The measurement of liquid and solid digesta retention in ruminants, equines and rabbits given timothy (Phleum pratense) hay.
Abstract: 1. Digesta passage and retention were measured in heifers, sheep, goats, equines and rabbits of varying body-weights when given timothy (Phleum pratense) hay. 2. Two passage markers were compared, cobalt (III) ethylene diamine tetraacetate (CoEDTA) and chromiummordanted timothy fibre for liquid and solid phase respectively. Both markers were injected into the rumen of the ruminants and into the caecum of the equines and rabbits. 3. In ruminants, two different sets of rate constants (k1 and k2) were derived from a two-pool model for marker passage, using a graphical approach and a computer-based non-linear least-squares curve-fitting technique. 4. Retention times, due to unidirectional flow through the gastrointestinal tract (transit time) and due to pool effects (mean retention time, MRT), were calculated. 5. Curve fitting was only successful for the excretion of liquids in ruminants. The two-pool model was not applicable to the passage of solids. 6. Apparent retention of liquid was always shorter than for solids in all species, except in rabbits. However, absorption of CoEDTA was too large in the rabbits to determine liquid retention accurately. Times for first appearance of the two markers were similar within animal groups. 7. MRT values were lowest in the rabbit, intermediate in equines and high in the ruminants. The MRT values (h) of solids and liquids respectively were: large heifers 65, 18; small heifers 48, 20; goats 41, 28; sheep 57, 26; equines 23, 18; rabbits 5.3, not determined. 8. Liquid retention seemed to decrease somewhat with increasing body-weight in the ruminants. Solids retention decreased with decreasing body-weight in the ruminants, but sheep had longer retention times than goats of similar size. Equines exhibited large individual variation in retention of the liquid or solid markers, seemingly unrelated to size. No effect of size was seen in the retention of solids in the rabbits.
Publication Date: 1982-09-01 PubMed ID: 6810917DOI: 10.1079/bjn19820117Google 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.
- 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 article focuses on a comparative study of how different types of animals (ruminants, equines, and rabbits) digest the timothy hay (Phleum pratense). The team used two passage markers to observe the speed and extent of the digestion process and found key differences across species and body sizes.
Methodology
- The research involved several ruminants, equines, and rabbits of different body weights. They were all given Timothy hay to eat.
- For tracking the digestion process, two passage markers were used: one was Cobalt (III) Ethylene Diamine Tetraacetate (CoEDTA) for the liquid phase, and another was chromium-mordanted timothy fiber for the solid phase.
- These markers were injected directly into the rumen of the ruminants and into the caecum of the equines and rabbits, the primary digestive parts of these animals.
- The researchers used the two-pool model to observe the marker passage. This model gave two sets of rate constants: k1 and k2.
Findings
- The curve fitting approach was successful only for the tracking of liquids in ruminants; the same approach did not work for the passage of solids.
- In all species except rabbits, the liquid phase retention was comparatively shorter than the solid phase.
- The researchers experienced difficulties in determining liquid retention in rabbits due to excessive absorption of CoEDTA.
- Apparently, the time for the appearance of both markers was similar within respective animal groups.
Retention Times Analysis
- Mean retention times (MRTs) were lesser for rabbits than equines and ruminants.
- Surprisingly, Larger heifers exhibited higher MRT values for both solid (65 hours) and liquid (18 hours) materials than smaller heifers, goats, and sheep.
- However, equines showed significant individual variation in the retention of both liquid and solid markers, which seemed to be unrelated to size.
- The researchers did not find any effect of size in the retention of solids in the rabbits.
- In ruminants, the liquid retention seemed to decrease marginally with increasing body weight. In contrast, the retention of solid material decreased as ruminants’ body weight decreased.
Cite This Article
APA
Udén P, Rounsaville TR, Wiggans GR, Van Soest PJ.
(1982).
The measurement of liquid and solid digesta retention in ruminants, equines and rabbits given timothy (Phleum pratense) hay.
Br J Nutr, 48(2), 329-339.
https://doi.org/10.1079/bjn19820117 Publication
Researcher Affiliations
MeSH Terms
- Animal Feed
- Animals
- Body Weight
- Cattle
- Chromium
- Edetic Acid
- Feces / analysis
- Gastrointestinal Motility
- Goats
- Horses
- Poaceae
- Rabbits
- Sheep
- Time Factors
Citations
This article has been cited 11 times.- 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).
- Weimer PJ. Degradation of Cellulose and Hemicellulose by Ruminal Microorganisms. Microorganisms 2022 Nov 27;10(12).
- Schwarm A, Clauss M, Ortmann S, Jensen RB. No size-dependent net particle retention in the hindgut of horses. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl) 2022 Nov;106(6):1356-1363.
- Baniel A, Amato KR, Beehner JC, Bergman TJ, Mercer A, Perlman RF, Petrullo L, Reitsema L, Sams S, Lu A, Snyder-Mackler N. Seasonal shifts in the gut microbiome indicate plastic responses to diet in wild geladas. Microbiome 2021 Jan 23;9(1):26.
- Martínez-Romero E, Aguirre-Noyola JL, Bustamante-Brito R, González-Román P, Hernández-Oaxaca D, Higareda-Alvear V, Montes-Carreto LM, Martínez-Romero JC, Rosenblueth M, Servín-Garcidueñas LE. We and herbivores eat endophytes. Microb Biotechnol 2021 Jul;14(4):1282-1299.
- Tedeschi LO, Molle G, Menendez HM, Cannas A, Fonseca MA. The assessment of supplementation requirements of grazing ruminants using nutrition models. Transl Anim Sci 2019 Mar;3(2):811-828.
- Nawaz MA, Valentini A, Khan NK, Miquel C, Taberlet P, Swenson JE. Diet of the brown bear in Himalaya: Combining classical and molecular genetic techniques. PLoS One 2019;14(12):e0225698.
- Muñoz-Tamayo R, Popova M, Tillier M, Morgavi DP, Morel JP, Fonty G, Morel-Desrosiers N. Hydrogenotrophic methanogens of the mammalian gut: Functionally similar, thermodynamically different-A modelling approach. PLoS One 2019;14(12):e0226243.
- Crowley EJ, King JM, Wilkinson T, Worgan HJ, Huson KM, Rose MT, McEwan NR. Comparison of the microbial population in rabbits and guinea pigs by next generation sequencing. PLoS One 2017;12(2):e0165779.
- Yarnell K, Purcell RS, Walker SL. Fecal Glucocorticoid Analysis: Non-invasive Adrenal Monitoring in Equids. J Vis Exp 2016 Apr 25;(110).
- Henderson G, Cox F, Ganesh S, Jonker A, Young W, Janssen PH. Rumen microbial community composition varies with diet and host, but a core microbiome is found across a wide geographical range. Sci Rep 2015 Oct 9;5:14567.
Use Nutrition Calculator
Check if your horse's diet meets their nutrition requirements with our easy-to-use tool Check your horse's diet with our easy-to-use tool
Talk to a Nutritionist
Discuss your horse's feeding plan with our experts over a free phone consultation Discuss your horse's diet over a phone consultation
Submit Diet Evaluation
Get a customized feeding plan for your horse formulated by our equine nutritionists Get a custom feeding plan formulated by our nutritionists
