Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:12:45.216Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of barley form on equine total tract fibre digestibility and colonic microbiota

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 August 2015

C. Philippeau ,
S. Sadet-Bourgeteau ,
M. Varloud  and
V. Julliand
C. Philippeau*
Affiliation:
Uranie, AgroSup Dijon, BP 87999, 21079 Dijon cedex, France
S. Sadet-Bourgeteau
Affiliation:
Uranie, AgroSup Dijon, BP 87999, 21079 Dijon cedex, France
M. Varloud
Affiliation:
In Vivo NSA, Talhouët, 56250 Saint-Nolff, France
V. Julliand
Affiliation:
Uranie, AgroSup Dijon, BP 87999, 21079 Dijon cedex, France
*
†E-mail: christelle.philippeau@agrosupdijon.fr
Get access

Abstract

This study aimed at assessing the impact of four barley forms on total tract apparent digestibility of dietary fibre in horses fed a large amount of starch in the morning meal (0.27% BW). Processed barley forms had a greater pre-caecal starch digestibility than the whole form. Based on this result, we hypothesised that using barley-processing methods would limit the potential dumping of undegraded starch in the hindgut of horses and, consequently, the potential negative effect on fibre degradation in the hindgut. In a 4×4 latin square design, four mature geldings fitted with a right ventral colon-fistula were fed a meadow hay : concentrate (62 : 38; dry matter (DM) basis) diet at 1.7% BW. The concentrate was made of 80% barley distributed either as whole grain or as processed forms: 2.5 mm ground, pelleted or steam-flaked. For each period, total tract apparent digestibilities of DM, NDF and ADF were determined over 3 consecutive days by total faecal collection, whereas pH, volatile fatty acids (VFA) concentrations and cultural functional bacteria counts (total anaerobic, cellulolytic bacteria, lactic acid producers, amylolytic bacteria and lactic acid utilisers) in colonic content were evaluated on 1 day 4 h after the morning meal. Total tract apparent digestibility of DM and dietary fibre was influenced (P<0.05) by barley form. Diets including thermo-mechanically treated barley forms led to a higher (P<0.05) total tract apparent digestibility of NDF than those constituted of ground barley and also led to a greater (P<0.05) total tract apparent digestibility of ADF than those made of whole or ground barley forms. However, no significant difference was observed in colonic pH, VFA concentrations and cultural bacteria concentrations. Owing to a high starch supply in the morning meal, the concentration of the functional bacteria in the colonic content averaged 7.8 log CFU/ml, 5.9 NPM/ml, 6.9 and 7.3 CFU/ml for total anaerobic, cellulolytic, amylolytic and lactic acid-utilising bacteria, respectively. Consequently, providing horses with pelleted or steam-flaked instead of ground barley forms may limit the negative impact of starch on fibre digestibility in horses fed a high level of starch in the morning meal (0.27% BW). Moreover, the fibre-to-starch ratio fed in this experiment did not cause any digestive upset.

Keywords

horsedigestionstarchfibrehindgut
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Issue 12 , December 2015 , pp. 1943 - 1948
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

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

Al Jassim, RAM 2006. Supplementary feeding of horses with processed sorghum grains and oats. Animal Feed Science and Technology 125, 33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, F and Hickson, JCD 1970. The salivary and pancreatic secretions of the horse. In Physiology of digestion and metabolism in the ruminant (ed. AT Phillipson), pp. 375–389. Oriel Press, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Archer, DC and Proudman, CJ 2006. Epidemiological clues to preventing colic. Veterinary Journal 172, 29–39.Google Scholar
Association Française de Normalisation (AFNOR) 1997. NF V 18-122, animal feeding stuffs. Determination of sequential cell-wall content. Method by treatment with neutral and acid detergent. Association Française de Normalisation, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Association Française de Normalisation (AFNOR) 2005. NF V18-121, animal feeding stuffs. Starch assay. Enzymatic method. Association Française de Normalisation, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Brokner, C, Norgaard, P and Hansen, HH 2008. Effect of feed type and essential oil product on equine chewing activity. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 92, 621–630.Google Scholar
Daly, K, Proudman, CJ, Duncan, SH, Flint, HJ, Dyer, J and Shirazi-Beechey, SP 2012. Alterations in microbiota and fermentation products in equine large intestine in response to dietary variation and intestinal disease. British Journal of Nutrition 107, 989–995.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 439–443.Google Scholar
De Fombelle, A, Varloud, M, Goachet, AG, Jacotot, E, Philippeau, C, Drogoul, C and Julliand, V 2003. Characterization of the microbial and biochemical profile of the different segments of the digestive tract in horses given two distinct diets. Animal Science 77, 293–304.Google Scholar
De Fombelle, A, Veiga, L, Drogoul, C and Julliand, V 2004. Effect of diet composition and feeding pattern on the prececal digestibility of starches from diverse botanical origins measured with the mobile nylon bag technique in horses. Journal of Animal Science 82, 3625–3634.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erdman, RA 1988. Dietary buffering requirements of the lactating dairy cow: a review. Journal of Dairy Science 65, 712–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faubladier, C, Julliand, V, Danel, J and Philippeau, C 2013. Bacterial carbohydrate degrading capacity in foal feces: changes from birth to preweaning and impact of a maternal supplementation with fermented feed products. British Journal of Nutrition 110, 1040–1052.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goachet, AG, Philippeau, C, Martin, L, Votion, D, Van Erck, E and Julliand, V 2009. Effect of long term endurance conditioning on total tract apparent digestibility of fibre in horses. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 29, 373–374.Google Scholar
Hudson, JM, Cohen, ND, Gibbs, PG and Thompson, JA 2001. Feeding practices associated with colic in horses. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 219, 1419–1425.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
Hymoller, L, Dickow, MS, Brokner, C, Austbo, D and Jensen, SK 2012. Cereal starch, protein, and fatty acid pre-caecal disappearance is affected by both feed technological treatment and efficiency of the chewing action in horses. Livestock Science 150, 159–169.Google Scholar
Jouany, JP 1982. Volatile fatty acid and alcohol determination in digestive contents, silage juices, bacterial cultures and anaerobic fermentor contents. Science des Aliments 2, 131–144.Google Scholar
Jouany, JP, Gobert, J, Medina, B, Bertin, G and Julliand, V 2008. Effect of live yeast culture supplemention on apparent digestibility and rate of passage in horses fed a high-fibre or high-starch diet. Journal of Animal Science 86, 339–347.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
Julliand, V, de Fombelle, A and Varloud, M 2006. Starch digestion in horses: the impact of feed processing. Livestock Science 100, 44–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Julliand, V, de Vaux, A, Millet, L and Fonty, G 1999. Identification of Ruminococcus flavefaciens as the predominant cellulolytic bacterial species of the equine cecum. Journal of Animal Science 65, 3738–3741.Google ScholarPubMed
Kienzle, E 1994. Small intestinal digestion of starch in the horse. Revue de Médecine Vétérinaire 145, 199–204.Google Scholar
Martin-Rosset, W 1990. L’alimentation des chevaux. Inra, Paris, France.Google Scholar
McLean, BML, Hyslop, JJ, Longland, AC, Cuddeford, D and Holland, T 1999. In vivo apparent digestibility in ponies given rolled, micronised or extruded barley. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the British Society of Animal Science, 22–24 March, Scarborough, UK, pp. 133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLean, BML, Hyslop, JJ, Longland, AC, Cuddeford, D and Hollands, T 2000. Physical processing of barley and its effects on intra-cecal 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 preparation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae on microbial profiles and fermentation patterns in the large intestine of horses fed a high fibre or a high starch diet. Journal of Animal Science 80, 2600–2609.Google Scholar
Palmgren-Karlsson, C, Lindberg, JE and Rundgren, M 2000. Associative effects on total tract digestibility in horses fed different ratios of grass hay and whole oats. Livestock Production Science 65, 143–153.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 Applied equine nutrition and training: equine nutrition and training conference (ed. A Lindner), pp. 203–208. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Philippeau, C, Varloud, M and Julliand, V 2014. Mobile bag starch prececal disappearance and postprandial glycemic response of four forms of barley in horses. Journal of Animal Science 92, 2087–2093.Google Scholar
Potter, GD, Arnold, FF, Householder, DD, Hansen, DH and Brown, KM 1992. Digestion of starch in the small or large intestine of the equine. In: Proceedings of 1st Europäische Konferenz über die Ernährung des Pferdes, 3–4 September, Hannover, Germany, pp. 107–111.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, I and Austbo, D 2009. Digestion of cereals in the equine gastrointestinal tract measured by the mobile bag technique on caecally cannulated horses. Animal Feed Science and Technology 150, 249–258.Google Scholar
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
Van Soest, PJ and Wine, RH 1967. Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. IV. Determination of plant cell-wall constituents. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 50, 50–55.Google Scholar
Vermorel, M, Martin-Rosset, W and Vernet, J 1997. Energy utilization of twelve forages or mixed diets for maintenance by sport horses. Livestock Production Science 47, 157–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weimer, PJ 1996. Why don’t ruminal bacteria digest cellulose faster? Journal of Dairy Science 79, 1496–1502.Google Scholar
Zeyner, A 2008. Energy providing nutrient sources. In Nutrition of the exercising horse (ed. MT Saastamoinen and W Martin-Rosset), pp. 277–294. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar