Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-bt4hw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T18:13:57.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Partial and total apparent digestibility of dietary carbohydrates in horses as affected by the diet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

M. Varloud ,
A. de Fombelle ,
A. G. Goachet ,
C. Drogoul  and
V. Julliand
M. Varloud
Affiliation:
EVIALIS, 56 250 Saint Nolff, France
A. de Fombelle
Affiliation:
EVIALIS, 56 250 Saint Nolff, France
A. G. Goachet
Affiliation:
ENESAD, 26 bvd Dr Petitjean, BP87999, 21079 Dijon cedex, France
C. Drogoul
Affiliation:
ENESAD, 26 bvd Dr Petitjean, BP87999, 21079 Dijon cedex, France
V. Julliand*
Affiliation:
ENESAD, 26 bvd Dr Petitjean, BP87999, 21079 Dijon cedex, France
*
† Email address : v.julliand@enesad.fr
Get access

Abstract

The study reported in this paper was conducted to evaluate the digestibility of dietary carbohydrates (‘starch and sugars’ (S), neutral-detergent fibre (NDF), acid-detergent fibre (ADF)) and organic matter (OM) in the different parts of the equine digestive tract (stomach, jejuno-ileum, caecum, right ventral colon, left ventral colon, left dorsal colon, right dorsal colon, small colon and faeces). Three horses were given a standard diet (D1) based on fibrous pellets and straw and four were offered a high energy diet (D2) based on starch pellets and meadow hay. The digesta collection procedure, by total tract removal, permitted measurement of organ length, and dry matter and volume of digesta. Acid-detergent lignin (ADL) and acid insoluble ash (AIA) were used as natural digestibility markers. It was shown that AIA and ADL gave coherent data for ‘starch and sugars’ digestibility evaluation. ADL was a more relevant marker for parietal carbohydrates and OM digestibilities in horses given D1, whereas AIA have been preferred to evaluate these components digestibilities in horses offered D2. In horses given D1, precaecal OM digestibility coefficient varied from -0·04 to 0·20 whereas it varied from 0·46 to 0·62 in horses receiving D2. For both pellets, the results showed a considerable S digestibility occurring in the stomach (0·69 and 0·60 for D1 and D2 respectively) and this continued in the small intestine (0·88 and 0·89 for D1 and D2 respectively). With the exception of D2, structural carbohydrate fractions of the foods were poorly digested in the pre-caecal digestive parts. In the hindgut, OM digestibility coefficient varied from 0·47 to 0·60 for D1 and from 0·33 to 0·51 for D2. In horses given D1, highest digestibility was observed for each dietary carbohydrate in the left dorsal colon where it reached 0·99 for S; 0·45 for NDF and 0·40 for ADF. In horses receiving D2, the dietary components’ digestibilities increased regularly along the hindgut up to the faeces. The D2 structural fractions (NDF and ADF) digestibilities in the hindgut and faeces were lower than in horses given D1. These results not only confirmed that high energy diets like D2 can affect structural carbohydrate digestion in the horse hindgut but also indicated that a large amount of the energy part of the pelleted morning meal is broken down in the stomach.

Keywords

digestibilityfibrehorsesmarkersstarch

Information

Type
Growth, development and meat science
Information
Animal Science , Volume 79 , Issue 1 , August 2004 , pp. 61 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Almeida, F. Q., Campos Valadares, Filho S., Vieira de, Almeida M. I., Lopez Donzeles, J., Leao, M. I. and Cecon, P. R. 2001. Internal and external markers to estimate the apparent digestibility of nutrients in horses diets. Proceedings of the 17th equine nutrition and physiology symposium, Lexington, Kentucky, pp. 477–481.Google Scholar
Almeida, F. Q., Valadares, Filho S. C., Coelho da Silva, J. F., Cecon, P. R., Donzele, J. L., Queiroz, A. C. and Leao, M. I. 1999. Flow rate of dry matter through the equine small intestine obtained with external and internal markers. Proceedings of the 16th equine nutrition and physiology symposium, Raleigh, North Carolina, pp. 286–287.Google Scholar
Araujo, K. V., Freitas Lima, J. A., Fialho, E. T. and Sayuri Miyagi, E. 2000. Comparação dos indicadores internos com o método de coleta total para determinar a digestibilidade dos nutrientes de dietas mistas em equinos. Ciêncas Agrotecnicas 24: 1041–1048.Google Scholar
Argenzio, R. A. 1975. Functions of the equine large intestine and their interrelationship in disease. Cornell Veterinarian 65: 301–331.Google Scholar
Bailey, S. R., Rycroft, A. and Elliot, J. 2002. Production of amines in equine cecal contents in an in vitro model of carbohydrate overload. Journal of Animal Science 80: 2656–2662.Google Scholar
Barone, R. 1984. Anatomie comparée des mammifères domestiques, volume 3. Vigot, Paris.Google Scholar
Brown, K. M. 1987. Nutrient digestion in various segments of the gastrointestinal tract of ponies fed two, three or four meals per day. M. Sc. thesis, Texas A&M University.Google Scholar
Bureau InterProfessionnel d’Etudes Analytiques. 1997. Conseils méthodologiques pour le dosage de l’azote par la méthode Kjeldalh. BIPEA, Gennevilliers.Google Scholar
Cuddeford, D. and Hughes, D. 1990. A comparison between chromium-mordanted hay and acid-insoluble ash to determine apparent digestibility of a chaffed, molassed hay/straw mixture. Equine Veterinary Journal 22: 122–125.Google Scholar
Demarquilly, C., Chenost, M. and Giger, S. 1995. Pertes fécales et digestibilité des aliments et des rations. Nutrition des ruminants: ingestion et digestion, pp. 921. INRA Paris, France.Google Scholar
Fan, M. Z., Sauer, W. C., Hardin, R. T. and Lien, K. A. 1994. Determination of apparent ileal amino acid digestibility in pigs: effect of dietary amino acid level. Journal of Animal Science 72: 2851–2859.Google Scholar
Fombelle, A. de, Varloud, M., Goachet, A. -G., Jacotot, E., Philippeau, C., Drogoul, C. and Julliand, V. 2003. Characterization of the microbial and biochemical profile of the different segments of the digestive tract in horses fed two distinct diets. Animal Science 77: 293–304.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez, I., Espinosa, E., Garcia, J., Carabaño, R. and Blas, J. C.de. 2002. Effect of levels of starch, fiber, and lactose on digestion and growth performance of early-weaned rabbits. Journal of Animal Science 80: 1029–1037.Google Scholar
Healy, H. P., Siciliano, P. D. and Lawrence, L. M. 1995. Effect of concentrate form on blood and gastric fluid variables in ponies. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 15: 423–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintz, H. F., Hogue, D. E., Walker, E. F., Lowe, J. E. and Schryver, H. F. 1971. Apparent digestion in various segments of the digestive tract of ponies fed diets with varying roughage-grain ratios. Journal of Animal Science 32: 245–248.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P., Kaustell, K. and Jaakkola, S. 1994. The use of internal markers to predict total digestibility and duodenal flow of nutrients in cattle given six different diets. Animal Feed Science and Technology 48: 211–227.Google Scholar
Hyslop, J. J. 2002. Voluntary feed intake, apparent digestibility and nutritive values in ponies given ad libitum access to complete pelleted diets containing different levels of unmolassed sugar beet pulp. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, 2002, p. 32.Google Scholar
Kienzle, E. 1994. Small intestinal digestion of starch in the horse. Revue de Médecine Vétérinaire 145: 199–204.Google Scholar
Kienzle, E., Radicke, S., Landes, D., Kleffken, D., Illenseer, M. and Meyer, H. 1994. Activity of amylase in the gastrointestinal tract of the horse. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 72: 234–241.Google Scholar
Kozlowski, F. 1994. L’amidon, quel dosage pour quel échantillon. Cahier Technique de l’INRA 35: 5–22.Google Scholar
Machado, H. M. 1992. Efeitos de diferentes combinações de capim-elefante (Pennisetum purpureum, Schum): cana-de-açucar (Saccharum officinarum, L.) sobre a digestibilidade em eqüinos, utilizando diferentes metodologias de determinação. Dissertação, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Brazil.Google Scholar
Medina, B., Drogoul, C. and Julliand, V. 2002. Pratiques alimentaires et transit digestif. 28ème Journée de la recherche équine, pp. 91–102. Les Haras Nationaux, Paris.Google Scholar
Metayer, N., Lhôte, M., Barh, A., Cohen, N., Kim, I., Roussel, A. J. and Julliand, V. 2004. Meal size and starch content affect gastric emptying in horses. Equine Veterinary Journal In press.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1986. The analysis of agricultural materials. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Miraglia, N., Bergero, D., Bassano, B., Tarantola, M. and Ladetto, G. 1999. Studies of apparent digestibility in horses and the use of internal markers. Livestock Production Science 60: 21–25.Google Scholar
Moore-Colyer, M. J. S., Hyslop, J. J., Longland, A. C. and Cuddeford, D. 1999. In vivo apparent digestibility of proximate constituents and non-starch polysaccharides in ponies offered botanically diverse fibre based diets. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, 1999, p. 139.Google Scholar
Moore-Colyer, M. J. S., Hyslop, J. J., Longland, A. C. and Cuddeford, D. 2002. The mobile bag technique as a method for determining the degradation of four botanically diverse fibrous feedstuffs in the small intestine and total tract of ponies. British Journal of Nutrition 88: 729–740.Google Scholar
Morrow, H. J., Moore-Colyer, M. and Longland, A. C. 1999. The apparent digestibilities and rates of passage of two chop lengths of big bale silage and hay in ponies. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, 1999, p. 142.Google Scholar
Murray, M. J. and Schusser, G. F. 1993. Measurement of 24-h gastric pH using an indwelling pH electrode in horses unfed, fed and treated with ranitidine. Equine Veterinary Journal 25: 417–421.Google Scholar
Potter, G. D., Arnold, F. F., Householder, D. D., Hansen, D. H. and Brown, K. M. 1992. Digestion of starch in the small or large intestine of the equine. Erst Europäische Konferenz über die Ernährung des Pferdes, Hannover, pp. 107–111.Google Scholar
Radicke, S., Kienzle, E. and Meyer, H. 1991. Preileal apparent digestibility of oats and corn starch and consequences for cecal metabolism. Proceedings of the 12th equine nutrition and physiology symposium, Calgary, pp. 43–48.Google Scholar
Roberts, M. C. 1974. Amylase activity in the small intestine of the horse. Research in Veterinary Science 17: 400–401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schurg, W. A., Frei, D. L., Cheeke, P. R. and Holtan, D. W. 1977. Utilization of whole corn plants pellets by horses and rabbits. Journal of Animal Science 45: 1317–1321.Google Scholar
Scott, T. A. and Hall, J. W. 1998. Using acid insoluble ash marker ratios (diet: digesta) to predict digestibility of wheat and barley metabolizable energy and nitrogen retention in broiler chicks. Poultry Science 77: 674–679.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 2000. User’s guide, version 8. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J., Robertson, J. B. and Lewis, B. A. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74: 3583–3597.Google Scholar
Wolter, R. and Chaabouni, A. 1979. Etude de la digestion de l’amidon chez le cheval par analyse du contenu digestif après abattage. Revue de Médecine Vétérinaire 130: 1345–1357.Google Scholar
Wolter, R., Durix, A., Gouy, D., Letourneau, J. C., Carcelen, M. and Gouy, J. 1980. Paramètres biochimiques et digestibilités dans le duodénum chez le poney recevant un même aliment complet granulé ou semi expansé. Annales de Zootechnie 29: 305–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolter, R., Valette, J. P., Durix, A., Letourneau, J. C. and Carcelen, M. 1982. Digestibilité comparée de quatre céréales (avoine, orge, maïs, blé) selon le mode de présentation, chez le poney. Annales de Zootechnie 31: 445–458.Google Scholar
Yoder, M. J., Miller, E., Rook, J., Shelle, J. E. and Ullrey, D. E. 1997. Fiber level and form: effects on digestibility, digesta flow and incidence of gastrointestinal disorders. Proceedings of the 15th equine nutrition and physiology symposium, Fort Worth, Texas, pp. 122–127.Google Scholar
Yu, B., Lee, T. T. T. and Chiou, P. W. S. 2002. Effects of sources of protein and enzyme supplementation on protein digestibility and chyme characteristics in broilers. British Poultry Science 43: 445–458.Google Scholar