FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Veterinary research communications2026; 50(4); 258; doi: 10.1007/s11259-026-11194-4

Physiological and nutritional adaptation of broodmares during the transition from late pregnancy to early lactation: Digestibility changes and the role of uNDF as an internal marker.

Abstract: Nutritional management of broodmares during late pregnancy and early lactation is essential for maternal health and foal well-being. This study evaluated a targeted dietary adaptation during the transition from late gestation to early lactation, monitored nutrient digestibility, and applied undigested neutral detergent fiber (uNDF) as an intrinsic digestibility marker. A prospective nutritional study was conducted on 11 clinically healthy Trotter broodmares (3 primiparous, 8 multiparous) monitored under standardized conditions. Mares received a forage-based diet with controlled starch intake and a concentrate adjusted to the physiological stage. Feed and fecal samples were collected to determine nutrient digestibility using uNDF. The dietary protocol was effective, with no evidence of impaired intestinal fermentation. Digestibility values remained within ranges reported for healthy horses (organic matter 56–63%, crude protein 69–80%, starch 79–86%, neutral detergent fiber 39–42%), suggesting no marked impairment of nutrient utilization. Based on fecal analysis, peripartum changes in fermentation were observed, particularly on the day of parturition, but remained within physiological limits. A slight, but significant, increase in fecal dry matter (+ 3%) suggested a predisposition to postpartum constipation. Starch digestibility increased during parturition (up to 87%), possibly associated with a transient reduction in gastrointestinal transit rate, while fiber digestibility remained stable. Digestibility estimates obtained using uNDF were consistent with values reported using total fecal collection, supporting its applicability as a non-invasive marker. These findings support gradual dietary transitions in broodmares and show that uNDF was successfully applied as an internal marker to verify the changes in nutrient digestibility observed during the study.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2026-04-09 PubMed ID: 41954666PubMed Central: 11046934DOI: 10.1007/s11259-026-11194-4Google 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.

This study followed 11 broodmares from late pregnancy through early lactation to see how a carefully managed, forage-based diet affected nutrient digestibility and whether undigested neutral detergent fiber (uNDF) could non-invasively track those changes. Digestibility stayed within healthy ranges with only brief, physiological shifts around foaling, and uNDF performed well as an internal marker.

What the study asked and why it matters

  • Question 1: Does a gradual, forage-based, controlled-starch diet support normal nutrient digestibility as mares transition from late gestation to early lactation?
  • Question 2: Can undigested neutral detergent fiber (uNDF) serve as a practical, non-invasive internal marker to estimate digestibility in broodmares?
  • Why it matters: The peripartum period is a time of high nutritional demand and altered gastrointestinal (GI) motility; managing feed and monitoring digestive function are critical for mare health and foal well-being, yet traditional methods (e.g., total fecal collection) are laborious and intrusive.

Study design and feeding protocol

  • Design: Prospective nutritional study under standardized management conditions.
  • Animals: 11 healthy Trotter broodmares (3 primiparous, 8 multiparous).
  • Diet: Forage-based ration with controlled starch intake; concentrate adjusted to physiological stage (late gestation vs early lactation).
  • Sampling: Feed and fecal samples collected across the peripartum period; feces analyzed to estimate apparent total-tract digestibility using uNDF as an internal marker.
  • Rationale for approach: Avoids invasive total fecal collection and external markers, aiming to reflect real-world management.

About the uNDF internal marker

  • Definition: uNDF is the fraction of neutral detergent fiber that resists digestion and passes through the GI tract, enabling its use as an intrinsic, indigestible marker.
  • How it estimates digestibility: Marker ratio method comparing marker and nutrient concentrations in feed vs feces to compute apparent digestibility without collecting all feces.
  • Advantages: Non-invasive, uses intrinsic feed components, reduces handling stress, and is feasible under field conditions.
  • Assumptions and caveats: Requires accurate fiber analysis; presumes uNDF behaves similarly across physiological states and diets; laboratory methods (e.g., long incubations) must be standardized.

Main findings

  • Overall digestibility remained within published healthy-horse ranges, indicating effective dietary management and normal GI function.
  • Reported ranges across the study period:
    • Organic matter: 56–63%.
    • Crude protein: 69–80%.
    • Starch: 79–86% overall, with a transient rise up to 87% at parturition.
    • Neutral detergent fiber: 39–42% (stable).
  • Fecal analyses indicated peripartum shifts in fermentation patterns, particularly on the foaling day, but values stayed within physiological limits.
  • Fecal dry matter increased slightly but significantly postpartum (+3%), suggesting a mild predisposition to constipation after foaling.
  • No evidence of impaired intestinal fermentation (e.g., no sign of marked starch spillover or hindgut disturbance under this protocol).
  • uNDF-based digestibility estimates aligned with ranges reported from studies using total fecal collection, supporting its applicability as a non-invasive marker.

Physiological interpretation

  • Transient rise in starch digestibility at foaling likely reflects a short-lived reduction in GI transit rate around parturition, giving more time for small-intestinal starch digestion.
  • Stable fiber digestibility suggests a resilient hindgut microbial ecosystem when mares are maintained on a forage-based, controlled-starch diet through the transition.
  • The modest increase in fecal dry matter postpartum is consistent with slightly reduced gut motility and/or hydration around foaling, which can predispose to mild constipation.

Implications for feeding and management

  • Prioritize gradual dietary transitions across late gestation and early lactation to minimize GI perturbations.
  • Maintain a high-quality, forage-based ration with controlled starch to support stable hindgut function.
  • Monitor manure output and fecal consistency closely in the immediate postpartum period; address mild constipation risk proactively.
  • Ensure abundant fresh water and consider electrolyte support around foaling to support hydration and motility.
  • Encourage light movement as appropriate postpartum to promote GI transit.
  • For research and advanced monitoring, uNDF offers a practical, non-invasive option to estimate digestibility without total fecal collection.

Methodological strengths and limitations

  • Strengths:
    • Prospective design with standardized management.
    • Real-world, forage-based feeding with stage-appropriate concentrate adjustments.
    • Non-invasive digestibility estimation using an intrinsic marker.
  • Limitations:
    • Small sample size and single breed (Trotter), which may limit generalizability.
    • Validation of uNDF was comparative to published total fecal collection values rather than measured concurrently.
    • Passage rate, detailed microbiome composition, and foal outcomes were not directly assessed.
    • Not powered to detect differences between primiparous and multiparous mares.

How this fits with prior work

  • Digestibility values match established ranges for healthy horses, reinforcing that a controlled-starch, forage-focused approach sustains normal GI function through foaling.
  • Findings add to growing evidence that uNDF, widely used in ruminant nutrition, is also a viable internal marker for equine digestibility studies.

Take-home messages

  • A gradual, forage-based, controlled-starch diet maintained normal nutrient digestibility as mares moved from late pregnancy into early lactation.
  • Only short-lived, physiological shifts were observed around parturition, with a small increase in fecal dry matter indicating a mild constipation risk postpartum.
  • uNDF functioned effectively as a non-invasive internal marker to track digestibility changes in broodmares.

Cite This Article

APA
Lamanna M, Mariella J, Freccero F, Lanci A, Colleluori R, Ghiaccio F, Buonaiuto G, Valle E, Raspa F, Castagnetti C, Cavallini D. (2026). Physiological and nutritional adaptation of broodmares during the transition from late pregnancy to early lactation: Digestibility changes and the role of uNDF as an internal marker. Vet Res Commun, 50(4), 258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11259-026-11194-4

Publication

Veterinary research communications
ISSN: 1573-7446
NlmUniqueID: 8100520
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 50
Issue: 4
PII: 258

Researcher Affiliations

Lamanna, Martina
  • Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, Ozzano dell'Emilia (BO), 40064, Italy. martina.lamanna5@unibo.it.
Mariella, Jole
  • Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, Ozzano dell'Emilia (BO), 40064, Italy.
Freccero, Francesca
  • Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, Ozzano dell'Emilia (BO), 40064, Italy.
Lanci, Aliai
  • Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, Ozzano dell'Emilia (BO), 40064, Italy.
Colleluori, Riccardo
  • Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, Ozzano dell'Emilia (BO), 40064, Italy. riccardo.colleluori2@unibo.it.
Ghiaccio, Francesca
  • Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, Ozzano dell'Emilia (BO), 40064, Italy.
Buonaiuto, Giovanni
  • Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, Ozzano dell'Emilia (BO), 40064, Italy.
Valle, Emanuela
  • Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Turin, Grugliasco (TO), 10095, Italy.
Raspa, Federica
  • Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Turin, Grugliasco (TO), 10095, Italy.
Castagnetti, Carolina
  • Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, Ozzano dell'Emilia (BO), 40064, Italy.
Cavallini, Damiano
  • Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, Ozzano dell'Emilia (BO), 40064, Italy.

Conflict of Interest Statement

Declarations. Ethical approval: All procedures were conducted in accordance with Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes and complied with the European Union legal standards for the welfare of farmed animals (Directive 98/58/EC). Animal-related protocols were reviewed and approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the University of Bologna (Protocol No. 4405). Consent to participate: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

References

This article includes 62 references
  1. AOAC (1990) Official methods of analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 15th edn. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA
  2. Berg E, Fu C, Porter J, Kerley M (2005) Fructooligosaccharide supplementation in the yearling horse: effects on fecal pH, microbial content, and volatile fatty acid concentrations. J Anim Sci 83:1549–1553
    doi: 10.2527/2005.8371549xpubmed: 15956463google scholar: lookup
  3. Bergero D (1996) Prediction of the body weight of the saddle horse. Obiettivi e Documenti Veterinari (Italy) 17
  4. Bergero D, Préfontaine C, Miraglia N, Peiretti P (2009) A comparison between the 2 N and 4 N HCl acid-insoluble ash methods for digestibility trials in horses. Anim 3:1728–1732. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731109990656
    doi: 10.1017/S1751731109990656google scholar: lookup
  5. Bordin C, Raspa F, Greppi M et al (2024) Pony feeding management: the role of morphology and hay feeding methods on intake rate, ingestive behaviors and mouth shaping. Front Vet Sci 11:1332207. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2024.1332207
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1332207pubmed: 38681853pmc: 11046934google scholar: lookup
  6. Buonaiuto G, Cavallini D, Mammi LME et al (2021) The accuracy of NIRS in predicting chemical composition and fibre digestibility of hay-based total mixed rations. Ital J Anim Sci 20:1730–1739. https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2021.1990804
    doi: 10.1080/1828051X.2021.1990804google scholar: lookup
  7. Cavallini D, Palmonari A, Mammi LME et al (2023) Evaluation of fecal sampling time points to estimate apparent nutrient digestibility in lactating Holstein dairy cows. Front Vet Sci 9:1065258. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.1065258
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.1065258pubmed: 36686178pmc: 9849752google scholar: lookup
  8. Cavallini D, Penazzi L, Valle E et al (2022) When changing the hay makes a difference: a series of case reports. J Equine Vet Sci 113:103940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jevs.2022.103940
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2022.103940pubmed: 35341909google scholar: lookup
  9. Coenen M (1992) Chloridkonzentrationen und -mengen im Verdauungskanal des Pferdes. Pferdeheilkunde Sonderheft 8:73–76
  10. de Fombelle A, Veiga L, Drogoul C, Julliand V (2004) Effect of diet composition and feeding pattern on the prececal digestibility of starches from diverse botanical origins measured with the mobile nylon bag technique in horses. J Anim Sci 82:3625x–33634. https://doi.org/10.2527/2004.82123625xx
    doi: 10.2527/2004.82123625xxgoogle scholar: lookup
  11. Derisoud E, Auclair-Ronzaud J, Palmer E et al (2021) Female age and parity in horses: how and why does it matter? Reprod Fertil Dev 34:52–116. https://doi.org/10.1071/RD21267
    doi: 10.1071/RD21267pubmed: 35231230google scholar: lookup
  12. Elzinga S, Nielsen BD, Schott HC et al (2014) Comparison of nutrient digestibility between adult and aged horses. J Equine Vet Sci 34:1164–1169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jevs.2014.06.021
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2014.06.021google scholar: lookup
  13. Friend TH (2000) Dehydration, stress, and water consumption of horses during long-distance commercial transport. J Anim Sci 78:2568–2580. https://doi.org/10.2527/2000.78102568x
    doi: 10.2527/2000.78102568xpubmed: 11048922google scholar: lookup
  14. Garber A, Hastie P, Murray J-A (2020) Factors influencing equine gut microbiota: current knowledge. J Equine Vet Sci 88:102943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jevs.2020.102943
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2020.102943pubmed: 32303307google scholar: lookup
  15. Geor RJ, Harris P, Coenen M (2013) Equine applied and clinical nutrition: health, welfare and performance. Elsevier Health Sciences
  16. Ginther OJ (1992) Reproductive biology of the mare: basic and applied aspects, 2nd edn. Equiservices, Cross Plains, WI
  17. Greppi M, Bordin C, Raspa F et al (2024) Feeding behaviour related to different feeding devices. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl) 108:1393–1404. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.13977
    doi: 10.1111/jpn.13977pubmed: 38704815google scholar: lookup
  18. Harris PA, Ellis AD, Fradinho MJ et al (2017) Review: Feeding conserved forage to horses: recent advances and recommendations. animal 11:958–967. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731116002469
    doi: 10.1017/S1751731116002469pubmed: 27881201google scholar: lookup
  19. Harris P, Shepherd M (2021) What would be good for all veterinarians to know about equine nutrition. Veterinary Clinics: Equine Pract 37:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cveq.2020.11.001
    doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2020.11.001google scholar: lookup
  20. Henneke DR, Potter GD, Kreider JL (1984) Body condition during pregnancy and lactation and reproductive efficiency of mares. Theriogenology 21:897–909. https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-691X(84)90383-2
    doi: 10.1016/0093-691X(84)90383-2google scholar: lookup
  21. Henneke DR, Potter GD, Kreider JL, Yeates BF (1983) Relationship between condition score, physical measurements and body fat percentage in mares. Equine Veterinary Journal 5(4):371–2. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2042-3306.1983.tb01826.x
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1983.tb01826.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  22. Hudson JM, Cohen ND, Gibbs PG, Thompson JA (2001) Feeding practices associated with colic in horses. J Am Vet Med Assoc 219:1419–1425. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.2001.219.1419
    doi: 10.2460/javma.2001.219.1419pubmed: 11724182google scholar: lookup
  23. Julliand V, de Fombelle A, Drogoul C, Jacotot E (2001) Feeding and microbial disorders in horses: Part 3—effects of three hay:grain ratios on microbial profile and activities. J Equine Vet Sci 21:543–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0737-0806(01)70159-1
    doi: 10.1016/S0737-0806(01)70159-1google scholar: lookup
  24. Kienzle E, Pohlenz J, Radicke S (1997) Morphology of starch digestion in the horse. J Vet Med A 44:207–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0442.1997.tb01103.x
    doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0442.1997.tb01103.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  25. Lamanna M, Buonaiuto G, Colleluori R et al (2025a) Time-Activity Budget in Horses and Ponies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Feeding Dynamics and Management Implications. J Equine Vet Sci 105684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jevs.2025.105684
  26. Lamanna M, Muca E, Giannone C et al (2025b) Artificial intelligence meets dairy cow research: Large language model’s application in extracting daily time-activity budget data for a meta-analytical study. J Dairy Sci 108:10203–10219. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2025-26385
    doi: 10.3168/jds.2025-26385pubmed: 40685128google scholar: lookup
  27. LeBlanc MM (2008) Common peripartum problems in the mare. J Equine Vet Sci 28:709–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jevs.2008.10.007
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2008.10.007google scholar: lookup
  28. Martin-Rosset W (ed) (2015) Equine nutrition: INRA nutrient requirements, recommended allowances and feed tables. Brill
  29. Mertens DR (2002) Gravimetric determination of amylase-treated neutral detergent fiber in feeds with refluxing in beakers or crucibles: collaborative study. J AOAC Int 85:1217–1240
    doi: 10.1093/jaoac/85.6.1217pubmed: 12477183google scholar: lookup
  30. Mertens DR (2003) Challenges in measuring insoluble dietary fiber. J Anim Sci 81:3233–3249. https://doi.org/10.2527/2003.81123233x
    doi: 10.2527/2003.81123233xpubmed: 14677881google scholar: lookup
  31. Meyer H, Ahlswede L, Reinhardt HJ (1975) Duration of feeding, frequency of chewing and physical form of the feed for horses. Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr 82:54–58
    pubmed: 1091440
  32. Microsoft Corporation (2018) Microsoft Excel. Retrieved from https://office.microsoft.com/excel
  33. Muizelaar W, Bani P, Kuhla B et al (2020) Rumen fluid sampling via oral stomach tubing method. https://journals.publisso.de/index.php/de/publisso_gold/publishing/books/overview/53/189
  34. National Research Council - NRC (US) (2007) Nutrient Requirements of Horses: Sixth Revised Edition. National Academies Press, Washington, DC
  35. National Research Council - NRC (US) Subcommittee on the Tenth Edition of the Recommended Dietary Allowances (1989) Recommended Dietary Allowances: 10th Edition. National Academies Press, Washington, DC
  36. Pagan JD (1998) Nutrient digestibility in horses. Advances in equine nutrition. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, pp 77–87
  37. Palmonari A, Damiano Cavallini CJ, Sniffen et al (2021) In vitro evaluation of sugar digestibility in molasses. Ital J Anim Sci 20:571–577. https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2021.1899063
    doi: 10.1080/1828051X.2021.1899063google scholar: lookup
  38. Palmonari A, Gallo A, Fustini M et al (2016) Estimation of the indigestible fiber in different forage types. J Anim Sci 94:248–254. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2015-9649
    doi: 10.2527/jas.2015-9649pubmed: 26812331google scholar: lookup
  39. Raspa F, Chessa S, Bergero D et al (2024) Microbiota characterization throughout the digestive tract of horses fed a high-fiber vs. a high-starch diet. Front Vet Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2024.1386135
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1386135pubmed: 39290503pmc: 11405376google scholar: lookup
  40. Raspa F, Dinardo FR, Vervuert I et al (2022a) A fibre- vs. cereal grain-based diet: which is better for horse welfare? Effects on intestinal permeability, muscle characteristics and oxidative status in horses reared for meat production. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl) 106:313–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.13643
    doi: 10.1111/jpn.13643pubmed: 34553422google scholar: lookup
  41. Raspa F, Tarantola M, Bergero D et al (2020a) Stocking density affects welfare indicators in horses reared for meat production. Animals 10:1103. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10061103
    doi: 10.3390/ani10061103pubmed: 32604808pmc: 7341190google scholar: lookup
  42. Raspa F, Tarantola M, Bergero D et al (2020b) Time-budget of horses reared for meat production: influence of stocking density on behavioural activities and subsequent welfare. Animals 10:1334. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10081334
    doi: 10.3390/ani10081334pubmed: 32752257pmc: 7460472google scholar: lookup
  43. Raspa F, Vervuert I, Capucchio MT et al (2022b) A high-starch vs. high-fibre diet: effects on the gut environment of the different intestinal compartments of the horse digestive tract. BMC Vet Res 18:187. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-022-03289-2
    doi: 10.1186/s12917-022-03289-2pubmed: 35590319pmc: 9118577google scholar: lookup
  44. Rosenfeld I, Austbø D (2009) Effect of type of grain and feed processing on gastrointestinal retention times in horses. J Anim Sci 87:3991–3996.  https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2008-1150Lu
  45. Saha SK, Pathak NN (2021) Fundamentals of animal nutrition. Springer, Singapore
    doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-9125-9google scholar: lookup
  46. Sales J (2012) A review on the use of indigestible dietary markers to determine total tract apparent digestibility of nutrients in horses. Anim Feed Sci Technol 174:119–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2012.03.005
    doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2012.03.005google scholar: lookup
  47. Santos AS, Rodrigues MAM, Bessa RJB et al (2011) Understanding the equine cecum-colon ecosystem: current knowledge and future perspectives. Animal 5:48–56. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731110001588
    doi: 10.1017/S1751731110001588pubmed: 22440701google scholar: lookup
  48. Schurg WA (1981) Alternative roughage utilization by horses. I. Evaluation of untreated and sodium hydroxide treated wheat straw in horse diets. In: Proceedings of the 7th Equine Nutrition and Physiology Society, pp 8–9
  49. 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) 106:1356–1363. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.13757
    doi: 10.1111/jpn.13757pubmed: 35894118pmc: 9796864google scholar: lookup
  50. Scott BD, Potter GD, Greene LW et al (1992) Efficacy of a fat-supplemented diet on muscle glycogen concentrations in exercising thoroughbred horses maintained in varying body conditions. J Equine Vet Sci 12:109–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0737-0806(06)81291-8
    doi: 10.1016/S0737-0806(06)81291-8google scholar: lookup
  51. Sjaastad OV, Sand O, Hove K (2010) Physiology of domestic animals. Scan. Vet.
  52. Spadari A, Gialletti R, Gandini M et al (2023) Short-Term Survival and Postoperative Complications Rates in Horses Undergoing Colic Surgery: A Multicentre Study. Animals. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13061107
    doi: 10.3390/ani13061107pubmed: 36978647pmc: 10044551google scholar: lookup
  53. Sprayberry KA (2021) Managing Reproduction Emergencies in the Field: Part 2: Parturient and Periparturient Conditions. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Equine Practice 37:367–405. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2008-1150
  54. Tilley JMA, Terry RA (1963) A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Grass Forage Sci 18:104–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2494.1963.tb00335.x
    doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2494.1963.tb00335.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  55. U.S. Department of Agriculture (1949) Agriculture handbook. USDA, Washington, DC
  56. Valle E, Gandini M, Bergero D (2013) Management of chronic diarrhea in an adult horse. J Equine Vet Sci 33:130–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jevs.2012.05.061
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2012.05.061google scholar: lookup
  57. Valle E, Raspa F, Giribaldi M et al (2017) A functional approach to the body condition assessment of lactating donkeys as a tool for welfare evaluation. PeerJ 5:e3001. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3001
    doi: 10.7717/peerj.3001pubmed: 28367363pmc: 5372837google scholar: lookup
  58. Van Soest PJ (1994) Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. Cornell University Press
    doi: 10.7591/9781501732355google scholar: lookup
  59. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA (1991) Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 74:3583–3597. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2
    doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2pubmed: 1660498google scholar: lookup
  60. Vinassa M, Cavallini D, Galaverna D et al (2020) Palatability assessment in horses in relation to lateralization and temperament. Appl Anim Behav Sci 232:105110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2020.105110
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2020.105110google scholar: lookup
  61. Willard JG, Willard JC, Wolfram SA, Baker JP (1977) Effect of diet on cecal Ph and feeding behavior of horses1. J Anim Sci 45:87–93. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1977.45187x
    doi: 10.2527/jas1977.45187xpubmed: 18431google scholar: lookup
  62. Williams S, Cooper JD, Freeman SL (2014) Evaluation of normal findings using a detailed and focused technique for transcutaneous abdominal ultrasonography in the horse. BMC Vet Res 10:S5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-6148-10-S1-S5
    doi: 10.1186/1746-6148-10-S1-S5pubmed: 25238559pmc: 4122957google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 106,245 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.