Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T21:36:28.527Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Liquid, concentrate and forage total tract mean retention times estimated using two algebraic methods in ponies given either oat straw or grass haylage as a basal forage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2017

J J Hyslop*
Affiliation:
SAC Select Services, FBS Area Office, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian, United Kingdom
Get access

Extract

Previous work (Hyslop, 2005) has shown that alternative algebraic calculation methods give similar estimates of total tract mean retention times (TMRT) in ponies given complete pelleted diets. This similarity in TMRT estimates across calculation methods remains to be confirmed with other dietary constituents. This study's objective was to compare liquid, concentrate and forage TMRT estimates using alternative algebraic calculation methods.

Type
Poster presentations
Copyright
Copyright © The American Society of International Law 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

Hyslop, J. J. (2005). Algebraic methods to determine total tract mean retention time of digesta in ponies given ad libitum access to pelleted diets containing different levels of unmolassed sugar beet pulp. Annual Proceedings of the BSAS. p 48.Google Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1975). The use of markers to partition digestion within the gastro-intestinal tract of ruminants. In: Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant (Ed. McDonald, I. W. and Warner, A. C). University of New England Publications Unit, Sydney, Australia. pp 277-291.Google Scholar
Theilmans, M. F., François, E., Bodart, C. and Thewis, A. (1978). Mesure du transit gastrointestinal chez le porc a l’aide de radiolanthanides. Comparison avec le mouton. Annals of Biology, Animal Biochemistry and Biophysics. 18: 237-247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar