4.7 Article

Technical note: Bacterial diversity and fermentation end products in rumen fluid samples collected via oral lavage or rumen cannula

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE
卷 87, 期 7, 页码 2333-2337

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.2527/jas.2008-1472

关键词

bacterial diversity; denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis; oral lavage; rumen cannula

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A study was conducted to determine if sampling rumen contents via a ruminal cannula or oral lavage tube would yield similar denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis profiles of the bacterial community. Two species of ruminally cannulated animals were used for this study (cattle, n = 2; sheep, n = 3). All animals were allowed ad libitum access to feed. Cattle were fed baled unprocessed sorghum-sudan hay (12% CP, 68% NDF; DM basis), whereas sheep were maintained on chopped alfalfa (18% CP, 40% NDF; DM basis). Ruminal fluid was collected (approximately 20 mL) once per week for 3 wk from each animal using a poly tube equipped with a suction strainer with a hand-held suction pump through the rumen cannula or oral cavity. The denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis demonstrates that yield of bacterial diversity was not different between the 2 sampling methods (P = 0.73). When samples were grouped according to band pattern similarity, groups were most stable according to individual animal and species rather than sampling method. Total VFA and molar proportions of individual VFA did not differ by sampling method (P > 0.40). Additionally, rumen ammonia concentrations were similar for both sampling methods (19.3 vs. 19.1 mM +/- 8.0 for cannula vs. lavage, respectively; P = 0.98). These data indicate that rumen samples collected via oral lavage or rumen cannula yield similar results. This knowledge will allow sample collection from a greater population of animals and an ability to maintain the value of research livestock that can be lost due to the surgical implantation of a ruminal cannula.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据