Mulberry Silage as Alternative to Soybean Meal Protein in Ruminant Diet: Effect on Growth Performance, Digestion, Antioxidant Capacity, and Carcass Characteristics of Goats
Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Protocol
2.2. Mulberry Silage Making
2.3. Animals and Diets
2.4. Intake, Nutrient Digestibility, and Chemical Analyses
2.4.1. Feed Intake Recording and Body Weight
2.4.2. Digestibility
2.4.3. Blood Collection and Treatment
2.4.4. Slaughter and Muscle Sample
2.4.5. Feed and Feces Samples Analysis
2.4.6. Analysis of Blood Plasma Samples
2.5. Carcass Characteristics and Measurements
2.6. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Growth Performance
3.2. Feed Intake and Nutrient Digestibility
3.3. Carcass Traits, Viscera and Meat Characteristics
3.4. Blood Plasma Biochemical Kinetics
3.5. Plasma Antioxidant Parameters
3.6. Amino Acid Profile
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Johnson, B. Balanced Diet for Animals: Essential Components and Considerations. Arch. Food Nutr. 2024, 7, 3–4. [Google Scholar]
- Ajomiwe, N.; Boland, M.; Phongthai, S.; Bagiyal, M.; Singh, J.; Kaur, L. Protein Nutrition: Understanding Structure, Digestibility, and Bioavailability for Optimal Health. Foods 2024, 13, 1771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- General Administration of Customs. December National Import Volume and Value Table of Key Commodities. 2025. Available online: http://www.customs.gov.cn/customs/2026-01/14/article_2026012219105955845.html (accessed on 14 January 2026).
- Jan, B.; Parveen, R.; Zahiruddin, S.; Khan, M.U.; Mohapatra, S.; Ahmad, S. Nutritional Constituents of Mulberry and Their Potential Applications in Food and Pharmaceuticals: A Review. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2021, 28, 3909–3921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yan, C.-H.; Chen, F.-H.; Yang, Y.-L.; Shen, L.-W.; Xun, X.-M.; Zhang, Z.-A.; Zhan, Y.-F.; You, S.; Wang, J. Biochemical and Protein Nutritional Potential of Mulberry (Mours alba L.) Leaf: Partial Substitution Improves the Nutrition of Conventional Protein. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2024, 104, 2204–2214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yu, Y.; Li, H.; Zhang, B.; Wang, J.; Shi, X.; Huang, J.; Yang, J.; Zhang, Y.; Deng, Z. Nutritional and Functional Components of Mulberry Leaves from Different Varieties: Evaluation of Their Potential as Food Materials. Int. J. Food Prop. 2018, 21, 1495–1507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, L.; Wang, C.; Guo, X.; Chen, D.; Zhou, W.; Chen, X.; Zhang, Q. Flavonoid Levels and Antioxidant Capacity of Mulberry Leaves: Effects of Growth Period and Drying Methods. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 684974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, R.V.; Vyry, W.N.A.; Chauhan, S.; Singh, V.; Srivastava, D.; Kumar, U.; Raj, R.; Verma, A. Mulberry: From Nutraceuticals to Bioactive Phytochemicals. Food Humanit. 2024, 2, 100272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.; Yang, F.; Wang, Q.; Zhou, X.; Xie, M.; Kang, P.; Wang, Y.; Peng, X. Nutritive Value of Mulberry Leaf Meal and Its Effect on the Performance of 35-70-Day-Old Geese. J. Poult. Sci. 2017, 54, 41–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Kirshi, R.A.; Alimon, A.; Zulkifli, I.; Atefeh, S.; Zahari, M.W.; Ivan, M. Nutrient Digestibility of Mulberry Leaves (Morus alba). Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 12, 219–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramappa, V.K.; Srivastava, D.; Singh, P.; Kumar, U.; Kumar, D.; Gosipatala, S.B.; Saha, S.; Kumar, D.; Raj, R. Mulberries: A Promising Fruit for Phytochemicals, Nutraceuticals, and Biological Activities. Int. J. Fruit Sci. 2020, 20, S1254–S1279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hăbeanu, M.; Gheorghe, A.; Dinita, G.; Mihalcea, T. An In-Depth Insight into the Profile, Mechanisms, Functions, and Transfer of Essential Amino Acids from Mulberry Leaves to Silkworm Bombyx mori L. Pupae and Fish. Insects 2024, 15, 332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarkhel, S.; Manvi, D.; CT, R. Nutrition Importance and Health Benefits of Mulberry Leaf Extract: A Review. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. 2020, 9, 689–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, G.; Chai, X.; Hou, G.; Zhao, F.; Meng, Q. Phytochemistry, Bioactivities and Future Prospects of Mulberry Leaves: A Review. Food Chem. 2022, 372, 131335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rahman, M.A.; Redoy, M.R.A.; Shuvo, A.A.; Chowdhury, R.; Hossain, E.; Sayem, S.M.; Harun-ur-Rashid, M.; Al-Mamun, M. Influence of Herbal Supplementation on Nutrient Digestibility, Blood Biomarkers, Milk Yield, and Quality in Tropical Crossbred Cows. PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0313419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhou, Z.; Zhou, B.; Ren, L.; Meng, Q. Effect of Ensiled Mulberry Leaves and Sun-Dried Mulberry Fruit Pomace on Finishing Steer Growth Performance, Blood Biochemical Parameters, and Carcass Characteristics. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e85406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hassan, F.U.; Arshad, M.A.; Li, M.; Rehman, M.S.U.; Loor, J.J.; Huang, J. Potential of Mulberry Leaf Biomass and Its Flavonoids to Improve Production and Health in Ruminants: Mechanistic Insights and Prospects. Animals 2020, 10, 2076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, Z.F.; Ma, D.Y.; Niu, H.X.; Chang, J.; Yu, J.H.; Tong, Q.; Li, S.G. Enzyme additives influence bacterial communities of Medicago sativa silage as determined by Illumina sequencing. AMB Express 2021, 11, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samtiya, M.; Aluko, R.E.; Dhewa, T. Plant Food Anti-Nutritional Factors and Their Reduction Strategies: An Overview. Food Prod. Process. Nutr. 2020, 2, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Predescu, N.C.; Stefan, G.; Rosu, M.P.; Papuc, C. Fermented Feed in Broiler Diets Reduces the Antinutritional Factors, Improves Productive Performances and Modulates Gut Microbiome—A Review. Agriculture 2024, 14, 1752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, D.; Mcdonald, D.; Asiedu, F.H. The Effect of Mulberry Leaf Meal on the Growth Performance of Weaner Goats in Jamaica. CARDI Rev. 2005, 5, 5–11. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, J.C.; Refat, B.; Guevara-Oquendo, V.H.; Yu, P.Q. Lactational performance, feeding behavior, ruminal fermentation and nutrient digestibility in dairy cows fed whole-plant faba bean silage-based diet with fibrolytic enzyme. Animal 2022, 16, 100606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Guo, H.; Li, B.; Gao, M.; Li, Q.; Gao, Y.; Dong, N.; Liu, G.; Wang, Z.; Gao, W.; Chen, Y.; et al. Dietary Nutritional Level Affects Intestinal Microbiota and Health of Goats. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 2322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ferret, A.; Plaixats, J.; Caja, G.; Gasa, J.; Prió, P. Using Markers to Estimate Apparent Dry Matter Digestibility, Faecal Output and Dry Matter Intake in Dairy Ewes Fed Italian Ryegrass Hay or Alfalfa Hay. Small Rumin. Res. 1999, 33, 145–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaaban, M.M.; Kholif, A.E.; El, A.M.A.; Radwan, M.A.; Hadhoud, F.I.; Khattab, A.; Saleh, H.M.; Anele, U.Y. Thyme and Celery as Potential Alternatives to Ionophores Use in Livestock Production: Their Effects on Feed Utilization, Growth Performance and Meat Quality of Barki Lambs. Small Rumin. Res. 2021, 200, 106400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC INTERNATIONAL; AOAC: Rockville, MD, USA, 2016; 3172p. [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Khattab, M.S.A.; Matloup, O.H.; Hassan, A.A.; El-Hendawy, N.M.; El-Zaiat, H.M.; Sallam, S.M.A. Lactating Buffalos’ Productive Performance, Ruminal Kinetics, Nutrients Digestibility and Oxidative Status as Response to Supplementing Diets with Alpinia Galanga. Anim. Biotechnol. 2022, 34, 3363–3370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Majdoub-Mathlouthi, L.; Saïd, B.; Say, A.; Kraiem, K. Effect of Concentrate Level and Slaughter Body Weight on Growth Performances, Carcass Traits and Meat Quality of Barbarine Lambs Fed Oat Hay Based Diet. Meat Sci. 2013, 93, 557–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boyd, J.W. The Interpretation of Serum Biochemistry Test Results in Domestic Animals. Vet. Clin. Pathol. 1984, 13, 7–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Long, Y.; Han, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Chen, D.; Wang, D.; Yang, Y.; Su, C.; Shen, X. Effect of Mulberry Leaf TMR on Growth Performance, Meat Quality and Expression of Meat Quality Master Genes (ADSL, H-FABP) in Crossbred Black Goats. Foods 2022, 11, 4032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, M.; Han, H.; Shang, Y.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Su, C.; Lian, H.; Fu, T.; Gao, T. Effect of the Replacement of Maize Silage and Soyabean Meal with Mulberry Silage in the Diet of Hu Lambs on Growth Performance, Serum Biochemical Indices, Slaughter Performance, and Meat Quality. Animals 2022, 12, 3164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkateshkumar, R.; Gautam, C.; Shobha, N.; Shankar, R.L. Use of Mulberry Leaves as Supplementary Food in Cow and Goat to Improve Milk Production. Int. J. Appl. Res. 2015, 1, 81–84. [Google Scholar]
- Jia, Y.; Guanghui, Y.I.; Wang, G.; Chao, S.U.; Yang, Y.; Dengjun, M.U.; Qian, Y. Effects of Mulberry Leaf Feed on Productive Performance and Meat Quality of Cashmere Wether. J. Domest. Anim. Ecol. 2017, 38, 27–31. [Google Scholar]
- García, E.G.; Ortega, M.; Cáceres, O.; Garcia, J.A. Including Different Levels of Mulberry Forage in the Diet of Weaned Kids: Effects on Voluntary Intake and Growth Rate. Pastos Forrajes 2001, 1–6. Available online: https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-03418760v1 (accessed on 8 February 2026).
- Blando, C.G. Growth Performance of Growing Goats Fed with Enhanced Silage. QSU Res. J. 2016, 5, 1. [Google Scholar]
- Prasad, P.; Reddy, M. Nutritive Value of Mulberry (Morus alba) Leaves in Goats and Sheep. Indian J. Anim. Nutr. 1991, 8, 295–296. [Google Scholar]
- Kou, Y.F.; Zhu, W.B.; Li, F.; Li, F.D.; Weng, X.X.; Tang, D.F.; Hao, S.Y.; Yuan, L.F. Effects of diets with different proportions of whole mulberry on growth performance, nutrient apparent digestibility, serum antioxidant indexes and rumen fermentation parameters of fattening Hu sheep. Chin. J. Anim. Nutr. 2025, 33, 2776–2785. [Google Scholar]
- Yulistiani, D.; Jelan, Z.A.; Liang, J.B.; Yaakub, H.; Norhani, A.; Saputra, F. Increasing the nutritive value of a rice straw-based diet using mulberry and Leucaena to promote the growth performance of lambs. S. Afr. J. Anuial Sci. 2024, 54, 326–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Li, Y.; Peng, Y.; He, J.; Xiao, D.; Chen, C.; Li, F.; Huang, R.; Yin, Y. Dietary Mulberry Leaf Powder Affects Growth Performance, Carcass Traits and Meat Quality in Finishing Pigs. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2019, 103, 1934–1945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Medina-Navarro, R.; Durán-Reyes, G.; Díaz-Flores, M.; Vilar-Rojas, C. Protein Antioxidant Response to the Stress and the Relationship between Molecular Structure and Antioxidant Function. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e8971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, B.; Luo, H. Effects of Mulberry Leaf Silage on Antioxidant and Immunomodulatory Activity and Rumen Bacterial Community of Lambs. BMC Microbiol. 2021, 21, 250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, C.G.; Li, J.X.; Guo, Z.W.; Yang, X.L.; Chen, J.J.; Li, L.P.; Qu, L. Effects of N-Carbamylglutamic on Growth Performance, Blood RoutineIndexes and Plasma Antioxidant and mmune Indexes of female Hu Sheep at Different Physiological Stages. Chin. J. Anim. Nutr. 2024, 36, 4473–4485. [Google Scholar]
- Gao, X.; Li, X.Z.; Yan, Q.; Wang, R.Z.H.; Wei, D.S.; Hu, D.Q.; Kong, Z.W.; Zou, C.X.; Lin, B. Effects of Capsaicin on Growth Performance, Rumen FermentationIndices, Serum Biochemical Indices and RumenBacterial Flora of Fattening Hu Sheep. Chin. J. Anim. Nutr. 2024, 36, 3823–3832. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, B.W.; Zhou, G.J.; Jiang, X.M. Study on the normal serum malondialdehyde (MDA) value of normal human in Guiyang area. Stud. Trace Elem. Health 2006, 23, 69. [Google Scholar]

| Items | Diet Composition (g/kg DM) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Control | MS-50 | MS-100 | |
| Corn | 258.6 | 244.8 | 194.8 |
| Wheat bran | 44.0 | 128.9 | 251.9 |
| Mulberry silage | 0.00 | 268.0 | 500.0 |
| Soybean meal | 147.0 | 73.5 | 0.00 |
| Rice Straw | 500.0 | 232.0 | 0.00 |
| CaCO3 | 7.0 | 3.5 | 1.3 |
| CaHCO3 | 18.5 | 24.2 | 26.9 |
| NaCl | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| Premix | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 |
| Nutritional value | |||
| ME (MJ/kg) | 8.68 | 8.75 | 8.70 |
| CP (g/kg DM) | 115.4 | 115.8 | 116.3 |
| NDF (g/kg DM) | 415.8 | 380.4 | 356.5 |
| ADF (g/kg DM) | 267.5 | 253.7 | 243.9 |
| Ca (g/kg DM) | 10.0 | 14.0 | 17.2 |
| P (g/kg DM) | 6.4 | 9.0 | 11.0 |
| Items | Experimental Groups | SEM | p-Value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | MS-50 | MS-100 | |||
| Initial body weight (kg) | 18.3 | 17.9 | 18.5 | 0.43 | 0.643 |
| Final body weight (kg) | 22.9 b | 23.5 b | 25.3 a | 0.57 | 0.012 |
| Total weight gain (kg) | 4.62 b | 5.53 b | 6.82 a | 0.321 | <0.001 |
| Average daily gain (g/d) | 46.2 b | 55.3 b | 68.2 a | 3.21 | <0.001 |
| Feed conversion (feed intake/daily gain) | 16.7 a | 16.2 a | 13.3 b | 0.47 | 0.005 |
| Items | Experimental Groups | SEM | p-Value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | MS-50 | MS-100 | |||
| Nutrient intake (g/d) | |||||
| DMI | 657 b | 740 a | 773 a | 10.4 | <0.001 |
| CPI | 82.9 b | 97.7 a | 98.3 a | 1.30 | <0.001 |
| EEI | 17.3 c | 33.9 a | 32.7 b | 1.15 | <0.001 |
| NDFI | 287 c | 312 a | 313 a | 4.7 | 0.029 |
| ADFI | 152 | 162 | 153 | 2.8 | 0.305 |
| OMI | 572 c | 658 b | 695 a | 10.1 | <0.001 |
| Nutrient digestibility (%) | |||||
| DMD | 74.4 | 71.5 | 72.6 | 0.93 | 0.097 |
| CPD | 78.8 | 80.1 | 77.7 | 0.91 | 0.187 |
| EED | 89.2 | 89.7 | 84.6 | 2.43 | 0.274 |
| NDFD | 65.7 | 64.7 | 64.8 | 1.32 | 0.850 |
| ADFD | 67.3 a | 63.6 ab | 60.9 b | 1.85 | 0.047 |
| OMD | 78.9 a | 76.1 b | 75.4 b | 0.77 | 0.006 |
| Items | Experimental Groups | SEM | p-Value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | MS-50 | MS-100 | |||
| Carcass weight (kg) | 10.4 c | 11.5 b | 12.5 a | 0.33 | 0.001 |
| Dressing (%) | 45.7 b | 47.2 a | 47.9 a | 0.66 | 0.022 |
| Eye muscle area (cm2) | 683 b | 795 ab | 847 a | 49.8 | 0.047 |
| Drip loss (%) | 1.65 | 1.99 | 1.49 | 0.139 | 0.353 |
| Cooking loss (%) | 32.9 | 32.3 | 28.5 | 0.94 | 0.116 |
| Shear force (N) | 41.7 | 42.8 | 42.7 | 1.19 | 0.918 |
| Dorsal muscle moisture (%) | 75.0 | 75.5 | 75.4 | 0.31 | 0.425 |
| Dorsal muscle protein (%) | 78.2 | 79.0 | 78.6 | 1.30 | 0.913 |
| Dorsal muscle fat (%) | 12.3 | 11.3 | 11.1 | 0.68 | 0.413 |
| Ash of dorsal muscle (%) | 4.40 | 4.70 | 4.70 | 0.209 | 0.516 |
| LDM pH 0 h | 6.84 | 6.77 | 6.72 | 0.054 | 0.230 |
| LDM pH 24 h | 5.67 b | 5.65 b | 6.21 a | 0.095 | 0.005 |
| Meat color L* 0 h | 34.8 | 34.1 | 33.7 | 0.68 | 0.798 |
| Meat color a* 0 h | 15.8 | 15.4 | 15.3 | 0.34 | 0.816 |
| Meat color b* 0 h | 1.40 | 1.32 | 1.79 | 0.200 | 0.610 |
| Meat color L* 24 h | 37.3 | 33.6 | 36.0 | 1.07 | 0.384 |
| Meat color a* 24 h | 16.3 | 16.3 | 16.6 | 0.35 | 0.904 |
| Meat color b* 24 h | 4.14 | 3.16 | 3.38 | 0.245 | 0.276 |
| Items | Experimental Groups | SEM | p-Value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | MS-50 | MS-100 | |||
| Total protein (g/L) | 72.6 b | 74.5 b | 81.1 a | 1.19 | 0.004 |
| Albumin (g/L) | 32.6 b | 35.6 b | 40.4 a | 0.87 | <0.001 |
| Glucose (mmol/L) | 4.49 | 4.08 | 4.94 | 0.186 | 0.170 |
| Triglycerides (mmol/L) | 0.204 | 0.246 | 0.255 | 0.0101 | 0.075 |
| Cholesterol (mmol/L) | 2.69 | 2.97 | 2.62 | 0.100 | 0.331 |
| Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (mmol/L) | 0.993 | 0.972 | 0.752 | 0.0612 | 0.204 |
| High-density lipoprotein cholesterol (mmol/L) | 1.64 | 2.00 | 1.84 | 0.066 | 0.081 |
| Alanine transaminase (u/L) | 41.0 | 37.7 | 39.0 | 2.10 | 0.823 |
| Aspartate transaminase (u/L) | 173 | 159 | 172 | 11.4 | 0.869 |
| Blood urea nitrogen (mmol/L) | 6.47 | 5.83 | 6.59 | 0.305 | 0.566 |
| Lactate dehydrogenase (u/L) | 794 | 879 | 9160 | 78.2 | 0.819 |
| Alkaline phosphatase (u/L) | 397 | 556 | 1006 | 118.9 | 0.091 |
| Gamma glutamyl transpeptidase (u/L) | 51.2 | 45.1 | 51.3 | 1.99 | 0.359 |
| Amylase (u/L) | 39.2 | 39.1 | 45.2 | 4.08 | 0.795 |
| Calcium (mmol/L) | 2.13 b | 2.28 ab | 2.44 a | 0.040 | 0.004 |
| Phosphorus (mmol/L) | 2.96 | 3.05 | 3.22 | 0.127 | 0.705 |
| Items | Experimental Groups | SEM | p-Value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | MS-50 | MS-100 | |||
| Aspartate (Asp) | 7.37 b | 7.88 a | 7.58 ab | 0.082 | 0.029 |
| Threonine (Thr) | 3.73 b | 3.99 a | 3.84 ab | 0.042 | 0.028 |
| Serine (Ser) | 2.79 b | 3.12 a | 2.98 a | 0.040 | <0.001 |
| Glutamate (Glu) | 12.0 b | 13.0 a | 12.3 ab | 0.15 | 0.021 |
| Glycine (Gly) | 3.53 b | 3.80 a | 3.94 a | 0.058 | 0.007 |
| Alanine (Ala) | 4.71 b | 5.20 a | 5.14 a | 0.060 | <0.001 |
| Valine (Val) | 3.98 | 4.17 | 4.03 | 0.042 | 0.137 |
| Methionine (Met) | 2.21 | 2.35 | 2.25 | 0.029 | 0.118 |
| Isoleucine (Iso) | 3.80 | 3.95 | 3.76 | 0.042 | 0.142 |
| Leucine (Leu) | 6.61 | 6.88 | 6.50 | 0.075 | 0.115 |
| Tyrosine (Tyr) | 1.63 | 2.72 | 2.53 | 0.035 | 0.083 |
| Phenylalanine (Phe) | 3.32 | 3.49 | 3.39 | 0.038 | 0.197 |
| Lysine (Lys) | 7.42 b | 7.90 a | 7.57 ab | 0.082 | 0.045 |
| Histidine (His) | 2.93 | 5.35 | 5.03 | 0.058 | 0.139 |
| Arginine (Arp) | 5.14 | 3.81 | 3.72 | 0.059 | 0.065 |
| Proline (Pro) | 3.30 b | 7.88 a | 7.58 a | 0.082 | <0.001 |
| TAA | 75.5 b | 80.6 a | 77.5 ab | 1.31 | 0.028 |
| EAA | 33.7 | 35.4 | 33.9 | 0.62 | 0.106 |
| NEAA | 38.8 b | 42.1 a | 40.7 ab | 0.66 | 0.005 |
| LAA | 9.63 | 10.25 | 9.83 | 0.178 | 0.057 |
| BCAA | 14.4 | 15.0 | 14.3 | 0.26 | 0.134 |
| DAA | 35.4 b | 37.9 a | 36.5 ab | 0.61 | 0.021 |
| FAA | 23.7 b | 25.2 a | 23.8 ab | 0.45 | 0.049 |
| EAA:NEAA | 0.868 a | 0.841 b | 0.833 b | 0.0054 | <0.001 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Khattab, M.S.A.; Cao, P.; Zhang, S.; Liu, Y.; Li, T.; Tang, S.; Wang, S.; Tan, Z. Mulberry Silage as Alternative to Soybean Meal Protein in Ruminant Diet: Effect on Growth Performance, Digestion, Antioxidant Capacity, and Carcass Characteristics of Goats. Animals 2026, 16, 787. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16050787
Khattab MSA, Cao P, Zhang S, Liu Y, Li T, Tang S, Wang S, Tan Z. Mulberry Silage as Alternative to Soybean Meal Protein in Ruminant Diet: Effect on Growth Performance, Digestion, Antioxidant Capacity, and Carcass Characteristics of Goats. Animals. 2026; 16(5):787. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16050787
Chicago/Turabian StyleKhattab, Mostafa S. A., Pengfei Cao, Songbai Zhang, Yong Liu, Tiejun Li, Shaoxun Tang, Shuiping Wang, and Zhiliang Tan. 2026. "Mulberry Silage as Alternative to Soybean Meal Protein in Ruminant Diet: Effect on Growth Performance, Digestion, Antioxidant Capacity, and Carcass Characteristics of Goats" Animals 16, no. 5: 787. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16050787
APA StyleKhattab, M. S. A., Cao, P., Zhang, S., Liu, Y., Li, T., Tang, S., Wang, S., & Tan, Z. (2026). Mulberry Silage as Alternative to Soybean Meal Protein in Ruminant Diet: Effect on Growth Performance, Digestion, Antioxidant Capacity, and Carcass Characteristics of Goats. Animals, 16(5), 787. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16050787

