Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T05:51:09.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A note on the comparison of digestion by New World camels, sheep and ponies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

H. F. Hintz ,
H. F. Schryver  and
M. Halbert
H. F. Hintz
Affiliation:
Equine Research Program, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA
H. F. Schryver
Affiliation:
Equine Research Program, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA
M. Halbert
Affiliation:
Equine Research Program, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA
Get access

Summary

Digestion trials were conducted with four ponies, two sheep and two New World camels (one llama and one guanaco) given alfalfa pellets and a complete pelleted hay-grain diet. The New World camels were significantly more efficient in the digestion of dry matter, neutral-detergent fibre, acid-detergent fibre and cellulose than the sheep or ponies.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , June 1973 , pp. 303 - 305
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1973

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

Barsaul, C. S. and Talapatia, S. K. 1970. A comparative study on the determination of digestion coefficients of feeding-stuffs by different species of farm animals. Indian vet. J. 47: 348–355.Google Scholar
Federer, W. 1955. Experimental Design. MacMillan Co, New York.Google Scholar
Fernandez Baca, S. 1966. Utilizacion comparative de los forrajes por la alpaca y el ovino. Am. Congr. Med. Vet. Zoot., Caracas 1: 353–358.Google Scholar
Goering, H. K. and Van soest, P. J. 1970. Foragefiber analyses. Agriculture Handbook. No. 379. United States Dept. Agriculture, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. L. 1966. Nutritive value of Panicum maximum (Guinea grass) for cattle and water buffaloes in the tropics. Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y.Google Scholar
Jones, G. M., Larsen, R. E., Javed, A. H., Donefer, E. and Gaudreau, J. M. 1972. Voluntary intake and nutrient digestibility of forages by goats and sheep. J. Anitn. Sd. 34: 830–838.Google ScholarPubMed
Maloiy, G. M. O., Kay, R. N. B. and Goodall, E. D. 1968. Studies on the physiology of digestion and metabolism of the red deer (Cervus elaphus). Symp. zool. Soc. Lond. 21: 101–108.Google Scholar
Olsson, N. and Ruudvere, A. 1955. Nutrition of the horse. Nutr. Abstr. Rev. 25: 1–18.Google ScholarPubMed
Reid, J. T. 1970. The future role of ruminants in animal production. In Physiology of Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant (ed. Phillipson, A. T.). Proc. 3rd Symp. Cambridge. Oriel Press, Newcastle upon Tyne.Google Scholar
Vallenas, A. P. and Stevens, C. E. 1971a. Motility of the llama and guanaco stomach. Am. J. Physiol. 220: 275–282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vallenas, A. P. and Stevens, C. E. 1971b. Volatile fatty acid concentrations of pH of llama and guanaco forestomach digesta. Cornell Vet. 61: 239–252.Google Scholar
Vander Noot, C. W. and Gilbreath, E. B. 1970. Comparative digestibility of components of forages by geldings and steers. J. Anim. Sci. 31: 351–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar