Hunger vs thirst in the burro (Equus asinus)

Dill, D. B.; Yousef, Mohamed; Cox, Craig R.; Barton, R.G.

doi:10.1016/0031-9384(80)90159-6

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That donkeys are able to continue feeding during periods of water deprivation, is due, in part, to their capacity to continue saliva secretion (Dill et al, 1980). This ability contributes to their overall capacity to withstand drought, when water is the most limiting factor affecting livestock survival.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The donkey as a draught power resource in smallholder farming in semi-arid western Zimbabwe: 1. Live weight and food and water requirements

Nengomasha¹,

Pearson

Smith³

1999

Anim. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments were undertaken to assess the Zimbabwean donkey. In the first study, 191 male and 144 female working donkeys from Matopos, Nkayi and Matobo districts were weighed. Age, sex and coat colour were recorded and heart girth, umbilical girth, body length and height were measured. There were no differences (P > 0⋅05) in live weight, 142 and 141 kg, heart girth 115 and 115 cm, body length 89 and 90 cm and height 105 and 105 cm between males and females. This suggests that draught potential might be similar between the sexes. Heart girth was the best single predictor of live weight: live weight (kg) = heart girth (cm)2⋅83/4786 (R2 = 0⋅86). Donkeys were similar in size to others in Africa. In the second study, the voluntary dry-matter intake (DMI) of a poor quality hay was measured for 35 days in nine male (mean live weight 150 kg) and nine female donkeys (142 kg) allocated to one of three treatment groups: water available ad libitum, or given every 48 h, or every 72 h. There were significant differences in daily water (P < 0.001) and DMIs (P < 0.05): 8.5, 4.9 and 5.1l and 3.1, 2.8 and 2.7 kg for the three treatment groups, respectively. However even with restricted access to water, donkeys maintained a relatively high DMI. In the third experiment a 3 Х 3 Latin square was designed with three teams of four male donkeys each, either working (5 h/day) I no access to food (5 h/day); not working/no access to food (5 h/day) or not working/access to food 24 h/day, for 63 days. For working and non-working donkeys, there were no significant differences (P > 0.05) in DMI, DM apparent digestibility and mean retention time (MRT) of hay. Time of access to food did not influence DMI. The apparent lack of response was attributed primarily to the poor quality of the hay.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The donkey as a draught power resource in smallholder farming in semi-arid western Zimbabwe: 1. Live weight and food and water requirements

Nengomasha¹,

Pearson

Smith³

1999

Anim. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Donkeys have been reported to be found grazing more than 24 h away from their water source (Moehlman et al, 1998). Furthermore, dehydrated donkeys are more likely than dehydrated ponies to choose food above water (Dill et al, 1980). These responses to dehydration are behavioural rather than physiological.…”

Section: Energeticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of the Factors Affecting the Survival of Donkeys in Semi-arid Regions of Sub-Saharan Africa

Smith

Pearson²

2005

Trop Anim Health Prod

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The large fluctuations seen in cattle populations during periods of drought in sub-Saharan Africa are not evident in the donkey population. Donkeys appear to have a survival advantage over cattle that is increasingly recognized by smallholder farmers in their selection of working animals. The donkey's survival advantages arise from both socioeconomic and biological factors. Socioeconomic factors include the maintenance of a low sustainable population of donkeys owing to their single-purpose role and their low social status. Also, because donkeys are not usually used as a meat animal and can provide a regular income as a working animal, they are not slaughtered in response to drought, as are cattle. Donkeys have a range of physiological and behavioural adaptations that individually provide small survival advantages over cattle but collectively may make a large difference to whether or not they survive drought. Donkeys have lower maintenance costs as a result of their size and spend less energy while foraging for food; lower energy costs result in a lower dry matter intake (DMI) requirement. In donkeys, low-quality diets are digested almost as efficiently as in ruminants and, because of a highly selective feeding strategy, the quality of diet obtained by donkeys in a given pasture is higher than that obtained by cattle. Lower energy costs of walking, longer foraging times per day and ability to tolerate thirst may allow donkeys to access more remote, under-utilized sources of forage that are inaccessible to cattle on rangeland. As donkeys become a more popular choice of working animal for farmers, specific management practices need to be devised that allow donkeys to fully maximize their natural survival advantages.

show abstract

Stimuli of thirst in donkeys (Equus asinus)

Jones

Houpt

1989

Physiology & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hunger vs thirst in the burro (Equus asinus)

Cited by 7 publications

References 7 publications

The donkey as a draught power resource in smallholder farming in semi-arid western Zimbabwe: 1. Live weight and food and water requirements

The donkey as a draught power resource in smallholder farming in semi-arid western Zimbabwe: 1. Live weight and food and water requirements

A Review of the Factors Affecting the Survival of Donkeys in Semi-arid Regions of Sub-Saharan Africa

Stimuli of thirst in donkeys (Equus asinus)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About