期刊文献+

Microbial Community in the Forestomachs of Alpacas (Lama pacos) and Sheep (Ovis aries) 被引量:3

Microbial Community in the Forestomachs of Alpacas (Lama pacos) and Sheep (Ovis aries)
下载PDF
导出
摘要 Four 2-yr old alpacas ((48±2.3) kg) and four 2-yr old sheep ((50±1.7) kg) were used to study the pH and microbial community of forestomach from alpacas (Lama pacos) and sheep (Ovis aries) fed fresh alfalfa as the sole forage at low altitude (793 m). The forestomach fluid was taken anaerobically via the esophagus. The electric pH meter and quantitative polymerase chain reaction systems were used to study the the pH and microbial community of forestomach. The results showed that the mean pH of forestomach fluid from alpacas was higher than that from sheep (P〈0.01). The percentages of methanogens and Ruminococcusflavefaciens to total bacterial were lower in the forestomach of alpacas than that in the rumen of sheep, while the percentage of fungi and Fibrobacter succinogenes were higher. The percentage of protozoa was similar in the forestomach of alpacas and sheep. These differences can partly explain the reason that alpacas were lower methane production than sheep. Four 2-yr old alpacas ((48±2.3) kg) and four 2-yr old sheep ((50±1.7) kg) were used to study the pH and microbial community of forestomach from alpacas (Lama pacos) and sheep (Ovis aries) fed fresh alfalfa as the sole forage at low altitude (793 m). The forestomach fluid was taken anaerobically via the esophagus. The electric pH meter and quantitative polymerase chain reaction systems were used to study the the pH and microbial community of forestomach. The results showed that the mean pH of forestomach fluid from alpacas was higher than that from sheep (P〈0.01). The percentages of methanogens and Ruminococcusflavefaciens to total bacterial were lower in the forestomach of alpacas than that in the rumen of sheep, while the percentage of fungi and Fibrobacter succinogenes were higher. The percentage of protozoa was similar in the forestomach of alpacas and sheep. These differences can partly explain the reason that alpacas were lower methane production than sheep.
出处 《Journal of Integrative Agriculture》 SCIE CAS CSCD 2013年第2期314-318,共5页 农业科学学报(英文版)
基金 supported by the Postdoctoral Foundation of Shanxi Agricultural University the Key Scientific and Technological Project of Shanxi Province,China(20110311031)
关键词 forestomach microbial community ALPACAS SHEEP ALFALFA forestomach microbial community, alpacas, sheep, alfalfa
  • 相关文献

参考文献20

  • 1Clemens E T, Stevens C E. 1980. A comparison of gastrointestinal transit time in ten species of mammal. The Journal of Agricultural Science (Cambridge), 94, 735-737.
  • 2Denman S E, McSweeney C S. 2006. Development of a real- time PCR assay for monitoring anaerobic fungal and cellulolytic bacterial populations within the rumen. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 58, 572-582.
  • 3Denman S E, Tomkins N, McSweeney C S. 2005. Monitoring the effect of bromochloromethane on methanogen populations within the rumen using qPCR. In: 2nd International Symposium on Greenhouse Gases and Animal Agriculture. ETH Zurich, Switzerland. pp. 112- 114.
  • 4Dulphy J P, Dardillat C, Jailler M, Ballet J M. 1997. Comparative study of forestomach digestion in llamas and sheep. Reproduction Nutrition Development, 37, 709-725.
  • 5Harrison D G, Beever D E, Thompson D H, Osbourn D F. 1975. Manipulation of rumen fermentation in sheep by increasing the rate of flow of water from the rumen. The Journal of Agricultural Science (Cambridge), 85, 93- 101.
  • 6Heller R V, Gregory P C, Engelhardt W V. 1984. Pattern of motility and flow of digesta in the forestomaeh of the llama (Lama guanieoe F. Glama). Journal of Comparative Physiology (B), 154, 529-533.
  • 7Hespel R B, Bryant M P. 1979. Efficiency of rumen microbial growth influence of some theoretical and experimental factors on YATP. Journal of Animal Science, 49, 1640- 1659.
  • 8Hobson P N. 1997. Introduction. In: Hobson P N, Stewart C S, eds., The Rumen Mmicrobial Ecosystem. Blackie Academic and Professional Publishers, London. pp. 1- 9.
  • 9Isaacson H R, Hinds F C, Bryant M P, Owens F N. 1975.Efficiency of energy utilization by mixed rumen bacteria in continuous culture. Journal of Dairy Science, 58, 1645-1659.
  • 10Jacobson D R, Lindahl I L, McNeill J J, Shaw J C, Doetsch R N, Davis R E. 1957. Feedlot bloat studies. II. Physical factors involved in the etiology of frothy bloat. Journal of Animal Science, 16, 515-524.

同被引文献6

引证文献3

二级引证文献22

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部