Comparison of fibre digestion and digesta retention time between rabbits, guinea-pigs, rats and hamsters

Sakaguchi, Ei; Itoh, Hiroshi; Uchida, Senji; Horigome, Takao

doi:10.1079/bjn19870078

Cited by 79 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Guinea pigs usually achieve higher digestibility coefficients than rabbits (Slade and Hintz 1969;Sakaguchi et al 1987). In this study, DM digestibility did not differ significantly between the species; but again, the relatively low P of 0.075 suggests that differences might be found if a larger sample was used.…”

Section: Methane Output Of Non-ruminant Mammalian Herbivoresmentioning

confidence: 72%

Methane output of rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) and guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus) fed a hay-only diet: Implications for the scaling of methane production with body mass in non-ruminant mammalian herbivores

Franz

Soliva

Kreuzer

et al. 2011

Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular &

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

, J; Clauss, M (2011). Methane output of rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) and guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus) fed a hay-only diet: Implications for the scaling of methane production with body mass in non-ruminant mammalian herbivores. It is assumed that small herbivores produce negligible amounts of methane, but it is unclear whether this is a physiological peculiarity, or simply a scaling effect. A respiratory chamber experiment was conducted with six rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus, 1.57 ± 0.31 kg body mass) and six guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus, 0.79 ± 0.07 kg) offered grass hay ad libitum.Daily dry matter (DM) intake and DM digestibility were 50 ± 6 g kg ) and indicates linear scaling. Because feed intake typically scales to BM 0.75 , linear scaling of methane output translates into increasing energetic losses at increasing BM. Accordingly, the data collection indicates that an increasing proportion of ingested gross energy is lost because relative methane production increases with BM. Different from ruminants, such losses (1-2% of gross energy) appear too small in non-ruminant herbivores to represent a physiologic constraint on body size. Nevertheless, this relationship may represent a physiological disadvantage with increasing herbivore body size.--

show abstract

Section: Methane Output Of Non-ruminant Mammalian Herbivoresmentioning

confidence: 72%

Methane output of rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) and guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus) fed a hay-only diet: Implications for the scaling of methane production with body mass in non-ruminant mammalian herbivores

Franz

Soliva

Kreuzer

et al. 2011

Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular &

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…MRT equalled the sum of the reciprocal of K and the transit time (TT), which is the initial appearance of the marker after dosing (Sakaguchi et al 1987). …”

Section: Passage Rate Trialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dried and ground samples were analyzed by neutron activation for the concentration of Co, Cr, and Yb at the Nuclear Radiation Facility at WSU. The MRT of both markers was calculated by fitting the following equation (Brandt and Thacker 1958;Sakaguchi et al 1987):…”

Section: Passage Rate Trialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Harvesting, rumination, digestion, and passage of fruit and leaf diets by a small ruminant, the blue duiker

Wenninger

Shipley

2000

Oecologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Because small ruminants (<15 kg) have a high ratio of metabolic rate to fermentation capacity, they are expected to select and require low-fiber, nutrient-dense concentrate diets. However, recent studies suggest that small ruminants may not be as limited in their digestive capacity as previously thought. In this study, we examined harvesting, rumination, digestion, and passage of three diets (domestic figs Ficus carica, fresh alfalfa Medicago sativa, and Pacific willow leaves Salix lasiandra) ranging from 10 to 50% neutral detergent fiber content (NDF) in captive blue duikers (Cephalophus monticola, 4 kg). Harvesting and rumination rates were obtained by observing and videotaping animals on each diet, and digestibility and intake were determined by conducting total collection digestion trials. We estimated mean retention time of liquid and particulate digesta by administering Co-EDTA and forages labelled with YbNO in a pulse dose and monitoring fecal output over 4 days. Duikers harvested and ruminated the fig diet faster than the alfalfa and willow diets. Likewise, they achieved higher dry matter, energy, NDF, and protein digestibility when eating figs, yet achieved a higher daily digestible energy intake on the fresh willow and alfalfa than on the figs by eating proportionately more of these forages. Duikers maintained a positive nitrogen balance on all diets, including figs, which contained only 6.3% crude protein. Mean retention time of cell wall in the duikers' digestive tract declined with increasing NDF and cellulose content of the diet. Digestibility coefficients and mean retention times of these small ruminants were virtually equivalent to those measured for ruminants two orders of magnitude larger, suggesting that they are well adapted for a mixed diet.

show abstract

“…Gastrointestinal anatomy (GIT-Anatomy), number of offspring per litter (Nos offspring) mean of body mass (BM), dry matter intake (DMI), mean retention time of particle markers (different markers) through the whole gastrointestinal tract (MRT), apparent digestibility of dry matter (aD DM) and calculated mass of dry matter gastrointestinal tract content (DMC) of 77 herbivorous mammalian species for which all relevant data were measured in individual studies (Sakaguchi and Ohmura, 1992) Cricetus cricetus 1 >1 0.11 0.011 9.1 66.5 0.003 (Sakaguchi et al, 1987) Neotoma lepida 1 >1 0.13 0.010 4.0 55.0 0.001 (Karasov et al, 1986) Octodon degus 1 >1 0.18 0.010 15.5 69.9 0.004 (Sakaguchi and Ohmura, 1992) Arvicola terrestris 1 >1 0.23 0.024 5.4 58.5 0.004 (Woodall, 1989) Rattus norvegicus 1 >1 0.30 0.024 13.1 59.9 0.009 (Sakaguchi et al, 1987) Cavia porcellus 1 >1 0.57 0.036 21.1 70.1 0.020 (Sakaguchi et al, 1987;Sakaguchi and Nabata, 1992;Sakaguchi et al, 1992b;Sakaguchi and Ohmura, 1992;Franz et al, 2011) Spermophilus columbianus 1 >1 0.66 0.026 22.1 75.4 0.015 (Hume et al, 1993) Hapalemur griseus 1 1 1.04 0.027 47.5 76.3 0.033 (Campbell et al, 2004) Oryctolagus cuniculus 1 >1 2.01 0.079 42.6 68.4 0.088 (Sakaguchi et al, 1987;Sakaguchi and Hume, 1990;Sakaguchi et al, 1992a;Franz et al, 2011) Marmota caligata 1 >1 2.31 0.112 28.9 81.0 0.080 (Hume et al, 1993) (Campbell et al, 1999) Propithecus verreauxi 1 1 3.58 0.072 33.5 68.8 0.066 (Campbell et al, 1999;Campbell et al, 2004) (Dellow, 1982;Dellow and Hume, 1982) Macropus eugenii 3 1 4.80 0.117 24.8 59.8 0.084 (Dellow, 1982;Dellow and Hume, 1982) Trachypithecus auratus 3 1 6.00 0.140 45.0 63.5 0.179 (Nijboer et al, 2007) Colobus angolensis 3 1 7.50 0.118 77.0 89.0 0.210 Trachypithecus johnii 3 1 9.50 0.157 42.0 79.0 0.166 (Comizzoli et al, 1997; (Forbes and Tribe, 1970;Dellow, 1982;…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the Jarman–Bell Principle: Scaling of intake, digestibility, retention time and gut fill with body mass in mammalian herbivores

Müller

Codron

Meloro

et al. 2013

Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular &

173

158

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Differences in allometric scaling of physiological characters have the appeal to explain species diversification and niche differentiation along a body mass (BM) gradient -because they lead to different combinations of physiological properties, and thus may facilitate different adaptive strategies. An important argument in physiological ecology is built on the allometries of gut fill (assumed to scale to BM1.0) and energy requirements/intake (assumed to scale to BM0.75) in mammalian herbivores. From the difference in exponents, it has been postulated that the mean retention time (MRT) of digesta should scale to BM1.0-0.75 = BM0.25. This has been used to argue that larger animals have an advantage in digestive efficiency and hence can tolerate lower-quality diets. However, empirical data does not support the BM0.25 scaling of MRT, and the deduction of MRT scaling implies, according to physical principles, no scaling of digestibility; basing assumptions on digestive efficiency on the thus-derived MRT scaling amounts to circular reasoning. An alternative explanation considers a higher scaling exponent for food intake than for metabolism, allowing larger animals to eat more of a lower quality food without having to increase digestive efficiency; to date, this concept has only been explored in ruminants. Here, using data for 77 species in which intake, digestibility and MRT were measured (allowing the calculation of the dry matter gut contents DMC), we show that the unexpected shallow scaling of MRT is common in herbivores and may result from deviations of other scaling exponents from expectations. Notably, DMC have a lower scaling exponent than 1.0, and the 95% confidence intervals of the scaling exponents for intake and DMC generally overlap. Differences in the scaling of wet gut contents and dry matter gut contents confirm a previous finding that the dry matter concentration of gut contents decreases with body mass, possibly compensating for the less favourable volume-surface ratio in the guts of larger organisms. These findings suggest that traditional explanations for herbivore niche differentiation along a BM gradient should not be based on allometries of digestive physiology. In contrast, they support the recent interpretation that larger species can tolerate lower-quality diets because their intake has a higher allometric scaling than their basal metabolism, allowing them to eat relatively more of a lower quality food without having to increase digestive efficiency. MRT scaling amounts to circular reasoning. An alternative explanation considers a higher 38 scaling exponent for food intake than for metabolism, allowing larger animals to eat more of a 39 lower quality food without having to increase digestive efficiency; to date, this concept has 40 only been explored in ruminants. Here, using data for 77 species in which intake, digestibility 41 and MRT were measured (allowing the calculation of the dry matter gut contents DMC), we 42show that the unexpected shallow scaling of MRT is common in herbi...

show abstract

Comparison of fibre digestion and digesta retention time between rabbits, guinea-pigs, rats and hamsters

Cited by 79 publications

References 21 publications

Methane output of rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) and guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus) fed a hay-only diet: Implications for the scaling of methane production with body mass in non-ruminant mammalian herbivores

Methane output of rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) and guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus) fed a hay-only diet: Implications for the scaling of methane production with body mass in non-ruminant mammalian herbivores

Harvesting, rumination, digestion, and passage of fruit and leaf diets by a small ruminant, the blue duiker

Assessing the Jarman–Bell Principle: Scaling of intake, digestibility, retention time and gut fill with body mass in mammalian herbivores

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About