4.2 Article

Effects of coat length and faecal hair removal on measured nutrient digestibility in cats

期刊

JOURNAL OF FELINE MEDICINE AND SURGERY
卷 21, 期 4, 页码 379-386

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1098612X18783844

关键词

Digestibility; faeces; grooming; hair

资金

  1. Daehan Feed, Republic of Korea

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives This experiment was conducted to evaluate the effect of coat length and faecal hair removal on measured nutrient digestibility in longhair and shorthair cats. Methods A total of 14 adult domestic cats, with a mean +/- SD body weight of 4.5 +/- 1.21 kg and a mean +/- SD age of 3.3 +/- 1.38 years, were used for a nutrient digestibility trial. The nutrient digestibility of cats was measured by hair-included faeces and hair-removed faeces. Food was provided twice daily (09:00 h and 16:00 h) and water was provided ad libitum. Cats were adapted to a steel cage and diet for 16 days before a 10 day collection period. During the collection period, food offered, food refused and faecal output were measured daily and used for digestibility analysis. Results The digestibility of dry matter, crude protein and neutral detergent fibre (NDF) of longhair cats was underestimated by 8% (P = 0.02), 9% (P = 0.04) and 14% (P = 0.04), respectively. In shorthair cats, the digestibility of dry matter, crude protein and crude ash increased by 4% (P = 0.01), 5% (P = 0.02) and 15% (P <0.01), respectively, with hair-removed faeces. The nutrient digestibility between longhair and shorthair cats showed no difference when hair-included faeces were used. However, when using hair-removed faeces, the digestibility of NDF and amino acids in longhair cats were about 4-8% higher than in shorthair cats (P <0.05). Conclusions and relevance This study showed that the nutrient digestibility values were affected by whether the hair in faeces was removed or not. Removing hair from faeces is a more precise method with which to evaluate the apparent nutrient digestibility of domestic cats.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据