Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T15:21:02.630Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mathematical modelling of digesta passage rate, mean retention time and in vivo apparent digestibility of two different lengths of hay and big-bale grass silage in ponies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 June 2007

M. J. S. Moore-Colyer ,
H. J. Morrow  and
A. C. Longland
M. J. S. Moore-Colyer*
Affiliation:
Institute of Rural Studies, University of Wales Aberystwyth, Llanbadarn Campus, Aberystwyth SY23 3AL, Wales, UK
H. J. Morrow
Affiliation:
Enniskillen College of Agriculture, Levaghy, Enniskillen, Co Fermanagh BT74 4GF, UK
A. C. Longland
Affiliation:
Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, Plas Gogerddan, Aberystwyth SY23 3EB, Ceredigion, Wales, UK
*
*Corresponding author: Dr Meriel J. S. Moore-Colyer, fax +44 1970 611564, email [email protected]
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.

Welsh-cross pony geldings (about 300kg live weight) were used in a 4×4 Latin square experiment to determine the rate of passage and apparent digestibility of unchopped big-bale grass silage (BBL), chopped big-bale grass silage (BBS), unchopped grass hay (HL) and chopped grass hay (HS) offered at approximately 15g/kg live weight per d. On day 1 of collection weeks, ponies were fed 85g ytterbium chloride hexahydrate-marked feed 1·5h after the morning meal. Total faecal collections commenced 8h later and continued for 168h. Apparent digestibilities of feed DM, organic matter (OM), crude protein (CP, N×6·25), acid-detergent fibre (ADF) and neutral-detergent fibre (NDF) were also determined. Faecal excretion data were subjected to the models of Pond et al. (1988) and digesta mean retention time (MRT) calculated from these models and using the algebraic method of Thielmans et al. (1978). Silage had significantly (P<0·05) higher digestibilities of DM, OM, CP, ADF and NDF than hay; however, chop length had no effect. All the models of Pond et al. (1988) accurately described (R2>0·8) the pattern of faecal marker excretion. MRT of BBL (29·0h)>BBS(27h)>HS and HL (26h). Compartmental analysis using the G3 model of Pond et al. (1988) showed BBL and HS diets had longer MRT in the time-dependent compartment, whereas BBS and HL had longer MRT in the time-independent compartment. Results from this experiment indicate that BBL and BBS are readily accepted and digested by ponies. While Yb is a successful external marker for determining total tract MRT and for modelling faecal excretion curves in horses, the results did not allow any definite conclusions to be drawn on digesta MRT within the different compartments of the equid gut.

Keywords

Digesta passage rateMean retention timeApparent digestibilityHorse
Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 90 , Issue 1 , July 2003 , pp. 109 - 118
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 2003

References

Argenzio, RA, Southworth, M & Stevens, CE (1974) Sites of organic acid production and absorption in the equine gastrointestinal tract. Am J Physiol 226, 1043–1050.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (1990) In Official methods of Analysis. 15th ed. Arlington, VA: AOAC.Google Scholar
Cochran, RC & Gaylean, ML (1994) Measurement of in vivo forage digestion by ruminants. In Forage Quality, Evaluation and Utilisation. pp 613–639. [Fahey, GC, Collins, M, Mertens, DR and Moser, LE, editors]. WI: American Society of Agronomy Inc.Google Scholar
Corino, C, Fontana, F, Miraglia, N & Zanetti, P (1992) Validation of a two interacting compartmental (TIC) model for estimating digesta passage in horses. Europaische Konferenz uber die Ernahrung des Pferdes, 39–41.Google Scholar
Cuddeford, DC, Pearson, RA, Archibald, RF & Muirhead, RH (1995) Digestibility and gastrointestinal transit time of diets containing different proportions of alfalfa and oat straw given to Thoroughbreds, Shetland ponies, Highland ponies and donkeys. Anim Sci 61, 407–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cymbaluk, NF (1990) Comparison of forage digestion by cattle and horses. Can J Anim Sci 70, 601–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dhanoa, MS, Siddons, R, France, J & Gale, DL (1985) A multicompartmental model to describe marker excretion patterns in ruminant faeces. Br J Nutr 53, 663–671.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellis, WC, Matis, JH, Hill, TM & Murphy, MR (1994) Methodology for estimating digestion and passage kinetics of forages. In Forage Quality, Evaluation and Utilisation. pp 682–756. [Fahey, GC, Collins, M, Mertens, DR and Moser, LE, editors]. Madison: WI, USA: American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Ellis, WC, Matis, JH & Lascano, C (1979) Quantitating ruminal turnover. Fed Proc 38, 2702–2706.Google ScholarPubMed
Faichney, GJ & Boston, RC (1983) Interpretation of the faecal excretion patterns of solute and particle markers introduced into the rumen of sheep. J Agric Sci Camb 101, 575–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frandson, RD (1981) In Anatomy and Physiology of Farm Animals. chapter 19. Philadelphia, PA, USA: Lea and Febiger.Google Scholar
Gomez, L, Lalles, JP, Bogaërt, C & Poncet, C (1992) Kinetics of particulate and solute marker passage in sheep supplemented with cationomycin and lasalocid antibiotics. Comparisons among methods for calculating mean retention time. Reprod Nutr Dev 32, 173–190.Google ScholarPubMed
Grovum, WL & Williams, VJ (1973) Rate of passage of digesta in sheep. 4. Passage of marker through the alimentary tract and the biological relevance of rate-constants derived from the changes in concentration of marker in faeces. Br J Nutr 30, 313–329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackson, S (1998) The digestive tract of the horse – practical considerations. In Advances in Equine Nutrition. pp 1–11. [Pagan, J, editor]. Nottingham: Nottingham University Press.Google Scholar
Keating, F (1998) A comparison of the intake and digestibility of four forages by ponies. Proceedings of the 2nd Warwickshire Horse Conference.Oxford, UK:Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Lalles, JP, Delval, E & Poncet, C (1991) Mean retention time of dietary residues within the gastrointestinal tract of the young ruminant: a comparison of non-compartmental (algebraic) and compartmental (modelling) estimation methods. Anim Food Sci Technol 35, 139–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matis, JH (1972) Gamma time-dependency in Blaxter's compartmental model. Biometrics 28, 597–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matis, JH, Wehrly, TE & Ellis, WC (1989) Some generalised stochastic compartment models for digesta flow. Biometrics 45, 703–720.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mertens, DR (1989) Evaluating alternative models of passage and digestion kinetics. In Modelling Digestion and Metabolism in Farm Animals, 3rd International Workshop. [Robertson, AB and Poppi, DP, editors]. Canterbury, New Zealand: Lincoln University.Google Scholar
Milne, JA, MacRae, JC, Spence, AM & Wilson, S (1978) A comparison of the intake and digestion of a range of forages at different times of the year by the sheep and red deer (Service elaphus). Br J Nutr 40, 347–357.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1992) UK Tables of Nutritive Value and Chemical Composition of Feedingstuffs. Aberdeen: Rowett Research Services Ltd.Google Scholar
Moore, JA, Pond, KR, Poore, MH & Goodwin, TG (1992) Influence of model and marker on digesta kinetic estimates for sheep. J Anim Sci 70, 3528–3540.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moore-Colyer, MJS (2000) Studies on the degradation kinetics of botanically diverse fibrous feeds and their apparent digestbility and rate of passage when fed to ponies. PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Moore-Colyer, MJS & Longland, ACL (2000) In vivo apparent digestibility of four types of conserved forage by ponies. Anim Sci 71, 527–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council (1989) Nutrient Requirements for Horses. 5th ed. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Nyberg, MA, Potter, GD & Gibbs, PG et al. (1993) Flow Rate Through Equine Small Intestine Determined With Soluble and Insoluble Indicators Given in a Pulse and Steady State Dose. College Station, TX: Texas A & M University.Google Scholar
Pearson, RA & Merritt, JB (1991) Intake, digestion and gastrointestinal transit time in resting donkeys and ponies and exercised donkeys given ad libitum hay and straw diets. Equine Vet J 23, 339–343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pond, KR, Ellis, WC, Matis, JH, Ferreiro, HM & Sutton, JD (1988) Compartment models for estimating attributes of digesta flow in cattle. Br J Nutr 60, 571–595.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teeter, RG, Owens, FN & Mader, TL (1984) Ytterbium chloride as a marker for particulate matter in the rumen. J Anim Sci 58, 465–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thielmans, MF, Francois, E, Bodart, C & Thewis, A (1978) Mesure du transit gastrointestinal chez le porc a l'aide des radiolanthides. Comparison avec le mouton (Gastrointestinal transit in the pig: measurement using radioactive lanthanides. Comparison with sheep). Ann Biol Anim Biochim Biophys 18, 237–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uden, 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, 329–339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vander Noot, GW & Gilbreath, EB (1970) Comparative digestibility of forages by geldings and steers. J Anim Sci 31, 351–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, ACI (1981) Rate of passage of digesta through the gut of mammals and birds. Nutr Abstr Rev 51, 789–820.Google Scholar