacy A, Karges K, Apper E. Gastro-Intestinal Microbiota in Equines and Its Role in Health and Disease: The Black Box Opens.. Microorganisms 2022;10:2517.
    doi: 10.3390/microorganisms10122517pmc: PMC9783266pubmed: 36557769google scholar: lookup
  16. Hansen N.C.K, Avershina E, Mydland L.T, Næsset J.A, Austbø D, Moen B, Måge I, Rudi K. High nutrient availability reduces the diversity and stability of the equine caecal microbiota.. Microb. Ecol. Health Dis. 2015;26:27216.
    doi: 10.3402/mehd.v26.27216pmc: PMC4526772pubmed: 26246403google scholar: lookup
  17. Richards N, Rowe J, Hinch G. Enhancing Starch Digestion in the Equine Small Intestine.. 2004.
  18. Potter G.D, Webb S.P, Evans J.W, Webb G.W. Digestible energy requirements for work and maintenance of horses fed conventional and fat-supplemented diets.. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 1990;10:214–218.
    doi: 10.1016/S0737-0806(06)80163-2google scholar: lookup
  19. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International.. 1995.
  20. Van Soest P.J, Robertson J.B, Lewis B.A. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition.. J. Dairy Sci. 1991;74:3583–3597.
    doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2pubmed: 1660498google scholar: lookup
  21. Hendrix D.L. Rapid Extraction and Analysis of Nonstructural Carbohydrates in Plant Tissues.. Crop Sci. 1993;33:1306–1311.
    doi: 10.2135/cropsci1993.0011183X003300060037xgoogle scholar: lookup
  22. Luthersson N, Hou Nielsen K, Harris P, Parkin T.D.H. Risk factors associated with equine gastric ulceration syndrome (EGUS) in 201 horses in Denmark.. Equine Vet. J. 2009;41:625–630.
    doi: 10.2746/042516409X441929pubmed: 19927579google scholar: lookup
  23. Braga A.C, Araújo K.V, Leite G.G, Mascarenhas A.G. Neutral detergent fiber levels in diet of equines.. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 2008;37:1965–1972.
    doi: 10.1590/S1516-35982008001100010google scholar: lookup
  24. Diaz A.D.P.U, Santana A.E, Valadão C.A.A, de Souza A.H. Canulação Cecal Em Equinos.. Braz. Anim. Sci. 2010;11:357–362.
    doi: 10.5216/CAB.V11I2.1206google scholar: lookup
  25. Grimm P, Combes S, Pascal G, Cauquil L, Julliand V. Dietary composition and yeast/microalgae combination supplementation modulate the microbial ecosystem in the caecum, colon and faeces of horses.. Br. J. Nutr. 2020;123:372–382.
    doi: 10.1017/S0007114519002824pubmed: 31690358google scholar: lookup
  26. Hussein H.S, Vogedes L.A, Fernandez G.C.J, Frankeny R.L. Effects of cereal grain supplementation on apparent digestibility of nutrients and concentrations of fermentation end-products in the feces and serum of horses consuming alfalfa cubes.. J. Anim. Sci. 2004;82:1986–1996.
    doi: 10.2527/2004.8271986xpubmed: 15309945google scholar: lookup
  27. Zeyner A, Geißler C, Dittrich A. 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.. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2004;88:7–19.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0396.2004.00447.xpubmed: 19774758google scholar: lookup
  28. Parada A.E, Needham D.M, Fuhrman J.A. Every base matters: Assessing small subunit rRNA primers for marine microbiomes with mock communities, time series and global field samples.. Environ. Microbiol. 2016;18:1403–1414.
    doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.13023pubmed: 26271760google scholar: lookup
  29. Regueira-Iglesias A, Balsa-Castro C, Blanco-Pintos T, Tomás I. Critical review of 16S rRNA gene sequencing workflow in microbiome studies: From primer selection to advanced data analysis.. Mol. Oral Microbiol. 2023;38:347–399.
    doi: 10.1111/omi.12434pubmed: 37804481google scholar: lookup
  30. Callahan B.J, McMurdie P.J, Rosen M.J, Han A.W, Johnson A.J.A, Holmes S.P. DADA2, High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data.. Nat. Methods. 2016;13:581–583.
    doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3869pmc: PMC4927377pubmed: 27214047google scholar: lookup
  31. Huse S.M, Huber J.A, Morrison H.G, Sogin M.L, Welch D.M. Accuracy and quality of massively parallel DNA pyrosequencing.. Genome Biol. 2007;8:R143.
    doi: 10.1186/gb-2007-8-7-r143pmc: PMC2323236pubmed: 17659080google scholar: lookup
  32. Weiss S, Xu Z.Z, Peddada S, Amir A, Bittinger K, Gonzalez A, Lozupone C, Zaneveld J.R, Vázquez-Baeza Y, Birmingham A. Normalization and microbial differential abundance strategies depend upon data characteristics.. Microbiome 2017;5:27.
    doi: 10.1186/s40168-017-0237-ypmc: PMC5335496pubmed: 28253908google scholar: lookup
  33. Liu C, Cui Y, Li X, Yao M. microeco: An R package for data mining in microbial community ecology.. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2021;97:255.
    doi: 10.1093/femsec/fiaa255pubmed: 33332530google scholar: lookup
  34. McMurdie P.J, Holmes S. phyloseq: An R Package for Reproducible Interactive Analysis and Graphics of Microbiome Census Data.. PLoS ONE 2013;8:e61217.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061217pmc: PMC3632530pubmed: 23630581google scholar: lookup
  35. Denman S.E, McSweeney C.S. Development of a real-time PCR assay for monitoring anaerobic fungal and cellulolytic bacterial populations within the rumen.. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2006;58:572–582.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2006.00190.xpubmed: 17117998google scholar: lookup
  36. Poulsen M, Schwab C, Borg Jensen B, Engberg R.M, Spang A, Canibe N, Højberg O, Milinovich G, Fragner L, Schleper C. Methylotrophic methanogenic Thermoplasmata implicated in reduced methane emissions from bovine rumen.. Nat. Commun. 2013;4:1428.
    doi: 10.1038/ncomms2432pubmed: 23385573google scholar: lookup
  37. Sylvester J.T, Karnati S.K.R, Yu Z, Morrison M, Firkins J.L. Development of an assay to quantify rumen ciliate protozoal biomass in cows using real-time PCR.. J. Nutr. 2004;134:3378–3384.
    doi: 10.1093/jn/134.12.3378pubmed: 15570040google scholar: lookup
  38. Akaike H. A New Look at the Statistical Model Identification.. IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr. 1974;19:716–723.
    doi: 10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705google scholar: lookup
  39. Zhu Y, Wang X, Deng L, Chen S, Zhu C, Li J. Effects of Pasture Grass, Silage, and Hay Diet on Equine Fecal Microbiota.. Animals 2021;11:1330.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11051330pmc: PMC8148540pubmed: 34066969google scholar: lookup
  40. Muhonen S, Sadet-Bourgeteau S, Julliand V. Effects of Differences in Fibre Composition and Maturity of Forage-Based Diets on the Microbial Ecosystem and Its Activity in Equine Caecum and Colon Digesta and Faeces.. Animals 2021;11:2337.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11082337pmc: PMC8388671pubmed: 34438794google scholar: lookup
  41. Nadeau J.A, Andrews F.M, Mathew A.G, Argenzio R.A, Blackford J.T, Sohtell M, Saxton A.M. Evaluation of diet as a cause of gastric ulcers in horses.. Am. J. Vet. Res. 2000;61:784–790.
    doi: 10.2460/ajvr.2000.61.784pubmed: 10895901google scholar: lookup
  42. Hydock K.L, Nissley S.G, Staniar W.B. A standard protocol for fecal pH measurement in the horse.. Prof. Anim. Sci. 2014;30:643–648.
    doi: 10.15232/pas.2014-01346google scholar: lookup
  43. Ermers C, McGilchrist N, Fenner K, Wilson B, McGreevy P. The Fibre Requirements of Horses and the Consequences and Causes of Failure to Meet Them.. Animals 2023;13:1414.
    doi: 10.3390/ani13081414pmc: PMC10135103pubmed: 37106977google scholar: lookup
  44. Luthersson N, Nadeau J.A. Gastric ulceration.. Equine Applied and Clinical Nutrition 2013;pp. 558–567.
  45. Sorensen R.J, Drouillard J.S, Douthit T.L, Ran Q, Marthaler D.G, Kang Q, Vahl C.I, Lattimer J.M. Effect of hay type on cecal and fecal microbiome and fermentation parameters in horses.. J. Anim. Sci. 2021;99:skaa407.
    doi: 10.1093/jas/skaa407pmc: PMC7846146pubmed: 33515482google scholar: lookup
  46. Morrison P.K, Newbold C.J, Jones E, Worgan H.J, Grove-White D.H, Dugdale A.H, Barfoot C, Harris P.A, Argo C.M. The Equine Gastrointestinal Microbiome: Impacts of Age and Obesity.. Front. Microbiol. 2018;9:3017.
    doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.03017pmc: PMC6293011pubmed: 30581426google scholar: lookup
  47. Elzinga S.E, Weese J.S, Adams A.A. Comparison of the Fecal Microbiota in Horses With Equine Metabolic Syndrome and Metabolically Normal Controls Fed a Similar All-Forage Diet.. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2016;44:9–16.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2016.05.010google scholar: lookup
  48. Raspa F, Chessa S, Bergero D, Sacchi P, Ferrocino I, Cocolin L, Corvaglia M.R, Moretti R, Cavallini D, Valle E. Microbiota characterization throughout the digestive tract of horses fed a high-fiber vs. a high-starch diet.. Front. Vet. Sci. 2024;11:1386135.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1386135pmc: PMC11130486pubmed: 38807937google scholar: lookup
  49. Ericsson A.C, Johnson P.J, Lopes M.A, Perry S.C, Lanter H.R. A Microbiological Map of the Healthy Equine Gastrointestinal Tract.. PLoS ONE 2016;11:e0166523.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166523pmc: PMC5112786pubmed: 27846295google scholar: lookup
  50. Oren A, Garrity G.M. Valid publication of the names of forty-two phyla of prokaryotes.. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2021;71:005056.
    doi: 10.1099/ijsem.0.005056pubmed: 34694987google scholar: lookup
  51. Shin J.H, Tillotson G, MacKenzie T.N, Warren C.A, Wexler H.M, Goldstein E.J.C. Bacteroides and related species: The keystone taxa of the human gut microbiota.. Anaerobe 2024;85:102819.
    doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2024.102819pubmed: 38215933google scholar: lookup
  52. Stothart M.R, McLoughlin P.D, Medill S.A, Greuel R.J, Wilson A.J, Poissant J. Methanogenic patterns in the gut microbiome are associated with survival in a population of feral horses.. Nat. Commun. 2024;15:6012.
    doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-49963-xpmc: PMC11263349pubmed: 39039075google scholar: lookup
  53. Huang J, Gao K, Yang L, Lu Y. Successional action of Bacteroidota and Firmicutes in decomposing straw polymers in a paddy soil.. Environ. Microbiome 2023;18:76.
    doi: 10.1186/s40793-023-00533-6pmc: PMC10576277pubmed: 37838745google scholar: lookup
  54. Lindenberg F, Krych L, Fielden J, Kot W, Frøkiær H, van Galen G, Nielsen D.S, Hansen A.K. Expression of immune regulatory genes correlate with the abundance of specific Clostridiales and Verrucomicrobia species in the equine ileum and cecum.. Sci. Rep. 2019;9:12674.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-49081-5pmc: PMC6722064pubmed: 31481726google scholar: lookup
  55. Ayoub C, Arroyo L.G, Renaud D, Weese J.S, Gomez D.E. Fecal Microbiota Comparison Between Healthy Teaching Horses and Client-Owned Horses.. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2022;118:104105.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2022.104105pubmed: 36058504google scholar: lookup
  56. Paßlack N, Vahjen W, Zentek J. Impact of Dietary Cellobiose on the Fecal Microbiota of Horses.. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2020;91:103106.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2020.103106pubmed: 32684251google scholar: lookup
  57. Mach N, Lansade L, Bars-Cortina D, Dhorne-Pollet S, Foury A, Moisan M.P, Ruet A. Gut microbiota resilience in horse athletes following holidays out to pasture.. Sci. Rep. 2021;11:5007.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-84497-ypmc: PMC7930273pubmed: 33658551google scholar: lookup
  58. Amat S, Lantz H, Munyaka P.M, Willing B.P. Prevotella in Pigs: The Positive and Negative Associations with Production and Health.. Microorganisms 2020;8:1584.
    doi: 10.3390/microorganisms8101584pmc: PMC7602465pubmed: 33066697google scholar: lookup
  59. Park T, Yoon J, Yun Y.M, Unno T. Comparison of the fecal microbiota with high- and low performance race horses.. J. Anim. Sci. Technol. 2024;66:425–437.
    doi: 10.5187/jast.2023.e45pmc: PMC11016738pubmed: 38628692google scholar: lookup
  60. Willette J.A, Pitta D, Indugu N, Vecchiarelli B, Hennessy M.L, Dobbie T, Southwood L.L. Experimental crossover study on the effects of withholding feed for 24 h on the equine faecal bacterial microbiota in healthy mares.. BMC Vet. Res. 2021;17:3.
    doi: 10.1186/s12917-020-02706-8pmc: PMC7786913pubmed: 33402190google scholar: lookup
  61. Wu Y, Yue X, Zhou A, Song X, Su B, Cao F, Ding J. Simultaneous recovery of short-chain fatty acids and phosphorus during lipid-rich anaerobic fermentation with sodium hydroxide conditioning.. Chemosphere 2023;312:137227.
    doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.137227pubmed: 36379433google scholar: lookup
  62. Everard A, Belzer C, Geurts L, Ouwerkerk J.P, Druart C, Bindels L.B, Guiot Y, Derrien M, Muccioli G.G, Delzenne N.M. Cross-talk between Akkermansia muciniphila and intestinal epithelium controls diet-induced obesity.. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013;110:9066–9071.
    doi: 10.1073/pnas.1219451110pmc: PMC3670398pubmed: 23671105google scholar: lookup
  63. Park T, Cheong H, Yoon J, Kim A, Yun Y, Unno T. Comparison of the fecal microbiota of horses with intestinal disease and their healthy counterparts.. Vet. Sci. 2021;8:113.
    doi: 10.3390/vetsci8060113pmc: PMC8234941pubmed: 34204317google scholar: lookup
  64. Cipriano-Salazar M, Adegbeye M.J, Elghandour M.M, Barbabosa-Pilego A, Mellado M, Hassan A, Salem A.Z. The Dietary Components and Feeding Management as Options to Offset Digestive Disturbances in Horses.. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2019;74:103–110.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2018.12.017google scholar: lookup
  65. Steelman S.M, Chowdhary B.P, Dowd S, Suchodolski J, Janečka J.E. Pyrosequencing of 16S rRNA genes in fecal samples reveals high diversity of hindgut microflora in horses and potential links to chronic laminitis.. BMC Vet. Res. 2012;8:231.
    doi: 10.1186/1746-6148-8-231pmc: PMC3538718pubmed: 23186268google scholar: lookup
  66. Weinert-Nelson J.R, Biddle A.S, Williams C.A. Fecal microbiome of horses transitioning between warm-season and cool-season grass pasture within integrated rotational grazing systems.. Anim. Microbiome 2022;4:41.
    doi: 10.1186/s42523-022-00192-xpmc: PMC9210719pubmed: 35729677google scholar: lookup
  67. Wang B, Kong Q, Li X, Zhao J, Zhang H, Chen W, Wang G. A High-Fat Diet Increases Gut Microbiota Biodiversity and Energy Expenditure Due to Nutrient Difference.. Nutrients 2020;12:3197.
    doi: 10.3390/nሐ3197pmc: PMC7589760pubmed: 33092019google scholar: lookup
  68. Caruso V, Song X, Asquith M, Karstens L. Performance of Microbiome Sequence Inference Methods in Environments with Varying Biomass.. MSystems 2019;4:10.1128.
    doi: 10.1128/msystems.00163-18pmc: PMC6381225pubmed: 30801029google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,357 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.