Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T05:18:39.278Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Digestive kinetics of moose (Alces alces), wapiti (Cervus elaphus) and cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

L. A. Renecker  and
R. J. Hudson
L. A. Renecker
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2P5
R. J. Hudson
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2P5
Get access

Abstract

Intake, rumen digesta pool sizes, ruminal digestion rates, passage rates of liquid and particle pools and faecal particle-size distrubutions of grass, browse and lucerne diets were compared in ruminally fistulated moose, wapiti and cattle. For each diet, ruminal digestion rates (nylon bag technique) were similar for the three ruminants. Intakes, rumen digesta pool sizes and passage rates varied among species and higher rates were associated with passage of larger faecal particles. However, it was not possible to simply rank the three ruminants as representative grazers (cattle), browsers (moose) and mixed feeders (wapiti) since intakes, passage rates and rumen pool sizes interacted with diet and season. Contrary to expectation, digestible dry matter intakes of each species were not greatest for their respective typical diets.

Keywords

Alces alcescattleCervus elaphusintakerumen digestion
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , February 1990 , pp. 51 - 61
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 1967. Method of determining modulus of uniformity and modulus of fineness of ground feed. Agricultural Engineers Yearbook, American Society of Agricultural Engineers 241.1, pp 301.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1983. SPSS-x User's Guide. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Baker, D. L. and Hansen, D. R. 1985. Comparative digestion in mule deer and elk. Journal of Wildlife Management 49: 77–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, D. L. and Hobbs, N. T. 1987. Strategies of digestive efficiency and retention time of forage diets in montane ungulates. Canadian Journal of Zoology 65: 1978–1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balch, C. C. and Campling, R. C. 1962. Regulation of voluntary food intake in ruminants. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews 32: 669–686.Google ScholarPubMed
Baumgarot, B. R. 1970. Control of feed intake in the regulation of energy balance. In Physiology of Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant (ed. Phillipson, A. T.), pp. 235–253. Oriel, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.Google Scholar
Demment, M. W. 1982. The scaling of ruminoreticulum size with body weight in East African ungulates. African Journal of Ecology 20: 43–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demment, M. W. and Van soest, P. J. 1985. A nutritional explanation for body-size patterns of ruminant and non-ruminant herbivores. American Naturalist 125: 641–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. and Milligan, L. P. 1985. Removal of digesta components from the rumen of steers determined by sieving techniques and fluid, paniculate and microbial markers. British Journal of Nutrition 53: 347–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, W. C., Lascano, C., Teeter, R. G. and Owens, F. N. 1982. Solute and paniculate How markers. In Protein Requirements for Cattle: Symposium 1981 (ed. Owens, F. N.), pp. 37–56. Oklahoma State University. Stillwater.Google Scholar
Foose, T. J. 1982. Trophic strategies of ruminant versus nonruminant ungulates. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Goering, H. K. and Van soest, P. J. 1970. Forage fiber analysis: apparatus, reagents procedures and some applications. Agricultural Handbook, United Stales Department of Agriculture, No. 379.Google Scholar
Hofmann, R. R. 1973. The Ruminant Stomach. East African Monographs in Biology, 2. East African Literature Bureau, Nairobi.Google Scholar
Hofmann, R. R. 1984. Comparative anatomical studies imply adaptive variations of ruminant digestive physiology. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 64: Suppl., pp. 203–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofmann, R. R. 1985. Digestive physiology of the deer — their morphophysiological specialization and adaptation (deer digestive system). In Biology of Deer Production (ed Fennessy, P. F. and Drew, K. R.), Royal Society of New Zealand Bulletin 22, Wellington. New Zealand, pp. 393–408.Google Scholar
Hofmann, R. R. 1988. Morphophysiological evolutionary adaptation of the ruminant digestive system. In Aspects of Digestive Physiology in Ruminants (ed. Dobson, M. A.), pp. 1–20. Cornell University Press. Ithaca.Google Scholar
Hunoate, R. E. 1966. The Rumen and Its Microbes. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Huston, J. E., Rector, B. S., Ellis, W. C. and Allen, M. L. 1986. Dynamics of digestion in cattle. sheep, goats and deer. Journal of Animal Science 62: 208–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jfnnrich, R. 1981. Nonlinear regression. In BMDP Statistical Software (ed. Dixon, W. J.). pp. 290–304. University of California Press, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Kay, R. N. B. 1979. Seasonal changes of appetite in deer and sheep. Agricultural Research Council Research Review 5: 13–15.Google Scholar
Kay, R. N. B. 1985. Seasonal variation of appetite in ruminants. In Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition — 1985 (ed. Haresign, W.), pp. 199–210. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, R. N. B. 1987. Comparative studies of food propulsion in ruminants. In Physiological and Pharmacological Aspects of the Reticulo-Rumen (ed. Ooms, L. A. A., Degryse, A. D. and Miert, A. S. J. P. A. M. Van), pp. 155–170. Martinus Nijhoff, Boston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, R. N. B., Englehart, W. V. and White, R. G. 1980. The digestive physiology of wild ruminants. In Digestive Physiology and Metabolism in Ruminants (ed. Ruckenbusch, Y. and Thivend, P.), pp. 743–762. MTP Press, Lancaster.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, P. M. 1985. Effects of rumination on reduction of particle size of rumen digesta by cattle. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 36: 819–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennklly, J. J., Apps, M. J., Turner, B. V. and Ahernf, F. X. 1980. Dysprosium, cerium and chromium marker determination by instrumental neutron activation analysis. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 60: 749–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lancer, P. 1984. Anatomical and nutritional adaptation ni wild herbivores. In Herbivore Nutrition in the Subtropics and Tropics (ed. Gilchrist, F. M. C. and Mackie, R. I.). pp. 185–203. Science Press, Johannesburg.Google Scholar
Lancer, P. 1987. Evolutionary patterns of Perissodactyla and Artiodactyla (Mammalia) with different types of digestion. Zeitschrift für Zoologische Systematise und Evolutionsforschung 25: 212–236.Google Scholar
Miixhunas, D. G., Dyer, M. I., Wallimo, O. C. and Johnson, D. E. 1978. In Vivotln Vitro relationships of Colorado mule deer forages. Colorado Division of Wildlife Special Report No. 43. Fort Collins.Google Scholar
Milne, J. A., MacRae, J. C., Spence, A. M. and Wilson, S. 1978. A comparison of the voluntary intake and digestion of a range of forages at different times of the year by sheep and red deer (Cervus elaphus). British Journal of Nutrition 40: 347–357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murthy, G. K., Rhea, U. and Peeler, J. T. 1971. Levels of antimony, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, manganese and zinc in institutional total diets. Science Technology, Canberra 5: 436–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Hovell, F. D. deb. and Mould, F. 1980. The use of nylon bag technique for the evaluation of foodstuffs. Tropical Animal Production 5: 195–213.Google Scholar
Ozoga, J. J. and Verme, L. J. 1970. Winter feeding patterns of penned white-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 34: 431–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parra, R. 1978. Comparison of the foregut and hindgut fermentation in herbivores. In The Ecology of Arboreal Folivores (ed. Montgomery, G. G.), pp. 205–229. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington.Google Scholar
Playne, M. J., Khumnualtiong, W. and Echevarria, M. G. 1978. Factors affecting the digestion of oesophageal fistula samples and hay samples in nylon bags in the rumen of cattle. Journal of Agricultural Science 90: 193–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poppi, D. P., Minson, D. J. and Ternouth, J. H. 1981. Studies of cattle and sheep eating leaf and stem fractions of grasses. I. The voluntary intake, digestibility and retention time in the reticulo-rumen. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 32: 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poppi, D. P., Norton, B. W., Minson, D. J. and Hendricksen, R. E. 1980. The validity of the critical size theory for particles leaving the rumen. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 94: 275–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prigge, E. C., Baker, M. J. and Varga, G. A. 1984. Comparative digestion, rumen fermentation and kinetics of forage diets by steers and wethers. Journal of Animal Science 59: 237–245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Renecker, L. A. and Hudson, R. J. 1989. Seasonal activity budgets of moose in aspen-dominated boreal forests. Journal of Wildlife Management 53: 296–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renecker, L. A., Hudson, R. J. and Berzins, R. 1982. Nylon bag digestibility and rate of passage of digesta in moose, wapiti and cattle. Alces 18: 1–16.Google Scholar
Richmond, R. J., Hudson, R. J. and Christopherson, R. J. 1977. Comparison of forage intake and digestibility by American bison, yak and cattle. Ada Theriologica 22: 225–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, C. C., Regelin, W. L., Franzmann, A. W., White, R. G. and Holleman, D. F. 1988. Food passage in moose. Alces 24: 97–101.Google Scholar
Spalincer, D. E., Robbins, C. T. and Hanley, T. A. 1986. The assessment of handling time in ruminants: the effect of plant chemical and physical structure on the rate of breakdown of plant particles in the rumen of mule deer and elk. Canadian Journal of Zoology 64: 312–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach, 2n d ed.McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Suttie, J. M., Goodall, E. D., Pennie, K. and Kay, R. N. B. 1983. Winter food restriction and summer compensation in red deer stags (Cervus elaphus). British Journal of Nutrition 50: 737–747.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Udén, P., Colucci, P. E., and Van soest, P. J. 1980. Investigation of chromium, cerium and cobalt as markers in digesta. Rate of passage studies. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 31: 625–632.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van hoven, W. and Boomker, E. A. 1985. Digestion. In Bioenergetics of Wild Herbivores (ed. Hudson, R. J. and White, R. G.), pp. 103–120. CRC Press, Boca Raton.Google Scholar
Van soest, P. J. 1982. Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. O and B Books, Corvallis.Google Scholar
Waldo, D. R., Smith, L. W., Cox, E. L., Weinland, B. T. and Lucas, H. L. 1971. Logarithmic normal distribution for description of sieved forage materials. Journal of Dairy Science 54: 1465–1469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westra, R. and Hudson, R. J. 1981. Digestive function of wapiti calves. Journal of Wildlife Management 45: 148–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, R. G., Holleman, D. F., Hubbert, M. E. and Staaland, H. 1987. Herbivoresin cold climates. In The Nutrition of Herbivores (ed. Hacker, J. B. and Ternouth, J. H.), pp. 465–486. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar