Digesta kinetics in gazelles in comparison to other ruminants: Evidence for taxon-specific rumen fluid throughput to adjust digesta washing to the natural diet

Dittmann, M.; Hummel, Jürgen; Hammer, Sven; Arif, Abdi; Hebel, Christiana; Müller, Dennis; Fritz, Julia; Steuer, Patrick; Schwarm, Angela; Kreuzer, Michael; Clauss, Marcus

doi:10.1016/j.cbpa.2015.01.013

Cited by 31 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 89 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This process is not restricted to ruminants as it can also be found in some NRFF and other digestion types (Müller et al 2011). Within ruminants, species differ in rumen fluid throughput and the degree of digesta washing (Clauss and LechnerDoll 2001;Clauss et al 2006;Dittmann et al 2015;Hummel et al 2015), which led to the classification of 'cattle-' and 'moose-type' ruminants. Therefore, the finding that 'cattle-' and 'moose-type' ruminants differ significantly in the SF 2mm/solute FS (Fig.…”

Section: Comparing Digesta Washing Between Camelids and Ruminantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, it appears that camelids in general have evolved a 'cattletype' strategy, although guanacos (Lama guanicoe) and vicuñas (Vicugna vicugna) have not yet been subjected to digesta retention measurements. The proposed major advantage of the 'cattle-type' strategy is an increased harvest of microbes from the FS, leading to a higher general yield of microbial protein, and selection for a fast-growing and particularly efficient microbial community in the FS Dittmann et al 2015;Hummel et al 2015). Due to this higher microbial yield, the 'cattle-type' strategy might be particularly suitable for camelids with their greater ability to recycle urea as compared with domestic ruminants (Hinderer and von Engelhardt 1975;von Engelhardt and Schneider 1977).…”

Section: Comparing Digesta Washing Between Camelids and Ruminantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…So far, comparative studies of retention times in ruminants and camelids are lacking. In ruminants, marked differences between species occur with respect to the retention of solute and particle markers (Dittmann et al 2015). The efficacy of the ruminant sorting mechanism, however, is not affected by such species differences (Lechner et al 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Digesta retention patterns of solute and different-sized particles in camelids compared with ruminants and other foregut fermenters

Dittmann

Runge²,

Ortmann

et al. 2015

J Comp Physiol B

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The mean retention time (MRT) of solute or particles in the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) and the forestomach (FS) are crucial determinants of digestive physiology in herbivores. Besides ruminants, camelids are the only herbivores that have evolved rumination as an obligatory physiological process consisting of repeated mastication of large food particles, which requires a particle sorting mechanism in the FS. Differences between camelids and ruminants have hardly been investigated so far. In this study we measured MRTs of solute and differently-sized particles (2, 10, and 20 mm), and the ratio of large-to-small particle MRT, i.e., the selectivity factors (SF10/2mm, SF20/2mm, SF20/10mm), in three camelid species: alpacas (Vicugna pacos), llamas (Llama glama), and Bactrian camels (Camelus bactrianus). The camelid data were compared with literature data from ruminants and non-ruminant foregut fermenters (NRFF). Camelids and ruminants both had higher SF10/2mmFS than NRFF, suggesting convergence in the function of the FS sorting mechanism in contrast to NRFF, in which such a sorting mechanism is absent. The SF20/10mmFS did not differ between ruminants and camelids, indicating that there is a particle size threshold of about 1 cm in both suborders above which particle retention is not increased. Camelids did not differ from ruminants in MRT2mmFS, MRTsoluteFS and the ratio MRT2mmFS/MRTsoluteFS, but they were more similar to 'cattle-' than to 'moose-type' ruminants. Camelids had higher SF10/2mmFS and higher SF20/2mmFS than ruminants, indicating a potentially slower particle sorting in camelids than in ruminants, with larger particles being retained longer in relation to small particles. sorting mechanism in contrast to NRFF, in which such a sorting mechanism is absent. The SF 20/10mm FS did not differ between ruminants and camelids, indicating that there is a particle size threshold of about 1 cm in both suborders above which particle retention is not increased. Camelids did not differ from ruminants in MRT 2mm FS, MRT solute FS, and the ratio MRT 2mm FS/MRT solute FS, but they were more similar to 'cattle-' than to 'moose-type' ruminants. Camelids had higher SF 10/2mm FS and higher SF 20/2mm FS than ruminants, indicating a potentially slower particle sorting in camelids than in ruminants, with larger particles being retained longer in relation to small particles.

show abstract

Section: Comparing Digesta Washing Between Camelids and Ruminantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comparing Digesta Washing Between Camelids and Ruminantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Digesta retention patterns of solute and different-sized particles in camelids compared with ruminants and other foregut fermenters

Dittmann

Runge²,

Ortmann

et al. 2015

J Comp Physiol B

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This idea was first proposed by Hummel et al (2008b) and has been elaborated since (Clauss et al, 2010b;Müller et al, 2011;Dittmann et al, 2015a). Hummel et al (2015) demonstrated with an example calculation that because of the digesta washing effect, cattle-type ruminants could have a 10% higher microbial efficiency, quantified as the amount of microbial nitrogen produced in the rumen per unit of fermented organic matter.…”

Section: Explanatory Approach Iiib: Optimizing Microbial Harvestmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In terms of anatomy, these included drastic differences in salivary gland size (Hofmann et al, 2008), intraruminal papillae distribution (Clauss et al, 2009c), height of the reticular crests (Clauss et al, 2010a), or omasum size (Clauss et al, 2006a). In terms of physiology, these related mainly to distinct differences in the relative retention times of fluids and particles in the reticulorumen (Hummel et al, 2005;Clauss et al, 2006b;Dittmann et al, 2015a). In the analyses of the adaptive values of these characteristics, we recently introduced the terms "moose-type" and "cattle-type" ruminants.…”

Section: Explanatory Approach Iii: a Cohesive Set Of Observationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physiological adaptations of ruminants and their potential relevance for production systems

Clauss

Hummel

2017

R. Bras. Zootec.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-Herbivores face the dilemma that the level of feed intake is negatively related to factors that determine digestive efficiency, such as thoroughness of ingesta comminution by chewing, and retention of digesta in the digestive tract. Ruminants have evolved particular adaptations to solve this dilemma. Most ruminants share the characteristic of "digesta washing": fluid moves through their digestive tract faster than particles, thus effectively washing very fine particles, such as bacteria, out of the digesta plug. As the forestomach is followed by auto-enzymatic digestion, this allows a continuous, increased harvest of microbes from the forestomach. True rumination only evolved twice, in the camelids and the true ruminants. These both evolved a density-dependent sorting mechanism based on physical separation of the digesta by the process of flotation and sedimentation, ensuring that the process of rumination is applied to large particles. Differences in this sorting mechanism might facilitate a faster digesta processing in true ruminants as compared with camelids. The hallmark of ruminant digestive anatomy is the omasum, in which the fluid required for both digesta washing and the reticular separation mechanism is re-absorbed. In ruminants of the tribe Bovini, the omasum has reached the largest size and this group has a particularly great forestomach fluid throughput. Increasing the degree of digesta washing even more should increase microbial harvest from the forestomach and reduce the susceptibility to acidosis. At the same time, it should result in a metabolic state of the microbiome more tuned towards biomass production and less towards methanogenesis. Enhancing the forestomach fluid throughput by selective breeding could represent a promising way to further advance the productivity of the ruminant digestive tract.

show abstract

An in vitro evaluation of browser and grazer fermentation efficiency and microbiota using European moose spring and summer foods

Krizsan

Mateos‐Rivera

Bertilsson

et al. 2018

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evolutionary morphological and physiological differences between browsers and grazers contribute to species‐specific digestion efficiency of food resources. Rumen microbial community structure of browsers is supposedly adapted to characteristic nutrient composition of the diet source. If this assumption is correct, domesticated ruminants, or grazers, are poor model animals for assessing the nutritional value of food consumed by browsing game species. In this study, typical spring and summer foods of the European moose (Alces alces) were combined with rumen fluid collected from both dairy cows (Bos taurus) and from moose, with the aim of comparing fermentation efficiency and microbial community composition. The nutritional value of the food resources was characterized by chemical analysis and advanced in vitro measurements. The study also addressed whether or not feed evaluation based on in vitro techniques with cattle rumen fluid as inoculum could be a practical alternative when evaluating the nutritional value of plants consumed by wild browsers. Our results suggest that the fermentation characteristics of moose spring and summer food are partly host‐specific and related to the contribution of the bacterial phyla Firmicutes and Bacteriodetes to the rumen microbial community. Host‐specific adaptations of the ruminal microbial community structure could be explained from the evolutionary adaptations related to feeding habitats and morphophysiological differences between browsers and grazers. However, the observed overall differences in microbial community structure could not be related to ruminal digestion parameters measured in vitro. The in vitro evaluation of digestion efficiency reveals that equal amounts of methane were produced across all feed samples regardless of whether the ruminal fluid was from moose or dairy cow. The results of this study suggested that the nutritional value of browsers' spring and summer food can be predicted using rumen fluid from domesticated grazers as inoculum in in vitro assessments of extent of digestion when excluding samples of the white water lily root, but not of fermentation characteristics as indicated by the proportions of individual fermentation fatty acids to the total of volatile fatty acids.

show abstract

Digesta kinetics in gazelles in comparison to other ruminants: Evidence for taxon-specific rumen fluid throughput to adjust digesta washing to the natural diet

Cited by 31 publications

References 89 publications

Digesta retention patterns of solute and different-sized particles in camelids compared with ruminants and other foregut fermenters

Digesta retention patterns of solute and different-sized particles in camelids compared with ruminants and other foregut fermenters

Physiological adaptations of ruminants and their potential relevance for production systems

An in vitro evaluation of browser and grazer fermentation efficiency and microbiota using European moose spring and summer foods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About