Mandibular corpus bone strains during mastication in goats (Capra hircus): A comparison of ingestive and rumination chewing

Williams, Susan H.; Stover, Kristin K.; Davis, Jillian S.; Montuelle, Stéphane J.

doi:10.1016/j.archoralbio.2011.02.014

Cited by 12 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, our results on a more regular chewing pattern during rumination, while in line with other studies (De Jongh et al., ; Stobbs & Cowper, ), contradict findings by Williams, Stover, Davis, and Montuelle () who did not find a difference in the variance of chewing cycle length or total load duration between ingestion and rumination in goats. However, these authors explain (p. 969) that for their comparison, they excluded the initial, nonrhythmic ingestive chews and conceded that these chews might be particularly important for the assessment of regularity of masticatory patterns.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

“…Additionally, Williams et al. () demonstrated in goats ( Capra hircus ) that strain on the jaw was higher during ingestion than during rumination and also linked this finding to the putatively softer nature of regurgitated versus freshly ingested material. Notably, both Janis et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…() and Williams et al. () emphasized that empirical data on the mechanical characteristics of ruminant ingesta and regurgitate are still missing. Nevertheless, the deviation of masticatory movement patterns of functional ruminants from “heavy‐duty” particle size‐reducing mastication documented in the present study opens the possibility of ascribing an additional adaptive value to the process of rumination that has, so far, received little attention.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Ingestive mastication in horses resembles rumination but not ingestive mastication in cattle and camels

Dittmann

Kreuzer

Runge³

et al. 2017

J. Exp. Zool.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Horses achieve a higher degree of particle size reduction through ingestive mastication than functional ruminants. We characterized mastication using chew-monitoring halters (RumiWatch) in six domestic horses, cattle, and Bactrian camels each. All animals were offered grass hay of the same batch for 15 min. In cattle and camels, measurements were continued after eating until rumination was observed. Except for one horse, 96% of the horses' ingestive mastication data were identified as "rumination" by the proprietary RumiWatch algorithm, whereas ingestion and rumination by cattle and camels were mostly classified correctly. There were no systematic differences between cattle and camels. In cattle and camels, ingestive mastication was less regular than rumination, indicated by significantly higher standard deviations of chewing peak intervals, peak heights, and peak breadths in intraindividual comparisons. The average standard deviations of these measures were lower in horses than in cattle and camel ingestive mastication, indicating a more consistent chewing pattern in horses. Horse values were similar to those of rumination mastication, suggesting equally regular chewing motions. Regular, rhythmic chewing represents a common feature of horses and functional ruminants, but the less uniform ingestive mastication in functional ruminants represents a deviating pattern, the adaptive value of which remains unclear. In particular, it does not appear to promote a higher ingestion rate. A potential cause may be the avoidance of high tooth wear rates by delaying a more regular, systematic mastication until ingesta has been softened and the grit has been washed off in the forestomach.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ingestive mastication in horses resembles rumination but not ingestive mastication in cattle and camels

Dittmann

Kreuzer

Runge³

et al. 2017

J. Exp. Zool.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, both morphological and biomechanical data indicate that the skull of Ailurus is weaker than the one of Ailuropoda. By contrast, stress in both the cranium and the mandible of Ailurus is more evenly distributed than in Ailuropoda (figures 1c -e and 2c-e), which could reflect an adaptation of Ailurus to use repetitive chewing during prolonged periods as higher frequency of mastication cycles places more repetitive stress on the craniodental system [19]. (a) ME on SE of Ailurus (volume-scaled) and Ailuropoda mandible models.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three-dimensional computer simulations of feeding behaviour in red and giant pandas relate skull biomechanics with dietary niche partitioning

Figueirido

Tseng

Serrano³

et al. 2014

Biol. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The red (Ailurus fulgens) and giant (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) pandas are mammalian carnivores convergently adapted to a bamboo feeding diet. However, whereas Ailurus forages almost entirely on younger leaves, fruits and tender trunks, Ailuropoda relies more on trunks and stems. Such difference in foraging mode is considered a strategy for resource partitioning where they are sympatric. Here, we use finite-element analysis to test for mechanical differences and similarities in skull performance between Ailurus and Ailuropoda related to diet. Feeding simulations suggest that the two panda species have similar ranges of mechanical efficiency and strain energy profiles across the dentition, reflecting their durophagous diet. However, the stress distributions and peaks in the skulls of Ailurus and Ailuropoda are remarkably different for biting at all tooth locations. Although the skull of Ailuropoda is capable of resisting higher stresses than the skull of Ailurus, the latter is able to distribute stresses more evenly throughout the skull. These differences in skull biomechanics reflect their distinct bamboo feeding preferences. Ailurus uses repetitive chewing in an extended mastication to feed on soft leaves, and Ailuropoda exhibits shorter and more discrete periods of chomp-and-swallow feeding to break down hard bamboo trunks.

show abstract

“…Moreover, published data from non-primate mammals suggest that their mandibles also experience low levels of variation in strain regimes during mastication of different foods. Williams et al (2011) report no significant differences between strain orientations and | 1 /  | ratios recorded during rumination chewing and ingestion chewing in goats (Williams et al, 2011). 2 In rabbits, mean working side  2 orientations varied by only 1 o across chewing of pellets (33 o relative to occlusal plane), hay (34 o ), and carrot (33 o ); balancing side  2 orientations varied more (pellets, 73 o ; hay, 76 o ; carrot 92 o ), while strain orientations during carrot incision were very different (49 o ; (Weijs and De Jong, 1977).…”

Section: Variation In Strain Regimes Due To Variation In Feeding Behamentioning

confidence: 99%

In vivo bone strain in the mandibular corpus of Sapajus during a range of oral food processing behaviors

Ross

Iriarte-Díaz

Reed

et al. 2016

Journal of Human Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been hypothesized that mandibular corpus morphology of primates is related to the material properties of the foods that they chew. However, chewing foods with different material properties is accompanied by low levels of variation in mandibular strain patterns in macaques. We hypothesized that if variation in primate mandible form reflects adaptations to feeding on foods with different material and geometric properties, then this variation will be driven primarily by differences in oral food processing behavior rather than differences in chewing per se. To test this hypothesis, we recorded in vivo bone strain data from the lateral and medial surfaces of the mandibular corpus during complete feeding sequences in three adult male Sapajus as they fed on foods with a range of sizes and material properties. We assessed whether variation in mandibular corpus strain regimes is associated with variation in feeding behaviors and/or chewing on different foods, and we quantified the relative variation in mandibular corpus strain regimes associated with chewing on foods of different material properties versus a range of oral food processing behaviors (incisor, premolar, and molar biting; pulling on incisors; mastication). Feeding behavior had a significant effect on mandibular corpus strain regimes, as did chewing side and the cycle number in a feeding sequence. However, food type had weaker effects and usually only through interaction effects with chewing side and/or cycle type. Strain regimes varied most across different chew sides, then across different behaviors, and lastly between mastication cycles on different foods. Strain magnitudes associated with premolar, molar, and incisor biting were larger than those recorded during mastication. These data suggest that intra- and inter-specific variation in mandible morphology is a trade-off between performance requirements of different oral food processing behaviors and of variation in chewing side, with direct effects of food type being less important.

show abstract

Mandibular corpus bone strains during mastication in goats (Capra hircus): A comparison of ingestive and rumination chewing

Cited by 12 publications

References 64 publications

Ingestive mastication in horses resembles rumination but not ingestive mastication in cattle and camels

Ingestive mastication in horses resembles rumination but not ingestive mastication in cattle and camels

Three-dimensional computer simulations of feeding behaviour in red and giant pandas relate skull biomechanics with dietary niche partitioning

In vivo bone strain in the mandibular corpus of Sapajus during a range of oral food processing behaviors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About