Particle retention in the forestomach of a browsing ruminant, the roe deer Capreolus capreolus

Clauss, Marcus; Lechner‐Doll, Matthias; Behrend, Anke; Lason, Karin; Lang, Denise; Streich, W. Jürgen

doi:10.4098/at.arch.01-12

Cited by 8 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The passage of a particular particle size out of the reticulo-rumen may thus be just a matter of abundance in the contents. A study of limited scope by Clauss et al (2001) demonstrated, for forestomach contents of roe deer, that a differentiation of particles according to size and functional density does not occur, in contrast to the forestomach content of grazing ruminants (Sutherland 1988). Several other authors have suspected a causative link between the lack of stratification of forestomach contents and the less prominent particle retention in browsing ruminants (Nygren and Hofmann 1990; 324 Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Differences in selective reticulo-ruminal particle retention as a key factor in ruminant diversification

Clauss

Lechner‐Doll

2001

Oecologia

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The measurement of passage rate is important for the concept of ruminant diversification. While supporters of Hofmann's 1989 feeding type classification claim that browsing ruminants have faster passage rates than grazing ruminants, other researchers consider the passage rate to depend on body size alone. To date, no convincing comparison of ruminant passage rates has been put forward. For comparative purposes, we suggest the use of the "selectivity factor", which is an expression of how much longer particles of a defined size (<2 mm) are retained in the ruminant digestive tract than fluids. From the limited data available, it seems that grazing ruminants display selectivity factors between 1.56 and 3.80, whereas browsers have a much narrower range of 1.14-1.80. This suggests that browsers are not able to selectively retain particles as long as grazers. Intake of browsers, on the other hand, may not be limited by physical fill of the forestomach to the same degree as in grazers. This result can explain several observations on the digestive physiology of browsers, some of which have been linked to a rumen bypass mechanism. We propose that the ability for selective particle retention is a key factor for understanding the physiological consequences of ruminant diversification.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Differences in selective reticulo-ruminal particle retention as a key factor in ruminant diversification

Clauss

Lechner‐Doll

2001

Oecologia

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Particle retention in the RR accounted for 68% of total GIT MRT in the mouflon but only 55% in the roe deer; given the similar RR ingesta volumes of the species (5.4 and 5.5% of BM, respectively), this difference must be explained by different physiological processes in the RR. A potential explanation could be derived from the observations that in sheep, RR contents stratify into different layers (Sutherland 1988) but that, in roe deer, RR contents are unstratified and generally form a frothy, homogeneous mass (Clauss et al 2001). The stratification of RR contents according to a functional density gradient is generally regarded as one of the main factors responsible for the selective retention of particles in the RR (Lechner-Doll et al 1991).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A potential proximate cause for faster ingesta passage rates in BR could lie in an interplay of particular anatomical adaptations and characteristics of the natural forages (Clauss et al 2003). In particular, it could be shown that, while the RR contents of sheep stratify (Sutherland 1988), RR contents of roe deer did not (Clauss et al 2001). Based on these considerations, we predicted generally faster ingesta passage rates, and according higher food intakes (reflected in higher relative faecal production and gut fill), in roe deer than in mouflon.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Seasonal faecal excretion, gut fill, liquid and particle marker retention in mouflonOvis ammon musimon, and a comparison with roe deerCapreolus capreolus

et al. 2004

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Seasonal faecal excretion, gut fill, liquid and particle marker retention in mouflon ovis ammon musimon, and a comparison with roe deer capreolus capreolus Seasonal faecal excretion, gut fill, liquid and particle marker retention in mouflon ovis ammon musimon, and a comparison with roe deer capreolus capreolus AbstractFive mouflon (average body mass [BM] 33 kg) and two roe deer (average BM 20 kg) with rumen cannulas were kept in large enclosures under semi-natural conditions and were used for seasonal studies on gastrointestinal tract (GIT) indigestible fill and digesta passage kinetics. As the mouflon were not fully mature, both species had similar digesta volumes in the reticulorumen (RR; mouflon 5.5 ± 1.8% of BM; roe deer 5.4 ± 1.5% of BM); however, the mouflon had lower RR liquid flow rates (15.1 ± 4.3 ml h-1 kg-0.75) than the roe deer (19.2 ± 0.2 ml h-1 kg-0.75), and particle retention in the RR accounted for 68 ± 3% of total GIT retention in the mouflon versus 55 ± 6% in the roe deer. Annual average total GIT retention times for liquids and particles were longer in the mouflon (23.4 ± 0.9 h and 37.9 ± 4.0 h) than in the roe deer (18.4 ± 1.7 h and 22.4 ± 1.9 h). Similarly, annual average RR retention times for liquids and particles were longer in the mouflon (11.9 ± 0.9 h and 25.8 ± 3.3 h) than in the roe deer (8.1 ± 1.7 h and 12.5 ± 2.3 h). The factor of selective particle retention in the RR (retention of particles/retention of liquid) was 2.10 ± 0.09 in the mouflon versus 1.54 ± 0.01 in the roe deer. These observations are in accord with differences in digesta passage characteristics postulated between browsing and grazing ruminants. Total GIT indigestible fill was lower in the mouflon than in the roe deer (10.7 ± 2.1 g kg-1 and 13.3 ± 1.0 g kg-1). As the mouflon were not fully mature, both species had similar digesta volumes in the reticulorumen (RR; mouflon 5.5 ± 1.8% of BM; roe deer 5.4 ± 1.5% of BM); however, the mouflon had lower RR liquid flow rates (15.1 ± 4.3 ml h -1 kg -0.75 ) than the roe deer (19.2 ± 0.2 ml h -1 kg -0.75 ), and particle retention in the RR accounted for 68 ± 3% of total GIT retention in the mouflon versus 55 ± 6% in the roe deer. Annual average total GIT retention times for liquids and particles were longer in the mouflon (23.4 ± 0.9 h and 37.9 ± 4.0 h) than in the roe deer (18.4 ± 1.7 h and 22.4 ± 1.9 h). Similarly, annual average RR retention times for liquids and particles were longer in the mouflon (11.9 ± 0.9 h and 25.8 ± 3.3 h) than in the roe deer (8.1 ± 1.7 h and 12.5 ± 2.3 h). The factor of selective particle retention in the RR (retention of particles/retention of liquid) was 2.10 ± 0.09 in the mouflon versus 1.54 ± 0.01 in the roe deer. These observations are in accord with differences in digesta passage characteristics postulated between browsing and grazing ruminants. Total GIT indigestible fill was lower in the mouflon than in the roe deer (10.7 ± 2.1 g kg -1 and 13.3 ± 1.0 g kg -1 ).

show abstract

“…Regrettably, quantitative data on the choice of resting postures in sloths is missing. Whereas browse material does not seem to induce a forestomach stratification in ruminants (Hofmann, 1973; Clauss et al ., 2001), potential differences in forestomach motility and saliva characteristics might allow such a stratification to occur more distinctively in sloths.…”

Section: Non‐ruminant Herbivoresmentioning

confidence: 99%

The potential interplay of posture, digestive anatomy, density of ingesta and gravity in mammalian herbivores: why sloths do not rest upside down

Clauss¹

2004

Mammal Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. The interaction between the density of ingesta and gravity observed in the digestive systems of ruminant herbivores should receive attention in other non-ruminant herbivorous mammals. The resting postures adopted by non-ruminants are of particular interest. 2.A new interpretation of established findings regarding the digestive tract of sloths illustrates that the interplay of posture, anatomy, the density of ingesta and gravity can provide a novel explanation of behavioural and morphological adaptations in herbivores, as the average particle size and dry-matter content increases within their forestomach from its caudal towards its cranial portion. In sloths, this could be indicative of a stratification of ingesta occurring in the upright sitting posture adopted while resting, as opposed to their characteristic upside down posture when moving. 3. The sitting resting posture of sloths could therefore be an adaptation to exploit the tendency of the forestomach contents to stratify in order to pass larger, more difficult-todigest particles faster from the fermentation chamber.

show abstract

Particle retention in the forestomach of a browsing ruminant, the roe deer Capreolus capreolus

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Differences in selective reticulo-ruminal particle retention as a key factor in ruminant diversification

Differences in selective reticulo-ruminal particle retention as a key factor in ruminant diversification

Seasonal faecal excretion, gut fill, liquid and particle marker retention in mouflonOvis ammon musimon, and a comparison with roe deerCapreolus capreolus

The potential interplay of posture, digestive anatomy, density of ingesta and gravity in mammalian herbivores: why sloths do not rest upside down

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About