Abstract
The study compares the microbiological conditions in the small intestine and caeca of captive and wild willow grouse. The small intestine of wild willow grouse scarcely contained bacteria, while the caeca, without exception, contained high numbers of microorganisms including spirochetes, small gram-negative anaerobe rods, flagellates and amoebae. In 50 % of the birds a low number of E. coli was found in the caeca. The types, numbers and distribution of intestinal microorganisms of captive willow grouse were very similar to that of the domestic fowl and thus quite unlike that of the wild grouse.
These results help to explain why captive grouse digest natural food less efficiently than wild birds. Hence captive grouse should not be used in experiments which aim to clarify digestive capacity and functions in the wild grouse.
Keywords: bacteria, spirochetes, flagellates, amobae, gut, willow grouse
Sammendrag
Det er foretatt en sammenligning av de mikrobiologiske forholdene i tynntarmen og blindtarmene hos ville liryper og liryper som har vært holdt i fangenskap. I tynntarmen hos ville ryper ble det som regel ikke påvist mikroorganismer, mens det i blindtarmene alitid fontes et stort antall. Disse mikrobene var spirocheter, små gramnegative, anaerobe staver, flagellater, amøber og hos enkelte ryper et lavt antal E. coli. Hos liryper holdt i fangenskap fant en at tarmfloraen var svært lik den som er beskrevet for kylling både med hensyn til typer, antall og utbredelse. Ville ryper og ryper som har vært holdt i fangenskap har således helt forskjeilig tarmflora. Dette forholdet, sammen med forskjellene i tarm-morfologi, er sannsynligvis årsaken til at ryper i fangenskap ikke fordøyer naturlig rypemat så godt som de ville rypene. Ryper som er oppdrettet eller har vært holdt i fangenskap over lengere tid bør derfor ikke brukes i eksperimenter som har som siktemål å avsløre fordøyelsesfunksjoner og -kapasiteter hos ville ryper.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (906.3 KB).
Footnotes
The project was financially supported by the Agricultural Research Council of Norway.
References
- Barnes E. The avian intestinal flora with particular reference to possible ecological significance of the caecal anaerobic bacteria. Amer. J. clin. Nutr. 1972;25:1475–1479. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/25.12.1475. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bergey’s Manual of Determinative Bacteriology. 8th Ed. (Buchanan, E. E. & Gibbons, N. E., eds.). The Williams & Wilkins Company, Baltimore 1974.
- Brinkmann, A.: Lirypens entoparasitter. (The entoparasites of the Willow Grouse). Bergens Museums Aarbok 1921–22. Natur-vidensk. række nr. 3, 1922, 1–41.
- Bryant M P, Robinson I M. An improved non-selective culture medium for ruminai bacteria and its use in determining diurnal variations in numbers of bacteria in the rumen. J. Dairy Sci. 1961;44:1446–1456. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(61)89906-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Fantham, H. B.: Observations on the parasite protozoa of the red grouse (Lagopus scoticus) with a note on the grouse fly. Proc. Zool. Soc. London 1910, 692–708.
- Gasaway, W. C.: Seasonal variation in diet, volatile fatty acid production and size of the cecum of rock ptarmigan. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 1976a, 53A, 109–114. [DOI] [PubMed]
- Gasaway, W. C.: Volatile fatty acids and metabolizable energy derived from cecal fermentation in the willow ptarmigan. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 1976b, 53A, 115–121. [DOI] [PubMed]
- Gasaway W C, White R G, Holleman D F. Digestion of dry matter and absorption of water in the intestine and cecum of rock ptarmigan. The Condor. 1976;78:77–84. doi: 10.2307/1366918. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Hanssen I. Micromorphological studies on the small intestine and caeca in wild and captive willow grouse (Lagopus lagopus lagopus) Acta vet. scand. 1979;20:351–364. doi: 10.1186/BF03546597. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kinyon J M, Harris D L. Growth of Treponema hyodysenteriae in liquid medium. Vet. Rec. 1974;95:219–220. doi: 10.1136/vr.95.10.219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McBee R, West G C. Cecal fermentation in the willow ptarmigan. The Condor. 1969;71:54–58. doi: 10.2307/1366048. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Moss R. Effects of captivity on gut lengths in red grouse. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 1972;36:99–104. doi: 10.2307/3799192. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Moss, R.: Digestion of heather by red grouse during the spring. The Condor 1977, 79, 471–477.
- Moss, R. & I. Hanssen: Grouse nutrition. In Handbook of Nutrition and Food (Rechcigl, jr. M. D., ed.). CRC Press, Inc., Cleveland. In press. Nordic Committee on Feed Analysis 11, 1969.
- Schumacher, S.: Die Blinddärme der Waldhühner mit besonderer Berücksichtigung eigentümlicher Sekretionserscheinungen in denselben. (The caeca in tetraonids with special reference to their particular secretion). Z. Anat. Entwickl.-Gesch. I. Abt. 1922, 64, 76–95.
- Schumacher S. Der Bau der Blinddärme und des übrigen Darmrohres vom Spielhahn (Lyrurus tetrix L.). (Gut morphology in Black grouse) Z. Anat. Entwickl.-Gesch. I. Abt. 1925;76:640–644. doi: 10.1007/BF02117119. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Suomalainen H, Arhimo E. On the microbial decomposition of cellulose by wild gallinaceous birds (family Tetraonidae) Ornis Fennica. 1945;22:21–23. [Google Scholar]