Studies on Coprophagy in Experimental Animals
Open accessAbstract
I , Introduction II.Characteristics of coprophagy in several species of experimental animals III.Coprophagy in the mouse 1. Characteristics of coprophagy 2 , Nutritional significance of coprophagy 3 , Coprophagy as an innate behavior 4 , The possible role of coprophagy in the maintenance of interstinal flora IV.
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?
Relative to other non-ruminant herbivores such as horse, the rabbits and chinchillas digestive tube has an increased development to provide the nutrient requirements and increases the efficiency of utilization of fibrous nutrients.
“Relative to other non ruminant herbivores such as horse, the rabbits and chinchillas digestive tube has an increased development to provide the nutrient requirements and increases the ef iciency of utilization of ibrous nutrients (Ebino 1993;Boellinger 2007;Kohles 2014).”
From Anatomical Particularities of the Cecum in Rabbits and Chinchillas (2014) · cites this paper as Ebino 1993
The Introduction (page unavailable) describes rabbits as hindgut fermenters, reports vigorous coprophagy in chinchillas, and links coprophagy to obtaining nutrients produced by intestinal microorganisms. It does not say that rabbits’ or chinchillas’ digestive tubes are more developed than horses’, or that this anatomy improves utilization of fibrous nutrients. (LLM, conf=0.77)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAlthough modern diets mean that cecotrophy is unnecessary for survival, this feature is an innate behaviour stimulated by anal reflex.
“Although modern diets mean that cecotrophy is unnecessary for survival; this feature is an innate behaviour stimulated by anal re lex (Ebino, 1993).”
From Anatomical Particularities of the Cecum in Rabbits and Chinchillas (2014) · cites this paper as Ebino, 1993
The Conclusion (p. not available) says that, in mice given balanced diets, coprophagy has almost entirely lost its nutritional significance, is innate, and is released reflexively during defecation. The Introduction (p. not available) also suggests that feces at the rectal wall trigger the behavior. The citing sentence extends these findings to cecotrophy generally and says it is unnecessary for survival, which the paper does not establish. (LLM, conf=0.88)
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: 2
- Gustafsson, B.E. and Fitzgerald, R.J. (1960). Alteration in intestinal microbial flora of rats with tail cups to prevent coprophagy. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Livest. Prod. Sci., 8, 361-366.
- Tinbergen, N (1969). In The study of Instinct (re -issued) , pp 51-54, The Clarendon Press, Oxford.
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
“Relative to other non ruminant herbivores such as horse, the rabbits and chinchillas digestive tube has an increased development to provide the nutrient requirements and increases the ef iciency of utilization of ibrous nutrients (Ebino 1993; Boellinger 2007; Kohles 2014).”
Background
- Authors
- EBINO, K. Y.
- Affiliations
- The Institute of Environmental Toxicology (JP)
- Corresponding author
- EBINO, Koichi Y.
- Venue
- Experimental Animals
- Published
- 1993
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-9
- ISSN
- 0007-5124 (ISSN-L)
- 1881-7122
- OpenAlex
- W2405971763
- Cited by
- 60
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 0.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Nutrition and Physiology
- Keywords
- coprophagy, animal behavior
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Animal Nutritional Physiological Phenomena, Animals, Laboratory, Chinchilla, Coprophagia, Arvicolinae, Cricetulus, Feces, Female, Guinea Pigs, Cricetinae, Intestines, Male, Pregnancy, Rabbits, Reproduction, Species Specificity, Vitamin B 12, Rats, Wistar, Mice, Rats
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
