Factors Affecting the Mean Retention Time of Particles in the Forestomach of Ruminants and Camelids

Lechner‐Doll, Matthias; Kaske, Martin; Engelhardt, W

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-702290-1.50027-8

Cited by 126 publications

(134 citation statements)

References 106 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

131

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A potential explanation could be derived from the observations that in sheep, RR contents stratify into different layers (Sutherland 1988) but that, in roe deer, RR contents are unstratified and generally form a frothy, homogeneous mass (Clauss et al 2001). The stratification of RR contents according to a functional density gradient is generally regarded as one of the main factors responsible for the selective retention of particles in the RR (Lechner-Doll et al 1991). The selective retention of particles in the RR as compared to liquids was always higher in the mouflon (selectivity factor 2.10) than in the roe deer (1.54).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seasonal faecal excretion, gut fill, liquid and particle marker retention in mouflonOvis ammon musimon, and a comparison with roe deerCapreolus capreolus

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Seasonal faecal excretion, gut fill, liquid and particle marker retention in mouflon ovis ammon musimon, and a comparison with roe deer capreolus capreolus Seasonal faecal excretion, gut fill, liquid and particle marker retention in mouflon ovis ammon musimon, and a comparison with roe deer capreolus capreolus AbstractFive mouflon (average body mass [BM] 33 kg) and two roe deer (average BM 20 kg) with rumen cannulas were kept in large enclosures under semi-natural conditions and were used for seasonal studies on gastrointestinal tract (GIT) indigestible fill and digesta passage kinetics. As the mouflon were not fully mature, both species had similar digesta volumes in the reticulorumen (RR; mouflon 5.5 ± 1.8% of BM; roe deer 5.4 ± 1.5% of BM); however, the mouflon had lower RR liquid flow rates (15.1 ± 4.3 ml h-1 kg-0.75) than the roe deer (19.2 ± 0.2 ml h-1 kg-0.75), and particle retention in the RR accounted for 68 ± 3% of total GIT retention in the mouflon versus 55 ± 6% in the roe deer. Annual average total GIT retention times for liquids and particles were longer in the mouflon (23.4 ± 0.9 h and 37.9 ± 4.0 h) than in the roe deer (18.4 ± 1.7 h and 22.4 ± 1.9 h). Similarly, annual average RR retention times for liquids and particles were longer in the mouflon (11.9 ± 0.9 h and 25.8 ± 3.3 h) than in the roe deer (8.1 ± 1.7 h and 12.5 ± 2.3 h). The factor of selective particle retention in the RR (retention of particles/retention of liquid) was 2.10 ± 0.09 in the mouflon versus 1.54 ± 0.01 in the roe deer. These observations are in accord with differences in digesta passage characteristics postulated between browsing and grazing ruminants. Total GIT indigestible fill was lower in the mouflon than in the roe deer (10.7 ± 2.1 g kg-1 and 13.3 ± 1.0 g kg-1). As the mouflon were not fully mature, both species had similar digesta volumes in the reticulorumen (RR; mouflon 5.5 ± 1.8% of BM; roe deer 5.4 ± 1.5% of BM); however, the mouflon had lower RR liquid flow rates (15.1 ± 4.3 ml h -1 kg -0.75 ) than the roe deer (19.2 ± 0.2 ml h -1 kg -0.75 ), and particle retention in the RR accounted for 68 ± 3% of total GIT retention in the mouflon versus 55 ± 6% in the roe deer. Annual average total GIT retention times for liquids and particles were longer in the mouflon (23.4 ± 0.9 h and 37.9 ± 4.0 h) than in the roe deer (18.4 ± 1.7 h and 22.4 ± 1.9 h). Similarly, annual average RR retention times for liquids and particles were longer in the mouflon (11.9 ± 0.9 h and 25.8 ± 3.3 h) than in the roe deer (8.1 ± 1.7 h and 12.5 ± 2.3 h). The factor of selective particle retention in the RR (retention of particles/retention of liquid) was 2.10 ± 0.09 in the mouflon versus 1.54 ± 0.01 in the roe deer. These observations are in accord with differences in digesta passage characteristics postulated between browsing and grazing ruminants. Total GIT indigestible fill was lower in the mouflon than in the roe deer (10.7 ± 2.1 g kg -1 and 13.3 ± 1.0 g kg -1 ).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seasonal faecal excretion, gut fill, liquid and particle marker retention in mouflonOvis ammon musimon, and a comparison with roe deerCapreolus capreolus

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To test this hypothesis it would be necessary to determine the k p and rumen DM load. It has been reported that the rate of passage of digesta through the rumen is a function of diet density (Faichney, 1986;Lechner-Doll et al, 1991) and that density is a function of the rate of fermentation of fibre and the potentially fermentable fibre fraction (Jung & Allen, 1995). An attempt was thus made to estimate k p using feed attributes (NDF g/g, k dig /h) and live weight (kg) based on data from studies reported by Nsahlai (1991), Abule et al (1995), Bonsi (1995), Ndlovu & Hove (1995), Vega & Poppi (1997), Mpairwe (1998) and Yue-ming et al (2005).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the suitability of Illius and Gordon\'s model for simulating the intake and digestibility of roughage diets by ruminants

Nsahlai

Apaloo²

2007

SA J. An. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

________________________________________________________________________________ AbstractThe aim of this study was to evaluate the suitability of Illius and Gordon's simulation model for predicting the digestibility and intake of tropical roughages by ruminants. Data from seven suitable empirical studies (i.e. studies that reported all requisite data needed to run the model) in which tropical roughages were fed to ruminants were used. These seven studies had 235 intake and 70 digestibility measurements on goats, sheep and cattle. The coefficient of variation (cv)

show abstract

“…As the stratification enhances particle retention and, hence, fibre digestion (Beaumont and Deswysen 1991;Lechner-Doll et al 1991), adaptations encouraging stratification would be expected to have evolved in GR. The most controversial part of the traditional concept of wild ruminant RR physiology is that the larger salivary glands of BR (Hofmann 1988) are assumed to translate into a higher saliva production rate and, hence, a higher fluid throughput through the RR.…”

Section: Predictionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Morphophysiological Adaptations of Browsing and Grazing Mammals

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(2008). The morphophysiological adaptations of browsing and grazing mammals. In: Gordon, I J [et al.]. The ecology of browsing and grazing. Berlin, 47-88. Postprint available at: http://www.zora.uzh.ch Posted at the Zurich Open Repository and Archive, University of Zurich. http://www.zora.uzh.ch Originally published at: Gordon, I J [et al.] 2008. The ecology of browsing and grazing. Berlin, 47-88. The morphophysiological adaptations of browsing and grazing mammals AbstractThere has been a continous debate whether there are fundametal morphophysiological differences in the ingestive apparatus (head, teeth) and the digestive tract between browsing and grazing herbivores. A particular characteristic of this debate appears to be that while there is a wealth of publications on such potential differences, the supposed undelying differences between browse and grass have rarely been analysed quantitatively. In this chapter, we first review the actual state of knowledge on those properties of browse and grass that appear relevant for the ingestive and digestive process, and then deduct hypotheses as to how one would assume that browsers and grazers differ due to these characteristics. We address the methodological issues involved in actually testing these hypotheses, with emphasis on the influence of body mass and phylogenetic descent. Finally, we present a literature compilation of statistical tests of differences between the feeding-types. Although in general, the published tests support many hypothesized differences, there is still both a lack of comparative data, and a lack of analyses with phylogenetic control, on different taxonomic levels. However, the published material appears to indicate that convergent evolutionary adaptations of browsing and grazing herbivores to their diet represent a rewarding area of research. The Morphophysiological Adaptations of Browsing and Grazing MammalsMarcus Clauss, Thomas Kaiser, and Jürgen Hummel IntroductionAnimals represent adaptations to particular ecological niches they occupy or once occupied.Studying the correlation between a given set of characteristics of an ecological niche and the morphological and physiological adaptations of organisms to these characteristics is one of the most basic approaches to comparative biology, and has fuelled scientific interest for generations (Gould 2002). However, current scientific standards cannot be met by mere descriptions of both the characteristics of the niche and the organism, and a (hypothetical) intuitive explanation for the adaptive relevance of the latter; the presence or absence of a characteristic must be demonstrated in sound statistical terms (Hagen 2003) 1 ideally supported by experimental data (from in vivo, in vitro, or model assays) on its adaptive relevance.In this chapter, we adopt an approach that first presents the relevant characteristics of the ecological niche of the 'grazer' (GR) and of the 'browser' (BR), outlines hypotheses based on these characteristics, and finally addresses examples where such hypotheses h...

show abstract

Factors Affecting the Mean Retention Time of Particles in the Forestomach of Ruminants and Camelids

Cited by 126 publications

References 106 publications

Seasonal faecal excretion, gut fill, liquid and particle marker retention in mouflonOvis ammon musimon, and a comparison with roe deerCapreolus capreolus

Seasonal faecal excretion, gut fill, liquid and particle marker retention in mouflonOvis ammon musimon, and a comparison with roe deerCapreolus capreolus

On the suitability of Illius and Gordon\'s model for simulating the intake and digestibility of roughage diets by ruminants

The Morphophysiological Adaptations of Browsing and Grazing Mammals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About