Next Article in Journal
Growth Kinetic Parameters and Prediction of Growth and Zearalenone and Deoxynivalenol Production Boundaries by Three Fusarium asiaticum Strains Isolated from Wheat
Previous Article in Journal
Advances in Komagataella phaffii Engineering for the Production of Renewable Chemicals and Proteins
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Fermentation
Volume 8
Issue 11
10.3390/fermentation8110576
fermentation-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Fermented Total Mixed Ration with Cottonseed Meal or Rapeseed Meal Improved Growth Performance and Meat Quality of Hu Lamb Compared to Total Mixed Ration with Soybean Meal

by
Hassan Ali Yusuf
1,2,3,†,
Halidai Rehemujiang
1,†,
Tao Ma
1,
Minyu Piao
1,
Ruiying Huo
1 and
Yan Tu
1,*
1
Key Laboratory of Feed Biotechnology of Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Institute of Feed Research of Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China
2
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Husbandry, Somali National University, Mogadishu P.O. Box 15, Somalia
3
Faculty of Veterinary Sciences and Animal Husbandry, Benadir University, Mogadishu, Somalia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Fermentation 2022, 8(11), 576; https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8110576
Submission received: 23 September 2022 / Revised: 18 October 2022 / Accepted: 20 October 2022 / Published: 24 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Industrial Fermentation)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Protein sources in livestock feed include cottonseed meals (CSM) or rapeseed meals (RSM). However, their use in feed diets is restricted due to anti-nutritional elements such as free gossypol or glucosinolate. The main objective of this study was to determine the effect of microbial fermentation of total mixed ration (TMR) with CSM/RSM on the growth performance and meat quality of Hu lamb. Fifty-one male Hu lambs (4 months old) with a 22.51 kg body weight were randomly assigned to three treatments and fed unfermented TMR with soybean meal (control group), FTMR (fermented total mixed ration) with CSM or RSM, respectively. The experiment lasted 97 days. Growth performance, rumen fermentation, and meat quality were measured. Overall dry matter intake (DMI), average daily gain (ADG), and final body weight (FBW) were similar among treatments (p > 0.05). There were no significant differences in the lightness (L*), redness (a*), and yellowness (b*) of longissimus thoracis (LT) muscle meat. There were no significant differences between the FTMR-CSM/RSM and control groups in drip loss, cooking loss, cooking percentage rate, or shear force of LT muscle meat. Lambs fed FTMR-CSM had significantly higher rumen fluid total volatile fatty acid values than those in control or FTMR-RSM groups (p < 0.05). Meat from lambs fed FTMR-RSM had a higher level of saturated fatty acids than lambs fed the control diet. The LT muscle meat of lamb fed FTMR-CSM had more unsaturated fatty acids than the control group (p < 0.001). In conclusion, FTMR with cottonseed or rapeseed meal can be fed without causing any adverse effects on Hu lamb.

1. Introduction

Hu sheep are among the numerous white breeds worldwide and are indigenous to China [1]. The Hu sheep are known for their high adaptability and reproductive ability in China. Prolific Hu sheep are considered a very good maternal resource in the current intensive and factory farming [2]. Feed production costs in the livestock industry have increased by 70–80% over the last decade, largely because of the increase in the cost of raw materials [3]. The development of new attractive low-price feed stuffs is warranted [4].
The crude protein in the feed impacts the animal’s growth and profitability [5,6]. Animal scientists are paying more attention to plant protein alternatives to soybean meal (SBM). Cottonseed meal (CSM) and rapeseed meal (RSM) are of interest to farmers because they are less expensive and more readily available than soybean meal. CSM is a by-product of cottonseed oil extraction that contains around 34–40% crude proteins, 11% crude fiber, vitamin B, and organic phosphorus [7]. RSM is produced by crushing rapeseed after the oil has been extracted. It contains a high proportion of protein (34–38%), a balanced amino acid profile, as well as 25–30% neutral detergent fiber (NDF) [8]. The proteins of RSM are equivalent to SBM proteins and contain more sulfur-amino acids than most plant proteins [9]. On the other hand, CSM and RSM diets contain anti-nutrients that may limit the availability of nutrients, eventually resulting in toxic effects and decreased livestock productivity [10]. The use of CSM in animal diets is restricted due to the presence of free gossypol (FG), a toxic pigment that may have detrimental effects on animal growth, reproduction, and intestinal development, as well as result in internal organ abnormalities [11,12]. Nonetheless, due to anti-nutritional factors and high fiber levels, the inclusion of RSM in animal diets is also limited [13]. Although RSM has a nutritional value comparable to SBM, it contains glucosinolate, sinapine, and tannin and phytic acid, which may have a negative impact on the growth, health, and general welfare of animals [14].
Numerous detoxification strategies for cottonseed and rapeseed meal have been developed, including biological [15], chemical [16,17], and physical [18,19] treatments. Nevertheless, chemical and physical treatments have shown several disadvantages, including high costs, environmental concerns, and significant nutrient loss. In comparison, microbial treatment is the optimum method for detoxification, as the rapid development of microorganisms may result in the release of compound enzymes that destroy the feed’s hazardous compounds. Microbial fermentation is another approach for eliminating anti-nutrient factors from feeds while improving their nutritional content [20]. Microbial fermentation can boost crude protein and other nutrients in plants, decrease their toxin content, and aid in the maintenance of stomach microbial stability [21,22].
Fermented total mixed ration (FTMR) efficiently maximizes nutrient usage and feed shelf life. Fermentation of TMR with microorganisms has been widely recognized to improve feed quality and there is an energy cost and loss of dry matter [23]. The intake, digestibility, rumen ecology, and milk production of mid-lactation Holstein cows were significantly changed by a TMR optimization method containing L. casei TH14 and fermented sugarcane bagasse [24]. After feeding a fermented diet to cattle, lamb, and other ruminants, the quality and quantity of milk and meat were greatly improved [25,26]. In a recent in vitro investigation, FTMRs containing CSM/RSM inoculated with mixed bacteria B. clausii and S. cariocanus at a 1:1 ratio increased crude protein (CP) and decreased neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and anti-nutritional factor content [27]. According to previous research, diverse strains have additional practical importance in fermentation than using only one type of single strain [28]. However, little is known about the effects of fermented TMR with CSM or RSM containing mixed B. clausii and S. cariocanus strains on Hu lamb growth performance and meat quality. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of microbial fermentation on TMR with CSM/RSM on the growth performance, rumen fermentation, carcass characteristics, and meat quality of Hu lambs.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Ethics Committee Approval

The experiment was approved by the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences Animal Ethics Committee (AEC-CAAS-20190517) and conducted following animal welfare standards and in line with the Ministry of Science and Technology’s Guidelines for Experimental Animals (2006, Beijing, China).

2.2. Animal Performance

2.2.1. Animals and Diets

The experiment was conducted from May to October 2021 at the Nankou Experimental Base of Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (Beijing, China). Fifty-one four-months-old indigenous male Hu lambs with 22.51 ± 2.84 kg of initial body weight were purchased from the Inner Mongolia autonomous region, China. According to a single factor randomized design, lambs were randomly assigned into three groups with 17 lambs each and were fed with the following diets: unfermented TMR with soybean meal (control group), FTMR with CSM or RSM. Each lamb was housed in a (3 m × 1.5 m) stall furnished with feed and a water bucket. Lambs were provided with unrestricted access to clean water and their experimental diets.

2.2.2. Preparation of TMR and Feed Formulation Using SBM, CSM, or RSM

Wheat bran, corn, whole corn silage, and corn stalks were added to the TMR together with soybean, cottonseed, or rapeseed meals. Additionally, fat powder, urea, and a pre-mixed supplement were added. Dietary feed was developed in accordance with NRC [29] guidelines to meet the nutrient needs of sheep gaining 300 g per day. The diet’s components and chemical composition are listed in Table 1. Non-fermented TMR with soybean meal was used as a control. In accordance with our previous research [27], FTMR with CSM was inoculated with a mixture of microbial strains at a ratio of 1:5 (1.0 × 109 CFU/kg DM B. clausii: 5.0 × 109 CFU/kg DM S. cariocanus). FTMR with RSM was performed using a moisture content of 50% and a microbial strain mixture (1.0 × 1010 CFU/kg DM B. clausii: 5.0 × 109 CFU/kg DM S. cariocanus). The mixture was fermented for 60 h at 32 °C for FTMR with CSM as well as at 28 °C for FTMR with RSM in a 500 kg fermenter machine (Model SSJX-WH-3.0, Shengshun Machinery Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Shenyang, China). After fermentation, the mixture was combined with silage and uniformly mixed before being sealed in a plastic bag. TMR in the control group was mixed every three to four days. The chemical composition of the diets was assessed. According to AOAC standards, the samples were milled to pass through a 1-mm screen size for examination of dry matter (DM), CP, and ether extract (EE) [30]. According to Van Soest and Robertson [31], both neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) were determined.

2.2.3. Growth Performance

Experimental diets were provided ad libitum two times daily at 07:00 and 17:00, and the delivered amount was modified to accomplish almost 10% refusals. The amount of diet supplied and refusals were recorded twice daily to determine the feed intake of each lamb. The lambs were weighed before morning feeding on growth measurement days 0, 20, 40, 60, and 80, and the average daily gain (ADG) and feed conversion ratio (FCR) of the three groups were calculated. The study lasted 97 days, with ten days of adaptation and 80 days dedicated to evaluating growth performance, and the remaining seven days dedicated to determining the apparent digestibility of the diets.

2.2.4. Apparent Digestibility

The digestibility study was carried out on five lambs of each treatment from day 90 to 97 of the experiment using individual metabolic cages (1.3 m × 1.6 m). Three days of adaptation and five days of feces and urine collection were completed throughout this period. Each cage had a small iron steel holder and plastic screens beneath it for fecal and urine collection. Each animal’s daily feces were measured and subsampled (200 g/kg), then stored at −20 °C. Following that, samples were thawed, pooled, and subsampled for chemical analysis (800 g per lamb). To prevent ammonia nitrogen volatilization, the fresh feces samples were treated with 10 mL of 10% (vol/vol) sulfuric acid. The urine was gathered in 3-L plastic containers attached to the metabolic cage and also the urine plastic buckets were treated with 0.2 L of H2SO4 to prevent the loss of NH3-N. Each lamb’s daily urine volume was recorded, subsampled (50 mL), and stored at −20 °C for nitrogen (N) analysis. [(nutrient intake-nutrient excreted)/nutrient intake] 100% was used to calculate overall tract apparent digestibility. Before proximate analysis, feeds, refusals, and feces were dried at 65 °C for 48 h, and diets and feces samples were ground through a 1 mm screen. The contents of DM, CP, EE, NDF, and ADF were determined using the procedures previously described.

2.2.5. Blood and Rumen Fluid Collection

At the start and end of the study, blood samples were drawn from the jugular vein without anticoagulants at 7 a.m. before feeding. The serum was extracted from the blood sample and then centrifuged at 3000× g for 10 min at 4 °C before being stored at −20 °C until analysis. The serum biochemical parameters, including the concentration of total protein (TP), albumin (ALB), globulin (GLB), triglycerides (TG), total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL), were evaluated using the Auto Biochemical Analyzer KHB-ZY-1280 (Kehua Bioengineering Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China) and commercial kits as stated by Zhao, F [32].
Rumen fluid samples were taken using the oral-stomach tube (Anscitech Co, Wuhan, Hubei, China) two hours after feeding. A portable pH meter (Testo-206-pH, Testo Co., Hamburg, Germany) was used to rapidly determine the pH of 5 mL rumen fluid. Rumen fluids were combined with 0.3 mL of 25% metaphosphoric acid and kept at −20 °C until volatile fatty acids (VFA) analysis. Additionally, the aliquot of the rumen fluid was frozen at –20 °C until the NH3-N and microbial crude protein quantities were evaluated [33]. The volatile fatty acid levels were identified using chromatography on the Agilent Technology-78-90 A (Agilent Tech, Waldbronn, Germany), for which a Supelco fused silica capillary column (30 mm × 0.25 mm × 0.25 µm film thickness) was used. In contrast, the NH3-N concentration was determined using a modified colorimetric method [34]. Moreover, the crude microbial protein portion inside the rumen fluid was identified using a revised colorimetric technique at 595 nm (Bradford, 1976). A 100 μL sample was used, coupled with 100 mL of 85% phosphoric acid and a 1 mL Bradford reagent (100 mg of Coomassie Brilliant Blue in 50 mL of 95% ethanol). As reported by Nagpal and Puniya [35], the mixture was diluted to 1 L using distilled water, and bovine serum albumin standards were used.

2.3. Carcass and Meat Quality

The experimental animals were fasted for 12 h with free access to water at the end of the trial. Eight lambs with an average weight were selected from each group and slaughtered according to conventional commercial routine methods (NY 467-2001, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, China). After exsanguination, visceral organs were removed, and the carcass weight, Longissimus Thoracis (LT) muscle area, pH value, and color were determined. Around 200 g of LT meat samples were collected between the 11th and 12th ribs on the right-hand side of each carcass and were utilized to determine the meat’s quality and chemical composition. An aliquot sample of the meat was chilled at 4 °C for 24 h to determine the remaining parameters.
According to Honikel [36], cooking percentage rate, cooking loss, pH value, drip loss, the color of the meat, and shear force of the meat were measured. About 45 min after slaughtering, the pH of LT muscle samples was determined in triplicate using a portable pH probe meter using Tetu Instrument (Model 206-pH1, Tetu Instrument (Shenzhen) Co., LTD, Shenzhen, China). The pH-meter was calibrated using the manufacturer’s recommended buffer solutions (pH 4.0 and pH 7.0).
After 12 h post-mortem, approximately 2 cm thick meat slices from the LT muscle were cut and allowed to bloom for 30 min before color was measured. The lightness (L*), redness (a*), and yellowness (b*) values of meat were determined using a chromameter (Chromameter, WSC-S, Shanghai, Precision and Scentific Instrument Co., Shanghai, China) equipped with a D-65 light font, an 8 mm aperture, and a 10° standard observer angle. Drip loss was determined as described previously, and drip loss samples were weighed, strung on thin wires such as S-hooks, and placed in a plastic cup for 24 h at 4 °C without touching the plastic cup. Drip loss was estimated by dividing the percentage change from before and after storage by the weight before storage and multiplying the result by 100.
Cooking loss was calculated according to the scheme designated by Hopkins and Thompson [37]. To determine the cooking loss of LT muscle samples, approximately 15 g were packed in small plastic bags and heated in a water bath to a temperature of 70–75 °C on the interior. The samples were cooled under running cold tap water, blotted dry, and weighed to determine cooking loss. In a total of three cooking batches, five to six samples were cooked simultaneously. Cooking loss was calculated as the percentage of meat weight lost between the initial and final weights of samples and was denoted by (Wi: initial weight; Wf: final weight). The cooking loss was determined as outlined by Xu and Ma [38]. Additionally, muscle samples were heated in 80 °C water until the central temperature reached 75 °C, after which the samples were immediately removed from the steamer and reweighed after cooling for 20 min; the meat was then examined once more. The percentage rate of cooking was also measured. Shear force was evaluated after muscle cooking loss was calculated. Three cylindrical cores (approx. 15 g) were removed from cooled muscle samples in the fiber direction [38]. Each LT muscle sample was sliced into three 25 mm × 25 mm cubes to assess tenderness, and segments were cut crosswise in the direction of LT muscle fibers, then a Warner-Bratzler shear connected to a texture analyzer (C-LM3, Model XL1155, Manufacturer Xielikeji, Co., Ltd., Qinhuangdao, China) was used. An average of six recordings of each LT muscle was used to calculate the shear force for each sample and was expressed in Newtons (N).

2.4. Meat Nutritional Value

2.4.1. Chemical Composition

The DM content of defatted, homogenized meat samples were determined by drying duplicate samples for 24 h at 100 °C; crude protein and ether extracts were determined according to the AOAC protocol [30].

2.4.2. Amino Acids

An amino acid analyzer was used: SYKAM 433s, Sykam GmbH & Co., Eresing, Germany. A 0.1 g sample of LT meat was inserted into a hydrolyzed tube comprising 20 mL of hydrochloric acid (6 M), frozen in liquid nitrogen, and vacuumed to 7 Pa (5 × 10−2 mm Hg). The hydrolysis tube was placed in a dry box at a constant temperature of (110 ± 1) °C and hydrolyzed for 22 h. After the sample was cooled and mixed, the tube was opened, filtered, and the appropriate volume of filtrate was aspirated into the concentration tube using a pipette. The tube was then placed in a concentrator to dry by vacuum evaporation (60 °C). Next, 3–5 mL of sodium citrate buffer (pH 2.2) was added to the concentration tube and shaken vigorously. The filtrates were then taken out of the machine for determination.

2.4.3. Fatty Acids Profile of Longissimus Thoracis Meat

The composition of fatty acids in the meat was measured in a manner previously reported with a few modifications by Piao HU [39]. Extracted lipids were evaporated using N2 gas (99.99%) and 0.5 g was weighed into a 15-mL test tube with 1 mL of internal standard (1 mg of triundecanoate in 1 mL of iso-octane) and 1.5 mL of 0.5 N sodium hydroxide. The samples were heated at 85 °C for 10 min, and for methylation, 2 mL of 14% BF3-methanol was added after cooling, then heated at 85 °C for 10 min. After cooling, 2 mL of iso-octane and 1 mL of saturated sodium chloride were added and the mixture was centrifuged at 1573× g for 3 min (Continent 512R, Hanil Co., Ltd., Incheon, Korea). The upper layer containing fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) was dehydrated with anhydrous sodium sulfate, transferred to a vial and analyzed using a gas chromatograph (HP 7890, Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) with a split ratio (200:1). A capillary column (SPTM-2560, 100 m×0.25 mm × 0.20 mm, Supelco, Bellefonte, PA, USA) was used. The injector and detector temperatures were maintained at 240 °C and 260 °C, respectively. The column oven temperatures were as follows: 100 °C for 5 min, increased to 240 °C at 3 °C min–1, then held at 240 °C for 25 min. Nitrogen was used as a carrier gas at linear flow of 0.7 mL min–1. Individual FAME were identified by comparing the relative retention times of peaks from samples with those of the external standards (37 FAME mix, Supelco, Bellefonte, PA, USA).

2.5. Statistical Analysis

One-way ANOVA analysis of variance was used to determine the effects of growth performance, rumen fermentation parameters, serum biochemical metabolites, carcass characteristics, chemical and physio-chemical compositions and fatty acid profiles of LT from Hu lambs. Each individual animal was considered as an experimental unit for all data. The statistically significant mean value differences were determined using Tukey’s multiple comparisons.

3. Results

3.1. Growth Performance

The effects of unfermented TMR with SBM or FTMR with CSM/RSM on DMI, BW, ADG, and FCR of Hu lamb are shown in Table 2. On d 41–60 and 61–80, the DMI of lamb in the FTMR with RSM group increased significantly (p < 0.05) compared to the lamb in the control group, but there was no significant difference between the FTMR with CSM and control groups. The lambs in the FTMR with CSM group had higher body weight (p < 0.05) than those in the control groups on days 20, 40, and 60, respectively. However, FTMR with CSM and FTMR with RSM did not show any significant body weight performance during d 80 (p > 0.05). However, the overall ADG and DMI did not show statistically significant differences among the three groups.

3.2. Nutrient Apparent Digestibility and Nitrogen Metabolism

The apparent nutrient digestibility of Hu lamb is presented in Table 3. The apparent nutrient digestibility of DM, CP, EE, NDF, and ADF is similar among the three groups. The N metabolism of the three groups also did not display a significant difference among them (p > 0.05).

3.3. Rumen Fluid Fermentation

The ruminal pH of the lambs in FTMR with RSM was significantly lower than the control group on d 40 (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the FTMR with CSM and between the control group (Table 4). At d 80, FTMR with CSM was significantly lower than the control group. Among the FTMR with RSM group, there was no significant difference (p > 0.05). At the same time, there was no significant difference in rumen pH between FTMR with CSM on d 40 compared with TMR-RSM (p > 0.05). On day 80, no significant variation in rumen pH was observed between TMR with RSM and control group animals (Table 4). During d 80, lambs fed FTMR with CSM had a significantly greater percentage of acetate (p < 0.05) than lambs fed control TMR or FTMR with the RSM group. However, there was a substantial difference in the molar proportion of propionate between the three groups on days 40 and 80 (p < 0.05). Nevertheless, FTMR with the RSM group proportion of propionate was higher than the control on d 40, whereas FTMR with the CSM group on d 80 was higher than the control and FTMR with RSM groups. Moreover, at d 40, there was no significant difference in the butyrate molar fraction between the three groups (p > 0.05). Afterwards, on day 80, the three treatment groups were all different (p < 0.05). In comparison to the control and FTMR with RSM groups, the molar proportion of butyrate in the FTMR with CSM group was lower.
Nevertheless, during days 40 and 80, lamb fed FTMR with the CSM group showed a significantly higher TVFA value than other controls or FTMR with the RSM group (p < 0.05). By day 40, the overall ratio of acetate to propionate was considerably lower in Hu lamb fed FTMR with the RSM group than in control and FTMR with the CSM group (p ˂ 0.05). However, on day 80, there was no significant difference among them (p > 0.05). However, at d 40 and 80, they did not show a significant difference in the proportions of NH3-N or microbial crude protein (MCP) across the three treatments (Table 4).

3.4. Serum Parameters

The serum profile for the three treatment groups is shown in Table 5. There was no difference in any parameters at the beginning and at the end of the experiment (p > 0.05) among the three treatments used in this study.

3.5. Carcass and Meat Quality of Hu Lamb

Compared to the control group, the FTMR with CSM and FTMR with RSM groups had similar live weight, dressing percentage, eye muscle area, and carcass weight. (Table 6). On the other hand, the meat in all three groups had the same amount of water, crude protein, and ether extract (p > 0.05). The L* (lightness), a* (redness), and b* (yellowness) values, cooking loss, drip loss, cooking percentage rate, and shear force did not show any statistically significant difference (Table 6). The pH of the control groups was significantly higher than the FTMR-CSM group, whereas between FTMR-CSM and FTMR-RSM groups, no significant difference was found.

3.6. Amino Acid Composition of Longissimus Thoracis Meat

The effect of diet on meat’s essential and non-essential amino acid content is shown in Table 7. The FTMR-RSM group had significantly higher methionine concentration than the control group (p < 0.05), but none of the other amino acids showed a significant difference between the three groups.

3.7. Fatty Acids Profile of Longissimus Thoracis (LT) Meat

The composition of fatty acids in the meat samples is shown in Table 8. The FTMR with CSM/RSM group did not show significantly different (p > 0.05) levels of C6:0 and C8:0 than the control.
The C10:0 concentrations of the FTMR with CSM and FTMR with RSM did not differ significantly from each other, but they were significantly higher than those of the control group, respectively. C20:0 levels were statistically significantly greater (p ˂ 0.05) inside the meat of lamb fed control versus the FTMR with CSM/RSM group. The C22:0 levels were considerably greater (p < 0.01) in the meat of lamb fed the control diet compared to the FTMR-CSM/RSM diets. The C14:1 content of the FTMR with CSM and FTMR with RSM groups did not differ significantly. However, the control group had the lower C14:1 content (p < 0.05). C20:1 was significantly less abundant (p < 0.001) in FTMR with CSM/RSM groups than in control. However, there was no significant difference in C6:0, C8:0, C12:0, C13:0, C14:0, C15:0, C16:0, C17:0, C18:0, C20:2, C21:0, C24:1 and C23:0 concentration among the groups (p > 0.05). C20:3n6 levels increased significantly (p < 0.01) in the control group compared to the FTMR with CSM/RSM group. C20:4n6 concentration was greater in the control than in both FTMRs. The concentration levels of C22:2 in control and FTMR with CSM were undetectable, though very low concentrations were identified in FTMR with RSM. The levels of C20:5 in the FTMR with CSM group were considerably lower (p < 0.001) than in both control treatment and FTMR with RSM. Moreover, the levels of C18:3n-3 in the control group was statistically significantly greater than in FTMR with RSM, but not FTMR with CSM. The concentration of SFA in the FTMR-CSM was lower than other two groups and while the concentration of USFA in the FTMR-CSM group was significantly higher than in the FTMR-RSM and control groups. The control group’s concentration of PUFA is significantly higher than the FTMR-CSM and F-RSM groups (p ˂ 0.01; Table 8).

4. Discussion

Our findings showed that FTMR with CSM/RSM had no negative effects on feed intake or growth performance of Hu lamb. Dietary intake is a critical factor in determining animal growth performance, and it is strongly related to meeting the necessities of the maintenance and production of animals. Nutrient levels in the feed, live weight and health conditions, and production levels were all factors that could influence the ruminant’s DMI [40,41]. Although there were differences in the body weight of the lambs at the middle and end of the trial, the average daily gain was never statistically affected by the diets. Similarly, our previous study showed that FTMRs containing CSM/RSM increased CP and decreased NDF and anti-nutritional factors [27]. However, the results of our experiment showed that feeding the Hu lamb with FTMR with CSM/RSM did not improve the animals’ average intake of dry matter or their body weight. Energy plays an important role in maintaining normal life activities of the body. While protein is the main component of the body, NDF and ADF apparent digestibility can reflect the strength of the overall digestive function of the rumen [42]. The study found that adding fermented feed to a ruminant diet can improve the utilization of feed by increasing the growth and reproduction of rumen microorganisms [43]. In this study, we showed that replacing soybean meal for FTMR with cottonseed meal and rapeseed meal did not impact the apparent digestibility and nitrogen metabolism of Hu sheep.
Blood circulation transports nutrients from the digestive system to the body’s cells, tissues, and organs. Biochemical serum parameters are commonly used to assess animals’ nutritional status, physiological functions, and immunity. In this study, concentrations of TP, ALB, GLB, BUN, TC, TG, HDL, and LDL did not differ between the FTMR with CSM/RSM and the control group. BUN is a marker of nitrogen level in the animal body, and it is influenced via CP ingestion and breakdown [44]. BUN levels are linked to rumen ammonia levels [45]. On d 80, the lamb fed FTMR with CSM/RSM had BUN concentrations that were very similar to those of the control group; this was in line with the results of Li, Sun [46] and it led to positive, normal BUN levels in the lamb that were given pelleted TMR. The levels of ALB, TP, and GLB inside the blood serum represent the body’s immunity [47]. Despite this fact, this demonstrates that FTMR with CSM/RSM had no negative effect on animal health during the period of the study. Blood lipoproteins transport lipids that are linked to animal health. Previous research showed that HDL is superior to LDL in animals.
The volatile fatty acids are associated with influencing the composition and energy balance of ruminant end products [48]. In ruminants, propionate is the primary source of glucose and even a substrate for gluconeogenesis, whereas acetate and butyrate serve as precursors for the long-chain fatty acids synthesis [49]. Previous studies have confirmed that the kind of diet and the level of nutrients consumed may affect the propionate, acetate, and butyrate fractions in rumen; for instance, a concentrate-based or a high-energy meal can increase propionate production in the rumen [50,51,52]. Our results demonstrated that the ruminal pH of lamb fed fermented total mixed ration with cottonseed or rapeseed meal decreased significantly when compared to unfermented feed. The higher molar proportions of acetate, propionate and concentrations of TVFA between d 40 and 80 might be attributed to the fermented diet, which decreased the pH level. Similarly, Overton, Cameron [53] demonstrated that feed type, intake, and feeding system affect ruminal VFA production. The results of this study indicate that diets significantly affect the concentration of Total VFA, acetate, propionate and butyrate. However, previous research indicated that probiotics had a variable effect on ruminal VFAs. Sadiek and Bohm [54] and Abd El-Ghani [55] found that feeding pronifer or S. cerevisiae boosted lamb and goat VFA production, respectively. In this investigation, the rumen liquid pH levels of the mixed microbial strain (B. clausii: and S. cariocanus) decreased substantially; however, the TVFA levels of the rumen liquid increased when FTMR with CSM in a ratio of 1:5 was used.
The two groups of lambs fed FTMR with CSM/RSM had similar live weights, carcass weights and dressing percentages. The eye muscle area reveals the mass muscle’s strength, amount, and arrangement. The muscle tissue development rate was the rate of muscle meat progress in late-maturing muscle, particularly the longissimus muscle. The LT area of animals provides an excellent measure of the performance of the animals in terms of meat production [56]. However, the physio-chemical composition of pH value, color measurements, cooking loss, drip loss, cooking percentage rate, and sheer force did not show significant differences among the three treatment groups, except for meat pH values, which decreased in lamb fed FTMR with CSM compared to the control. The pH of the meat is one of the primary indicators of meat quality [57] because atypical pH values can affect the meat quality, particularly the color and tenderness of meat [58,59]. The type of feed does not influence the pH level of the meat [60,61]. The decrease in pH may be due to the post-mortem muscle glycogen conversion to lactic acid [62]. The relationship between FTMR with CSM/RSM and the function of meat pH is poorly understood. Further studies are required to explore the pH of the meat in fermented TMR-CSM/RSM mechanisms of action. The color of meat is the most vital factor influencing consumer buying behavior for red meat, since customers relate red with freshness [63]. Despite a relationship between feed consumption and meat color, our current investigation found no change in meat color between groups [64]. However, our current findings are comparable with those of who found that the red and yellow color values of lamb meat from the same breed are extremely near to the average numerical values. Considering this, the color of the LT meat of Hu lambs fed TMR-CSM/RSM was identical to that of the control group. Drip loss quantifies the amount of water lost as a result of gravitometric forces when a muscle contracts; as the available space within the muscle decreases, water seeps out, resulting in weight loss [65]. This metric can provide information about water holding capacity (WHC) and is thus useful in meat science. In this study, the effect of different FTMR with CSM/RSM and unfermented TMR on drip loss was not statistically significant. Cooking loss refers to the quantity of water that is lost during the process of cooking and preparing meat. Smaller muscles have a higher cooking loss; the meat maintains more moisture, and the meat quality is associated with larger muscles [37]. However, there has been no significant variation in cooking loss in our current study. Shear force is commonly used to measure muscle tenderness, and meat tenderness is among the characteristics utilized to assess meat quality. Our results are in line with a previous study’s findings; earlier research has demonstrated that feed with high protein [66] and energy [67] contents can also decrease the shear force.
The amino acids perform an essential function in meat quality by delivering the nutrients and flavor attributes vital to human consumption [68,69]. Lamb meat contains eight important amino acids, including tryptophan, lysine, phenylalanine, threonine, methionine, valine, leucine, and isoleucine. Lamb meat is a source of lysine and methionine required for humans [70]. Our current study evaluated essential, non-essential, and total amino acids; with the exception of methionine, there were no significant differences between the three treatment groups, demonstrating the significance and better performance of lamb fed FTMR with RSM compared to the control treatment. According to previous studies [71], methionine is the most limiting amino acid for protein synthesis in growing lambs. Ruminants are particularly vulnerable to low levels of methionine in their diets because of the low concentrations found in feed proteins [72]. In the current study, we discovered that FTMR with RSM improved methionine concentration levels compared to the control group. This increased concentration resulted in a change in the amino acid profile of methionine, which was the root cause of this event. However, our findings are consistent with those of Su, Chen [73], who found that adding Broussonetia papyrifera (BP)-fermented feed to Hu lamb feed can enhance product performance and meat quality by improving the crude protein, crude fat, minerals, AA, and fatty acid composition of the muscle. According to the WHO [74], a healthy diet should consist of about 40% EAA and 60% EAA to NEAA. In the present study, the essential amino acid content of lamb meat was around 40%, and the ratio of essential to non-essential amino acids was close to 60%. Consequently, it indicates that FTMR with RSM had no negative effect on the AA composition of the meat, which satisfies human demand for high-quality lamb.
Dietary composition influences the total fatty acid content of muscle [75,76]. Microorganisms in the rumen are essential for either bio-hydrogenation or conversion of fatty acids. High forage-content diets increase rumen activity [77]. We discovered that the lamb fed FTMR with RSM had significantly greater levels of SFA than the control group. Our results indicate that the meat produced with the CSM diet has the lowest SFA content [78], with antiprotozoal and antibacterial properties in the period of ruminal fermentation [79,80,81], thus encouraging modifications in end products such as the fatty acid profile [82]. SFA has been linked to various health concerns in humans [83]. Nevertheless, lauric acid (C12:0) protects against heart disease by inhibiting LDL oxidation, increasing HDL concentrations in the blood, lowering blood pressure, and inducing apoptotic cell death [84]. The LDL levels in the lamb fed FTMR with CSM/RSM and the control group are not significantly different, and the HDL levels in the blood of the lamb fed FTMR with CSM/RSM are also similar to those in the control group. Unsaturated fatty acids surpass saturated fatty acids in health benefits [85]. In this study, compared to the control group, FTMR with CSM had higher unsaturated fatty acids (UFA), while FTMR with RSM had lower UFA. It is possible that fermented total mixed ration containing cottonseed or rapeseed meal increased the synthesis of unsaturated fatty acids with FTMR using CSM. Furthermore, the concentration of PUFA in FTMR with CSM/RSM muscle meat lamb was significantly lower than that in the control group. Since fatty acids are bio-hydrogenated during transit in the rumen, C18:0 and C18:1 cis9 acids are produced [86]. Our findings coincided with those of Su, Chen [73], which reported that the addition of Broussonetia papyrifera (BP)-fermented feed to a Hu lamb diet results in an increase in the amount of unsaturated fatty acids and the composition of the main fatty acids. Red meat contains n-3 polyunsaturates that are beneficial to human health [87]. n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids have received significant attention [88], since they are believed to be capable of preventing a variety of diseases [89]. The meat from the control group contains more n-3 fatty acids than the meat from lambs fed fermented TMR. On the other hand, n-6 fatty acids have been linked to several diseases [90], including obesity [91]. However, the n-6: n-3 ratio, on the other hand, is an important predictor of meat quality [92]. Similarly, meat from the control lambs contained higher n-6 fatty acids than meat from the FTMR lambs. The n-6/n-3 ratio was lower in animals fed FTMR with RSM compared to the control and FTMR with CSM groups. According to the WHO [93], an ordinary human healthy diet should have an n-6:n-3 PUFA ratio of 5 to 10, whereas the British Department of Health [94] suggest a ratio of fewer than 4.0 [85]. In our current investigation, the n-6: n-3 PUFA ratios of the control group, fermented TMR-CSM, and fermented TMR-RSM were 7.07, 7.71, and 6.43, respectively. However, the changes in meat FA profile observed in our study probably would not affect consumer acceptability, as Gravador, Brunton [95] concluded that changing the fatty acid profile of lamb meat by dietary interventions may not adversely affect its general acceptance.

5. Conclusions

This study demonstrates that FTMR with CSM/RSM inoculated with a combination of microbial strains has no negative influence on the feed intake, growth performance, or meat quality of Hu lamb when compared to the conventional ration (unfermented TMR-SBM). Inclusion of the FMR with CSM/RSM maintains the productive parameters, the serum parameters and increases the methionine of meat. FTMR with CSM increases the ruminal concentration of VFA and propionate and decreases the amount of SFA in the meat. Furthermore, this research revealed that employing cottonseed or rapeseed meal in FTMR might potentially replace soybean meal in ruminant production. They also provide valuable information to the meat industry and consumers.

Author Contributions

H.A.Y. and H.R.: Animal trial, Data collection and evaluation, Laboratory and Statistical analysis, Writing; T.M.: Critical manuscript review; M.P.: Manuscript review; R.H.: Laboratory analysis, Data collection; Y.T.: Study design, Feed formulation, Data evaluation, Critical manuscript review. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by the Agricultural Sciences and Technology Innovation Program (CAAS-ASTIP-2017-FRI-04, China) and by China Agriculture Research System of MOF and MARA.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have declared no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Wang, Q.; Wang, Y.; Hussain, T.; Dai, C.; Li, J.; Huang, P.; Li, Y.; Ding, X.; Huang, J.; Ji, F.; et al. Effects of Dietary Energy Level on Growth Performance, Blood Parameters and Meat Quality in Fattening Male Hu Lambs. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2020, 104, 418–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Wang, Q.; Wang, Y.; Wang, X.; Dai, C.; Tang, W.; Li, J.; Huang, P.; Li, Y.; Ding, X.; Huang, J.; et al. Effects of Dietary Energy Levels on Rumen Fermentation, Microbiota, and Gastrointestinal Morphology in Growing Ewes. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 8, 6621–6632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Kim Mayakrishnan, V.; Lim, D.H.; Yeon, J.H.; Baek, K.S. Effect of Fermented Total Mixed Rations on the Growth Performance, Carcass and Meat Quality Characteristics of Hanwoo Steers. Anim. Sci. J. 2018, 89, 606–615. [Google Scholar]
  4. Jeong, C.-D.; Mamuad, L.L.; Ko, J.Y.; Sung, H.G.; Park, K.K.; Lee, Y.K.; Lee, S.-S. Rumen Fermentation and Performance of Hanwoo Steers Fed Total Mixed Ration with Korean Rice Wine Residue. J. Anim. Sci. Technol. 2016, 58, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Hajji, H.; Smeti, S.; Ben Hamouda, M.; Atti, N. Effect of Protein Level on Growth Performance, Non-Carcass Components and Carcass Characteristics of Young Sheep from Three Breeds. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2016, 56, 2115–2121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Karlsson, L.; Martinsson, K. Growth Performance of Lambs Fed Different Protein Supplements in Barley-Based Diets. Livest. Sci. 2011, 138, 125–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Dai, L.; Liu, Y.; Cheng, M.; Chen, L. Isolation and Characterization of a Novel Gossypol-Degrading Bacteria Bacillus Subtilis Strain Rumen Bacillus Subtilis. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 31, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ashayerizadeh, A.; Dastar, B.; Shargh, M.S.; Mahoonak, A.S.; Zerehdaran, S. Effects of Feeding Fermented Rapeseed Meal on Growth Performance, Gastrointestinal Microflora Population, Blood Metabolites, Meat Quality, and Lipid Metabolism in Broiler Chickens. Livest. Sci. 2018, 216, 183–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wanasundara, J.P.D.; Tan, S.; Alashi, A.M.; Pudel, F.; Blanchard, C. Chapter 18—Proteins from Canola/Rapeseed: Current Status. In Sustainable Protein Sources; Nadathur, S.R., Wanasundara, J.P.D., Scanlin, L., Eds.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2017; pp. 285–304. [Google Scholar]
  10. Wang, Y.; Deng, Q.; Song, D.; Wang, W.; Zhou, H.; Wang, L.; Li, A. Effects of Fermented Cottonseed Meal on Growth Performance, Serum Biochemical Parameters, Immune Functions, Antioxidative Abilities, and Cecal Microflora in Broilers. Food Agric. Immunol. 2017, 28, 725–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Francis, G.; Makkar, H.P.S.; Becker, K. Antinutritional Factors Present in Plant-Derived Alternate Fish Feed Ingredients and Their Effects in Fish. Aquaculture 2001, 199, 197–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Robinson, P.; Getachew, G.; De Peters, E.; Calhoun, M. Influence of Variety and Storage for up to 22 Days on Nutrient Composition and Gossypol Level of Pima Cottonseed (Gossypium spp.). Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2001, 91, 149–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tripathi, M.; Mishra, A. Glucosinolates in Animal Nutrition: A Review. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2007, 132, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Huisman, J.; Tolman, G. Antinutritional Factors in the Plant Proteins of Diets for Non-Ruminants. Recent Adv. Anim. Nutr. 1992, 68, 101–110. [Google Scholar]
  15. Brabban, A.; Edwards, C. Isolation of Glucosinolate Degrading Microorganisms and Their Potential for Reducing the Glucosinolate Content of Rapemeal. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 1994, 119, 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Barrett, J.E.; Klopfenstein, C.F.; Leipold, H.W. Detoxification of Rapeseed Meal by Extrusion with an Added Basic Salt. Cereal Chem. 1997, 74, 168–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Watts, E.S.; Rose, S.P.; MacKenzie, A.M.; Pirgozliev, V.R. The Effects of Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Extraction and Cold-Pressed Hexane Extraction on the Chemical Composition and Feeding Value of Rapeseed Meal for Broiler Chickens. Arch. Anim. Nutr. 2020, 74, 57–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gu, X.; Dong, W.; He, Y. Detoxification of Rapeseed Meals by Steam Explosion. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 2011, 88, 1831–1838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Haddad, J.; Allaf, K. Effect of Instantaneous Controlled Pressure Drop on the Glucosinolate Content of Rapeseed. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2007, 42, 799–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wang, Y.; Liu, J.; Wei, F.; Liu, X.; Yi, C.; Zhang, Y. Improvement of the Nutritional Value, Sensory Properties and Bioavailability of Rapeseed Meal Fermented with Mixed Microorganisms. LWT 2019, 112, 108238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. McSweeney, C.S.; Palmer, B.; McNeill, D.M.; Krause, D.O. Microbial Interactions with Tannins: Nutritional Consequences for Ruminants. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2001, 91, 83–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Xu, X.; Ma, L.; Fan, S.; Ma, W.; Zhang, X. Effects of Fermented Caragana Korshinskii Feed on Meat Quality Characteristics in Different Muscles of Tan Sheep. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2020, 19, 1036–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ryu, C.-H.; Park, M.-S.; Park, C.; Choi, N.-J.; Cho, S.-B. Fermentation of Environmental Friend Total Mixed Ration and Alteration of Rumen Fermentation Characteristics. Korean J. Org. Agric. 2017, 25, 461–473. [Google Scholar]
  24. Suntara, C.; Cherdthong, A.; Uriyapongson, S.; Wanapat, M.; Chanjula, P. Novel Crabtree Negative Yeast from Rumen Fluids Can Improve Rumen Fermentation and Milk Quality. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 6236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Nolan, J.V.; Hegarty, R.S.; Hegarty, J.; Godwin, I.R.; Woodgate, R. Effects of Dietary Nitrate on Fermentation, Methane Production and Digesta Kinetics in Sheep. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2010, 50, 801–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Williams, P.E.; Tait, C.; Innes, G.M.; Newbold, C.J. Effects of the Inclusion of Yeast Culture (Saccharomyces Cerevisiae Plus Growth Medium) in the Diet of Dairy Cows on Milk Yield and Forage Degradation and Fermentation Patterns in the Rumen of Steers. J. Anim. Sci. 1991, 69, 3016–3026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Yusuf, H.A.; Piao, M.; Ma, T.; Huo, R.; Tu, Y. Enhancing the Quality of Total Mixed Ration Containing Cottonseed or Rapeseed Meal by Optimization of Fermentation Conditions. Fermentation 2021, 7, 234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Maehara, L.; Pereira, S.C.; Silva, A.J.; Farinas, C.S. One-Pot Strategy for on-Site Enzyme Production, Biomass Hydrolysis, and Ethanol Production Using the Whole Solid-State Fermentation Medium of Mixed Filamentous Fungi. Biotechnol. Prog. 2018, 34, 671–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. NRC—National Research Council. Nutrient Requirements of Small Ruminants: Sheep, Goats, Cervids, and New World Camelids; National Academy of Science: Washintgton, DC, USA, 2007; 347p. [Google Scholar]
  30. Horwitz, W.; Chichilo, P.; Reynolds, H. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists; Association of Official Analytical Chemists: Washington, DC, USA, 1970. [Google Scholar]
  31. Van Soest, P.J.; Robertson, J.B.; Lewis, B.A. Methods for Dietary Fiber, Neutral Detergent Fiber, and Nonstarch Polysaccharides in Relation to Animal Nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 1991, 74, 3583–3597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zhao, M.D.; Di, L.F.; Tang, Z.Y.; Jiang, W.; Li, C.Y. Effect of Tannins and Cellulase on Growth Performance, Nutrients Digestibility, Blood Profiles, Intestinal Morphology and Carcass Characteristics in Hu Sheep. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2019, 32, 1540–1547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kang, H.J.; Piao, M.Y.; Park, S.J.; Na, S.W.; Kim, H.J.; Baik, M. Effects of Ambient Temperature and Rumen–Protected Fat Supplementation on Growth Performance, Rumen Fermentation and Blood Parameters During Cold Season in Korean Cattle Steers. Asian-Australas J. Anim. Sci. 2019, 32, 657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Chaney, A.L.; Marbach, E.P. Modified Reagents for Determination of Urea and Ammonia. Clin. Chem. 1962, 8, 130–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Nagpal, R.; Puniya, A.K.; Sehgal, J.P.; Singh, K. In Vitro Fibrolytic Potential of Anaerobic Rumen Fungi from Ruminants and Non-Ruminant Herbivores. Mycoscience 2011, 52, 31–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Honikel, K.O. Reference Methods for the Assessment of Physical Characteristics of Meat. Meat Sci. 1998, 49, 447–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hopkins, D.L.; Thompson, J.M. The Relationship between Tenderness, Proteolysis, Muscle Contraction and Dissociation of Actomyosin. Meat Sci. 2001, 57, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Magalhães, T.D.S.; Santos, E.M.; Júnior, J.E.D.F.; Santos, S.A.; Pina, D.D.S.; Cirne, L.G.A.; Pinto, L.F.B.; Mourão, G.B.; Soares, F.D.D.S.; Leite, L.C.; et al. Chitosan and Cottonseed Processing Method Association on Carcass Traits and Meat Quality of Feedlot Lambs. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0242822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Piao, M.-Y.; Hu, F.-M.; Kong, F.-L.; Liu, Y.-L.; Wang, S.; Cui, K.; Sun, T.; Diao, Q.-Y.; Tu, Y. Effects of Dietary Amylose to Amylopectin Ratio on Growth Performance, Carcass Quality Characteristics and Meat Fatty Acids in Chinese Qinchuan Cattle. J. Integr. Agric. 2021, 20, 3256–3269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ding, G.; Meng, Q. Research Advances in Prediction Models of Dry Matter Intake in Ruminants. Chin. J. Anim. Nutr. 2013, 25, 248–255. [Google Scholar]
  41. Xu, T.; Xu, S.; Hu, L.; Zhao, N.; Liu, Z.; Ma, L.; Liu, H.; Zhao, X. Effect of Dietary Types on Feed Intakes, Growth Performance and Economic Benefit in Tibetan Sheep and Yaks on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau During Cold Season. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0169187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Li, W.; Hao, L.; Liu, S.; Chai, S.; Zhang, X.W.; Niu, J.Z. Effect of different nutrient diets on production performance and apparent digestibility of nutrients in three years old yaks by barn-feeding. Feed. Ind. 2015, 36, 42–46. [Google Scholar]
  43. Liu, J.C.; Wu, Q.Q.; Ma, G.J.; Zhou, M.; Zhang, W.J. Nutritional values of fermented cottonseed meal and its application in animal production. China Anim. Husb. Vet. Med. 2018, 25, 1258–1265. [Google Scholar]
  44. Martin, W.F.; Armstrong, L.E.; Rodriguez, N.R. Dietary Protein Intake and Renal Function. Nutr. Metab. 2005, 2, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Xu Li, Z.; Moraes, L.E.; Shen, J.; Yu, Z.; Zhu, W. Effects of Incremental Urea Supplementation on Rumen Fermentation, Nutrient Digestion, Plasma Metabolites, and Growth Performance in Fattening Lambs. Animals 2019, 9, 652. [Google Scholar]
  46. Li, B.; Sun, X.; Huo, Q.; Zhang, G.; Wu, T.; You, P.; He, Y.; Tian, W.; Li, R.; Li, C.; et al. Pelleting of a Total Mixed Ration Affects Growth Performance of Fattening Lambs. Front. Veter-Sci. 2021, 8, 629016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Hirohata, S.; Jelinek, D.F.; Lipsky, P.E. T Cell-Dependent Activation of B Cell Proliferation and Differentiation by Immobilized Monoclonal Antibodies to Cd3. J. Immunol. 1988, 140, 3736–3744. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  48. Dijkstra, J. Production and Absorption of Volatile Fatty Acids in the Rumen. Livest. Prod. Sci. 1994, 39, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Nafikov, R.; Beitz, D.C. Carbohydrate and Lipid Metabolism in Farm Animals. J. Nutr. 2007, 137, 702–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Keady, T.; Mayne, C.; Fitzpatrick, D.; McCoy, M. Effect of Concentrate Feed Level in Late Gestation on Subsequent Milk Yield, Milk Composition, and Fertility of Dairy Cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2001, 84, 1468–1479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Niu, M.; Ying, Y.; Bartell, P.; Harvatine, K. The Effects of Feeding Rations That Differ in Fiber and Fermentable Starch within a Day on Milk Production and the Daily Rhythm of Feed Intake and Plasma Hormones and Metabolites in Dairy Cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 187–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Van Soest, P.J. Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  53. Overton, T.; Cameron, M.; Elliottt, J.; Clark, J.; Nelson, D. Ruminal Fermentation and Passage of Nutrients to the Duodenum of Lactating Cows Fed Mixture of Corn and Barley. J. Dairy Sci. 1995, 78, 1981–1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sadiek, A.; Bohm, J. Influence of Pronifer (R) as a Probiotic on the Rumen Fluid and Blood Parameters of Sheep Fed Different Roughage Concentrate Based Diets. Wien. Tierarztl. Mon. 2001, 88, 4–10. [Google Scholar]
  55. El-Ghani, A.A. Influence of Diet Supplementation with Yeast Culture (Saccharomyces Cerevisiae) on Performance of Zaraibi Goats. Small Rumin. Res. 2004, 52, 223–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Suzuki, K.; Irie, M.; Kadowaki, H.; Shibata, T.; Kumagai, M.; Nishida, A. Genetic Parameter Estimates of Meat Quality Traits in Duroc Pigs Selected for Average Daily Gain, Longissimus Muscle Area, Backfat Thickness, and Intramuscular Fat Content. J. Anim. Sci. 2005, 83, 2058–2065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  57. Węglarz, A. Meat Quality Defined Based on Ph and Colour Depending on Cattle Category and Slaughter Season. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 2010, 55, 548–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Priolo, A.; Micol, D.; Agabriel, J. Effects of Grass Feeding Systems on Ruminant Meat Colour and Flavour. A Review. Anim. Res. 2001, 50, 185–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Mounier, L.; Dubroeucq, H.; Andanson, S.; Veissier, I. Variations in Meat Ph of Beef Bulls in Relation to Conditions of Transfer to Slaughter and Previous History of the Animals1. J. Anim. Sci. 2006, 84, 1567–1576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lanza, M.; Bella, M.; Priolo, A.; Barbagallo, D.; Galofaro, V.; Landi, C.; Pennisi, P. Lamb Meat Quality as Affected by a Natural or Artificial Milk Feeding Regime. Meat Sci. 2006, 73, 313–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Priolo, A.; Micol, D.; Agabriel, J.; Prache, S.; Dransfield, E. Effect of Grass or Concentrate Feeding Systems on Lamb Carcass and Meat Quality. Meat Sci. 2002, 62, 179–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Shabani, A.; Dastar, B.; Hassani, S.; Khomeiri, M.; Shabanpour, B. Decreasing the Effects of Aflatoxins on Color and Oxidative Stability of Broiler Meats Using Nanozeolite. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2016, 18, 109–121. [Google Scholar]
  63. Kerry, J.; O’Sullivan, M.; Buckley, D.; Lynch, P.; Morrissey, P. The Effects of Dietary A-Tocopheryl Acetate Supplementation and Modified Atmosphere Packaging (Map) on the Quality of Lamb Patties. Meat Sci. 2000, 56, 61–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Archimède, H.; Pellonde, P.; Despois, P.; Etienne, T.; Alexandre, G. Growth Performances and Carcass Traits of Ovin Martinik Lambs Fed Various Ratios of Tropical Forage to Concentrate under Intensive Conditions. Small Rumin. Res. 2008, 75, 162–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Warner, R. Measurement of Meat Quality. Meas. Water-Hold. Capacit. Color Object. Subj. 2014, 2, 164–171. [Google Scholar]
  66. Protes, V.; Costa, C.; Pariz, C.; Castilhos, A.; Meirelles, P.; Longhini, V.; Roça, R.; Ricardo, H.; Melo, V. Effects of Soybean Silage on Feeding Behavior, Performance, and Meat Quality of Lambs. Small Rumin. Res. 2018, 164, 64–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Abouelezz, K.F.M.; Wang, Y.; Wang, W.; Lin, X.; Li, L.; Gou, Z.; Fan, Q.; Jiang, S. Impacts of Graded Levels of Metabolizable Energy on Growth Performance and Carcass Characteristics of Slow-Growing Yellow-Feathered Male Chickens. Animals 2019, 9, 461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  68. Xu, N.-Y.; Cai, Z.-W.; Zhao, X.-F.; Jiang, X.-L.; Yao, Y.-C.; Zhao, C.-J.; Wu, C.-X. Comparison of Muscle Amino Acid and Fatty Acid Composition of Castrated and Uncastrated Male Pigs at Different Slaughter Ages. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2010, 9, e33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Huang, Y.; Duan, W.; Wang, L.; Xiao, J.; Zhang, Y. Orthogonal Optimization of Beef Stir-Fried Process Followed by Isolation and Identification of the Umami Peptides by Consecutive Chromatography and Lc-Q-Tof/Ms. Int. J. Food Prop. 2019, 22, 1773–1785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Lindsay, J.; Hogan, J.; Donnelly, J. The Digestion of Protein from Forage Diets in the Small Intestine of the Sheep. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 1980, 31, 589–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Nolte, J.v.E.; Löest, C.A.; Ferreira, A.V.; Nolte, N.K.; Petersen, M.K.; Hallford, D.M. (Eds.) Methionine, at Least One Branched-Chain Amino Acid, Are Limiting in Lambs. Proc. West. Sect. Am. Soc. Anim. Sci. 2004, 55, 421–423. [Google Scholar]
  72. Abdelrahman, M.M.; Hunaiti, D.A. The Effect of Dietary Yeast and Protected Methionine on Performance and Trace Minerals Status of Growing Awassi Lambs. Livest. Sci. 2008, 115, 235–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Su, Y.; Chen, G.; Cai, Y.; Gao, B.; Zhi, X.; Chang, F. Effects of Broussonetia Papyrifera-Fermented Feed on the Growth Performance and Muscle Quality of Hu Sheep. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2020, 100, 771–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. WHO. Protein and Amino Acid Requirements in Human Nutrition; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  75. Luciano, G.; Pauselli, M.; Servili, M.; Mourvaki, E.; Serra, A.; Monahan, F.; Lanza, M.; Priolo, A.; Zinnai, A.; Mele, M. Dietary Olive Cake Reduces the Oxidation of Lipids, Including Cholesterol, in Lamb Meat Enriched in Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids. Meat Sci. 2013, 93, 703–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Wood, J.D.; Enser, M.; Fisher, A.V.; Nute, G.R.; Sheard, P.R.; Richardson, R.I.; Whittington, F.M.; Hughes, S.I. Fat Deposition, Fatty Acid Composition and Meat Quality: A Review. Meat Sci. 2008, 78, 343–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Beam, T.; Jenkins, T.; Moate, P.; Kohn, R.; Palmquist, D. Effects of Amount and Source of Fat on the Rates of Lipolysis and Biohydrogenation of Fatty Acids in Ruminal Contents. J. Dairy Sci. 2000, 83, 2564–2573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Paim, T.D.P.; Viana, P.; Brandão, E.; Amador, S.; Barbosa, T.; Cardoso, C.; Dantas, M.M.; de Souza, J.R.; McManus, C.; Abdalla, A.L.; et al. Carcass Traits and Fatty Acid Profile of Meat from Lambs Fed Different Cottonseed by-Products. Small Rumin. Res. 2014, 116, 71–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Hristov, A.N.; Ivan, M.; McAllister, T.A. In Vitro Effects of Individual Fatty Acids on Protozoal Numbers and on Fermentation Products in Ruminal Fluid from Cattle Fed a High-Concentrate, Barley-Based Diet12. J. Anim. Sci. 2004, 82, 2693–2704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Nakatsuji, T.; Kao, M.C.; Fang, J.-Y.; Zouboulis, C.C.; Zhang, L.; Gallo, R.L.; Huang, C.-M. Antimicrobial Property of Lauric Acid against Propionibacterium Acnes: Its Therapeutic Potential for Inflammatory Acne Vulgaris. J. Investig. Dermatol. 2009, 129, 2480–2488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  81. Zhou, X.; Meile, L.; Kreuzer, M.; Zeitz, J.O. The Effect of Saturated Fatty Acids on Methanogenesis and Cell Viability of Methanobrevibacter Ruminantium. Archaea 2013, 2013, 106916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Klop, G.; Dijkstra, J.; Dieho, K.; Hendriks, W.; Bannink, A. Enteric Methane Production in Lactating Dairy Cows with Continuous Feeding of Essential Oils or Rotational Feeding of Essential Oils and Lauric Acid. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 3563–3575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Silva, T.M.; de Medeiros, A.N.; Oliveira, R.L.; Neto, S.G.; Queiroga, R.D.C.R.D.E.; Ribeiro, R.D.X.; Leão, A.G.; Bezerra, L.R. Carcass Traits and Meat Quality of Crossbred Boer Goats Fed Peanut Cake as a Substitute for Soybean Meal1. J. Anim. Sci. 2016, 94, 2992–3002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Lappano, R.; Sebastiani, A.; Cirillo, F.; Rigiracciolo, D.C.; Galli, G.R.; Curcio, R.; Malaguarnera, R.; Belfiore, A.; Cappello, A.R.; Maggiolini, M. The Lauric Acid-Activated Signaling Prompts Apoptosis in Cancer Cells. Cell Death Discov. 2017, 3, 17063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Valencak, T.G.; Gamsjäger, L.; Ohrnberger, S.; Culbert, N.J.; Ruf, T. Healthy N-6/N-3 Fatty Acid Composition from Five European Game Meat Species Remains after Cooking. BMC Res. Notes 2015, 8, 273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Tamminga, S.; Doreau, M. Lipids and Rumen Digestion. In Rumen Microbial Metabolism and Ruminant Digestion; Paris: Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique: Paris, France, 1991; pp. 151–164. [Google Scholar]
  87. Daley, C.A.; Abbott, A.; Doyle, P.S.; Nader, G.A.; Larson, S. A Review of Fatty Acid Profiles and Antioxidant Content in Grass-Fed and Grain-Fed Beef. Nutr. J. 2010, 9, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Gogus, U.; Smith, C. n-3 Omega Fatty Acids: A Review of Current Knowledge. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2010, 45, 417–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Mozaffarian, D.; Wu, J.H.Y. Omega-3 Fatty Acids and Cardiovascular Disease. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2011, 58, 2047–2067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  90. Simopoulos, A.P. The Importance of the Omega-6/Omega-3 Fatty Acid Ratio in Cardiovascular Disease and Other Chronic Diseases. Exp. Biol. Med. 2008, 233, 674–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Muhlhausler, B.S.; Ailhaud, G.P. Omega-6 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids and the Early Origins of Obesity. Curr. Opin. Endocrinol. Diabetes Obes. 2013, 20, 56–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Griel, A.E.; Kris-Etherton, P.M. Tree Nuts and the Lipid Profile: A Review of Clinical Studies. Br. J. Nutr. 2006, 96, S68–S78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. WHO. Fats and Oils in Human Nutrition: Report of a Joint Expert Consultation. In FAO Food and Nutrition Paper; Food & Agriculture Org.: Rome, Italy, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  94. Health, D. Report on Health and Social Subjects Nº 46. In Nutritional Aspects of Cardiovascular Disease; HMSO: London, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  95. Gravador, R.S.; Brunton, N.P.; Fahey, A.G.; Gkarane, V.; Claffey, N.A.; Moloney, A.P.; Diskin, M.G.; Farmer, L.J.; Allen, P.; Casey, C.; et al. Effects of Dietary Fat Sources on the Intramuscular and Subcutaneous Adipose Tissue Fatty Acid Composition, and Consumer Acceptability of Lamb. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2020, 100, 2176–2184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Components and chemical composition of TMR-SBM/FTMR-CSM/RSM.
Table 1. Components and chemical composition of TMR-SBM/FTMR-CSM/RSM.
GROUPS 1
ItemControlFTMR-CSMFTMR-RSM
Ingredients (% of DM)
Corn3433.5533.48
Wheat bran121212
Soybean meal1000
Cottonseed meal0100
Rapeseed meal0010
Fat powder00.30.3
Urea00.150.22
Whole corn silage202020
Corn stalk202020
Premix 2444
Total100100100
Chemical compositions (% of DM) 3
DM (fresh basis)55.8556.8656.9
CP13.9814.6613.82
EE3.073.433.53
NDF27.6626.1527.74
ADF18.0417.2815.74
ASH7.998.078.65
Ca1.071.111.15
P0.460.520.46
Fatty acids (g/100 g feed)
C6:00.020.010.01
C8:00.050.030.03
C14:00.050.020.02
C14:10.040.030.03
C15:00.010.010.01
C16:00.580.780.78
C16:10.020.020.02
C17:10.010.010.01
C18:00.080.110.11
C18:1n9c0.690.770.77
C18:2n6c1.391.521.52
C18:3n30.020.020.02
C20:10.100.070.07
C22:0-0.010.01
C24:00.020.010.01
1 Control, total mixed ration with soyabean meal; FTMR-CSM, fermented total mixed ration with cottonseed meal; FTMR-RSM, Fermented total mixed ration with rapeseed meal. 2 The premix provided the containing per kg of diets: Vitamins A (IU) = 50 k, Vitamin D3 (IU) = 20 k, Vitamin E (IU) = 400 k, Niacin (mg) = 300, Biotin (mg) = 1, Fe (mg) = 7.5, Zn (mg) = 6, Mn (mg) = 6.2, I (mg) =12.5, Co (mg) = 12.5, Se (mg) = 0.5, Ca (g) =8, P (g) = 3, NaCl (g) = 25. 3 DM; dry matter, CP, crude protein; EE, ether extract; NDF, neutral detergent fiber; ADF, acid detergent fiber. All the value are measured.
Table
Table 2. Effects of the diets on growth performance of Hu lamb.
Table 2. Effects of the diets on growth performance of Hu lamb.
Groups 1
Items and ParameterControlFTMR-CSMFTMR-RSMSEMp-Value
Body weight (kg)
d 022.8223.4722.920.1940.395
d 20 27.38 a29.11 b27.63 a0.276<0.001
d 40 31.66 a34.41 b32.69 a0.4320.003
d 60 34.58 a37.03 b36.50 b0.4000.002
d 80 39.8141.2441.670.4540.231
Dry matter intake, DMI (kg/d)
d 0–20 1.061.121.10.0310.732
d 21–40 1.191.291.30.0230.060
d 41–60 1.28 a1.39 ab1.43 b0.0290.050
d 61–80 1.24 a1.47 ab1.52 b0.0530.037
d 0–80 1.191.321.340.0430.380
Average daily gain(g)
d 0–20 227.85282.41235.4312.4130.147
d 21–40 214.07264.67252.8610.1840.083
d 41–60 145.89131.37190.7411.8750.082
d 61–80 261.35210.31258.4421.2510.611
d 0–80 212.29222.19234.375.6690.318
Feed conversion ratio FCR
d 0–20 4.643.964.650.2180.367
d 21–40 5.604.895.140.1770.283
d 41–60 8.7711.037.580.7500.167
d 61–80 4.867.546.420.7180.355
d 0–80 5.615.945.720.1170.659
1 Control, total mixed ration with soyabean meal; FTMR-CSM, fermented total mixed ration with cottonseed meal; FTMR-RSM, Fermented total mixed ration with rapeseed meal. SEM, standard error of means (n = 17 per group). a,b: Values with different superscripts within the same row differ (p ˂ 0.05).
Table
Table 3. Effects of the diets on nutrient apparent digestibility and Nitrogen metabolism of Hu lamb (DM basis).
Table 3. Effects of the diets on nutrient apparent digestibility and Nitrogen metabolism of Hu lamb (DM basis).
Groups 1
Items 2ControlFTMR-CSMFTMR-RSMSEMp-Value
Apparent digestibility (%)
DM72.5073.7971.870.9880.775
CP71.5973.1671.211.1000.795
EE82.6584.8684.970.7170.377
NDF55.5856.0452.471.7330.718
ADF43.8445.7844.752.3810.959
Nitrogen metabolism
Intake (g/d)32.7536.134.011.1670.560
Fecal (g/d)9.189.639.710.1400.282
Urinary (g/d)10.9011.0810.430.4330.855
Retained N (g/d)12.6615.3813.881.4260.788
N.BV (%) 251.9257.9656.023.2670.794
Retained N/N intake (%)37.4842.5240.152.8770.820
1 Control, total mixed ration with soyabean meal; FTMR-CSM, fermented total mixed ration with cottonseed meal; FTMR-RSM, Fermented total mixed ration with rapeseed meal. 2 N.BV; Nitrogen biological value = (Ni-Fno-Uno) × 100/(Ni-Fno); Ni = Nitrogen intake; Fno = fecal nitrogen output; Uno = Urine nitrogen output. SEM, standard error of means (n = 17 per group).
Table
Table 4. Effects of the diets on rumen fermentation and microbial crude protein of Hu lamb.
Table 4. Effects of the diets on rumen fermentation and microbial crude protein of Hu lamb.
Groups 1
Items 2ControlFTMR-CSMFTMR-RSMSEMp-Value
pH
d 406.53 a6.29 ab6.19 b0.0570.035
d 806.39 a5.93 b6.02 ab0.0760.031
Total VFA (mmol/L)
d 4071.60 c87.11 a85.34 b1.448<0.001
d 8076.46 b120.97 a73.12 c4.547<0.001
Acetate (%)
d 4069.3069.5266.582.2910.14
d 8067.97 b69.72 a68.30 b4.712<0.001
Propionate (%)
d 4015.67 a15.69 ab19.84 b0.9950.05
d 8014.88 b18.21 a15.48 b0.949<0.001
Butyrate (%)
d 4012.1811.979.180.7040.322
d 802.47 a0.96 b2.42 a0.1020.003
A/P (%)
d 40 4.61 a 4.65 a3.39 b0.1940.005
d 804.884.24.160.2440.416
NH3-N (mg/100 mL)
d 404.875.115.094.877.11
d 805.317.167.060.4670.215
MCP (mg/100 mL)
d 405.265.535.150.40.867
d 802.784.214.620.3860.153
1 Control, total mixed ration with soyabean meal; FTMR-CSM, fermented total mixed ration with cottonseed meal; FTMR-RSM, Fermented total mixed ration with rapeseed meal. 2 VFA, volatile fatty acids, A/P, a ratio of acetate to propionate; MCP, microbial crude protein. SEM, standard error of means (n = 17 per group). a,b,c: Values with different superscripts within the same row differ (p ˂ 0.05).
Table
Table 5. Effects of the diets on blood serum parameters of Hu lamb.
Table 5. Effects of the diets on blood serum parameters of Hu lamb.
Groups 1
Items 2ControlFTMR-CSMFTMR-RSMSEMp-Value
Total protein (g/L)
d 053.4953.6653.180.3750.875
d 8061.1461.9060.460.360.274
Albumin (g/L)
d 034.0434.6934.630.4680.835
d 8041.6841.9341.70.440.97
Globulin (g/L)
d 019.4418.9718.550.3040.504
d 8019.4519.9718.760.6260.747
Albumin/Globulin
d 401.761.851.90.0520.562
d 802.212.182.330.1030.836
BUN (mmol/L)
d 08.328.037.160.3250.332
d 8010.9811.1911.070.3380.971
TC (mmol/L)
d 01.361.391.450.0310.464
d 801.881.971.850.0410.476
TG (mmol/L)
d 00.390.380.410.0080.306
d 800.540.540.510.0080.291
HDL (mmol/L)
d 00.670.690.710.0190.678
d 800.971.050.980.0270.403
LDL (mmol/L)
d 00.640.650.690.0130.298
d 800.830.820.810.0140.598
1 Control, total mixed ration with soyabean meal; FTMR-CSM, fermented total mixed ration with cottonseed meal; FTMR-RSM, Fermented total mixed ration with rapeseed meal. 2 BUN, blood urea nitrogen; TC, total cholesterol; TC, triglycerides; HDL, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDL, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. SEM, standard error of means (n = 17 per group).
Table
Table 6. Effects of the diets on the carcass characteristics and physio-chemical compositions of meat quality of HU lamb.
Table 6. Effects of the diets on the carcass characteristics and physio-chemical compositions of meat quality of HU lamb.
Groups 1
Carcass Characteristics ControlFTMR-CSMFTMR-RSMSEMp-Value
Live weight (kg)40.7541.1342.930.4850.149
Carcass weight (kg)18.5319.1320.150.330.127
Carcass yield (%)45.4646.4846.910.4260.375
Meat quality
Meat pH, 45 min6.71 a6.24 b6.41 ab0.070.012
Cooking loss (%)30.5826.9131.311.2660.328
Drip loss (%)9.099.59.140.3920.905
Shear force (N)14.9415.0615.110.2340.955
EMA, cm213.1514.3914.440.4230.39
Meat color
Color L*24.4526.2324.720.710.344
Color a*11.2711.8611.30.5960.908
Color b*6.245.967.030.3940.536
Chemical composition (%)
Moisture 72.1472.0771.990.3050.981
Crude protein 21.1621.3621.060.1810.801
Ether extract5.795.395.40.3990.907
1 Control, total mixed ration with soyabean meal; FTMR-CSM, fermented total mixed ration with cottonseed meal; FTMR-RSM, Fermented total mixed ration with rapeseed meal. L* = lightness; a* = redness; b* = yellowness. SEM, standard error of means (n = 17 per group). EMA, eye muscle area. a,b: Values with different superscripts within the same row differ (p ˂ 0.05).
Table
Table 7. Effects of the diets on amino acid contents of Hu lamb Longissimus thoracis (LT) meat (DM basis).
Table 7. Effects of the diets on amino acid contents of Hu lamb Longissimus thoracis (LT) meat (DM basis).
Groups 1
ItemsControlFTMR-CSMFTMR-RSMSEMp-Value
Essential amino acid (%)
Methionine2.26 b2.32 ab2.50 a0.0420.047
Threonine3.443.383.490.0500.691
Valine3.493.473.560.0490.754
Lysine6.246.236.420.0940.649
Isoleucine5.625.755.910.0920.449
Leucine3.273.263.360.0510.722
Phenylalanine2.342.312.410.0370.548
Non-essential amino acid (%)
Aspartic6.86.696.860.0940.775
Serine3.022.993.070.0390.749
Glutamic12.2111.9912.360.1730.696
Glycine4.374.494.350.0820.778
Histidine2.862.973.110.060.258
Arginine4.864.9550.0620.642
Alanine4.554.544.590.0520.905
Proline3.133.183.170.0470.899
Cysteine0.750.730.780.0130.224
Tyrosine3.253.243.330.0470.739
Total amino acids (%)72.472.4274.210.9540.691
1 Control, total mixed ration with soyabean meal; FTMR-CSM, fermented total mixed ration with cottonseed meal; FTMR-RSM, Fermented total mixed ration with rapeseed meal. SEM, standard error of means (n = 17 per group). a,b: Values with different superscripts within the same row differ (p ˂ 0.05).
Table
Table 8. Effects of the diets on fatty acid (% of total fatty acids) of Hu lamb meat.
Table 8. Effects of the diets on fatty acid (% of total fatty acids) of Hu lamb meat.
Groups 1
Items 2ControlFTMR-CSMFTMR-RSMSEMp-Value
SFA
C6:00.0550.0450.0510.0030.441
C8:00.0910.0980.1150.01290.765
C10:00.130 b0.197 ab0.204 a0.01310.032
C12:00.1590.1670.1860.00840.415
C13:00.0150.0150.0320.0040.181
C14:03.0002.7512.8470.0830.485
C15:00.3650.3890.3960.0160.722
C16:025.65025.40225.0540.2650.674
C17:01.3331.3761.4190.0340.596
C18:018.88419.30620.0970.4330.53
C20:00.160 a0.054 b0.088 b0.0140.002
C21:00.0260.0260.0220.0020.484
C22:00.085 a0.033 b0.037 b0.008<0.001
C23:00.0610.0580.0980.010.22
C24:00.0640.0540.0490.0050.47
MUFA
C14:10.224 b0.284 ab0.382 a0.0240.014
C15:10.080.0710.0750.0060.822
C16:12.1041.8692.030.0540.19
C17:10.6630.6170.60.0230.543
C18:1n9t2.3542.1442.4160.0960.503
C18:1n9c35.030 b38.038 a36.594 ab0.4420.014
C20:10.355 a0.088 b0.091 b0.027<0.001
C24:10.0740.0570.0630.0040.194
n-3
C18:3n-30.299 a0.200 ab0.235 b0.0150.003
C20:3n-30.0500.0360.0370.0050.322
n-6
C18:3n-60.1310.1080.1080.00760.333
C20:3n60.174 a0.067 b0.089 b0.0153<0.001
C20:4n62.166 a1.646 b1.551 b0.00450.025
C18:2n6t0.3410.2840.2720.0190.307
C18:2n6c5.5844.5064.6210.2740.219
C20:20.0730.0740.0730.0030.158
C22:2000.0070.00120.031
C20:50.008 a0.006 b0.010 a0.0004<0.001
∑ SFA50.078 b49.971 c50.695 a0.066<0.001
∑ USFA49.70950.09549.2540.083<0.001
∑ MUFA40.883 c43.168 a42.251 b0.196<0.001
∑ PUFA8.826 a6.927 b7.003 c0.178<0.001
∑ n-6/∑ n-37.072 b7.710 a6.437 c0.108<0.001
1 Control, total mixed ration with soyabean meal; FTMR-CSM, fermented total mixed ration with cottonseed meal; FTMR-RSM, Fermented total mixed ration with rapeseed meal. 2 SFA, saturated fatty acids; USFA, unsaturated fatty acids; MUFA, monounsaturated fatty acids; PUFA, polyunsaturated fatty acids. SEM, standard error of means (n = 17 per group). c = cis; t = trans; ∑ USFA = sum of unsaturated fatty acids (∑PUFA + ∑ MUFA); ∑ PUFA = sum of polyunsaturated fatty acids (∑ n-3 = C18:3n-3, C20:3n-3; + ∑ n-6 = C18:3n, C20:3n6, C20:4n6; C18:2n6t, C18:2n6c, C20:2, C20:2, C22:2 + C20:5); ∑ MUFA = total of monounsaturated fatty acids (C14:1, C15:1, C16:1, C17:1, C18:1n9t, C18:1n9c, C20:1, C24:1); ∑ SFA = sum of saturated fatty acids (C6:0, C8:0, C10:0, C12:0, C13:0, C14:0, C15:0, C16:0, C17:0, C18:0, C20:0, C21:0, C22:0, C23:0, C24:0). a,b,c: Values with different superscripts within the same row differ (p ˂ 0.05).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yusuf, H.A.; Rehemujiang, H.; Ma, T.; Piao, M.; Huo, R.; Tu, Y. Fermented Total Mixed Ration with Cottonseed Meal or Rapeseed Meal Improved Growth Performance and Meat Quality of Hu Lamb Compared to Total Mixed Ration with Soybean Meal. Fermentation 2022, 8, 576. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8110576

AMA Style

Yusuf HA, Rehemujiang H, Ma T, Piao M, Huo R, Tu Y. Fermented Total Mixed Ration with Cottonseed Meal or Rapeseed Meal Improved Growth Performance and Meat Quality of Hu Lamb Compared to Total Mixed Ration with Soybean Meal. Fermentation. 2022; 8(11):576. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8110576

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yusuf, Hassan Ali, Halidai Rehemujiang, Tao Ma, Minyu Piao, Ruiying Huo, and Yan Tu. 2022. "Fermented Total Mixed Ration with Cottonseed Meal or Rapeseed Meal Improved Growth Performance and Meat Quality of Hu Lamb Compared to Total Mixed Ration with Soybean Meal" Fermentation 8, no. 11: 576. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8110576

APA Style

Yusuf, H. A., Rehemujiang, H., Ma, T., Piao, M., Huo, R., & Tu, Y. (2022). Fermented Total Mixed Ration with Cottonseed Meal or Rapeseed Meal Improved Growth Performance and Meat Quality of Hu Lamb Compared to Total Mixed Ration with Soybean Meal. Fermentation, 8(11), 576. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8110576

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop