Differences in production performance, fore-digestive tract microbiota, and expression levels of nutrient transporters of Hu sheep with different feed conversion ratio
ABSTRACT Increasing strain on feed resources has led to a gradual increase in feed input costs, making it necessary to improve feed efficiency in livestock and poultry. In this study, Hu sheep were divided into two groups (high and low feed conversion ratio [FCR]) according to the FCR. Based on 16S...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
American Society for Microbiology
2025-06-01
|
| Series: | Microbiology Spectrum |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.01423-24 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849735118111899648 |
|---|---|
| author | Xiaobin Yang Jiangbo Cheng Dan Xu Chong Li Deyin Zhang Yukun Zhang Kai Huang Xiaolong Li Yuan Zhao Liming Zhao Quanzhong Xu Zongwu Ma Huibin Tian Xiuxiu Weng Jie Peng Xiaoxue Zhang Weimin Wang |
| author_facet | Xiaobin Yang Jiangbo Cheng Dan Xu Chong Li Deyin Zhang Yukun Zhang Kai Huang Xiaolong Li Yuan Zhao Liming Zhao Quanzhong Xu Zongwu Ma Huibin Tian Xiuxiu Weng Jie Peng Xiaoxue Zhang Weimin Wang |
| author_sort | Xiaobin Yang |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | ABSTRACT Increasing strain on feed resources has led to a gradual increase in feed input costs, making it necessary to improve feed efficiency in livestock and poultry. In this study, Hu sheep were divided into two groups (high and low feed conversion ratio [FCR]) according to the FCR. Based on 16S rDNA amplicon sequencing technology to compare rumen and small intestine microbial composition, the differences and similarities of production performance, expression level of intestinal nutrient-specific carrier, digestive enzyme activity, short-chain fatty acid (SCFA) content, muscle conventional nutrient content, and blood biochemical indexes of Hu sheep in high- and low-FCR groups were investigated, and correlation analysis was conducted. The results showed that Hu sheep in the low-FCR group had higher feed efficiency, average daily gain, and less fat deposition (P < 0.05). The difference in rumen microbial composition between the high- and low-FCR groups was significant (P < 0.05). Spearman’s correlation analysis showed that FCR was significantly associated with production performance such as body weight, fat deposition, and dressing percentage (P < 0.05). The levels of digestive enzyme activity and nutrient transporter carrier expression in the small intestine were higher in the low-FCR group than in the high-FCR group. Therefore, FCR can be one of the important targets of concern in Hu sheep production. Combining FCR and regulating the gastrointestinal environment of Hu sheep by nutritional means can greatly improve the production performance and economic benefit of Hu sheep.IMPORTANCEFeed costs account for a large portion of housed sheep. The purpose of comparing the performance and intestinal microbial composition of different FCR Hu sheep is to regulate the gastrointestinal microecology in production practice. This helps livestock producers choose low-FCR Hu sheep to maximize production costs, improve efficiency, and achieve the purpose of low-carbon production. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-bbb2a7cd04bf457bac5a25ce6b297b08 |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 2165-0497 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-06-01 |
| publisher | American Society for Microbiology |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Microbiology Spectrum |
| spelling | doaj-art-bbb2a7cd04bf457bac5a25ce6b297b082025-08-20T03:07:38ZengAmerican Society for MicrobiologyMicrobiology Spectrum2165-04972025-06-0113610.1128/spectrum.01423-24Differences in production performance, fore-digestive tract microbiota, and expression levels of nutrient transporters of Hu sheep with different feed conversion ratioXiaobin Yang0Jiangbo Cheng1Dan Xu2Chong Li3Deyin Zhang4Yukun Zhang5Kai Huang6Xiaolong Li7Yuan Zhao8Liming Zhao9Quanzhong Xu10Zongwu Ma11Huibin Tian12Xiuxiu Weng13Jie Peng14Xiaoxue Zhang15Weimin Wang161State Key Laboratory of Herbage lmprovement and Grassland Agro-ecosystems, Key Laboratory of Grassland Livestock Industry Innovation, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs; Engineering Research Center of Grassland Industry, Ministry of Education, Collegeof Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China1State Key Laboratory of Herbage lmprovement and Grassland Agro-ecosystems, Key Laboratory of Grassland Livestock Industry Innovation, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs; Engineering Research Center of Grassland Industry, Ministry of Education, Collegeof Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China1State Key Laboratory of Herbage lmprovement and Grassland Agro-ecosystems, Key Laboratory of Grassland Livestock Industry Innovation, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs; Engineering Research Center of Grassland Industry, Ministry of Education, Collegeof Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, ChinaCollege of Animal Science and Technology, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China1State Key Laboratory of Herbage lmprovement and Grassland Agro-ecosystems, Key Laboratory of Grassland Livestock Industry Innovation, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs; Engineering Research Center of Grassland Industry, Ministry of Education, Collegeof Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China1State Key Laboratory of Herbage lmprovement and Grassland Agro-ecosystems, Key Laboratory of Grassland Livestock Industry Innovation, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs; Engineering Research Center of Grassland Industry, Ministry of Education, Collegeof Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China1State Key Laboratory of Herbage lmprovement and Grassland Agro-ecosystems, Key Laboratory of Grassland Livestock Industry Innovation, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs; Engineering Research Center of Grassland Industry, Ministry of Education, Collegeof Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China1State Key Laboratory of Herbage lmprovement and Grassland Agro-ecosystems, Key Laboratory of Grassland Livestock Industry Innovation, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs; Engineering Research Center of Grassland Industry, Ministry of Education, Collegeof Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China1State Key Laboratory of Herbage lmprovement and Grassland Agro-ecosystems, Key Laboratory of Grassland Livestock Industry Innovation, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs; Engineering Research Center of Grassland Industry, Ministry of Education, Collegeof Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China1State Key Laboratory of Herbage lmprovement and Grassland Agro-ecosystems, Key Laboratory of Grassland Livestock Industry Innovation, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs; Engineering Research Center of Grassland Industry, Ministry of Education, Collegeof Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China1State Key Laboratory of Herbage lmprovement and Grassland Agro-ecosystems, Key Laboratory of Grassland Livestock Industry Innovation, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs; Engineering Research Center of Grassland Industry, Ministry of Education, Collegeof Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China1State Key Laboratory of Herbage lmprovement and Grassland Agro-ecosystems, Key Laboratory of Grassland Livestock Industry Innovation, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs; Engineering Research Center of Grassland Industry, Ministry of Education, Collegeof Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China1State Key Laboratory of Herbage lmprovement and Grassland Agro-ecosystems, Key Laboratory of Grassland Livestock Industry Innovation, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs; Engineering Research Center of Grassland Industry, Ministry of Education, Collegeof Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China1State Key Laboratory of Herbage lmprovement and Grassland Agro-ecosystems, Key Laboratory of Grassland Livestock Industry Innovation, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs; Engineering Research Center of Grassland Industry, Ministry of Education, Collegeof Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, ChinaCollege of Veterinary Medicine, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou, Gansu, ChinaCollege of Animal Science and Technology, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China1State Key Laboratory of Herbage lmprovement and Grassland Agro-ecosystems, Key Laboratory of Grassland Livestock Industry Innovation, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs; Engineering Research Center of Grassland Industry, Ministry of Education, Collegeof Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, ChinaABSTRACT Increasing strain on feed resources has led to a gradual increase in feed input costs, making it necessary to improve feed efficiency in livestock and poultry. In this study, Hu sheep were divided into two groups (high and low feed conversion ratio [FCR]) according to the FCR. Based on 16S rDNA amplicon sequencing technology to compare rumen and small intestine microbial composition, the differences and similarities of production performance, expression level of intestinal nutrient-specific carrier, digestive enzyme activity, short-chain fatty acid (SCFA) content, muscle conventional nutrient content, and blood biochemical indexes of Hu sheep in high- and low-FCR groups were investigated, and correlation analysis was conducted. The results showed that Hu sheep in the low-FCR group had higher feed efficiency, average daily gain, and less fat deposition (P < 0.05). The difference in rumen microbial composition between the high- and low-FCR groups was significant (P < 0.05). Spearman’s correlation analysis showed that FCR was significantly associated with production performance such as body weight, fat deposition, and dressing percentage (P < 0.05). The levels of digestive enzyme activity and nutrient transporter carrier expression in the small intestine were higher in the low-FCR group than in the high-FCR group. Therefore, FCR can be one of the important targets of concern in Hu sheep production. Combining FCR and regulating the gastrointestinal environment of Hu sheep by nutritional means can greatly improve the production performance and economic benefit of Hu sheep.IMPORTANCEFeed costs account for a large portion of housed sheep. The purpose of comparing the performance and intestinal microbial composition of different FCR Hu sheep is to regulate the gastrointestinal microecology in production practice. This helps livestock producers choose low-FCR Hu sheep to maximize production costs, improve efficiency, and achieve the purpose of low-carbon production.https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.01423-24feed conversion ratiofore-digestive tractHu sheepmicroorganismproduction performance |
| spellingShingle | Xiaobin Yang Jiangbo Cheng Dan Xu Chong Li Deyin Zhang Yukun Zhang Kai Huang Xiaolong Li Yuan Zhao Liming Zhao Quanzhong Xu Zongwu Ma Huibin Tian Xiuxiu Weng Jie Peng Xiaoxue Zhang Weimin Wang Differences in production performance, fore-digestive tract microbiota, and expression levels of nutrient transporters of Hu sheep with different feed conversion ratio Microbiology Spectrum feed conversion ratio fore-digestive tract Hu sheep microorganism production performance |
| title | Differences in production performance, fore-digestive tract microbiota, and expression levels of nutrient transporters of Hu sheep with different feed conversion ratio |
| title_full | Differences in production performance, fore-digestive tract microbiota, and expression levels of nutrient transporters of Hu sheep with different feed conversion ratio |
| title_fullStr | Differences in production performance, fore-digestive tract microbiota, and expression levels of nutrient transporters of Hu sheep with different feed conversion ratio |
| title_full_unstemmed | Differences in production performance, fore-digestive tract microbiota, and expression levels of nutrient transporters of Hu sheep with different feed conversion ratio |
| title_short | Differences in production performance, fore-digestive tract microbiota, and expression levels of nutrient transporters of Hu sheep with different feed conversion ratio |
| title_sort | differences in production performance fore digestive tract microbiota and expression levels of nutrient transporters of hu sheep with different feed conversion ratio |
| topic | feed conversion ratio fore-digestive tract Hu sheep microorganism production performance |
| url | https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.01423-24 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT xiaobinyang differencesinproductionperformanceforedigestivetractmicrobiotaandexpressionlevelsofnutrienttransportersofhusheepwithdifferentfeedconversionratio AT jiangbocheng differencesinproductionperformanceforedigestivetractmicrobiotaandexpressionlevelsofnutrienttransportersofhusheepwithdifferentfeedconversionratio AT danxu differencesinproductionperformanceforedigestivetractmicrobiotaandexpressionlevelsofnutrienttransportersofhusheepwithdifferentfeedconversionratio AT chongli differencesinproductionperformanceforedigestivetractmicrobiotaandexpressionlevelsofnutrienttransportersofhusheepwithdifferentfeedconversionratio AT deyinzhang differencesinproductionperformanceforedigestivetractmicrobiotaandexpressionlevelsofnutrienttransportersofhusheepwithdifferentfeedconversionratio AT yukunzhang differencesinproductionperformanceforedigestivetractmicrobiotaandexpressionlevelsofnutrienttransportersofhusheepwithdifferentfeedconversionratio AT kaihuang differencesinproductionperformanceforedigestivetractmicrobiotaandexpressionlevelsofnutrienttransportersofhusheepwithdifferentfeedconversionratio AT xiaolongli differencesinproductionperformanceforedigestivetractmicrobiotaandexpressionlevelsofnutrienttransportersofhusheepwithdifferentfeedconversionratio AT yuanzhao differencesinproductionperformanceforedigestivetractmicrobiotaandexpressionlevelsofnutrienttransportersofhusheepwithdifferentfeedconversionratio AT limingzhao differencesinproductionperformanceforedigestivetractmicrobiotaandexpressionlevelsofnutrienttransportersofhusheepwithdifferentfeedconversionratio AT quanzhongxu differencesinproductionperformanceforedigestivetractmicrobiotaandexpressionlevelsofnutrienttransportersofhusheepwithdifferentfeedconversionratio AT zongwuma differencesinproductionperformanceforedigestivetractmicrobiotaandexpressionlevelsofnutrienttransportersofhusheepwithdifferentfeedconversionratio AT huibintian differencesinproductionperformanceforedigestivetractmicrobiotaandexpressionlevelsofnutrienttransportersofhusheepwithdifferentfeedconversionratio AT xiuxiuweng differencesinproductionperformanceforedigestivetractmicrobiotaandexpressionlevelsofnutrienttransportersofhusheepwithdifferentfeedconversionratio AT jiepeng differencesinproductionperformanceforedigestivetractmicrobiotaandexpressionlevelsofnutrienttransportersofhusheepwithdifferentfeedconversionratio AT xiaoxuezhang differencesinproductionperformanceforedigestivetractmicrobiotaandexpressionlevelsofnutrienttransportersofhusheepwithdifferentfeedconversionratio AT weiminwang differencesinproductionperformanceforedigestivetractmicrobiotaandexpressionlevelsofnutrienttransportersofhusheepwithdifferentfeedconversionratio |