Next Article in Journal
Population Structure and Climate Effects on Geckobia Infestation in Ptyodactylus Geckos from Israel and West Bank, with Descriptions of G. parva sp. nov. and G. inermis sp. nov
Previous Article in Journal
Bovine Adipocyte-Derived Exosomes Transport LncRNAs to Regulate Adipogenic Transdifferentiation of Bovine Muscle Satellite Cells
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effects of Long-Term Dietary Inclusion of Citrus Pomace on Growth Performance, Intestinal Morphology, Digestive Enzyme Activity, Antioxidant Status, and Colonic Microbiota in Tibetan Pigs
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
This is an early access version, the complete PDF, HTML, and XML versions will be available soon.
Article

Effects of Different Protein Feeds on Nutrient Digestion, Energy Metabolism, Methane Emissions, and Rumen Microbiota in Mutton Sheep

1
College of Animal Science and Technology, Northeast Agricultural University, Harbin 150030, China
2
Department of Animal Nutrition, The University of Agriculture Peshawar, Peshawar 25130, Pakistan
3
Institute of Animal Nutrition and Feed Science, Jilin Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Changchun 136199, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Animals 2025, 15(23), 3460; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15233460 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 31 October 2025 / Revised: 28 November 2025 / Accepted: 29 November 2025 / Published: 30 November 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Use of Agro-Industrial Co-Products in Animal Nutrition)

Simple Summary

In livestock production, reducing energy losses and methane emissions, as well as improving the utilization of feed nutritive value, are key issues in maximizing benefits. The study demonstrated that the protein digestibility followed the order: soybean meal (SM) > fermented soybean meal (FSM) > distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS) > cottonseed meal (CM) > rapeseed meal (RM). The net energy value was highest in DDGS, followed by CM, SM, RM, and FSM. Conversely, methane emissions were most pronounced in RM, followed by FSM, DDGS, SM, and CM. The addition of CM can increase the relative abundance of Lactobacillaceae and Bifidobacteriaceae and reduce the relative abundance of Methanobrevibacter. In the actual application of protein feeds, farmers should apply these protein feeds according to different production purposes and needs so as to realize sustainable development.

Abstract

Making full use of feed nutrients, reducing energy losses and methane emissions, and maximizing production benefits have been ongoing goals of livestock production. Thirty-six healthy Dorper × Thin-tailed Han mutton ewes were divided into six groups using a completely randomized experimental design. A basal diet was provided to the control group, while the experimental group consumed a diet in which 15% was replaced by equal amounts of cottonseed meal (CM), rapeseed meal (RM), distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS), soybean meal (SM), and fermented soybean meal (FSM). The study demonstrated that SM had the highest protein digestibility, followed by FSM, DDGS, and CM in that order. In terms of net energy, DDGS showed a significantly higher value compared to FSM (p < 0.05). Significantly higher abundances of Lactobacillaceae and Bifidobacteriaceae were observed in the CM group relative to the RM and FSM groups (p < 0.05). The methane emissions that we were most concerned about, whether it was daily emissions or metabolic weight basis, showed the same disparity between the groups, with the RM group having the most, followed in order by FSM, DDGS, and SM groups, and the least by the CM group. We found that the RM group had the highest relative abundance of Methanobrevibacter, followed by the FSM, SM, DDGS, and CM groups in that order, which is similar to the trend of methane emissions from each group. In summary, the highest apparent protein digestibility is SM, and the highest net energy value among these protein feeds is DDGS. RM will produce the most methane. In addition, the source of protein feed in the diet will affect the structural composition of rumen microorganisms.
Keywords: energy utilization; methane emissions; protein feed; rumen microorganism; sheep energy utilization; methane emissions; protein feed; rumen microorganism; sheep

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, Y.; Zou, Z.; Wang, Z.; Khan, N.A.; Xin, H.; Yan, X. Effects of Different Protein Feeds on Nutrient Digestion, Energy Metabolism, Methane Emissions, and Rumen Microbiota in Mutton Sheep. Animals 2025, 15, 3460. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15233460

AMA Style

Wang Y, Zou Z, Wang Z, Khan NA, Xin H, Yan X. Effects of Different Protein Feeds on Nutrient Digestion, Energy Metabolism, Methane Emissions, and Rumen Microbiota in Mutton Sheep. Animals. 2025; 15(23):3460. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15233460

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Yiqiang, Zhengxin Zou, Ziwei Wang, Nazir Ahmad Khan, Hangshu Xin, and Xiaogang Yan. 2025. "Effects of Different Protein Feeds on Nutrient Digestion, Energy Metabolism, Methane Emissions, and Rumen Microbiota in Mutton Sheep" Animals 15, no. 23: 3460. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15233460

APA Style

Wang, Y., Zou, Z., Wang, Z., Khan, N. A., Xin, H., & Yan, X. (2025). Effects of Different Protein Feeds on Nutrient Digestion, Energy Metabolism, Methane Emissions, and Rumen Microbiota in Mutton Sheep. Animals, 15(23), 3460. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15233460

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