Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition >

2025 , Vol. 37 >Issue 11: 7708 - 7718

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12418/CJAN2025.626

RESEARCH PAPER

Effects of Different Proportions of Grape Stem on Growth Performance, Nutrient Apparent Digestibility and Serum Indexes of Sheep

  • Mirizhati Aireti , 1 ,
  • WANG Lianqun 2 ,
  • ZHANG Junyu , 1, * ,
  • JIAO Yongcheng 3 ,
  • HE Yunkai 2 ,
  • ZHANG Yu 2 ,
  • LI Jie 2
Expand
  • 1 Feed Research Institute, Xinjiang Academy of Animal Science, Urumqi 830000, China
  • 2 College of Animal Science and Technology, Tarim University, Alar 843300, China
  • 3 Animal Husbandry Station, Yizhou District, Hami 839000, China
*professor, E-mail:

Received date: 2025-03-31

  Online published: 2025-11-14

Fold

Abstract

This experiment aimed to investigate the effects of adding different proportions of grape stems (GS) to diets on the growth performance, nutrient apparent digestibility and serum indexes of sheep. Fouty 4- to 6-month-old male Kazakh sheep with an average body weight of (33.76±4.27) kg were randomly divided into 4 groups, with 10 replicates in each group and 1 sheep in each replicate. Four experimental diets were supplemented with 0 (CK group), 5% (group A), 10% (group B) and 20% (group C) of GS. The whole experiment lasted for 56 days, including a 7-day pre-trial period, a 42-day formal trial period and a 7-day digestion and metabolism trial period (days 50 to 56 of experiment). The results showed as follows: 1) the final weight, average daily gain (ADG) and dry matter intake (DMI) of group B were the highest, which were 8.40% (P<0.05), 30.00% (P<0.05) and 17.78% (P<0.05) higher than those of group C, respectively, and 4.04% (P>0.05), 11.34% (P>0.05) and 11.58% (P>0.05) higher than those of the CK group, respectively. 2) The apparent digestibility of crude protein (CP) in group C was significantly lower than that in the CK group, group A and group B (P<0.05), and the apparent digestibility of ether extract (EE) was significantly lower than that in the CK group, group A and group B (P<0.05). 3) The serum total protein (TP) content in group A, group B and group C was 4.30% (P>0.05), 3.64% (P>0.05) and 5.01% (P<0.05) higher than that in the CK group, respectively, and the serum urea nitrogen (UN) content was 4.90% (P>0.05), 12.87% (P>0.05) and 22.08% (P<0.05) higher than that in the CK group, respectively. The serum immunoglobulin A (IgA) content in group A, group B and group C was extremely significantly higher than that in the CK group (P<0.01), and the serum immunoglobulin M (IgM) content was significantly higher than that in the CK group (P<0.05); the serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) content in group B and group C was significantly higher than that in the CK group (P<0.05). With the increase of the proportion of GS in the diet, the serum total antioxidant capacity (T-AOC) and the activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD), glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px) and catalase (CAT) were extremely significantly increased (P<0.01), and the serum malondialdehyde (MDA) content was extremely significantly decreased (P<0.01). Under the conditions of this experiment, adding GS to the diet can improve the immunity and antioxidant capacity of sheep, but a too high proportion will reduce the growth performance and apparent digestibility of nutrients of sheep. The appropriate proportion of GS in the diet for sheep is 5% to 10%.

Key words： grape stem; sheep; growth performance; nutrient apparent digestibility; serum indexes

Cite this article

Mirizhati Aireti , WANG Lianqun , ZHANG Junyu , JIAO Yongcheng , HE Yunkai , ZHANG Yu , LI Jie . Effects of Different Proportions of Grape Stem on Growth Performance, Nutrient Apparent Digestibility and Serum Indexes of Sheep[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2025 , 37(11) : 7708 -7718 . DOI: 10.12418/CJAN2025.626

随着我国草食家畜养殖数量的增加,非常规饲料资源的开发利用成为降低饲料成本和解决饲草不足问题的重要措施之一[1-2],其中不乏苹果渣、柑橘果皮、番茄果渣等较为优质的饲料[3-4]。美国农业部(USDA)2023—2024年度报告显示:全球葡萄产量约为2 852.5万t,中国、印度、土耳其是世界葡萄生产、消费及出口的3个主要国家,我国每年可产葡萄1 350万t,占世界葡萄总产量的48%。2023年新疆葡萄产量347.66万t,占全国总产的21.51%[5]。葡萄副产物主要包括葡萄的枝条、皮渣和葡萄梗等,其中葡萄梗是连接果实的细茎,主要在葡萄干加工过程产生,约占葡萄串总重量的3%~6%[6]。葡萄副产物中除含有常规营养物质外,还含有多酚类化合物、膳食纤维、不饱和脂肪酸以及维生素等多种功能性物质[7-9],具有一定的营养价值和适口性[10],这为后续开展葡萄副产物饲料化利用研究提供了科学依据[11]。研究显示,在猪、鸡、水产动物养殖中使用葡萄皮渣[12]、葡萄籽[13]和葡萄籽提取物[14]具有提高生产性能、改善肠道健康等方面的作用。据报道,饲粮中添加葡萄渣可以显著提高断奶前羔羊的日增重[15],改善肉牛肠道健康并提高饲料转化效率[16];饲粮中使用葡萄藤枝叶可显著提高绵羊的生长性能[17]。然而,关于葡萄副产物饲料化利用的研究主要为葡萄渣和葡萄枝条,目前尚未发现关于葡萄梗在反刍动物生产中应用研究的相关报道。因此,本试验通过在饲粮中添加不同比例的葡萄梗,研究其对绵羊生长性能、营养物质表观消化率及血清生化指标的影响,为葡萄梗在绵羊生产实践中的科学利用提供理论依据。

1 材料与方法

1.1 试验材料

试验所用葡萄梗购自新疆哈密市豫新丰合牧业发展有限公司,其营养成分和单宁含量见表1。通过广泛靶向代谢组学鉴定发现,葡萄梗中主要包括黄酮类(15.5%)、萜类(11.6%)、有机酸(9.8%)、糖及醇类(8.9%)、氨基酸(8.1%)、生物碱(7.6%)、多酚(6.6%)、脂质(6.6%)等17类代谢物(图1)。
表1 葡萄梗中营养成分及单宁含量(风干基础)

Table 1 Nutritional components and tannin contents of grape stem (air-dry basis)%

项目
Item		 干物质
DM		 粗蛋
白质
CP		 有机物
OM		 粗脂肪
EE		 中性洗
涤纤维
NDF		 酸性洗
涤纤维
ADF		 总能
GE/
(MJ/kg)		 单宁
Tannin
葡萄梗Grape stem 93.37 10.50 91.51 0.53 50.08 38.36 14.88 9.80
图1 葡萄梗中代谢物种类与占比

基于LC-QTRAP平台的广泛靶向代谢组检测,包括建库、测序及相关检测,由北京百迈客生物科技有限公司完成。

Fig.1 Proportions and species of t metabolite in grape stem

The extensive targeted metabolomics detection based on the LC-QTRAP platform, including library construction, sequencing, and related analyses, were carried out by Beijing Baimaike Biotechnology Co., Ltd.

1.2 试验设计

本试验获得了新疆畜牧科学院伦理委员会的批准(XKYSLS-2024-003)。选择40只体况良好、平均体重为(33.76±4.27) kg的4~6月龄哈萨克公羊,驱虫后随机分为4组,每组10个重复,每个重复1只。参照我国农业行业标准《肉羊营养需要量》(NY/T 816—2021)[18]中的营养需求配制试验饲粮并制成颗粒料(直径=6 mm),其中对照组(CK组)饲粮中不含葡萄梗,试验组饲粮是在CK组饲粮配方基础上分别以5%(A组)、10%(B组)和20%(C组)葡萄梗替代部分粗饲料。试验饲粮组成及营养水平见表2。
表2 试验饲粮组成及营养水平(干物质基础)

Table 2 Composition and nutrient levels of experimental diets (DM basis)%

项目
Items		 组别Groups
CK A B C
原料Ingredients
玉米Corn 26.00 26.00 26.00 26.00
麸皮Wheat bran 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
棉籽粕Cottonseed meal 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00
豆粕Soybean meal 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
预混料Premix1) 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
碳酸氢钠NaHCO3 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
食盐NaCl 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
棉花秸秆Cotton straw 29.90 29.90 29.90 29.90
玉米秸秆Corn straw 10.00 5.00
小麦秸秆Wheat straw 10.00 10.00 10.00 4.00
苜蓿干草Alfalfa hay 8.00 8.00 8.00 4.00
葡萄梗Grape stem 5.00 10.00 20.00
合计Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
营养水平Nutrient levels2)
代谢能ME/(MJ/kg) 7.43 7.56 7.69 7.90
粗蛋白质CP 11.44 10.28 11.48 11.13
粗灰分Ash 9.55 9.42 8.88 9.05
钙Ca 0.76 0.73 0.69 0.70
磷P 0.28 0.29 0.31 0.30
中性洗涤纤维NDF 43.65 43.69 42.16 45.08
酸性洗涤纤维ADF 25.32 26.51 24.62 26.11
粗脂肪EE 1.84 1.47 1.78 1.19

1)预混料为每千克饲粮提供The premix provided the following per kg of diets:VA 780 IU,VD3 20 IU,VE 0.23 mg,生物素 biotin 0.16 mg,泛酸 pantothenic acid 4.2 mg,烟酸 nicotinic acid 8 mg,Cu 2.4 mg,Fe 21 mg,Mn 8 mg,Zn 17 mg,I 0.4 mg,Se 0.13 mg。

2)代谢能参考NY/T 816—2021[18]计算得出,其余为实测值。ME was calculated according to NY/T 816—2021[18], while others were measured values.

试验动物饲养在相同环境的圈舍内。试验饲粮制成颗粒料(直径=6 mm)后饲喂,每日于09:00和19:00各饲喂1次,保持剩料量占饲喂量5%以上,圈内及运动场定期消毒(10 d/次),自由采食和饮水。试验全期56 d,其中预试期7 d,正试期42 d,消化代谢试验期7 d(试验第50~56天)。

1.3 测定指标与方法

1.3.1 常规营养成分和单宁含量

分别参照GB/T 6435—2014、GB/T 6432—2018、GB/T 20806—2006、GB/T 1459—2022、GB/T 6438—2007、GB/T 6436—2018、GB/T 6437—2018测定样品中干物质(DM)、粗蛋白质(CP)、中性洗涤纤维(NDF)、酸性洗涤纤维(ADF)、粗灰分(Ash)[有机物(OM)=100-Ash]、钙(Ca)、磷(P)含量。按照GB/T 27985—2011,用丙酮溶液提取样品中的单宁,加入钨酸钠-磷钼酸混合溶液和碳酸钠溶液显色,用分光光度计在760 nm波长处测定吸光度,通过标准曲线计算单宁含量。

1.3.2 生长性能

正式试验开始后每天记录每组试验羊的饲喂量和剩料量,并按10%的比例采集饲粮和剩料样品,最后将采集的全部饲粮和剩料样品分别混匀后,按四分法取样,并-20 ℃冻存用于常规营养指标分析。每周连续3 d测定1次干物质采食量(DMI),依据饲喂量和剩料量以及饲粮和剩料的DM含量按照如下公式计算:
M=[(G×D)-(L×S)]/(C×d)[19]。
式中:M为干物质采食量(kg/d);G为饲喂量(kg);D为饲粮DM含量(%);L为剩料量(kg);S为剩料DM含量(%);C为羊数(只);d为天数(d)。
分别在正试第1、42天晨饲前对每只试验羊进行空腹称重,记为初重和末重,平均日增重按照以下公式计算:
A=E/d。
式中:A为平均日增重(g/d);E为统计期内每只羊增重(g);d为试验天数(d)。

1.3.3 营养物质表观消化率

于试验第50天,在每组中分别随机选取6只羊穿戴收粪袋进行消化代谢试验,适应3 d后,采用全收粪法收集24 h的粪样[20],连续收集4 d,于每日晨饲前收集粪样并称重、记录数据,计为前1天的排粪量,每日称取总粪量的10%,试验结束后将所收集粪样均匀混合,采用四分法取粪样500 g,随后放置于65 ℃的烘箱中烘48 h,达到恒重状态,再次称重以计算粪样的初水分。完成初水分测定后,将烘干的粪样进行粉碎,并通过40目筛,置于自封袋中,用于后续测定营养成分含量。营养物质的表观消化率用饲粮养分摄入量与粪便养分排出量之差占饲粮养分摄入量的百分比表示[21],具体计算公式如下:
A(%)=[(B-C)/B]×100。
式中:A为饲粮中某营养物质的表观消化率;B为食入该营养物质的重量;C为粪中该营养物质的重量。

1.3.4 血清指标

于正试期第42天晨饲前每只羊,空腹条件下采用一次性真空采血管采集前腔静脉血液,血液样品于799×g离心15 min,将上清液转移至EP管中,-20 ℃冰箱保存待测。血清生化、免疫和抗氧化指标采用比色法检测,所用试剂盒购自中生北控股份有限公司,在北京华英生物技术研究所使用全自动生化分析仪(迈瑞 BS-420)进行检测。

1.4 数据统计与分析

使用Excel 2019对试验数据进行初步整理后,采用SAS 9.0统计软件进行单因素方差分析,并采用Tukey's法进行多重比较,显著水平为P<0.05,极显著水平为P<0.01。

2 结果

2.1 不同比例葡萄梗对绵羊生长性能的影响

由表3可知,试验羊末重以B组最重,比CK组、A组和C组分别提高了4.04%(P>0.05)、6.07%(P>0.05)和8.40%(P<0.05);3个试验组的ADG与CK组之间差异不显著(P>0.05),C组的ADG显著低于B组(P<0.05);DMI以B组最高,3个试验组与CK组之间差异不显著(P>0.05),但B组显著高于C组(P<0.05)。
表3 不同比例葡萄梗对绵羊生长性能的影响

Table 3 Effects of different proportions of grape stem on growth performance of sheep

项目
Items		 组别Groups P值
P-value
CK A B C
初重Initial weight/kg 34.62±1.81 34.94±1.45 35.14±1.87 34.71±1.93 0.371
末重Final weight/kg 44.03±1.06ab 43.19±1.99ab 45.81±0.78a 42.26±1.66b 0.032
平均日增重ADG/(g/d) 233.14±0.05ab 249.78±0.11ab 259.57±0.06a 199.86±0.07b 0.048
干物质采食量DMI/(kg/d) 1.90±0.07ab 1.90±0.06ab 2.12±0.13a 1.80±0.12b 0.041

同行数据肩标无字母或相同小写字母表示差异不显著(P>0.05),不同小写字母表示差异显著(P<0.05),不同大写字母表示差异极显著(P<0.01)。下表同。

In the same row, values with no letter or the same small letter superscripts mean no significant difference (P>0.05), while with different small letter superscripts mean significant difference (P<0.05), and with different capital letter superscripts mean significant difference (P<0.01). The same as below.

2.2 不同比例葡萄梗对绵羊营养物质表观消化率的影响

由表4可知,CP和EE表观消化率均以C组最低,其中CP表观消化率极显著低于CK组、A组和B组(P<0.01),EE表观消化率显著低于CK组、A组和B组(P<0.05),其他组间差异不显著(P>0.05);DM、OM、NDF和ADF表观消化率各组间均无显著差异(P>0.05)。
表4 不同比例葡萄梗对绵羊营养物质表观消化率的影响

Table 4 Effects of different proportions of grape stem on nutrient apparent digestibility of sheep%

项目
Items		 组别Groups P值
P-value
CK A B C
干物质DM 61.16±0.88 61.18±3.26 63.12±1.70 60.93±2.34 0.875
有机物OM 50.09±1.15 45.74±3.56 43.14±5.52 45.02±5.28 0.295
粗蛋白质CP 62.20±1.37Aa 56.46±3.87Aa 60.10±0.61Aa 45.16±4.70Bb <0.001
酸性洗涤纤维ADF 30.12±1.98 26.96±6.52 23.18±3.30 22.04±3.07 0.794
中性洗涤纤维NDF 41.63±1.62 37.26±5.80 37.10±2.59 32.57±4.40 0.467
粗脂肪EE 58.72±3.88a 60.45±2.26a 62.97±2.06a 56.41±6.10b 0.046

2.3 不同比例葡萄梗对绵羊血清指标的影响

2.3.1 不同比例葡萄梗对绵羊血清生化指标的影响

由表5可知,饲粮中添加葡萄梗提高了血清中总蛋白(TP)和尿素氮(UN)含量,A组、B组和C组的血清TP含量分别比CK组提高4.30%(P>0.05)、3.64%(P>0.05)和5.01%(P<0.05),血清UN含量分别比CK组提高4.90%(P>0.05)、12.87%(P>0.05)和22.08%(P<0.05);血清其他生化指标各组间无显著差异(P>0.05)。
表5 不同比例葡萄梗对绵羊血清生化指标的影响

Table 5 Effects of different proportions of grape stem on serum biochemical indexes of sheep

项目
Items		 组别Groups P值
P-value
CK A B C
总蛋白TP/(g/L) 66.45±2.38b 69.31±3.15ab 68.87±2.75ab 69.78±3.73a 0.041
白蛋白ALB/(g/L) 33.00±1.26 34.45±1.64 33.19±3.05 33.74±2.08 0.426
球蛋白GLO/(g/L) 33.45±3.40 34.85±2.63 35.68±2.61 36.04±4.65 0.347
白蛋白/球蛋白A/G 1.00±0.14 0.99±1.10 0.94±0.13 0.95±0.14 0.641
总胆固醇TC/(mmol/L) 1.56±0.16 1.71±0.27 1.59±0.34 1.66±0.17 0.564
甘油三酯TG/(mmol/L) 0.29±0.05 0.31±0.09 0.26±0.06 0.28±0.05 0.428
谷草转氨酶AST/(U/L) 165.31±29.43 181.91±23.93 169.43±33.21 164.98±25.60 0.510
谷丙转氨酶ALT/(U/L) 30.47±6.09 29.52±6.04 29.25±8.06 27.27±5.07 0.731
葡萄糖GLU/(mmol/L) 4.39±0.84 4.21±0.66 4.13±0.72 3.77±0.47 0.245
尿素氮UN/(mg/dL) 19.66±3.48b 20.62±2.29ab 22.19±4.44ab 24.00±3.62a 0.012
乳酸脱氢酶LDH/(U/L) 637.35±109.26 635.66±138.18 680.87±75.62 646.80±121.12 0.792
碱性磷酸酶ALP/(U/L) 327.69±75.41 309.75±91.16 366.40±125.96 319.87±53.32 0.533
钙Ca/(mmol/L) 2.25±0.27 2.54±0.21 2.31±0.45 2.30±0.22 0.157
磷P/(mmol/L) 2.67±0.62 2.75±0.30 2.98±0.75 2.74±0.55 0.230

2.3.2 不同比例葡萄梗对绵羊血清免疫指标的影响

由表6可知,A组、B组和C组血清免疫球蛋白A(IgA)含量较CK组极显著提高(P<0.01),3个试验组之间血清IgA含量差异不显著(P>0.05);B组和C组血清免疫球蛋白G(IgG)含量显著高于CK组(P<0.05),A组与CK组以及3个试验组之间差异不显著(P>0.05);A组、B组和C组血清免疫球蛋白M(IgM)含量均显著高于CK组(P<0.05),3个试验组之间差异不显著(P>0.05)。
表6 不同比例葡萄梗对绵羊血清免疫指标的影响

Table 6 Effects of different proportions of grape stem on serum immune indexes of sheepg/L

项目
Items		 组别Groups P值
P-value
CK A B C
免疫球蛋白A IgA 0.58±0.07Bb 0.68±0.09Aa 0.72±0.05Aa 0.73±0.08Aa <0.001
免疫球蛋白G IgG 19.01±2.07b 21.11±2.84ab 21.91±3.09a 22.47±2.83a 0.043
免疫球蛋白M IgM 1.05±0.14b 1.19±0.16a 1.66±0.11a 1.25±0.14a 0.019

2.3.3 不同比例葡萄梗对绵羊血清抗氧化指标的影响

由表7可知,与CK组相比,A组、B组和C组血清总抗氧化能力(T-AOC)和过氧化物酶(CAT)活性均极显著提高(P<0.01),3个试验组之间表现为C组极显著高于A组、B组(P<0.01),B组极显著高于A组(P<0.01);相比于CK组,A组、B组和C组血清超氧化物歧化酶(SOD)活性极显著提高(P<0.01),此外,C组还极显著高于A组、B组(P<0.01),A组和B组之间差异不显著(P>0.05);B组和C组血清谷胱甘肽过氧化物酶(GSH-Px)活性极显著高于CK组和A组(P<0.01),C组还极显著高于B组(P<0.01),A组与CK组之间差异不显著(P>0.05);B组和C组血清丙二醛(MDA)含量极显著低于CK组和A组(P<0.01),C组还极显著低于B组(P<0.01),A组与CK组之间差异不显著(P>0.05)。
表7 不同比例葡萄梗对绵羊血清抗氧化指标的影响

Table 7 Effects of different proportions of grape stem on serum antioxidant indexes of sheep

项目
Items		 组别Groups P值
P-value
CK A B C
总抗氧化能力T-AOC/(U/mL) 5.94±0.34D 6.80±0.56C 7.36±0.53B 7.99±0.34A <0.001
超氧化物歧化酶SOD/(U/mL) 65.13±5.60Cc 73.28±5.09Bb 79.33±10.54Bb 86.01±5.99Aa <0.001
谷胱甘肽过氧化物酶
GSH-Px/(U/mL)		 129.32±6.83Cc 137.67±19.55Cc 149.88±7.65Bb 166.58±16.26Aa <0.001
过氧化氢酶CAT/(U/mL) 27.89±4.31D 32.07±4.64C 36.68±4.28B 40.95±3.73A <0.001
丙二醛MDA/(nmol/mL) 3.96±0.20Aa 3.61±0.33Aa 2.97±0.22Bb 2.79±0.09Cc <0.001

3 讨论

3.1 不同比例葡萄梗对绵羊生长性能的影响

DMI和ADG是用来评估饲粮养分摄入和动物生产效率的2个重要指标。DMI是衡量动物采食情况的主要指标,与动物生产性能的发挥直接相关。ADG是衡量动物生长速率的指标,特别是在育肥阶段[22-23]。研究发现,用葡萄渣替代饲粮中10%~30%干草后,羔羊ADG显著提高[24];饲粮中添加10%葡萄渣替代后,羔羊DMI和ADG得到提高[25]。另有研究报道,用葡萄渣替代饲粮中10%~30%苜蓿对羔羊DMI、ADG没有显著影响[26];在羔羊饲粮中添加12.2%晒干红葡萄果渣对肉品质没有负面影响[27]。研究显示,在绵羊饲粮中添加0.6 g/(只·d)葡萄籽提取物(主要成分:原花青素50%、儿茶素24%、没食子酸16%和表儿茶素6%)ADG提高14.91%,DMI提高6.07%[28];在肉犊牛饲粮中添加4 g/(只·d)上述葡萄籽提取物,ADG提高7.43%、DMI提高2.12%[29]。此外,李成会等[30]报道,用葡萄藤颗粒饲料代替饲粮中55.4%的小麦秸秆和高粱秸秆,肉牛ADG提高25.74%,料重比降低23.95%,日均经济效益增加8.81元/头。上述研究表明,饲粮中添加约10%的葡萄副产物可以提高反刍动物的生长性能,这与本研究的结果基本类似。本试验中,添加10%葡萄梗组的绵羊末重、ADG、DMI均最高。这可能是由于葡萄梗能够提高胃肠道有益菌的数量,改善肠道微生态,促进淀粉、短链脂肪酸代谢以及肠道氨基酸和B族维生素的生物合成,相比于小麦秸秆和玉米秸秆,葡萄梗营养物质种类较为丰富、含量较高,能更好地满足动物生长的营养需要[31];同时,葡萄梗中含有的黄酮等功能性物质,可以增强动物机体的抗氧化能力,调节免疫反应,改善健康状况,从而促进动物的生长[32],这可能也是添加10%葡萄梗组ADG最高的原因之一。本试验中,添加20%葡萄梗组绵羊的ADG最低,这可能是由于DMI降低所致。在制粒过程中发现,含20%葡萄梗的颗粒饲料硬度明显高于其他饲粮,葡萄梗中有未完全分离的葡萄干,含有一定糖分,制粒过程中产生的高温使糖分融解后增加了物料的粘连性,并且溶解的糖分还能起到润滑的作用,可能会使进入制粒模具的物料量高于其他饲粮,最终导致颗粒饲料硬度增强,适口性降低,进而减少了动物的采食量[33-34]。此外,饲粮中添加不同比例葡萄梗后经济效益从高到低为A组117.63元/只、B组111.04元/只、CK组89.39元/只、C组36.72元/只。从经济效益的角度来看,饲粮中添加5%~10%葡萄梗能有效降低养殖成本而增加经济收益。

3.2 不同比例葡萄梗对绵羊营养物质表观消化率的影响

营养物质表观消化率是衡量饲粮可消化性和动物消化能力的重要指标。DM和OM的表观消化率反映了饲料可消化水平的高低,二者的表观消化率越高,则饲料的营养价值越好,利用率越高[35]。已有研究表明,饲粮中添加适宜比例的葡萄副产物可改善羔羊胃肠微生态环境并提高饲料的消化率[8],过量的葡萄副产物则会降低饲粮的消化率[36]。李会菊等[37]报道,在小尾寒羊母羊饲粮中添加8%的葡萄渣后,CP和能量表观消化率分别提高57.20%和68.85%,这可能是由于适量葡萄渣能增强小肠对过瘤胃蛋白质的消化能力,提高氮的利用率[38]。另据Li等[16]报道,给安格斯牛饲喂分别含0(对照组)、10%和20%葡萄渣替代青贮玉米的饲粮时,20%葡萄渣组EE表观消化率比对照组和10%葡萄渣组下降30.17%、28.14%。单宁等抗营养因子是影响饲料中营养物质消化利用的重要物质。卢珍珍[39]在给羔羊饲喂含0(对照组)、8%、16%和24%葡萄渣(缩合单宁含量分别为0、1.5、3.0和4.5 g/kg)的饲粮时发现,24%葡萄渣组氮、ADF表观消化率显著低于对照组,较对照组分别降低9.88%和13.37%。饲粮中单宁含量不宜过高,其能与消化道内多种酶结合,使其失活后导致营养物质不能被充分吸收并减少氮的利用效率,改变瘤胃中挥发性脂肪酸(VFA)的组成和比例[40],进而影响反刍动物对饲粮中营养物质的消化和代谢[41]。在反刍动物生产中,适量单宁能够与饲粮中的蛋白质结合后形成过瘤胃蛋白质,从而保护蛋白质不被瘤胃微生物降解,并能减少瘤胃鼓气的发生[42-43]。上述研究表明,在反刍动物饲粮中添加5%~10%的葡萄副产物对营养物质表观消化率有积极影响,但过量则会降低营养物质表观消化率,这可能是过量单宁对瘤胃微生物群落产生了负面影响,尤其是对瘤胃微生物区系的稳定性,进而降低营养物质表观消化率[44-45]。与本研究结果与上述研究结果基本类似,本试验中添加20%葡萄渣的饲粮中单宁含量为19.6 g/kg,这可能是营养物质表观消化率最低的原因之一。

3.3 不同比例葡萄梗对绵羊血清指标的影响

葡萄副产物不仅作为天然抗氧化剂的来源,对改善血液指标也可能具有潜在的健康益处[33,46]。Voicu等[47]给育肥牛饲喂含20%葡萄干渣的饲粮后发现,血清中UN含量显著高于不含葡萄干渣的对照组。金亚倩等[25]研究了葡萄渣对绵羊血清生化指标的影响,发现饲粮中添加10%葡萄渣能显著提高绵羊血清高密度脂蛋白胆固醇(HDL-C)含量和T-AOC。Ma等[29]研究发现,饲粮中添加4 g/(头·d)葡萄籽提取物后,与未添加葡萄籽提取物的对照组相比,能够显著提高犊牛血清中CAT、SOD活性和T-AOC,显著降低血清中MDA含量,并使血清中IgA、IgG、IgM含量分别提高5.58%、6.54%和7.26%,表明葡萄籽提取物可改善犊牛的抗氧化能力和免疫力。Antunovi c '等[48]报道,给美利奴羔羊饲喂含20%无籽葡萄渣的饲粮后,其血液中SOD和GSH-Px活性显著提升。上述研究表明,不同品种和年龄的牛或羊饲粮中添加葡萄副产物及葡萄籽提取物后,能够提高其抗氧化能力和免疫能力,对常规血清生化指标整体上没有显著影响。本试验结果与此类似,这可能是由于葡萄梗中含有黄酮、多酚、原花青素和白藜芦醇等物质,这些物质具有抗氧化和抗炎作用,能够改善脂质代谢[49-51]。

4 结论

在本试验条件下,饲粮中添加葡萄梗能够提高绵羊的免疫力和抗氧化能力,但添加过量会降低绵羊的生长性能和营养物质表观消化率,其适宜添加比例为5%~10%。

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]
LOURENCO J M, DILORENZO N, STELZLENI A M, et al. Use of by-product feeds to decrease feed cost while maintaining performance of developing beef bulls[J]. The Professional Animal Scientist, 2016, 32(3):287-294.

[2]
KALLI E, LAPPA I, BOUCHAGIER P, et al. Novel application and industrial exploitation of winery by-products[J]. Bioresources and Bioprocessing, 2018, 5(1):46.

[3]
JALAL H, GIAMMARCO M, LANZONI L, et al. Potential of fruits and vegetable by-products as an alternative feed source for sustainable ruminant nutrition and production:a review[J]. Agriculture, 2023,13:286.

[4]
SALAS-MILLÁN J Á, AGUAYO E. Fermentation for revalorisation of fruit and vegetable by-products:a sustainable approach towards minimising food loss and waste[J]. Foods, 2024, 13(22):3680.

[5]
中华人民共和国国家统计局. 国家数据:葡萄种植面积及产量[EB/OL]. (2023-08-15)[2025-03-01]. http://data.stats.gov.cn.

National Bureau of Statistics of the People's Republic of China. National data:grape planting area and output[EB/OL]. (2023-08-15)[2025-03-01]. http://data.stats.gov.cn. (in Chinese)

[6]
MANGIONE R, SIMÕES R, PEREIRA H, et al. Potential use of grape stems and pomaces from two red grapevine cultivars as source of oligosaccharides[J]. Processes, 2022, 10(9):1896.

[7]
SERNA-LOAIZA S, KORNPOINTNER C, PAZZAGLI A, et al. Biorefinery concept for the valorization of grapevine shoots:study case for the Austrian variety Grüner Veltliner[J]. Food and Bioproducts Processing, 2022,136:154-165.

[8]
CHENG X D, DU X, LIANG Y P, et al. Effect of grape pomace supplement on growth performance,gastrointestinal microbiota,and methane production in Tan lambs[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2023,14:1264840.

[9]
XIA E Q, DENG G F, GUO Y J, et al. Biological activities of polyphenols from grapes[J]. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2010, 11(2):622-646.

[10]
MARTIN D S, DIBARRURI J, LUENGO N, et al. Evaluation of valorisation strategies to improve grape stems' nutritional value as an ingredient for ruminants' diets[J]. Sustainability, 2023, 15(15):11951.

[11]
CATALKAYA G, VENEMA K, LUCINI L, et al. Interaction of dietary polyphenols and gut microbiota:microbial metabolism of polyphenols,influence on the gut microbiota,and implications on host health[J]. Food Frontiers, 2020, 1(2):109-133.

[12]
COSTA M M, ALFAIA C M, LOPES P A, et al. Grape by-products as feedstuff for pig and poultry production[J]. Animals, 2022, 12(17):2239.

[13]
QUAGLIARDI M, FRAPICCINI E, MARINI M, et al. Use of grape by-products in aquaculture:new frontiers for a circular economy application[J]. Heliyon, 2024, 10(5):e27717.

[14]
MOUSAVI S, SHEIKHZADEH N, TAYEFI-NASRABADI H, et al. Administration of grape (Vitis vinifera) seed extract to rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) modulates growth performance,some biochemical parameters,and antioxidant-relevant gene expression[J]. Fish Physiology and Biochemistry, 2020, 46(3):777-786.

[15]
KAFANTARIS I, KOTSAMPASI B, CHRISTODOULOU V, et al. Effects of dietary grape pomace supplementation on performance,carcass traits and meat quality of lambs[J]. In Vivo, 2018, 32(4):807-812.

[16]
LI Y Q, SHI C X, DENG J J, et al. Effects of grape pomace on growth performance,nitrogen metabolism,antioxidants,and microbial diversity in Angus bulls[J]. Antioxidants, 2024, 13(4):412.

[17]
杜新形, 李保国, 肖凤梅. 葡萄藤枝叶资源及饲养试验[J]. 畜牧兽医科学(电子版), 2019(1):19-20.

DU X X, LI B G, XIAO F M. Resources of grapevine branches and leaves and feeding experiment[J]. Graziery Veterinary Sciences (Electronic Edition), 2019(1):19-20. (in Chinese)

[18]
中华人民共和国农业农村部.肉羊营养需要量:NY/T816—2021[S]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2021.

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of the People's Republic of China.Nutritional requirements of meat sheep:NY/T816—2021[S]. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2021. (in Chinese)

[19]
DEMARQUILLY C, CHENOST M, GIGER-REVERDIN S. Pertes fécales et digestibilité des aliments et des rations[C]// JARRIGE R, RUCKEBUSCHY, DEMARQUILLYC, et al. Nutrition des ruminants domestiques:ingestion et digestion. Paris: INRA Éditions,1995:601-647.

[20]
MUNKSGAARD L, WEISBJERG M R, HENRIKSEN J S, et al. Changes to steps,lying,and eating behavior during lactation in jersey and Holstein cows and the relationship to feed intake,yield,and weight[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2020, 103(5):4643-4653.

[21]
ADEOLA O. Digestion and balance techniques in pigs[M]. 2nd ed.Washington, D. C.:CRC Press,2000:903-916.

[22]
DE FEYTER H M, BEHAR K L, CORBIN Z A, et al. Deuterium metabolic imaging (DMI) for MRI-based 3D mapping of metabolism in vivo[J].Science Advances, 2018, 4(8):eaat7314.

[23]
LIPPKE H. Forage characteristics related to intake,digestibility and gain by ruminants[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 1980, 50(5):952-961.

[24]
AMARAL F P, GRAZZIOTIN R C B, MACHADO M C, et al. Limits of grape byproduct inclusion in diets for lambs:zinc supplementation to prevent copper poisoning[J]. Research in Veterinary Science, 2019,124:334-337.

[25]
金亚倩, 郝松华, 赵俊星, 等. 日粮中添加葡萄皮渣对绵羊生长性能、器官指数及血液生化指标的影响[J]. 中国畜牧兽医, 2016, 43(9):2326-2332.

JIN Y Q, HAO S H, ZHAO J X, et al. Effect of dietary grape pomace on growth performance,organ index and blood biochemical indexes in sheep[J]. China Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Medicine, 2016, 43(9):2326-2332. (in Chinese)

[26]
CELAYA Y P, PETRIZ C Y, CALDERON C J, et al. Influence of substitution of alfalfa hay for unfermented dried grape pomace on performance and carcass characteristics of growing sheep[J]. Western Section, 2010,61:308.

[27]
CHIKWANHA O C, MUCHEN V, NOLTE J E, et al. Grape pomace supplementation in lamb diets:effects on growth performance,carcass and meat quality[J]. Meat Science, 2019,147:6-12.

[28]
MA J, LI T, LIN L, et al. Effects of grape seed extract supplementation on the growth performance,nutrients digestion and immunity of weaned lambs[J]. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 2024,11:1402637.

[29]
MA J, FAN X, ZHANG W J, et al. Grape seed extract as a feed additive improves the growth performance,ruminal fermentation and immunity of weaned beef calves[J]. Animals, 2023, 13(11):1876.

[30]
李成会, 蔡玉梅, 仲伟仓. 葡萄藤颗粒饲料对肉牛生长的影响[J]. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2017(8):181-182.

LI C H, CAI Y M, ZHONG W C. Effects of grapevine pellet feed on growth of beef cattle[J]. Heilongjiang Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2017(8):181-182. (in Chinese)

[31]
CARTA S, CHESSA R, RUBATTU R, et al. The use of grape by-products as a feed additive enhances the oxidative stability of rabbit meat[J]. Veterinary Sciences, 2025, 12(2):148.

[32]
杨硕, 徐元庆, 邢媛媛, 等. 植物源黄酮类化合物对动物免疫和抗氧化功能影响的研究进展[J]. 动物营养学报, 2019, 31(7):2958-2964.

YANG S, XU Y Q, XING Y Y, et al. Research advances on effects of plant-based flavonoids on immune and antioxidative functions in animals[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2019, 31(7):2958-2964. (in Chinese)

[33]
ZHAO J X, LI Q, ZHANG R X, et al. Effect of dietary grape pomace on growth performance,meat quality and antioxidant activity in ram lambs[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2018, 236(4):76-85.

[34]
卢珍珍, 郑琛, 李发弟, 等. 葡萄渣对羔羊生产性能、屠宰性能和养分消化代谢的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2015, 24(4):114-120.

LU Z Z, ZHENG C, LI F D, et al. Effect of feeding grape pomace on nutrient digestibility,body weight gain,and carcass quality in lambs[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2015, 24(4):114-120. (in Chinese)

[35]
董春晓, 吕佳颖, 张智安, 等. 饲料来源对育肥湖羊生产性能、养分消化及瘤胃微生物组成的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(4):106-115.

DONG C X, LV J Y, ZHANG Z A, et al. Effects of four different dietary roughages on feed apparent dry matter digestibility,animal body weight gain,and rumen bacterial populations,when finishing Hu lambs[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(4):106-115. (in Chinese)

[36]
SPANGHERO M, SALEM A Z M, ROBINSON P H. Chemical composition,including secondary metabolites,and rumen fermentability of seeds and pulp of Californian (USA) and Italian grape pomaces[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2009, 152(3/4):243-255.

[37]
李会菊, 孙占鹏. 日粮中添加葡萄渣对小尾寒羊成年母羊体重的影响[J]. 饲料工业, 2010, 31(3):33-36.

LI H J, SUN Z P. Effects of grape residue supplementation on body weight of adult ewes of small-tailed Han sheep[J]. Feed Industry, 2010, 31(3):33-36. (in Chinese)

[38]
GIL-SÁNCHEZ I, CUEVA C, SANZ-BUENHOMBRE M, et al. Dynamic gastrointestinal digestion of grape pomace extracts:bioaccessible phenolic metabolites and impact on human gut microbiota[J]. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 2018,68:41-52.

[39]
卢珍珍. 饲粮不同葡萄渣水平对杂交羔羊生产性能、屠宰性能及养分消化代谢的影响[D]. 硕士学位论文. 兰州: 甘肃农业大学,2014:15-25.

LU Z Z. Effect of different levels of grapes pomace on production performance,slaughter performance and nutrient digestibility in hybrid lamb[D]. Master's Thesis. Lanzhou: Gansu Agricultural University,2014:15-25. (in Chinese)

[40]
申家豪, 郑娟善, 梁泽毅, 等. 植物单宁的微生物降解及其调控反刍动物瘤胃发酵的研究进展[J]. 动物营养学报, 2022, 34(5):2798-2811.

SHEN J H, ZHENG J S, LIANG Z Y, et al. Research progress on microbial degradation of plant tannins and their regulation of rumen fermentation in ruminants[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2022, 34(5):2798-2811. (in Chinese)

[41]
SALAMI S A, LUCIANO G, O'GRADY M N, et al. Sustainability of feeding plant by-products:a review of the implications for ruminant meat production[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2019,251:37-55.

[42]
GIRARD M, DOHME Meier F, KRANGTEN S A, et al. Modification of the proportion of extractable and bound condensed tannins in birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) and sainfoin (Onobrychis viicifolia) during wilting,ensiling and pelleting processes[J]. Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry, 2018, 34(1):1-19.

[43]
VINYARD J R, MYERS C A, MURDOCH G K, et al. Optimum grape pomace proportion in feedlot cattle diets:ruminal fermentation,total tract nutrient digestibility,nitrogen utilization,and blood metabolites[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2021, 99(2):skab044.

[44]
MIN B R, SOLAIMAN S. Comparative aspects of plant tannins on digestive physiology,nutrition and microbial community changes in sheep and goats:a review[J]. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition, 2018, 102(5):1181-1193.

[45]
王洪荣. 反刍动物碳水化合物代谢利用机制及消化道健康的系统营养调控研究进展[J]. 动物营养学报, 2020, 32(10):4686-4696.

WANG H R. Research advances in system-nutritional regulation on mechanism of carbohydrates metabolism and gastrointestinal health of ruminants[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2020, 32(10):4686-4696. (in Chinese)

[46]
OLIVERO-DAVID R, RUIZ-ROSO M B, CAPORASO N, et al. In vivo bioavailability of polyphenols from grape by-product extracts,and effect on lipemia of normocholesterolemic Wistar rats[J]. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 2018, 98(15):5581-5590.

[47]
VOICU D, HǍBEANU M, UTǍ R A, et al. Effect of the dietary dry grape pomace on the performance and health state of fattening steers[J]. Scientific Papers:Series D. Animal Science, 2014,57:118-124.

[

[49]
BRINDZA J, IVANIOVÁ E, GRYGORIEVA O, et al. Antioxidants from plants in human nutrition and improving of health[J]. Acupuncture and Natural Medicine, 2015,2:40-51.

[50]
KERASIOTI E, TERZOPOULOU Z, KOMINI O, et al. Tissue specific effects of feeds supplemented with grape pomace or olive oil mill wastewater on detoxification enzymes in sheep[J]. Toxicology Reports, 2017,4:364-372.

[51]
PROCA A C, HORODINCU L, SOLCAN C, et al. The potential of grape polyphenols additive in pig nutrition:chemical structure,bioavailability and their effect on intestinal health of pigs[J]. Agriculture, 2024, 14(7):1142.

Options
Outlines

/

〈 〉

京ICP备17050989号-2
Copyright © Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, All Rights Reserved.
Tel: 010－62817823　E-mail: cjan@vip.163.com
Powered by Beijing Magtech Co., Ltd.