[1]Clemens E T, Stevens C E. 1980. A comparison ofgastrointestinal transit time in ten species of mammal.The Journal of Agricultural Science (Cambridge), 94,735-737[2]Denman S E, McSweeney C S. 2006. Development of a realtimePCR assay for monitoring anaerobic fungal andcellulolytic bacterial populations within the rumen.FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 58, 572-582[3]Denman S E, Tomkins N, McSweeney C S. 2005. Monitoringthe effect of bromochloromethane on methanogenpopulations within the rumen using qPCR. In: 2ndInternational Symposium on Greenhouse Gases andAnimal Agriculture. ETH Zurich, Switzerland. pp. 112-114[4]Dulphy J P, Dardillat C, Jailler M, Ballet J M. 1997.Comparative study of forestomach digestion in llamasand sheep. Reproduction Nutrition Development, 37,709-725[5]Harrison D G, Beever D E, Thompson D H, Osbourn D F.1975. Manipulation of rumen fermentation in sheep byincreasing the rate of flow of water from the rumen. TheJournal of Agricultural Science (Cambridge), 85, 93-101[6]Heller R V, Gregory P C, Engelhardt W V. 1984. Pattern ofmotility and flow of digesta in the forestomach of thellama (Lama guanicoe F. Glama). Journal ofComparative Physiology (B), 154, 529-533[7]Hespel R B, Bryant M P. 1979. Efficiency of rumen microbialgrowth influence of some theoretical and experimentalfactors on YATP. Journal of Animal Science, 49, 1640-1659[8]Hobson P N. 1997. Introduction. In: Hobson P N, Stewart CS, eds., The Rumen Mmicrobial Ecosystem. BlackieAcademic and Professional Publishers, London. pp. 1-9[9]Isaacson H R, Hinds F C, Bryant M P, Owens F N. 1975.Efficiency of energy utilization by mixed rumen bacteriain continuous culture. Journal of Dairy Science, 58,1645-1659[10]Jacobson D R, Lindahl I L, McNeill J J, Shaw J C, DoetschR N, Davis R E. 1957. Feedlot bloat studies. II. Physicalfactors involved in the etiology of frothy bloat. Journalof Animal Science, 16, 515-524[11]Johnson K A, Johnson D E. 1995. Methane emissions fromcattle. Journal of Animal Science, 73, 2483-2492[12]Jouany J P. 2000. The digestion in camelids a comparisonto ruminants. INRA Productions Animales, 13, 165-176[13](in French)Lemosquet S, Dardillat C, Jailler M, Dulphy J P. 1996.Voluntary intake and gastric digestion of two hays byllamas and sheep: influence of concentratesupplementation. The Journal of Agricultural Science(Cambridge), 127, 539-548[14]Liu Q , Dong C S, Li H Q, Yang W Z, Jiang J B, Gao W J, PeiC X, Liang Z Q. 2009. Forestomach fermentationcharacteristics and diet digestibility in alpacas (Lamapacos) and sheep (Ovis aries) fed two forage diets.Animal Feed Science and Technology, 154, 151-159[15]Maloy G M. 1972. Comparative studies on digestion andfermentation rates in the forestomach of the one-humpedcamel and the zebu steer. Research in VeterinaryScience, 13, 476-481[16]Pei C X, Liu Q, Dong C S, Li H Q, Jiang J B, Gao W J. 2010.Diversity and abundance of the bacterial 16S rRNA genesequences in forestomach of alpacas (Lama pacos) andsheep (Ovis aries). Anaerobe, 16, 426-432[17]Russell J B, Wilson D B. 1996. Why are ruminal cellulolyticbacteria unable to digest cellulose at low pH? Journalof Dairy Science, 79, 1503-1509[18]San Martin F. 1987. Comparative forage selectivity andnutrition of South American camelids and sheep. Ph Dthesis, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX. p. 146.San Martin F, Bryant F C. 1989. Nutrition of domestic SouthAmerican llamas and alpacas. Small RuminantResearch, 2, 191-216[19]Zoetendal E G, Akkermans A D, de Vos W M. 1998.Temperature gradient gel electrophoresis analysis fromhuman fecal samples reveals stable and host-specificcommunities of active bacteria. Applied andEnvironment Microbiology, 64, 3854-3859 |