Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T19:39:51.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative digestion of timothy (Phleum pratense) fibre by ruminants, equines and rabbits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

Peter Udén  and
Peter J. Van Soest
Peter Udén
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA
Peter J. Van Soest
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. The abilities of cattle, sheep, goats, equines and rabbits to digest mature timothy (Phleum pratense) hay were compared. Apparent digestibilities were partitioned into true digestibility, metabolic faecal output (MFO) and fibre digestibility. The aim of the study was to determine the relative effects of fermentation site (among groups) and of body-weight (within groups) on the efficiency of digestion.

2. The ruminants were superior to equines, which were in turn superior to rabbits, in digesting fibre components of the hay. A large individual variation in digestibility was noted only for the equines. Increasing body-weight was associated with higher digestibility in ruminants, but no such trends were seen in the non-ruminants.

3. The MFO expressed as a proportion of dry matter intake gave similar values for all groups (0·085–0·118). As a proportion of available microbial substrate originating from the feed, the values were found to be 0·167 for the ruminant, 0·425 for the equines and 2·13 for the rabbits. The value for the rabbits shows that their lower tract microflora must obtain energy from non-fibre components of the feed. No appreciable digestion of the generated microbes by the host was suggested by the values obtained for the equines.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , March 1982 , pp. 267 - 272
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1982

References

Bailey, R. W. & Ulyatt, M. (1970). N.Z. Jl agric. Res. 13, 591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergen, W. G., Purser, D. B. & Cline, J. H. (1967). J. Anim. Sci. 27, 147.Google Scholar
Björnhag, B. (1972). Swedish J. agric. Res. 2, 125.Google Scholar
Hartley, R. D. (1972). J. Sci. Fd agric. 23, 1347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintz, H. F. (1969). The Vet. 6, 45.Google Scholar
Koller, B. L., Hintz, H. F., Robertson, J. B. & Van Soest, P. J. (1978). J. Anim. Sci. 47, 209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, V. C. (1969). J. agric. Sci., Camb., 73, 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, W. E. C., Cato, E. P. & Holderman, L. V. (1978). Am. J. clin. Nutr. 31, S33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council (1966). Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals, no. 9. Washington DC: National Research Council.Google Scholar
National Research Council (1971). Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals, no. 3. Washington DC: National Research Council.Google Scholar
National Research Council (1973). Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals, no. 6. Washington DC: National Research Council.Google Scholar
National Research Council (1975). Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals, no. 5. Washington DC: National Research Council.Google Scholar
Parra, R. (1978). In Ecology of Arboreal Folivores, pp. 205–229 [Montgomery, G. G., editor]. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
Slade, L. H. (1970). Nitrogen metabolism in non-ruminant herbivores. PhD Thesis, University of California, Davis, California.Google Scholar
Snyder, W. I. (1977). Feed constituent digestibility by adult and juvenile Cottontail rabbits. PhD Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Udén, P. (1978). Comparative studies on rate of passage, particle size and rate of digestion in ruminants, equines, rabbits and man. PhD Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Vander Noot, G. W. & Gilbreath, E. B. (1970). J. Anim. Sci. 31, 351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1963). J. Ass. Off. agric. Chem. 46, 825.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J., Robertson, J. B., Roe, D. A., Rivers, J., Lewis, B. A. & Hackler, L. R. (1978). Proc. Cornell Nutr. Conf. 1978. p. 5.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. & Wine, R. H. (1967). J. Ass. Off. agric. Chem. 50, 50.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. & Wine, R. H. (1968). J. Ass. Off. agric. Chem. 51, 780.Google Scholar
Vercellotti, J. R., Salyers, A. A. & Wilkins, T. D. (1978). Am. J. clin. Nutr. 31, S86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar