Coprophagy in Animals: Why Some Animals Eat Feces

Coprophagy is the deliberate consumption of feces by an animal. This behavior is a normal physiological process in many species, including rabbits, rodents, and certain birds and insects, where it serves nutritional and digestive functions. In contrast, coprophagia refers to the pathological or compulsive eating of feces that can occur in domestic animals such as dogs, often requiring behavioral intervention. This article explains the biological basis of coprophagy, reviews scientific evidence across species, and provides practical guidance for farmers, researchers, and animal caretakers who need to interpret this behavior correctly.

At a Glance

The table below summarizes the main animal groups that practice coprophagy, the primary function of the behavior, and the practical implications for animal management.

Defining Coprophagy and Coprophagia

Coprophagy is an adaptive behavior observed across a wide range of species, including birds and mammals, and is particularly prevalent in juveniles. The behavior enables offspring to acquire beneficial gut microbes that aid development. In rabbits and rodents, coprophagy is necessary to supply many essential nutrients because bacterial synthesis of nutrients occurs in the lower gastrointestinal tract where little absorption is realized. The eating of feces provides a method for obtaining these nutrients.

Coprophagia, by contrast, is a term used in veterinary and clinical contexts to describe the consumption of feces that is excessive, compulsive, or inappropriate for the species. In dogs, coprophagia is a recognized behavioral issue that may stem from nutritional deficiency, environmental stress, or learned behavior. The distinction matters for animal caretakers because coprophagy in rabbits requires no intervention, while coprophagia in dogs may require behavioral modification and veterinary assessment.

Digestive Physiology Behind Coprophagy

Hindgut Fermentation and Nutrient Recovery

Animals that practice coprophagy share a common digestive feature: microbial fermentation occurs in the hindgut, specifically in the cecum and colon, after the primary sites of nutrient absorption in the small intestine. In rabbits and rodents, the digestive system is constructed such that bacterial synthesis of nutrients occurs in the lower gastrointestinal tract where little absorption is realized. The consumption of feces allows these animals to pass the microbially enriched material through the digestive tract a second time, recovering nutrients that would otherwise be lost.

Rabbits produce two types of feces: hard fecal pellets and soft cecotropes. Cecotropes are nutrient-dense, mucus-coated pellets that are consumed directly from the anus. This process, called cecotrophy, is a specialized form of coprophagy that maximizes nutrient extraction from fibrous plant material. The cecotropes contain high concentrations of microbial protein, B vitamins, and volatile fatty acids produced by cecal fermentation.

The Role of Gut Microbiota

The gut microbiota plays a central role in the benefits of coprophagy. In ostriches, experimental evidence shows that coprophagy causes marked shifts to the juvenile gut microbiota, including a major increase in diversity and rapid maturation of the microbial composition. Chicks provided daily access to fresh fecal material from adults became 9.4% heavier at 8 weeks old compared to controls, showed lower abundance of a common gut pathogen, and experienced lower mortality associated with gut disease. These findings suggest that coprophagy in juveniles is highly beneficial and may have evolved to accelerate the development of gut microbiota.

In rabbits, coprophagy prevention reduces the richness and diversity of bacterial and fungal communities in the cecal contents. Prevention also damages the cecal and colonic barriers, affects immune function, and reduces growth performance. The gut-liver axis mediates these effects, with coprophagy prevention disrupting hepatic lipid metabolic balance.

Coprophagy in Rabbits and Rodents

Rabbits and the Necessity of Cecotrophy

Rabbits are the most widely recognized coprophagic animals in agriculture and laboratory settings. Coprophagy is performed by rodents and lagomorphs and is necessary to supply many essential nutrients. For rabbit farmers, the presence of cecotropes in the cage or pen is a sign that the animal may be unable to consume them, which can indicate illness, dietary imbalance, or management problems.

A 2025 study on rabbits demonstrated that coprophagy prevention interferes with intestinal barrier function, lipid metabolism, and immune performance through the microbe-gut-liver axis. The study found that prevention reduced serum triglycerides and total cholesterol while downregulating key lipid metabolism genes, negatively affecting rabbit weight. For rabbit producers, this means that any management practice that limits a rabbit's ability to consume cecotropes, such as wire flooring that allows feces to fall through, can reduce growth performance and impair immune function.

Rodents in Research Settings

Rodents have been extensively used as animal models in microbiome studies, and all rodents have a habitual nature called coprophagy, a phenomenon where they self-reinoculate feces into their gastrointestinal tract. Blocking coprophagy can alter rodents' diversity of gut microbiota, metabolism, neurochemistry, and cognitive behavior.

A 2023 study found that blocking coprophagy in healthy mice increased levels of depression and inflammation. When researchers transplanted fecal microbiota from disease model mice to healthy recipient mice, the disease-like phenotypes in the coprophagy-blocked group were worse than those in the coprophagy-unblocked group, including severer depressive symptoms and higher levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines in serum, prefrontal cortex, and hippocampus. These findings provide a vital reference for future research involving fecal microbiota transplantation in rodents.

For laboratory animal facilities, this evidence means that standard housing must allow coprophagy to occur. Wire-bottom cages that prevent access to feces can confound research results, particularly in nutrition, microbiome, and behavioral studies. Researchers should document housing conditions and consider coprophagy as a variable in experimental design.

Guinea Pigs and Hamsters

Guinea pigs also practice coprophagy, and research from 1969 examined the effect of coprophagy on digestion and mineral excretion in this species. The rat-like hamster has been studied for the nutritional significance of coprophagy, with research confirming that the behavior contributes to nutrient acquisition. Female mice show increased coprophagy during pregnancy and lactation, suggesting that the behavior supports the elevated nutritional demands of reproduction.

Coprophagy in Birds

Juvenile Gut Microbiota Development in Ostriches

The most detailed experimental evidence for the benefits of coprophagy in birds comes from research on ostriches. A 2023 study conducted longitudinal experiments for 8 weeks, repeated over 2 years, involving 240 chicks. Of these, 128 were provided daily access to fresh fecal material from adults and 112 were given a control treatment. The results showed that coprophagy causes marked shifts to the juvenile gut microbiota, including a major increase in diversity and rapid maturation of the microbial composition. Fecal-supplemented chicks became 9.4% heavier at 8 weeks old, showed lower abundance of a common gut pathogen, and experienced lower mortality associated with gut disease.

For ostrich farmers, this evidence supports management practices that allow chicks to access adult feces during the early growth period. The practical implication is that strict hygiene protocols that completely separate chicks from adult fecal material may inadvertently slow gut development and increase disease susceptibility.

Parental Coprophagy in Wild Birds

Parental coprophagy is a behavior observed in numerous bird species, particularly among herbivorous and passerine birds. A 2024 review investigated multiple hypotheses proposed to explain the occurrence of coprophagy, including its function as a potential mechanism for transmitting microorganisms, particularly feces bacteria, from nestlings to their parents. This microbial transfer may affect the health and well-being of adult avian parents.

The review highlighted current research deficits, including the onset of coprophagy, its long-term effects on both parents and offspring, the nutritional implications of consuming nestling feces, the potential risks of pathogen transmission, and the ecological and evolutionary factors that drive this behavior.

Faecal Sac Ingestion in Common Swifts

In several bird taxa, coprophagy includes consumption of nestling faecal sacs by adults, a behavior called allocoprophagy. This behavior is often discussed in the context of nest sanitation, but it has also been linked to the parental nutrition hypothesis, whereby adults may recover part of the energetic and nutritional costs of provisioning.

A 2026 study quantified the energy content of nestling faecal sacs in common swifts using bomb calorimetry. The study collected 224 faecal sacs from nine nests and found mean gross energy of 1.94 kJ per sac, with substantial variation among nests. Gross energy increased with sac mass, and sacs from the same nest were more similar in energy content to each other than to sacs from other nests. The authors noted that because samples were collected post-fledging and ingestion frequency and assimilation efficiency were not measured, the results quantify the gross energetic substrate potentially available for recycling but do not by themselves demonstrate a net energetic benefit of coprophagy.

Coprophagy in Fish and Marine Animals

Caribbean Parrotfishes

Coprophagy has been documented in Caribbean parrotfishes, according to a 2022 publication in the journal Ecology. Parrotfishes are herbivorous reef fish that produce large amounts of sediment as they graze on algae and coral. The observation of coprophagy in these fish suggests that the behavior may serve nutritional functions related to the digestion of algal material or the acquisition of gut microbes.

For marine biologists and aquaculture professionals, this finding expands the known range of coprophagic species and raises questions about nutrient cycling in reef ecosystems. The behavior may have implications for understanding how parrotfish contribute to sediment dynamics and nutrient distribution on coral reefs.

Coprophagy in Insects and Invertebrates

Cockroaches and Microbiota Selection

The German cockroach selects microbiota taxa from feces and environmental inputs, according to a 2026 publication. This selective acquisition of microbes from feces indicates that coprophagy in insects is not a passive process but involves active selection of beneficial microbial taxa. For pest management professionals, this behavior has implications for understanding how cockroach populations maintain gut symbionts that aid in digestion of complex carbohydrates.

Millipedes and Digestive Mutualisms

Millipedes serve as hosts for microbes, and a 2017 review examined the relationship between these invertebrates and their microbial communities. The detritivorous feeding habits of millipedes, combined with coprophagy, support digestive mutualisms that allow them to extract nutrients from decaying plant material.

Dictyoptera and the Evolution of Digestive Mutualisms

Research on Dictyoptera, the insect order that includes cockroaches and termites, has examined detritivory, coprophagy, and the evolution of digestive mutualisms. A 2001 publication in Insectes Sociaux explored how coprophagy facilitates the transfer of gut symbionts between individuals and generations, a critical process for social insects that rely on microbial digestion of cellulose.

Coprophagy in Domestic Animals

Piglets and Sow Feces

The attraction of neonatal piglets to sow feces and their coprophagy suggests that fecal semiochemicals promote nutrient intake and gut colonization. A 2026 study explored associations between gut microbiota and fecal semiochemical and metabolic profiles in prepartum and postpartum sows. Fecal samples were collected from six crossbred sows at 4 days prepartum and 3 days postpartum.

The study found that skatole and p-cresol concentrations increased postpartum, and these compounds were strongly negatively correlated with butyrate-producing bacteria and positively correlated with postpartum-enriched genera. The research uncovered prepartum-to-postpartum shifts in sow fecal components and microbiota, revealing a microbial basis for semiochemical production and offering probiotic insights using coprophagy to improve piglet health.

For pig farmers, this evidence suggests that allowing piglets some access to sow feces during the neonatal period may support gut colonization and nutrient intake. However, this must be balanced against biosecurity concerns and the risk of pathogen transmission.

Dogs and Coprophagia

Coprophagy in dogs is a recognized behavior documented in the veterinary literature. A 2003 publication in The Veterinary Record addressed coprophagy in dogs, and the topic remains relevant for veterinarians and dog owners. In dogs, the behavior may be distinguished from the adaptive coprophagy seen in rabbits and rodents. Canine coprophagia is often considered a behavioral problem, and management typically involves dietary assessment, environmental enrichment, and behavior modification.

For dog owners and kennel operators, the distinction between occasional coprophagy and compulsive coprophagia matters. Occasional consumption of feces, particularly in puppies, may be exploratory or related to gut microbiota development. Compulsive coprophagia that persists despite intervention warrants veterinary assessment to rule out nutritional deficiencies or gastrointestinal disease.

Foals and Horses

Coprophagy is performed to a lesser degree by foals, according to the 1991 review in The Cornell Veterinarian. Foals may consume mare feces during the first weeks of life, a behavior that likely supports gut colonization with beneficial microbes. For horse breeders, this behavior is generally considered normal and should not be actively prevented unless it becomes excessive or is associated with other health concerns.

Nutritional and Health Implications

Vitamin and Mineral Recycling

The primary nutritional benefit of coprophagy is the recovery of nutrients produced by microbial fermentation in the hindgut. In rabbits and rodents, coprophagy is necessary to supply many essential nutrients because bacterial synthesis occurs in the lower gastrointestinal tract where little absorption is realized. The eating of feces provides a method for obtaining these nutrients.

Research on iron-deficient rats demonstrated that coprophagy may be a significant factor in interpretation of hemoglobin regeneration studies on rodents. Attempts to prevent coprophagy using plastic anal cups resulted in considerable damage to the cups from gnawing, and hemoglobin iron determinations suggested that the cups had been partially successful in preventing recycling of dietary iron. This finding has implications for nutrition research and for understanding how coprophagy affects mineral balance.

Bone Health and Calcium Metabolism

Research on the influence of coprophagy prevented by partial immobilization on calcium metabolism and bone morphology in the rat, published in 1974, examined how preventing coprophagy affects skeletal health. A more recent 2025 study on gut microbiota and bone mass found that old mice cohoused with young mice, with or without coprophagy prevention, were unable to alter gut microbiota composition or reverse age-related bone loss. The transplantation of gut microbiota from young mice into old mice preserved bone mass by inhibiting bone resorption through the hyodeoxycholic acid-TGR5 axis.

For animal researchers, these findings highlight the importance of coprophagy in maintaining normal calcium and bone metabolism in rodent models. Studies that inadvertently prevent coprophagy may produce misleading results in bone research.

Cholesterol and Lipid Metabolism

Research on the prevention of coprophagy and its effects on the hypocholesterolaemic effects of oat bran in the rat, published in 1993 in the British Journal of Nutrition, found that prevention of coprophagy did not alter the cholesterol-lowering effects of oat bran. This finding suggests that the cholesterol-lowering mechanism of oat bran operates independently of coprophagy in rats.

In rabbits, however, coprophagy prevention reduced serum triglycerides and total cholesterol while downregulating key lipid metabolism genes, negatively affecting weight. The difference between these findings may reflect species-specific differences in lipid metabolism or differences in study design.

Research Methods for Studying Coprophagy

Passage Markers and Observation

The plains viscacha, a large rodent, has been used to demonstrate coprophagy with passage markers. A 2007 publication in Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology examined this approach, which involves feeding animals indigestible markers and tracking their appearance in feces to quantify the extent of coprophagy. This method allows researchers to measure the proportion of feces that are re-ingested and to estimate the nutritional contribution of coprophagy.

Experimental Prevention Methods

Several methods have been used to prevent coprophagy in research settings. These include:

1. Anal cups or collars that physically prevent animals from reaching their anus
2. Wire-bottom cages that allow feces to fall away from the animal
3. Partial immobilization techniques
4. Surgical procedures such as cecotomy

Each method has limitations. Anal cups are subject to gnawing damage, as demonstrated in the iron-deficient rat study. Wire-bottom cages may cause foot injuries and do not completely prevent coprophagy if animals can access feces through the cage floor. Partial immobilization may introduce stress as a confounding variable.

Fecal Microbiota Transplantation Research

Coprophagy is a critical consideration in fecal microbiota transplantation research. The 2023 study on blocking coprophagy in mice demonstrated that the behavior affects the outcomes of fecal microbiota transplantation experiments. When coprophagy was blocked, disease-like phenotypes were worse than in unblocked groups, including severer depressive symptoms and higher levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines.

For researchers conducting microbiome studies, the implication is clear: coprophagy must be either allowed and documented or prevented and accounted for in the experimental design. Failure to control for coprophagy can confound results and lead to incorrect conclusions about the effects of interventions.

Coprophagy and Antimicrobial Resistance

A Public Health Dimension

Coprophagic organisms present a critical dimension of the global health challenge posed by the emergence and dissemination of antimicrobial resistance. A 2025 review in Discover Environment explored the complex dynamics between coprophagic organisms and the propagation of antimicrobial resistance, focusing on the presence of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in feces and the environment.

The review uncovered a range of direct and indirect methods by which coprophagic organisms facilitate the transmission of antimicrobial resistance, with particular focus on the significance of environmental influences and horizontal gene transfer. Coprophagic organisms contribute to the spread of antimicrobial resistance through direct bacteria transfer, contamination of shared habitats, and broader implications of coprophagy in antimicrobial resistance dissemination.

For livestock producers, this evidence reinforces the importance of manure management and biosecurity protocols. Animals that consume feces can serve as vectors for antimicrobial-resistant bacteria, potentially spreading resistance genes through herds and into the environment.

Practical Biosecurity Measures

Farmers and animal caretakers should implement the following measures to manage the risks associated with coprophagy:

1. Maintain clean feeding and watering areas to minimize fecal contamination
2. Separate sick animals from healthy animals to prevent fecal-oral transmission of pathogens
3. Follow veterinary guidance on antimicrobial use to reduce selection pressure for resistant bacteria
4. Compost or otherwise treat manure before land application to reduce pathogen loads
5. Document any unusual increases in coprophagic behavior, which may indicate nutritional deficiency or disease

Common Failure Patterns in Coprophagy Management

Misidentifying Normal Behavior as Problematic

A common failure in animal management is treating all coprophagy as abnormal. In rabbits, preventing cecotrophy can cause nutritional deficiencies, weight loss, and impaired immune function. Farmers who observe cecotropes in cages should first check whether animals are healthy and able to consume them, instead of assuming the behavior is a problem.

Confounding Research Results

In laboratory settings, failure to account for coprophagy can invalidate research findings. Studies on nutrition, microbiome, behavior, and metabolism are particularly susceptible. Researchers should document housing conditions, use appropriate controls, and consider coprophagy as a variable in experimental design.

Overlooking Pathological Coprophagia

In dogs and other domestic animals, coprophagia that is excessive or compulsive may indicate underlying health problems. Nutritional deficiencies, malabsorption syndromes, and behavioral disorders can all manifest as coprophagia. Veterinary assessment is warranted when the behavior is persistent, excessive, or associated with other clinical signs.

Ignoring Biosecurity Risks

In livestock operations, coprophagy can facilitate the spread of pathogens and antimicrobial-resistant bacteria. Producers who ignore this risk may experience disease outbreaks that could have been prevented with basic biosecurity measures.

Welfare and Safety Considerations

When Coprophagy Is Essential

For rabbits, rodents, and certain other species, coprophagy is an essential physiological behavior. Preventing it causes measurable harm, including reduced growth, impaired immune function, and altered metabolism. Animal welfare standards for these species should ensure that housing and management practices allow coprophagy to occur.

When Coprophagy Requires Intervention

In dogs, coprophagia may require intervention when it becomes compulsive or is associated with health problems. In livestock, coprophagy may require management when it increases disease transmission risk. The decision to intervene should be based on species-specific knowledge, veterinary assessment, and consideration of the animal's overall health and welfare.

Professional Escalation Criteria

Animal caretakers should seek professional advice when:

1. A rabbit stops consuming cecotropes, which may indicate dental disease, arthritis, or other health problems
2. A dog's coprophagia is persistent, excessive, or associated with weight loss, vomiting, or diarrhea
3. Coprophagy increases suddenly in a livestock herd, which may indicate nutritional deficiency or disease
4. Research animals show unexpected results in nutrition or microbiome studies, which may be related to coprophagy
5. There is concern about antimicrobial resistance transmission through coprophagic behavior

Records and Measurements for Animal Caretakers

What to Document

Animal caretakers and researchers should maintain records that include:

1. Frequency of coprophagy observed in individual animals or groups
2. Type of feces consumed, such as cecotropes versus hard pellets in rabbits
3. Age and reproductive status of animals showing coprophagy
4. Diet composition and any recent dietary changes
5. Health status, including weight, body condition, and any clinical signs
6. Housing conditions, including flooring type and access to feces
7. Any interventions applied and their outcomes

Interpreting Observations

The interpretation of coprophagy observations depends on species and context. In rabbits, regular cecotrophy is normal and expected. In dogs, occasional coprophagy may be normal, but frequent coprophagia warrants investigation. In livestock, coprophagy may be normal in young animals but may indicate problems in adults.

Limitations of Current Knowledge

Gaps in Understanding

Despite extensive research, several aspects of coprophagy remain poorly understood. The 2024 review on parental coprophagy in wild birds identified gaps including the onset of coprophagy, its long-term effects on both parents and offspring, the nutritional implications of consuming nestling feces, the potential risks of pathogen transmission, and the ecological and evolutionary factors that drive this behavior.

Methodological Challenges

Studying coprophagy presents methodological challenges. Preventing the behavior can introduce stress as a confounding variable. Observing the behavior in wild animals is difficult. Quantifying the nutritional contribution of coprophagy requires sophisticated techniques such as passage markers and stable isotope analysis.

Species-Specific Knowledge

Most detailed research on coprophagy has focused on a limited number of species, particularly rabbits, rats, and mice. Less is known about coprophagy in other species, including many domestic animals and wildlife. Extrapolating findings from one species to another should be done with caution.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between coprophagy and coprophagia?

Coprophagy is the normal, adaptive consumption of feces that serves nutritional or digestive functions in species such as rabbits, rodents, and certain birds. Coprophagia is the term used for excessive, compulsive, or inappropriate consumption of feces, particularly in domestic animals such as dogs, where it may indicate behavioral or health problems requiring intervention.

Why do rabbits eat their own feces?

Rabbits produce two types of feces: hard fecal pellets and soft cecotropes. Cecotropes are nutrient-dense pellets produced by microbial fermentation in the cecum. Rabbits consume cecotropes directly from the anus to recover microbial protein, B vitamins, and volatile fatty acids that would otherwise be lost. This process, called cecotrophy, is essential for rabbit health.

Is coprophagy normal in dogs?

Occasional coprophagy can occur in dogs, particularly in puppies, and may be exploratory or related to gut microbiota development. However, frequent or compulsive coprophagia may indicate nutritional deficiency, gastrointestinal disease, or behavioral problems. Veterinary assessment is recommended when the behavior is persistent or excessive.

How does coprophagy benefit juvenile birds?

In ostriches, experimental evidence shows that coprophagy accelerates gut microbiota development, increases microbial diversity, and improves growth rates. Chicks with access to adult feces became 9.4% heavier at 8 weeks old, showed lower abundance of a common gut pathogen, and experienced lower mortality associated with gut disease.

Can coprophagy spread disease?

Yes, coprophagy can facilitate the transmission of pathogens and antimicrobial-resistant bacteria. Coprophagic organisms can spread antimicrobial resistance through direct bacteria transfer and contamination of shared habitats. Biosecurity measures such as separating sick animals and maintaining clean feeding areas can reduce these risks.

Why is coprophagy important in laboratory animal research?

Coprophagy affects gut microbiota, metabolism, neurochemistry, and cognitive behavior in rodents. Blocking coprophagy can alter research outcomes in nutrition, microbiome, and behavioral studies. Researchers must account for coprophagy in experimental design to avoid confounding results.

Do fish practice coprophagy?

Yes, coprophagy has been documented in Caribbean parrotfishes. These herbivorous reef fish consume feces, and the behavior may serve nutritional functions related to digestion of algal material or acquisition of gut microbes. This finding expands the known range of coprophagic species.

What should a farmer do if coprophagy increases suddenly in a herd?

A sudden increase in coprophagy in a livestock herd may indicate nutritional deficiency, dietary imbalance, or disease. Farmers should review feed composition, check animal health status, and consult a veterinarian if the behavior is associated with weight loss, diarrhea, or other clinical signs.

Related Articles

• Scientific Literature Review Format: A Reproducible Structure for Researchers
• Scientific Literature Review: A Reproducible Search and Synthesis Workflow
• Difference Between Dna And Rna
• Animal Behavior Specialist Careers: Veterinary Behaviorists and Trainers
• Animal Biology

References and Further Reading

• NCBI Literature Resources. National Center for Biotechnology Information.
• PubMed. National Library of Medicine.
• Coprophagy in animals: a review.. The Cornell veterinarian, 1991.
• Studies on coprophagy in experimental animals.. Jikken dobutsu. Experimental animals, 1993.
• Coprophagy in dogs.. The Veterinary record, 2003.
• Coprophagy in Caribbean parrotfishes.. Ecology, 2022.
• Coprophagy rapidly matures juvenile gut microbiota in a precocial bird.. Evolution letters, 2023.
• Gut microbiota preserves bone mass through modulating the hyodeoxycholic acid-TGR5 axis.. Gut microbes, 2025.
• Blocking coprophagy increases the levels of inflammation and depression in healthy mice as well as mice receiving fecal microbiota transplantation from disease model mice donors.. APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica, 2023.
• Coprophagy in iron-deficient rats.. Laboratory animals, 1982.
• Blattella germanica Selects Microbiota Taxa from Feces and Environmental Inputs. 2026.
• Associations Between Gut Microbiota and Fecal Semiochemical and Metabolic Profiles in Sows During the Periparturient Period.. 2026.
• Faecal sac energy in common swifts (Apus apus) as a function of mass and nest identity.. 2026.
• Coprophagy prevention interfered with intestinal barrier, lipid metabolism, and immune performance in rabbits via microbe-gut-liver axis.. 2025.
• The Influence of Microbiota on Wild Birds' Parental Coprophagy Behavior: Current Advances and Future Research Directions.. 2024.
• The enriched mind: cognitive stimulation and behavior in non-human primates.. 2025.
• Coprophagy in animals: a review.. The Cornell veterinarian, 1991.
• Revisiting the critical role of coprophagic organisms in amplifying antimicrobial resistance. Discover Environment, 2025.
• Detritivory, coprophagy, and the evolution of digestive mutualisms in Dictyoptera. Insectes Sociaux, 2001.
• Demonstrating coprophagy with passage markers? The example of the plains viscacha (Lagostomus maximus).. Comparative biochemistry and physiology. Part A, Molecular & integrative physiology, 2007.
• Millipedes as Host for Microbes-A Review. 2017.
• Coprophagy and related strategies for digesta utilization. 1980.
• Effect of coprophagy on digestion and mineral excretion in the guinea pig.. Journal of NutriLife, 1969.
• Coprophagy in animals: a review.. Cornell Veterinarian, 1991.
• Influence of coprophagy prevented by partial immobilization on calcium metabolism and bone morphology in the rat. Research in Experimental Medicine, 1974.
• Nutritional significance of coprophagy in the rat-like hamster Tscherskia triton. Mammalia, 2013.
• Coprophagy in female mice during pregnancy and lactation.. Jikken Dobutsu Experimental Animals, 1988.
• Prevention of coprophagy does not alter the hypocholesterolaemic effects of oat bran in the rat. British Journal of Nutrition, 1993.

This article is educational and does not replace institutional policy, professional advice, or applicable safety and regulatory requirements.