Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T06:39:06.531Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Digestion characteristics of two forms of preserved lucerne forage fed to mature horses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2012

L. A. Waldron ,
D. G. Thomas  and
I. Pryor
L. A. Waldron*
Affiliation:
LWT Animal Nutrition Limited, PO Box 119, Feilding, New Zealand
D. G. Thomas
Affiliation:
Institute of Food, Nutrition and Human Health, Massey University, Private Bag 11 222, Palmerston North, New Zealand
I. Pryor
Affiliation:
Fiber Fresh Feeds Ltd, State Highway 5, Reporoa, New Zealand
*
*Corresponding author:lucy@animalnutrition.co.nz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A trial was conducted, using 12 mature thoroughbred horses as a cross-over design, to compare the water and energy intake and the digestibility of dry lucerne chaff (LC) against a controlled fermented lucerne (CFL) product (HNF Fiber®; Fiber Fresh Feeds Ltd, Reporoa, New Zealand). Significant (P < 0.05) increases in dry matter intake (20%), energy intake (20%), retained energy (32%) and digestible energy (22%) were observed for the CFL compared to the LC. In a concurrent small scale study within the trial, numeric improvements in water intake (18%) for the CFL were recorded. The results demonstrated that the standard reference values underestimate the digestibility and nutritional contribution made by CFL when fed to horses, and that this type of forage has increased nutritional benefits.

Keywords

Lucernecontrolled fermentationchaffhorsesdigestion
Type
Original Research
Information
Journal of Applied Animal Nutrition , Volume 1 , 2012 , e1
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Journal of Applied Animal Nutrition Ltd. 2012

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

Andrews, F.M., Buchanan, B.R., Elliot, S.B., Clariday, N.A. and Edwards, L.H. (2005) Gastric ulcers in horses. Journal of Animal Science, 83: E18–E21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergero, D., Meineri, G., Miraglia, N. and Peiretti, P.G. (2005) Apparent digestibility of hays in horses determined by total collection of faeces and using internal marker methods. Journal of Food Agriculture and Environment, 3: 199–201.Google Scholar
Crozier, J.A., Allen, V.G., Jack, N.R., Fontenot, J.P. and Cochran, M.A. (1997) Digestibility, apparent mineral absorption and voluntary intake by horses fed alfalfa, tall fescue and Caucasian bluestem. Journal of Animal Science, 75: 1651–1658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cuddeford, D. (1994) Artificially dehydrated lucerne for horses. The Veterinary Record, 135: 426–429.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cuddeford, D., Pearson, R.A., Archibald, R.F. and Muirhead, R.H. (1995) Digestibility and gastro-intestinal transit time of diets containing different proportions of alfalfa and oat straw given to Thoroughbreds, Shetland ponies, Highland ponies and donkeys. Animal Science, 61: 407–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fonnesbeck, P.V. (1968) Digestion of soluble and fibrous carbohydrate of forage by horses. Journal of Animal Science, 27: 1336–1344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haelein, G.F.W., Holdren, R.D. and Yoon, Y.M. (1966) Comparative response of horses and sheep to different physical forms of alfalfa hay. Journal of Animal Science, 25: 740–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadeau, J. (2006) Management strategies for gastric ulcers. 4th Mid-Atlantic Nutrition Conference, University of Maryland, MD, USA. pp. 65–69.Google Scholar
NRC (1989) Nutrient requirements of horses. National Research Council of the National Academies Press, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
NRC (2007) Nutrient requirements of horses. National Research Council of the National Academies Press, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
Pearson, R.A., Archibald, R.F. and Muirhead, R.H. (2006) A comparison of the effect of forage type and level of feeding on the digestibility and gastrointestinal mean retention time of dry forages given to cattle, sheep, ponies and donkeys. British Journal of Nutrition, 95: 88–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed