REVIEW

Advances in Dietary Carbohydrate Nutrition in Meat Sheep

  • LI Chenke ,
  • WENG Yu’nan ,
  • WANG Mengzhi ,
  • ZANG Yu , *
Expand
  • College of Animal Science and Technology, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225009, China
*lecturer, E-mail:

Received date: 2025-10-31

  Online published: 2026-05-14

Abstract

The dietary carbohydrate composition plays a crucial role in the performance of meat sheep. At present, the dietary concentrate to forage ratio and the ratio of non-fiber carbohydrates to neutral detergent fiber (NFC/NDF) are common indicators reflecting the carbohydrate composition in diets. An appropriate dietary carbohydrate composition can not only improve the performance of meat sheep, but also regulate the rumen fermentation process, maintain the stability of the rumen microecological environment, and prevent the occurrence of nutritional metabolic diseases. This article reviewed the research progress on the effects of different dietary carbohydrate composition on the rumen microecology, performance, metabolism and health of meat sheep, with the aim of providing a reference for the application of dietary carbohydrates in meat sheep production.

Cite this article

LI Chenke , WENG Yu’nan , WANG Mengzhi , ZANG Yu . Advances in Dietary Carbohydrate Nutrition in Meat Sheep[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2026 , 38(5) : 3244 -3256 . DOI: 10.12418/CJAN2026.259

当前,养羊业饲养方式从粗放的放牧模式转变为规模化的舍饲圈养模式,饲喂从放牧加精饲料补饲的策略转变为精饲料与粗饲料精准搭配的策略。研究表明,适当提高饲粮中精饲料比例在一定程度上可以提高肉羊采食量,提高其生产性能,增加养殖收益[1]。但饲粮中精饲料比例过高,尤其是短期内迅速增加饲喂量,极有可能增加亚急性瘤胃酸中毒(subacute ruminal acidosis,SARA)发生的概率[2]
前期研究选择饲粮精粗比作为碳水化合物的量化指标,用以评估饲粮营养水平,而且精粗饲料易于分类,便于推广[3]。在精准营养的需求下,仅依据纤维含量对精粗饲料进行传统划分的方式已暴露出其局限性。该方法不能全面反映饲料中能量、蛋白质及微量元素等多种营养物质的综合价值,从而增加了饲粮配制过程中出现营养失衡(如部分元素供给不足、过量或比例失调)的风险。碳水化合物是维持反刍动物生命活动的主要能量来源,在结构上,碳水化合物可被分为单糖(葡萄糖、果糖、半乳糖)、双糖(蔗糖、乳糖)及多糖(淀粉、纤维素等);在功能上,碳水化合物则根据瘤胃发酵速率不同分为快速发酵型碳水化合物和慢速发酵型碳水化合物,为微生物和宿主供能。康奈尔净碳水化合物-蛋白质体系(Cornell net carbohydrate-protein system,CNCPS)是一种评定反刍动物营养饲料价值的体系,其将碳水化合物细分为CA1(乙酸、丙酸和丁酸)、CA2(乳酸)、CA3(其他有机酸)、CA4(糖类)、CB1(淀粉)、CB2(水溶性纤维)和CB3[可利用中性洗涤纤维(NDF)]。与传统的精粗比相比,CNCPS中概括的非纤维性碳水化合物与中性洗涤纤维的比值(NFC/NDF)能够更精确地优化饲粮中快速发酵型碳水化合物的构成,有助于优化饲粮中各种碳水化合物的平衡,相对精准地体现出饲粮的能量水平,从而更好地满足肉羊营养需求[4]表1列举了饲粮碳水化合物构成的部分相关指标[5-16]。本文将系统综述饲粮精粗比和NFC/NDF对肉羊瘤胃发酵、微生物蛋白(microbial crude protein,MCP)合成、瘤胃微生物区系及生产性能等的影响,以期为后续饲粮配制和开发提供参考。
表1 饲粮碳水化合物构成相关指标

Table 1 Indicators related to dietary carbohydrate composition

指标
Indicators
含义
Meaning
参考文献
References
精粗比 Concentrate to forage ratio 饲粮中精饲料与粗饲料的比值,是最常用的评定指标之一 [5-6]
淀粉 Starch 饲粮中淀粉所占的比例,通常以干物质基础的百分比来表示 [7-8]
非结构性碳水化合物 NSC 饲粮中非结构性碳水化合物(包括可溶性糖、淀粉等)
占饲粮干物质的比例
[9-10]
非纤维性碳水化合物 NFC 饲粮中非纤维性碳水化合物(包括可溶性糖、淀粉、
果胶、有机酸等)占饲粮干物质的比例
[11-12]
水溶性碳水化合物 WSC 饲粮中水溶性碳水化合物(包括单糖、双糖、部分低聚糖)
占饲粮干物质的比例
[13-14]
中性洗涤纤维 NDF 饲粮中中性洗涤纤维(包括纤维素、半纤维素、木质素)
占饲粮干物质的比例
[15-16]

1 饲粮碳水化合物构成对瘤胃内环境的影响

瘤胃内碳水化合物的代谢对瘤胃稳态具有直接影响。碳水化合物在瘤胃内的分解本质上是一个微生物发酵产酸的过程,而瘤胃中pH的稳定是保证微生物群落稳态的先决条件,发酵过程中产生的氢离子(H+)是pH下降的直接原因,挥发性脂肪酸(volatile fatty acid,VFA)在瘤胃中的组成及浓度反映了瘤胃内微生物的代谢途径。碳水化合物的发酵为微生物利用氨态氮(ammonia nitrogen,NH3-N)合成MCP提供碳源和能量。瘤胃内pH以及VFA和NH3-N浓度常被用来反映瘤胃微生态情况[17]

1.1 饲粮碳水化合物构成对瘤胃pH和VFA的影响

评价瘤胃内环境是否稳定的最有效且直观的指标是瘤胃pH,其正常值为6.0~7.0,如果偏离该范围会导致瘤胃内环境失衡,不利于瘤胃发酵的正常进行;若pH低于5.8的情况1 d内存在6 h以上,则被认定为SARA[18-19],其是由于瘤胃吸收VFA的速率小于瘤胃发酵生成VFA的速率所导致。瘤胃pH主要受饲粮组成、瘤胃内有机酸生成与被吸收转化速率、唾液分泌以及瘤胃菌群等影响[20]。瘤胃发酵生成的VFA主要来源于微生物对碳水化合物的发酵利用,水解的单糖在微生物的作用下发酵为丙酮酸这一中间产物,随后在多种代谢通路中进一步发酵,最终生成多种短链脂肪酸,主要由乙酸、丙酸和丁酸等短链脂肪酸构成,是机体能量的主要来源,可为机体提供其所需能量的70%~80%[21]。研究表明,瘤胃pH与总挥发性脂肪酸(total volatile fatty acid,TVFA)浓度直接相关[22]
精粗比是早期饲粮研究中的常用指标。Carro等[23]以美利奴羊为研究对象,分别饲喂4种不同精粗比(20∶80、40∶60、60∶40、80∶20)的饲粮,结果表明,随着精饲料在饲粮中比例的提高,瘤胃pH逐渐降低,丙酸和NH3-N浓度呈现先降低后升高的变化趋势,乙酸浓度呈现降低趋势,其中精粗比为80∶20组TVFA浓度最高。Chen等[24]将3种不同精粗比(35∶65、50∶50、65∶35)的饲粮分别饲喂3组3.2岁的安格斯奶牛,每组30只,结果表明,与精粗比为35∶65和50∶50的饲粮相比,精粗比为65∶35的饲粮显著降低瘤胃pH,VFA浓度随精饲料比例的升高而升高,但差异并不显著;同时,与其他饲粮相比,精粗比为65∶35的饲粮显著降低瘤胃乙酸浓度,显著提高瘤胃丙酸浓度。以上研究均表明,饲粮精粗比的改变会影响瘤胃pH和VFA浓度,具体来说,饲粮中精饲料比例的提高导致瘤胃内VFA浓度升高,从而使瘤胃pH下降;同时,乙酸浓度的降低以及丙酸浓度的升高,促使瘤胃发酵模式发生转变。
NFC/NDF可精确地反映瘤胃发酵中非结构性碳水化合物与NDF之间的平衡状态及其对瘤胃pH和VFA生成的综合影响。Ma等[25]使用3种不同NFC/NDF(0.71、1.16、1.82)的饲粮饲喂15只2月龄黑藏羊公羊,试验期95 d,结果表明,随着NFC/NDF的提高,瘤胃pH降低,瘤胃TVFA和丙酸浓度显著提高。Ma等[26]使用4×4拉丁方试验研究4种不同NFC/NDF(0.95、1.04、1.65、1.74)饲粮对杂交羔羊的影响,结果发现瘤胃TVFA浓度受饲粮NFC/NDF影响显著,高NFC/NDF饲粮显著降低瘤胃pH和NH3-N浓度。Chen等[27]通过补充苜蓿干草调节饲粮配方,配制3种不同NFC/NDF(0.68、1.11、1.92)的饲粮,结果表明,瘤胃乙酸浓度及乙酸/丙酸比值均随饲粮NFC/NDF的升高而降低。
综上所述,饲粮精粗比通过参与瘤胃发酵直接影响瘤胃pH及TVFA浓度和组成,精饲料在饲粮中的比例与瘤胃pH直接相关;饲粮中精饲料比例上升导致瘤胃发酵由乙酸型发酵模式向丙酸型发酵模式转变;调整饲粮精粗比是调控瘤胃发酵的关键手段,这种影响是通过改变饲粮NFC/NDF实现的。因此,NFC/NDF作为一个更具机理性的指标,其对瘤胃pH和TVFA的调控作用更为根本和直接。

1.2 饲粮碳水化合物构成对瘤胃NH3-N和MCP的影响

瘤胃发酵受氮源和碳水化合物供应速率的影响[28]。NH3-N是饲粮中的瘤胃可降解蛋白质(rumen degradable protein,RDP)和内源性含氮化合物在瘤胃中被降解所得到的产物[29]。碳水化合物在瘤胃的降解过程可为NH3-N转化为MCP提供能量。Ramos等[30]将3头荷斯坦奶牛分4个时期分别饲喂精粗比为20∶80(1期)、80∶20(2期)、80∶20(3期)和20∶80(4期)的饲粮,结果显示,饲喂精粗比为80∶20饲粮的试验2、3期瘤胃NH3-N浓度(10.99、11.37 mg/dL)均显著高于饲喂精粗比为20∶80饲粮的试验1、4期(4.88、5.04 mg/dL),这表明高精饲料饲粮可提高瘤胃NH3-N浓度。Chen等[31]将32头麦洼雄性牦牛随机分配到4种不同精粗比(30∶70、40∶60、50∶50、60∶40)饲粮组,结果表明,随着饲粮精粗比的提高,瘤胃NH3-N浓度也呈上升趋势。Moorby等[32]通过配制5种不同精粗比(20∶80、35∶65、50∶50、65∶35)的饲粮饲喂4头经产荷斯坦奶牛,结果显示,随着精粗比的提高,瘤胃NH3-N浓度呈现上升趋势。
在瘤胃微生物的作用下,NH3-N转化为氨基酸,通过转氨作用进一步被合成MCP[33]。MCP是反刍动物氨基酸的主要来源,可占到反刍动物吸收氨基酸总量的2/3[34]。瘤胃降解非纤维性碳水化合物(NFC)和蛋白质的速率对MCP合成有重要影响[35]。使用饲粮中的瘤胃可消化淀粉和可消化NDF含量可以预测MCP的产量[36]。Zhang等[37]将4只装有瘤胃瘘管的山羊随机分为2个不同精粗比(25∶75、79∶21)饲粮组,结果发现精粗比为79∶21组瘤胃MCP和NH3-N浓度显著高于精粗比为25∶75组,并认为这可能是精粗比的变化引起了瘤胃内相应功能微生物菌群的变化。增加能量供应可以加强MCP的合成。Lu等[38]将24只波尔×长三角白杂交山羊随机分为3组,分别饲喂常规饲粮[粗蛋白质(CP)含量为9.6%,NFC/NDF为14.1/67.3]、高NFC饲粮(CP含量为10.0%,NFC/NDF为28.3/53.6)和高CP饲粮(CP含量为15.6%,NFC/NDF为16.3/59.3),结果显示,与常规饲粮组相比,高NFC饲粮组和高CP饲粮组瘤胃NH3-N浓度均显著提高,但2组中仅有高NFC饲粮组瘤胃MCP浓度显著提高。其原因在于,NH3-N在足够碳水化合物供能的情况下才会合成MCP,碳水化合物供能速率是限制MCP合成的核心因素。
综上所述,瘤胃可以快速高效地适应精粗比在一定范围内的饲粮,饲粮中NFC比例的适当提高,有利于提高瘤胃内NH3-N的生成速率,合成更多的MCP;NFC的增多可为瘤胃发酵提供更多能量,加快瘤胃微生物对NH3-N的利用速率,最终提高瘤胃MCP的合成速率。

1.3 饲粮碳水化合物构成对瘤胃能氮同步代谢的影响

瘤胃氮源和碳水化合物的供能时序是MCP合成的必要条件。研究发现,瘤胃碳水化合物和RDP降解的异步性导致氮利用效率的降低[39]。NFC与NDF因化学结构迥异,其发酵产能速率存在本质区别,前者的快速降解特性与后者的缓释效应为能量的精准化同步供给提供了调控基础[40]。研究发现,优化饲粮中的碳水化合物与CP配比,可以提高氮的利用效率[41]。Ramos等[42]研究发现,饲喂美利奴羊精粗比为70∶30和30∶70的饲粮,结果显示,精粗比为70∶30组美利奴羊氮利用率高于精粗比为30∶70组。但Cabrita等[43]报道,在大量哺乳期奶牛研究中,尝试进行能氮同步调控但未发现对氮代谢有显著影响,其进一步提出,与改变能氮同步性同等重要的可能是饲粮中特定营养成分的变化。
综上所述,瘤胃能氮同步代谢研究是提高氮利用的有效途径,改变饲粮精粗比或NFC/NDF会对能氮同步性造成影响,目前肉羊氮代谢领域相关文献数量较少,未来研究应持续深化,以期推动能氮同步从理论到应用的落地。

2 饲粮碳水化合物构成对瘤胃微生物区系的影响

反刍动物的瘤胃是“天然发酵罐”,这是源于其瘤胃中复杂多样的微生物活动。在瘤胃中的数万亿微生物中,细菌数量最多,是发酵功能的主要承担者;古细菌数量较多,但主要功能为产甲烷气体;真菌数量较少,但具有降解纤维的能力;原生生物数量少,但个体巨大;此外,目前仍有一部分未被人类发现的微生物种类[44]
饲粮是影响瘤胃微生物群落结构的重要因素[45]。在门水平上,瘤胃内主要优势菌门为厚壁菌门(Firmicutes)、拟杆菌门(Bacteroidetes)和变形菌门(Proteobacteria)[46]。研究表明,饲喂高粗饲料饲粮的肉羊,瘤胃厚壁菌门为优势菌门,反之为拟杆菌门,这2个菌门能占到瘤胃总细菌的70%;同时,厚壁菌门中的大部分细菌有分解结构性碳水化合物的能力,拟杆菌门中的大部分细菌有分解非结构性碳水化合物的能力[47]。研究表明,相比于NFC/NDF为1.02、1.24和1.63的饲粮,NFC/NDF为2.58的饲粮使瘤胃乳杆菌属(Lactobacillus)和解淀粉菌增殖明显[48]。Zhang等[49]使用4种不同精粗比(80∶20、60∶40、40∶60、20∶80)饲粮对荷斯坦小母牛进行限量饲喂,结果发现随着饲粮精饲料比例的提高,瘤胃内纤维素相关分解菌大幅减少。Pang等[50]饲喂牦牛3种不同精粗比(50∶50、65∶35、80∶20)饲粮,结果显示,随着饲粮精粗比的提高,瘤胃厚壁菌门和拟杆菌门相对丰度呈下降趋势;但精粗比为80∶20组出现瘤胃酸中毒现象,瘤胃菌群紊乱,厚壁菌门和拟杆菌门相对丰度不降反升,且大量耐酸并具备分解NFC能力的变形菌门相对丰度亦随饲粮精粗比上升而上升。
在属水平上,普雷沃氏菌属(Prevotella)、琥珀酸菌属(Succiniclasticum)、丁酸弧菌属(Butyrivibrio)、瘤胃球菌属(Ruminococcus)、纤维杆菌属(Fibrobacter)和硒单胞菌属(Selenomonas)为瘤胃内优势菌属[51]。丁酸弧菌属、瘤胃球菌属和纤维杆菌属具有降解瘤胃纤维的功能,当其在瘤胃内相对丰度升高时,瘤胃降解纤维的能力也得到加强[52]。普雷沃氏菌属具有分解蛋白质和淀粉的功能,随着瘤胃普雷沃氏菌属相对丰度的提高,淀粉在瘤胃中的分解速率加快,供能效率上升[53]。琥珀酸菌属和硒单胞菌属能将琥珀酸盐发酵转化为丙酸盐[54]。李蒋伟等[55]通过配制3种不同NFC/NDF(0.92、1.39、2.20)饲粮(其精粗比分别为70∶30、50∶50、30∶70),分别饲喂早期断奶藏羊母羔,每组5只,正试期90 d,结果表明,高NFC/NDF组瘤胃菌群Shannon指数、ACE指数、Chao1指数和操作分类单元(operational taxonomic unit,OTU)数量均显著低于其他2组;且与中NFC/NDF组相比,高NFC/NDF组瘤胃厚壁菌门相对丰度上升,瘤胃拟杆菌门相对丰度降低,这可能是高NFC/NDF组出现瘤胃酸中毒导致的;同时,中NFC/NDF组瘤胃拟杆菌门和厚壁菌门相对丰度显著高于低NFC/NDF组;此外,随着饲粮NFC/NDF的提高,瘤胃普雷沃氏菌属和瘤胃球菌属相对丰度提高。Wang等[56]通过配制5种精粗比(20∶80、35∶65、50∶50、65∶35、80∶20)饲粮饲喂成年雌性水牛,结果表明,精粗比为80∶20组瘤胃Shannon指数显著低于其他4组;随着饲粮精粗比的提高,瘤胃Shannon指数逐渐降低,瘤胃普雷沃氏菌属和理研菌科RC9肠道群(Rikenellaceae_RC9_gut_group)相对丰度呈下降趋势,瘤胃克里斯滕森氏菌科R-7群(Christensenellaceae_R-7_group)相对丰度呈上升趋势。
综上所述,瘤胃微生物区系的改变是一个动态的、相互影响的过程,随着微生物群落的变化,瘤胃发酵产物及供能速率也会相应地受到影响。不过,值得注意的是,目前使用的主流测序技术如16S和宏基因组学,仍然面临许多挑战,例如活体与死体如何分辨、功能是否表达等。饲粮精粗比和NFC/NDF均可通过影响瘤胃微生物区系而影响瘤胃发酵。随着饲粮精粗比的提高,瘤胃菌群Shannon指数有下降趋势,这说明瘤胃微生物群落的丰富度和均匀度均受到影响。适宜的饲粮精粗比和NFC/NDF可以提高瘤胃相关菌属相对丰度,但精粗比和NFC/NDF过高会极大降低瘤胃微生物多样性。

3 饲粮碳水化合物构成对肉羊生产性能的影响

饲粮中的碳水化合物是主要供能物质,是影响肉羊生产性能的重要因素,其构成通过调控饲粮能量供给模式,影响肉羊能量与蛋白质的协同代谢效率,最终决定肉羊生产性能[57]

3.1 饲粮碳水化合物构成对肉羊生长性能的影响

相比于粗饲料,精饲料的消化率及提供的能量较高,有助于促进反刍动物生长发育;此外,精饲料的增加还会提高肉羊干物质采食量(dry matter intake,DMI)[58]。Jin等[59]以60只平均体重为(21.00±1.23) kg的滩羊公羔为试验对象,随机分为2组,分别饲喂2种不同精粗比(35∶65、55∶45)的饲粮,结果显示精粗比为55∶45组羔羊DMI和平均日增重(average daily gain,ADG)比精粗比为35∶65组分别提高108和62 g/d。Kumari等[60]将24只平均体重为(10.62±0.25) kg的尼洛尔(Nellore)×得克塞尔(Deccani)公羔随机分配到4个不同精粗比(40∶60、50∶50、60∶40、70∶30)饲粮组,饲喂180 d,结果显示,随着精粗比的升高,公羔羊终末体重和ADG也出现升高趋势。Gizachew[61]将30只平均体重为(19.01±0.37) kg的瓦莱士(Washera)和霍罗(Horro)绵羊(2品种各15只),饲喂3种不同精粗比(70∶30、60∶40、50∶50)饲粮,进行2因素(绵羊品种)×3水平(饲粮精粗比)试验设计,结果发现2种绵羊均在精粗比为50∶50饲粮条件下具有更好的终末体重和ADG。
在瘤胃中,NDF中的半纤维素缓慢进行发酵,而NFC可被快速分解。Hall等[62]将饲粮原料中的NDF和NFC进行分离,并指出相比于精粗比,NFC/NDF能够更加精准地预测饲粮供能方式对反刍动物生长性能的影响。Song等[63]采用不同NFC/NDF(1.06、1.66)饲粮饲喂平均体重为(11.0±0.8) kg的2组(每组16只)中国乐至黑山羊,结果表明,NFC/NDF变化对DMI没有显著影响,但随NFC/NDF升高DMI有上升趋势,且NFC/NDF对ADG和终末体重影响显著;随着饲粮精粗比和NFC/NDF的提高,肉羊DMI、ADG和终末体重均出现上升,但并未出现相关营养代谢病,肉羊处于健康状态,表明饲粮精粗比(70∶30)和NFC/NDF(1.66)仍在肉羊可适应区间。
综上所述,适当提高饲粮精粗比和NFC/NDF可以提高肉羊DMI和ADG[64],不过与NFC/NDF相比,精粗比在评估发酵模式、生长性能及瘤胃酸中毒等表现上存在明显局限性。随着精饲料或NFC在饲粮比例中的提高,快速发酵的碳水化合物含量增多,饲粮具有的能量增加,食糜在消化道中的流动速度提高,肉羊的能量摄入量上升,从而改善肉羊生长性能。

3.2 饲粮碳水化合物构成对肉羊屠宰性能的影响

屠宰性能是衡量肉羊经济效益的重要指标之一,能为饲粮配制提供重要参考,反映屠宰性能的指标包括胴体重、净肉率、眼肌面积和屠宰率等[65]。眼肌面积直接与动物产肉量相关,是衡量动物经济效益的重要指标[66]。肉品质的好坏一般通过pH、肉色和嫩度等指标进行评估。肉色对肉的外观和经济价值有着直接影响[67]。Jaborek等[68]发现,随着饲粮中粗饲料比例的提高,肉羊宰后肠道重量也会随之提高,导致屠宰率降低。多项研究表明,适度提高饲粮精饲料比例可以改善肉羊屠宰性能。Wang等[69]研究发现,饲粮精粗比为70∶30组藏羊宰前活重、胴体重、眼肌面积和屠宰率均显著高于饲粮精粗比为30∶70组,且提高精饲料比例可以改善肉的嫩度和多汁性。Papi等[70]在80只平均体重为(38.4±4.8) kg的5.5月龄查尔(Chall)公羔上的研究进一步证实该结论,饲粮精粗比为50∶50和70∶30组屠宰体重较高,而饲粮精粗比为90∶10组屠宰体重最低,这可能是精饲料过量添加使得瘤胃稳态遭到破坏甚至瘤胃酸中毒,最终导致肉羊屠宰性能降低;同时,饲粮精粗比为70∶30组屠宰率最高,但饲粮精粗比为90∶10组眼肌面积最大。Nascimento等[71]研究圣伊内斯(Santa Inês)羔羊时也发现相似趋势,饲粮精粗比为60∶40组羔羊宰前活重、胴体重、净肉重和眼肌面积均极显著高于饲粮精粗比为40∶60组。由上述研究可以推断,饲粮精粗比为50∶50~70∶30能有效提升肉羊屠宰性能。
综上所述,适当提高饲粮精饲料比例对肉羊宰前活重、眼肌面积、胴体重和肉品质等方面有着积极影响,产肉性能是关乎肉羊经济效益的核心指标,饲粮精粗比的提高增加了肉羊能量的摄入,对产肉性能有提升作用,从而提高屠宰性能,但饲粮中精饲料比例过高会影响肉羊生长性能从而降低屠宰性能。

4 饲粮碳水化合物研究指标对比及其对肉羊代谢和健康的调控机制

4.1 饲粮碳水化合物研究指标对比

饲粮精粗比和NFC/NDF分别代表了肉羊营养调控的经验性和科学性路径,前者因简便易行而被广泛应用,后者凭借化学精准性在肉羊营养研究中展现出更大优势[72]。精饲料和粗饲料的分类是基于饲料原料中纤维含量的高低,原料纤维含量<18%则认定为精饲料,纤维含量>18%可认定为粗饲料,精粗比即这2大类饲料原料在饲粮中的比例,属于概略指标;而NFC/NDF属于化学分析指标[73]
饲粮精粗比在肉羊营养研究中被广泛用作营养调控指标,具有易于掌握、营养调控方式简明、便于在生产中推广应用以及可简单预估饲粮能量水平等优点。饲粮精粗比的改变常在生产实践中作为调控能量水平的手段,但与NFC/NDF相比,使用精粗比进行能量预测的准确度较低,这是因为精粗比仅是饲料分类的比例,不涉及化学组成。相同精粗比(如50∶50)的玉米+苜蓿型饲粮与麦秸+燕麦型饲粮的营养价值存在显著差异,而NFC/NDF源于碳水化合物的结构分类,与瘤胃能量代谢直接相关[48]
在SARA预防方面,精粗比不能作为准确指标使用。相关病理研究表明,相同精粗比对SARA的诱导效果并不稳定,这是由于不同试验中相同精粗比饲粮的原料组成不同所致[74-75],而NFC/NDF已被证实可准确预测SARA发生风险[76],这为SARA预防提供了重要的科学依据。
综上所述,饲粮精粗比虽在肉羊营养研究领域发挥了重要作用,并将在未来较长时期内继续指导肉羊生产,但肉羊营养研究指标仍需向更精确、更具机理性的NFC/NDF过渡。

4.2 饲粮碳水化合物构成对肉羊血液生化指标的影响

血液生化指标是判断肉羊营养水平和健康状态的重要依据,是反映机体内环境平衡和消化代谢的重要参数[77]。Kashani等[78]通过配制4种不同精粗比(20∶80、30∶70、40∶60、50∶50)饲粮,分别饲喂平均体重为(27.8±2.1) kg的育肥Zel公羔羊,试验期90 d,结果表明,随着饲粮精粗比的提高,血清胆固醇浓度显著降低,且血清尿素氮、球蛋白和白蛋白浓度等随着饲粮精粗比的提高出现升高的趋势。Sadrarham等[79]采用放牧及2种不同精粗比(30∶70、50∶50)饲粮饲喂平均体重为(29.50±4.15) kg的30只公羔(每组10只),其中饲粮精粗比为30∶70和50∶50组NFC/NDF分别为27.20/42.16和31.98/34.79,结果表明,饲粮精粗比为50∶50组羔羊血浆尿素、总蛋白(total protein,TP)和β-羟基丁酸浓度以及天冬氨酸氨基转移酶(aspartate aminotransferase,AST)活性高于饲粮精粗比为30∶70组,但仍处于正常范围,而2组血浆丙氨酸氨基转移酶(alanine aminotransferase,ALT)活性保持在近似水平。Fan等[80]研究发现,当饲喂山羊精粗比为50∶50和90∶10的饲粮时,精粗比为90∶10组山羊出现了SARA,并且其血浆和瘤胃ALT、AST和淀粉酶活性均高于精粗比为50∶50组,超出指标正常范围,这表明过高精饲料饲粮导致山羊出现肝脏损伤,损害机体健康。Khan等[81]使用2种不同精粗比(33∶67、67∶33)饲粮饲喂巴基斯坦Ghaljo生长期绵羊,结果表明,精粗比为67∶33组绵羊血清TP浓度高于精粗比为33∶67组,且血清尿素浓度显著高于精粗比为33∶67组,但仍在正常区间。
综上所述,随着饲粮精饲料比例和NFC/NDF的提高,肉羊血液TP、尿素浓度以及AST活性等生化指标开始升高,证明机体获得能量增加,但血液尿素氮浓度过高是瘤胃中NH3-N未充分利用的表现,未来应从能氮平衡入手,提高肉羊氮利用效率。此外,当饲粮精饲料比例过高时,会导致肉羊出现SARA,造成肝脏损伤,表现为血液ALT和AST活性高出正常值。

4.3 饲粮碳水化合物构成对肉羊健康影响的机制探讨

碳水化合物作为瘤胃微生物发酵的核心底物,其通过调控发酵模式(VFA生成谱、微生态稳态及pH)介导能量代谢和免疫应答,系统性影响肉羊健康[82]
肉羊由于瘤胃的存在,无法从消化道直接吸收利用葡萄糖,肉羊机体所需的80%以上葡萄糖均由肝脏糖异生供应[83]。调节糖异生过程是改善肉羊健康水平和提高生产性能的有效手段[84]。在糖异生过程中,瘤胃微生物通过降解NFC提供合成葡萄糖所需的丙酸盐、乳酸盐、氨基酸及甘油等主要前体,并在多种酶的限速调节下,通过肝脏糖异生作用以满足肉羊机体快速生长的能量需求[85-86]。Lu等[87]发现,将山羊饲粮中NFC含量从10%提高至30%,结果显示,相比10% NFC组,30% NFC组机体的能量储存效率升高,其糖异生机制从丙酸盐、乳酸盐、氨基酸的拉动机制逐渐转为由丙酸盐主导推动的机制。Wu等[88]发现,相比低纤维高蛋白质饲粮,饲喂羔羊高纤维低蛋白质饲粮可以通过降低肌肉脂肪含量诱导糖异生,保持血液葡萄糖浓度。
饲粮碳水化合物的结构差异可系统性调控肉羊的代谢与免疫状态,并在血液生化指标中得以量化。饲喂适量NFC比例饲粮可改善血液血红蛋白和免疫球蛋白浓度,影响肉羊生产性能[89]。Tuncer[90]研究发现,在放牧后补饲干草可提高肉羊血液血红蛋白浓度、平均血红蛋白含量(MCH)和免疫球蛋白G浓度;在此基础上增加精饲料供应显著提高血液血细胞比容(HCT)、平均红细胞体积(MCV)、平均红细胞血红蛋白浓度(MCHC)以及免疫球蛋白A、免疫球蛋白E和免疫球蛋白M浓度,血液生化指标的改善可提高肉羊生产性能。
当过量精饲料或NFC长期进入瘤胃被降解后,瘤胃pH出现显著下降,革兰氏阴性菌死亡并被分解,引起革兰氏阴性菌的组成部分脂多糖(lipopolysaccharide,LPS)大量进入瘤胃液中[91-92]。SARA伴随着瘤胃LPS浓度的升高会引起全身炎症反应[93]。利用饲粮精粗比和NFC/NDF的改变诱导SARA是对SARA机制进行研究的科学方法,相关研究表明,当饲粮NFC/NDF高于2.5时,动物机体可被诱导出现SARA[94-95],而精粗比并没有一个相对确切的可诱导SARA的值,大部分在70∶30~90∶10[96-97]。研究表明,当瘤胃中LPS大量积累时会损害瘤胃上皮功能并造成病理性损伤,当LPS进入肠道时也会对肠道造成损伤,最终LPS被机体吸收时还会触发肝脏免疫反应,再次加重对肠道的损伤[98-99]。Wang等[100]发现,相比饲粮精粗比为50∶50和25∶75组,饲粮精粗比为80∶20组肉羊空肠组织损伤程度显著提高。
综上所述,适宜饲粮NFC/NDF会提高肉羊糖异生能力,在NFC不足的情况下,肉羊机体会分解脂肪,并进行糖异生以维持血液葡萄糖浓度;此外,适宜饲粮NFC/NDF还能改善血液生化指标,提高生产性能。不过,若饲粮精粗比或NFC/NDF过高会引起肉羊营养代谢疾病,造成瘤胃和小肠损伤。因此,在生产上为了避免SARA的出现,应将肉羊饲粮精粗比控制在70∶30以下,NFC/NDF控制在2.3以下,以保证肉羊健康。

5 小结与展望

饲粮在动物生产中发挥着重要作用,其不仅是肉羊营养的主要来源,也能通过参与瘤胃发酵改变瘤胃pH、调节VFA和NH3-N生成速率并且影响MCP生成,同时还能调控瘤胃微生物区系等。盲目提高饲粮精饲料比例易导致肉羊出现营养代谢病;此外,羔羊过早摄入大量精饲料会导致瘤胃和机体发育受到影响。在维持肉羊瘤胃正常生理功能和内环境稳态的前提下,优化饲粮碳水化合物结构以实现肉羊生产效益最大化是当前反刍动物营养研究面临的核心挑战,更科学的饲粮NFC/NDF指标应逐步在全方位上替代精粗比指标。当前研究仍然在探讨精饲料与粗饲料的配比的应用,理论上已经成熟,但对于实际研究的深度和广度仍然不够。未来研究应深入探究NFC与NDF的瘤胃降解速率匹配这一重要难题,让NFC在瘤胃中快速发酵释放的能量,与微生物合成蛋白质所需的氮源高效同步,以提高饲料转化效率,并减少代谢疾病的发生。
[1]
VALDÉS C, CARRO M D, RANILLA M J, et al. Effect of forage to concentrate ratio in complete diets offered to sheep on voluntary food intake and some digestive parameters[J]. Animal Science, 2000, 70(1):119-126.

DOI

[2]
COMMUN L, MIALON M M, MARTIN C, et al. Risk of subacute ruminal acidosis in sheep with separate access to forage and concentrate[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2009, 87(10):3372-3379.

DOI PMID

[3]
COLEMAN S W, MOORE J E. Feed quality and animal performance[J]. Field Crops Research, 2003, 84(1/2):17-29.

DOI

[4]
GUO X Y, SUN L, ZHENG Z B, et al. Study on rumen degradability and intestinal digestibility of mutton sheep diets with different concentrate-to-forage ratios and nonfiber carbohydrates/neutral detergent fiber ratios[J]. Animals, 2024, 14(19):2816.

DOI

[5]
GOU F J, HAN Y C, SUN Y G, et al. The effects of concentrate to roughage ratio in the diet on growth performance,carcass traits,and meat quality of housed yaks[J]. PLoS One, 2025, 20(9):e0330834.

DOI

[6]
BEN MEIR Y A, NIKBACHAT M, PORTNIK Y, et al. Effect of forage-to-concentrate ratio on production efficiency of low-efficient high-yielding lactating cows[J]. Animal, 2021, 15(1):100012.

DOI

[7]
ZHAO H B, LV F, LIU G H, et al. Effects of starters with different NDF/starch ratio on rumen fermentation parameters and rumen microorganisms in lambs[J]. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 2023, 10:1064774.

DOI

[8]
ZHAO H B, WANG J Q, HAO Z Y, et al. Multi-omics reveals effects of diet FNDF/starch level on growth performance and rumen development of Hu sheep[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2025, 16:1601950.

DOI

[9]
PANNEERSELVAM S, PALANISAMY V, BALASUBRAMANIAM M, et al. Effect of nonstructural carbohydrates on production performance,rumen metabolism and rumen health in lambs fed with isocaloric and isonitrogenous complete diets[J]. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 2024, 56(5):181.

DOI

[10]
MOALLEM U, BRUCKENTAL I, SKLAN D. Effect of feeding pregnant and non-lactating dairy cows a supplement containing a high proportion of non-structural carbohydrates on post-partum production and peripartum blood metabolites[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2004, 116(3/4):185-195.

DOI

[11]
BAI T T, PU X X, GUO X F, et al. Effects of dietary nonfibrous carbohydrate/neutral detergent fiber ratio on methanogenic archaea and cellulose-degrading bacteria in the rumen of Karakul sheep:a 16S rRNA gene sequencing study[J]. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2023, 89(1):e0129122.

DOI

[12]
VILLALBA J J, ATES S, MACADAM J W. Non-fiber carbohydrates in forages and their influence on beef production systems[J]. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 2021, 5:566338.

DOI

[13]
KLEVENHUSEN F, ZEBELI Q. A review on the potentials of using feeds rich in water-soluble carbohydrates to enhance rumen health and sustainability of dairy cattle production[J]. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 2021, 101(14):5737-5746.

DOI PMID

[14]
THOMSON B C, SMITH N B, GIBBS J, et al. Effect of contrasting water-soluble carbohydrate to crude protein ratio’s in perennial ryegrass on nitrogen metabolism in lambs[J]. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 2025, 68(7):1735-1744.

DOI

[15]
PU X X, GUO X F, SHAHZAD K, et al. Effects of dietary non-fibrous carbohydrate (NFC) to neutral detergent fiber (NDF) ratio change on rumen bacteria in sheep based on three generations of full-length amplifiers sequencing[J]. Animals, 2020, 10(2):192.

DOI

[16]
ZHANG Z A, LI F, LI F D, et al. Influence of dietary forage neutral detergent fiber on ruminal fermentation,chewing activity,nutrient digestion,and ruminal microbiota of Hu sheep[J]. Animals, 2025, 15(3):314.

DOI

[17]
ASCHENBACH J R, PENNER G B, STUMPFF F, et al. Ruminant nutrition symposium:role of fermentation acid absorption in the regulation of ruminal pH[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2011, 89(4):1092-1107.

DOI

[18]
SIMANUNGKALIT G, BHUIYAN M, BELL R, et al. The effects of antibiotic-free supplementation on the ruminal pH variability and methane emissions of beef cattle under the challenge of subacute ruminal acidosis (SARA)[J]. Research in Veterinary Science, 2023, 160:30-38.

DOI PMID

[19]
GUO W, GUO X J, XU L N, et al. Effect of whole-plant corn silage treated with lignocellulose-degrading bacteria on growth performance,rumen fermentation,and rumen microflora in sheep[J]. Animal, 2022, 16(7):100576.

DOI

[20]
LIU C, WU H, LIU S J, et al. Dynamic alterations in yak rumen bacteria community and metabolome characteristics in response to feed type[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2019, 10:1116.

DOI PMID

[21]
VAN HOUTERT M F J. The production and metabolism of volatile fatty acids by ruminants fed roughages:a review[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 1993, 43(3/4):189-225.

DOI

[22]
PITT R E, VAN KESSEL J S, FOX D G, et al. Prediction of ruminal volatile fatty acids and pH within the net carbohydrate and protein system[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 1996, 74(1):226-244.

PMID

[23]
CARRO M D, VALDÉS C, RANILLA M J, et al. Effect of forage to concentrate ratio in the diet on ruminal fermentation and digesta flow kinetics in sheep offered food at a fixed and restricted level of intake[J]. Animal Science, 2000, 70(1):127-134.

DOI

[24]
CHEN H, WANG C J, HUASAI S, et al. Effects of dietary forage to concentrate ratio on nutrient digestibility,ruminal fermentation and rumen bacterial composition in Angus cows[J]. Scientific Reports, 2021, 11(1):17023.

DOI

[25]
MA B Y, ZHANG C M, RAZA S H A, et al. Effects of dietary non-fibrous carbohydrate (NFC) to neutral detergent fiber (NDF) ratio change on rumen bacterial community and ruminal fermentation parameters in Chinese black Tibetan sheep (Ovis aries)[J]. Small Ruminant Research, 2022, 216:106793.

DOI

[26]
MA T, TU Y, ZHANG N F, et al. Effect of the ratio of non-fibrous carbohydrates to neutral detergent fiber and protein structure on intake,digestibility,rumen fermentation,and nitrogen metabolism in lambs[J]. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 2015, 28(10):1419-1426.

DOI

[27]
CHEN Q, CUI Y F, ZHANG Z X, et al. Effect of alfalfa supplementary change dietary non-fibrous carbohydrate (NFC) to neutral detergent fiber (NDF) ratio on rumen fermentation and microbial function in Gansu alpine fine wool sheep (Ovis aries)[J]. Animal Biotechnology, 2024, 35(1):2262539.

DOI

[28]
HALL M B, HUNTINGTON G B. Nutrient synchrony:sound in theory,elusive in practice[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2008, 86(Suppl.14):E287-E292.

[29]
LANA R P, RUSSELL J B, VAN AMBURGH M E. The role of pH in regulating ruminal methane and ammonia production[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 1998, 76(8):2190-2196.

PMID

[30]
RAMOS S C, JEONG C D, MAMUAD L L, et al. Diet transition from high-forage to high-concentrate alters rumen bacterial community composition,epithelial transcriptomes and ruminal fermentation parameters in dairy cows[J]. Animals, 2021, 11(3):838.

DOI

[31]
CHEN G J, SONG S D, WANG B X, et al. Effects of forage:concentrate ratio on growth performance,ruminal fermentation and blood metabolites in housing-feeding yaks[J]. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 2015, 28(12):1736-1741.

DOI

[32]
MOORBY J M, DEWHURST R J, EVANS R T, et al. Effects of dairy cow diet forage proportion on duodenal nutrient supply and urinary purine derivative excretion[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2006, 89(9):3552-3562.

PMID

[33]
PUTRI E M, ZAIN M, WARLY L, et al. Effects of rumen-degradable-to-undegradable protein ratio in ruminant diet on in vitro digestibility,rumen fermentation,and microbial protein synthesis[J]. Veterinary World, 2021, 14(3):640-648.

DOI

[34]
PATHAK A K. Various factors affecting microbial protein synthesis in the rumen[J]. Veterinary World, 2008, 1(6):186-189.

[35]
CHEN P L, LI Y, WANG M M, et al. Optimizing dietary rumen-degradable starch to rumen-degradable protein ratio improves lactation performance and nitrogen utilization efficiency in mid-lactating Holstein dairy cows[J]. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 2024, 11:1330876.

DOI

[36]
National Research Council,Committee on Animal Nutrition,Subcommittee on Dairy Cattle Nutrition. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle[M]. 7th rev. ed. Washington,D.C.: National Academies Press, 2001.

[37]
ZHANG X J, WANG L Z, WANG Z S, et al. Effect of dietary concentrate level on digestibility of nutrients in each region of the gastrointestinal tract and rumen fermentation in goats[J]. Animal Biotechnology, 2023, 34(6):1900-1908.

DOI

[38]
LU Z Y, XU Z H, SHEN Z M, et al. Dietary energy level promotes rumen microbial protein synthesis by improving the energy productivity of the ruminal microbiome[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2019, 10:847.

DOI PMID

[39]
STERN M D, VARGA G A, CLARK J H, et al. Evaluation of chemical and physical properties of feeds that affect protein metabolism in the rumen[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 1994, 77(9):2762-2786.

PMID

[40]
SEO J K, KIM M H, YANG J Y, et al. Effects of synchronicity of carbohydrate and protein degradation on rumen fermentation characteristics and microbial protein synthesis[J]. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 2013, 26(3):358-365.

DOI PMID

[41]
CLARK J H, KLUSMEYER T H, CAMERON M R. Microbial protein synthesis and flows of nitrogen fractions to the duodenum of dairy cows[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 1992, 75(8):2304-2323.

DOI PMID

[42]
RAMOS S, TEJIDO M L, MARTÍNEZ M E, et al. Microbial protein synthesis,ruminal digestion,microbial populations,and nitrogen balance in sheep fed diets varying in forage-to-concentrate ratio and type of forage[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2009, 87(9):2924-2934.

DOI

[43]
CABRITA A R J, DEWHURST R J, ABREU J M F, et al. Evaluation of the effects of synchronising the availability of N and energy on rumen function and production responses of dairy cows-a review[J]. Animal Research, 2006, 55(1):1-24.

DOI

[44]
PALMONARI A, FEDERICONI A, FORMIGONI A. Animal board invited review:the effect of diet on rumen microbial composition in dairy cows[J]. Animal, 2024, 18(10):101319.

DOI

[45]
HENDERSON G, COX F, GANESH S, et al. Rumen microbial community composition varies with diet and host,but a core microbiome is found across a wide geographical range[J]. Scientific Reports, 2015, 5(1):14567.

DOI

[46]
ZHOU Z M, FANG L, MENG Q X, et al. Assessment of ruminal bacterial and archaeal community structure in yak (Bos grunniens)[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2017, 8:179.

[47]
ZENG H B, GUO C Z, SUN D M, et al. The ruminal microbiome and metabolome alterations associated with diet-induced milk fat depression in dairy cows[J]. Metabolites, 2019, 9(7):154.

DOI

[48]
LIU D C, ZHOU X L, ZHAO P T, et al. Effects of increasing non-fiber carbohydrate to neutral detergent fiber ratio on rumen fermentation and microbiota in goats[J]. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2013, 12(2):319-326.

DOI

[49]
ZHANG J, SHI H T, WANG Y J, et al. Effect of dietary forage to concentrate ratios on dynamic profile changes and interactions of ruminal microbiota and metabolites in Holstein heifers[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2017, 8:2206.

DOI

[50]
PANG K Y, CHAI S T, YANG Y K, et al. Dietary forage to concentrate ratios impact on yak ruminal microbiota and metabolites[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2022, 13:964564.

DOI

[51]
WEIMER P J. Redundancy,resilience,and host specificity of the ruminal microbiota:implications for engineering improved ruminal fermentations[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2015, 6:296.

[52]
CHEN H, GUO B B, YANG M R, et al. Response of growth performance,blood biochemistry indices,and rumen bacterial diversity in lambs to diets containing supplemental probiotics and Chinese medicine polysaccharides[J]. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 2021, 8:681389.

DOI

[53]
BETANCUR-MURILLO C L, MAGUILAR-MARÍN S B, JOVEL J. Prevotella:a key player in ruminal metabolism[J]. Microorganisms, 2023, 11(1):1.

DOI

[54]
SHABAT S K B, SASSON G, DORON-FAIGENBOIM A, et al. Specific microbiome-dependent mechanisms underlie the energy harvest efficiency of ruminants[J]. The ISME Journal, 2016, 10(12):2958-2972.

DOI

[55]
李蒋伟, 周力, 马博研, 等. 饲粮非纤维性碳水化合物/中性洗涤纤维对藏羊瘤胃发酵参数及菌群结构的影响[J]. 四川农业大学学报, 2022, 40(2):253-259,275.

LI J W, ZHOU L, MA B Y, et al. Effects of dietary non fibrous carbohydrate/neutral detergent fiber on rumen fermentation parameters and flora structure of Tibetan sheep[J]. Journal of Sichuan Agricultural University, 2022, 40(2):253-259,275. (in Chinese)

[56]
WANG R J, HE S C, HUANG D, et al. The response of rumen pH,fermentation parameters and rumen bacteria to feeds of different concentrate to roughage ratios in buffalos[J]. Frontiers in Microbiomes, 2023, 1:1053794.

DOI

[57]
BAO Y H, ZHOU J, YANG X T, et al. Effects of forage-to-concentrate ratio during cold-season supplementation on growth performance,serum biochemistry,hormones,and antioxidant capacity in yak calves on the Qinghai-Tibet plateau[J]. Animals, 2025, 15(17):2490.

DOI

[58]
KEADY T W J, HANRAHAN J P. An evaluation of the effect of grass silage and concentrate feed level on ewe and subsequent progeny performance and on potential concentrate sparing effect[J]. Advances in Animal Biosciences, 2010, 1(1):38.

DOI

[59]
JIN Y D, ZHOU Y X. Effects of concentrate level and chromium-methionine supplementation on the performance,nutrient digestibility,rumen fermentation,blood metabolites,and meat quality of Tan lambs[J]. Animal Bioscience, 2022, 35(5):677-689.

DOI

[60]
KUMARI N N, REDDY Y R, BLUMMEL M, et al. Growth performance and carcass characteristics of growing ram lambs fed sweet sorghum bagasse-based complete rations varying in roughage-to-concentrate ratios[J]. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 2013, 45(2):649-655.

DOI PMID

[61]
GIZACHEW A. Comparative feedlot performance of Washera and Horro sheep fed different roughage to concentrate ratio[D]. Master’s Thesis. Haramaya: Haramaya University,2012:68.

[62]
HALL M B, HOOVER W H, JENNINGS J P, et al. A method for partitioning neutral detergent-soluble carbohydrates[J]. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 1999, 79(15):2079-2086.

DOI

[63]
SONG S D, CHEN G J, GUO C H, et al. Effects of exogenous fibrolytic enzyme supplementation to diets with different NFC/NDF ratios on the growth performance,nutrient digestibility and ruminal fermentation in Chinese domesticated black goats[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2018, 236:170-177.

DOI

[64]
CLAFFEY N A, FAHEY A G, GKARANE V, et al. Effect of forage to concentrate ratio and duration of feeding on growth and feed conversion efficiency of male lambs[J]. Translational Animal Science, 2018, 2(4):419-427.

DOI

[65]
ARMSTRONG E, CIAPPESONI G, IRIARTE W, et al. Novel genetic polymorphisms associated with carcass traits in grazing Texel sheep[J]. Meat Science, 2018, 145:202-208.

DOI PMID

[66]
SU Y Y, SUN X, ZHAO S M, et al. Dietary alfalfa powder supplementation improves growth and development,body health,and meat quality of Tibetan sheep[J]. Food Chemistry, 2022, 396:133709.

DOI

[67]
HUSSAIN Z, LI X, ZHANG D Q, et al. Influence of adding cinnamon bark oil on meat quality of ground lamb during storage at 4 ℃[J]. Meat Science, 2021, 171:108269.

DOI

[68]
JABOREK J R, ZERBY H N, MOELLER S J, et al. Effect of energy source and level,and sex on growth,performance,and carcass characteristics of lambs[J]. Small Ruminant Research, 2017, 151:117-123.

DOI

[69]
WANG S J, TANG W H, JIANG T, et al. Effect of dietary concentrate-to-forage ratios during the cold season on slaughter performance,meat quality,rumen fermentation and gut microbiota of Tibetan sheep[J]. Animals, 2024, 14(22):3305.

DOI

[70]
PAPI N, MOSTAFA-TEHRANI A, AMANLOU H, et al. Effects of dietary forage-to-concentrate ratios on performance and carcass characteristics of growing fat-tailed lambs[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2011, 163(2/3/4):93-98.

DOI

[71]
NASCIMENTO C D O, SANTOS S A, DOS SANTOS PINA D, et al. Effect of roughage-to-concentrate ratios combined with different preserved tropical forages on the productive performance of feedlot lambs[J]. Small Ruminant Research, 2020, 182:15-21.

DOI

[72]
CHEN Y Y, GONG X X, HUANG Y H, et al. Growth performance,rumen fermentation and inflammatory response on Holstein growing cattle treated with low and high non-fibrous carbohydrate to neutral detergent fiber ratio pelleted total mixed ration[J]. Animals, 2022, 12(8):1036.

DOI

[73]
DRYDEN G M. Animal nutrition science[M]. Wallingford: CABI, 2008.

[74]
HAN G H, GAO X S, DUAN J W, et al. Effects of yeasts on rumen bacterial flora,abnormal metabolites,and blood gas in sheep with induced subacute ruminal acidosis[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2021, 280:115042.

DOI

[75]
YAN Z X, DUAN H W, LV J S, et al. Molecular mechanism of ruminal epithelial inflammatory damage in sheep with subacute acidosis[EB/OL].(2023-12-04)[2025-09-20]. https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-3648101/v1.

[76]
HE B L, FAN Y T, WANG H R. Lactate uptake in the rumen and its contributions to subacute rumen acidosis of goats induced by high-grain diets[J]. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 2022, 9:964027.

DOI

[77]
GHAZAL S, BERTHELOT V, FRIGGENS N C, et al. Effects of conjugated linoleic acid supplementation and feeding level on dairy performance,milk fatty acid composition,and body fat changes in mid-lactation goats[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2014, 97(11):7162-7174.

DOI

[78]
KASHANI S M M, GHARAHVEYSI S, KHORSHIDI K J. Determining an optimal forage-to-concentrate ratio on performance traits and blood metabolites of fattening lambs[J]. Journal of the Hellenic Veterinary Medical Society, 2025, 76(1):8715-8720.

DOI

[79]
SADRARHAMI I, ALIKHANI M, GHASEMI E, et al. Effects of nomadic grazing system and indoor concentrate feeding systems on performance,behavior,blood parameters,and meat quality of finishing lambs[J]. PLoS One, 2022, 17(12):e0278669.

DOI

[80]
FAN S Q, ZHENG M L, REN A, et al. Effects of high-concentrate-induced SARA on antioxidant capacity,immune levels and rumen microbiota and function in goats[J]. Animals, 2024, 14(2):263.

DOI

[81]
KHAN S, SHAHZADI F, HAYAT S U, et al. Effect of feeding different levels of forages and concentrate ration on production performance,serum biochemical and hematological profile in Ghaljo sheep (Ovis aries)[J]. Pure and Applied Biology, 2023, 12(2):1034-1043.

[82]
BELANCHE A, DOREAU M, EDWARDS J E, et al. Shifts in the rumen microbiota due to the type of carbohydrate and level of protein ingested by dairy cattle are associated with changes in rumen fermentation[J]. The Journal of Nutrition, 2012, 142(9):1684-1692.

DOI

[83]
ASCHENBACH J R, KRISTENSEN N B, DONKIN S S, et al. Gluconeogenesis in dairy cows:the secret of making sweet milk from sour dough[J]. IUBMB Life, 2010, 62(12):869-877.

DOI

[84]
CHEN Q L, SHA Y Z, LIU X, et al. A study on the differences in rumen microbiota-liver gluconeogenesis-mitochondrial interaction between Tibetan sheep and Hu sheep in the Qinghai-Tibet plateau[J]. Animals, 2025, 15(11):1603.

DOI

[85]
FELIG P. Interaction of insulin and amino acid metabolism in the regulation of gluconeogenesis[J]. Israel Journal of Medical Sciences, 1972, 8(3):262-270.

PMID

[86]
PETERSEN M C, VATNER D F, SHULMAN G I. Regulation of hepatic glucose metabolism in health and disease[J]. Nature Reviews Endocrinology, 2017, 13(10):572-587.

DOI PMID

[87]
LU Z Y, XU Z H, SHEN Z M, et al. Transcriptomic analyses suggest a dominant role of insulin in the coordinated control of energy metabolism and ureagenesis in goat liver[J]. BMC Genomics, 2019, 20(1):854.

DOI PMID

[88]
WU J H, YANG D, GONG H S L, et al. Multiple omics analysis reveals that high fiber diets promote gluconeogenesis and inhibit glycolysis in muscle[J]. BMC Genomics, 2020, 21(1):660.

DOI PMID

[89]
AHMED M N, HUMIDE A O, MUHADI M J. Hematological state of ewes injected with some mediators during postpartum and lactation period[J]. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research, 2018, 10(8):1921-1924.

[90]
TUNCER S S. Effects of different diets on hematological parameters and immunoglobulin levels in Norduz sheep[J]. Journal of Elementology, 2021, 26(3):671-682.

[91]
GOAD D W, GOAD C L, NAGARAJA T G. Ruminal microbial and fermentative changes associated with experimentally induced subacute acidosis in steers[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 1998, 76(1):234-241.

PMID

[92]
MONTEIRO H F, FACIOLA A P. Ruminal acidosis,bacterial changes,and lipopolysaccharides[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2020, 98(8):skaa248.

[93]
KHAFIPOUR E, KRAUSE D O, PLAIZIER J C. A grain-based subacute ruminal acidosis challenge causes translocation of lipopolysaccharide and triggers inflammation[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2009, 92(3):1060-1070.

DOI PMID

[94]
HU H L, YANG S Q, CHENG M, et al. Long-term effect of subacute ruminal acidosis on the morphology and function of rumen epithelial barrier in lactating goats[J]. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2022, 21(11):3302-3313.

DOI

[95]
WANG M Y, LI Y, GAO M, et al. Effects of subacute ruminal acidosis on colon epithelial morphological structure,permeability,and expression of key tight junction proteins in dairy goats[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2021, 104(4):4260-4270.

DOI

[96]
ZENG J L, LV J S, DUAN H W, et al. Subacute ruminal acidosis as a potential factor that induces endometrium injury in sheep[J]. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2023, 24(2):1192.

DOI

[97]
LI F, WANG Z L, DONG C X, et al. Rumen bacteria communities and performances of fattening lambs with a lower or greater subacute ruminal acidosis risk[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2017, 8:2506.

DOI PMID

[98]
PENNER G B, STEELE M A, ASCHENBACH J R, et al. Ruminant nutrition symposium:molecular adaptation of ruminal epithelia to highly fermentable diets[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2011, 89(4):1108-1119.

DOI

[99]
CHANG G J, ZHANG K, XU T L, et al. Feeding a high-grain diet reduces the percentage of LPS clearance and enhances immune gene expression in goat liver[J]. BMC Veterinary Research, 2015, 11(1):67.

DOI

[100]
WANG Y S, LI Q, WANG L Z, et al. Effects of a high-concentrate diet on the blood parameters and liver transcriptome of goats[J]. Animals, 2023, 13(9):1559.

DOI

Outlines

/