Cited by 10Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyPhysiological and biochemical adaptations

Little differences in digestive efficiency for protein and fat in mammals of different trophic guilds and digestive strategies: data constraints or fundamental functional similarity?

Open access
Richard, O. K., Codron, D., Hagen, K. B., Südekum, K.‐H., Clauss, M.·2017·Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition

Abstract

Summary: Carnivores do not vary markedly in their digestive efficiency for protein and fat, but whether they resemble other trophic guilds (omnivores and herbivores) in this respect has not been evaluated. We collated data on apparent crude protein (CP) and crude fat (ether extracts,EE) digestibility in 157 mammal species, applying the Lucas principle of regressing digestible nutrient content against nutrient content, where the slope of the regression equation represents the true digestibility and the intercept the metabolic losses per unit dry matter intake. The data collection is marked by the evident uneven distribution of dietary nutrient contents across trophic guilds and differences in the nutrient range by which different species have been evaluated, making statistical interpretation difficult. Results indicate a lower true digestibility of CP in herbivores compared to carnivores, most likely due to a lower digestibility of fibre‐bound protein in herbivore diets. Metabolic CP losses did not appear to differ between trophic guilds, but herbivores had higher metabolic EE losses, compatible with the hypothesis that a higher proportion of metabolic CP losses were bound in microbes that also contain lipids in herbivores. Among herbivores, no clear pattern was evident that would indicate a difference in metabolic losses associated with microbes between digestive strategies (coprophagy, foregut/hindgut fermentation). Foregut fermenters had a lower true EE digestibility, possibly linked to the hydrogenation of lipids in their forestomach prior to digestion. The results do not demonstrate clear differences in digestive efficiency and metabolic losses for protein and fat between mammalian trophic guilds and digestive strategies, leading to the hypothesis that the process of CP and EE digestion is not physiologically challenging and hence does not lead to a noticeable differentiation between species or species groups.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jpn.12657

Cites

84 of 84 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Available data does not suggest a difference in digestive processes for protein and fat between herbivores, omnivores or carnivores.

    “Available data does not suggest a difference in digestive processes for protein and fat between herbivores, omnivores or carnivores [68]”

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Foose, T. J., 1982: Trophic strategies of ruminant versus nonruminant ungu- lates. PhD Thesis, University of Chicago, Chicago.
  2. Merry, R.; McAllan, A., 1983: A compar- ison of the chemical composition of mixed bacteria harvested from the liq- uid and solid fraction of rumen bacte- ria. British Journal of Nutrition 50, 701-709.
  3. Ud en, P.; Van Soest, P. J., 1982: Comparative digestion of timothy fiber by ruminants, equines and rabbits. Bri- tish Journal of Nutrition 47, 267-272.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Richard, O. K., Codron, D., Hagen, K. B., Südekum, K. ‐., & Clauss, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • University of the Free State (ZA)
  • University of Bonn (DE)
Corresponding author
Clauss, M.
Venue
Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-06
Volume
101
Issue
S1
Pages
127-141
ISSN
  • 0931-2439 (ISSN-L)
  • 1439-0396
OpenAlex
W2664695574
Cited by
10
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
1.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Topics
  • 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
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Physiological and biochemical adaptations
Keywords
digestive efficiency, protein digestibility, fat digestibility, trophic guilds, herbivores, carnivores, omnivores, coprophagy, foregut fermentation, hindgut fermentation, forestomach
MeSH terms
Animals, Animal Feed, Animal Nutritional Physiological Phenomena, Diet, Dietary Fats, Dietary Proteins, Digestion, Mammals, Species Specificity, Herbivory

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