FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Journal of animal physiology and animal nutrition2022; 106(6); 1356-1363; doi: 10.1111/jpn.13757

No size-dependent net particle retention in the hindgut of horses.

Abstract: Sieve analyses of hindgut contents of horses as well as observations in horses where plastic markers had been applied to a caecal cannula suggested that there may be a discrimination by particle size in the passage or retention of digesta. Here, we performed a similar experiment with five caecum-cannulated horses (562 ± 31 kg) fed a constant amount (6.81 kg dry matter/day) of grass hay. Passage markers representing the liquid (Co-EDTA) as well as the particulate digesta phase (Yb-undefined; Cr mordanted fibre 1-2 mm; Ce-mordanted fibre 8 mm) were given as a pulse-dose into the cannula to measure their mean retention times (MRT). The MRTs were compared by repeated-measurements analysis of variance. The MRT in the hindgut was 22.2 ± 2.4 h for Co, 25.0 ± 3.4 h for Yb, 26.2 ± 1.6 h for Cr and 26.3 ± 1.5 h for Ce. Whereas differences between the particle marker MRTs were not significant (p > 0.05), significant differences were observed between the solute marker Co and each of the particle markers Cr and Ce (p < 0.009). The results confirm the well-known significant, albeit small, difference in MRT in horses between the fluid and the particle digesta phase, and corroborate another recent study that used a combination of whole, marked hay and individual marker analysis in different particle size fractions of the faeces, which also did not detect a selective retention of any particle size class.
© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition published by Wiley-VCH GmbH.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2022-07-27 PubMed ID: 35894118PubMed Central: PMC9796864DOI: 10.1111/jpn.13757Google 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 suggests that the hindgut of horses does not retain digesta particles based on their size. This conclusion was reached after observing the mean retention times (MRT) of different types of markers in the hindgut of horses and finding no significant differences among particle marker MRTs.

Research Method

  • For this study, the researchers used five caecum-cannulated horses weighing approximately 562 ± 31 kg. The horses were fed 6.81 kg of grass hay daily.
  • To measure the mean retention times (MRT), the researchers applied various passage markers representing liquid digesta (Co-EDTA) and particulate digesta (Yb-undefined; Cr mordanted fibre 1-2 mm; Ce-mordanted fibre 8 mm) into the cannula of each horse.

Results

  • The mean retention times in the hindgut for each passage marker were as follows: 22.2 ± 2.4 hours for Co, 25.0 ± 3.4 hours for Yb, 26.2 ± 1.6 hours for Cr, and 26.3 ± 1.5 hours for Ce.
  • Statistical tests revealed that there were no significant differences in the mean retention times among the various particle markers (p > 0.05).
  • However, the researchers found significant differences between the mean retention times of Co and those of the particle markers Cr and Ce (p < 0.009).
  • This indicates that while the hindgut of horses does distinguish between the fluid and particle phases of digesta, it does not differentiate between particles of different sizes.

Conclusion and Implications

  • The results corroborate another recent study on the lack of selective retention of any particle size class in the faeces of horses.
  • The findings of this research could be crucial in expanding our understanding about the digestion process in horses and potentially helping in developing better feed diets for them.

Cite This Article

APA
Schwarm A, Clauss M, Ortmann S, Jensen RB. (2022). No size-dependent net particle retention in the hindgut of horses. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl), 106(6), 1356-1363. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.13757

Publication

Journal of animal physiology and animal nutrition
ISSN: 1439-0396
NlmUniqueID: 101126979
Country: Germany
Language: English
Volume: 106
Issue: 6
Pages: 1356-1363

Researcher Affiliations

Schwarm, Angela
  • Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway.
Clauss, Marcus
  • Clinic for Zoo Animals, Exotic Pets and Wildlife, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Ortmann, Sylvia
  • Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research (IZW) Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Jensen, Rasmus B
  • Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Animal Feed
  • Cecum / anatomy & histology
  • Cecum / physiology
  • Dietary Fiber / administration & dosage
  • Dietary Fiber / analysis
  • Digestion
  • Feces / chemistry
  • Horses / anatomy & histology
  • Particle Size
  • Catheterization / veterinary

Grant Funding

  • The Faculty of Biosciences of the Norwegian University of Life Sciences supported this work

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

This article includes 38 references
  1. nANKOMn. Acid detergent fiber in feeds—Filter bag technique (for A200 and A200I). .
  2. nANKOMn. Neutral detergent fiber in feeds—Filter bag technique (for A200 and A200I). .
  3. Argenzio RA, Lowe JE, Pickard DW, Stevens CE. Digesta passage and water exchange in the equine large intestine.. Am J Physiol 1974 May;226(5):1035-42.
    pubmed: 4207578doi: 10.1152/ajplegacy.1974.226.5.1035google scholar: lookup
  4. Argenzio RA, Southworth M, Stevens CE. Sites of organic acid production and absorption in the equine gastrointestinal tract.. Am J Physiol 1974 May;226(5):1043-50.
    pubmed: 4824856doi: 10.1152/ajplegacy.1974.226.5.1043google scholar: lookup
  5. 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. Livestock Science 100, 33–43.
  6. Björnhag G, Sperber I, Holtenius K. A separation mechanism in the large intestine of equines. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 64(Suppl), 89–90.
  7. Bruining M, Bosch MW. Ruminal passage rate as affected by CrNDF particle size. Animal Feed Science and Technology 37, 193–200.
  8. Clauss M, Hummel J, Schwarm A, Steuer P, Fritz J, Martin Jurado O, Tschudin A, Hatt JM. An isthmus at the caecocolical junction is an anatomical feature of domestic and wild equids. European Journal of Wildlife Research 54, 347–351.
  9. Clauss M, Schiele K, Ortmann S, Fritz J, Codron D, Hummel J, Kienzle E. The effect of very low food intake on digestive physiology and forage digestibility in horses.. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl) 2014 Feb;98(1):107-18.
    pubmed: 23402587doi: 10.1111/jpn.12053google scholar: lookup
  10. Clauss M, Schwarm A, Ortmann S, Alber D, Flach EJ, Kühne R, Hummel J, Streich WJ, Hofer H. Intake, ingesta retention, particle size distribution and digestibility in the hippopotamidae.. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 2004 Dec;139(4):449-59.
    pubmed: 15596390doi: 10.1016/j.cbpb.2004.10.002google scholar: lookup
  11. Cork SJ, Hume ID, Faichney GJ. Digestive strategies of non‐ruminant herbivores: The role of the hindgut. Nutritional ecology of herbivores pp. 210–260.
  12. Dittmann MT, Runge U, Ortmann S, Lang RA, Moser D, Galeffi C, Schwarm A, Kreuzer M, Clauss M. Digesta retention patterns of solute and different-sized particles in camelids compared with ruminants and other foregut fermenters.. J Comp Physiol B 2015 Jul;185(5):559-73.
    pubmed: 25921796doi: 10.1007/s00360-015-0904-xgoogle scholar: lookup
  13. Drogoul C, Poncet C, Tisserand JL. Feeding ground and pelleted hay rather than chopped hay to ponies. I. Consequences for in vivo digestibility and rate of passage of digesta. Animal Feed Science and Technology 87, 117–130.
  14. Erdman RA, Smith LW. Ytterbium binding among particle size fractions of forage cell walls. Journal of Dairy Science 68, 3071–3075.
  15. Grandl F, Schwarm A, Ortmann S, Furger M, Kreuzer M, Clauss M. Kinetics of solutes and particles of different size in the digestive tract of cattle of 0.5-10 years of age, and relationships with methane production.. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl) 2018 Jun;102(3):639-651.
    pubmed: 29286177doi: 10.1111/jpn.12862google scholar: lookup
  16. Harris PA, Ellis AD, Fradinho MJ, Jansson A, Julliand V, Luthersson N, Santos AS, Vervuert I. Review: Feeding conserved forage to horses: recent advances and recommendations.. Animal 2017 Jun;11(6):958-967.
    pubmed: 27881201doi: 10.1017/s1751731116002469google scholar: lookup
  17. Hristov AN, Bannink A, Crompton LA, Huhtanen P, Kreuzer M, McGee M, Nozière P, Reynolds CK, Bayat AR, Yáñez-Ruiz DR, Dijkstra J, Kebreab E, Schwarm A, Shingfield KJ, Yu Z. Invited review: Nitrogen in ruminant nutrition: A review of measurement techniques.. J Dairy Sci 2019 Jul;102(7):5811-5852.
    pubmed: 31030912doi: 10.3168/jds.2018-15829google scholar: lookup
  18. Hummel J, Scheurich F, Ortmann S, Crompton LA, Gerken M, Clauss M. Comparative selective retention of particle size classes in the gastrointestinal tract of ponies and goats.. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl) 2018 Apr;102(2):429-439.
    pubmed: 28696048doi: 10.1111/jpn.12763google scholar: lookup
  19. Matsuda I, Espinosa-Gómez FC, Ortmann S, Sha JCM, Osman I, Nijboer J, Schwarm A, Ikeda T, Clauss M. Retention marker excretion suggests incomplete digesta mixing across the order primates.. Physiol Behav 2019 Sep 1;208:112558.
    pubmed: 31125579doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2019.112558google scholar: lookup
  20. Matsuda I, Sha JC, Ortmann S, Schwarm A, Grandl F, Caton J, Jens W, Kreuzer M, Marlena D, Hagen KB, Clauss M. Excretion patterns of solute and different-sized particle passage markers in foregut-fermenting proboscis monkey (Nasalis larvatus) do not indicate an adaptation for rumination.. Physiol Behav 2015 Oct 1;149:45-52.
    pubmed: 26004169doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2015.05.020google scholar: lookup
  21. 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. Animal Feed Science and Technology 165, 61–67.
  22. Moore-Colyer MJ, 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 Jul;90(1):109-18.
    pubmed: 12844382doi: 10.1079/bjn2003869google scholar: lookup
  23. Müller DW, Caton J, Codron D, Schwarm A, Lentle R, Streich WJ, Hummel J, Clauss M. Phylogenetic constraints on digesta separation: Variation in fluid throughput in the digestive tract in mammalian herbivores.. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 2011 Oct;160(2):207-20.
    pubmed: 21689778doi: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2011.06.004google scholar: lookup
  24. Munn AJ, Tomlinson S, Savage T, Clauss M. Retention of different-sized particles and derived gut fill estimate in tammar wallabies (Macropus eugenii): physiological and methodological considerations.. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 2012 Feb;161(2):243-9.
    pubmed: 22094100doi: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2011.11.003google scholar: lookup
  25. Ouedraougo T. Contribution à l’étude de l'utilisation digestive compareée de régimes à base de fourrages pauvres chez le mouton et l’âne. Thesis University of Ouagadougou, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.
  26. Pearson RA, Archibald RF, Muirhead RH. A comparison of the effect of forage type and level of feeding on the digestibility and gastrointestinal mean retention time of dry forages given to cattle, sheep, ponies and donkeys.. Br J Nutr 2006 Jan;95(1):88-98.
    pubmed: 16441920doi: 10.1079/bjn20051617google scholar: lookup
  27. Pulse RE, Baker JP, Potter GD. Effects of cecal fistulation upon nutrient digestion and indicator retention in horses.. J Anim Sci 1973 Aug;37(2):488-92.
    pubmed: 4748481doi: 10.2527/jas1973.372488xgoogle scholar: lookup
  28. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Version 3.4.1. R Foundation for Statistical Computing .
  29. Randby ÅT, Nørgaard P, Weisbjerg MR. Effect of increasing plant maturity in timothy‐dominated grass silage on the performance of growing/finishing Norwegian Red bulls. Grass and Forage Science 65, 273–286.
  30. Schwarm A, Ortmann S, Wolf C, Streich WJ, Clauss M. Excretion patterns of fluid and different sized particle passage markers in banteng (Bos javanicus) and pygmy hippopotamus (Hexaprotodon liberiensis): two functionally different foregut fermenters.. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 2008 May;150(1):32-9.
    pubmed: 18378479doi: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2008.02.022google scholar: lookup
  31. Schwarm A, Ortmann S, Wolf C, Streich WJ, Clauss M. Passage marker excretion in red kangaroo (Macropus rufus), collared peccary (Pecari tajacu) and colobine monkeys (Colobus angolensis, C. polykomos, Trachypithecus johnii).. J Exp Zool A Ecol Genet Physiol 2009 Nov 1;311(9):647-61.
    pubmed: 19551808doi: 10.1002/jez.552google scholar: lookup
  32. Siddons RC, Paradine J, Beever DE, Cornell PR. Ytterbium acetate as a particulate-phase digesta-flow marker.. Br J Nutr 1985 Sep;54(2):509-19.
    pubmed: 2998454doi: 10.1079/bjn19850136google scholar: lookup
  33. Silva VP, Queiroz de Almeida F, Moreira Pimentel RR, Nascimento de Godoi F, Marques dos Santos T, Sandes Pires M. Passage kinetics of digesta in horses fed with coastcross hay ground to different degrees. Ciência e Agrotecnologia 38, 506–514.
  34. Sperber I, Björnhag G, Holtenius K. A separation mechanism and fluid flow in the large intestine of the equine. Pferdeheilkunde, 1st European Conference on Equine Nutrition 29−32.
  35. Thielemans MF, François E, Bodart C, Thewis A. Mesure du transit gastrointestinal chez le porc a l'aide des radiolanthanides. Comparaison avec le mouton. Annales de Biologie Animale, Biochimie, Biophysique 18, 237–247.
  36. 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 Jul;31(7):625-32.
    pubmed: 6779056doi: 10.1002/jsfa.2740310702google scholar: lookup
  37. Udén P, Rounsaville TR, Wiggans GR, Van Soest PJ. The measurement of liquid and solid digesta retention in ruminants, equines and rabbits given timothy (Phleum pratense) hay.. Br J Nutr 1982 Sep;48(2):329-39.
    pubmed: 6810917doi: 10.1079/bjn19820117google scholar: lookup
  38. Van Weyenberg S, Sales J, Janssens GPJ. Passage rate of digesta through the equine gastrointestinal tract: A review. Livestock Science 99, 3–12.

Citations

This article has been cited 3 times.
  1. Vinzelj J, Nash K, Jones AL, Young RT, Meili CH, Pratt CJ, Wang Y, Elshahed MS, Youssef NH. Anaerobic gut fungal community in ostriches (Struthio camelus). ISME Commun 2025 Jan;5(1):ycaf144.
    doi: 10.1093/ismeco/ycaf144pubmed: 40949840google scholar: lookup
  2. Abraham AJ, Duvall ES, Doughty CE, Riond B, Ortmann S, Terranova M, le Roux E, Clauss M. Sodium Retention in Large Herbivores: Physiological Insights and Zoogeochemical Consequences. J Exp Zool A Ecol Integr Physiol 2025 Jul;343(6):664-676.
    doi: 10.1002/jez.2924pubmed: 40247661google scholar: lookup
  3. Vinzelj J, Nash K, Jones AL, Young RT, Meili CH, Pratt CJ, Wang Y, Elshahed MS, Youssef NH. The anaerobic gut fungal community in ostriches (Struthio camelus). bioRxiv 2025 Mar 30;.
    doi: 10.1101/2025.03.28.646006pubmed: 40196465google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 100,113 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.