




































 

 

 
1 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

GROSS MORPHOLOGY AND MORPHOMETRIC STUDIES OF DIGESTIVE TRACT OF 
BARN OWL (Tyto alba)   

 

 

 Umar, A.A1 

 Atabo, S.M2+ 

 

1Department of Veterinary Anatomy, Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Nigeria 

 
2Department of Animal Health and Production Technology, College of 
Agriculture and Animal Science Bakura, Zamfara State, Nigeria 

 
 

 
(+ Corresponding author) 

 ABSTRACT 
 
Article History 
Received: 15 October 2018 
Revised: 19 November 2018 
Accepted: 24 December 2018 
Published: 22 January 2019 
 

Keywords 
Barn owl 
Crop 
Digestive tract 
Duodenum 
Jejunum  
Ileum 
Large intestine. 

 

 
Four (4) adult barn owls were captured from Gamji Village of Bakura local government 
and transported in a cage to the College of Agriculture and Animal Science Bakura, 
Zamfara State, Nigeria, for morphology and morphometry of the digestive tracts. All 
the segments of the digestive tract (Esophagus, Liver, Crop, Duodenum, Jejunum, 
Ileum, Colon, Caecum, Colorectum, and Cloaca) were present, however the crop was 
found to be absent. This studies will provide valuable information for anatomist and 
other scientist working in the management and nutrition of this species, which will 
further help in the maintenance of this important bird in captivity or free life. Further 
investigation in the histology of these segments is recommended. 
 

Contribution/Originality: This study contributes in the existing literature, the gross features of the 

gastrointestinal tract of the barn owl, which will further assist in the feeding and management of this bird in 

captivity or free life. 

 

1. INTRODUCTION 

Owls are birds from the order Strigiformes, which includes about 200 species. They hunt mostly small 

mammals, insects and other birds, and they are found in all regions of the Earth except Antarctica and some remote 

islands (Forshaw, 1998). Owls that feed in agricultural areas provide benefits to humans by killing large numbers of 

small rodents which might otherwise eat crops in field or in storage (Burton, 1992). In recent studies on owls, 

aspects such as behavior, reproduction, feeding habits and habitat have been discussed (Long, 1998; König et al., 

1999). However, morphological data regarding the digestive system of this bird are still scarce. It is believed that 

studies on the digestive tract of barn owl could provide valuable information that can be used by other professionals 

such as wild-lifers, anatomist and other scientist working in the management and nutrition of this species. In this 

view, the present study will describe in detail, gross features of the gastrointestinal tract of the barn owl, in order to 

supply data regarding the morphology of this species, which will further assist in the maintenance of this important 

bird in captivity or free life 

 

 

 

Animal Review 
2019 Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1-4 
ISSN(e): 2409-6490 
ISSN(p): 2412-3382 
DOI: 10.18488/journal.ar.2019.61.1.4 
© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 
 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 
 

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7020-8355
https/orcid.org/0000-0002-9811-4457
https://www.doi.org/10.18488/journal.ar.2019.61.1.4


Animal Review, 2019, 6(1): 1-4 

 

 
2 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 

Four (4) adult barn owls were captured from Gamji Village of Bakura local government and transported in a 

cage to the College of Agriculture and Animal Science Bakura, Zamfara State, Nigeria. After Cervical (Plate 1) 

subluxation, the digestive tracts were collected for morphology and morphometry (location, shape, size, length, 

breadth and weight of the segments of digestive tract were considered) (Oyelowo et al., 2017).  

 

 
Plate-1. A photograph of the barn owl captured 

 

3. RESULT 

The digestive tract comprised of proventriculus, gizzard, duodenum, jejunum, ileum, caeca, colorectum and 

cloaca respectively. The esophagus was a long, narrow and straight tube which extends from the glottis at the 

posterior end of the pharynx, through the neck and thorax to join with the glandular stomach. The average length 

and weight of esophagus were 5.2±0.278 cm and 4.02±0.23gm respectively (Plate 2). The proventriculus was 

relatively small and tubular. It was located caudal to the esophagus. The average length and weight of the 

proventriculus were 2.80±0.12 cm and 2.98±0.28 gm (Plate 2). The gizzard (muscular stomach) was located 

immediately succeeding the proventriculus. It was placed between the lobes and partly behind the left lobe of the 

liver. It was made up of thick strong muscles with longitudinal grooves on the inner wall (rugae). The average 

length and weight of the gizzard was 6.2±0.128 cm and 15.5±0.52 gm (Plate 2 and 3). The duodenum started at the 

proximal part of the gizzard and formed an elongated loop with a pancreas within the loop. After the duodenum, the 

small intestine formed a coil and was suspended from the dorsal abdominal wall the by a mesentery. The average 

length and weight of the duodenum were 18.50±0.478 cm and 1.5±0.029 gm respectively (Plate 2). There was 

definite demarcation between the jejunum and ileum. The average length and weight of the jejunum were 

35.25±0.29 cm and 2.3±0.12 gm (Plate 2) respectively. The average length and weight of the ileum were 5.6±0.25 

cm and 0.20±0.03 gm (Plate 2).  

The caecum was the first part of the large intestine, the left and right caeca starts from the ileum and 

terminates in blind pouches and were closely attached to the small intestine by the mesentery. The average length 

and weight of the caeca were 5.4±0.45 cm and 0.25±0.035 gm (Plate 2). Finally, the colorectum was seen at the 

terminal segment of the intestine, between the ileo-cecal junction and the cloaca. It was short, straight and had 

thick muscular walls. The average length and weight of the colorectum was 3.925±0.19cm and 0.13±0.022gm 

respectively (Plate 2). 

 

 

 

 
O 



Animal Review, 2019, 6(1): 1-4 

 

 
3 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Plate-2. A photograph of the digestive tract of barn owl, showing the 
esophagus (E), Liver (L), Crop (C), Duodenum (D), Jejunum (J) Ileum 
(I), Colon (C), Caecum (C) Colorectum (Cr) and Cloaca (Cl) . 

Plate-3. A photograph of the internal surface of gizzard in the barn 
owl, showing the smooth glandular portion (G) and muscular portion 
with rugae (M). 

 

4. DISCUSSION 

Owls cannot chew their food like other birds, however, they are carnivorous and small prey items are 

swallowed whole, while larger prey are torn into smaller pieces before being swallowed (König et al., 1999). Unlike 

other birds, Owls have no Crop, which is a loose sac in the throat that serves as storage for food for later 

consumption. As such, in an Owl, food is passed directly into their digestive system. 

The Owl’s stomach like other birds has two parts, the glandular stomach (proventriculus) is the first part, 

which produces enzymes, acids, and mucus that begin the process of digestion and the second part is the 

Ventriculus (gizzard) which is muscular in shape and has no digestive glands. In Owl, the gizzard serves as a filter, 

holding back insoluble items such as bones, fur, teeth and feathers, which are compressed into pellets with the help 

of the rugae in the inner walls of the gizzard. The rugae are the extensive folds in the stomach lining, which are 

capable of stretching to accommodate an increase in stomach volume with consumption of a meal and they also help 

direct the food downward towards the pylorus as a result of stomach motility (Dyce et al., 2002).  

This pellet will later be regurgitated up from the gizzard back to the proventriculus. Regurgitation often 

signifies that an Owl is ready to eat again. When the Owl eats more than one prey item within several hours, the 

various remains are consolidated into one pellet (Marti, 1974). The observations in the caeca as reported in this 

study were similar to the reports of Hassouna (2001) and Nasrin et al. (2012) where, the authors proved that caeca 

were long cylindrical expansions in chickens. Further investigation in the histology of these segments is 

recommended. 

 

Funding: This study received no specific financial support.    
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.  
Contributors/Acknowledgement: Both authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the 
study. 

 

REFERENCES 

Burton, J.A., 1992. Owls of the world. Their evolution, structure, and ecology. 3rd Edn., New York, London: Peter Lowe. pp: 40. 

Dyce, K.M., W.O. Sack and C.J.G. Wensing, 2002. Text book of veterinary anatomy. 3rd Edn., Philadelphia, U.S.: Saunders 

Company. pp: 55. 

Forshaw, J., 1998. Encyclopedia of birds. New York, U.S.: Academics Press. pp: 101. 

D G 



Animal Review, 2019, 6(1): 1-4 

 

 
4 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Hassouna, E., 2001. Some anatomical and morphometrical studies on the intestinal tract of chicken, duck, goose, Turkey, pigeon, 

dove, quail, sparrow, heron, jackdaw, hoopoe, kestrel and owl. Assiut Veterinary Medical Journal, 44(88): 47-78. 

König, C., W. Friedhelm and B. Jan-Hendrik, 1999. Owls: A guide to the owls of the world. 1st Edn., New Haven, Connecticut 

U.S.: Yale University Press. pp: 24. 

Long, K., 1998. Owls: A wildlife handbook. Dallas, Texas U.S: Johnson Books. pp: 35. 

Marti, C.D., 1974. Feeding ecology of four sympatric owls. The Condor, 76(1): 45-61. Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.2307/1365983. 

Nasrin, M., M. Siddiqi, M. Masum and M. Wares, 2012. Gross and histological studies of digestive tract of broilers during 

postnatal growth and development. Journal of the Bangladesh Agricultural University, 10(1): 69-77. Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.3329/jbau.v10i1.12096. 

Oyelowo, F., I. Usende, E. Abiyere, A. Adikpe and A. Ghaji, 2017. Comparative gross morphology and morphometric 

investigations on the alimentary tract of three age groups of barn owl (Tyto alba) found in North-central Nigeria. 

International Journal of Veterinary Science, 6(1): 7-12. 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), Animal Review shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, 
damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. 

 


