Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T12:20:30.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Voluntary intake and digestibility in horses: effect of forage quality with emphasis on individual variability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2008

N. Edouard ,
G. Fleurance ,
W. Martin-Rosset ,
P. Duncan ,
J. P. Dulphy ,
S. Grange ,
R. Baumont ,
H. Dubroeucq ,
F. J. Pérez-Barbería  and
I. J. Gordon
N. Edouard*
Affiliation:
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, UR 1213 Unité de Recherches sur les Herbivores, 63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France Centre d’Etudes Biologiques de Chizé, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique UPR 1934, 79360 Beauvoir-sur-Niort, France
G. Fleurance
Affiliation:
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, UR 1213 Unité de Recherches sur les Herbivores, 63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France Les Haras Nationaux, Direction des Connaissances, 19230 Arnac-Pompadour, France
W. Martin-Rosset
Affiliation:
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, UR 1213 Unité de Recherches sur les Herbivores, 63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
P. Duncan
Affiliation:
Centre d’Etudes Biologiques de Chizé, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique UPR 1934, 79360 Beauvoir-sur-Niort, France
J. P. Dulphy
Affiliation:
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, UR 1213 Unité de Recherches sur les Herbivores, 63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
S. Grange
Affiliation:
Centre d’Etudes Biologiques de Chizé, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique UPR 1934, 79360 Beauvoir-sur-Niort, France
R. Baumont
Affiliation:
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, UR 1213 Unité de Recherches sur les Herbivores, 63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
H. Dubroeucq
Affiliation:
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, UR 1213 Unité de Recherches sur les Herbivores, 63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
F. J. Pérez-Barbería
Affiliation:
The Macaulay Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen, AB15 8QH, UK
I. J. Gordon
Affiliation:
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation – Davies Laboratory, PMB PO Aitkenvale, Qld 4814, Australia
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Food intake is a key biological process in animals, as it determines the energy and nutrients available for the physiological and behavioural processes. In herbivores, the abundance, structure and quality of plant resources are known to influence intake strongly. In ruminants, as the forage quality declines, digestibility and total intake decline. Equids are believed to be adapted to consume high-fibre low-quality forages. As hindgut fermenters, it has been suggested that their response to a reduction in food quality is to increase intake to maintain rates of energy and nutrient absorption. All reviews of horse nutrition show that digestibility declines with forage quality; for intake, however, most studies have found no significant relationship with forage quality, and it has even been suggested that horses may eat less with declining forage quality similarly to ruminants. A weakness of these reviews is to combine data from different studies in meta-analyses without allowing the differences between animals and diets to be controlled for. In this study, we analysed a set of 45 trials where intake and digestibility were measured in 21 saddle horses. The dataset was analysed both at the group (to allow comparisons with the literature) and at the individual levels (to control for individual variability). As expected, dry matter digestibility declined with forage quality in both analyses. Intake declined slightly with increasing fibre contents at the group level, and there were no effects of crude protein or dry matter digestibility on intake. Overall, the analysis for individual horses showed a different pattern: intake increased as digestibility and crude protein declined, and increased with increasing fibre. Our analysis at the group level confirms previous reviews and shows that forage quality explains little of the variance in food intake in horses. For the first time, using mixed models, we show that the variable ‘individual’ clarifies the picture, as the horses showed different responses to a decrease in forage quality: some compensated for the low nutritional value of the forages by increasing intake, few others responded by decreasing intake with declining forage quality, but not enough to cause any deficit in their energy and protein supplies. On the whole, all the animals managed to meet their maintenance requirements. The individual variability may be a by-product of artificial selection for performance in competition in saddle horses.

Keywords

horsesintakedigestibilityforage qualityindividual variability
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 2 , Issue 10 , October 2008 , pp. 1526 - 1533
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2008

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.)

References

Akaike, H 1973. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Information Theory (ed. BN Petrov), pp. 267–281. Akademiai Kiado, Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists 1980. Official methods of analysis, 13rd edition. AOAC, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Bastian AN, Gagnon LC, Cash SD, Martin JM and Fisher DW 2005. The comparative intake and nutrient digestibility of legume/grass hays in horses. In Proceeding of the Nutrition Conference, p.9. Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, USA.Google Scholar
Baumont, R, Jailler, M, Dulphy, JP 1997. Dynamic of voluntary intake, feeding behaviour and rumen function in sheep fed three contrasting types of hay. Annales de Zootechnie 46, 231–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumont, R, Prache, S, Meuret, M, Morand-Fehr, P 2000. How forage characteristics influence behaviour and intake in small ruminants: a review. Livestock Production Science 64, 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumont, R, Chenost, M, Demarquilly, C 2004. Measurement of herbage intake and ingestive behaviour by housed animals. In Herbage intake handbook, 2nd edition (ed. PD Penning), pp. 121–149. The British Grassland Society, Reading, UK.Google Scholar
Berteaux, D, Thomas, DW, Bergeron, J-M, Lapierre, H 1996. Repeatability of daily field metabolic rate in female Meadow Voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus). Functional Ecology 10, 751–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnham, KP, Anderson, DR 1998. Model selection and inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chenost, M, Martin-Rosset, W 1985. Comparaison entre espèces (mouton, cheval, bovin) de la digestibilité et des quantités ingérées des fourrages verts. Annales de Zootechnie 34, 291–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawley, MJ 1983. Herbivory: the dynamics of animal–plant interactions. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, USA.Google Scholar
Cymbaluk, NF 1990. Comparison of forage digestion by cattle and horses. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 70, 601–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulphy, JP, Martin-Rosset, W, Dubroeucq, H, Ballet, JM, Detour, A, Jailler, M 1997a. Compared feeding patterns in ad libitum intake of dry forages by horses and sheep. Livestock Production Science 52, 49–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulphy, JP, Martin-Rosset, W, Dubroeucq, H, Jailler, M 1997b. Evaluation of voluntary intake of forage trough-fed to light horses. Comparison with sheep. Factors of variation and prediction. Livestock Production Science 52, 97–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, P 1992. Horses and grasses: the nutritional ecology of equids and their impact on the Camargue. Springer-Verlag, New-York, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, P, Foose, TJ, Gordon, IJ, Gakahu, CG, Lloyd, M 1990. Comparative nutrient extraction from forages by grazing bovids and equids: a test of the nutritional model of equid/bovid competition and coexistence. Oecologia 84, 411–418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faverdin, P, Baumont, R, Ingvartsen, KL 1995. Control and prediction of feed intake in ruminants. In Proceedings of the IVth International Symposium on the Nutrition of Herbivores (ed. M Journet, E Grenet, MH Farce, M Thériez and C Demarquilly), pp. 95–120. INRA Editions, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Goering, HK, Van Soest, PJ 1970. Forage and fibre analyses, agricultural handbook no. 379. US Departement of Agriculture, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Grenet, E, Demarquilly, C 1987. Rappels sur la digestion des fourrages dans le rumen (parois) et ses conséquences. In Les fourrages secs : récolte, traitement, utilisation (ed. C Demarquilly), pp. 141–162. INRA Editions, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Henneberg, W, Stohmann, F 1859. Über das Erhaltungsfutter volljährigen Rindviehs. Journal für Landwirtschaft 34, 485–551.Google Scholar
Iason, GR, Sim, DA, Gordon, IJ 2000. Do endogenous seasonal cycles of food intake influence foraging behaviour and intake by grazing sheep? Functional Ecology 14, 614–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ihaka, R, Gentleman, R 1996. R: a language for data analysis and graphics. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 5, 299–314.Google Scholar
INRA-HN-IE 1997. Notation de l’état corporel des chevaux de selle et de sport. Guide pratique. Institut de l’Elevage, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Janis, C 1976. The evolutionary strategy of the equidae and the origins of rumen and cecal digestion. Evolution 30, 757–774.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jarrige, R, Dulphy, JP, Faverdin, P, Baumont, R, Demarquilly, C 1995. Activités d’ingestion et de rumination. In Nutrition des ruminants domestiques – ingestion et digestion (ed. R Jarrige, Y Ruckebusch, C Demarquilly, MH Farce and M Journet), pp. 123–181. INRA Editions, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Jensen, P 1995. Individual variation in the behaviour of pigs – noise or functional coping strategies? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44, 245–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koenen, EPC, Aldridge, LI, Philipsson, J 2004. An overview of breeding objectives for warmblood sport horses. Livestock Production Science 88, 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaCasha, PA, Brady, HA, Allen, VG, Richardson, CR, Pond, KR 1999. Voluntary intake, digestibility, and subsequent selection of Matua Bromegrass, Coastal Bermudagrass, and alfalfa hays by yearling horses. Journal of Animal Science 77, 2766–2773.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laut, JE, Houpt, KA, Hintz, HF, Houpt, TR 1985. The effect of caloric dilution on meal patterns and food intake of ponies. Physiology and Behavior 35, 549–554.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin-Rosset, W, Doreau, M 1984. Consommation d’aliments et d’eau par le cheval. In Le cheval. reproduction, sélection, alimentation, exploitation (ed. R Jarrige and W Martin-Rosset), pp. 333–354. INRA Publications, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Martin-Rosset, W, Doreau, M, Boulot, S, Miraglia, N 1990. Influence of level of feeding and physiological state on diet digestibility in light and heavy breed horses. Livestock Production Science 25, 257–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin-Rosset, W, Vermorel, M, Doreau, M, Tisserand, JL, Andrieu, J 1994. The French horse feed evaluation systems and recommended allowances for energy and protein. Livestock Production Science 40, 37–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mesochina, P 2000. Niveau d’ingestion du cheval en croissance au pâturage : mise au point méthodologique et étude de quelques facteurs de variation. PhD, Institut National Agronomique Paris-Grignon, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Pérez-Barbería, FJ, Elston, DA, Gordon, IJ, Illius, AW 2004. The evolution of phylogenetic differences in the efficiency of digestion in ruminants. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 271, 1081–1090.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piccione, G, Caola, G, Refinetti, R 2005. Temporal relationships of 21 physiological variables in horse and sheep. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology. Part A: Molecular and Integrative Physiology 142, 389–396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinheiro, JC, Bates, DM 2000. Mixed effects models in S and S-plus. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, RL, Jung, GA, Thayne, WV 1988. Relationships between nutritive quality and fiber components of cool season and warm season forages: a retrospective study. Journal of Animal Science 66, 1275–1291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rivero, JLL, Barrey, E 2001. Heritabilities and genetic and phenotypic parameters for gluteus medius muscle fibre type composition, fibre size and capillaries in purebred Spanish horses. Livestock Production Science 72, 233–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephens, DW, Krebs, JR 1986. Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ 1994a. Plant, animal, and environment. In The nutritional ecology of the ruminant, 2nd edition (ed. Comstock Publishing Associates), pp. 77–92. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, PJ 1994b. Intake. In The nutritional ecology of the ruminant, 2nd edition (ed. Comstock Publishing Associates), pp. 337–353. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vernet, J, Vermorel, M, Martin-Rosset, W 1995. Energy cost of eating long hay, straw and pelleted food in sport horses. Animal Science 61, 581–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weston, RH 1996. Some aspects of constraint to forage consumption by ruminants. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 47, 175–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar