Digesta passage in nondomestic ruminants: Separation mechanisms in ‘moose-type’ and ‘cattle-type’ species, and seemingly atypical browsers

Marcin Przybyło , Jürgen Hummel , Sylvia Ortmann , Daryl Cordon , Gina-Marie Kohlschein , Daniela Kilga , Juliet Smithyman , Urszula Przybyło , Samanta Świerk , Sven Hammer , Jean-Michel Hatt , Paweł Górka , Marcus Clauss


Ruminants have been classified as having a ‘moose-type’ or ‘cattle-type’ digestive physiology. ‘Cattle-type’ ruminants have a clear difference in the mean retention time (MRT) of fluid vs. small particles in the reticulorumen (RR), with a high ‘selectivity factor’ (SF = MRTparticle/ MRTfluid, >1.80), and are typically grazers and intermediate feeders. ‘Moose-type’ ruminants have lower SF (<1.80), possibly because of defensive salivary proteins that constrain amounts of (high-viscosity) saliva, and are typically restricted to browsing. To further contribute to testing this physiology-diet correlation, we performed 55 individual passage measurements in 4/6 species that have/have not been investigated previously, respectively. Co-EDTA was used as a solute (fluid) and Cr-mordanted hay particles (<2 mm) as particle markers. Results are related to the percentage of grass in the natural diet taken from the literature. Moose (Alces alces, n = 4 on 4 to 5 diets each and n = 2 on a single diet, 5% grass, SF 1.46 ± 0.22) and giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis, n = 3 on 3 to 5 diets each, 1%, 1.42 ± 0.23) as classical ‘moose-type’, and cattle (Bos taurus, n = 2, 70%, 2.04) as classical ‘cattle-type’ ruminants yielded results similar to those previously published, as did waterbuck (Kobus ellipsiprymnus, n = 5, 84%, 2.46 ± 0.49), corroborating that the SF represents, to a large extent, a species-specific characteristic. Results in oryx (Oryx leucoryx, n = 1, 75%, 2.60) and sitatunga (Tragelaphus spekii, n = 4, 68%, 1.81 ± 0.21) correspond to the concept of ‘cattle-type’ ruminants being grazers or intermediate feeders. However, European bison (Bison bonasus, n = 1, 10%, 2.74), nyala (T. angasii, n = 6, 20%, 1.95 ± 0.25), bongo (T. eurycerus, n = 3, 13%, 2.39 ± 0.54) and gerenuk (Litocranius walleri, n = 1, 0%, 2.25) appear as ‘cattle-type’ ruminants, yet have a browse-dominated diet. While the results do not challenge the view that a ‘moose-type’ digestive physiology is an adaptation to browse diets, they indicate that it may not be the only adaptation that enables ruminants to use browse. Apparently, a ‘cattle-type’ digestive physiology with a high SF does not necessarily preclude a browsing diet niche. High-SF browsers might have the benefit of an increased harvest of RR microbiota and grit removal prior to rumination; how they defend themselves against secondary plant compounds in browse remains to be investigated.
Author Marcin Przybyło (FoAS / DoANaD)
Marcin Przybyło,,
- Department of Animal Nutrition and Dietetics
, Jürgen Hummel
Jürgen Hummel,,
, Sylvia Ortmann
Sylvia Ortmann,,
, Daryl Cordon
Daryl Cordon,,
, Gina-Marie Kohlschein
Gina-Marie Kohlschein,,
, Daniela Kilga
Daniela Kilga,,
, Juliet Smithyman
Juliet Smithyman,,
, Urszula Przybyło (FoAS / DoANaD)
Urszula Przybyło,,
- Department of Animal Nutrition and Dietetics
, Samanta Świerk (FoAS / DoANaD)
Samanta Świerk,,
- Department of Animal Nutrition and Dietetics
, Sven Hammer
Sven Hammer,,
et al.`
Journal seriesComparative Biochemistry and Physiology A-Molecular & Integrative Physiology, [Comparative biochemistry and physiology. Part A, Molecular & integrative physiology], ISSN 1095-6433, e-ISSN 1531-4332, (N/A 100 pkt)
Issue year2019
Publication size in sheets0.6
Keywords in EnglishBrowser Grazer Retention ‘Moose-type’ ‘Cattle-type’ Secondary plant compounds
ASJC Classification1303 Biochemistry; 1312 Molecular Biology; 1314 Physiology
URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1095643319301059/pdfft?md5=d7e901eec0924cd72114c26b29882f37&pid=1-s2.0-S1095643319301059-main.pdf
Languageen angielski
LicenseJournal (articles only); author's original; Uznanie Autorstwa - Użycie Niekomercyjne - Bez utworów zależnych (CC-BY-NC-ND); after publication
Score (nominal)100
Score sourcejournalList
Publication indicators WoS Citations = 0; Scopus SNIP (Source Normalised Impact per Paper): 2018 = 0.893; WoS Impact Factor: 2018 = 2.142 (2) - 2018=2.173 (5)
Citation count*
Share Share

Get link to the record

* presented citation count is obtained through Internet information analysis and it is close to the number calculated by the Publish or Perish system.
Are you sure?