Analyze Diet

Ingestive mastication in horses resembles rumination but not ingestive mastication in cattle and camels.

Abstract: Horses achieve a higher degree of particle size reduction through ingestive mastication than functional ruminants. We characterized mastication using chew-monitoring halters (RumiWatch) in six domestic horses, cattle, and Bactrian camels each. All animals were offered grass hay of the same batch for 15 min. In cattle and camels, measurements were continued after eating until rumination was observed. Except for one horse, 96% of the horses' ingestive mastication data were identified as "rumination" by the proprietary RumiWatch algorithm, whereas ingestion and rumination by cattle and camels were mostly classified correctly. There were no systematic differences between cattle and camels. In cattle and camels, ingestive mastication was less regular than rumination, indicated by significantly higher standard deviations of chewing peak intervals, peak heights, and peak breadths in intraindividual comparisons. The average standard deviations of these measures were lower in horses than in cattle and camel ingestive mastication, indicating a more consistent chewing pattern in horses. Horse values were similar to those of rumination mastication, suggesting equally regular chewing motions. Regular, rhythmic chewing represents a common feature of horses and functional ruminants, but the less uniform ingestive mastication in functional ruminants represents a deviating pattern, the adaptive value of which remains unclear. In particular, it does not appear to promote a higher ingestion rate. A potential cause may be the avoidance of high tooth wear rates by delaying a more regular, systematic mastication until ingesta has been softened and the grit has been washed off in the forestomach.
Publication Date: 2017-05-17 PubMed ID: 29356397DOI: 10.1002/jez.2075Google 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.
  • Journal Article
  • Research Support
  • Non-U.S. Gov't

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 study explores how horses chew food, known as ingestive mastication, in comparison to cattle and camels. The findings reveal that horses mastication resembles rumination but is distinct in its regularity.

Overview of the Research

  • The research aimed to compare the mastication patterns of horses, cattle, and camels. The primary goal was to observe if the mastication of horses is more similar to rumination rather than the mastication of other animals.
  • The basis of comparison was the particle size reduction achieved during mastication, which illustrates the efficiency of the chewing process.
  • To conduct the study, six domestic horses, cattle and Bactrian camels were monitored while they ate grass hay over a period of 15 minutes. The monitoring was done using chew-monitoring halters.
  • The measurements for cattle and camels continued even after they finished eating until rumination was observed.

Key Findings

  • The study found that except for one horse, 96% of the horses’ ingestive mastication process was identified as ‘rumination’ by the RumiWatch algorithm. This algorithm played a key role in characterizing the chewing patterns of the animals.
  • In contrast, the ingestive mastication of cattle and camels was less regular than rumination, indicated by the standard deviations of chewing peak intervals, peak heights, and peak breadths.
  • Horses showed a more regular and uniform chewing pattern compared to cattle and camels.
  • The chewing pattern of horses was similar to rumination, suggesting an equally regular rhythm.
  • Cattle and camels, on the other hand, demonstrated less uniform mastication patterns that did not have an apparent adaptive value nor did it promote higher ingestion rates. A possibility for this could be to avoid high tooth wear rates by delaying systematic mastication until the ingesta soften and the grit washes off in the forestomach.
  • Despite not maximizing ingestion rates, this irregular pattern of mastication might protect the teeth of the animal by delaying regular mastication until food has been softened significantly.

Cite This Article

APA
Dittmann MT, Kreuzer M, Runge U, Clauss M. (2017). Ingestive mastication in horses resembles rumination but not ingestive mastication in cattle and camels. J Exp Zool A Ecol Integr Physiol, 327(2-3), 98-109. https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.2075

Publication

ISSN: 2471-5646
NlmUniqueID: 101710204
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 327
Issue: 2-3
Pages: 98-109

Researcher Affiliations

Dittmann, Marie T
  • School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading, Earley Gate Reading, United Kingdom.
  • ETH Zurich, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Universitätsstr. 2, Zurich, Switzerland.
  • Clinic for Zoo Animals, Exotic Pets and Wildlife, Vetsuisse Faculty Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Kreuzer, Michael
  • ETH Zurich, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Universitätsstr. 2, Zurich, Switzerland.
Runge, Ullrich
  • Kamelhof Olmerswil, Neukirch/Thur, Switzerland.
Clauss, Marcus
  • Clinic for Zoo Animals, Exotic Pets and Wildlife, Vetsuisse Faculty Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

MeSH Terms

  • Algorithms
  • Animals
  • Camelus / physiology
  • Cattle / physiology
  • Feeding Behavior / physiology
  • Horses / physiology
  • Mastication / physiology
  • Rumination, Digestive / physiology

Citations

This article has been cited 7 times.
  1. Valerio SO, Hummel J, Codron D, Hatt JM, Clauss M. The Ruminant sorting mechanism protects teeth from abrasives. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2022 Dec 6;119(49):e2212447119.
    doi: 10.1073/pnas.2212447119pubmed: 36459638google scholar: lookup
  2. Hatt JM, Codron D, Richter H, Kircher PR, Hummel J, Clauss M. Preliminary evidence for a forestomach washing mechanism in llamas (Lama glama). Mamm Biol 2021;101(6):941-948.
    doi: 10.1007/s42991-021-00142-1pubmed: 34924918google scholar: lookup
  3. Martin LF, Ackermans NL, Richter H, Kircher P, Hummel J, Codron D, Clauss M, Hatt JM. Macrowear effects of external quartz abrasives of different size and concentration in rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus). J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol 2022 Dec;338(8):586-597.
    doi: 10.1002/jez.b.23104pubmed: 34813148google scholar: lookup
  4. Findeisen E, Südekum KH, Fritz J, Hummel J, Clauss M. Increasing food intake affects digesta retention, digestibility and gut fill but not chewing efficiency in domestic rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus). J Exp Zool A Ecol Integr Physiol 2021 Aug;335(7):614-622.
    doi: 10.1002/jez.2505pubmed: 34254468google scholar: lookup
  5. Goldschmidt S, Chew HP, Guy S, Fok A. Characterizing masticatory motion of dogs using optical and electromagnetic motion tracking. Front Vet Sci 2025;12:1625335.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2025.1625335pubmed: 40678494google scholar: lookup
  6. Clauss M, Fritz J, Hummel J. Teeth and the gastrointestinal tract in mammals: when 1 + 1 = 3. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2023 Dec 4;378(1891):20220544.
    doi: 10.1098/rstb.2022.0544pubmed: 37839451google scholar: lookup
  7. Ercoli MD, Álvarez A, Moyano SR. Masticatory myology of the llama (Lama glama, Camelidae) and comparisons with other camelids and euungulates. J Anat 2023 Nov;243(5):770-785.
    doi: 10.1111/joa.13891pubmed: 37289996google scholar: lookup