European Journal of Wildlife Research

, Volume 51, Issue 4, pp 291–294 | Cite as

Testing predictions on body mass and gut contents: dissection of an African elephant Loxodonta africana Blumenbach 1797

  • Marcus Clauss
  • Nadia Robert
  • Chris Walzer
  • Christelle Vitaud
  • Jürgen Hummel
Short Communication


The values reported in the literature for the total gastrointestinal tract (GIT) content mass of elephants are lower than expected from interspecific mammalian regression. This finding agrees with theoretical considerations that elephants should have less capacious GITs than other herbivorous mammals, resulting in short ingesta retention times. However, the data on elephants was so far derived from either diseased zoo specimens or free-ranging animals subjected to an unknown hunting stress. In this study, we weighed the wet contents of the GIT segments of a captive African elephant that was euthanased because of a positive serological tuberculosis test, but that was clinically healthy, did not show a reduced appetite, and ingested food up to the time of euthanasia. The animal weighed 3,140 kg and its total gut contents were 542 kg or 17% of body mass. This is in close accord with the published mammalian herbivore regression equation of Parra (Comparison of foregut and hindgut fermentation in herbivores. In: Montgomery GG (ed) The ecology of arboreal folivores. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC, pp205–230, 1978) and contradicts the notion that elephants have comparatively less capacious gastrointestinal tracts. Data on the individual gut segments, however, do support earlier suspicions that elephants have a comparatively less capacious caecum and a disproportionally capacious colon.


Loxodonta africana Gastrointestinal tract Gut fill Body mass Digestive anatomy Digestive physiology 



We thank Camille Forel (Safari de Peaugres), Patrick Paubel (Etablissement Point équarissage), Valeria Café-Marçel, Helena Nimmervoll, Stefan Hoby, and Jérôme Foellmi for their support in planning and performing the dissection of the elephant. This is contribution no. 18 of the DFG research unit “Biology of the Sauropod Dinosaurs”.


  1. Benedict FG (1936) The physiology of the elephant. Carnegie Institution of Washington, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  2. Buss IO (1961) Some observations on food habits and behaviour of the African elephant. J Wildl Manage 25:131–148Google Scholar
  3. Clauss M, Frey R, Kiefer B, Lechner-Doll M, Loehlein W, Polster C, Streich WJ, Rößner GE (2003) The maximum attainable body size of herbivorous mammals: morphophysiological constraints on foregut, and adaptations of hindgut fermenters. Oecologia 136:14–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Clemens ET, Maloiy GMO (1982) Digestive physiology of three East African herbivores, the elephant, rhinoceros and hippopotamus. J Zool Lond 198:141–156Google Scholar
  5. Demment MW, Van Soest PJ (1985) A nutritional explanation for body-size patterns of ruminant and nonruminant herbivores. Am Nat 125:641–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gilchrist W (1851) A practical treatise on the treatment of the diseases of the elephant, camel, and horned cattle, with instructions for preserving their efficiency. Calcutta (cited by Benedict 1936)Google Scholar
  7. Hungate RE, Phillips GD, McGregor A, Hungate DP (1959) Microbial fermentation in certain mammals. Science 130:1192–1194PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Laws RM, Parker ISC (1968) Recent studies on elephant populations in East Africa. Symp Zool Soc Lond 21:319–359Google Scholar
  9. Laws RM, Parker ISC, Johnstone RCB (1975) Elephants and their habitats. The ecology of elephants in North Bunyoro, Uganda. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Loehlein W, Kienzle E, Wiesner H, Clauss M (2003) Investigations on the use of chromium oxide as an inert external marker in captive Asian elephants (Elephas maximus): passage and recovery rates. In: Fidgett A, Clauss M, Ganslosser U, Hatt JM, Nijboer J (eds) Zoo animal nutrition, vol II. Filander, Fürth, Germany, pp 223–232Google Scholar
  11. Noback CV (1932) 36th Annual Report, New York Zoological Society, p 58 (cited by Benedict 1936)Google Scholar
  12. Parra R (1978) Comparison of foregut and hindgut fermentation in herbivores. In: Montgomery GG (ed) The ecology of arboreal folivores. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC, pp 205–230Google Scholar
  13. Robertson-Bullock W (1962) The weight of the African elephant (Loxdonta africana). Zool Soc Lond 138:133–135Google Scholar
  14. Shoshani J et al (1982) On the dissection of a female Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) and data from other elephants. Elephant 2:3–93Google Scholar
  15. Van Hoven W, Prins RA, Lankhorst A (1981) Fermentative digestion in the African elephant. S Afr J Wildl Res 11:78–86Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcus Clauss
    • 1
  • Nadia Robert
    • 2
  • Chris Walzer
    • 3
  • Christelle Vitaud
    • 4
  • Jürgen Hummel
    • 5
  1. 1.Division of Zoo Animals, Exotic Pets and Wildlife, Vetsuisse FacultyUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Vetsuisse Faculty of the University of BerneCentre for Fish and Wild Animal Health, Institute for Animal PathologyBerneSwitzerland
  3. 3.Research Institute for Wildlife EcologyUniversity of Veterinary MedicineViennaAustria
  4. 4.Safari de PeaugresChâteau du MontanetPeaugresFrance
  5. 5.Institute of Animal Physiology, Physiological Chemistry and Animal NutritionOberschleissheimGermany

Personalised recommendations