Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T15:00:46.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of concentrate feeding sequence on equine hindgut fermentation parameters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 December 2016

S. Sadet-Bourgeteau ,
C. Philippeau  and
V. Julliand
S. Sadet-Bourgeteau*
Affiliation:
AgroSup Dijon, URANIE, USC1335 Nutrition du cheval athlète, 26 Bd Docteur Petitjean, F-21079 Dijon, France
C. Philippeau
Affiliation:
AgroSup Dijon, URANIE, USC1335 Nutrition du cheval athlète, 26 Bd Docteur Petitjean, F-21079 Dijon, France
V. Julliand
Affiliation:
AgroSup Dijon, URANIE, USC1335 Nutrition du cheval athlète, 26 Bd Docteur Petitjean, F-21079 Dijon, France
*
†E-mail: sophie.bourgeteau-sadet@agrosupdijon.fr
Get access

Abstract

Feeding a diet with a small amount of hay and a high proportion of concentrate given in large meals entails a risk of colic to horses as this can impact the hindgut microbial ecosystem. To counteract this potential negative effect, one feeding strategy is to modify the distribution sequence of concentrate and hay. The purpose of the present study was to assess the impact of feeding the concentrate meal before or with the hay meal on fermentative parameters postprandial variations in caecum and right ventral colon contents and faeces. We focused on the comparison of pH value and volatile fatty acid (VFA) concentrations between the three compartments. Four horses fitted with two cannulas in the caecum and right ventral colon were fed a 100% hay diet (H) for a 3-week period, and then a 40% concentrate–60% hay diet for two consecutive periods of 3 weeks each. Concentrate and hay were offered simultaneously in two equal meals at 0800 and 1700 h (HC1) during one period, or separately in two equal meals at 0800 and 1600 h for the concentrate and at 1000 and 1730 h for hay (HC2) during the second one. During the 2nd week of each diet period (H, HC1, HC2), caecal, right ventral colonic and faecal samples were collected before (0) and at 2, 4, 6 and 8 h after the morning meal. pH values and VFA concentrations were measured. Adding concentrate to the hay was associated with a decrease of pH value in the caecum, right ventral colon and faeces and an increase of faecal VFA concentrations (P<0.01). An impact of the concentrate feeding sequence was observed on caecal pH and faecal propionate concentration (P<0.001) but none on the other parameters investigated. In the caecum and right ventral colon, pH values decreased and VFA concentrations increased within the range of 4 to 8 h after the morning meal. Our data suggested that the variation of faecal pH could be an indicator of those of the caecal and right ventral colonic pH with a delay of 2 h. The present study showed that hay and commercial pelleted could be safely distributed simultaneously, thus making easier every day horse feeding.

Keywords

concentrate feeding sequencefermentative parametershindguthorsepostprandial evolution
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 7 , July 2017 , pp. 1146 - 1152
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

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

Archer, D and Proudman, C 2006. Epidemiological clues to preventing colic. The Veterinary Journal 172, 29–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coenen, M, Kienzle, E, Vervuert, I and Zeyner, A 2011. Recent German developments in the formulation of energy and nutrient requirements in horses and the resulting feeding recommendations. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 31, 219–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Fombelle, A, Julliand, V, Drogoul, C and Jacotot, E 2001. Feeding and microbial disorders in horses: 1-effects of an abrupt incorporation of two levels of barley in a hay diet on microbial profile and activities. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 21, 439–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Fombelle, A, Varloud, M, Goachet, A-G, Jacotot, E, Philippeau, C, Drogoul, C and Julliand, V 2003. Characterisation of the microbial and biochemical profile of the different segments of the digestive tract in horses fed two distinct diets. Animal Science 77, 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dougal, K, Harris, PA, Edwards, A, Pachebat, JA, Blackmore, TM, Worgan, HJ and Newbold, CJ 2012. A comparison of the microbiome and the metabolome of different regions of the equine hindgut. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 82, 642–652.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goncalves, S, Julliand, V and Leblonde, A 2002. Risk factors associated with colic in horses. Veterinary Research 33, 641–652.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodson, J, Tyznik, WJ, Cline, JH and Dehority, BA 1988. Effects of an abrupt diet change from hay to concentrate on microbial numbers and physical environment in the cecum of the pony. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 54, 1946–1950.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hussein, HS, Vogedes, LA, Fernandez, GCJ and Frankeny, RL 2004. Effects of cereal grain supplementation on apparent digestibility of nutrients and concentrations of fermentation end-products in the feces and serum of horses consuming alfalfa cubes. Journal of Animal Science 82, 1986–1996.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, RB, Austbø, D and Tauson, AH 2012. Feeding forage before or after oats affects caecum pH profiles of the horse. In Forages and grazing in horse nutrition (ed. M Saastamoinen, M Fradinho, A Santos and N Miraglia), pp. 327–330. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jouany, J-P 1982. Volatile fatty acid and alcohol determination in digestive contents, silage juices, bacterial cultures and anaerobic fermentor contents. Sciences des Aliments 2, 131–144.Google Scholar
Julliand, V, de Fombelle, A, Drogoul, C and Jacotot, E 2001. Feeding and microbial disorders in horses: part 3 – effects of three hay:grain ratios on microbial profile and activities. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 21, 543–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kern, DL, Slyter, LL, Weaver, JM, Leffel, EC and Samuelsons, G 1973. Pony cecum vs. steer rumen: the effect of oats and hay on the microbial ecosystem. Journal of Animal Science 37, 463–469.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLean, BML, Hyslop, JJ, Longland, AC, Cuddeford, D and Hollands, T 2000. Physical processing of barley and its effects on intra-caecal fermentation parameters in ponies. Animal Feed Science and Technology 85, 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medina, B, Girard, ID, Jacotot, E and Julliand, V 2002. Effect of a preparation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae on microbial profiles and fermentation patterns in the large intestine of horses fed a high fiber or a high starch diet. Journal of Animal Science 80, 2600–2609.Google ScholarPubMed
Merritt, AM and Julliand, V 2013. Gastrointestinal physiology. In Equine applied and clinical nutrition: health, welfare and performance (ed. RJ Geor, PA Harris and M Coenen), pp. 3–32. W.B. Saunders.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyaji, M, Ueda, K, Nakatsuji, H, Tomioka, T, Kobayashi, Y, Hata, H and Kondo, S 2008. Mean retention time of digesta in the different segments of the equine hindgut. Animal Science Journal 79, 89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore-Colyer, MJS, Hyslop, JJ, Longland, AC and Cuddeford, D 2000. Intra-caecal fermentation parameters in ponies fed botanically diverse fibre based diets. Animal Feed Science and Technology 84, 183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philippeau, C, Faubladier, C, Goachet, AG and Julliand, V 2009. Is there an impact of feeding concentrate before or after forage on colonic pH and redox potential in horses? In Equine NUtrition and TRAining COnference (ENUTRACO), 26–29 September 2009, Madrid, Spain.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos, AS, Rodrigues, MAM, Bessa, RJB, Ferreira, LM and Martin-Rosset, W 2011. Understanding the equine cecum-colon ecosystem: current knowledge and future perspectives. Animal 5, 48–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swyers, KL, Burk, AO, Hartsock, TG, Ungerfeld, EM and Shelton, JL 2008. Effects of direct-fed microbial supplementation on digestibility and fermentation end-products in horses fed low- and high-starch concentrates. Journal of Animal Science 86, 2596–2608.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thioulouse, J, Chessel, D, Dolédec, S and Olivier, JM 1997. ADE-4: a multivariate analysis and graphical display software. Statistics and Computing 7, 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Weyenberg, S, Sales, J and Janssens, GPJ 2006. Passage rate of digesta through the equine gastrointestinal tract: a review. Livestock Science 99, 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeyner, A, Geißler, C and Dittrich, A 2004. Effects of hay intake and feeding sequence on variables in faeces and faecal water (dry matter, pH value, organic acids, ammonia, buffering capacity) of horses. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 88, 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar