Comparative use of four different marker systems for the estimation of digestibility and low food intake in a group of captive giraffes (<i>Giraffa camelopardalis</i>)

Clauss, Marcus; Lechner‐Doll, Matthias; Flach, Edmund; Tack, C; Hatt, Jean‐Michel

doi:10.1002/zoo.1031

Cited by 24 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Südekum, unpublished data). Present mean and ranges of DMI were in line with literature data on giraffe and okapi (Clauss, Lechner‐Doll, Flach, Tack, & Hatt, ; Hatt et al., ; Hummel et al., ). The same was true for average and range of MEI which was in line with data on energy intake in captive giraffes offered rations of lucerne hay, concentrate and browse (Hatt et al., ) and sufficient to cover estimated energy requirements (Pellew, 1984a).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Influence of ration composition on nutritive and digestive variables in captive giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis) indicating the appropriateness of feeding practice

Gussek

Große‐Brinkhaus

Südekum

et al. 2017

Animal Physiology Nutrition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The nutrition of captive giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis), a browsing ruminant, is challenging because browse availability is limited in zoos and rations need to be composed of compensatory feeds. In this study, ration composition for giraffes in 12 German zoos was documented and linked to animal variables that indicate suitability of nutrition. Rations differed in proportion of ration items and chemical composition resulting in various grades of accordance with feeding recommendations. An estimated daily metabolisable energy (ME) intake (MEI; mean ± SD) of 0.61 MJ ME/kg body weight (BW; ±0.1) was sufficient to cover estimated energy requirements. Daily dry matter (DM) intake (DMI) was 61 g DM/kg BW (±10) and correlated negatively to dietary ME content (p = .009; r = -.596). Apparently, feed intake was regulated by energetic satiety and not by physical properties of forage. A negative correlation between produce proportion and DMI (p = .002; r = -.676) led to the assumption of a low ruminal pH in giraffes fed high proportions of produce. Increasing dietary forage proportions led to an increasing duration of feed intake (p = .045; r = .477) and decreasing occurrence of oral stereotypies (p = .047; r = -.474). The weighted average faecal particle size was larger than reported for free-ranging giraffes, but no relation to ration characteristics among the facilities existed. The abrasiveness of rations was not excessive, as contents of silicate in faeces were similar to values from the wild. Body condition was generally acceptable, but there was no evident relation to ration characteristics. The capacity to self-regulate DM and ME intakes with lucerne hay may work at higher forage proportions than often assumed for captive giraffes. Rations with less energetic density can result in a greater DMI, including maximisation of forage intake and reduction of oral stereotypies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Influence of ration composition on nutritive and digestive variables in captive giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis) indicating the appropriateness of feeding practice

Gussek

Große‐Brinkhaus

Südekum

et al. 2017

Animal Physiology Nutrition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The clinical relevance of this fact could be that some browsing species might, for this reason, ingest proportionally less roughage, with different consequences such as poor fecal consistency in tapirs [Lang et al, 2005] or proneness to rumen acidosis in ruminants [Clauss et al, 2003]. In giraffe, the fact that forages offered in captivity might not be comminuted as efficiently could directly contribute to the hypothesized ''rumen blockage'' (owing to the formation of a fibrous raft, as usually observed in grazing ruminants) , with a resulting lower food and hence energy intake and the serous fat atrophy syndrome [Clauss et al, 2001Potter and Clauss, 2005]. Additionally, the escape of not thoroughly comminuted particles from the rumen into the lower digestive tract might facilitate the formation of phytobezoars, which have been reported surprisingly often in captive giraffids [Clauss et al, 2002b].…”

Section: ] Mcleod and Minsonmentioning

confidence: 97%

Differences in fecal particle size between free‐ranging and captive individuals of two browser species

et al. 2007

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Data from captive animals indicated that browsing (BR) ruminants have larger fecal particles-indicative of lesser chewing efficiency-than grazers (GR). To answer whether this reflects fundamental differences between the animal groups, or different reactions of basically similar organisms to diets fed in captivity, we compared mean fecal particle size (MPS) in a GR and a BR ruminant (aurox Bos primigenius taurus, giraffe Giraffa camelopardalis) and a GR and a BR hindgut fermenter (Przewalski's horse Equus ferus przewalskii, lowland tapir Tapirus terrestris), both from captivity and from the wild. As would be expected owing to a proportion of finely ground, pelleted feeds in captive diets, MPS was smaller in captive than free-ranging GR. In contrast, MPS was drastically higher in captive than in free-ranging BR of either digestion type. Thus, the difference in MPS between GR and BR was much more pronounced among captive than free-ranging animals. The results indicate that BR teeth have adapted to their natural diet so that in the wild, they achieve a particle size reduction similar to that of GR. However, although GR teeth seem equally adapted to food ingested in captivity, the BR teeth seem less well suited to efficiently chew captive diets. In the case of ruminants, less efficient particle size reduction could contribute to potential clinical problems like "rumen blockage" and bezoar formation. Comparisons of MPS between free-ranging and captive animals might offer indications for the physical suitability of zoo diets. Zoo Biol 27:70-77, 2008. (c) 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

show abstract

“…Foose (1982) recorded a surprisingly low intake of either grass hay or lucerne hay in captive giraffes even when offered ad libitum , leading to an evident energy deficit and to a disruption of the study, and Gutzwiller (1984) similarly measured a low roughage intake in another group of captive animals. In several studies, where the food intake or energy intake of captive giraffes on a conventional zoo diet was calculated, the animals were considered to be in low to marginal energy supply (Gutzwiller, 1984; Clauss et al., 2001; Potter and Clauss, 2005). Krumbiegel (1971) stated that in captive animals, the fleshy, fat neck so typical of free‐ranging individuals is rarely observed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Energy and Fibre Intake in a Group of Captive Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) Offered Increasing Amounts of Browse

Hatt¹,

Schaub²,

Wanner³

et al. 2005

Journal of Veterinary Medicine Series A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated the effect of diet on intake of energy and fibre in a group of three captive adult giraffe by weighing offered diet items and leftovers for 7 days after an adaptation period of 7 days. Digestion coefficients were calculated using, as internal marker, the acid detergent lignin content of a faecal sample pooled from subsamples taken during the last 5 days of intake measurement. Two lucerne hay-only diets of differing quality (L1, L2) were fed, as well as the regular diet of lucerne hay and concentrates (L2C), and the regular diet supplemented with 3 or 6 kg of edible, fresh browse material (L2CB3, L2CB6). The proportion of roughage in the ingested diets L2CB6 (45 +/- 5% dry matter), L2CB3 (35 +/- 3%) and L2C (37 +/- 10%) did not differ significantly. Digestible energy intake was low on the hay-only diets [L1: 0.28 +/- 0.06 MJ/kg body weight (BW)0.75; L2: 0.33 +/- 0.10 MJ/kg BW0.75] and increased from L2C (0.60 +/- 0.13 MJ/kg BW0.75) to a significant increase with L2CB3 (0.72 +/- 0.17 MJ/kg BW0.75); no further increase was obvious for L2CB6 (0.63 +/- 0.15MJ/kg BW0.75). The results confirm that giraffes are unlikely to meet energy requirements on lucerne hay-only diets. In a feeding scenario where both lucerne hay and the concentrate component of the diet are fed ad libitum, the animals tended to exchange hay for browse when browse was added. Only the higher level of browse supplementation led to a potentially beneficial increase in fibre intake. Whether additional browse supplementation will lead to increased intakes in a feeding scenario with restricted concentrate provision can be suspected but remains to be demonstrated.

show abstract

Comparative use of four different marker systems for the estimation of digestibility and low food intake in a group of captive giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis)

Cited by 24 publications

References 19 publications

Influence of ration composition on nutritive and digestive variables in captive giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis) indicating the appropriateness of feeding practice

Influence of ration composition on nutritive and digestive variables in captive giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis) indicating the appropriateness of feeding practice

Differences in fecal particle size between free‐ranging and captive individuals of two browser species

Energy and Fibre Intake in a Group of Captive Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) Offered Increasing Amounts of Browse

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About