The aim was to compare the relationship between horse faecal particle size (FPS) and dry matter digestibility (DMdig) of several forages. Six horses (live-weight 110-840kg) housed in individual boxes with rubber bedding, access to paddock 3 hours/d except 24h before sampling were considered. Horses were fed ad libitum four forages successively: lucerne; fescue; mix perennial rye-grass/clover; straw. The trial lasted from October to January. Adaptation period between the different forages: minimum two weeks. Faecal samples, representative of 24 h of feeding, were collected in the morning and preserved at -20°C for the analysis. Forage samples were dried at 65°C for 18h, ground in a mill to pass a 1.o mm screen. Forages composition was determined by NIR (ash, protein, fat, NDF, ADF, ADL, NDFD 24h). FPS determined by wet sieving on a rack of six sieves (mesh size: S0: 6.50; S1: 4.60; S2: 2.36; S3: 1.18; S4: 0.6; S5: 0.15 mm). Dry matter digestibility (DMdig) was determined by acid insoluble ash (AIA) method. Average DMdig of forages: lucerne 93.92%; fescue 53.19%; mix perennial rye-grass/clover 73.13%; straw 44.58%. Statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS (vers. 21). GLM multivariate procedure was applied for the general analysis, considering as independent variable forage type-average DMdig or horse; as dependent variable sieve residue percentage (RP). Lucerne (highest digestibility) showed the highest RP on S0 (9.37%) and S1 (11.82%), the lowest (18.16%) on S5 (P<0.001). Similar results were obtained for the mix (medium-high digestibility) which showed a high RP on S1 (6.05%), a low RP on S5 (18.75%) in comparison to fescue and straw. Straw (lowest digestibility) showed a low RP on S0 (0.13%) a high RP on S5 (27.93%) and the highest RP on S4 (38.26% P<0.001). Fescue showed the highest RP on S5 (33.50 P<0.001). An explanatory model of the relationship between forage digestibility and FPS was obtained calculating the correlation and the regression between forage DMdig and dry matter residue on the different sieves. The higher correlation and the more robust regressions were found for sieve S1 (r=0.942 P<0.001; y=3.889x+46.495; R2=0.888) and S4 (r=-0.707 P<0.001; y=-1.416x+100.389; R2=0.499). It appears that in general FPS distribution is different among forage types. Digestibility seems to deeply affect FPS, reduced with the decrease in digestibility. The measure of residues of particles <6.50 and >4.60 (S1) is the most correlate with DMdig in horse.

Relationship between horse faecal particle size and forage type/dry matter digestibility / Martuzzi, Francesca; Mazzoni, Yarin; Quarantelli, Afro; Righi, Federico. - In: ITALIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE. - ISSN 1594-4077. - 14:(2015), pp. 47-48. (Intervento presentato al convegno 21st A.S.P.A. Congress tenutosi a Milano Italia nel June 9-12, 2015).

Relationship between horse faecal particle size and forage type/dry matter digestibility

MARTUZZI, Francesca;QUARANTELLI, Afro;RIGHI, Federico
2015-01-01

Abstract

The aim was to compare the relationship between horse faecal particle size (FPS) and dry matter digestibility (DMdig) of several forages. Six horses (live-weight 110-840kg) housed in individual boxes with rubber bedding, access to paddock 3 hours/d except 24h before sampling were considered. Horses were fed ad libitum four forages successively: lucerne; fescue; mix perennial rye-grass/clover; straw. The trial lasted from October to January. Adaptation period between the different forages: minimum two weeks. Faecal samples, representative of 24 h of feeding, were collected in the morning and preserved at -20°C for the analysis. Forage samples were dried at 65°C for 18h, ground in a mill to pass a 1.o mm screen. Forages composition was determined by NIR (ash, protein, fat, NDF, ADF, ADL, NDFD 24h). FPS determined by wet sieving on a rack of six sieves (mesh size: S0: 6.50; S1: 4.60; S2: 2.36; S3: 1.18; S4: 0.6; S5: 0.15 mm). Dry matter digestibility (DMdig) was determined by acid insoluble ash (AIA) method. Average DMdig of forages: lucerne 93.92%; fescue 53.19%; mix perennial rye-grass/clover 73.13%; straw 44.58%. Statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS (vers. 21). GLM multivariate procedure was applied for the general analysis, considering as independent variable forage type-average DMdig or horse; as dependent variable sieve residue percentage (RP). Lucerne (highest digestibility) showed the highest RP on S0 (9.37%) and S1 (11.82%), the lowest (18.16%) on S5 (P<0.001). Similar results were obtained for the mix (medium-high digestibility) which showed a high RP on S1 (6.05%), a low RP on S5 (18.75%) in comparison to fescue and straw. Straw (lowest digestibility) showed a low RP on S0 (0.13%) a high RP on S5 (27.93%) and the highest RP on S4 (38.26% P<0.001). Fescue showed the highest RP on S5 (33.50 P<0.001). An explanatory model of the relationship between forage digestibility and FPS was obtained calculating the correlation and the regression between forage DMdig and dry matter residue on the different sieves. The higher correlation and the more robust regressions were found for sieve S1 (r=0.942 P<0.001; y=3.889x+46.495; R2=0.888) and S4 (r=-0.707 P<0.001; y=-1.416x+100.389; R2=0.499). It appears that in general FPS distribution is different among forage types. Digestibility seems to deeply affect FPS, reduced with the decrease in digestibility. The measure of residues of particles <6.50 and >4.60 (S1) is the most correlate with DMdig in horse.
2015
Relationship between horse faecal particle size and forage type/dry matter digestibility / Martuzzi, Francesca; Mazzoni, Yarin; Quarantelli, Afro; Righi, Federico. - In: ITALIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE. - ISSN 1594-4077. - 14:(2015), pp. 47-48. (Intervento presentato al convegno 21st A.S.P.A. Congress tenutosi a Milano Italia nel June 9-12, 2015).
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11381/2796362
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact