FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Equine veterinary journal1991; 23(5); 339-343; doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1991.tb03734.x

Intake, digestion and gastrointestinal transit time in resting donkeys and ponies and exercised donkeys given ad libitum hay and straw diets.

Abstract: Four donkeys and four ponies maintained in climate rooms, were provided with meadow hay or barley straw supplemented with minerals and vitamins ad libitum. Both diets were given to all animals for periods of 21 days. Measurements were made during the last seven days following single doses of two non-absorbable markers (Cr-fibre and Co-EDTA). After six weeks the donkeys repeated the trial, walking 14 km and ascending 260 m five days per week. At rest ponies ate more than donkeys, however the donkeys showed a higher digestibility of dry matter (DM), organic matter (OM) and acid detergent fibre (ADF) than the ponies. Both species lost weight, ate less and had a lower digestibility of DM, OM and energy on the straw than on the hay ration. Fibre digestibility (neutral detergent fibre [NDF] and ADF) was higher on the straw than the hay diet. Gastrointestinal transit time was slower in the donkeys than in the ponies on both diets. Both species showed a higher mean retention time of digesta on straw than on hay. Exercise had no significant effect on food intake and liveweight changes in the donkeys. Although digestibility coefficients were higher in exercised animals, the effect was not significant. We conclude that, although it is generally considered that donkeys can thrive better on poor feeds than ponies, when the animals are allowed ad libitum access to hay and straw better intakes by ponies may compensate for any differences in digestibility seen in donkeys. Intake of barley straw by both species was not sufficient to meet maintenance requirements.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 1991-09-01 PubMed ID: 1959523DOI: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1991.tb03734.xGoogle 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.

The research study focuses on comparing the eating habits, digestion, and gastrointestinal transit time of resting donkeys and ponies, as well as donkeys after exercise, when both are fed on an ad libitum basis of hay and straw diet supplemented with minerals and vitamins.

Study Design

The experiment involved four donkeys and four ponies, which were kept in climate rooms. They were given two types of diets, meadow hay and barley straw, each supplemented with vitamins and minerals. Both diets were offered for a period of 21 days. The research study spanned seven days, using two non-absorbable markers (Cr-fibre and Co-EDTA). After six weeks, the donkeys repeated the trial with an additional variable of daily exercise, including a 14 km walk and climbing 260 m five days per week.

Analysis and Results

  • While resting, the ponies consumed more than the donkeys. However, the donkeys demonstrated better digestibility of dry matter (DM), organic matter (OM), and acid detergent fibre (ADF) compared to the ponies.
  • Both species reduced their food intake and exhibited lower digestibility of DM, OM, and energy when fed a straw diet compared to a hay diet.
  • Despite this, fibre digestibility (neutral detergent fibre [NDF] and ADF) was greater on the straw diet than the hay diet.
  • The study found a slower gastrointestinal transit time in donkeys compared to ponies, irrespective of the diet type.
  • The mean retention time of digesta was higher on a straw diet than on a hay diet for both species.
  • Exercise did not result in noticeable changes in food intake and weight of the donkeys. Although digestion coefficients were higher for exercised donkeys, this difference wasn’t substantial.

Conclusions

In conclusion, while it’s generally believed that donkeys thrive better than ponies on poorer feeds, when given ad libitum access to hay and straw, the ponies’ superior intake may offset any differences in digestibility exhibited by the donkeys. The intake of barley straw by both species was not enough to meet their maintenance requirements.

Cite This Article

APA
Pearson RA, Merritt JB. (1991). Intake, digestion and gastrointestinal transit time in resting donkeys and ponies and exercised donkeys given ad libitum hay and straw diets. Equine Vet J, 23(5), 339-343. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2042-3306.1991.tb03734.x

Publication

Equine veterinary journal
ISSN: 0425-1644
NlmUniqueID: 0173320
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 23
Issue: 5
Pages: 339-343

Researcher Affiliations

Pearson, R A
  • Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, Roslin, Midlothian, UK.
Merritt, J B

    MeSH Terms

    • Animal Feed
    • Animals
    • Digestion
    • Eating
    • Gastrointestinal Transit
    • Horses / physiology
    • Perissodactyla / physiology
    • Physical Exertion / physiology

    Citations

    This article has been cited 14 times.
    1. Song Y, Day CM, Afinjuomo F, Tan JE, Page SW, Garg S. Advanced Strategies of Drug Delivery via Oral, Topical, and Parenteral Administration Routes: Where Do Equine Medications Stand?. Pharmaceutics 2023 Jan 4;15(1).
      doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics15010186pubmed: 36678815google scholar: lookup
    2. Fernandes KA, Gee EK, Rogers CW, Kittelmann S, Biggs PJ, Bermingham EN, Bolwell CF, Thomas DG. Seasonal Variation in the Faecal Microbiota of Mature Adult Horses Maintained on Pasture in New Zealand. Animals (Basel) 2021 Aug 4;11(8).
      doi: 10.3390/ani11082300pubmed: 34438757google scholar: lookup
    3. Edwards JE, Schennink A, Burden F, Long S, van Doorn DA, Pellikaan WF, Dijkstra J, Saccenti E, Smidt H. Domesticated equine species and their derived hybrids differ in their fecal microbiota. Anim Microbiome 2020 Mar 16;2(1):8.
      doi: 10.1186/s42523-020-00027-7pubmed: 33499942google scholar: lookup
    4. Tassone S, Fortina R, Valle E, Cavallarin L, Raspa F, Boggero S, Bergero D, Giammarino M, Renna M. Comparison of In Vivo and In Vitro Digestibility in Donkeys. Animals (Basel) 2020 Nov 12;10(11).
      doi: 10.3390/ani10112100pubmed: 33198168google scholar: lookup
    5. Liu LL, Zhou XL, Yang HJ, Chen R. Effect of Dietary Forage/Concentrate Ratio on Nutrient Digestion and Energy and Protein Metabolism in Adult Donkeys. Animals (Basel) 2020 Jun 12;10(6).
      doi: 10.3390/ani10061025pubmed: 32545612google scholar: lookup
    6. Sanabria H, Rodnin D, Hemmen K, Peulen TO, Felekyan S, Fleissner MR, Dimura M, Koberling F, Kühnemuth R, Hubbell W, Gohlke H, Seidel CAM. Resolving dynamics and function of transient states in single enzyme molecules. Nat Commun 2020 Mar 6;11(1):1231.
      doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-14886-wpubmed: 32144241google scholar: lookup
    7. Thiemann AK, Sullivan RJE. Gastrointestinal Disorders of Donkeys and Mules. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 2019 Dec;35(3):419-432.
      doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2019.08.001pubmed: 31587977google scholar: lookup
    8. Dai F, Dalla Costa E, Murray LM, Canali E, Minero M. Welfare Conditions of Donkeys in Europe: Initial Outcomes from On-Farm Assessment. Animals (Basel) 2016 Jan 8;6(1).
      doi: 10.3390/ani6010005pubmed: 26761034google scholar: lookup
    9. Cox R, Proudman CJ, Trawford AF, Burden F, Pinchbeck GL. Epidemiology of impaction colic in donkeys in the UK. BMC Vet Res 2007 Feb 2;3:1.
      doi: 10.1186/1746-6148-3-1pubmed: 17274808google scholar: lookup
    10. Smith DG, Pearson RA. A review of the factors affecting the survival of donkeys in semi-arid regions of sub-Saharan Africa. Trop Anim Health Prod 2005 Nov;37 Suppl 1:1-19.
      doi: 10.1007/s11250-005-9002-5pubmed: 16335068google scholar: lookup
    11. Ram JJ, Padalkar RD, Anuraja B, Hallikeri RC, Deshmanya JB, Neelkanthayya G, Vidya Sagar V. Nutritional requirement of adult donkeys (Equus asinus) during work and rest. Trop Anim Health Prod 2004 May;36(4):407-12.
      doi: 10.1023/b:trop.0000026664.63287.a3pubmed: 15241974google scholar: lookup
    12. Pearson RA, Dijkman JT, Krecek RC, Wright P. Effect of density and weight of load on the energy cost of carrying loads by donkeys and ponies. Trop Anim Health Prod 1998 Feb;30(1):67-78.
      doi: 10.1023/a:1005021729061pubmed: 9719832google scholar: lookup
    13. Pearson RA, Lawrence PR, Smith AJ. The Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine (CTVM) pulling its weight in the field of draught animal research. Trop Anim Health Prod 1996 Feb;28(1):49-59.
      doi: 10.1007/BF02250727pubmed: 8815613google scholar: lookup
    14. Cai A, Wang S, Li P, Descovich K, Fu T, Lian H, Gao T, Phillips CJC. The Effect of an Exercise Paddock on Dairy Cow Behavior, Health, and Nutrient Digestion during the Transition from Pregnancy to Lactation. Animals (Basel) 2024 Aug 14;14(16).
      doi: 10.3390/ani14162353pubmed: 39199886google scholar: lookup
    Subscribe to our newsletter
    Join 99,850 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.