Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 1995 Aug;103(2):208-213.
doi: 10.1007/BF00329082.

Adaptation of ruminants to browse and grass diets: are anatomical-based browser-grazer interpretations valid?

Affiliations

Adaptation of ruminants to browse and grass diets: are anatomical-based browser-grazer interpretations valid?

Charles T Robbins et al. Oecologia. 1995 Aug.

Abstract

As a result of pioneering work of Hofmann (1973, 1989), nutritional ecologists classify ruminants into three feeding-type categories: browsers ("concentrate" feeders), grazers, and intermediate or mixed feeders. Hofmann proposed that these feeding types result from evolutionary adaptations in the anatomy of the digestive system and that one consequence is shorter retention of the digesta in the rumen of browsers, and thus a decreased efficiency of fiber digestion relative to that of grazers. We examined the hypotheses that (1) fiber digestion of browsers is lower than that of grazers, (2) salivary gland size is larger in all browsers than in grazers, (3) the browser's larger salivary glands produce larger volumes of thin serous saliva than those of grazers, and (4) thus, browsers have higher liquid passage rates than do grazers. We found that the extent of fiber digestion is not significantly different between browsers and grazers, although fiber digestion is positively related to herbivore size. In general, salivary gland size is approximately 4 times larger in browsers than grazers, but some browsers (e.g., greater kudu) have small, grazer-sized salivary glands. Resting (non-feeding or ruminating) saliva flow rates of mule deer (browser) and domestic sheep and cattle (grazers) were not significantly different from each other. Finally, ruminal liquid flow rates were not different between feeding types. We conclude that many of Hofmann's nutritional and physiological interpretations of anatomical differences amongst ruminants are not supportable.

Keywords: Browsers; Digestion; Foraging; Ruminants; Saliva.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. J Dairy Sci. 1990 Mar;73(3):749-62 - PubMed
    1. Oecologia. 1994 Jul;98 (2):167-175 - PubMed
    1. Oecologia. 1989 Mar;78(4):443-457 - PubMed
    1. J Sci Food Agric. 1980 Jul;31(7):625-32 - PubMed
    1. J Chem Ecol. 1989 Apr;15(4):1335-47 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources