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) / Digestibility and Retention Time of Coastal Bermudagrass (Cy...
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2019; 9(12); doi: 10.3390/ani9121148

Digestibility and Retention Time of Coastal Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) Hay by Horses.

Abstract: Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) and other warm-season grasses are known for their increased fiber concentrations and reduced digestibility relative to cool-season grasses and legumes. This study investigated the digestive characteristics and passage kinetics of three maturities of Coastal bermudagrass hay. A 5 × 5 Latin square design experiment was used to compare the digestion of five hays: alfalfa (Medicago sativa, ALF), orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata, ORCH), and Coastal bermudagrass harvested at 4 (CB 4), 6 (CB 6), and 8 weeks of regrowth (CB 8). Horses were fed cobalt-ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (Co-EDTA) and ytterbium (Yb) labeled neutral detergent fiber (NDF) before an 84-h total fecal collection to determine digesta retention time. Dry matter digestibility was greatest for ALF (62.1%) and least for CB 6 (36.0%) and CB 8 diets (36.8%, SEM = 2.1; p < 0.05). Mean retention time was longer (p < 0.05) for Coastal bermudagrass (particulate 31.3 h, liquid 25.3 h) compared with ORCH and ALF (28.0 h, SEM = 0.88 h; 20.7 h, SEM = 0.70 h). Further evaluation of digesta passage kinetics through mathematical modeling indicated ALF had distinct parameters compared to the other diets. Differences in digestive variables between forage types are likely a consequence of fiber physiochemical properties, warranting further investigation on forage fiber and digestive health.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2019-12-14 PubMed ID: 31847350PubMed Central: PMC6940996DOI: 10.3390/ani9121148Google 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 investigated the digestibility and digestion timeframe of different maturities of Bermudagrass hay in horses, including a comparison with other hays like Alfalfa and Orchardgrass, underlining the disparities as a potential result of fiber physiochemical properties.

Research Study Design and Aims

  • The study aimed to understand the digestion characteristics and passage kinetics of Coastal Bermudagrass hay at different maturities in horses, one of the livestock species that primarily consume this forage
  • Warm-season grasses like Bermudagrass have higher fiber concentrations and reduced digestibility compared to cool-season grasses and legumes, making their nutritional values and feeding effect quite dissimilar.
  • The research was designed as a 5×5 Latin square experiment to compare different hays’ digestion—Bermudagrass at 4 (CB 4), 6 (CB 6), and 8 (CB 8) weeks of regrowth, Alfalfa (ALF), and Orchardgrass (ORCH).

Experimental Procedure

  • The horses involved in the study were fed Cobalt-EDTA and Ytterbium-labeled neutral detergent fiber (NDF) before an 84-hour fecal collection, allowing the determination of time taken for digestion (retention time).

Key Findings

  • The dry matter digestibility was highest for ALF at 62.1% and lowest for CB 6 and CB 8 diets at 36.0% and 36.8%, respectively, showing Alfalfa is easier to digest than Bermudagrass.
  • However, mean retention time was longer for Bermudagrass (31.3 hours for particulate matter, 25.3 hours for liquid matter), indicating that this hay spends a more extended period in the horse’s digestive system.
  • The opposite was true for ORCH and ALF, with the latter showing less retention time (28.0 hours, and 20.7 hours respectively).

Additional Analysis and Conclusion

  • Further assessment of digesta passage kinetics through mathematical modeling showed unique parameters for ALF, suggesting it behaves remarkably differently from the other forages in terms of digestion.
  • The variation in the digestive variables between the various feeds is believed to be due to the difference in the physiochemical properties of their fiber, highlighting the need for additional research on forage fiber and its impact on digestive health.

Cite This Article

APA
Hansen TL, Chizek EL, Zugay OK, Miller JM, Bobel JM, Chouinard JW, Adkin AM, Skurupey LA, Warren LK. (2019). Digestibility and Retention Time of Coastal Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) Hay by Horses. Animals (Basel), 9(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9121148

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 9
Issue: 12

Researcher Affiliations

Hansen, Tayler L
  • Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.
Chizek, Elisabeth L
  • Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.
Zugay, Olivia K
  • Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.
Miller, Jessica M
  • Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.
Bobel, Jill M
  • Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.
Chouinard, Jessie W
  • Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.
Adkin, Angie M
  • Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.
Skurupey, Leigh Ann
  • Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.
Warren, Lori K
  • Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

This article includes 65 references
  1. Little D, Blikslager AT. Factors associated with development of ileal impaction in horses with surgical colic: 78 cases (1986–2000). Equine Vet. J. 2002;34:464–468.
    doi: 10.2746/042516402776117773pubmed: 12358048google scholar: lookup
  2. Blikslager AT. Colic prevention to avoid colic surgery: A surgeon’s perspective. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2019;76:1–5.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2019.02.023pubmed: 31084747google scholar: lookup
  3. Moore KJ, Boote KJ, Sanderson MA. Physiology and developmental morphology. In: Moser LE, Burson BL, Sollenberger LE, editors. Warm-Season (C4) Grasses. ASA/CSSA/SSSA; Madison, WI, USA: 2014. pp. 179–216.
  4. Sollenberger LE, Vanzant ES. Interrelationships among forage nutritive value and quantity and individual animal performance. Crop Sci. 2011;51:420–432.
    doi: 10.2135/cropsci2010.07.0408google scholar: lookup
  5. Rohweder DA, Barnes RF, Jorgensen N. Proposed hay grading standards based on laboratory analyses for evaluating quality. J. Anim. Sci. 1978;47:747–759.
    doi: 10.2527/jas1978.473747xgoogle scholar: lookup
  6. Hansen TL, Lawrence LM. Composition factors predicting forage digestibility by horses. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2017;58:97–102.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2017.08.015google scholar: lookup
  7. Lowman RS, Theodorou MK, Hyslop JJ, Dhanoa MS, Cí·¯ord D. Evaulation of an in vitro batch culture technique for estimating the in vivo digestibility and digestible energy content of equine feeds using equine faeces as the source of microbial inoculum. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1999;80:11–27.
    doi: 10.1016/S0377-8401(99)00039-5google scholar: lookup
  8. Sunvold GD, Hussein HS, Fahey GC Jr, Merchen NR, Reinhart GA. In vitro fermentation of cellulose, beet pulp, citrus pulp, and citrus pectin using fecal inoculum from cats, dogs, horses, humans, and pigs and ruminal fluid from cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 1995;73:3639–3648.
    doi: 10.2527/1995.73123639xpubmed: 8655439google scholar: lookup
  9. Pearson RA, Archibald RF, Muirhead RH. The effect of forage quality and level of feeding on digestibility and gastrointestinal transit time of oat straw and alfalfa given to ponies and donkeys. Br. J. Nutr. 2001;85:599–606.
    doi: 10.1079/BJN2001321pubmed: 11348575google scholar: lookup
  10. Moore-Colyer MJS, Morrow HJ, Longland AC. 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. Br. J. Nutr. 2003;90:109–118.
    doi: 10.1079/BJN2003869pubmed: 12844382google scholar: lookup
  11. Miyaji M, Ueda K, Hata H, Kondo S. Effects of quality and physical form of hay on mean retention time of digesta and total tract digestibility in horses. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2011;165:61–67.
    doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.02.003google scholar: lookup
  12. Van Weyenberg S, Sales J, Janssens GPJ. Passage rate of digesta through the equine gastrointestinal tract: A review. Livest. Sci. 2006;99:3–12.
    doi: 10.1016/j.livprodsci.2005.04.008google scholar: lookup
  13. Hooda S, Metzler-Zebeli BU, Vasanthan T, Zijlstra RT. Effects of viscosity and fermentability of dietary fibre on nutrient digestibility and digesta characteristics in ileal-cannulated grower pigs. Br. J. Nutr. 2011;106:664–674.
    doi: 10.1017/S0007114511000985pubmed: 21554809google scholar: lookup
  14. Dhanoa MS, Siddons RC, France J, Gale DL. A multicompartmental model to describe marker excretion patterns in ruminant faeces. Br. J. Nutr. 1985;53:663–671.
    doi: 10.1079/BJN19850076pubmed: 4063294google scholar: lookup
  15. Pond KR, Ellis WC, Matis JH, Ferreiro HM, Sutton JD. Compartment models for estimating attributes of digesta flow in cattle. Br. J. Nutr. 1988;60:571–595.
    doi: 10.1079/BJN19880129pubmed: 3219325google scholar: lookup
  16. Grovum WL, Williams VJ. Rate of passage of digesta in sheep. 4. Passage of marker through the alimentary tract and the biological relevance of rate-constants derived from the changes in concentration of marker in faeces. Br. J. Nutr. 1973;30:313–329.
    doi: 10.1079/BJN19730036pubmed: 4201027google scholar: lookup
  17. Austbø D, Volden H. Influence of passage model and caecal cannulation on estimated passage kinetics of roughage and concentrate in the gastrointestinal tract of horses. Livest. Sci. 2006;100:33–43.
    doi: 10.1016/j.livprodsci.2005.11.002google scholar: lookup
  18. Miyaji M, Ueda K, Hata H, Kondo S. Effect of grass hay intake on fiber digestion and digesta retention time in the hindgut of horses. J. Anim. Sci. 2014;92:1574–1581.
    doi: 10.2527/jas.2013-6676pubmed: 24663181google scholar: lookup
  19. Murray JAMD, Sanderson R, Longland AC, Moore-Colyer MJS, Hastie PM, Dunnett C. Assessment of mathematical models to describe the rate of passage of enzyme-treated or sugar beet pulp-substituted lucerne silage in equids. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2009;154:228–240.
    doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2009.09.007google scholar: lookup
  20. Rosenfeld I, Austbo D, Volden H. Models for estimating digesta passage kinetics in the gastrointestinal tract of the horse. J. Anim. Sci. 2006;84:3321–3328.
    doi: 10.2527/jas.2006-039pubmed: 17093224google scholar: lookup
  21. . Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Research and Teaching. 3rd ed. FASS; Champaign, IL, USA: 2010.
  22. Henneke DR, Potter GD, Kreider JL, Yeates BF. Relationship between condition score, physical measurements and body fat percentage in mares. Equine Vet. J. 1983;15:371–372.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1983.tb01826.xpubmed: 6641685google scholar: lookup
  23. NRC. Nutrient Requirements of Horses: Sixth Revised Edition. The National Academies Press; Washington, DC, USA: 2007. p. 360.
  24. Fisher RA, Yates F. Statistical Tables for Biological, Agricultural and Medical Research. Oliver & Boyd Ltd.; London, UK: 1963. p. 146.
  25. Chizek EL. Comparison of Feed Intake Behavior between Warm- and Cool-Season Forages Offered to Horses. Master’s Thesis. University of Florida; Gainesville, FL, USA: 2016.
  26. Pagan J. Nutrient digestibility in horses. Advances in Equine Nutrition. Kentucky Equine Research, Inc.; Versailles, KY, USA: 1998; pp. 77–83.
  27. Udén P, Colucci PE, Van Soest PJ. Investigation of chromium, cerium and cobalt as markers in digesta rate of passage studies. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1980;31:625–632.
    doi: 10.1002/jsfa.2740310702pubmed: 6779056google scholar: lookup
  28. Ringler JE, Lawrence LM. Development of a method to label forages used in passage rate studies in the horse. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2009;29:389–390.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2009.04.091google scholar: lookup
  29. . Analytical Methods Fiber Analyzer A200. ANKOM Technology [(accessed on 20 January 2015)]; Available online: https://www.ankom.com/analytical-methods-support/fiber-analyzer-a200.
  30. EPA. Method 3052: Microwave Assisted Acid Digestion of Siliceous and Organically Based Matrices. EPA; Washington, DC, USA: 1996.
  31. EPA. Method 200.7: Determination of Metals and Trace Elements in Water and Wastes by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emmision Spectometry. EPA; Washington, DC, USA: 1994.
  32. Blaxter KL, Graham NM, Wainman FW. Some observations on the digestibility of food by sheep, and on related problems. Br. J. Nutr. 1956;10:69–91.
    doi: 10.1079/BJN19560015pubmed: 13315926google scholar: lookup
  33. Thielemans M-F, Francois E, Bodart C, Thewis A. Gastrointestinal transit in the pig: Measurement using radioactive lanthanides and comparison with sheep. Ann. Biol. Anim. Biochim. Biophys. 1978;18:237–247.
    doi: 10.1051/rnd:19780203google scholar: lookup
  34. Sturgeon LS, Baker LA, Pipkin JL, Haliburton JC, Chirase NK. The digestibility and mineral availability of Matua, Bermuda grass, and alfalfa hay in mature horses. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2000;20:45–48.
    doi: 10.1016/S0737-0806(00)80320-2google scholar: lookup
  35. Eckert JV, Myer RO, Warren LK, Brendemuhl JH. Digestibility and nutrient retention of perennial peanut and bermudagrass hays for mature horses. J. Anim. Sci. 2010;88:2055–2061.
    doi: 10.2527/jas.2009-2092pubmed: 20154163google scholar: lookup
  36. Earing JE, Cassill BD, Hayes SH, Vanzant ES, Lawrence LM. Comparison of in vitro digestibility estimates using the DaisyII incubator with in vivo digestibility estimates in horses. J. Anim. Sci. 2010;88:3954–3963.
    doi: 10.2527/jas.2010-2989pubmed: 20709869google scholar: lookup
  37. Cymbaluk N, Christensen D. Nutrient utilization of pelleted and unpelleted forages by ponies. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 1986;66:237–244.
    doi: 10.4141/cjas86-024google scholar: lookup
  38. Cymbaluk NF. Comparison of forage digestion by cattle and horses. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 1990;70:601–610.
    doi: 10.4141/cjas90-072google scholar: lookup
  39. Potts L, Hinkson J, Graham B, Löest C, Turner J. Nitrogen retention and nutrient digestibility in geldings fed grass hay, alfalfa hay, or alfalfa cubes. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2010;30:330–333.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2010.04.007google scholar: lookup
  40. Crozier JA, Allen VG, Jack NE, Fontenot JP, Cochran MA. Digestibility, apparent mineral absorption, and voluntary intake by horses fed alfalfa, tall fescue, and caucasian bluestem. J. Anim. Sci. 1997;75:1651–1658.
    doi: 10.2527/1997.7561651xpubmed: 9250529google scholar: lookup
  41. Smith LW, Goering HK, Gordon CH. Relationships of forage compositions with rates of cell wall digestion and indigestibility of cell walls. J. Dairy Sci. 1972;55:1140–1147.
    doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(72)85636-4google scholar: lookup
  42. Albrecht KA, Wedin WF, Buxton DR. Cell-wall composition and digestibility of alfalfa stems and leaves. Crop Sci. 1987;27:735–741.
    doi: 10.2135/cropsci1987.0011183X002700040027xgoogle scholar: lookup
  43. Griffin JL, Jung GA. Leaf and stem forage quality of big bluestem and switchgrass. Agron. J. 1983;75:723–726.
    doi: 10.2134/agronj1983.00021962007500050002xgoogle scholar: lookup
  44. Bourquin LD, Fahey GC Jr. Ruminal digestion and glycosyl linkage patterns of cell wall components from leaf and stem fractions of alfalfa, orchardgrass, and wheat straw. J. Anim. Sci. 1994;72:1362–1374.
    doi: 10.2527/1994.7251362xpubmed: 8056685google scholar: lookup
  45. Wilson JR, Akin DE, McLeod MN, Minson DJ. Particle size reduction of the leaves of a tropical and a temperate grass by cattle. II. Relation of anatomical structure to the process of leaf breakdown through chewing and digestion. Grass Forage Sci. 1989;44:65–75.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2494.1989.tb01911.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  46. Hastert AA, Owensby CE, Harbers LH. Rumen microbial degradation of Indiangrass and big bluestem leaf blades. J. Anim. Sci. 1983;57:1626–1636.
    doi: 10.2527/jas1983.5761626xgoogle scholar: lookup
  47. Akin DE, Robinson EL, Barton FE, Himmelsbach DS. Changes with maturity in anatomy, histochemistry, chemistry, and tissue digestibility of bermudagrass plant parts. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1977;25:179–186.
    doi: 10.1021/jf60209a034google scholar: lookup
  48. Lieb S, Ott EA, French EC. Digestible nutrients and voluntary intake of rhizomes peanut, alfalfa, bermudagrass and bahiagrass by equine. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Equine Nutrition and Physiology Symposium; Gainesville, FL, USA. 21–23 January 1993; pp. 98–99.
  49. Lieb S, Mislevy P. Comparative intake and nutrient digestibility of three grass forages: Florakirk and Tifton 85 bermudagrasses and Florona stargrass to Coastal bermudagrass fed to horses. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Equine Nutrition and Physiology Symposium; Lexington, KY, USA. 31 May–2 June 2001; pp. 390–391.
  50. LaCasha PA, Brady HA, Allen VG, Richardson CR, Pond KR. Voluntary intake, digestibility, and subsequent selection of Matua bromegrass, coastal bermudagrass, and alfalfa hays by yearling horses. J. Anim. Sci. 1999;77:2766–2773.
    doi: 10.2527/1999.77102766xpubmed: 10521039google scholar: lookup
  51. Akin DE, Hartley RD. UV Absorption microspectrophotometry and digestibility of cell types of bermudagrass internodes at different stages of maturity. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1992;59:437–447.
    doi: 10.1002/jsfa.2740590403google scholar: lookup
  52. De Ruiter JM, Burns JC, Timothy DH. Hemicellulosic cell wall carbohydrate monomer composition in Panicum amarum, P. amarulum and P virgatum accessions. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1992;60:297–307.
    doi: 10.1002/jsfa.2740600305google scholar: lookup
  53. Koller BL, Hintz HF, Robertson JB, Van Soest PJ. Comparative cell wall and dry matter digestion in the cecum of the pony and the rumen of the cow using in vitro and nylon bag techniques. J. Anim. Sci. 1978;47:209–215.
    doi: 10.2527/jas1978.471209xgoogle scholar: lookup
  54. Coblentz WK, Fritz JO, Fick WH, Cochran RC, Shirley JE. In situ dry matter, nitrogen, and fiber degradation of alfalfa, red clover, and eastern gamagrass at four maturities. J. Dairy Sci. 1998;81:150–161.
    doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(98)75562-6pubmed: 9493090google scholar: lookup
  55. Eastwood MA, Kay RM. An hypothesis for the action of dietary fiber along the gastrointestinal tract. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1979;32:364–367.
    doi: 10.1093/ajcn/32.2.364pubmed: 420131google scholar: lookup
  56. Wen J, Phillips SF, Sarr MG, Kost LJ, Holst JJ. PYY and GLP-1 contribute to feedback inhibition from the canine ileum and colon. Am. J. Physiol. 1995;269:G945–G952.
    doi: 10.1152/ajpgi.1995.269.6.G945pubmed: 8572226google scholar: lookup
  57. Reimer RA, McBurney MI. Dietary fiber modulates intestinal proglucagon messenger ribonucleic acid and postprandial secretion of glucagon-like peptide-1 and insulin in rats. Endocrinology. 1996;137:3948–3956.
    doi: 10.1210/endo.137.9.8756571pubmed: 8756571google scholar: lookup
  58. Cani PD, Lecourt E, Dewulf EM, Sohet FM, Pachikian BD, Naslain D, De Backer F, Neyrinck AM, Delzenne NM. Gut microbiota fermentation of prebiotics increases satietogenic and incretin gut peptide production with consequences for appetite sensation and glucose response after a meal. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2009;90:1236–1243.
    doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.28095pubmed: 19776140google scholar: lookup
  59. Jenkins DJ, Wolever TM, Leeds AR, Gassull MA, Haisman P, Dilawari J, Goff DV, Metz GL, Alberti KG. Dietary fibres, fibre analogues, and glucose tolerance: Importance of viscosity. Br. Med. J. 1978;1:1392–1394.
    doi: 10.1136/bmj.1.6124.1392pmc: PMC1604761pubmed: 647304google scholar: lookup
  60. Schwartz SE, Levine RA, Singh A, Scheidecker JR, Track NS. Sustained pectin ingestion delays gastric emptying. Gastroenterology. 1982;83:812–817.
    pubmed: 6286402
  61. Jensen RB, Austbo D, Bach Knudsen KE, Tauson AH. The effect of dietary carbohydrate composition on apparent total tract digestibility, feed mean retention time, nitrogen and water balance in horses. Animal. 2014;8:1788–1796.
    doi: 10.1017/S175173111400175Xpubmed: 25018093google scholar: lookup
  62. Ellis WC, Matis JH, Hill TM, Murphy MR. Methodology for Estimating Digestion and Passage Kinetics of Forages. In: Fahey GC, editor. Forage Quality, Evaluation, and Utilization. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America; Madison, WI, USA: 1994. pp. 682–756.
  63. Argenzio RA, Lowe JE, Pickard DW, Stevens CE. Digesta passage and water exchange in the equine large intestine. Am. J. Physiol. 1974;226:1035–1042.
    doi: 10.1152/ajplegacy.1974.226.5.1035pubmed: 4207578google scholar: lookup
  64. Miyaji M, Ueda K, Nakatsuji H, Tomioka T, Kobayashi Y, Hata H, Kondo S. Mean retention time of digesta in the different segments of the equine hindgut. Anim. Sci. J. 2008;79:89–96.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1740-0929.2007.00502.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  65. Hansen TL. Modeling Digestibility and Rate of Passage in Horses. Master’s Thesis. University of Kentucky; Lexington, KY, USA: 2014.

Citations

This article has been cited 3 times.
  1. Muhonen S, Philippeau C, Julliand V. Effects of Differences in Fibre Composition and Maturity of Forage-Based Diets on the Fluid Balance, Water-Holding Capacity and Viscosity in Equine Caecum and Colon Digesta. Animals (Basel) 2022 Nov 29;12(23).
    doi: 10.3390/ani12233340pubmed: 36496860google scholar: lookup
  2. Vasco ACCM, Brinkley-Bissinger KJ, Bobel JM, Dubeux JCB, Warren LK, Wickens CL. Digestibility and nitrogen and water balance in horses fed rhizoma peanut hay. J Anim Sci 2021 Nov 1;99(11).
    doi: 10.1093/jas/skab284pubmed: 34634110google scholar: lookup
  3. Yang Y, Lin Y, Shi L. The effect of lizards on the dispersal and germination of Capparis spinosa (Capparaceae). PLoS One 2021;16(2):e0247585.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247585pubmed: 33635876google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,357 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.