CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 18Animal Nutrition and PhysiologyGut microbiota and healthRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Nutrient digestibility and colonic fermentation processes in species of the families Mustelidae and Canidae fed the same diet

Gugołek, Andrzej, Juśkiewicz, Jerzy, Strychalski, Janusz, Konstantynowicz, Małgorzata, Zwoliński, Cezary·2015·Journal of Experimental Zoology Part A: Ecological Genetics and Physiology
DOI 10.1002/jez.1954
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Nutrient digestibility was compared and the influence of colonic fermentation processes on nutrient digestibility was determined in the American mink (Neovison vison) and the silver fox (Vulpes vulpes). It was hypothesized that gut microbiota exert varied effects on digestion processes in the analyzed species. The experiment was performed in December, on a group of 10 male mink and 10 male foxes. All animals were fed identical diets for fur‐bearing carnivores, with the following chemical composition (%): dry matter (DM)—33.12, total protein (TP)—12.01, ether extract (EE)—8.64, crude fiber (CF)—12.01, N‐free extracts (N‐FE)—9.32, and gross energy (GE)—7.313 MJ/kg−1. The coefficients of DM, OM, TP and EE digestibility were significantly higher in foxes than in mink. Mink were characterized by significantly higher utilization of N‐FE. In foxes, as compared with mink, fermentation rates were higher in the final section of the gastrointestinal tract, which improved nutrient digestibility. In mink, characterized by lower fermentation rates in the colon, increased enzyme secretion by bacterial cells is one of the physiological mechanisms that enable to optimize nutrient absorption in the large intestine.J. Exp. Zool. 323A: 637–644, 2015. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jez.1954

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. AOAC International.2006. Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. 18th edition. Arlington VA USA Association of Analytical Communities.
  2. ElnifJ HansenNE MortensenK Sorensen H.1988. Properties of mink trypsinogen/trypsin and chymotrypsinogen/chymotrypsin compared with corresponding properties of these enzymes from other animals. In: Biology Pathology and Genetics of Fur Bearing Animals. Proceedings 4th International Scientific Congress in Fur Animal Production Toronto & Wisconsin 308–319.
  3. Faulkner WL, 1992, Apparent and true digestibility of dry matter, crude protein and amio acids in diets for mature silver foxes, Norw J Agric Sci, 268
  4. Lorek MO, 2001, Studies on the the relatioship between body weight, trunk length and pelt size in common foxes (Vulpes vulpes), Czech J Anim Sci, 11, 481
  5. Lorek MO, 2002, Effect of feeding pellets to arctic foxes on their performance and selected morpological‐biochemical blood indices, Czech J Anim Sci, 47, 333
  6. NRC.1982. Nutrient Requirements of Mink and Foxes. National Research Council. Second revised edition by the National Research Council Subcommittee on Furbearer Nutrition. National Academic Press Washington.
  7. OJEU.2010. Official Journal of the European Union. Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. (OJEU 20.10.2010 Series L 276 33‐79).
  8. Review of Operational Procedures for Killing of Fur Animals.2007. Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Food.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 18

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Gugołek, A., Juśkiewicz, J., Strychalski, J., Konstantynowicz, M., & Zwoliński, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn (PL)
  • InLife Institute of Animal Reproduction and Food Research, Polish Academy of Sciences (PL)
Corresponding author
Juśkiewicz, Jerzy
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Experimental Zoology Part A: Ecological Genetics and Physiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-09-09
Volume
323
Issue
9
Pages
637-644
ISSN
  • 1932-5223 (ISSN-L)
  • 1932-5231
DOI
10.1002/jez.1954
OpenAlex
W2113606839
Semantic Scholar
b9467802950da311bb41267d6095b8ccc651ec81
Cited by
18
References
28
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2
FWCI
2.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Zoology Part A Ecological Genetics and Physiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Nutrition and Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Keywords
nutrient digestibility, colonic fermentation, gut microbiota, American mink, silver fox, red fox, Mustelidae, Canidae, dietary fiber, nitrogen-free extract, large intestine
MeSH terms
Animals, Animal Feed, Animal Nutritional Physiological Phenomena, Bacteria, Colon, Diet, Digestion, Fermentation, Foxes, Male, Mink

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review