|
|
|
|
|
| Microbial Community in the Forestomachs of Alpacas (Lama pacos) and Sheep (Ovis aries) |
| PEI Cai-xia, LIU Qiang, DONG Chang-sheng, LI Hong-quan, JIANG Jun-bing , GAO Wen-jun |
| College of Animal Sciences and Veterinary Medicines, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu 030801, P.R.China |
|
|
|
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 Ruminococcus flavefaciens 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.
Abstract 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 Ruminococcus flavefaciens 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.
|
|
Received: 20 July 2012
Accepted:
|
| Fund: This work was supported by the Postdoctoral Foundation of Shanxi Agricultural University and the Key Scientific and Technological Project of Shanxi Province, China (20110311031). |
|
Corresponding Authors:
Correspondence DONG Chang-sheng, Tel: +86-354-6288221, Fax: +86-354-6222942, E-mail:cs_dong@sxau.edu.cn
E-mail: cs_dong@sxau.edu.cn
|
| About author: PEI Cai-xia, Mobile: 13753449871, E-mail: peicaixia@yahoo.com.cn |
Cite this article:
PEI Cai-xia, LIU Qiang, DONG Chang-sheng, LI Hong-quan, JIANG Jun-bing , GAO Wen-jun.
2013.
Microbial Community in the Forestomachs of Alpacas (Lama pacos) and Sheep (Ovis aries). Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 12(2): 314-318.
|
| [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 |
| No Suggested Reading articles found! |
|
|
Viewed |
|
|
|
Full text
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
|
Cited |
|
|
|
|
| |
Shared |
|
|
|
|
| |
Discussed |
|
|
|
|
