FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Applied and environmental microbiology1988; 54(9); 2155-2160; doi: 10.1128/aem.54.9.2155-2160.1988

Enumeration of anaerobic bacterial microflora of the equine gastrointestinal tract.

Abstract: Samples from the duodenum, jejunum, and ileum, as well as from the cecum and colon, were obtained from 11 mature grass-fed horses. Viable counts of total culturable and proteolytic bacteria were made on habitat-simulating media containing 40% clarified ruminal fluid. The mean pHs in the duodenum, jejunum, and ileum were 6.32, 7.10, and 7.47, respectively; the mean pH decreased to 6.7 in the hindgut. The acetate concentration increased along the length of the small intestine and was the only volatile fatty acid present in this gut segment. Molar proportions of acetate, propionate, and butyrate in the hindgut were 85:10:3. Differences in bacterial counts on habitat-simulating media containing equine cecal fluid or clarified ruminal fluid were negligible. Bacterial counts showed a substantial population in the duodenum (ca. 2.9 x 10(6) per g [wet weight] of sample), and this increased to 29.0 x 10(6) in the jejunum and 38.4 x 10(6) in the ileum. Proteolytic bacteria formed a high proportion of the total culturable bacteria, especially in duodenal samples. Counts of proteolytic bacteria per gram (wet weight) of sample were 3.0 x 10(6), 15.6 x 10(6), and 22.0 x 10(6) in the duodenum, jejunum, and ileum, respectively. There was a close relationship between lumenal and mucosal bacterial counts, although actual values were lower in mucosal samples. The mucosal bacterial population in the duodenum was high relative to the lumenal population. Although the comparison of bacterial populations in the hindgut of the horse and white rhino was limited to a single animal, the results were of interest. Counts were higher in the cecum than in the colon for both the horse and the white rhino.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 1988-09-01 PubMed ID: 3190223PubMed Central: PMC202828DOI: 10.1128/aem.54.9.2155-2160.1988Google 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
  • 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 studied the different types and amounts of bacteria residing in various parts of the horse’s digestive system, including the small and large intestines. The study also examined the changes in acidity and concentration of three fatty acids (acetate, propionate, and butyrate) along the length of the horse’s gastrointestinal tract.

Research Method

  • The experiment was conducted on 11 mature horses fed solely on grass.
  • These horses’ digestive systems were sampled in multiple locations – duodenum, jejunum, ileum, cecum, and colon.
  • Bacterial counts were taken from these samples using a habitat-simulator media that contained 40% ruminal (derived from the rumen or the first stomach chamber in animals like cows) fluid.

Findings

  • The pH level along the small intestines increased, with each part having a different mean pH – 6.32 in the duodenum, 7.10 in the jejunum, and 7.47 in the ileum. Meanwhile, the mean pH in the hindgut (cecum and colon) was lower, at 6.7.
  • Acetate was the only volatile fatty acid found in the small intestine, and its concentration increased along the length of this organ.
  • In the hindgut, the molar proportions of acetate, propionate, and butyrate were 85:10:3.
  • The count of bacteria was significant in all parts of the small intestines, with the duodenum carrying approximately 2.9 x 10(6) per gram of sample. This number grew to 29.0 x 10(6) and 38.4 x 10(6) in the jejunum and ileum, respectively.
  • Proteolytic bacteria, which break down proteins, made up a large proportion of the overall bacterial count, particularly in the duodenum.
  • Bacterial count in the mucous layer lining the intestinal walls was found to be closely related to the lumenal (interior) bacterial count, although actual values were lower in mucosal samples.

Comparison with the White Rhino

  • Although the comparison was limited to a single white rhino, the study found higher bacterial counts in the cecum rather than in the colon, similar to the findings in horses.

Cite This Article

APA
Mackie RI, Wilkins CA. (1988). Enumeration of anaerobic bacterial microflora of the equine gastrointestinal tract. Appl Environ Microbiol, 54(9), 2155-2160. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.54.9.2155-2160.1988

Publication

Applied and environmental microbiology
ISSN: 0099-2240
NlmUniqueID: 7605801
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 54
Issue: 9
Pages: 2155-2160

Researcher Affiliations

Mackie, R I
  • Rumen Biochemistry, Animal & Dairy Science Research Institute, Irene, Republic of South Africa.
Wilkins, C A

    MeSH Terms

    • Animals
    • Bacteria / growth & development
    • Cecum / analysis
    • Cecum / microbiology
    • Colic / etiology
    • Colic / veterinary
    • Colon / analysis
    • Colon / microbiology
    • Colony Count, Microbial
    • Digestive System / analysis
    • Digestive System / microbiology
    • Duodenum / analysis
    • Duodenum / microbiology
    • Fatty Acids, Volatile / analysis
    • Female
    • Horse Diseases / etiology
    • Horses / microbiology
    • Hydrogen-Ion Concentration
    • Ileum / analysis
    • Ileum / microbiology
    • Intestinal Diseases / etiology
    • Intestinal Diseases / veterinary
    • Intestinal Mucosa / microbiology
    • Jejunum / analysis
    • Jejunum / microbiology
    • Male
    • Perissodactyla / microbiology

    References

    This article includes 14 references
    1. Czerkawski JW. The use of pivalic acid as a reference substance in measurements of production of volatile fatty acids by rumen micro-organisms in vitro.. Br J Nutr 1976 Sep;36(2):311-5.
      pubmed: 952843doi: 10.1079/bjn19760085google scholar: lookup
    2. White N. What's next in equine colic research?. Equine Vet J 1986 Nov;18(6):429-31.
      pubmed: 3803354doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1986.tb03678.xgoogle scholar: lookup
    3. ALEXANDER F, DAVIES ME. Production and fermentation of lactate by bacteria in the alimentary canal of the horse and pig.. J Comp Pathol 1963 Jan;73:1-8.
      pubmed: 14011947doi: 10.1016/s0368-1742(63)80001-6google scholar: lookup
    4. Savage DC. Microorganisms associated with epithelial surfaces and stability of the indigenous gastrointestinal microflora.. Nahrung 1987;31(5-6):383-95.
      pubmed: 3309666doi: 10.1002/food.19870310511google scholar: lookup
    5. CHANEY AL, MARBACH EP. Modified reagents for determination of urea and ammonia.. Clin Chem 1962 Apr;8:130-2.
      pubmed: 13878063
    6. Meyer JH, Mackie RI. Microbiological evaluation of the intraruminal in sacculus digestion technique.. Appl Environ Microbiol 1986 Mar;51(3):622-9.
      pubmed: 3963812doi: 10.1128/aem.51.3.622-629.1986google scholar: lookup
    7. Kern DL, Slyter LL, Leffel EC, Weaver JM, Oltjen RR. Ponies vs. steers: microbial and chemical characteristics of intestinal ingesta.. J Anim Sci 1974 Mar;38(3):559-64.
      pubmed: 4856481doi: 10.2527/jas1974.383559xgoogle scholar: lookup
    8. Henning PA. Examination of methods for enumerating hemicellulose-utilizing bacteria in the rumen.. Appl Environ Microbiol 1979 Jul;38(1):13-7.
      pubmed: 16345407doi: 10.1128/aem.38.1.13-17.1979google scholar: lookup
    9. Argenzio RA, Stevens CE. The large bowel--a supplementary rumen?. Proc Nutr Soc 1984 Jan;43(1):13-23.
      pubmed: 6709633doi: 10.1079/pns19840022google scholar: lookup
    10. Van Hoven W, Gilchrist FM, Hamilton-Attwell VL. Intestinal ciliated protozoa of African rhinoceros: two new genera and five new species from the white rhino (Ceratotherium simum Burchell, 1817).. J Protozool 1987 Aug;34(3):338-42.
      pubmed: 3116223doi: 10.1111/j.1550-7408.1987.tb03186.xgoogle scholar: lookup
    11. Maczulak AE, Dawson KA, Baker JP. Nitrogen utilization in bacterial isolates from the equine cecum.. Appl Environ Microbiol 1985 Dec;50(6):1439-43.
      pubmed: 4091567doi: 10.1128/aem.50.6.1439-1443.1985google scholar: lookup
    12. ROGOSA M, MITCHELL JA, WISEMAN RF. A selective medium for the isolation and enumeration of oral and fecal lactobacilli.. J Bacteriol 1951 Jul;62(1):132-3.
      pubmed: 14861168doi: 10.1128/jb.62.1.132-133.1951google scholar: lookup
    13. Nicoletti JM, Davis CL, Hespell RB, Leedle JA. Enumeration and presumptive identification of bacteria from the small intestine of sheep.. J Dairy Sci 1984 Jun;67(6):1227-35.
      pubmed: 6747043doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(84)81428-9google scholar: lookup
    14. Kern DL, Slyter LL, Weaver JM, Leffel EC, Samuelson G. Pony cecum vs. steer rumen: the effect of oats and hay on the microbial ecosystem.. J Anim Sci 1973 Aug;37(2):463-9.
      pubmed: 4201259doi: 10.2527/jas1973.372463xgoogle scholar: lookup

    Citations

    This article has been cited 29 times.
    1. 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 Dec 19;10(12).
      doi: 10.3390/microorganisms10122517pubmed: 36557769google scholar: lookup
    2. Perricone V, Sandrini S, Irshad N, Comi M, Lecchi C, Savoini G, Agazzi A. The Role of Yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae in Supporting Gut Health in Horses: An Updated Review on Its Effects on Digestibility and Intestinal and Fecal Microbiota. Animals (Basel) 2022 Dec 9;12(24).
      doi: 10.3390/ani12243475pubmed: 36552396google scholar: lookup
    3. Froidurot A, Julliand V. Cellulolytic bacteria in the large intestine of mammals. Gut Microbes 2022 Jan-Dec;14(1):2031694.
      doi: 10.1080/19490976.2022.2031694pubmed: 35184689google scholar: lookup
    4. Goodman-Davis R, Figurska M, Cywinska A. Gut Microbiota Manipulation in Foals-Naturopathic Diarrhea Management, or Unsubstantiated Folly?. Pathogens 2021 Sep 4;10(9).
      doi: 10.3390/pathogens10091137pubmed: 34578169google scholar: lookup
    5. Boshuizen B, Moreno de Vega CV, De Maré L, de Meeûs C, de Oliveira JE, Hosotani G, Gansemans Y, Deforce D, Van Nieuwerburgh F, Delesalle C. Effects of Aleurone Supplementation on Glucose-Insulin Metabolism and Gut Microbiome in Untrained Healthy Horses. Front Vet Sci 2021;8:642809.
      doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.642809pubmed: 33912605google scholar: lookup
    6. Mach N, Ruet A, Clark A, Bars-Cortina D, Ramayo-Caldas Y, Crisci E, Pennarun S, Dhorne-Pollet S, Foury A, Moisan MP, Lansade L. Priming for welfare: gut microbiota is associated with equitation conditions and behavior in horse athletes. Sci Rep 2020 May 20;10(1):8311.
      doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-65444-9pubmed: 32433513google scholar: lookup
    7. Glatter M, Borewicz K, van den Bogert B, Wensch-Dorendorf M, Bochnia M, Greef JM, Bachmann M, Smidt H, Breves G, Zeyner A. Modification of the equine gastrointestinal microbiota by Jerusalem artichoke meal supplementation. PLoS One 2019;14(8):e0220553.
      doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220553pubmed: 31393892google scholar: lookup
    8. Plancade S, Clark A, Philippe C, Helbling JC, Moisan MP, Esquerré D, Le Moyec L, Robert C, Barrey E, Mach N. Unraveling the effects of the gut microbiota composition and function on horse endurance physiology. Sci Rep 2019 Jul 3;9(1):9620.
      doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-46118-7pubmed: 31270376google scholar: lookup
    9. Clark A, Sallé G, Ballan V, Reigner F, Meynadier A, Cortet J, Koch C, Riou M, Blanchard A, Mach N. Strongyle Infection and Gut Microbiota: Profiling of Resistant and Susceptible Horses Over a Grazing Season. Front Physiol 2018;9:272.
      doi: 10.3389/fphys.2018.00272pubmed: 29618989google scholar: lookup
    10. Mach N, Foury A, Kittelmann S, Reigner F, Moroldo M, Ballester M, Esquerré D, Rivière J, Sallé G, Gérard P, Moisan MP, Lansade L. The Effects of Weaning Methods on Gut Microbiota Composition and Horse Physiology. Front Physiol 2017;8:535.
      doi: 10.3389/fphys.2017.00535pubmed: 28790932google scholar: lookup
    11. de la Fuente G, Jones E, Jones S, Newbold CJ. Functional Resilience and Response to a Dietary Additive (Kefir) in Models of Foregut and Hindgut Microbial Fermentation In Vitro. Front Microbiol 2017;8:1194.
      doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.01194pubmed: 28702019google scholar: lookup
    12. Bland SD, Venable EB, McPherson JL, Atkinson RL. Effects of liposomal-curcumin on five opportunistic bacterial strains found in the equine hindgut - preliminary study. J Anim Sci Technol 2017;59:15.
      doi: 10.1186/s40781-017-0138-4pubmed: 28638626google scholar: lookup
    13. Olivo G, Lucas TM, Borges AS, Silva RO, Lobato FC, Siqueira AK, da Silva Leite D, Brandão PE, Gregori F, de Oliveira-Filho JP, Takai S, Ribeiro MG. Enteric Pathogens and Coinfections in Foals with and without Diarrhea. Biomed Res Int 2016;2016:1512690.
      doi: 10.1155/2016/1512690pubmed: 28116290google scholar: lookup
    14. Ericsson AC, Johnson PJ, Lopes MA, Perry SC, Lanter HR. A Microbiological Map of the Healthy Equine Gastrointestinal Tract. PLoS One 2016;11(11):e0166523.
      doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166523pubmed: 27846295google scholar: lookup
    15. Cheung MK, Yip HY, Nong W, Law PT, Chu KH, Kwan HS, Hui JH. Rapid Change of Microbiota Diversity in the Gut but Not the Hepatopancreas During Gonadal Development of the New Shrimp Model Neocaridina denticulata. Mar Biotechnol (NY) 2015 Dec;17(6):811-9.
      doi: 10.1007/s10126-015-9662-8pubmed: 26319409google scholar: lookup
    16. Shepherd ML, Ponder MA, Burk AO, Milton SC, Swecker WS Jr. Fibre digestibility, abundance of faecal bacteria and plasma acetate concentrations in overweight adult mares. J Nutr Sci 2014;3:e10.
      doi: 10.1017/jns.2014.8pubmed: 25191602google scholar: lookup
    17. Biddle AS, Black SJ, Blanchard JL. An in vitro model of the horse gut microbiome enables identification of lactate-utilizing bacteria that differentially respond to starch induction. PLoS One 2013;8(10):e77599.
      doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0077599pubmed: 24098591google scholar: lookup
    18. Blackmore TM, Dugdale A, Argo CM, Curtis G, Pinloche E, Harris PA, Worgan HJ, Girdwood SE, Dougal K, Newbold CJ, McEwan NR. Strong stability and host specific bacterial community in faeces of ponies. PLoS One 2013;8(9):e75079.
      doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0075079pubmed: 24040388google scholar: lookup
    19. Schoster A, Arroyo LG, Staempfli HR, Weese JS. Comparison of microbial populations in the small intestine, large intestine and feces of healthy horses using terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism. BMC Res Notes 2013 Mar 12;6:91.
      doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-6-91pubmed: 23497580google scholar: lookup
    20. Steelman SM, Chowdhary BP, Dowd S, Suchodolski J, Janečka JE. 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 Nov 27;8:231.
      doi: 10.1186/1746-6148-8-231pubmed: 23186268google scholar: lookup
    21. Godoy-Vitorino F, Goldfarb KC, Karaoz U, Leal S, Garcia-Amado MA, Hugenholtz P, Tringe SG, Brodie EL, Dominguez-Bello MG. Comparative analyses of foregut and hindgut bacterial communities in hoatzins and cows. ISME J 2012 Mar;6(3):531-41.
      doi: 10.1038/ismej.2011.131pubmed: 21938024google scholar: lookup
    22. Simpson JM, McCracken VJ, Gaskins HR, Mackie RI. Denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis of 16S ribosomal DNA amplicons to monitor changes in fecal bacterial populations of weaning pigs after introduction of Lactobacillus reuteri strain MM53. Appl Environ Microbiol 2000 Nov;66(11):4705-14.
      doi: 10.1128/AEM.66.11.4705-4714.2000pubmed: 11055913google scholar: lookup
    23. McSweeney CS, Palmer B, Bunch R, Krause DO. Isolation and characterization of proteolytic ruminal bacteria from sheep and goats fed the tannin-containing shrub legume Calliandra calothyrsus. Appl Environ Microbiol 1999 Jul;65(7):3075-83.
      doi: 10.1128/AEM.65.7.3075-3083.1999pubmed: 10388706google scholar: lookup
    24. Bruorton MR, Davis CL, Perrin MR. Gut microflora of vervet and samango monkeys in relation to diet. Appl Environ Microbiol 1991 Feb;57(2):573-8.
      doi: 10.1128/aem.57.2.573-578.1991pubmed: 2014992google scholar: lookup
    25. Yano R, Moriyama T, Arai H, Scheftgen AJ, Suen G, Nishida T, Handa M, Fukuma N. Correlation of hindgut microbiome and fermentation properties with a history of gas and/or impaction colic in Japanese draft horses. J Equine Sci 2025;36(3):93-102.
      doi: 10.1294/jes.36.93pubmed: 40980339google scholar: lookup
    26. Liu Y, Huang G, Wei F, Hu Y. Non-negligible role of gut morphology in shaping mammalian gut microbiomes. Sci China Life Sci 2025 Aug;68(8):2408-2419.
      doi: 10.1007/s11427-024-2933-1pubmed: 40488951google scholar: lookup
    27. Bishop RC, Kemper AM, Clark LV, Wilkins PA, McCoy AM. Stability of Gastric Fluid and Fecal Microbial Populations in Healthy Horses under Pasture and Stable Conditions. Animals (Basel) 2024 Oct 16;14(20).
      doi: 10.3390/ani14202979pubmed: 39457909google scholar: lookup
    28. Kara K, Altınsoy A. Comparison of forages’ digestion levels for different in vitro digestion techniques in horses. Vet Med Sci 2024 Mar;10(2):e31373.
      doi: 10.1002/vms3.1373pubmed: 38369823google scholar: lookup
    29. Yano R, Moriyama T, Fujimori M, Nishida T, Hanada M, Fukuma N. Effects of concentrate levels on intestinal fermentation and the microbial profile in Japanese draft horses. J Equine Sci 2023 Dec;34(4):101-109.
      doi: 10.1294/jes.34.101pubmed: 38274554google scholar: lookup
    Subscribe to our newsletter
    Join 99,727 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.