Effects of two equine digestive aid supplements on hindgut health1

Abstract

Gastrointestinal disease is the number one killer of horses. Little is known about the maintenance of microbes in the equine hindgut and how to distinguish a healthy gut in a live horse. Utilization of internal and external digestibility markers and starch fermentation has been extensively studied in ruminants and is the basis for research conducted on horses. The aims of this study were to investigate the effects of two equine feed digestive aid supplements on hindgut health (HGH) as reflected in fecal pH and digestibility and to compare and validate DM digestibility measurements through the use of internal and external markers such as chromium oxide (CR), lignin (Lig), indigestible ADF (iADF), indigestible NDF (iNDF), and indigestible lignin (iLig). Nine mature Quarter horses (six geldings, three mares) were used in a crossover design, three feeding periods of 17 d (51 d total), using three treatments: control, no feed additive (CON), Smartpak (SP; Plymouth, MA), or Platinum Performance (PP; Buellton, CA). Both SP and PP contained a strain of Lactobacillus, whereas SP further supplied mannanoligosaccharides (MOS) and fructooligosaccharides (FOS) and PP supplied Saccharomyces boulardii. Within the 17-d period, horses were offered orchard grass hay and sweet cob grain and the assigned treatment daily and four CR cookies to deliver 8 g/d of CR for the last 7 d of each period. Total feces were collected from 15 to 17 d. Feed and fecal samples were dried, ground, and sent to ANALAB (Fulton, IL) for nutrient analysis. Duplicate samples of feed and feces were placed in ruminally cannulated cows for in situ determination of iADF, iNDF, and iLig to estimate digestibility. Estimated CR fecal output, CR DMI, and DM digestibilities were evaluated using the root mean square prediction error percentage of the observed mean (RMSPE), concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), and Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency methods. Marker predictive ability tests showed iADF to have the least amount of bias with the smallest RMSPE (4%), largest CCC (0.43), and the largest amount of random bias (error of dispersion = 0.45). Supplementation of PP decreased CR DM digestibility (P < 0.02). Smartpak increased fecal pH (P < 0.09), but PP had no effect on fecal pH. Therefore, SP had a beneficial effect on HGH that is believed to be due to MOS and FOS.

Population shifts in some faeces and rumen bacteria profiles and subsequent blood LPS and lactate concentrations in lambs in the early period of subacute ruminal acidosis

“…Faecal sampling : A faecal specimen was directly obtained from the rectum using disposable gloves. In this way, 10 g of the specimen was transferred into a sterile falcon tube and referred to the laboratory for bacteriological testing; also, 5 g was mixed with the same amount of distilled water, and its pH was immediately determined by the digital pH meter (Johnson & Rossow, 2018 ).…”

“…Blood biochemical variables such as lactate, bicarbonate, anion gap, and blood pH were immediately measured after sampling by use of a blood gas analyzer and its cartridge pack (EDAN; Edan Instruments Inc., Shenzhen, China) (Johnson & Rossow, 2018 ). A commercial bacterial LPS ELISA kit (Shanghai Crystal Day, Biotech, China) was utilized to measure serum LPS concentration according to the kit instruction using an Accu Reader Microplate reader (Metertech, Taipei, Taiwan) (Johnson & Rossow, 2018 ).…”

>b<Avaliação do uso de fitoterápico como aditivo alimentar sobre parâmetros digestivos e inflamatórios de equinos alimentados com dieta de alto nível de amido>/b<

“…Grandes quantidades de carboidratos rapidamente fermentáveis na dieta de equinos podem trazer graves consequências à saúde dos mesmos, alterações na microbiota residente, maior incidência de gastrite, entre outros (CIPRIANO-SALAZAR et al, 2019). Os valores de pH fecal encontrados no presente estudo são compatíveis com os relatados por Willing et al (2009) e Van Den Berg et al (2013) para animais recebendo dieta de base forragem e concentrado, mas menor em relação aos achados de Zeyner et al (2004), Hansen et al (2015), Correa et al (2016), Harlow et al (2016) e Johnson & Rossow (2019). Contudo, os achados não caracterizam quadros de acidose, sendo estes relacionados a valores de pH abaixo de 5,8 (CIPRIANO-SALAZAR et al, 2019).…”