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
Comparative Study
. 1979;20(3):365-71.
doi: 10.1186/BF03546598.

A comparison of the microbiological conditions in the small intestine and caeca of wild and captive willow grouse (Lagopus lagopus lagopus)

I Hanssen
Comparative Study

A comparison of the microbiological conditions in the small intestine and caeca of wild and captive willow grouse (Lagopus lagopus lagopus)

I Hanssen. Acta Vet Scand. 1979.

Abstract
in English, Norwegian

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.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. 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
    1. Bergey’s Manual of Determinative Bacteriology. 8th Ed. (Buchanan, E. E. & Gibbons, N. E., eds.). The Williams & Wilkins Company, Baltimore 1974.
    1. Brinkmann, A.: Lirypens entoparasitter. (The entoparasites of the Willow Grouse). Bergens Museums Aarbok 1921–22. Natur-vidensk. række nr. 3, 1922, 1–41.
    1. 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
    1. 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.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources