Journal of Nutrition Animal Diets/Enrichment Products...

Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Journal of Nutrition Vol. 55 No. 3 March 1955, pp. 375-385
Copyright
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Thacker, E. J.
Right arrow Articles by Brandt, C. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Thacker, E. J.
Right arrow Articles by Brandt, C. S.

Coprophagy in the Rabbit

One Figure

Edward J. Thacker and C. Stafford Brandt

U. S. Plant, Soil and Nutrition Laboratory, Bureau of Plant Industry Soils and Agricultural Engineering, A. R. S., U. S. Department of Agriculture, Ithaca, New York

The rates of coprophagy and the utilization of dietary nutrients were studied in the rabbit on two diets of different compositions using radioactive Cr2O3 as an indicator. A possible physiological mechanism was postulated to explain the production of soft and hard feces, and a protein-containing cecal secretion was suggested to account for the compositional differences in the soft and hard feces.

The prevention of coprophagy resulted in an apparent decrease in protein digestibility and in nitrogen retention, and in the digestibility of dry matter on all diets studied. The effect of this habit on the utilization of other dietary nutrients depended on the diet studied. An increase in the digestibility of the cellulose of a purified type of diet was associated with the longer half-life of feed residues in the digestive tract of rabbits practicing coprophagy in comparison with those in which it was prevented.


Manuscript received 1 September 1954.





Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]