Intake, selection, digesta retention, digestion and gut fill of two coprophageous species, rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) and guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus), on a hay-only diet: Intake, selection, retention, digestion and gut fill in rabbits and guinea pigs
Open accessAbstract
A colonic separation mechanism (CSM) is the prerequisite for the digestive strategy of coprophagy. Two different CSM are known in small herbivores, the 'wash-back' CSM of lagomorphs and the 'mucous-trap' CSM of rodents. Differences between these groups in their digestive pattern when fed exclusively hay were investigated in six rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) and six guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus). Intake, digestibility (by total faecal collection), solute and particle mean retention times (MRT, using Co-EDTA and Cr-mordanted fibres) were measured. Rabbits selected less fibrous parts of the hay than guinea pigs, leaving orts with higher content of neutral detergent fibre [NDF; 721 ± 21 vs. 642 ± 31 g/kg dry matter (DM) in guinea pigs]. They also expressed a lower NDF digestibility (0.44 ± 0.10 vs. 0.55 ± 0.05 of total), a similar particle MRT (15 ± 3 vs. 18 ± 6 h), a longer solute MRT (51 ± 9 vs. 16 ± 4 h), and a lower calculated dry matter gut fill (19.6 ± 4.7 vs. 29.7 ± 4.1 g DM/kg body mass) than guinea pigs (p < 0.05 for each variable). These results support the assumption that the 'wash-back' CSM, exhibited in the rabbits, is more efficient in extracting bacterial matter from the colonic digesta plug than the 'mucous-trap' CSM found in the guinea pigs. Related to metabolic body mass, rabbits therefore need a less capacious colon for their CSM where a more efficient bacteria wash-out is reflected in the lower fibre digestibility. A lighter digestive tract could contribute to a peculiarity of lagomorphs: their ability to run faster than other similar-sized mammals.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Physiological research has demonstrated both descending and ascending contraction of the cecum in order to separate fluids from solid particles and maintain a longer time the nutrients which is essential for fermentation process.
“Physiological research have demonstrated both descending and ascending contraction of the cecum in order to separate luids from solid particles and maintained a longer time the nutrients which is essential for fermentation process (Franz et al., 2010).”
From Anatomical Particularities of the Cecum in Rabbits and Chinchillas (2014) · cites this paper as Franz et al., 2010
The Introduction (page unavailable) describes fluid secretion and retrograde peristalsis in the proximal colon, which washes fluids, bacteria and small particles back into the caecum. The Discussion (page unavailable) describes fluid washing in both directions and probable transfer of solutes into the caecum. It does not describe descending and ascending contractions of the caecum or establish that these retain nutrients longer for fermentation. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 23
- Bernard, J. B.; Ullrey, D. E.; Wolff, P. L., 1995: Selecting appropriate markers for digestibility studies. Proceedings of the Nutrition Advisory Group 1, 203-206.
- Björnhag, G., 1972: Separation and delay of contents in the rabbit colon. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 2, 125-136.
- Clauss, M.; Lang-Deuerling, S.; Müller, D. W. H.; Kienzle, E.; Steuer, P.; Hummel, J., 2010b: Retention of fluid and particles in captive tapirs (Tapirus spp.). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology A (in press) doi:10.1016/j.cbpa.2010.03.029, · DOI
- Clauss, W., 1978: Resorption und Sekretion von Wasser und Elektrolyten im Colon des Kaninchens im Zusammenhang mit der Bildung von Weichkot und Hartkot, Dissertation thesis. University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart.
- Cork, S. J.; Hume, I. D.; Faichney, G. J., 1999: Digestive strategies of nonruminant herbivores: the role of the hindgut. In: H. J. G. Jung, G. C. Fahey (eds) Nutritional ecology of herbivores. American Society of Animal Science, Savoy, IL, pp. 210-260.
- Garland, T., 1983: The relationship between maximal running speed and body mass in terrestrial mammals. Journal of Zoology 199, 157-170.
- Hirakawa, H., 2001: Coprophagy in leporids and other mammalian herbivores. Mammal Review 31, 61-80.
- Hirakawa, H., 2002: Supplement: coprophagy in leporids and other mammalian herbivores. Mammal Review 32, 150-152.
- Holleman, D. F.; White, R. G., 1989: Determination of digesta fill and passage rate from non absorbed particulate phase markers using the single dosing method. Canadian Journal of Zoology 67, 488-494.
- Karasov, W. H.; Martínez del Rio, C., 2007: Physiological ecology: how animals process energy, nutrients, and toxins. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
- Lentle, R.; Hemar, Y.; Hall, C., 2006: Viscoelastic behaviour aids extrusion from and reabsorption of the liquid phase into the digesta plug: creep rheometry of hindgut digesta in the common brushtail possum Trichosurus vulpecula. Journal of Comparative Physiology B 176, 469-475.
- Mess, A.; Ade, M., 2005: Feeding biology of the dassie-rat Pteromus typicus in captivity. Belgian Journal of Zoology 135 (Suppl.), 45-51.
- Meyer, K.; Hummel, J.; Clauss, M., 2010: The relationship between forage cell wall content and voluntary food intake in mammalian herbivores. Mammal Review (in press),
- Pei, Y. X.; Wang, D. H.; Hume, I. D., 2001: Selective digesta retention and coprophagy in Brandt's vole (Microtus brandti). Journal of Comparative Physiology B 171, 457-464.
- Sakaguchi, E.; Itoh, H.; Uchida, S.; Horigome, T., 1987: Comparison of fibre digestion and digesta retention time between rabbits, guinea-pigs, rats and hamsters. British Journal of Nutrition 58, 149-158.
- Sakaguchi, E., 2003: Digestive strategies of small hindgut fermenters. Animal Science Journal 74, 327-337.
- Slade, L. M.; Hintz, H. F., 1969: Comparison of digestion in horses, ponies, rabbits and guinea pigs. Journal of Animal Science 28, 842-843.
- Sperber, I.; Björnhag, G.; Ridderstråle, Y., 1983: Function of proximal colon in lemming and rat. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 13, 243-256.
- Steuer, P.; Clauss, M.; Südekum, K.-H.; Hatt, J. M.; Silinski, S.; Klomburg, S.; Zimmermann, W.; Hummel, J., 2010: Comparative investigations on digestion in grazing (Ceratotherium simum) and browsing (Diceros bicornis) rhinoceroses. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology A (online), doi 10.1016/j.cbpa.2010.1003.1006. · DOI
- Takahashi, T.; Sakaguchi, E., 1998: Behaviors and nutritional importance of coprophagy in captive adult and young nutrias (Myocastor coypus). Journal of Comparative Physiology B 168, 281-288.
- Takahashi, T.; Sakaguchi, E., 2000: Role of the furrow of the proximal colon in the production of soft and hard feces in nutrias (Myocastor coypus). Journal of Comparative Physiology B 170, 531-535.
- Takahashi, T.; Sakaguchi, E., 2006: Transport of bacteria across and along the large intestinal lumen of guinea pigs. Journal of Comparative Physiology B 176, 173-178.
- Udén, P.; Colucci, P. E.; Van Soest, P. J., 1980: Investigation of chromium, cerium and cobalt as markers in digesta rates of passage studies. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 31, 625-632.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Anatomical Particularities of the Cecum in Rabbits and Chinchillas
STAN, F. G. (2014) · Bulletin of University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca. Veterinary Medicine · doi:10.15835/buasvmcn-vm:10587 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
- Authors
- Franz, R., Kreuzer, M., Hummel, J., Hatt, J.-M., & Clauss, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Zurich (CH)
- ETH Zurich (CH)
- University of Bonn (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Clauss, M.
- Venue
- Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-11-22
- Volume
- 95
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 564-570
- ISSN
- 0931-2439 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1830179602
- Cited by
- 71
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 5 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 5.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
- Funders
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Rabbits: Nutrition, Reproduction, Health
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Nutrition and Physiology
- Keywords
- coprophagy, rabbits, guinea pig, gut fill, fiber digestibility, feed selection, lagomorphs, rodents, particle residence time
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Animal Feed, Coprophagia, Diet, Digestion, Gastrointestinal Contents, Guinea Pigs, Rabbits, Species Specificity, Gastrointestinal Tract
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
