View
4
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
FEEDING BEHAVIOR AND PERFORMANCE OF SHEEP AND GOATS UNDER VARIOUS FEEDING MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS
By
Nasrullah
(2007-VA-527)
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN THE PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN
LIVESTOCK MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION
FACULTY OF ANIMAL PRODUCTION AND TECHNOLOGY,
UNIVERSITY OF VETERINARY & ANIMAL SCIENCES, LAHORE
2012
In The Name of
ALLAH The Most Beneficent,
The Most Merciful.
FEEDING BEHAVIOR AND PERFORMANCE OF SHEEP AND GOATS UNDER VARIOUS FEEDING MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS
By
Nasrullah
(2007-VA-527)
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN THE PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN
LIVESTOCK MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION
FACULTY OF ANIMAL PRODUCTION AND TECHNOLOGY,
UNIVERSITY OF VETERINARY & ANIMAL SCIENCES, LAHORE
2012
To
The Controller of Examinations,
University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences,
Lahore.
We, the Supervisory Committee, certify that the contents and form of the thesis,
submitted by Mr. Nasrullah (Regd. No. 2007-VA-527) have been found satisfactory and
recommend that it be processed for further evaluation by the External Examiner(s) for the Award
of Degree.
Supervisor __________________________________________
(PROF. DR. MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH)
Member __________________________________________
(PROF. DR. MASROOR ELLAHI BABAR) Member ___________________________________________ (PROF. DR. MAKHDOOM ABDUL JABBAR)
i
DEDICATED THE FRUIT OF THIS HUMBLE EFFORT
TO
My Father and Brothers
Haji Turk Ali, Haji Allah Bakhsh and Haji Fazalullah
Whose paramount support and inspiration enabled me to change myself through proper decisions during critical moments of life.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
All prays to almighty “ALLAH” Who provided means and opportunities on my way and
gave me will, strength and health to accomplish this task, WHO gave me ambassadors at earth
for intellectual interaction with them.
In the first place, I would like to gratefully acknowledge Prof. Dr. Muhammad Abdullah
for his enthusiastic supervision, advice, and guidance from the very early stage of my doctoral
program as well as giving me extraordinary experiences throughout the work. Above all and the
most needed, he provided me unflinching encouragement and support in various ways.
It is an honour for me to express gratitude to other committee members; Prof. Dr.
Masroor Ellahi Babar and Prof. Dr. Makhdoom Abdul Jabbar for their patient guidance,
encouragement and excellent advice throughout the study period. I am also grateful to other
teachers in the faculty of Animal production and Technology; Prof. Dr. Khalid Javeid, Dr.
Jalees Ahmad Bhatti, Dr. Ahmad Ali , Dr. Muhammad Nasir and Mr. Muhmmad Nisar whose
helpful suggestions reduced ambiguity in my work under friendly environment.
I would like to express my gratitude to the Vice Chancellor, University of Veterinary
and Animal Sciences Lahore for giving good environment for scholars to flourish, and the
Secretary, L&DD Balochistan Zafferullah Baloch for granting me study leave to pursue my
studies at UVAS. Their cooperation enabled me to go across the course of higher education
without financial crisis.
It is difficult to overstate my gratitude to those who helped build the equipment that
allowed me to run my experiment; without them, I could not be succeeded to write this
dissertation. They were: Mr. Muhammad Fayyaz and Mr. Murtaza Ali Tipu Research Officers
Nutrition Division BRI, Mr. Imran Mohsin Farm Officer Small Ruminant Research &
Training Center UVAS Ravi campus Pattoki and Whole team of Food and Nutrition lab
UVAS. They extended their cooperation to me for supply of research material and facilities
needed during my research
During this work I have collaborated with many colleagues and workers for whom I have
great regard and I wish to extend my warmest thanks to all those who have helped me with my
iii
work. I am thankful to my friends Dr. Muhammad Fiaz, Mr. Ahmad Nawaz Khosa, Mr. Illahi
Bakhsh Marghazani, Mr. Muhammad Mudassir Sohail, Mr. Masood ul-Haq Kakar, Mr. Mir
Ahmad, Mr. Ahsanullah, and many friends from Balochistan, Sindh, Punjab and Khebar
PakhtoonKhoa. I also wish to express my warm and sincere thanks to Haji Ali Gul Kurd for
their appreciation and moral ssupport. I can’t forget dedication and hard work of Muhammad
Yaqoob, Abdul Majeed and Allah Rakha. They were physically involved while handling
animals.
Finally, I take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude to my family members
specially Muhammad Irfan, Mateullah, Mohammad Rizwan, Safwanullah, Laila, Asia bibi
and Mazar Khan for their moral support, prayers and patience during my study. I feel guilty if I
don’t pay my thanks to my wife who acknowledged, exhibited great patience and sacrificed her
settled life for my doctoral program.
Nasrullah Bangulzai
iv
CONTENTS
DEDICATION (i)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (ii)
LIST OF TABLES (v)
LIST OF APPENDICES (vii)
LIST OF ABBEREVIATIONS (viii)
S. NO. CHAPTERS PAGE NO.
1. INTRODUCTION…………………………... 1
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE……………… 5
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS…………… 38
4. RESULTS……………………………………. 51
5 DISCUSSION………………………………... 85
6 SUMMARY………………………………….. 106
7 LITERATURE CITED……………………... 110
v
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE NO.
3.1 Ingredient and nutrient composition of concentrate ration 44
3.2 Treatments and experimental lay out 47
3.3 Ingredient and nutrient composition of total mixed ration (TMR) 48
4.1 Feeding behavior of goats and sheep fed different summer fodder 54
4.2 Nutrient intake in goats and sheep fed different summer fodders 55
4.3 Growth rate, feed efficiency cost of gain in sheep and goats fed
different summer fodders 56
4.4 Percent nutrients digestibility in sheep and goats fed different
summer fodders 57
4.5 Feeding behavior of goats and sheep fed different summer
fodders 61
4.6 Nutrient intake of goats and sheep fed different summer fodders 62
4.7 Growth rate, feed efficiency cost of gain in sheep and goats fed
different summer fodders 63
4.8 Percent nutrients digestibility of summer fodders in sheep and
goats 64
4.9 Feeding behavior of goats and sheep fed different winter fodders 69
4.10 Nutrient intake of goats and sheep fed different winter fodders 70
4.11 Growth rate, feed efficiency and cost of gain in sheep and goats
fed different winter fodders 71
4.12 Percent nutrient digestibility of winter fodders in sheep and goats 72
vi
4.13 Nutrient intake of sheep and goats under different feeding
management systems 75
4.14 Growth rate, feed efficiency cost of gain in sheep and goats under
different management systems. 76
4.15 Main effect of treatments on nutrient intake of kids and lambs 80
4.15.1 Main effect species on nutrient intake of total mixed ration
(TMR) and fodder with concentrate supplementation 81
4.16 Main effect of treatments on growth rate, feed efficiency cost of
gain in kids and lambs 82
4.16.1 Main effect of species on growth rate, feed efficiency cost of gain
in kids and lambs 82
4.17 Main effect of treatment on percent nutrient digestibility of kids
and lambs 83
4.17.1 Main effect of species on percent nutrient digestibility of (TMR)
and fodder with concentrate supplementation 84
vii
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX NO. TITLE PAGE NO.
Ia Chemical composition of offered summer fodders 129
Ib Chemical composition of offered summer fodders 129
II Chemical composition of offered winter fodders 129
III Composition of concentrate ration 130
IV Chemical composition of lucern and concentrate ration. 130
V Chemical composition of offered fodder, total mixed ration (TMR) and concentrate ration
131
VI Composition of experimental ration (TMR) 131
viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviations Complete words Abbreviations Complete words
Ad lib Ad libitum FCR Feed conversion ratio
ADF Acid detergent fiber ME Metabolizable energy
ADG Average daily gain NDF Neutral detergent fiber
BW Body weight OM Organic matter
CF Crude fiber RUP Rumen undegradable protein
CP Crude protein TDN Total digestible nutrients
DM Dry matter TMR Total mixed ration
-------------------------------------------------------1------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter No. 1
INTRODUCTION
Livestock sector accounts for 55.1 percent of agriculture and 11.5 percent of GDP in Pakistan
and affects the lives of 35-40 million people The total strength of sheep and goats in the country
is 28.1 and 61.5 million numbers respectively which is playing a vital role in poverty alleviation
of the masses The contribution of both sheep and goats in mutton is 616 thousand tons and milk
production is 36 and 759 thousand tons respectively (Anonymous, 2011), thus providing quality
protein to huge segment of population.
Small ruminant raising is very important and for the livelihood of those who are
inhibiting in the regions, where cattle production and cultivation of crops is not suitable
(Daskiran et al. 2006). In rural population small ruminants make very valuable contribution. This
includes high quality nutrients from animal origin in the form of meat and milk, fiber, skins,
slaughtered regularly for social and religious occasions and is stable source of household income.
The socio-economic importance of small ruminants is extensively recognized Devandera
(2001)(insert Reference). However, many factors inhibit their potential contribution like
inefficient use of potentially important breeds, and inappropriate production systems and poor
feeding management. Sheep and goat production systems in Pakistan are still traditional grazing
just on fodders and forages. This system of production is hindering animal productivity and
considerable loss to income of small ruminants farming communities which directly influences
the economy of country and the interest of farmers for future farming. Furthermore farmers also
face the limitations of the availability of ample land and practical knowledge, which influence
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------INTRODUCTION
----------------------------------------------------2----------------------------------------------------
the supply response even in the face of favorable prices. Sheep and goat production, due to its
economic importance, is considered a viable option for farmers of all categories such as full-
time, growing and part-time farmers in the country. Several factors support this hypothesis such
as increasing demand and the cost of production is comparatively lower than other livestock
species. Small ruminants have ability to utilize effectively poor quality forage than large
ruminants.
Feeding behavior and feed intake of small ruminants on different fodders varies and can affect
their performance. Feeding behaviors can also affect the efficiency and cost of raising animals.
Feeding rate, duration of feeding, feed intake (Rauw et al. 2006) feeding frequency, and activity
level (insert Reference Stephen 2008) are different among species. Feed intake and growth rate
are partially different due to genetic variation (Cammack et al. 2005) and may be included in
selection criteria. There are many factors influencing maintenance and growth. Among this
behavioral variability may have a large role in affecting efficiency and performance. Increasing
positive behaviors such as animal spent time on eating when offered palatable feed and
decreasing negative behavior such as animal spent time on fighting when feed is of poor quality
will result in better productivity (Abijaoude et al. 2000). The eating quality of goat meat can be
increased through modifying the conventional production systems (Arsenos et al. 2002). The
young animals on high concentrate diets perform better and put higher daily weight gain,
dressing percentage and carcass quality than on forage feeding (Warmington and Kirton, 1990;
Kosum et al. 2003; Johnson et al. 2005).The concentrate feeding reduces the age of slaughter,
maximizes carcass quality and meat output thus improving access to animal protein and
stabilizes the households income of traditional segment (Mtenga and Kitalyi 1990). The
performance of lambs can be improved using appropriate combination of fodder and concentrate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------INTRODUCTION
----------------------------------------------------3----------------------------------------------------
(Mahajan et al. 1976; Kochapakdee et al. 1994). They further reported that concentrate
supplementation in pasture based grazing condition improves the productive and reproductive
performance of small ruminants.
In Pakistan, mostly people raise livestock on fodders in rural and urban areas. One of the
bottlenecks for fodder scarcity is replacing fodder cultivation by cash crops to meet the demand
of human beings. Another problem which is hindering the livestock production is the scarcity
and fluctuation of the quality and quantity of animal feed throughout the year. The availability of
required fodder species and fodder production depends mainly on the climate and on the soils
(Bruzon, 2007). The quality of fodder varies due to seasonal change. There are two major
seasons of fodder crops i.e., summer (Kharif) and winter (Rabi). Winter fodder crops are mainly
berseem (Trifolium alexandrinum), oats (Avena sativa), mustard (Brassica spp.), and secondarily
shaftal (Trifolium resupinatum), lucerne (Medicago sativa), vetch (Vicia spp), barley (Hordeum
vulgare) and rye grass (Lolium perenne). The summer fodders are Jantar (coriandrum sativum),
cowpeas (vigna sinesis), maize (Zea mays), guar (cyamopsis tetragonoloba), sorghum (Sorghum
bicolor) and millet (Pennisetum americanum). The small ruminants are usually grazed on these
fodders for maintenance and production requirements. The grazing may not be enough for
optimal live weight gain and wool production. ( Mahajan et al. 1976; Kochapakdee et al. 1994).
Commercial livestock production demands a change in feeding trend towards stall feeding for
efficient utilization of all available resources. Keeping in view sustainable productivity in small
ruminants, the use of total mixed ration (TMR) is increasing in animal feeding. Many
experiments have been conducted in large ruminants; however, this information is scanty in
small ruminants in Pakistan. In addition to that, literature is lacking in comparative study of
summer and winter fodder grasses in evaluating the performance of native breeds of sheep and
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------INTRODUCTION
----------------------------------------------------4----------------------------------------------------
goats.
Keeping in view these facts, the present study was planned to evaluate the performance
of goats and sheep under different feeding management systems.
1) Comparative study of voluntary feed intake and digestibility of summer and winter
fodders in sheep and goats.
2) To compare performance of sheep and goats kept under extensive, semi-intensive and
intensive management systems.
3) Comparative performance of sheep and goats under intensive feeding management
systems.
--------------------------------------------------------5-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter No. 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Scientists have done many studies concerning feeding behavior, feed intake, and many
other performance parameters of small ruminants under different feeding management systems.
The more related and significant work with respect to the present study is reviewed and
presented in the following lines.
2.1: Feeding behavior
The feeding behavior appears to have a relationship with efficiency and performance
measurements in animals. Regarding feeding behavior of small ruminants, significant research
outcomes are reviewed. Domingue et al. (1991) determined the eating and ruminating time in
goats and sheep. They offered chaffed Lucerne hay (Medicago sativa) to both species and
reported higher eating time and lower ruminating time in goats than in sheep in a period of
twenty four hours the reason might be specie difference as goats are browser while sheep are
grazer.
Van et al. (2002) reported the same rumination time and eating mode in both species,
while frequencies of eating method were unusual. They evaluated the physical form of whole
sugar cane on feed ingestion, preference and behavior of weaned lambs kids and fed in various
ratios of whole sugar cane with or without concentrate supplement. Kids spent more eating time
and had more eating bouts than lambs the reason may be the type of feed which influence the
eating mood of both species.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------REVIEW OF LITERATURE
-----------------------------------------------------------6-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mahmut et al. (2005) conducted research on (7) seven male Awassi sheep and (7) seven
male Shami goats and fed with a diet having 2503 Kcal ME and155 g crude protein per
kilogram. The recorded activities were eating, ruminating, drinking, resting, standing, and
playing. They claimed goats showed less drinking and standing but higher playing and resting
behavior than sheep. Similar findings were reported by Haddad and Obeidat (2007) who
conducted a research trial on feeding behavior and performance of sheep and goats fed a
concentrate finishing diet having crude protein16% and ME 2.85 Mcal per kg dry matter. The
eating and ruminating times were found to be significantly in kids than those in lambs.
Ramli et al. (2005) reported that goats exhibited eating behavior between 70-80% during
the day. However, goats ate 5-6 hours per day and ate more meals per day than sheep (Morand-
Fehr et al., 1991; Van et al 2002).They also found that goats ate more meals than sheep both
during the day and at night. Goats spent more total time eating and eat longer during the day than
sheep. Goats and sheep spend the same amount of time eating during the night. The goats ate
more slowly than sheep due to selective grazing behavior Solanki (1994) conducted a trial in
semi-arid region of India on gazing and feeding behavior of goats. He found that goats
selectively grazed in a diurnal pattern with two main peaks, consumed more grasses before noon
and more shrubs and bushes in the evening. Although no difference was seen in eating rate but
bite size was larger when consuming thorny bushes compared to grasses.
Fimbresa et al. (2002) used the different levels of hay in lambs finishing diet and
evaluated its effect on the feed intake, mastication, protein retention and digestibility. They fed
chopped hay levels 0, 10, 20 and 30% to 20 Pelibuey growing male lambs of 36 kg and claimed
2.4h/d rumination time without hay, while 6.9 h/d ruminating time was observed when fed the
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------REVIEW OF LITERATURE
-----------------------------------------------------------7-----------------------------------------------------------------
animals 30% hay .As the quantity of hay increased in the ration the variation in time of eating
was also observed from 1.5 to 2.9 hours. However it is concluded that most researchers agree
that goats spent more time eating, less time ruminating and showed more aggressive behavior
rather than sheep.
2.2: Dry matter intake
The performance of farm animals can be greatly affected by dry matter intake. Dry matter
intake in small ruminants is controversial in published literature .The factor may be the breed,
species, environment and the age of animals. However, the information regarding dry matter
intake of goats is reported to be greater, subordinate or shorter to sheep.
In a study Brown and Johnson (1985) fed diets with 35,50 and 65% wheat straw
adlibitum to Toggenburg x Saanen wether kids and Suffolk x Barbados wether lambs. They
found that voluntary dry matter intake per kg body weight was higher (P<.01) for goats.
In another study Reed and Brown (1988) fed four rations containing 0, 15, 25, and 35%
almond hulls, 0, 0.5, 1 and 1.5% urea and 58.4, 42.5, 32.0, and 22.0% alfalfa hay (dry matter
basis) to lactating yearling Alpine goats. They reported increased dry matter intake for the diet
containing 35% almond hulls and 1% urea.
Waheda and Owena (1986) conducted three experiments under stall feeding to compare
roughage intake and selection of small ruminants i.e. Suffolk× Mule and castrated Saanen goats.
The long Lucerne hay was offered in first experiment (10 animals per species; 14 days) in which
goats ate more than sheep (33.2 vs 28.3 g dry matter per kg daily (P < 0.05).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------REVIEW OF LITERATURE
-----------------------------------------------------------8-----------------------------------------------------------------
In experiment 2, long, ammonia-treated barley straw was offered (eight animals per
species; 21 days) and consumption was also higher for goats (21.6 v. 16.4 g DM per kg daily ( P
< 0.01). While feeding freshly cut, chopped stinging nettle (Urtica dioica L.) with treated straw
(eight animals per species), it was observed that nettle consumption was always higher for goats
than sheep.
Larbi et al. (1991) studied voluntary intake and digestibility by sheep and goats of whole-
plant, leaf and stem fractions of Pennisetum purpureum Schum. They reported that daily dry
matter intake in sheep (46g kg-1W0.75; vs 30g kg-1W0.75) of whole plant, leaf were significantly
higher than stem fraction. The dry matter intake in goats was higher on whole plant leaf than
stem fraction (32 g kg -1 W0.75 vs 28g kg-1W0.75) whereas it was higher in sheep than goats on leaf
fraction and whole plant leaf fraction.
Pathak et al. (1992) fed berseem and oats in vegetative stage to black bucks in confined
condition to evaluate the nutritive value of these fodders. Each fodder was offered ad libitum to
three adult male black bucks, housed individually in wire fence enclosures. After a 4-week
adaptation period, a 6-day digestion trial was conducted. He reported dry matter intake of oats as
2.2 kg/100/ body weight, while that of berseem as 3.5 kg/100/ body weight.
Molina et al. (1997) found that on the low quality pasture, voluntary intake of goats and
digestibility was higher than that of sheep. They conducted a research trial in South Spain
wethers and goats fitted rumina canula. The animals were grazed in semi arid areas of the region
where shrubs were the most plant species. Santra et al. (1998) reported lower dry matter intake in
goats than sheep (57.1 vs 62.1g/kg W0.75) in intensive system. It might be attributed to feeding
behavior of goats. Later on Van et al .(2002) conducted two experiments to examine the effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------REVIEW OF LITERATURE
-----------------------------------------------------------9-----------------------------------------------------------------
of physical form of whole sugar cane and different proportions of whole sugar cane, on feed
intake selection and behavior of lambs and kids. They offered both the species whole sugar cane
with or without a concentrate supplementation. They observed higher dry matter intake in lambs
and kids on whole sugar chopped in 1-3 centimeter than 20 centimeter chopped whole sugar cane
(208g vs 173g/d), while better intake was found in kids than lambs (214g vs 166g/d) on whole
sugar cane.
Salem et al. (2005) claimed that voluntary intake of sheep and goats are different on
different foliage species, while feeding Schinus, Chorissia speciosa, Chorissia and Eucalyptus
mole. Cassia fistula intake was better in sheep than goats on body weight basis, while
significantly better intake was found in goats than sheep with Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Schinus
molle, and Chorissia speciosa, Khanal and Upreti (2008) fed four species of tree fodders
fibrious in nature .i.e. Ficus roxburghii ,Garuga pinnata Bauhinia purpurea and Artocarpus
lakoocha to female goats . Higher dry matter intake was found on Artocarpus lakoocha 432 g/d
while on Garuga pinnata, 428 g/d Bauhinia purpurea 342 g/d or Ficus roxburghii 306 g/day.
They concluded that the voluntary intake of sheep and goat varied according to feed offered
because sheep and goats have different feeding behavior, preference and eating mood.
In another study Aregheore, (1996) reported dry matter intake of goats on groundnut shell
0.63kg, maize cob 0.58kg and cassava peel0.83kg while in sheep 0.79, 0.70, 0.83 kg DM/kg W0.75
respectively. Whereas same intake was observed on Acacia cynophula based diet in both species
ie 84.9 and 84.4g DM/Kg W0.75. Moujahed et al. (2005) found no difference in dry matter intake
between sheep and goats when fed a diet of concentrate and barley hay. Intake in both species
varied due to eating method and diet preference (Hadjipanayiotou, 1995).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------REVIEW OF LITERATURE
-----------------------------------------------------------10-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lu and Potchoiba (1990) studied the effect of different energy and protein diets in two
breeds of growing goats. They fed diets containing 2.46, 2.77 or 3.05 Mcal/kg dry matter plus
11.2, 12.7 or 15.1% CP to goats for a period of 112 days. Both breeds of goats, 45 Alpine and 45
Nubian were arranged in 3×3 factorial arrangement and fed ad libitum. They observed that with
increase of crude protein in the diet, dry matter intake increased linearly with all growth
intervals. Results demonstrated that the dry matter intake was better in Alpine than Nubian. The
ME intake in goats fed low-medium and high energy diets was 248, 260, and 198 Kcal/ (kg .75.d)
while CP intake was 9.1, 10.7 and 13.2 g/ (kg .75.d) respectively.
Gregoirea et al. (1996) studied the effect of different protein supplements in Angora
female kids under four commercial farms on the growth, feed conversion, mohair production,
fiber characteristics and blood parameters. Sixty four weaned angora kids from 12-50 week of
age were selected and fed diets based on hay and a concentrate mixture of corn and barely. These
diets were supplemented with either soybeen, soybeen and protected methonine ,hering meal and
corn gluten meal. They observed similar intake on offered diets while goats consumed 6.1 kg
more hay on feed contains herring meal than those fed the soyben-Mepron (soyben with feed
additive composed methonine) diets.
Jia et al. (1995) reported similar dry matter intake in Angora and Cashmere- producing
goats sixteen yearlings eight animals each. The animals were kept under same management
conditions and offered two dietary treatments (8% or 16% CP iso-caloric) fed ad libitum in a 2×2
factorial arrangement. They found that with the increase of protein in the diet increased the dry
matter intake in both breeds of goats increased.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------REVIEW OF LITERATURE
-----------------------------------------------------------11-----------------------------------------------------------------
El Muola et al. (1999) studied male and female desert goat kids in order to evaluate meat
production potential. The kids were kept in two separate groups according to sex. Kids were fed
ad libitum a complete diet (a concentrate mix and green Lucerne). They concluded that male kids
consumed more dry matter and as a result obtained significantly greater live weight gain.
Mahgoub et al. (2000) studied the effect of diets containing different level of ME on the
growth and carcass composition of 40 male Omani lambs. Tens lambs were slaughtered initially
for the information of carcass composition and the remaining thirty animals were fed low,
medium and higher energy diets until animals reached 30kg body weight. They reported that the
dry matter intake was 3.12 and 3.73 percent of body weight. Negesse et al. (2001) found that
with the increase of protein level in the diet of kids the dry matter intake of animals increased
while feeding Saanen male kids to evaluate the effect of protein levels on intake, growth, feed
efficiency and carcass composition.
The voluntary intake and in vivo digestibility of ammoniated rice straw (with urea) and
non-treated straw were evaluated in adult male sheep weighing 35 to 38 kg of live weight (Fadel
et al 2004). The sheep were allocated to the following treatments: T1= (non treated straw, NTS +
urea (20 g/kg of dry matter), T2=non-treated straw + urea (20 g/kg DM + concentrate),
T3=treated straw (4% of urea with base in dry matter + 30% of water), T4=treated straw +
concentrate. The voluntary intake and crude protein consumption was better on rice straw treated
with ammonia, values being 61.04; 51.66; 8.82 and 5.23 g/kg LW0.75/day, respectively, for
ammoniated rice straw and non-treated straw. On both treated and non treated straw the
voluntary and protein intake increased with the inclusion of concentrate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------REVIEW OF LITERATURE
-----------------------------------------------------------12-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kabir et al. (2002) affirmed that the concentrate supplement increased dry matter intake
of goats and sheep. They conducted research on the effect of protein supplementation on the
production and reproduction performance of sheep and goats under grazing condition. Similar
findings were reported by Salim et al. (2002), El Khidir (2009) reported high feed intake in
desert sheep than desert goats under similar levels of feeding.
Hossain et al. (2003b) found that the dry matter intake decreased from 406.1 to
362.4g/day when the supplemental levels increased from 2.39 to 2.86 MJ ME/kg, while feeding
low, medium and high energy to the female goats.
Salim et al. (2003) observed that the dry matter intake in sheep and goats increased with
supplement feeding under grazing conditions than that in un-supplement group. They studied the
effect of supplementation on growth performance of sheep and goats under grazing conditions.
The dry matter and nutrients intake of goats increased with supplementation of sorghum stover
up to 45% of khat (Catha edulis) left over as a sole diet fed to goats (Ismail and Tamir, 2006)
Haddad (2005) selected thirty male Baladi kids of two month of age initially body
weight=15.3±1.3kg body weight were divided in four treatments groups, viz. high forage ,
medium high forage, medium low forage , low forage and contained 60:40, 45:55, 30:70 and
15:85 forage: concentrate ratios, respectively. He reported that dry matter intake was increased
on medium low forage diet than other diets. He concluded that increase of concentrate portion in
diet of kids increased the dry matter intake.
Jabbar and Anjum (2008) fed different forage to concentrate ratio A: 75:25, B: 50:50 and
C: 25:75, respectively to Lohi lambs for a period of 66 days. They observed higher dry matter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------REVIEW OF LITERATURE
-----------------------------------------------------------13-----------------------------------------------------------------
intake on C, than A and B groups. The results showed that increase of concentrate ratio in lambs
feed influenced the dry matter intake of lambs.
Fernandez et al. (2003) used total mixed ration with three different sources of protein,
soybean meal, sunflower meal and fishmeal in eighteen Murciano-Grenadine goats at third
lactation during a period of 30 days. They registered dry matter intake grams per day in goats as
1533.9, 1875.0, and 1846.9 and for Soybean meal, Sunflower meal and Fish meal respectively.
Aregheore (2004) conducted research trials to evaluate the nutritive value of sweet potato
forage and the mixture of sweet potato with batiki grass in goats of 8-9 month age and 12.3±0.18
kg body weight. He fed different ratios of sweet potato and batiki grass to goats and its effect on
intake and digestibility. He concluded that there was no difference in intake of sweet potato and
batiki grass. While, the intakes of mixed diets were statistically (p<0.05) different with each
other.
Haddad and Obeidat (2007) compared Amass lambs with Baladi kids of (14.3kg and
2.5month of age). They found that lambs consumed more dry matter than kids. Latter on
Olomola et al. (2008) studied 24 pregnant west African goats under treatments consisting rumen
Epithelial wall (REW),cassava flour (CFL), ground nut cake treatments(GNC) urea and citrus
pulp diets (CCP) i.e. A, (REW + CFL), B (GNC + CFL), C (, Urea + CFL), D (REW + CPP), E
(REW + CPP )and F(GNC + CPP). They concluded that 60% of dry matter comes from
concentrate supplements while dietary effects on dry matter were not different.
Faftine and Zanetti (2010) investigated the effect of feeding maize Stovers alone or with
multinutrient blocks on the growth of 24 Mozambican Landim goats aging 8 months with 11 kg
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------REVIEW OF LITERATURE
-----------------------------------------------------------14-----------------------------------------------------------------
(±0.61) average body weight, during the dry season. They concluded that Multinutrient block
supplementations increased (p<0.05) total intake gram per day of dry matter (520g versus 279g),
crude protein (67.8g versus 12.5g), neutral detergent fibre (293g versus 184g), acid detergent
fibre (208g versus 126g).
2.3: Live weight gain
Daily weight gain is an important production attribute affecting animals to reach
desirable slaughter weight. Sheep and goats weight gain varies in published articles. Significant
findings of researchers relevant to present study are reported in the following paragraphs.
Hussain et al. (1996) fed ad libitum 188 goats roughage diet of dried bran hay wilted
silage of good quality from tower silos or poor quality silage from aerobically damaged round
bales and supplement with 400g concentrate. They observed better weight gain in goats on good
quality silage than poor quality.
While other workers like Turner et al. (2005) studied the effect of high forage diets of
lespedeza or alfalfa hay on the performance and blood parameters of goats. They fed 18 bucks of
6 months lespedza or alfalfa hay ad libitum and reported that average daily gain was better on
alfalfa in young goats when fed lespedeza cuneata (103 vs 56 g/d).
Wildeus et al. (2007) fed a forage diet of alfalfa hay (Medicago sativa) ad libitum to St.
Croix, Katahdin and Barbados Blackbelly breeds. They found that daily gain was not different
between Katahdin and St.Croix (131g/day vs 117g/day) but both breeds were significantly
different (P˂0.05) than Barbados black belly 87 g/day.
Commented [A1]: This is only ‘reported’ and not ‘reviewed’!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------REVIEW OF LITERATURE
-----------------------------------------------------------15-----------------------------------------------------------------
However, in another study Khanal and Upreti (2008) conducted a trial on leaves and twigs of
tree fodders (Bauhinia purpurea, Ficus roxburghii, Artocarpus lakoocha, Garuga pinnata by
feeding ad libitum to female goats. They found daily weight gain of 71g, 64g, 54g 30g/day on
Artocarpus lakoocha , Garuga pinnata , Bauhinia purpurea or Ficus roxburghii, respectively.
The results of the study revealed that feeding tree fodders favors growth in goats, but these are
not recommended for maximum production. In a study El Muola et al. (1999) found greater live
weight gain in male than female goats while evaluating the meat production potential of goats.
The goats were fed ad libitum a complete diet concentrate mix and green lucerne. Riitta and
Kangasmaki (2000) compared the performance of male lambs and kids. Both species were raised
under stall-feeding environment. The animals were fed timothy/meadow fescue hay ad libitum
having different levels of ME i.e. 14.98 and 9.55MJ and CP 186g and 136g.They observed better
weight gain in lambs than kids.
Lu and Potchoiba (1990) studied the effect of different energy and protein level diets in
90 growing goats of two breeds, (1) Alpine 45 (2) Nubian45, under 3 x 3 factorial arrangements.
The diets of goats containing either 2.46, 2.77 or 3.05 Mcal/kg ME or 11.2, 12.7 or 15.1% crude
protein were fed adlibitum for a period of 112 days. They found that the growth rates were
115, 113 and 99 g/d for goats fed diets containing 2.46, 2.77 and3.05 Mcal/kg ME respectively
while goats fed diets with 11.2, 12.7 and 15.1% crude protein registered average daily gains of
104, 106 and 117 g/d respectively.
Sarwatt (1990) studied the effect of different ratios of Chloris gayana hay and Crotalaria
ochroleuca (marejea) supplementation on the feed intake, growth rate and feed utilization of
growing sheep. He fed ad libitum hay with different levels of mareejea 150g, and 300g.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------REVIEW OF LITERATURE
-----------------------------------------------------------16-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heconcluded that with the increase of marejea supplementation in the diets the daily weight gain
increased in goats but the growth was statistically similar among 300g supplement and ad libitum
marejea in the diet. The daily weight gain was significantly different (P˂0.05) in supplemented
vs un-supplemented groups. El Khidir (2009), in a study reported that under similar levels of
feeding, desert sheep grow more rapidly than desert goats. While, Mahgoub and Lu (2000)
studied the effect of diets containing different levels of ME on the growth and carcass
composition of 40 male Omani lambs. Tens lambs were slaughtered initially for the information
of carcass composition and remaining thirty animals were fed low, medium and higher energy
diets until animals reached 30kg body weight. They concluded that the increase in energy density
in the diets of lambs increased daily weight gain. The daily weight gain of 154g/d was observed
in lambs on high energy diet during the last week of experiment.
Salim et al. (2002) also reported higher daily weight gain in sheep and goats, while
evaluating the effect of concentrate supplementation on intake and growth performance of sheep
and goats under grazing conditions.The animals were grazed in the field 7 hours daily and
supplemented with wheat bran, rice polish and soyabean meal. They concluded that
supplemented feeding of sheep and goats results in better live weight gain than un-supplemented
feeding. Similarly Kabir et al. (2002) reported that the supplement feeding has positive affect on
growth and reproductive performance of sheep and goats, while studying the effect of
concentrate mixture of ( wheat bran,rice polish and soyabean meal) 350 g/d on weight gain and
reproductive performance of goats and sheep under grazing conditions.
Patel et al. (2004) conducted research on twenty four farms with weaned lambs, 12 each
of Marwari and Patanwadi breeds. The animals were randomly divided into two dietary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------REVIEW OF LITERATURE
-----------------------------------------------------------17-----------------------------------------------------------------
treatments i.e. T1-conventional composed maize 38.00,ground nut cake 25.00, rice polish 24.00,
jaggery solution 10.00 (solution prepared from sugar like molasses), Mineral mixture 03.00
percent respectively and T2-nonconventional composed of Mango seed kernel 25.00, prosopis
juliflora 24.00, Babul pods chuni 15.00, cassia tora seeds 06.00, Corn steep liquor 15.00, Urea
01.00, Jaggery solution 10.00 and mineral mixture 03.00 percent respectively and basal diet was
fed ad libitum individually for 180 days under feedlot system. The results of the study showed
that lambs grew at the rate of 63.38 ± 3.25 and 48.80 ± 2.50 g/d to attaine boy weight of 21.35 ±
1.26 and 18.51 ± 0.85 kg bodyweight at 11 months of age under conventional and non-
conventional treatment groups, respectively.
Ismail and Tamir (2006) reported that supplementation of sorghum stover by up to 45% of khat
leftover improves the weight gain of goats, while Hossain et al. (2003-a) studied the effects of
three feeding regimes on growth performance and reproductive performance of sheep and goats.
They affirmed that the weight gain increased in both sheep and goats as the energy levels
increased in the diet of sheep and goats.
Karim et al. (2007) conducted research on the Kheri breed with 6 month old finished
lambs under extensive management and grazing with ad libitum concentrate supplementation or
intensive feeding. The better growth rate was observed in supplement group followed by
intensive and extensive arrangement groups.
Similarly in a study Salim et al. (2003) found higher live weight gain in supplemented
groups under grazing condition than un-supplemented group when they were conducting
research on the effect of supplementation on growth and reproductive performance of sheep and
goats.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------REVIEW OF LITERATURE
-----------------------------------------------------------18-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daskiran et al. (2010) studied the fattening performance of 20 male Norduz kids weaned
at 2.5 month of age under semi-intensive and extensive system. They divided animals equally in
to two treatment groups. The first group was raised under semi-intensive fed ad libitum with a
mixture of pasture and concentrate 150gram and the second were raised extensively on pasture
only. They observed higher weight gain in the intensive managed group than in the extensive
group (153.10 vs 132.14g/day).The better weight gain might be due to the concentrate
supplementation. The results of the study showed that semi-intensive is better than extensive
feeding systems.
Kabir et al. (2004) studied the protein supplementation on growth performance of female sheep
and goats. They fed species a low protein (CP, 168g/kg DM) consisting of wheat bran (43%),
rice polish (43%) and soybean meal (14%) and a high protein (CP, 208g/ kg DM) consisting of
wheat bran (35%), rice polish (35%) and soybean meal (30%) in a randomized block design.
They observed the high protein diet did not significantly increase live weight gain (33.0 vs.
25.2g/d) in goats. In contrast, sheep those received the high protein diet significantly improved
live weight gain (36.6 vs. 10.7 g/d) than on low protein diet. Spruzs et al. (2006) reported that
diets supplemented with additional feedstuffs such as wheat bran, sunflower and rapeseed meals
have significant positive influence on live weight gain.
Few other workers like Ryan et al. (2007) reported better daily weight gain in goats while
comparing range and concentrate feeding. Goats were fed diets ad libitum, with no concentrate
(range) or with one of three levels of concentrate (low, 50%; medium, 70%; high, 90%) for 126
days. They concluded that daily body weight gain in animals increased on concentrate diet than
animals feeding on range grass. Mean while Haddad and Obeidat (2007) studied the feeding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------REVIEW OF LITERATURE
-----------------------------------------------------------19-----------------------------------------------------------------
behavior and growth parameters of Awassi lambs and Baladi kids and observed higher average
daily weight gain in lambs than kids, different (P˂0.05) among both species. They concluded
that the Awassi lambs ate more feed than Baladi kids and growth rate was faster in lambs than
kids but feed conversion ratio was better in kids than Awassi lambs.
Munir et al. (2008) conducted an experiment on Blochi lambs to evaluate the effect of
three feeding systems on growth performance of Balochi lambs. They divided the animals in
treatment groups. (1) Extensive system, (2) semi-extensive system and (3) intensive system. The
animals in treatment (1) were grazed only on pasture in treatment (2) grazing plus daily feed
supplementation @0.58kg/animal/day and treatment (3) intensively experimental
ration@1.25kg/animal/day. The ingredients used in experimental ration i.e Lucerne hay 50 ,cotton seed cake 25
, wheat straw 10, wheat bran 15 % respectively, which composed 12% cp and 55% total
digestible nutrients. They reported that animals on treatment 1 lost. 26g/lamb, on treatment 2
animals maintain and put 20g/lambs while, on treatment 3 lambs perform better and put weight
gain 66g/animal/day.
Jabbar and Anjum (2008) fed different forage to concentrate ratio A 75:25, B50:50 and C
25:75, respectively to 75, Lohi lambs for a period of 66 days, The berseem fodder was used as
forage source. They observed better daily weight gain on treatment C, (168±14g) than A (105 ±
12g) and B (144 ± 09g). The results of study showed that increasing the concentrate ratio in the
feed of Lohi lambs has positive effect on growth performance.
Kaithoa, et al. (1998) fed un-chopped teff straw (Eragrostis tef) ad libitum and
supplemented with wheat bran 150g and Leucaena or sesbania 200 or 400 to the sheep and
goats and studied the long term effect of supplement feeding on production and reproduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------REVIEW OF LITERATURE
-----------------------------------------------------------20-----------------------------------------------------------------
performance of male Ethiopian highland sheep and East African goats. They observed better
weight gain on the 400g of browse supplementation group were significantly (P˂0.05) different
from other treatment groups.
Negesse et al. (2001) conducted research trial on Sannen kids to study the effect of
dietery levels of crude protein on the performance of kids. They found that increased levels of
dietary crude protein has positive relationship to the weight gain, hence weight gain in Sannen
kids increased 94 to 181 g/day.
Similar study was under taken by Hwangbo et al. (2009) in growing Korean black goats.
Thirty six 6 month old growing black male goats (initial body weight =17.95±0.13 kg) were
selected and randomly divided into four treatments each having 9 animals. The crude protein
levels in total mixed ration were 14, 16, 18, and 20% of dry matter and all diets contained (2.4
Mcal ME/kg DM) and were fed to the goats for a period of 20 weeks with a 15-day adaptation
period. They revealed that the average daily gain significantly (P<0.05) increased as dietary
crude protein levels increased, whereas highest average daily gain was found on 18% crude
protein treatment. The results from this study suggested that an adequate crude protein levels in
total mixed ration for achieving optimal growth performance of Korean black goats might be
18% of dry matter and crude protein levels above 18% may not further boost performance of the
animals. Few other workers like Manayea et al. (2009) reported that supplementation of sesbania
foliage up to 400g significantly increased growth rate of hair type local sheep up to 103g/d, than
un-supplemented group (75.6g/day) while evaluating the performance of sheep under different
levels of Napier grass-sesbania mixtures consisting of 100, 200, 300, and 400 g/kg of sesbania on
a dry matter basis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------REVIEW OF LITERATURE
-----------------------------------------------------------21-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mean while, Safaria et al. (2009) studied the effects of concentrate supplementation on
carcass and meat quality of feedlot finished small East African goats. In this study they used 23
animals of approximately 14.5 months age and 20.1 kg body weight were and fed ad libitum
different or less than this i.e (100%, 66%, 33% and 0%).They concluded that on 100% treatment
group goats had 31g daily body weight gain which was higher by 14g/day than the other
treatment groups.
Onia et al. (2010) fed different levels of cassava leaves based concentrate with Psnicum
maximum basal diet to the growing West African dwarf goats. The animals were allotted to four
treatments, 0, 20, 40, and 60% on dry matter basis respectively. They observed higher weight
gain on 60% than that on other treatments (P˂0.05).The gain was 52.9g/day while lower gain
(33.8g/day) was observed in control (0.0%) group. In another study Getachew et al. (1994)
conducted research experiment on sheep to study the effect of forage legume supplementation on
the performance of sheep. They offered basal diet of maize stover supplemented with legume
hay i.e Macrotyloma axillare, Stylosanthes guianensis and Desmodium intortum cotton seed cake
and cotton seed alone. The better body weight gain was observed in sheep supplemented with
Macrotyloma axillare. Similar body weight gain was found in sheep when legumes were
supplemented with cotton seed cake. The weight gain loss was observed in sheep when fed
Stylosanthes guianensis in the first phase but in the second phase low body weight gain was
observed in sheep. Whereas Aregheore (2004) reported that daily weight gain of goats
significantly increased when fed a mixture of sweet potato with different ratios of batiki grass
0:100, 50:50, 75:25 and 100:0 to the goats of 8-9 month of age with 12.3±0.18 kg body weight.
They concluded that the weight gain of goats improved by the type of forage and inclusion level
of the supplement. The greater weight gain was observed on mixed diets.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------REVIEW OF LITERATURE
-----------------------------------------------------------22-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mellado et al. (2008) evaluated the property of feeding various levels of S. angustifolia in
a whole ration on growth performance and diet digestibility of crossbred female goats (native ×
dairy goats; 9.4 ± 2.2 kg) were randomly allotted to five dietary groups (two goats per pen, four
replications per ration).The goats were fed total mixed ration i.e. control ration containing 0% S.
angustifolia (T0) and four rations in which S. angustifolia gradually replaced alfalfa as (25%
(T25), 50% (T50) , 75% (T75) , and 100% (T100) of the diet grains and forage made up 70% and
30% of the dietary dry matter in all rations. The differences were found among treatments and in
average body weight gain ranged from 88–124 g/day.
Few other workers like Chobtang et al. (2009) conducted experiment to evaluate the
growth performance of Thai indigenous male goats fed different levels of crude protein in total
mixed rations.The four dietery treatments were treatments were randomly allocated into 5 blocks
of the animals stratified on their initial body weight They reported average daily gains of 56.97,
61.42, 63.30 and 92.13 g/d, at CP levels of 8, 10, 12 and 14% respectively.
Faftine and Zanetti (2010) investigated the effect of feeding maize Stover ad libitum
alone or with multi-nutrient block on the growth of 24 Mozambican Landim goats aging 8
months with 11.00 kg ±0.61 average body weight, during the dry season. They found that goats
on diet supplemented with blocks had higher (p<0.05) growth rate 9.17 than non supplemented
group which lost 7.99 g day -1.
The average daily weight gain in both sheep and goats varied while mostly researchers
agree that combining grazing with concentrate supplementation increases the weight gain in both
sheep and goats more than grazing only, or stall feeding without grazing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------REVIEW OF LITERATURE
-----------------------------------------------------------23-----------------------------------------------------------------
2.4: Nutrient digestibility
The growth performance of ruminants is a dependent variable, influenced by independent
variables like digestibility of nutrient and the environment, while nutrients digestibility depends
on two factors, one is animal related like species such as sheep and goats, breed and the other
related to feed, quality and composition of feed. The nutrient digestibility in small ruminants is
controversial due to the difference in age breed environment and the feed quality and feeding
pattern in published literature, regarding to nutrient digestibility of sheep and goats. Significant
reports relevant to the present study are reviewed as below. Brown and Johnson (1985) studied
ingestion and digestibility of wheat straw diets by goats and sheep. They reported that the
digestibility of dry matter, estimated by total fecal collection, was not significantly different
between species however higher for sheep (57%) than for goats (52%). NDF and ADF
digestibility was also higher (P<.01) in sheep than goats, with the greatest difference noted for
the 65% wheat straw diet than 30 and 50 percent wheat straw diets.
Lamba and Rajora(2002) evaluated guar (Cynopsis tetragonaloba) straw feeding in sheep
and goats in terms of intake and nutrient digestibility. They selected Sonadi sheep and Devgarhi
goats six each and maintained under similar management facilities. Guar straw was offered as
sole feed during 800 to 1600 h throughout the experimental period of 50 days. The guar straw
contained 12.4% crude protein and 30.5% crude fibre. The digestibility of DM and CP was lower
in sheep (71.4%) that in goats (74.0%) while the crude fibre digestibility was higher in sheep
(74.2%) that in goats (71.4%). However, digestible crude protein value of guar straw was 9.08%
in goats and 8.86% in sheep whereas total digestible nutrients values were 71.9% and 70.9% in
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------REVIEW OF LITERATURE
-----------------------------------------------------------24-----------------------------------------------------------------
goats and sheep respectively. They concluded from the study that goat utilized guar straw better
than sheep.
Pathak et al. (1992) fed adult blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra) oats (Avena sativa) and
berseem (Trifolium alexandrinum) to study the intake and digestibility. They reported that dry
matter digestibility was better for berseem than for oat fodder. They concluded that oats and
berseem are platable and nutritious for black bucks. Larbi et al. (1991) conducted research on
sheep and goats to study the whole-plant, leaf and stem fractions of Pennisetum purpureum
schum voluntary intake and digestibility. They reported it better in goats than in sheep (76%
vs73%) .. The digestibility of CP (66 vs 61%) and crude fibre (80 vs 76%) was greater in goats
than in sheep. However inter, treatment dry matter digestibility was significantly higher on stem
fraction (78%) than leaf fraction (73%) and whole-plant leaf fraction (73%).
Abu Zanat (2005) studied the Atriplex hainzus and Atriplex nummularia effect on intake
and digestibility of sheep by replacing the alfalfa hay in the diet of Awassi sheep. They observed
that the treatments had significant effect on digestibility. the inclusion level of Atriplex
numalaria up to 50% of the diet had no significant effect on the digestibility, whereas the
inclusion of Atriplex halinzus above 25% reduced the dry matter organic matter digestibility. He
concluded that Atriplem namularia is better than A.halimunas. The inclusion level of
A.nummulari is better to replace 50% alfalfa without any negative effect on over all dry matter
digestibility.
Wildeus et al. (2007) fed a forage diet of Medicago sativa to Barbados Blackbelly
Katahhdin and St.Croix breeds. They investigated intake, weight gain, digestibility and nitrogen
use. They found that digestibility dry matter crude protein NDF and ADF in Blackbelly
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------REVIEW OF LITERATURE
-----------------------------------------------------------25-----------------------------------------------------------------
58.3,67.7, 41.8,38.5 , Katahdin 63.0,72.3,49.4,44.0 and in St. Croix breeds 59.3, 69.4, 43.6,
36.5 respectively. Results of demonstrated that the digestibility of DM, CP, NDF,ADF was
higher for Katahdin compared to Blackbelly with St. Croix breeds. Khanal and Upreti (2008)
studied the leaves and twigs of four species tree fodders in female goats. They fed Bauhinia
purpurea, Artocarpus lakoocha, Ficus roxburghii and Garuga pinnata. They reported nutrient
digestibility % of Artocarpus lakoocha ie DM 53.4, CP 53.2, NDF 50.3, ADF 45.2,
Bauhinia purpurea DM 46.5 CP 45.0, NDF 40.8, ADF 40.2 , Garuga pinnata DM 58.8, CP
57.0, NDF 50.3, ADF 49.4 , Ficus roxburghii DM 44.8 CP 44.1 NDF 42.5, ADF 38.7 using
female goats.
Ahmed and Ahmed (1983) studied the intake and digestibility of cattle and sheep on
berseem and sorghum forage. Both species were fed adlibitum and supplemented cattle with
molasses while sheep were supplemented with dura grain. The digestibility was the same in
cattle on sorghum and berseem while in case of sheep the better digestibility was found on
berseem than sorghum. The digestibility of sorghum was improved by supplementation with
dura grain and molasses in cattle and sheep, whereas supplementation had no significant effect
on the digestibility of berseem in both species.
Sarwatt (1990) conducted a trial on growing sheep to study the effect of supplementation
on intake, weight gain, and digestibility. They selected 12 animals were randomly divided in
treatment groups i.e only hay A, hay plus 150 gram marajea B, hay plus 300 gram merajea,C
and hay plus adlibitum merajea D. They observed that supplementation significantly (P˂ 0.01)
increased dry matter digestibility in animals on treatment D and crude protein digestibility was
also better by three times in the un-supplemented group on treatment D and organic matter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------REVIEW OF LITERATURE
-----------------------------------------------------------26-----------------------------------------------------------------
digestibility was increased with the increase of supplement in diets, significantly (P˂0.01) higher
in group D than other treatment groups.
Fernandez and Sanchez-Seiquer (2003) carried out a digestibility trial to determine the
quality of a commercial total mixed ration in 3 years old Murciano-Granadina goats in mid
lactation. The goats were offered total mixed ration at three levels; 2, 3 and 4 kg/d and observed
DM, NDF and ADF digestibility as 66.99, 66.4, 66.5, 48.52, 47.56, 46.59 and 36.27, 32.52,
32.47 percent respectively.
Belewu and Olajide (2010) in an experiment used West African dwarf sheep to study the
effect of different dietary treatments on intake live weight gain and digestibility. They divided
sheep in to three treatment groups, A, B, C. Treatment A. control soybeen meal based diet
B,50:50 soybeen. meal and muscuna seed. meal and C diet was 100% mucuna. seed meal. The
apparent digestibility of diet A, DM 55.98, CP 80.04, ADF 61.53 and NDF 63.78%
Mucunaseed meal based diet B, DM 60.88, CP 75.53, ADF,69.29 and NDF,73.36% while in
diet C,DM 64.19, CP 82.53, ADF 76.36 and NDF 72.94% respectively. The digestibility of
diets B and C were significantly (P˂0.05) higher than diet A consisted soyabean. meal only.
Mahgoub and Lu (2000) studied the effect of diets containing different level of ME on
the growth and carcass composition of 40 male Omani lambs. Tens lambs were slaughtered
initially for the information of carcass composition and the remaining thirty animals were fed
low, medium and higher energy diets until animals reached 30kg body weight. They reported
that the dry matter digestibility increased as the ME levels increased in the diet of Omani lambs.
The digestibility on high energy diet was 73.9% was followed by medium and low energy diets.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------REVIEW OF LITERATURE
-----------------------------------------------------------27-----------------------------------------------------------------
Harish et al. (2003) conducted a trial on .yearlings female lambs fed either fresh or dry
ingadulcis (Pithecellobium dulce) leaves ad libitum. They concluded that fresh ingadulcis leaves
were digested to a significantly higher level than dry leaves. Fadel et al. (2004) evaluated
voluntary intake and in vivo digestibility of ammoniated rice straw and non-treated straw (NTS)
in adult male sheep. The sheep were allocated to the following treatments: T1=NTS + urea (20
g/kg of dry matter), T2=NTS + urea (20 g/kg DM + concentrate), T3=treated straw (4% of urea
with base in DM + 30% of water), T4=treated straw + concentrate. They observed significant
differences for dry matter and neutral detergent fiber apparent digestibility, for ammoniated and
non-treated straw and that concentrate offered significantly increased DM and CP apparent
digestibility for both ammoniated and non-treated straw.
Fimbresa et al. (2002) studied the effect of different inclusion levels of hay on the
performance of 20 Pelibuey growing male lambs of 36 kg body weight. The treatments were
allotted 05, 10, 20, and 30% hay levels in the finishing ration in un-chopped form. They
observed higher dry matter digestibility of 85.5on 0% inclusion level of hay followed by the
other treatment groups. As the inclusion level increased in finishing ration, the dry matter
digestibility decreased. The NDF digestibility was also better (59.4) on 0% inclusion levels of
hay followed by other treatment groups used in the experiment. The increased level of hay in diet
influenced NDF digestibility of finishing ration in lambs.
Lopez Campos et al. (2005) conducted a study to find out the consequence of the
inclusion of sugar beet vinasse in the diet of ewes at maintenance on voluntary intake of barley
straw, diet digestibility and other parameters. All animals were offered barley straw ad libitum
plus a barley grain based concentrate. The control group received no supplement, whereas group
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------REVIEW OF LITERATURE
-----------------------------------------------------------28-----------------------------------------------------------------
lucerne was supplemented with 15% lucerne, group vinasse 15 with 15% sugar beet vinasse and
group vinasse 30 with 30% sugar beet vinasse. They reported that inter treatment digestibility of
nutrient was not different.
Haddad and Obeidat (2007) fed concentrate finishing diet while evaluating feeding
behavior and performance of sheep and goats. They concluded that nutrient digestibility was
better in kids than in lambs. However, NDF digestibility was similar among both the species.
Chobtang et al. (2009) evaluated the growth performance of Thai indigenous male goats
fed different levels of crude protein in total mixed rations. They found that increasing levels of
crude protein content in total mix ration not only improved crude protein intake but also
enhanced crude protein digestibility.
Halit Imik et al. (2008) conducted research on Akkaraman rams fed low-tannin sorghum
and other conventional feeds. Four Akkaraman rams weighing 55 kg were fed barley (1200g
+800 g clover), corn (1200 g + 800 g clover), sorghum (1200 g + 800 g clover), and low quality
clover (1200 g) in a 4x4 Latin square design experiment. The apparent digestibility for crude
protein was 73.92, 67.92, 31.92, and 63.52 in rams fed sorghum, barley ,corn and clover,
respectively (P<0.05 for both),while NDF digestibility was 67.55 ,51.70 ,50.59 53.58% and ADF
digestibility was 44.30, 45.11, 30.02 and 51.65% respectively. The digestibility of NDF and
ADF were statistically similar among treatments.
Faftine and Zanetti (2010) investigated the effect of feeding maize stover alone or with
multinutrient block on the growth of 24 Mozambican Landim goats aging 8 months with 11 kg
(±0.61) average body weight, during the dry season. At the end of growth trial, a 5 day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------REVIEW OF LITERATURE
-----------------------------------------------------------29-----------------------------------------------------------------
digestibility trial was conducted. They reported higher digestibility (%) of dry matter (61.1
versus 46.6), crude protein (69.5 vs -5.60), neutral detergent fibre (55.5 vs 45.1) and acid
detergent fibre (53.3 vs 43.3). However the contradictory and unimpressive results from various
reviewed reports might be in part due to the reasons other than inter-species differences in
digestive physiology. It is evident that wide difference in experimental conditions were
represented by these several reports, like age, weight, breed of the experimental animals,
number of animals per treatment, feed sources and chemical composition.
2.5: Feed efficiency
Efficient feed is important for commercial rearing of domestic animals.Mtenga and
Kitaly (1990) carried out a research trial on 24 Tanzanian growing male goats to study the
effect of different protein levels on growth performance and carcass characteristics of Tanzanian
goats. The animals were randomly divided in four treatment groups A, B, C and D. Each
treatment groups was fed hay ad libitum. Supplements of 200 g/day of concentrate with different
level of crude protein to the B contain 102g, C150g and D177g CP/kg dry matter while treatment
A was control. They reported greater body weight gain on diet D than the other treatment
groups. The results of the study indicate that the high protein diet increased growth of Tanzanian
goats.
Saikia et al. (1995) fed different levels of concentrates to the weaned cross bred goats in
three treatment groups A, B C. The crude protein level was same for all treatment groups but
TDN and digestible energy was different for each treatment group, as (A= contains 60%TDN
and 2.25 Mcal/kg DE), (B=65% TDN and 2.50 Mcal/kg DE) and(C=70%TDN 3.00 Mcal/kg DE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------REVIEW OF LITERATURE
-----------------------------------------------------------30-----------------------------------------------------------------
DM).They reported that goat performance was better on t diet C, while the performance of goat
on other treatment was satisfactory.
Gelaye et al. (1997) evaluated the dietary worth of pearl millet grain in growing and
lactating goats. They diets were composed of either 40% pearl millet, 40% corn, or corn and
pearl millet mixed 40% 1:1 and were balanced to hold 16% CP and 2.24 Mcal digestible energy
(DE) per kilogram dry matter basis. They reported that on complete replacement of corn with
pearl millet the daily weight gain and FCR (feed conversion ratio) were depressed by 25.4 and
19.0 percent respectively.
Gregoirea et al. (1996) studied the effect of different protein supplements in Angora
female kids under four commercial farms on the growth, feed conversion, mohair production,
fiber characteristics and blood parameters. Sixty four weaned angora kids from 12-50 week of
age were selected and fed from 12–16 (start), 16–24 (growth) and 24–50 (finish) weeks of age
diets based on hay and a concentrate mixture of corn and barley containing 22.8, 18.3 and 15%
CP respectively. They reported that feed conversion was highest for goats fed herring meal and
lowest for those fed corn gluten: however, differences among treatments were non-significant.
Mahgoub et al (2000) conducted trial on forty male Omani lambs to study the properties
of feeding diets containing different levels of ME on weight gain and carcass composition. Ten
lambs were slaughtered for initial information of carcass composition, while other three groups
were fed diets with varying concentration of ME being of high, medium and low density. They
reported increase of ME concentration in the diet improved conversion efficiency in lambs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------REVIEW OF LITERATURE
-----------------------------------------------------------31-----------------------------------------------------------------
Later on few other workers like Sheridan et al. (2003) reported that individual feeding of
two pellet diets with varying energy levels ad libitum for either 28 or 56 days to the Boer goat
and South African mutton Merino lambs after weaning improved weight gain in mutton Merino
sheep significantly being higher than Boer kids. The inter-treatment difference was not
significant in the case of the Boer kids. While, in the case of Merino mutton lambs the inter
treatment difference was significant between high and low energy diets.
Patel et al. (2004) carried out a trial on twenty four farms born weaned lambs, 12 each of
Marwari and Patanwadi breed. The lambs were fed two dietary treatments viz. T1-conventional
and T2-non-conventional individually for 180 days under a feed lot system. They reported that
feed conversion efficiency in terms of dry matter, digestible crude protein and total digestible
nutrient per kg gain was significantly influenced by dietary treatment in Patanwadi breed.
Mean while Dzakuma et al. (2004) selected two goat- populations of the Spanis and
Tennesse stiff-legged breeds from weaning to six months and fed the same ration with different
levels i.e 100%, 85% and 70% containing same CP180g/kg and ME 65%. The feed efficiency for
Spanish and Tennesse Stiff-legged breed from weaning to six month of age was 0.122 vs 0.167
grams and from nine to thirteen month was 0.088 vs 0.104 were significantly different from each
other. The results of study revealed that the Tennesse Stiff-legged breed is more efficient than
Spanish goats breed.
Urge et al. (2004) conducted research on four breeds of goats Spanish, Boer, Alpine and
Angora and reported that feed efficiency was greater in Angora and Boer goats than Alpine and
Spanish goats in the first week to the twelfth week while lower efficiency was observed in
Spanish goats than in Angora goats during weeks 13-14.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------REVIEW OF LITERATURE
-----------------------------------------------------------32-----------------------------------------------------------------
Haddad (2005) studied the effect of different forage and concentration ratios on the
performance of Baladi kids. The kids were given four treatments containing (1)60:40, (2)45:55,
(3) 30:70 and (4) 15:85 forage to concentrate ratio and reported average daily gain for kids fed
the15:85forage concentrate ratio was better than kids fed the 60:40 high forage diet. While on
45:55 and 30:70 diets kids had intermediate daily weight gain. They reported that increasing
concentrate in diets decreasing forage parts results in average daily weight gain and improve the
feed efficiency.
Haddad and Obeidat (2007) reported that lambs performed better than kids on high
concentrate diets. The lambs ate more and grew faster than kids. Kids were more efficient feed
converters than lambs while kids had significantly lower feed to gain ratio. Aregheore (2007)
fed different levels foliage of fluted pumpkin i.e. O, 25, 50, 75 and100% to Angola Nubian
goats. They reported feed efficiency 0.11, 0.18, 0.29, 0.37 and 0.24grams while feed conversion
ratio 9.1, 5.7, 3.5, 2.7 and 4.1 respectively.
Later on Jabbar and Anjum (2008) fed Lohi lambs with different concentrate and fodder
ratios (forage to concentrate) 75:25, 50:50 and 25:75 and reported that feed conversion ratio
averaged 16.41, 11.30 and 11.53, respectively. They concluded that feed conversion ratio was
significantly different among treatment groups.
Wildeus et al. (2007) studied performance of three sheep breeds .The animals were fed
chopped alfalfa hay and allowed a 14 day adaptation period. The initial body weight was
unusual between breeds.They concluded that feed to gain ratio between breeds were 8.7, 9.1,
10.5 in St..Croix, Katahdin and Barbados Black belly respectively the difference were non
significant. The sheep breeds, St. Croix and Barbados Black Belly sheep have lower average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------REVIEW OF LITERATURE
-----------------------------------------------------------33-----------------------------------------------------------------
daily gain and gain: feed ratio than...wool sheep breeds, while the St. Croix. group seemed to be
better than Barbados Black belly lambs. They also observed that hair x wool crosses better than
purebred hair sheep and expressed similar average daily weight gain and G:F ratio to wool
breeds.
Karim et al. (2007) studied Carcass characteristics of Kheri lambs kept under various
feeding management systems. The lambs were divided in to three treatment groups i.e. (A
extensive range grazing only), (B grazing with ad libitum concentrate supplement), (C, intensive
feeding). They observed that feed conversion efficiency was higher in lambs maintained under
grazing with supplementation than intensive and extensive range management. The goats are
preferred over other livestock species because the goats have better utilizing ability of shrubs and
other plant species however, weight gain and feed efficiency are poorer than other livestock
when goats are fed in confinement situations (McDowell and Woodward 1982). Due to lower
mature body weights of goats compared with sheep, one can theorize that average daily gain and
G: F would be lower, particularly with intense feeding regimens. The growth rates of Boer goats
were reported by Van Niekerk and Casey (1988) to be generally inferior to sheep. However,
there is a big difference among performance and feed efficiency when comparing different breed
types of goats.
Cameron et al. (2001) reported that Boer x Spanish goats weight gain and feed efficiency
was better than in purebred Spanish goats. However it was concluded that the feed efficiency is
different among both species while efficiency is also different among breeds of same species.
Mostly research reports regarding feed efficiency of small ruminants are correlated with
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------REVIEW OF LITERATURE
-----------------------------------------------------------34-----------------------------------------------------------------
supplement feeding: as crude protein ratio increases the feed efficiency becomes better in both
species.
2.6: Feeding economics
Feed is considering the basic unit for optimum production. Although, lowered amounts of
daily intake influence the cost of production, they also affect average daily gain. The feeding
economics varies according to the cost of ingredients and is also influenced by the intake of
animals and the efficiency of feed to be converted in per unit body mass and the ability of animal
to convert dry matter intake to per unit weight gain. The feeding economics of sheep and goats in
literatures is variable, regarding to feeding economics of small ruminants. Important results of
researchers relevant to the present study are reported here.
Anandana et al. (1996) carried out a study to replace the de-oiled groundnut cake with
urea ammoniated neem seed kernel. They fed 20% and 22.5% de-oiled groundnut cake in
experimental ration to equal number male and female goats. They observed body weight gain as
32.8g±3.20, FCR 8.7±0.15 and cost per kg gain rupees 29.8 ±1.83. The feeding cost has lower in
male than female goats might be due to sex. The feeding cost among treatment was cheaper on
experimental ration than control group. They concluded that the urea ammoniated neem seed
kernel meal is economical than de-oiled groundnut cake. The kernel meal with urea treatment
replaces the de-oiled groundnut cake without any negative effect on the performance of goats.
Gregoirea et al. (1996) studied the effect of different protein supplements in Angora
female kids at four commercial farms on the growth, feed conversion, mohair production, fiber
characteristics and blood parameters. Sixty four weaned angora kids from 12-50 week of age
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------REVIEW OF LITERATURE
-----------------------------------------------------------35-----------------------------------------------------------------
were selected and fed diets based on hay and a concentrate mixture of corn and barely containing
22.8, 18.3 and 15% CP respectively. They reported that the cost of production per kg gain was
economical for goats supplemented with herring meal and soyabeen while, the cost of production
per kg gain was nor economical Rs 156 and 158 rupees on goats supplement with soybean-
Mepron and corn gluten meal.
Patel et al. (2004) carried out a trial on weaned lambs from four farms, 12 each of
Marwari and Patanwadi breed and were fed two dietary treatments viz. T1-conventional and T2-
nonconventional individually for 180 days under feed lot system. They concluded that the cost of
production in terms of per kg gain and per kg dressed weight was economical in nonconventional
treatment group due to the use of cheaper non conventional ingredients. While in a similar study
Trived et al. (2005) fed two creep mixtures to the lambs and found that the performance of lamb
was similar on conventional and non-conventional creep mixture in term of per kg gain and per
kg dressed weight. They concluded that conventional and non- conventional creep mixtures are
useful for improvement of growth rate in pre weaning lambs and recommended that the latter
could be safely and economically used for lamb rearing.
Legesse et al. (2005) compared the intensive, semi-intensive and extensive feeding
systems in Somali goats. They divided the goats into three treatment groups i.e. first group was
reared intensively, second group was fed semi-intensively and third were kept extensively. They
found that goat reared on semi-intensive performed better than other treatment groups. They
concluded that the semi-intensive system of feeding is more cost effective than intensive and
extensive systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------REVIEW OF LITERATURE
-----------------------------------------------------------36-----------------------------------------------------------------
Since than a few other workers like Haddad and Obeidat (2007) conducted an experiment
on Awassi lambs and Baladi kids to evaluate the performance of sheep and goats on concentrate
finishing diets. They reported that the cost of production in terms of per kg gain was lower in
kids than lambs under confined feeding systems.
Jabbar and Anjum (2008) conducted a trial on fattening performance of Lohi lambs to
study the effect of different forage to concentrate ratios. They fed the animals with different
levels of forage to concentrate of 75:25, 50:50 and 25:75 A, B and C, respectively for a period of
66 days. They observed that cost of production/ kg gain was Rs.74, 61 and 55 for groups A, B
and C respectively. They concluded that the forage to concentrate ratio 25:75 is cost effective for
mutton production.
A few other workers like Belewu and Olajide (2010) in an experiment selected West
African dwarf goats to study the effect of different dietary treatments on intake, weight gain and
digestibility of goats. They divide goats in to three treatment groups, A, B, C. The treatment A
consisted only hay B, 50:50 soyabeen meal and muscuna seed meal and C diet was 100%
muscuna, seed meal. The feed cost of treatment groups. A= 147.59, B= 81.04 and C= 30.12.
They concluded that C diet was economical than other treatment groups. It is concluded that the
cost of production per kilogram live weight gain in small ruminants can be enhanced by using
cheaper ingredients of concentrate. The use of concentrate as a supplement source in grazing
animals is a more cost effective production system than the animal grazed on forage or fed under
intensive conditions without concentrate supplementation.
The feeding behavior, dry matter intake nutrient digestibility and other performance
parameters varies in sheep and goats. The main influence in this respect is breed, specie; feed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------REVIEW OF LITERATURE
-----------------------------------------------------------37-----------------------------------------------------------------
resources, feeding pattern and environmental factors .This review study suggest that there is a
need of research projects carried out in local breeds of sheep and goats within their regional
climatic conditions. Further, the performance of those breeds needs to be evaluated with their
native feed resources.
-----------------------------------------------------------------38-------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter No. 3
MATERIALS AND METHODS
To study the feeding behavior and performance of Lohi sheep and Beetal goats both
originated from Punjab province of Pakistan under various feeding and management systems,
three experiments were conducted at Small Ruminants Training and Research Center, Ravi
Campus, Pattoki, kasur, District (longitude 73.85, latitude 31.02, altitude 186 m) situated 80
kilometer south west of Lahore on the Lahore-Multan Road. The climate is relatively dry and
rains usually occur during the months of July, August and September. In the first experiment
voluntary feed intake and digestibility of summer and winter fodders in sheep and goats were
studied in two phases. In first phase two trials were conducted on summer fodders to evaluate the
voluntary feed intake and digestibility of summer fodders and in second phase one study was
done on winter fodders. The second experiment was conducted to evaluate the performance of
sheep and goats kept under three feeding management systems. In third experiment the
performance of sheep and goats kept under intensive feeding management system was studied
while feeding total mixed ration and fodder with concentrate supplementation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------MATERIALS AND METHODS
-------------------------------------------------------------39-----------------------------------------------------------------
3.1 EXPERIMENT-1
Comparative study of voluntary feed intake and digestibility of summer and winter fodders
in sheep and goats
3.1.1 Experimental animals
Ninety adult female animals consisting of Lohi sheep (n=45) and Beetal goats (n=45)
were selected from the flocks maintained at Small Ruminants Research Center, UVAS, Ravi
Campus Pattoki. Sheep (17 month ±21 days of age and 32.5±0.28 kg body weight) and goats (18
month ±17 days of age and 32.3±0.26 kg body weight) of approximately similar age and weight
were divided in to six groups under 2×3 factorial arrangements i.e., groups A ,B , C for goats and
D, E , F for sheep. The animals of each group were ear tagged for their identification. Before the
start of experiment, all animals were provided with an adjustment period of one week and were
treated for internal and external parasites. The animals were weighed initially and thereafter at
fortnightly intervals. The duration of the experiment was one month. The dietary treatments were
Jantar (coriandrum sativum) ,guar (cyamopsis tetragonolba) and cowpea (Vigna sinesis). These
fodders were fed to the respective treatment groups of both species.
In the second part of the experiment number of animals, sex, design of the experiment,
duration, parameters and management facilities remained the same as in first part. However, the
age and weight were different i.e. sheep, 27 month ±15 days and 32.5 ±0.26kg body weight
while goats 28 month ±19 days and 32.4±0.27kg body weight. The animals were fed maize,
sorghum and millet. In the second phase the same number of female sheep (23 month ±18 days
and 32.3±0.33 kg body weight) and female goats (24 months ± 21 days and 32.2±0.31 kg body
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------MATERIALS AND METHODS
-------------------------------------------------------------40-----------------------------------------------------------------
weight) of approximately similar age and weight were selected. The animals were randomly
divided in to six groups. Groups A, B and C represented goats, while, groups D, E and F
represented sheep. The animals were fed berseem (Trifolium alexandrium), lucerne (Medicago
Sativa) and oats (Avena Sativa). The duration of the trial, management facilities, data recording
and measurement, parameters, laboratory and statistical analysis were same in all parts of
experiment first.
3.1.2 Housing
All animals were kept under same roof in one shed. Each replicate of experimental
animals was kept separate according to treatment groups in pens having the facility of cemented
mangers. Two plastic buckets were placed in each pen for the provision of fresh drinking water.
3.1.3 Feeding
The feed was offered twice a day to the animals at (0800h) and at (1600h) daily
throughout the study period
3.1.4 Data Recording and Measurement
The fodders were chopped and weight quantities were offered to the animals of each
group daily and feed residues weighed next morning throughout the experimental period to
calculate the voluntary feed intake of each treatment group. The body weights of all animals
were taken initially and thereafter at fortnightly intervals. Two animals from each group of sheep
and goats were selected randomly for feeding behavior studies. The feeding behavior was
recorded on (Saturday, Monday and Thursday) for sheep and for goats in the following week
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------MATERIALS AND METHODS
-------------------------------------------------------------41-----------------------------------------------------------------
after morning feeding. The observations on eating time, time ruminating, drinking, resting,
standing and playing for twenty four hours were recorded on specified days Mahmut et al (2005).
3.1.5 Digestibility
Eighteen (18) animals, one animal from each replicate of the treatment groups of both
species were randomly selected for digestibility study. Each animal was kept separately in
metabolic pens and feces of each animal as collected for twenty four hours by adopting the
method of total fecal collection for a period of 5 days. The total fecal output for each animal was
weighed, thoroughly mixed and 25% sample was taken for dry matter determination. A forced
hot air oven was adjusted at 700C and feces were dried for 24 hours (Aregheore, 1996).
3.1.6 Parameters studied
The following parameters were studied during this experiment in sheep and goats fed
summer fodders.
1) Dry matter intake (g/d)
2) Weight gain (g/day)
3) Feed efficiency (ratio)
4) Nutrient digestibility (%)
5) Feeding economics (Rs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------MATERIALS AND METHODS
-------------------------------------------------------------42-----------------------------------------------------------------
3.1.7:Laboratory Analysis
Proximate analysis of feeds and fecal samples were conducted according to the
procedures of AOAC (2000), whereas, neutral detergent NDF and acid detergent fibre ADF
contents was estimated by the procedures of Van Soest et al. (1991).
3.1.8: Statistical Analysis
The data were analyzed through two-way ANOVA technique by using SAS 9.1.3
portable software with the GLM procedure.
3.2 EXPERIMENT-2
Performance of sheep and goats kept under extensive, semi-intensive and intensive
management systems
3.2.1 Experimental animals
Ninety female animals consisting of 45 sheep (approximately 13 month of age and
22.1±0.69 kg body weight) and 45 goats (approximately 15 months of age 19.9±0.47 kg average
body weight) were used. The animals were divided into six equal groups three in each species.
The animals were kept under the same shed having separate pens and mangers, and fed in
groups. A plastic tub was placed in each pen for provision of fresh drinking water. Other housing
management conditions were same for all the treatments. Before the start of the experiment all
animals were dewormed for internal parasites and also treated for external parasites. The animals
were weighed initially and then at fortnightly intervals. The duration of trial was three months.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------MATERIALS AND METHODS
-------------------------------------------------------------43-----------------------------------------------------------------
3.2.2 Pasture establishment and management
Pasture was established on an area of 3 acres before the onset of the experiment. The
Lucerne was sown in the grazing field. Intercultural operations like irrigation, removal of
undesirable weeds and plants was accomplished and made the soil ready for the experiment. The
pasture area was divided by electric fence for grazing of treatment groups and a Portable shelter
was established in the field for the grazing groups.
3.2.3 Experimental Design
The experimental animals were divided into six groups under 2x3 factorial arrangements
i.e., A, B, C, D, E and F. Each group consisted of three replicates having five animals each.
Groups A, B and C consisted of sheep, while groups D, E and F consisted goats. The groups A
and D were grazed on lucerne or eight hours 8.00 AM to 4.00 PM (extensive system). The
groups B and E were grazed on lucerne for four hours from 8.00 AM to 12.00 Noon and the
same fodder was offered in the shed for 4 hours (semi-intensive). The groups C and F were stall
fed Lucerne for eight hours (intensive). All animals were offered concentrate ration (Table 3.1)
@ 240 g/head/day at night.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------MATERIALS AND METHODS
-------------------------------------------------------------44-----------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3.1: Ingredient and nutrient composition of concentrate ration
Ingredient Inclusion level %
Canola 26.0
Maize grain 45.0
Wheat Bran 9.4
Rice polishing 6.0
Molasses 12.0
Vitamins 0.1
Lime stone 0.3
Mineral mixture 1.0
Total 100
Nutrient composition
DM (%) 85
CP (%) 16
ME Mcal/kg 2.45
ADF (%) 17
NDF (%) 39 * 100 kg Mineral mixture include DCP 70.81Kg, NaCl 18.91Kg, MgSO4 8.64Kg, FeSO4 0.89Kg, MnSO4 0.49Kg, ZnSO4 0.22Kg, CuSO4 0.03Kg, KI 8.77gm, CoCl2 0.89gm and NaSiO3 1.50gm.
3.2.4 Data Recording and Measurements
Grazing intake and intake of other nutrients were estimated by weighing animal and
analysis of the forage. Animals were weighed individually before being moved to the grazing area.
The animals were allowed to graze and weighed at 2 hours interval during grazing hours. The
average weight of each animal was recorded. The difference between two weights before and after
grazing was considered as the amount of feed consumed by individual animal of each group
(Hossain et al. 2003). The animals were also weighed at the start of the experiment and thereafter
at fortnightly intervals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------MATERIALS AND METHODS
-------------------------------------------------------------45-----------------------------------------------------------------
3.2.5 Parameters to be studied
The performance of sheep and goats kept under different feeding management systems in
term of following parameters was determined.
1) Dry matter intake (g/d)
2) Average daily gain (g/day)
3) Feed efficiency (ratio)
4) Nutrient digestibility (%)
5) Feeding economics (Rs)
3.2.6 Laboratory Analysis
Proximate analysis of feed samples was carried out according to the procedures of AOAC
(2000) whereas; neutral and acid detergent fibre contents were estimated by the procedures of Van
Soest et al. (1991).
3.2.7 Statistical Analysis
The data were analyzed through two-way ANOVA technique by using SAS 9.1.3 portable
software with GLM procedure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------MATERIALS AND METHODS
-------------------------------------------------------------46-----------------------------------------------------------------
3.3 EXPERIMENT -3
Comparative performance of sheep and goats kept under intensive management
system
3.3.1 Experimental animals and lay out
Sixty female animals, 30 lambs of approximately 10 month of age and 18.5±1.15kg body
weight 30 kids of approximately 10 month of age and 11.5±0.5 kg body weight were divided into
four equal groups, 2 each for lambs and kids. The treatments and experimental lay out were under
2x2 factorial arrangements as given in (Table 3.2). The animals in each group were ear tagged for
identification, kept under the same shed and fed in groups having separate pens and mangers for
each group. The plastic tubs were placed in each pen for provision of fresh drinking water. Other
housing management conditions were kept the same for all treatment groups. Before the start of
experiment, all the animals were dewormed for internal parasites and also treated for external
parasites. The adjustment period of one week was provided to the experimental animals. The
animals were weighed initially and thereafter at fortnightly intervals throughout the experiment
period for the measurement of body weight gain. The duration of the trial was three months.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------MATERIALS AND METHODS
-------------------------------------------------------------47-----------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3.2 Treatments and experimental lay out
Species Groups Replicates No. of Animals Treatment
lambs
A
A1 5 Fodder + concentrate
240 gm/head/day A2 5
A3 5
B
B1 5
TMR adlibitum B2 5
B3 5
kids
C
C1 5 Fodder + concentrate
240 gm/head/day C2 5
C3 5
D
D1 5
TMR adlibitum D2 5
D3 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------MATERIALS AND METHODS
-------------------------------------------------------------48-----------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3.3 Ingredient and nutrient composition of total mixed ration (TMR)
Ingredients Inclusion level %
Wheat Straw 35.0
Maize ground 10.0
Cotton seed cake 10.0
Wheat bran 6.5
Maize gluten 30% 6.0
Rice polish 8.0
Canola meal 6.0
Sunflower meal 6.0
Molasses 10.0
Mineral Mixture * 2.0
Vitamin pre mix 0.1
Caco3 0.4
Total 100
Nutrient composition
DM (%) 88
CP (%) 14
ME (M Cal/Kg) 2.2
NDF (%) 49
ADF (%) 35
* 100 kg Mineral mixture will include DCP 70.81Kg, NaCl 18.91Kg, MgSO4 8.64Kg, FeSO4 0.89Kg, MnSO4 0.49Kg, ZnSO4 0.22Kg, CuSO4 0.03Kg, KI 8.77gm, CoCl2 0.89gm and NaSiO3 1.50gm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------MATERIALS AND METHODS
-------------------------------------------------------------49-----------------------------------------------------------------
3.3.2 Data Recording and Measurement
Weighed quantities of feed were offered to the animals and refusals were collected and
weighed the next morning for measurement of feed intake. The body weight of all animals were
taken initially and thereafter at fortnightly intervals.
At the end of the experiment, 12 animals 6 lambs and 6 kids were selected randomly (one
animal from each replicate) for a digestibility study. This was carried out using total fecal
collection method. The feces were collected for 5 days period. Total fecal output of each animal
was weighed and a 25% sample was removed for dry matter determination. Feces were dried in a
forced oven at 70°C for 24 hour (Aregheore, 1996). The samples were ground and passed through
1.5 micron pore and stored in polyether bags for further analysis.
3.3.4 Parameters studied
The comparative performances of sheep and goats in term of the following parameters were
studied under intensive management system.
1) Dry matter intake (g/d)
2) Weight gain (g/day)
3) Feed efficiency (ratio)
4) Nutrient digestibility (%)
5) Feeding economics (Rs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------MATERIALS AND METHODS
-------------------------------------------------------------50-----------------------------------------------------------------
3.3.5 Laboratory Analysis
Proximate analysis of feeds and fecal samples were conducted according to the procedures
of AOAC (2000), whereas, neutral and acid detergent fibre analysis was done by the procedure of
Van Soest et al. (1991).
3.3.6: Statistical Analysis:
The differences among treatment means were tested through t-test (Steel et al. 1997).
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐51‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Chapter No. 4
RESULTS
Feeding behavior and performance of sheep and goats under various feeding management
systems were conducted in three experiments. The first experiment was conducted in two phases;
in the first phase two studies were carried out on voluntary feed intake and digestibility of
various summer fodders in sheep and goats, while in the second phase voluntary feed intake and
digestibility of various winter fodders were tested in sheep and goats. In the second experiment,
the growth performance of sheep and goats under different management systems was studied and
in third experiment comparative growth performance of sheep and goats was investigated kept
under intensive management systems.
4.1 EXPERIMENT- 1
PHASE 1; TRIAL-1
Comparative study of voluntary feed intake and digestibility of various summer
fodders in sheep and goats
4.1.1 Feeding behavior
The feeding behavior of sheep and goats fed different summer fodders is given in Table
4.1. The results for eating time (min/24h) by goats and sheep fed on various summer fodders
(guar, cowpea & jantar) were observed to be significantly different (P<0.05) from each other
except for guar & Jantar fed to goats which were non-significant (P>0.05). More eating time was
observed for goats fed on guar (337.50±1.44) and jantar (333.00±2.30), whereas significantly
less time (294.00±3.46) for eating was spent by sheep fed on cowpea. Ruminating time was
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RESULTS
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐52‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
observed to be non-significant (p>0.05) different in goats fed on guar and cowpea but results for
Jantar were significantly different. Ruminating time was observed non-significant for all types
of fodders (guar, cowpea and jantar) in sheep. The highest ruminating time was observed for
sheep fed on cowpea (446.50±1.44), whereas significantly lowest ruminating time (391.50±2.02)
was spent by goats fed on jantar. Results regarding drinking time in both species (goats and
sheep) were found to be non-significant (P<0.05) in all types of fodders (guar, cowpea, jantar).
Standing time in goats fed on guar and jantar was non-significant but were significantly different
for cowpea, however, standing time in sheep was noted to be non-significant (P>0.05) in all
fodders (guar, cowpea, jantar). Furthermore, results regarding the playing time and resting time
were observed significant (P<0.05) in goats fed on various fodders, whereas these parameters
were observed non-significant regardless of fodders in sheep. Other activities (including
urination, defecation, walking and fighting times) for goats were found similar fed on cowpea
and jantar, but different while fed on guar, whereas these were non-significant (P>0.05) in sheep
for all given fodders.
4.1.2 Nutrient intake
Nutrients’ intakes in sheep and goats fed different summer fodders are given in Table 4.2.
Statistical analysis showed that dry matter intake from fodders i.e. guar, cowpea and jantar were
significantly different (P<0.05) in both goats and sheep. Dry matter intake was recorded to be
maximum in sheep fed jantar (823.85±0.97) followed by cowpea (818.86 ±4.86) while, it was
minimum in goats fed on guar (728.64 ± 4.91). Crude protein (CP) intake was highest in sheep
(165.70 ±0.18) fed jantar while, it was lowest (P<0.05) in goats (123.86 ±0.83) fed guar fodder.
Both neutral detergent fibre (NDF) and acid detergent fibre (ADF) intakes were highest (P<0.05)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RESULTS
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐53‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
in sheep (503.56 ±0.64, 487.83 ±0.57, respectively) on jantar while lowest (P<0.05) in goats
(386.58±2.41, 309.06±2.11, respectively) fed on guar fodder. Similarly, maximum (P<0.05)
gross energy intake was measured in sheep fed on jantar (3.27±0.00) while, significantly lowest
(P<0.05) in goats fed on Guar (2.49±0.01). Nutrients intake in both sheep and goats from all
fodders followed the trend as jantar >cowpea>guar.
4.1.3 Growth rate and cost of gain
Results regarding the average daily gain was 18.00±0.76, 17.55±3.13, 20.22±0.88 and
20.44±2.32, 22.44±3.95, 18.88±1.11 in goats and sheep fed (guar, cowpea & jantar) respectively.
Feed efficiency and cost of average weight gain were found similar for all summer fodders (guar,
cowpea & jantar) in both species Table 4.3.
4.1.4 Nutrient digestibility
Nutrient digestibility of different summer fodders in goats and sheep is given in Table
4.4. Results depicted significant variation in dry matter and crude protein digestibility in both
goats and sheep fed on guar, while results were non-significant for cowpea and jantar in both
species. Similarly little difference in NDF and ADF digestibility was observed between species
for all offered fodders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RESULTS
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐54‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Table (4.1) Feeding behavior of goats and sheep fed different summer fodders
Specie Eating min/24h Ruminating min/24h
guar cowpea jantar guar cowpea jantar
------------------------------------------------Mean ± SE--------------------------------------------------
Goats 337.50a±1.44 316.0bc±2.30 333.00a±2.30 410.00c±2.88 404.00c±2.88 391.50d±2.02
Sheep 311.00c±1.15 294.0d±3.46 320.00b±1.73 438.50b±2.02 446.50b±1.44 434.00b±2.30
Specie Drinking min/24h Standing min/24h
guar cowpea jantar guar cowpea jantar
-------------------------------------------------Mean ± SE--------------------------------------------------------------
Goats 9.16a±0.44 9.66a±1.76 10.16a±0.44 306.50d±4.33 316.50c±0.28 300.0d±0.57
Sheep 11.66a±1.45 10.66a±0.88 10.66a±1.20 353.66ab±2.60 356.50a±2.59 347.0b±1.73
Specie Playing min/24h Resting min/24h Others min/24h
guar cowpea jantar guar cowpea jantar guar cowpea jantar
-------------------------------------------------------------------Mean ± SE--------------------------------------------------------------------
Goats 49.00b±2.30 52.33ab±2.60 57.83a±5.49 260.33b±1.76 269.50a±1.80 268.50a±0.86 67.50b±6.06 72.0ab±4.04 79.00a±0.57
Sheep 32.5c±1.32 35.83c±0.92 32.50c±1.25 242.16c±1.16 243.83c±0.92 246.16c±1.16 50.5c±0.86 52.66c±0.88 49.66c±0.33
Means having same superscript letters within row and columns are not different (P > 0.05).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RESULTS
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐55‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Table (4.2) Nutrients intake in goats and sheep fed different summer fodders
Specie
DM (g/d) CP (g/d)
guar cowpea jantar guar cowpea jantar
--------------------------------------------------------------Mean ± SE--------------------------------------------------------
Goats 728.64d ± 4.91 768.86c±2.97 788.55b±2.33 123.86f±0.83 148.75d±0.49 159.52b±0.42
Sheep 784.64b±5.85 818.86a±4.86 823.85a±0.97 134.07e±0.93 157.03c±0.82 165.70a±0.18
NDF (g/d) ADF (g/d) GE (M cal/d)
Specie guar cowpea jantar guar cowpea jantar guar cowpea jantar
Goats 386.58f±2.41 423.51d±1.98 478.14b±1.61 309.06f±2.11 359.91d±1.48 412.17b±1.27 2.49f±0.01 2.61e±0.01 3.10b±0.00
Sheep 408.28e±3.38 462.80c±2.74 503.56a±0.64 334.09e±2.43 386.50c±2.29 427.83a±0.57 2.69d±0.02 2.79c±0.01 3.27a±0.00
Means having same superscript letters within row and columns are not different (P > 0.05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RESULTS
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐56‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Table: (4.3) Growth rate, feed efficiency, cost of gain in sheep and goats fed different summer fodders
Specie
Average daily gain (g) Feed efficiency Cost Rs/kg gain
guar cowpea jantar guar cowpea jantar guar cowpea jantar
---------------------------------------------------Mean ± SE-----------------------------------------------------
Goats 18.00a±0.76 17.55a±3.13 20.22a±0.88 0.016a±0.00 0.016a±0.00 0.018a±0.00 403.28a±17.27 381.06a±81.02 370.89a±15.66
Sheep 20.44a±2.32 22.44a±3.95 18.88a±1.11 0.018a±0.00 0.019a±0.00 0.017a±0.001 311.00a±1.15 305.54a±50.13 407.11a±25.39
Means having same superscript letters within row and columns are not different (P >0.05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RESULTS
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐57‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Table (4.4) Percent nutrients digestibility in sheep and goats fed different summer fodders
Means having same superscript letters within row and columns are not different (P > 0.05)
DM CP
Specie guar cowpea jantar guar cowpea jantar
----------------------------------------------Mean ± SE-------------------------------------------------------
Goats 60.13b±2.23 68.98a±1.99 66.08a±0.32 66.34b±2.86 75.33a±1.81 76.10a±1.35
Sheep 67.43a±1.28 68.66a±0.73 69.29a±1.35 73.11a±1.71 75.78a±0.35 78.56a±1.56
NDF ADF
Specie guar cowpea jantar guar cowpea jantar
----------------------------------------------Mean ± SE-------------------------------------------------------
Goats 67.75a±1.97 69.64a±1.66 67.53a±0.13 61.78ab±2.16 63.37ab±2.33 60.65ab±0.27
Sheep 62.95a±2.10 67.35ab±0.75 67.53ab±1.60 58.71b±1.63 63.95ab±0.84 65.65a±2.06
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RESULTS
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐58‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
4.2 Phase I Trial-2
Voluntary intake and digestibility of different summer fodders (maize, millet,
sorghum) in sheep and goats
4.2.1 Feeding behavior
The feeding behavior of sheep and goats fed different summer fodders are given in Table
4.5. The results for eating time (min/24h) by goats and sheep fed on various summer fodders
(maize, millet & Sorghum) was observed significantly different (P<0.05) from each other. More
eating time was observed for goats fed on Sorghum (354.33±1.76) and Maize (337.66±1.45),
whereas significantly lowest time (301.33±1.45) for eating was spent by sheep fed Millet. Effect
of fodders (maize, millet and sorghum) on ruminating time was observed significantly different
in goats and sheep with respect to each others. Ruminating time was observed to be higher
(P<0.05) for sheep fed sorghum (476.66±0.88) and maize (441.66 ±1.20), whereas significantly
lowest time (378.66±1.85) for ruminating was spent by goats fed on millet. Drinking time for
goats and sheep fed on various summer fodders (maize, millet, sorghum) was observed to be
significantly different (P<0.05) from each other except sorghum fed to goats was non-significant.
Significant difference was observed on standing time for goats and sheep fed on (maize, millet,
& Sorghum) as well as in both species goats and sheep. The highest standing time (350.57
±0.57) was observed in sheep fed on maize followed by animals fed on millet (337.66±1.45),
whereas the significantly lowest time (275.33±2.02) for standing was spent by goats fed
Sorghum. The results for playing time and resting time for goats and sheep fed on various
fodders (maize, millet & sorghum) were significant (P<0.05) with respect to species as well as
fodders. Maximum playing time (51.33±0.33) was observed in goats fed on millet followed by
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RESULTS
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐59‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
maize (44.66±1.45), whereas sheep spent lowest time for playing (25.33±0.88) fed on Sorghum.
Similar trend was found with respect to resting time in both species fed on these fodders. Others
activities like urination, defecation, walking and fighting time for goats and sheep were found to
be non-significant (P>0.05) fed maize, millet and sorghum, except sorghum fodder fed to sheep
which was significant (P<0.05). Other activities were observed to be higher in goats fed maize
(77.00±1.00) followed by sorghum (73.00±4.72), whereas the lowest time for other activities
was spent by sheep fed on millet (40.66±3.60).
4.2.2 Nutrient intake
Nutrients (DM, CP, NDF, ADF & GE) intake in goats and sheep fed different summer
fodders are presented in Table 4.6. Data obtained on dry matter, crude protein intake was non-
significant (P>0.05) with respect to species fed various summer fodders but it was significantly
different (P<0.05) with respect to treatments (maize, millet & sorghum). While other nutrients
i.e. NDF, ADF and GE intake was non-significant (P>0.05) with respect to species fed various
summer fodders except maize fodder fed goats and sheep which was significantly different
(P<0.05).
4.2.3 Growth rate, Feed efficiency and cost of gain
Growth rate, feed efficiency and cost of gain of sheep and goats fed different summer
fodders (maize, millet, sorghum) is given in Table 4.7. The results of average daily gain was
found non-significant (P>0.05) in goats and sheep when fed maize, millet and sorghum, whereas
feed efficiency was similar with respect to both species. However, it was varied (P<0.05)
between treatments (maize, millet and sorghum fodders). Cost of average weight gain per kg was
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RESULTS
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐60‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
non-significant (P>0.05) with respect both goats and sheep, while it was varied in both species
fed millet and sorghum.
4.2.4 Nutrient digestibility
Nutrient digestibility of different summer fodders (maize, millet, sorghum) fed goats and
sheep is given in Table 4.8. The results of dry matter digestibility was non-significant (P>0.05)
with respect to fodders as well as species. While comparing species crude protein digestibility
was significantly (P<0.05) different in sheep and goats fed on maize and sorghum but it was non-
significant (P>0.05) fed on Millet, whereas Inter treatment CP digestibility was significantly
different. NDF digestibility was found significantly different (P<0.05) in goats and sheep fed
maize and millet with each other while it was different among both species fed Sorghum.
Highest NDF digestibility was observed in sheep fed maize (61.16±1.98) followed by millet
(58.94±1.30) while lowest NDF digestibility was found in goats fed maize (52.95±0.73). ADF
digestibility was non-significant (P>0.05) in both the sheep and goats fed on all fodders, while
with respect to offered fodder ADF digestibility was significantly different (P<0.0) with each
other.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RESULTS
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐61‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Table (4.5) Feeding behavior of goats and sheep fed different summer fodders
Specie Eating min/24h Ruminating min/24h
maize millet sorghum maize millet sorghum
------------------------------------------------------------------------Mean ± SE-------------------------------------------------------------------
Goats 337.66b±1.45 324.66c±1.45 354.33a±1.76 407.33d±1.45 378.66e±1.85 436.33c±0.88
Sheep 310.00d±0.57 301.33e±1.45 322.33c±1.45 441.66b±1.20 405.00d±2.30 476.66a±0.88
Specie Drinking min/24h Standing min/24h
maize millet sorghum maize millet sorghum
------------------------------------------------------------------------Mean ± SE-------------------------------------------------------------------
Goats 8.33c±0.33 7.66c±0.33 8.00c±0.57 300.0d±1.00 287.33e±1.20 275.33f±2.02
Sheep 10.00b±0.57 11.33b±0.33 13.00a±0.57 350.00a±0.57 337.66b±1.45 317.00c±1.15
Specie
Playing min/24h Resting min/24h Others min/24h
maize millet sorghum maize millet sorghum maize millet sorghum
------------------------------------------------------------------------Mean ± SE-------------------------------------------------------------------
Goats 44.66c±1.45 51.33b±0.33 36.66d±0.88 265.0c±0.57 322.00a±1.15 256.33d±1.20 77.00a±1.00 68.33ab±3.52 73.00a±4.72
Sheep 34.00e±0.57 54.00a±0.57 25.33f±0.88 244.66e±1.20 290.00b±1.15 223.66f±0.88 49.66c±0.66 40.66c±2.02 62.00b±3.60
Means having same superscript letters within row and columns wise are not different (P > 0.05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RESULTS
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐62‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Table (4.6) Nutrient intake of goats and sheep fed summer fodders.
Specie
DM (g/d) CP (g/d)
maize millet sorghum maize millet sorghum
----------------------------------------------------Mean ± SE-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Goats 1034.71b ±4.95 1309.88a ±14.41 704.47c ±29.02 73.17b ±1.93 112.84a ±0.85 43.67c ±1.18
Sheep 971.26b±29.35 1299.12a ±36.19 641.83c ±5.47 71.19b ±1.86 111.39a ±2.09 41.43c ±0.19
Specie
NDF (g/d) ADF (g/d) GE (M cal/d)
maize millet sorghum maize millet sorghum maize millet sorghum
----------------------------------------------------Mean ± SE-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Goats 659.11b±3.22 826.58a±22.54 451.98c±19.1
0 514.66b±2.48 613.57a±6.84 311.45d±13.47 3.69b±0.01
4.93a±0.05
2.76c±0.11
Sheep 671.35b±16.54 818.03a±21.08 410.48c±3.62 468.76c±15.2
9 604.19a±17.6
9 282.02d±2.57 3.50b±0.10
4.89a±0.13
2.50c±0.02
Means having same superscript letters within row and columns are not different (P > 0.05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RESULTS
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐63‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Table (4.7) Growth rate, feed efficiency, cost of gain in sheep and goats fed different summer fodders
Specie Average daily gain (g) Feed efficiency Cost Rs/kg gain
maize millet sorghum maize millet sorghum maize millet sorghum ---------------------------------------------------Mean ± SE----------------------------------------------------
Goats 28.88a±4.00 31.11a±5.87 32.22a±4.00 0.02b±0.00 0.01c±0.00 0.03a±0.00 192.84bc±24.45 298.45a±66.51 145.66c±17.93
Sheep 32.22a±2.93 31.11a±2.93 34.44a±2.93 0.02b±0.00 0.01c±0.00 0.03a±0.00 191.85bc±20.16 277.80ab±26.04 131.74c±0.61
Means having same superscript letters within row and columns wise not different (P > 0.05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RESULTS
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐64‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Table (4.8) Percent nutrients digestibility of summer fodders in sheep and goats
Specie
DM CP
maize millet sorghum maize millet sorghum
-----------------------------------------Mean ± SE------------------------------
Goats 53.40a±0.87 50.53a±1.07 52.43a±1.65 59.55c±1.39 70.05a±1.02 66.68b±0.75
Sheep 53.94a±1.70 50.09a±1.10 51.23a±1.69 66.41b±0.91 67.93a±0.80 62.43c±1.08
Specie
NDF ADF
maize millet sorghum maize millet sorghum
------------------------------------------------------Mean ± SE----------------------------------------------------------
Goats 52.95c±0.73 56.02bc±0.87 56.15bc±1.42 46.36bcd±0.97 44.15dc±1.42 52.72a±1.68
Sheep 61.16a±1.98 58.94ab±1.30 54.14c±1.51 42.32d±1.73 47.63bc±1.80 51.01ab±1.66
Means having same superscript letters within row and columns are not different (P > 0.05)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RESULTS
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐65‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
4.3 Phase II
Voluntary feed intake and digestibility of different winter fodders (berseem, lucrn and
oats) in sheep and goats
4.3.1 Feeding behavior:
The feeding behavior of sheep and goats fed different winter fodders is given in Table 4.9.
Statistical analysis showed that eating time (min/24h) by goats and sheep fed on various fodders
(berseem, lucerne, oats) was observed to be non-significant (P<0.05) from each other except
Berseem fed to sheep which was significant (P<0.05) than other treatment diets. Higher eating
time was observed for goats fed on Lucern (341.00±2.30) followed by Oats (334.50±3.17),
whereas lowest time (308.50±2.02) was spent by sheep fed on Lucerne. However, ruminating
time was found to be non-significant with respect to all fodders fed to goats while, it was
significant (P<0.05) for sheep given these fodders. More ruminating time was observed for
sheep fed lucern (489.50±1.44) followed by oats (484.50 ±2.02), whereas lowest time
(457.50±1.44) was spent by goats fed Lucern. Drinking time in both species (goats and sheep)
were found to be non-significant (P>0.05) fed (berseem, lucern & oats). Standing time was
found to be significant (P<0.05) with respect to both goats and sheep on given fodders while,
standing time regarding to fodders were non-significant (P>0.05). Greater values of standing
time was observed in sheep fed on Berseem (299.50 ±3.17) and lowest time (210.50±2.02) was
spent by goats fed on lucern. Results showed that playing time, resting time and other activities
were found to be non-significant (P<0.05) in goats and sheep fed on various fodders. The
playing, resting and other activities were significantly higher (P<0.05) in goats than in sheep fed
various winter fodders Berseem, Lucern & oats as given in Table 4.9.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RESULTS
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐66‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
4.3.2 Nutrient intake
Nutrients (DM, CP, NDF, ADF and GE) intake in goats and sheep fed different winter
fodders (berseem, lucern, oats) are given in Table 4.10. Dry matter intake was significantly
(P<0.05) higher in goats than in sheep fed on berseem while it was non-significant (P>0.05)
among both species fed on lucerne and oats. Crude protein (CP) intake was varied in both
species fed on all offered fodders. Maximum crude protein intake was observed in goats
(289.746±15.344) fed on lucrne, while it was lowest in sheep fed on oats. Neutral detergent fibre
intake was found non-significant (P>0.05) by goats and sheep fed berseem and lucrn. However,
NDF intake was found to be significantly different (P<0.05) in sheep fed on oats. More NDF
intake was observed in goats fed Lucerne (743.74±34.02) followed by oats (721±34.02), whereas
lower value of NDF intake was observed in sheep fed berseem (503.98±12.52). ADF intake was
varied in both goats and sheep fed berseem, lucerne and oats however, more ADF intake values
were observed in goats fed lucerne (653.42±39.12) followed by berseem (609.09±13.20) while
lowest NDF intake was observed in sheep fed on Berseem (462.49±11.03). The gross energy
(Mcal/d) intake was found to be non-significant in goats and sheep fed lucerne and oats. On the
other hand, it was found to be significantly different (P<0.05) in both species fed berseem.
4.3.3 Growth rate feed efficiency and cost of gain
Growth rate, feed efficiency and cost of weight gain of sheep and goats fed different winter
fodders are given in Table 4.11. Statistical analysis showed that average daily gain was higher in
goats and sheep fed Lucerne than those fed Berseem and oats. While, average daily gain was
non-signifacant (P<0.05) among both goats and sheep. Obtained results on feed efficiency was
non-significant (P<0.05) in goats and sheep fed lucern and oats while it was significant (P<0.05)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RESULTS
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐67‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
fed animals on Berseem. The cost of gain was observed to be non- significant (P>0.05) for goats
fed on lucerne and oats while it was significantly different (P<0.05) when fed berseem, whereas
fed efficiency was not different in goats and sheep fed on all fodders. The cost of gain was
observed to be non-significant (P>0.05) among both species as well as all offered fodder.
4.3.4 Nutrient digestibility
Nutrient digestibility of different winter fodders (berseem, lucern & oats) fed goats and
sheep are presented in Table 4.12. Results showed that dry matter digestibility was observed to
be non-significant (P>0.05) in goat and sheep fed lucerne and oats while, it was significantly
different (P<0.05) when fed on Berseem. The present data also indicated non-significant findings
(P>0.05) regarding dry matter digestibility with respect to species fed on these winter fodders.
Interestingly, crude protein digestibility was found to be non-significant (P>0.05) in goats fed
lucerne (70.92±1.45) and Berseem (66.62±2.11) however, it was significantly different (P<0.05)
fed on oats, while crude protein digestibility was higher (P<0.05) in sheep fed on Lucerne than
Berseem and oats. Among species, crude protein digestibility was observed non-significant in
both species fed on lucern and oats. While it was significantly higher (P<0.05) in goats than in
sheep fed on berseem
NDF digestibility was similar in goats fed berseem and lucerne whereas it was different
(P<0.05) when goats were fed on Oats. The trends were seen to be opposite in sheep fed on these
fodders (P>0.05). ADF digestibility was found non-significant in both sheep and goat fed on
oats. Whereas the digestibility of this parameter was found significantly different(P<0.05) in
both species fed berseem and lucerne, while, regarding to interaction among treatments and
species, ADF digestibility was found to be different fed on berseem and it was non-
significant(P>0.05) fed on lucerne and oats.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RESULTS
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐68‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Table (4.9) Feeding behavior of goats and sheep fed different winter fodders
Specie
Eating min/24h Ruminating min/24h
berseem lucern oats berseem lucern oats
-------------------------------------Mean ± SE---------------------------------------------------
Goats 333.50a±2.59 341.00a±2.30 334.50a±3.17 462.50c±1.44 457.50c±1.44 461.50c±2.02
Sheep 320b±1.73 308.50c±2.02 309.50c±4.33 481.50b±3.75 489.50a±1.44 484.50ab±2.02
Specie Drinking min/24h Standing min/24h
berseem lucern oats berseem lucern oats -----------------------------------------------------------Mean ± SE-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goats 9.50a±0.28 9.50a±0.28 9.50a±0.28 212.00b±4.04 210.50b±2.02 212.00b±4.04
Sheep 9 .01a±0.01 9.00a±0.00 9.02a±0.001 299.50a±3.17 299.50a±3.17 299.50a±3.17
Specie playing min/24h Resting min/24h Others min/24h
berseem lucern oats berseem lucern oats berseem lucern oats
Goats -------------------------------------------------------------------Mean ± SE-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
61.5a±0.17 61.50a±3.17 61.50a±3.17 282.00a±1.15 281.00a±1.73 282.00a±1.15 79.00a±0.57 79.00a±0.57 79.00a±0.57
Sheep 33.50b±0.28 32.50b±0.28 37.00b ±2.30 246.50b±1.44 250.00b±1.15 250.50b±3.75 50.00b±0.57 51.00b±1.15 50.00b±0.57
Means having same superscript letters within row and columns are not different (P > 0.05)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RESULTS
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐69‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Table: (4.10) Nutrients intake of goats and sheep fed different winter fodders
Specie DM (g/d) CP (g/d)
berseem lucern oats berseem lucern oats
Goats
---------------------------------------------------------------------Mean ± SE--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1529.21a ±31.86 1566.31a ±91.03 1526.82a ±68.73 263.859b±5.156 289.746a ±15.344 126.44d ±5.072
Sheep 1207.16b ±23.39 1413.11a ±52.09 1454.12a ±51.57 205.217c ±3.976 258.096b ±9.018 120.34d±3.95
Specie NDF (g/d) ADF (g/d) GE (M cal/d)
berseem lucern oats berseem lucern oats berseem lucern oats
Goats
-----------------------------------------------------------------Mean ± SE--------------------------------------------------------------------------
666.36ab±14.45 743.74a±43.87 721.98a±34.02 609.09ab±13.20 653.42a±39.12 523.49c±25.09 5.33ab±0.11 5.80a±0.33 5.17ab±0.23
Sheep 503.98c±12.52 622.73b±29.81 685.94ab±25.27 462.49d±11.03 544.34bc±26.82 496.90dc±18.5.6 4.24c±0.08 5.24ab±0.18 4.95b±0.17
Means having same superscript letters within rows and columns wise are not different (P ˂ 0.05
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RESULTS
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐70‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Table: (4.11) Growth rate, feed efficiency cost of gain in sheep and goats fed different winter fodders
Specie Average daily gain (g) Feed efficiency Cost Rs/kg gain
berseem lucern oats berseem lucern oats berseem lucern oats
Goats
---------------------------------------------------Mean ± SE-----------------------------------------------------
41.11dc±4.00 54.44a±1.11 32.22d±2.93 0.023bc±0.02 0.02ab±0.00 0.01d±0.00 322.44a±30.60 223.94b±10.00 334.81a±7.02
Sheep 44.44bc±2.93 53.55ab±1.73 38.22dc±4.22 0.03a±0.00 0.30a±0.00 0.01dc±0.00 246.25ab±15.01 207b±4.59 252ab±28.09
Means having same superscript letters within row and columns are not different (P >0.05)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RESULTS
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐71‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Table: (4.12) Percent nutrients digestibility of winter fodders in sheep and goats
DM CP
Specie berseem lucern oats berseem lucern oats
Goats
---------------------------------------------------------Mean ± SE-----------------------------------------------------------
56.29bc±2.63 62.96a±1.77 61.31ab±0.76 66.62a±2.11 70.92a±1.45 51.03c±2.00
Sheep 54.56 c±2.07 61.03ab±0.74 63.96a±1.00 59.75b±2.04 69.59a±1.35 46.49c±1.11
NDF ADF
Specie berseem lucern oats berseem lucern oats
Goats
-----------------------------------------------------------Mean ± SE---------------------------------------------------------------
53.50b±2.05 50.25ab±2.49 46.09c±2.16 55.42a±2.72 49.23ab±2.50 43.4b±1.33
Sheep 43.65c±1.32 46.88c±2.56 48.09bc±1.24 36.8c±1.74 41.96bc±2.11 46.50b±1.21
Means having same superscript letters within row and columns are not different (P >0.05)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RESULTS
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐72‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
4.4 EXPERIMENT-2
Performance of sheep and goats kept under different feeding management systems
The following parameters were studied during this experiment to evaluate the
performance of sheep and goats under different feeding management systems.
4.4.1 Dry matter intake
Nutrients (DM, CP, NDF, ADF and GE Mcal/d) intake in goats and sheep kept under
different feeding management systems are given in Table 4.13. Dry matter intake was observed
highest (P<0.05) in both species kept under extensive system followed by semi-intensive and
intensive feeding management systems. However, over all dry matter intake was significantly
higher (P<0.05) in sheep (794.26±6.16) than goats (658.43±9.99) in all feeding practices. CP
intake was recorded non-significant (P>0.05) in all feeding systems in goats and sheep.
However, it was significantly higher (P<0.05) in sheep (144.43±5.35) than goats (127.92±4.33)
kept under intensive feeding management, NDF intake was similar (P>0.05) in sheep and goats
under the three feeding systems. Highest NDF intake was observed in sheep grazed extensively
(350.75±5.16) followed by intensive feeding system (303.04±5.95) while, lowest NDF intake
was found in goats fed under semi-intensive feeding system (247.43±4.75). In goats, ADF intake
was maximum (P>0.05) under extensive feeding systems (255.21±5.79) while, minimum
(P<0.05) in semi-intensive and intensive systems. In the case of sheep, it was highest in
extensive system (280.70±5.19) followed by semi-intensive (254.16±4.94) and intensive systems
(237.40±4.18). Comparatively, among both species, highest ADF intake was observed in sheep
kept extensively (280.70±5.19) while, lowest in goats kept under semi intensive (216.10±5.32)
and intensive (217.02±4.35) feeding management systems. Gross energy intake was not
significantly different (P>0.05) in both species kept under all feeding systems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RESULTS
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐73‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
4.4.2 Weight gain, feed efficiency and cost of gain:
The average daily weight gain, feed efficiency and cost of gain in goats and sheep kept
under different feeding management systems are presented in Table 4.14. Average daily gain
was found to be different (P<0.05) in goats and sheep kept under extensive, semi-intensive and
intensive systems. Among different feeding systems, daily weight gain was significantly
(P<0.05) different between all feeding management systems in both species. While, comparing
both sheep and goats, daily weight gain was higher (P<0.05) in sheep kept extensive system
(98.14±4.61) and semi-intensive system (83.33±5.77) and lowest weight gain was observed in
goats kept intensive system (49.62.62±4.04). Feed efficiency was non-significant (P>0.05) in
both species kept under extensive system and semi- intensive systems, however but it was
different (P<0.05) for both species kept on intensive feeding system. However, feed efficiency
was non-significant (P>0.05) in both sheep and goats. The cost of gain (Rs/kg) was significantly
different (P<0.05) in all feeding systems. However, this parameter was higher (P<0.05) on
intensive feeding system (241.61±3.46) while, lower (P<0.05) on extensive feeding system
(119.54±2.30). The cost of weight gain was higher in goats than sheep kept under all feeding
systems.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RESULTS
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐74‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Table: (4.13) Nutrients intake of sheep and goats under different feeding management systems
Species DM intake (g/d) CP intake (g/d)
Extensive Semi-
intensive Intensive Extensive Semi-intensive Intensive
Goats
---------------------------------------------------Mean ± SE----------------------------------------------------------------------
733.32b±2.15 661.44c±7.37 658.43c±9.99 131.95ab±5.37 127.87b±4.80 127.92b±4.33
Sheep 794.26a±6.19 746.43b±10.79 753.51b±9.72 42.71ab±5.06 136.30ab±4.35 144.43a±5.35
Species NDF (g/d) ADF g/d GE Mcal/d
Extensive Semi-
intensive Intensive Extensive
Semi- intensive
Extensive Extensive Extensive Intensive
---------------------------------------------------Mean ± SE----------------------------------------------------
Goats 323.01b±4.26 247.43d±4.75 255.10d±4.40 255.21b±5.79 216.10d±5.32 2.81a±0.57 2.81a±0.57 2.81a±0.57 2.62a±0.48
Sheep 350.75a±5.61 295.39c±3.86 303.04c±5.95 280.70a±5.19 254.16b±4.94 3.04a±0.14 3.04a±0.14 3.04a±0.14 2.96a±0.71
Means having same superscript letters within row and columns are not different (P > 0.05)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RESULTS
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐75‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Table: (4.14) Growth rate, feed efficiency and cost of gain in sheep and goats under different management systems
Specie Average daily gain (g) Feed efficiency Cost Rs/kg gain
Extensive Semi-
intensive Intensive Extensive
Semi- intensive
Intensive Extensive Semi-
intensive Intensive
Goats
------------------------------------------------------------Mean ± SE------------------------------------------------------------
82.59b±4.04 66.29c±3.46 49.62d±4.04 0.11ab±0.00 0.10b±0.00 0.07c±0.00 137.40e±5.19 184.77c±4.61 241.61a±3.46
Sheep 98.14a±4.61 83.33b±5.77 62.59dc±4.04 0.12a±0.00 0.11ab±0.00 0.08c±0.00 119.54f±2.30 151.18d±6.35 201.05b±3.46
Means having same superscript letters within row and columns are not different (P >0.05)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RESULTS
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐76‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
4.5: EXPERIMENT-3
Comparative performance of sheep and goats fed under intensive management
system.
4.5.1 Nutrient intake
Nutrients (DM, CP, NDF, ADF, and GE Mcal/d) intake of kids and lambs are presented
in Table 4.15. Statistical analysis showed that DM (870.89±49.11) and CP (135.28±4.91) intake
was higher in kids fed total mixed ration (TMR) than fodder with concentrate supplementation.
Similar trend was found in lamb fed on TMR (DM 1273.45±26.15, CP 192.12±2.24). NDF, ADF
intake was same for kids fed on TMR and fodder with concentrate supplementation; however
NDF and ADF intake was higher in lambs fed TMR than fodder with concentrate
supplementation. The GE (Mcal/d) intake was higher in both species fed on TMR than fodder
with concentrate supplementation.
Nutrients (DM, CP, NDF, ADF, and GE Mcal/d) intake was significantly higher
(P<0.05) in lambs than kids fed TMR and fodder with concentrate supplementation. Table
4.15.1
4.5.2 Weight gain, feed efficiency and cost of gain
The average daily weight gain, feed efficiency and cost of gain in kids and lambs kept
under intensive management system are given in Table 4.16. Weight gain was observed to be
non-significant (P>0.05) in kids and lambs fed on both diets. The feed efficiency in kids was
higher fed fodder with concentrate than TMR diet while it was similar in lambs fed on TMR and
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RESULTS
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐77‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
fodder with concentrate supplementation. The cost of gain Rs/kg was higher in kids fed on TMR
than fodder with concentrate supplementation, while it was similar in lambs on both offered
feeds.
Table 4.16.1, statistical analysis showed better weight gain in lamb (125.92±8.54). While,
lower average daily gain was observed in kids (91.85±9.10) fed TMR than lambs (125.92±8.54)
were different significantly (P<0.05) among both species. However feed efficiency was found
higher in kids (0.14±0.01) and lowest value was observed in lambs (0.10±0.00) fed fodder with
concentrate supplement. Obtained data also showed that the difference of cost of gain was non-
significant (P>0.05) between both species lambs and kids fed on TMR and fodder with
concentrate supplementation.
4.5.3 Nutrient digestibility:
Nutrients digestibility of TMR and fodder with supplementation in kids and lambs are
presented in Table 4.17. In kids dry matter digestibility was not statistically different between the
treatments however in lambs dry matter digestibility was it was significantly higher
(66.82±1.42) with TMR treatment than fodder with concentrate (66.28±0.57) (P<0.05). Crude
protein digestibility (CPD) of TMR in kids was higher (P<0.05) than that of fodder with
concentrate supplementation. However, CPD between both treatments in lambs remained non-
significant (P>0.05). Results showed that the digestibility of NDF and ADF was lower (P<0.05)
in kids fed TMR than those fed fodder with concentrate supplementation, while NDF & ADF
digestibility of both dietary treatments were not different (P>0.05) in lambs fed on TMR and
fodder with concentrate supplementation. The results presented in Table 4.17.1 indicated that the
DMD & CPD % was higher in kids than lambs both fed on TMR only. However NDF & ADF
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RESULTS
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐78‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
digestibility was higher in lambs than kids fed on TMR. Dry matter, crude protein and ADF
digestibility was non- significant (P>0.05) among lambs and kids fed only fodder with
concentrate supplementation, but the pattern of NDF digestibility was significant (P<0.05) in
kids compared to lambs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RESULTS
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐79‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Table (4.15) Main effect of treatment on nutrients intake of kids and lambs
Species
DM g/d CP g/d
TMR Fodder
+ Concentrate
TMR Fodder
+ Concentrate
-------------------------------------------------------Mean ± SE------------------------------------------------------------
kids 870.89a±49.11 691.37b±9.48 135.28a±4.91 69.12b±5.44
lambs 1273.45a±26.15 1012.81b±2.12 192.12a±2.24 131.66b±2.08
species
NDF g/d ADF g/d GE Mcl/d
TMR Fodder
+ Concentrate
TMR Fodder
+ Concentrate
TMR Fodder
+ Concentrate
-------------------------------------------------------------Mean ± SE---------------------------------------------------------------
kids 353.01b±32.43 306.04b±4.93 187.62b±31.98 216.67b±3.79 3.42a±0.17 2.36b±0.03
lambs 606.04a±14.64 460.98b±1.02 427.76a±10.98 337.74b±0.89 5.08a±0.07 3.40b±0.00
Means having same superscript letters within columns are not different (P >0.05)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RESULTS
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐80‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Table (4.15.1) Main effect of species on nutrients intake fed TMR and concentrate supplementation
Intake/g/day kids lambs kids lambs
Total mixed ration Total mixed ration Fodder + concentrate Fodder + concentrate
DM
----------------------------------------------Mean ± SE-------------------------------------------------
870.89b±49.11 1273.45a ±26.15 691.37b±9.48 1012.81a±2.12
CP 135.28b±4.91 192.12a ±2.24 69.12b ±5.44 131.66a ±2.08
NDF 353.01b ±32.43 606.04a ±14.64 306.04b ±4.93 460.98a ±1.02
ADF 187.62b ±31.98 427.76a±10.98 216.67b ±3.79 337.74a±0.89
GE Mcal/d 3.42b±0.17 5.08a±0.07 2.36b ±0.03 3.40a ±0.00
Means having same superscript letters within row are not different (P >0.05)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RESULTS
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐81‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Table (4.16) Main effect of treatments on growth rate, feed efficiency cost of gain in kids and lambs
specie
Average daily gain (g) Feed efficiency Cost Rs/kg gain
TMR Fodder +Concentrate TMR Fodder Concentrate TMR Fodder± Concentrate
----------------------------------------------------------------Mean ± SE---------------------------------------------------------------
kids 91.85b ±9.10 100.74b±8.24 0.10b ±0.00 0.14a ±0.01 160.53a ±12.22 118.00b ±10.41
lambs 125.92a ±8.54 105.55a ±9.09 0.10b ±0.00 0.10b ±0.00 168.16b ±8.57 143.11b ±12.45
Means having same superscript letters within row are not different (P > 0.05)
Table (4.16.1) Main effect of species on growth rate, feed efficiency cost of gain in kids and lambs
Parameter
Total mixed ration Fodder + concentrate
kids lambs kids lambs
---------------------------------------------------Mean ± SE-----------------------------------------------------
Average gain g/d 91.85b ±9.10 125.92a ±8.54 100.74a ±8.24 105.55a ±9.09
Feed efficiency 0.10a ±0.00 0.10a ±0.00 0.14a ±0.01 0.10b ±0.00
Cost Rs/kg gain 160.53a ±12.22 168.16a ±8.57 118.00a ±10.41 143.11a ±12.45
Means having same superscript letters within rows are not different (P >0.05)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RESULTS
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐82‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Table (4.17) Main effect of treatments on percent nutrient digestibility of kids and lambs
Species
DM g/d CP g/d
TMR Fodder
+ Concentrate
TMR Fodder
+ Concentrate
-------------------------------------------Mean ± SE--------------------------------------------------
Kids 67.48a±1.77 66.66a±1.85 77.49a±1.31 71.16b±1.58
Lambs 66.82a±1.42 66.28b±0.57 73.40a±1.33 72.46a±0.48
Species
NDF g/d ADF g/d
TMR Fodder
+ Concentrate
TMR Fodder
+ Concentrate
----------------------------------------------Mean ± SE-----------------------------------------------
Kids 46.09b±1.79 60.06a±2.46 34.64b±1.95 50.09a±3.17
Lambs 51.41a±1.89 53.36a±1.03 47.47a±1.86 50.08a±1.26
Means having same superscript letters within rows are not different (P >0.05)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RESULTS
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐83‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Table (4.17.1) Main effect of species on percent nutrient digestibility of TMR and concentrate supplementation
kids lambs kids lambs
Total mixed ration Total mixed ration Fodder+ concentrate Fodder+ concentrate
DM ---------------------------------------------------Mean ± SE-----------------------------------------------------
67.48a±1.77 66.82b±1.42 66.66a±1.85 66.28a±0.57
CP 77.49a±1.31 73.40b±1.33 71.16a±1.58 72.46a±0.48
NDF 46.09b±1.79 51.41a±1.89 60.06a±2.46 53.36b±1.03
ADF 34.64b±1.95 47.47a±1.86 50.09a±3.17 50.08a±1.26
Means having same superscript letters within rows are not different (P >0.05)
-------------------------------------------------------85------------------------------------------------------
Chapter No. 5
DISCUSSION
5.1. Experiment No 1: Voluntary intake and digestibility of sheep and goats fed
various summer fodders
Phase 1 trial; 1
5.1.1: Feeding behavior
The feeding behavior in goats and sheep fed on different summer fodders guar
(cyamopsis tetragonolba), cowpea (Vigna sinesis) and jantar (coriandrum sativum) are given in
Table 4.1. The eating and ruminating time was significantly different (P<0.05) among both
species. This might be inherent to individual species (goats and sheep) and eating mood of the
species. The eating time of goats and sheep was also different on offered fodders. It may be the
type and composition of fodders and the preference of both species. The findings of this study
are substantiated by Mahmut et al (2005) and Domingue et al (1991). They found that goats
spend more time on eating and less time on ruminating per 24 hours than those of sheep,
however, few other workers such as Hadad and Obedat (2007) reported differently that there is
no difference in time spent on eating and ruminating between sheep and goats. However they
used very young Awasi lambs and Bladi kids which were fed with total mixed ration.
The drinking time in sheep and goats was similar (P>0.05), this similarity in both species
may be due to fodders which all were succulent in nature, while, standing time playing, resting
and other activities (minutes/24 hours) were higher in goats than sheep these findings are
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSSION
-------------------------------------------------------86---------------------------------------------------
consistent to Mahmut et al (2005) and Hadad and Obeidat (2007). The main difference in goat
and sheep feeding behavior is eating mood as goats are known browsers while sheep are
considered as exclusively grazers.
5.1.2: Nutrient intake
The dry matter intake of sheep was higher (P<0.05) than goats fed different summer
fodders Table 4.2. The lower dry matter intake in goats may be due to selection and aggressive
behavior of goats. These findings are consistent to Larbi et al (1991) who reported higher dry
matter intake in sheep than goats on whole-plant, leaf and stem fractions. Whereas Molina et al
(1997) reported that the voluntary intake and digestibility of low quality pasture were
significantly (P < 0.05) more in goats than sheep; these findings are different to the findings of
our study. The reason may be low quality of pasture which was fed in Molina study while in our
study all fodders were leguminous and of good quality.
The nutrient intake i.e. CP, NDF, ADF, and GE Mcal/d were also higher (P<0.05) in
sheep than goats. The higher nutrient intake in sheep is attributed to more dry matter intake and
grazing behavior, whereas lower nutrient intake in goats may be selective behavior which results
in lower dry matter intake and fighting behavior in goats. The dry matter and nutrient intake
were also different when fed with different fodders. This variation is attributable to preference of
animals with respect to species and quality/ palatability of fodders. These findings are consistent
to Saleem et al (2005) who found a difference in voluntary intake of sheep and goats on different
foliage; sheep consumed better Cassia fistula than goats, while intake in goats was more on other
plants like Schinus molle, Chorissia speciosa and Eucalyptus camaldulensis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSSION
-------------------------------------------------------87---------------------------------------------------
5.1.3: Average daily gain and efficiency
The average daily weight gain, feed efficiency and cost of gain /kg was not significant
(P>0.05) among both species and as well as with respect to offered fodders Table 4.3. The gain
efficiency and cost of gain in both species are similar. It might be due to age (both species were
adult), only fodder feeding and the total duration of experiment (short period of one month). The
results of our study are inconsistent to the findings of Haddad and Obeidat (2007) who reported
that feed cost per kilogram weight gain for kids was better than that for lambs. Growth rate of
Awassi lambs was better than Baladi kids, they further explained that kids are better feed
converter than lambs. The factor might be the age, sex, breed, and duration of experiment and
feed type. In present study animals were adult female of Beetal goat and Lohi sheep breed and
fed only fodder for a period of one month whereas in Hadad and Obeidat (2007) study Bladi kids
and Awassi lambs (male averaging 14.3 kg and 2.5 month of age) were fed total mixed ration for
a period of 60 days. The main objective for measurement of weight gain, feed efficiency and cost
of production was to asses weather both species lose weight or gain weight, if weight gain is
attained on these fodder then what will be the cost and efficiency of these fodder in particular
animals (goats, sheep). So, both species attained marginal weight gain on all offered fodder
(guar, cowpea and jantar). The cost per kg gain was very high in both species this indicates that
only fodder feeding is costly in sheep and goats, but a positive outcomes were that both species
put marginal weight gain, which can be increased by supplement feeding with these fodders.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSSION
-------------------------------------------------------88---------------------------------------------------
5.1. 4: Nutrients digestibility
The digestibility percentages of nutrients (DM, CP, NDF and ADF) were similar among
fodders Table 4.4. whereas, the DM, CP digestibility in sheep and goats were not different
significantly (P>0.05). The findings of our study are consistent with Brown and Johnson (1985)
who studied intake and digestibility of wheat straw diets in goats and sheep. They reported that
the digestibility of DM, estimated by total fecal collection, was not different significantly
between species goats and sheep.The non-significant difference of NDF and ADF (P>0.05)
between both the species are in agreement with those reported by Lindberg and Gonada (1997).
They reported that there is no difference in goats and sheep with respect to fiber digestibility.
Santra et al. (1998) found that digestibility of nutrients such as NDF and ADF were significantly
higher in goats than in sheep. These results are not in line with our study; this might be due to
experimental animals and, type of feed. The animals used in our study were adult and were given
fodder, for digestibility study total collection method was adopted while in that study adult
rumen-fistulated animals were used and fed roughage with concentrate. The dry matter
digestibility was similar in goats and sheep fed cowpeas and guars are in partial agreement to the
findings of Larbi et al. (1991) conducted research on Voluntary intake and digestibility by sheep
and goats of whole-plant leaf and stem fractions of Pennisetum purpureum Schum and found
non-significant (P > 0.05) differences in apparent DM digestibility for sheep and goats. In their
findings goats digested crude protein (66 vs. 61%) and crude fiber (80 vs. 76%) more efficiently
(P < 0.05) than sheep. This difference may be due to breed as in our study the animals were from
Lohi breed and Beetal breed whereas in that study West African dwarf sheep and goats were
used. Consistent with our results were higher nutrient digestibility in sheep reported by Below
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSSION
-------------------------------------------------------89---------------------------------------------------
and Olajide (2010) fed three dietary treatments consisted of soybean meal alone (control diet, A),
50% soybean meal +50% Muscuna seed meal (diet B) and 100% Muscuna seed meal (diet C).
5.2. Experiment No.1 (Phase-1.1): Voluntary intake and digestibility of sheep and
goats fed various summer fodders
5.2.1: Feeding behavior
The higher eating and ruminating behavior was found on sorghum followed by maize and
millet respectively, in goats and sheep and were significantly different (P<0.05) between offered
fodders Table 4.5. This difference might be the preference of both species and the type of offered
fodders. Goats showed higher eating and lower ruminating time than sheep on offered fodders
and it was significantly different (P<0.05) among both species, might be due to eating mood and
the species difference as goats are browsers while sheep are grazers. Morand-Feher et al. (1991)
reported that goats generally eat more slowly than sheep due to its selective behavior; these
results are consistent to our findings. The findings of our study are apart from Vane et al. (2002)
who reported same rumination time and eating mode in both species while examining the effects
of physical form of whole sugar cane and different proportions of whole sugar cane offered with
or without a concentrate on feed intake, selection and behavior of weaned kids and lambs. As it
was clear that breed, age of animals as well as experimental feed in both studies was different.
The higher drinking and standing time was observed in sheep than goats (P < 0.05), while,
results (regarding to playing, resting and other activities minutes/24hours) were observed
significantly different (P<0.05) among both species fed on maize, millet and sorghum. These
findings are in agreement to Mahmut et al. (2005) who conducted research on seven male
Awassi sheep and 7 male Shami goats and reported that goats showed less drinking and standing
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSSION
-------------------------------------------------------90---------------------------------------------------
time but higher playing and resting behavior than sheep. The feeding behavior of goats and sheep
varies among offered fodders and the reason may be the type and palatability of fodders and
eating mode of goats and sheep. Ruminants can be characterized by a complex dietary behavior
selecting feeds according to their palatability. Abijaoude et al. (1997b) have shown that goats
have a strong ability to differentiate between two offered feeds, both palatable and with similar
physical structure. Our analyses showed that feeding higher amounts of fodder small ruminants
increased both eating and ruminating times. This is in agreement with the outcomes obtained by
Santini et al. (1991). McSweeney and Kennedy (1992) reported that compared to sheep dry
matter intake of goats on wheaten hay is less than sheep despite increased time spent on eating.
5.2.2: Nutrient intake
Nutrients (DM, CP, NDF, ADF, GE Mcal/d) intake was found similar in goats and sheep
on millet maize and sorghum Table 4.6.1. The similar intake of nutrient may be due to the
preference of both species on type of offered fodders which were non-leguminous. According to
Hadjipanayiotou (1995) goats and sheep have similar intake and he also affirmed that the
difference in intake between goats and sheep is probably due to kind of feed offered, similar
findings were also reported by Moujahed et al (2005). As in our study the fodders offered to
goats and sheep were non-leguminous that is why intake in both species on all offered fodder
was similar. The findings of our study are consistent to Hadjigeorgiou et al. (2001) who stated
that differences in intake of temperate forages between sheep and fibre-producing goats are
broadly similar ingesting tropical forages. Similar dry matter intake in sheep and goats in our
study is consistent to the findings of Dulphy et al. (1994), they reported that dry matter intake in
goats and sheep is similar except when fed on low quality forage. According to Moujahed et al.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSSION
-------------------------------------------------------91---------------------------------------------------
(2005) there is no difference in dry matter intake in goats and sheep, when fed goats and sheep
on diet of concentrate and barley hay, however our findings are contrarary to Isaac et al (2008)
who fed goats and sheep browse foliages i.e. (Acacia brevispica, Acacia mellifera, Berchemia
discolor, Zizyphus mucronata and Maerua angolensis) and found that goats had higher intakes of
all the browse foliages than sheep In our study, goats and sheep preferred millet than other
offered fodders in which is consistent with Hadjigeorgiou et al. (2003) who found that goats and
sheep have a similar pattern of preference for forages with a wide range of chemical
characteristics. While these findings do not support the suggested differences in the preferences
of goats and sheep for forages differing in crude protein and fiber contents (Domingue et al.
1991). In both studies the factor may be the age of animals, type of fodder, management facilities
and climate. Similar nutrients intakes were found in both sheep and goats which are consistent
with the findings of Sahoo et al. (2010) who reported that nutrients intake was similar in deer and
sheep fed on maize.
5.2.3: Average daily gain and efficiency
The average daily gain, feed efficiency and cost of gain/kg were observed similar (P >
0.05) in both species Table 4.7. Similar performance of goats and sheep in our study was due to
the age of animal, type of fodder and the duration of experiment. Our findings are not in line
with the findings of Kaleem et al (1990) who reported that the goat and sheep are different to
each other with respect to gain and efficiency. The findings of VanNiekerk and Casey (1988) are
also apart to the findings of our study. Riitta and Kangasmäki (2000) compared the performance
of male kids and lambs raised under similar stall-feeding conditions and found that mean growth
rate were higher for lambs than for kids. In our study the reason for similar gain, efficiency and
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSSION
-------------------------------------------------------92---------------------------------------------------
cost of gain in both species might be due to similar nutrient intake in species, age and the period
of experiment which was only one month. The objective of the present study was the assessment
of weight gain in summer fodders; whether animals lose weight on specified summer fodders or
gain weight. The goats and sheep showed moderate growth on offered fodders but are not
recommended for feed lot fattening however the performance of sheep and goats can be
improved to a great extent with supplement feeding along with these fodders.
5.2.4: Nutrients digestibility
The digestibility percentage of DM was similar (P > 0.05) among treatments and between
both species Table 4.8. These results are in line with the findings of Brown and Johnson (1985)
that the digestibility of DM, estimated by total fecal collection, was not different significantly
between sheep and goats. CP digestibility was varied in both species, might be due to the
difference in composition of fodders and specie difference. The NDF and ADF digestibility was
higher in sheep than goats. These findings are in agreement with Brown (1982) who obtained
significantly higher digestibility for NDF and ADF by sheep, compared with goats, when fed
completely blended rations with 35, 50 or 65% wheat straw. Lamba and Rajora (2002) reported
similar findings to our study. They evaluated guar (Cynopsis tetragonaloba) straw feeding in
sheep and goat in terms of intake and nutrient digestibility and reported that crude fiber
digestibility was higher in sheep (74.2%) than the goats (71.4%). In contrast to our discussion,
Santra et al. (1998) found that the digestibility of nutrients such as NDF and ADF were
significantly higher in goats than in sheep are inconsistent with the findings of our study. This
difference might be due to the breed and weight of animals, as in the current study Beetal goats
and Lohi sheep were used while in that study Kutchi goats body weight (66kg) and Chokla
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSSION
-------------------------------------------------------93---------------------------------------------------
sheep body weight (41kg) were used. Ndosa 1980 and Tolkamp and Brouwer ( 1993); reported
that the digestibility differences in different breeds of same the species may be the order of
magnitude as differences between species.
5.3 Experiment no.1 (Phase -2)
Voluntary intake and digestibility of sheep and goats fed various winter fodders
5.3.1: Feeding behavior:
The eating and ruminating time (minutes 24/hours) varied in both species on offered
fodders Table 4.9.1. This might be due to species; chemical composition and quality of fodder
(Berseem, Lucern, oats) The findings are in agreement with Abijaoude et al. (2000) who offered
ad libitum four complete diets to Alpine and Saanen dairy goats and observed that the diets rich
in concentrate were the most preferred while higher forage diets were less preferred by the goats
during the short time test. The eating time was more in goats than sheep while ruminating was
higher in sheep than goat. These results are consistent with Domingue et al. (1991) who found
that, at the same intake level of lucerne hay, goats spent more time eating and less time
ruminating than sheep. Similar results have been reported by Morand-Fehr et al. (1991) and Van
et al (2002) who found that goats consumed more meals than sheep both during the day and at
night. Goats spend more total time eating and eat for a longer period during the day than sheep.
Morand-Fehr et al (1991) also reported that goats often eat more slowly than sheep because of
selective grazing behaviors are in agreement to the findings of our study. The drinking time was
similar among fodders and in both species might be due to winter season and type of fodders
which were succulent in nature. The higher standing time was observed in sheep than goats
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSSION
-------------------------------------------------------94---------------------------------------------------
whereas, playing, resting time and other activities (minutes/24 hours) were higher in goats than
in sheep. These results are in line with Mahmut et al (2005), who studied the feeding behavior of
Awassi sheep and Shami (Damascus) goats and found that goats showed lower standing, while
higher playing, resting and other activities than sheep.
5.3.2: Nutrient intake
The goats preferred lucerne and sheep preferred oats Table 4.10.1.These results are in
agreement with Saleem et al (2005) who reported that the voluntary intake of sheep and goats are
different on different foliage. Sheep consumed more Cassia fistula than goats relative to body
weight while intake of Schinus molle, Chorissia speciosa and Eucalyptus camaldulensis were
significantly higher in goats in support to these findings Khanal and Upreti (2008) fed female
goats on leaves and twigs from four species of tree fodders, Artocarpus lakoocha (AL), Bauhinia
purpurea(BP), Garuga pinnata (GP) and Ficus roxburghii (FR) and reported that dry matter
intake was higher for goats fed (Artocarpus lakoocha) AL (432 g/d) and GP (428 g/d) than BP
(342 g/d) or FR (306 g/d).The higher nutrient (DM,CP NDF,ADF) intake was higher in goats
than sheep in our study which is consistent with the findings of Domingue et al. (1991a).
However Van et al (2002) reported findings contrary to ours that intake among goats and sheep
fed sugar cane as the sole of roughage with or without concentrate. The factor may be due to age
of animals, breed difference and type of feed used in the experiment. The adult animals were
used in current study and fed leguminous fodder, while in that study animals used were kids and
lambs fed sugar cane with concentrate or without concentrate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSSION
-------------------------------------------------------95---------------------------------------------------
5.3.3: Average daily gain
The average daily gain of goats and sheep fed different winter fodders are given in Table
4.11. The average daily weight gain varied with respect to treatments i.e. Berseem Lucerne and
oats fed goats and sheep. Weight gain was higher in both species fed on lucerne than lucerne and
oats. The reason may be offered fodders were leguminous and of different composition. The
weight gain, feed efficiency and cost of weight gain between goats and sheep was similar, the
similar trend in both species is due to fodder feeding, adult age of animals and experimental
period. The findings of our study are in agreement to the Animut et al. (2006): they reported that
gain efficiency was similar between species. While evaluating the performance of sheep and
goats consuming concentrate base diet subsequent to grazing grass/forb pastures at three stocking
rates., Our findings were contrary to Lu and Potchoiba, (1990). who found that in general feed
efficiency is low in goats compared to sheep, as goats grow more slowly and divert energy for
physical activity. The factors might be just fodder feeding and the duration of trial, quality of
fodders and preference of both species.
5.3.4: Nutrients digestibility
The inter specie digestibility of dry matter and protein in the present study Table 4.12 are
in agreement with the results of Molina Alcaide et al (2000). They fed alfalfa hay, alfalfa
hay/sugar beet pulp, 4:1 and alfalfa hay/sugar beet pulp/oat grain, 3:1:1 alfalfa/sugar beet
pulp/oat grain to Granadina goats and Segurena wethers. They observed no interspecies
differences in apparent digestibility of nutrients between goats and sheep, The better NDF and
ADF digestibility was observed in goats than sheep. This was in agreement with Wilson (1976)
who reported higher percentage of NDF, ADF digestibility in goats than sheep, fed Acacia
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSSION
-------------------------------------------------------96---------------------------------------------------
pendula, Casuarina cristata, and Heterodendrum oleifolium, respectively to both species. The
factors for high digestibility in goats than sheep were reported by Watson and Norton, (1982);
Domingue et al., (1991a) that the goats have the ability to maintain a higher NH3 concentration
which resulted in higher rumen microbial growth rates and greater fiber digestion. One view for
the more efficient fiber digestion of goats in relation to sheep is that a slower fractional outflow
rate of particulate dry matter from the rumen of goats results in a longer exposure of plant cell
walls to ruminal microbial attack (Watson and Norton, 1982; Doyle et al., 1984; Domingue et al.,
1991a).
5.4 EXPERIMENT NO. 2
Performance of sheep and goats kept under different feeding management systems
5.4.1: Nutrient intake
Nutrients (DM, CP, NDF ADF and GE) intake of goats and sheep kept under different
feeding management systems are given in Table 4.13. Highest DM intake of both sheep and
goats in extensive system than semi-intensive and intensive systems may be due to the
availability of fresh fodder and opportunity of free grazing in a pasture of lucrne. lucerne is a
leguminous fodder and has relatively high contents of dry matter and that is why high dry matter
intake with both species. Highest DM intake was recorded in sheep as compared to goats on all
feeding systems. This is due to the fact that goats have more selective behavior therefore some
time intake of goats is low (Peacock 1996). Our results are in line with the earlier findings of
Abijaoude et al (2000) who concluded that because of their more pronounced selective feeding
behavior, goats have lower DM intake rates than sheep. Similarly, Kabir et al. (2002) and Saleem
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSSION
-------------------------------------------------------97---------------------------------------------------
et al (2003) reported higher DM intake in sheep than goats. The other reason of lower dry matter
intake is that goats are browsers while sheep are known as exclusively grazers animals so goats
spend more time on selection while sheep spent time on grazing. CP intake was the same in
extensive, semi intensive and intensive feeding management systems by both species. Similar CP
intake in these feeding systems was due to the eating and selection behavior as dry matter intake
in sheep was high but in goats it is lower. This trend also indicates that sheep grazed roughly
while goats select the nutritious part of the feed as Fedele et al (2002) reported that goats select
the protein content of diet, that is why despite lower dry matter intake the CP intake is similar to
sheep which have higher dry matter intakes than goats.
In intensive feeding systems, CP intake was significantly higher in sheep than goats. It
may be due to the fact that selective feeding behavior has also been observed in sheep
(Fernandez et al 1994). The other reason for lower CP intake in goat than sheep is due to lower
dry matter intake of goats than sheep and the chop fodders which restrict the selection behavior
of goats. NDF and ADF intake was highest in extensive feeding management system than semi-
intensive and intensive systems in both species, where as it was higher in sheep than in goats. It
may be due to the higher dry matter intake of both species on extensive system than the other
feeding systems while with respect to species, higher NDF and ADF intake in sheep than goats
resulted due to higher dry matter in sheep than goats. This might be due to the availability of
fresh fodder and opportunity of free grazing to the animals. The higher DM, CP and NDF intake
in sheep than goats is in agreement with the findings of Animut et al (2006). They reported that
DM, CP and NDF intake was higher in sheep than goats while evaluating the performance of
sheep and goats consuming concentrate based diet subsequent to grazing grass/forb pastures at
three stocking rates. The higher nutrients intake in sheep rather than goats in our study may be
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSSION
-------------------------------------------------------98---------------------------------------------------
the result of grazing management. The use of electric fence grazing seems to be the main reason
as it restricts movement of the animals. It might have adversely influenced the eating behavior of
the goats as these animals are browsers in nature and spent more time on selection whereas sheep
are good grazers and consume more time in eating rather than selection.
5.4.2: Average daily gain
The average daily weight gain of sheep and goats kept under different feeding systems
are given in Table 4.14. Maximum weight gain was recorded in both species kept in extensive
systems than semi-intensive and intensive systems. The highest weight gain in the extensive
system may be due to higher nutrients intake in this feeding management system. However,
Munir et al. (2008) reported better performance of Balochi sheep in an intensive system rather
than on extensive feeding systems. The difference in results between the two experiments was
due to difference in breed, grazing conditions and their nutritional value. Sheep gained more
weight than goats in all feeding management systems which suggested higher nutrient intake by
the sheep than goats in the present study. The overall higher weight gain was in sheep than in
goats are in line with the findings of Van Niekerk and Casey (1988). They reported the lower
growth rate in goats than sheep.
5.4.3: Feed efficiency
The feed efficiency of both sheep and goats was better on extensive than semi- intensive
and intensive system Table 4.14. Comparatively, the feed efficiency was higher in sheep than
goats in all feeding management systems. This difference was due to the fact that nutrient intake
and gain of sheep was higher than goats. In agreement to the findings of the present study, Lu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSSION
-------------------------------------------------------99---------------------------------------------------
and Potchoiba (1990) concluded that feed efficiency was lower in goats than sheep because goats
grow slowly and divert more energy to physical activity. El-Khidir et al. (1998) also observed
lower feed efficiency in goats than in sheep (112 g gain/kg DMI vs. 135 g gain/kg DMI).
5.4.4: Feeding economics
Feed cost was higher on intensive systems than semi-intensive and extensive systems in
both species.Table 4.14. Findings of our study are contrary to the findings of Legesse et al
(2005) who found higher profit margin in semi-intensive feeding system than extensive and
intensive feeding systems. For goats the difference between two studies might be experimental
animals and feed. They used male animals and fed Rhodes-grass hay ad libitum while, in the
present study all animals were female and were fed lucerne ad libitum. The higher feed cost/kg
body weight gain was higher in goats than sheep. However, Hadad and Obeidat (2007) reported
higher cost of production per kg gain in lambs than kids. The factor might be feed, breed, age,
sex of animals or duration of the experiment. They fed total mixed ration to male animals for
sixty days, while in the current study all animals were female and fed fodder with concentrate
supplementation for ninety days.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSSION
-------------------------------------------------------100---------------------------------------------------
5.5. Experiment 3
Comparative performance of sheep and goats fed under intensive management
system
5.5.1: Nutrients intake
The dry matter, crude protein, NDF and GE (Mcal/d) intakes were more on total mixed
rations than fodder with concentrate supplements both in kids and lambs while ADF intake was
lower on total mixed ration than fodder with concentrate supplementation in both species. Table
4.15. This difference may be due to the palatability and uniformity of total mixed ration than
fodder with concentrate supplementation. The nutritive value in fodder usually declines with
maturity which might have occurred in our case during the study period. However, nutritive
quality in case of TMR was the same throughout the experimental period. The nutrient (DM, CP,
NDF, ADF and GE) intake in kids was lower than lambs on TMR and fodder with concentrate
supplementation Table 4.15.1. The lower nutrient intake in kids than lambs could be due to the
difference in natural feeding behavior. The higher DM, CP and NDF intake in lambs than kids is
in agreement to the findings of Animut et al (2006) who reported that DM, CP and NDF intake
was higher in sheep than goats consuming concentrate based diet with grazing grass pastures at
three stocking rates. Difference in dry matter intake among both species are consistent to the
findings of Santra et al (1998) who reported lower dry matter intake (DMI) in goats compared to
sheep (57.1 g versus 62.1 g/kg W0.75) under controlled feeding as per their maintenance
requirement. Aregheore (1996) reported lower dry matter intake in goats than sheep. Few other
researchers like Ramanzin et al., (1997) who also reported lower dry matter intake in goats than
sheep. Consistent with these findings the lower dry matter intake was reported in goats than
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSSION
-------------------------------------------------------101---------------------------------------------------
sheep by Ritta and Kangasmaki (2000) under stall feeding conditions. Hadad and Obeidat
(2007) fed total mixed ration to both goats and sheep and reported lower nutrients intake in goats
than sheep. Similar findings were also reported by El Khidir (2009).
5.5.2: Average daily weight gain:
The average daily weight gain of kids and lambs is given in table (4.16). The average
daily weight was higher on TMR than fodder with concentrate supplement in lambs while it was
similar in kids fed on both treatments .The inter treatment difference was similar. The factor may
be due to the preference of lambs and kids. In our study, the average daily weight gain was
higher in lambs than kids on TMR Table 4.16.1. These findings are consistent with the
McDowell and Woodward (1982) who concluded that growth rates are lower in goats when
compared with other domestic livestock species when fed in a controlled environment. Kabir et
al. (2004) also reported higher weight gain in sheep than goats (36.6 vs 33.0g/d) while evaluating
the effect of protein supplementation on growth performance in female goats and sheep.
Likewise, Haddad and Obeidat (2007) also reported better average daily weight gain in lambs
than kids (235 vs. 145 g/day). Earlier findings (Economides, 1991, Hadjippaniotou, 1992)
support higher growth rate in lambs than kids. This could be due to the fact that sheep deposit
more fat in their bodies than goats (Kellems and church, 1998). Comparatively, lower growth
rate in goats could also be attributed to its poor genetic makeup and habitually extra activities of
goats compared to sheep which may have consumed more energy and hence decrease the
deposition of additional fat in the body.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSSION
-------------------------------------------------------102---------------------------------------------------
5.5.3 Feed efficiency:
The fodder with concentrate supplementation was more efficient than TMR for kids but
feed efficiency was statistically similar in case of lambs Table 4.16. The factor might be due to
the species difference, type of feed, preference of animals and the ability of kids to convert feed
in per unit body mass than that of lambs. Feed efficiency was higher in kids than in lambs on
fodder with concentrate supplementation Table 4.16.1. This might be due to the factor that the
ability of kids to convert feed into per unit body mass is better than those of lambs. The findings
of our study are in agreement to Haddad and Obeidat (2007) who reported that Awassi lambs
consumed more feed and grew faster than Baladi kids. However, kids were more efficient feed
converters than lambs (FCR 4.3 vs 5.8 or FE 0.23 vs. 0.17). The results of present study are
differ from (McDowell and Woodward, 1982) who concluded that goats are more efficient at
utilizing certain shrubs, brush, and other plant species for live weight gain than other domestic
livestock species; however, growth rates and feed efficiency are lower than other livestock when
goats fed in controlled environments. Lower feed efficiency in goats than sheep has also been
reported by (Lu and Potchoiba, 1990) who found that goats grow more slowly and divert more
energy to physical activity
5.5.4: Feeding economics
The cost of average daily gain per kg was better on fodder with concentrate
supplementation than TMR in the case of kids but it was similar in the case of lambs Table 4.16.
This difference might be due to the intake of both species and the cost of diets. The cost of
average gain per kg was similar among kids and lambs Table 4.16.1. Our findings are
inconsistent to findings of Haddad and Obeidat (2007) who conducted an experiment on Awassi
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSSION
-------------------------------------------------------103---------------------------------------------------
lambs and Baladi kids to study the differences in feeding behavior and performance of sheep and
goats on concentrate finishing diet. They reported that feed cost per kilogram weight gain for
kids was better than that for lambs. The factor might be the breed, age, sex and the experimental
feed. In our study female adult Lohi lambs and femal Beetal kids were fed concentrate with
fodder and mixed ration, composed of wheat straw, maize ground, cotton seed cake, wheat bran,
maize gluten, rice polishing, canola meal, sunflower meal, molasses, mineral mixture, vitamins
premix while in their study male Awassi lambs and Baladi kids 2.5 month of age were used and
fed with total mixed ration composed of chopped alpha hay, whole barlay grain, coarsely ground
corn grain, soya been meal, salt lime stone and vitamins mix. All these factors played their part
for variations in results. The possible difference may be the composition of rations.
5.5.5 Nutrient digestibility:
Results showed that dry matter digestibility was similar in kids with respect to both feeds
Table 4.17. Crude protein digestibility (CPD) of TMR in kids was higher than that of fodder with
concentrate supplementation. This difference might be due to varied intakes of these ingredients
in kids fed on both treatments. Digestibility of NDF and ADF was lower in kids fed TMR than
those fed fodder with concentrate supplementation. This variation could be due to the type,
quality, palatability and composition of both treatments. Dry matter digestibility was higher in
lambs fed on TMR than fodder with concentrate supplementation. Higher digestibility of TMR
may be due to the normal rumen environment i.e., rumen pH which remains normal when TMR
is fed, however, in the case of fodder with concentrate feeding, the rumen mechanism was
disturbs due to fluctuation in rumen pH on fodder with concentrate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSSION
-------------------------------------------------------104---------------------------------------------------
Results in Table 4.17.1 indicated that DMD and CPD were higher in kids than lambs fed
on TMR only. Our results are consistent to the findings of Sheridan et al (2003) who reported
that dry matter and crude protein digestibility was higher in kids than lambs. However, in the
current study NDF and ADF digestibility was higher in lambs than kids on total mixed ration. In
this connection, Wilson (1976) also reported higher NDF and ADF digestibility in kids than
lambs fed on A. pendula, C. cristata and H. oleifolium.
When both species were fed fodder with concentrate supplementation the NDF
digestibility was significantly higher in kids as compared to lambs. The ability of kids to digest
NDF is better than lambs may be the contributing factor. It is in line with the findings of Reid et
al .(1990) who fed warm and cool season forages to cattle, sheep and goats and found higher
NDF digestibility in goats than sheep, whereas Molina Alcaide et al (2000) reported no
interspecies differences in apparent digestibility of nutrients between goats and sheep fed on
alfalfa hay, alfalfa hay/sugar beet pulp, 4:1 and alfalfa hay/sugar beet pulp/oat grain, 3:1:1
alfalfa/sugar beet pulp/oat grain to Granadina goats and Segurena wethers. The variation in
results than our study could be due to differences in breed and the experimental diets.
Conclusion
The dry matter intake for different fodders is different in sheep and goats. The feeding
behavior was different in both species and the inter treatment behavior was also different. The
weight gain was maintained in both species on different winter and summer fodders. The
performance of both lambs and kids was better on concentrate supplement while on total mixed
ration lambs performed better than kids. The concentrate supplement was more economical than
total mixed ration. The performance of sheep and goats was economical on extensive grazing
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSSION
-------------------------------------------------------105---------------------------------------------------
than semi-intensive and intensive feeding management. Inter species performance of sheep was
better than goats in all aspects.
Implications
The sheep and goats we fed fodder with concentrate supplementation, as fodder feeding
not fulfil the nutrient requirements of animals. The fodders like berseem, lucerne, and cowpea
should be feed in a hay form. The janter is suitable fodder for grazing rather than stall feeding.
The maize, millet sorghum, should be fed to the animals in early bloom in chopped form. The
hay based total mixed ration gives better results in small ruminants reared for fattening purpose.
The use of wheat straw based total mixed ration is better for sheep rather than goats, However
during feed shortage periods it can be used in goats.
Future research
The studies on the voluntary intake and digestibility of different fodder in sheep and
goats should be continued offered in different form i.e., hay, haylage and silage further, mineral
profile of these fodders should be studied in the country, region wise.
Further research is required on total mixed ration at different inclusion levels of wheat
straw and crude protein percentage is needed. Hay based total mixed ration based on different
fodders with different levels of protein and energy required to be studied. Grazing systems
should be studied on different fodders in different breeds of sheep and goats with
supplementation of concentrate with different levels and composition under varied environments.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐106‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Chapter No. 6
SUMMARY
Sheep and goats have been bestowed with the capacity of surviving under a variety of
environmental conditions including the coastal region, plains and high mountains. The profitable
small ruminants farming depend upon feeding and management systems because the feed cost is
70% in any livestock farming. In Pakistan, mostly people grazed ruminants on summer and
winter fodders for maintenance and production requirements. Commercial livestock production
demands a change in feeding with a trend for more efficient utilization of scarce feed resources.
The proposed study was planned in to three experiments under a factorial arrangement to
evaluate the growth performance of sheep and goats. In experiment one a study was first
conducted to compare the voluntary intake and digestibility of janter (coriandrum sativum), guar
(cyamopsis tetragonolba), cowpea (Vigna sinesis) in sheep and goats. For this purpose, 90
female animals (sheep n=45 and goats n = 45) were selected randomly and divided equally in, 6
groups representing each species under 2×3 factorial arrangements, Groups A,B ,C represented
goats while group D,E,F represented sheep. Results showed that goats spent more time on eating
than sheep while ruminating time was higher in sheep than goats. Drinking time was not
different (P>0.05) among the species. Goats spent more time on playing and resting than sheep
fed guar, cowpeas and jantar. Dry mater CP, NDF, ADF and GE intake was higher in sheep than
goats fed guar, cowpeas and jantar. DMD and CP were higher in sheep than goats fed guar. NDF
and ADF digestibility was similar in both species. Average daily weight gain, feed efficiency and
cost of gain were similar in both the species. It is concluded that the jantar fodder in summer is
most suitable fodder for sheep and goats compare to guar and Cowpea. In the second trial of the
first phase study comparison of voluntary intake and digestibility maize (Zea mays), sorghum
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐SUMMARY
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐107‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
(Sorghum bicolor) and millet (Pennisetum americanum) in sheep and goats were compared.
Statistical analyses showed that eating time was higher (P˂0.05) in goats than sheep fed maize,
millet and sorghum while, sheep spent more time on ruminating, drinking and standing than
goats. Goats showed higher playing, resting and other activities than sheep fed maize, millet and
sorghum. Dry matter CP, NDF and ADF intake was similar (P>0.05) in both the species fed
maize, millet and sorghum. Dry matter digestibility was similar in sheep and goats fed maize,
millet and sorghum. NDF digestibility was similar (P>0.05) in goat and sheep fed sorghum
while this was different (P˂0.05) when maize and millet were fed. ADF digestibility was similar
(P>0.05) in goat and sheep. Average daily weight gain feed efficiency and cost of gain was not
significant (P>0.05) among both the species fed maize, millet and sorghum. Results of the study
showed that the non leguminous fodders during summer are equally preferred by both species.
In second the phase voluntary feed intake and digestibility of berseem, (Trifolium alexandrium)
lucerne, (Medicago Sativa), oats, (Avena Sativa) in female sheep and goats was studied. For this
purpose, female animals (n=90) of sheep (n=45) and goats (n=45) were randomly selected and
divided equally in six in a 2×3 factorial arrangement. Results showed that eating time was higher
(P<0.05) in goats than sheep, while ruminating time was more in sheep than goats fed berseem
lucerne and oats, whereas time spent on drinking was similar in both goats and sheep. Goats
utilized less time in standing, higher (P<0.05) time in playing, resting and other activities than
sheep fed maize, millet and sorghum. Crude protein intake was higher (P<0.05) in goats than
sheep fed berseem and lucerne. DM intake was higher (P<0.05) in goats than in sheep fed
berseem, while it was similar when fed lucerne and oats fodder. NDF, ADF and GE (M cal/d)
intakes were higher (P<0.05) in goats than sheep fed berseem and lucerne fodder however it was
similar in both the species fed on oats fodder. DM digestibility was similar (P>0.05) in sheep
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐SUMMARY
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐108‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
and goats fed berseem, lucerne and oats. CP digestibility was higher (P<0.05) in goats than in
sheep fed berseem. When fed Lucerne and oats there was no significant difference (P>0.05)
between goats and sheep.. NDF digestibility was higher (P<0.05) in goats than in sheep fed
berseem. Average daily gain, feed efficiency and cost of gain/kg was non-significant (P>0.05)
between goats and sheep fed berseem, lucern and oats. Results demonstrated that during winter
the most suitable fodder for sheep and goats is lucerne fodder. In the second experiment the
study was conducted to compare the performance of sheep and goats under various feeding
management systems in which ninety female animals were selected and divided into six equal
groups with three groups of each species (sheep n=45, goats n=45) under a 2×3 factorial
arrangement. These were in extensive, semi-intensive and intensive feeding management
systems. Dry matter intake was higher (P˂0.05) (P<0.05) in sheep than goats kept under
extensive, semi-intensive and intensive systems. Crude protein intake was significantly higher
(P<0.05) in sheep than goats fed intensively. NDF and ADF intake was higher (P˂0.05)
(P<0.05) in sheep than in goats. Average daily weight gain was higher in sheep than goats on the
extensive system followed by the semi-intensive system. Feed efficiency was similar in goats
and sheep while the cost of gain per kg was more economical in sheep than goats. Results of
study revealed that both species performed better on extensive feeding system than the other
systems might be of natural grazing behavior. The third experiment of study was conducted to
compare the performance of sheep and goats under the intensive management system. Sixty
female animals (lambs n= 30 and kids n=30) were used. The animals were divided equally in
four groups A and B representing lambs while C, D was for kids. Both species were allotted two
treatments i.e. fodder ad libitum with concentrate supplement (240 grams/animal/day) and total
mixed ration ad libitum under a 2×2 factorial arrangement. Results showed that DM, CP, NDF
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐SUMMARY
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐109‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
and ADF intakes were higher (P˂0.05) in lambs than kids. Average daily weight gain was
higher (P˂0.05) in lambs than kids fed total mixed ration. Feed efficiency was higher (P˂0.05)
in kids than in lambs fed fodder plus supplement. Dry matter and CP digestibility was higher
(P˂0.05) in kids than lambs fed a total mixed ration. NDF digestibility was maximum (P˂0.05)
in lambs than kids fed the TMR, it was also higher in kids than in lambs when fed fodder plus
the concentrate supplement. ADF digestibility was maximum (P˂0.05) in lambs than in kids fed
the total mixed ration. The performance of lambs was better on TMR while kids showed good
results on fodder plus the concentrate supplementation.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐110‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Chapter No. 7
LITERATURE CITED
Abijaoude JA, Morand-Fehr P, Tessier J, Schmidely P, Sauvant D. 2000. Diet effect on the
daily feeding behaviour, frequency and characteristics of meals in dairy goats.
Liv. Prod. Sci. 64:29-37.
Abijaoude JA, Morand-Fehr P, Tessier J. 1997b. Effect of reason. physiological status and
type of diets on the dietary preferences of goats. In, Wageningen Pers. 48th
Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, Vienna
(Austria).312.
Abu Zanat MMW. 2005. Voluntary intake and digestibility of saltbush by sheep. Asian-
Australasian J. Ani. Sci. 18(2):214-220.
Ahmed FA, Ahmed AI. 1983. Intake and digestibility of berseem (Medicago) sativa and
sorghum abu70 (Sorghum vulgar) forages by Sudan zebu cattle and desert
sheep. Tropical Health Prod. 15:7-12.
Alcaide ME, Martin Garcia AI, Aguilera JF. 2000. A comparative study of nutrient
digestibility, kinetics of degradation and passage and rumen fermentation
pattern in goats and sheep offered good quality diets Liv. Prod. Sci. 64(2-3):
215-223.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LITERATURE CITED
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐111‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Anandana S, Sastry VRB, Musalia LM, Agrawal DK. 1996. Growth rate and nutrient
efficiency of growing goats fed urea ammoniated neem (Azadirachta indica)
seed kernel meal as protein supplement. small Rumi. Res. 22(3): 205-212.
Animut G, Goetsch AL, Aiken GE Puchala R, Detweiler G, Krehbiel CR, Merkel RC, Sahlu
T, Dawsond LJ, Johnson ZB, Kiesler DH. 2006. Performance by goats and
sheep consuming a concentrate-baseddiet subsequent to grazing grass/forb
pastures at three stocking rates Small Rumi. Res. 66: 92–101
Anonymous. 2011. Ministry of Finance, Economic Adviser’s Wing, Islamabad.
AOAC. 2000. Official Methods of Analysis. 17th ed. Association of Analytical Chemists,
Arlington, Virginia, USA.
Aregheore EM. 1996. Voluntary intake and nutrient digestablity of crop residues based ration
by goats and sheep. Small Rumi.Res. 22: 7-12.
Aregheore EM. 2004. Nutritive value of sweet potato (Ipomea batatas (L) Lam) forage as
goat feed: voluntary intake, growth and digestibility of mixed rations of sweet
potato and batiki grass (Ischaemum aristatum var. indicum) Small Rumi. Res.
5 1(3): 235-241.
Aregheore EM. 2007. Voluntary intake, nutrient digestibility and nutritive value of foliage of
fluted pumpkin (Talfairia occidentialis) - haylage mixtures by goats Liv. Res.
for Rural Dev. 19 (4).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LITERATURE CITED
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐112‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Arsenos G, Banos, G. Fortomaris, P. Katsaounis, N. Stamataris, Tsaras C L, Zygoyiannis
D. 2002. Eating quality of lamb meat: effects of breed, sex, degree of maturity
and nutritional management. Meat Sci. 60(4): 379-387.
Belewu MA, Olajide JO. 2010. Lesser known seed a renewable pathway for sustainable
animal production Africa Journal of Sustainable Development.12 (3):1520-
5509.
Brown LE, Johnson WL. 1985. Intake and digestibility of wheat straw diets by goats and
sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 60: 1318-1323.
Brown LE. 1982. Goats and sheep: A comparison of intake, digestibility and other
digestive/metabolic parameters when fed wheat straw rations. Master of
Science Thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh. p.86.
Bruzon V. 2007. Feed and fodder consultant. EC/GOP Project ALA/01/129. Strenthening of
Livestock Services Project.
Cameron MR, Luo J, Sahlu T, Hart SP, Coleman SW, Goetsch AL. 2001. Growth and
slaughter traits of Boer × Spanish,Boer × Angora, and Spanish goats
consuming a concentrate-baseddiet. J. Anim. Sci. 79:1423-1430.
Cammack KM, Leymaster KA, Jenkins TG, Nielsen MK. 2005. Estimates of genetic
parameters for feed intake, feeding behavior, and daily gain in composite ram
lambs. J. Anim. Sci. 83: 777-785.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LITERATURE CITED
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐113‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Chobtang J, Intharak K, Isuwan A. 2009. Effects of dietary crude protein levels on nutrient
digestibility and growth performanceof Thai indigenous male goats.
Songklanakarin J. Sci. Tech. 31(6): 591-596.
Daskiran I, Askin K, Mehmet B. 2006. Slaughter and carcass characteristics of Norduz male
kids raised in either intensive or pasture conditions. Pakistan J. of Nutri. 5(3):
274-277.
Daskiran I, Bingol M, Karaca S, Yilmaz A, Cetin AO, Kor A. 2010. The effect of feeding
system on fattening performance, slaughter, and carcass characteristics of
Norduz male kids. Trop Anim Health Prod. 42 (7): 1459-63.
Devandera (2001) Small ruminants imperatives for productivity Enhancement improved
Livelihoods and Rural growth Asian-Aust.J.Anim Sci 14 (10):1483-1496.
Domingue BMF, Dellow DW , Barry TN. 1991. The efficiency of chewing during eating
and ruminating in goats and sheep. British J. of Nutri. 65: 355-363.
Domingue, BM F. Dellow, D W, Barry, T N, 1991a. Voluntary intake and rumen digestion of
a low-quality roughage by goats and sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science
(Cambridge) 117, 111–120.
Doyle PT, Egan JK, Thalen AJ. 1984. Intake, digestion and nitrogen and sulphur retention in
Angora goats and Merino sheep fed herbage diets. Australian Journal of
Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry. 24: 165–169.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LITERATURE CITED
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐114‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Dulphy JP, Demarquilly C. 1994.The regulation and prediction of feed intake in ruminants in
relation to feed characteristics Liv. Prod. Sci. 39:1-12.
Dzakuma JM, Risch E, Smith CO, Blackburn HD. 2004. Level of feed intake on performance
of two goat genotypes South African J. Ani. Sci. 34 (Supplement 1).
Economides S. 1991. Effect of feeding liquid soyoour supplement on the performance of
lambs,kids and calves.In:Technical Bullentin. p.155.
El-Khidir I. 2009. Comparative feedlot performance and carcass characteristics of Sudanese
desert sheep and goats. Small Rumi. Res. 30(2): 47-151.
El-Khidir IA, Babiker SA, Shafie SA. 1998. Comparative feedlot performance and carcass
characteristics of Sudanes desert sheep and goats. Small Rumi. Res. 30:147-
151.
El-Muola H, Babiker ASA , El Khidir OA , Ibrahim SE. 1999. Meat production from
female goat kids compared with males Animal Production Research Centre,
Kuku, Khartoum North, Sudan, Faculty of Animal Production, University of
Khartoum North, Sudan.
Fadel R, Rosa B, De Oliveira I P, Orsine GF, Dias ID. 2004. Nutritive value of rice straw
amonniated for sheep. Ciencia-Animal-Brasileira. 5(1): 19-25.
Faftine OLJ, Zanetti AM. 2010. Effect of multi nutrient block on feed digestibility and
performance of goats fed maize Stover during the dry season in south of
Mozambique. Res for Rural Dev. 22 (9).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LITERATURE CITED
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐115‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Fedele V, Claps S, Rubino R, Calandrelli M, Pilla AM. 2002. Effect of free-choice and
traditional feedingsystems on goat feeding behaviour and intake. Liv. Prod.
Sci. 74, 19–31.
Fernandez C, Sanchez-Seiquer P, Sanchez A. 2003. Use of a total mixed ration with three
sources of protein as an alternative feeding for dairy goats on southeast of
Spain Pakistan J. Nutri. 2 (1): 18-24.
Fernandez C, Sanchez-Seiquer P. 2003. Feed intake and digestibility of total mixed ration fed
Murciano granadina dairy goats Pakistan J. Nutri. 2 (1): 25-32.
Fernandez-River S, Midou A, Marichatou H.1994. Effect of food allowance on diet
selectivity and intake of perl millet (pennisetm glucum) stover leaves by
sheep. Anim. Prod. 58: 249-256.
Fimbresa H, Kawasa JR, Hernandez-Vidala G, Picon-Rubioa JF, Lub CD. 2002. Nutrient
intake, digestibility, mastication and ruminal fermentation of lambs fed
finishing ration with various forage levels. Small Rumi. Res. 43 (3): 275-281.
Garcia MA, Aguilera JF, Alcaide ME. 1995. Voluntary intake and kinetics of degradation
and passage of un-supplemented and supplemented pastures from semiarid
lands in grazing goats and sheep Liv. Prod. Sci. 44 (3): 245-255.
Gelaye S, Terril TI, Amoah EA, Miller S, Gates R, Hanna WW. 1997. Nutritional value of
pearl millet for lactating and growing goats. J. Ani. Sci. 75(5): 1409-1414.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LITERATURE CITED
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐116‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Getachew G, Saida AN, Sundst F. 1994. The effect of forage legume supplementation on
digestibility and body weight gain by sheep fed a basal diet of maize Stover
Anim. Feed Sci. and Tech. 46(1-2): 97-108.
Gordon IJ. 2003. Browsing and grazing ruminants are they different beasts. Forest Ecology
and Management. 181:13–21.
Gregoirea RJ, Fahmyb MH, Bouchera JM, Tremblayc A, Merciera J. 1996. Effect of four
protein supplements on growth, feed conversion, mohair production, fibre
characteristics and blood parameters of Angora goats. Small Rumi. Res.
19(2): 121-130.
Haddad SG, Obeidat BS. 2007. Production efficiency and feeding behavior of Awassi lambs
and Baladi kids fed on a high concentrate diet. Small Rumi. Res. 69: 23.27.
Haddad SG. 2005. Effect of dietary forage: concentrate ratio on growth performance and
carcass characteristics of growing Baladi kids. Small Rumi. Res.57 (1): 43-49.
Hadjigeorgiou IE, Gordon IJ, Milne JA. 2001. The intake and digestion of a range of
temperate forages by sheep and fibre-producing goats. Small Rumi. Res.
39(2): 167-179.
Hadjigeorgiou IE, Gordon IJ, Milne JA. 2003. Comparative preference by sheep and goats
for Graminaeae forages varying in chemical composition Small Rumi. Res.
49(2): 147-156.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LITERATURE CITED
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐117‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Hadjipanayiotou M. 1995. Fractional outflow of soybean meal from the rumen, water intake
and ruminal fermentation pattern in sheep and goats at different season and
age groups. Small Rumi.Res. 17: 137-143.
Hadjippaniotou M. 1992.The influence of fish meal and of formaldehyde-treated soyabeen
meal on the performance of early weaned chios lambs and damascus kids.
In:Technical Bulletin:145.
Halit Imik, Sakir DT, Aylin A, Melik A. 2008. Determination of some digestibility of
nutrients, rumen and blood metabolites of Akkaraman rams fed low-tannin
sorghum and other conventional feeds Ankara Univ Vet Fak Derg. 55: 177-
182.
Harish RS, Rajora NK, Yadav CM. 2003. Voluntary intake, nutrient digestibility and
nutritive value of ingadulcis (Pithecellobium dulce) leaves in sheep. Indian J.
Small Rumi. 9(1): 29-31.
Hossain ME, Shahjalal M, Khan MJ, Bhuiyan AA. 2003a. Effect of dietary energy
supplementation on feed Intake, growth and reproductive performance of
sheep under grazing condition. Pakistan. J. Nutri. 2(3): 148-152.
Hossain ME, Shahjalal M, Khan MJ, Hasanat MS. 2003b. Effect of dietary energy
supplementation on feed Intake, growth and reproductive performance of
goats under grazing condition. Pakistan. J. Nutri. 2(3): 159-163.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LITERATURE CITED
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐118‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Hussain Q, Havrevoll, Eik LO. 1996. Effect of type of roughage on feed intake, milk yield
and body condition of pregnant goats Small Rumi. Res. 22(2): 131-139.
Hwangbo S, Ho CS, Sang WK, Dong SS, Ho SP, Sung HL, Ik HJ. 2009. Effects of crude
protein levels in total mixed rations on growth performance and meat quality
in growing Korean black goats. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 22 (8): 1133-1139.
Isaac MO, carolyne C, Wambui, shaukat A, Abdulrazak, Toshiyoshi I, Tsutomu F. 2008.
Evaluation of nutritive value and palatability by goats and sheep of selected
browse foliages from semiarid area of Kenya. Animal Science Journal. 79:
582-589.
Ismail M, Berhan T. 2006. Acceptability and growth of goats fed with khat (Catha edulis)
leftover as a sole diet and supplement. Trop. Sci. 46 (4): 185-188.
Jabbar MA, Anjum MI. 2008. Effect of diets with different forage to concentrate ratio for
fattening of lohi lambs Pakistan Vet. J. 28(3): 150-152.
Jia ZH, Sahlu T, Fernandez JM, Hart SP, Teh TH. 1995 Effects of dietary protein level on
performance of Angora and cashmere-producing Spanish goats Small Rumi.
Res. 16 (2): 113-119
Johnson PL, Purchas RW, Mcewan JC, Blair HT. 2005. Carcass composition and meat
quality differences between pasture-reared ewe and ram lambs. Meat Sci.
71(2): 383-391.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LITERATURE CITED
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐119‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Kabir F, Shahjalal M, Miah G, Uddin MJ, Rahman MZ. 2002. Effect of concentrate
supplementation to grazing on growth and reproductive performance in
female goats and sheep. J Biol. Sci. 2(5): 333-335.
Kabir F, Sultana MS, Shahjalal M, Khan MJ, Alam MZ.2004. Effect of protein
supplementation on growth performance of goats and sheep under grazing
condition Pakistan J Nutri. 3 (4): 237-239
Kaithoa RJ, Tegegneb A, Umunnaa NN, Nsahlaia IV, Tammingab S, Bruchemb J, Van Artsc
JM. 1998. Effect of Leucaena and Sesbania supplementation on body growth
and scrotal circumference of Ethiopian highland sheep and goats fed teff
straw basal diet Liv. Prod. Sci. 54(2): 173-181.
Karim SA, Kuldeep P, Suresh K, Singh VK. 2007. Carcass traits of Kheri lambs maintained
on different system of feeding management. Meat Sci. 76(3): 395-401.
Kellems RO, Church DC. 1998. Livestock Feeds and Feeding. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Khanal RC, Upreti CR. 2008. Evaluation of Selected Species of Tree Fodders
Cultivated for Feeding Ruminants in the Hills of Nepal Pakistan J Nutri. 7
(2): 297-302.
Kleemann DO, Dolling, CHS, Ponzoni RW .1990. Carcass and non-carcass characteristics
of Suffolk-Sired Lambs from South Australian Merino, Poll Dorset × Merino
and Border Leicester × Merino Ewes. Small Rumi. Res.3, 283-290.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LITERATURE CITED
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐120‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Kochapakdee, Pralokarn SWS, Laapetchara AS, Norton BW. 1994. Grazing management
studies with Thai goats. Productivity of female goats grazing newly
established pasture with varying levels of supplementary feeding. Asian Aust.
J. Anim. Sci. 7: 289-293.
Kosum N, Alcicek A, Taskin T, Onenc A. 2003. Fattening performance and carcass
characteristics of Saanen and Bornova male kids under an intensive
management system. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 48(9): 379-386.
Lamba KS, Rajora NK. 2002. Comparative intake and nutrient digestibility of guar
(Cyanopsis tetragonaloba) straw by sheep and goats. The Ind. J. of Small
Rumi. 8(2): 101-103.
Larbi A, Fianu FK, Akude FK. 1991. Voluntary intake and digestibility by sheep and goats
of whole plant leaf and stem fractions of Pennisetum purpureum Schum.
Small Rumi. Res. 6(3): 217-221.
Legesse G, Abebe G, Ergano K. 2005. The economics of goats managed under Different
feeding systems. Liv. Res. for Rural Devel. 17(6): 120-122.
Lindberg JE, Gonda HL. 1997. Fibre and protein digestion in goats. CIHEAM – Options
Mediterraneennes
Lopez Campos, Fernandez OB, Frutos P, Mantecon AR, Giraldez FJ. 2005. Use of sugarbeet
vinasse in maintenance diets for ewes. Jornadas-sobre-Prod-Anim-Zaragoza,
Spain. (1-2): 530-532.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LITERATURE CITED
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐121‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Lu CD, Potchoiba MJ. 1990. Feed intake and weight gain of growing goats fed diets of
various energy and protein levels. J. Anim. Sci. 68(6): 1751-9.
Mahajan JM, Chauhan DS, Tomar VPS. 1976. Effect of supplementary feeding to grazing on
growth and wool production in sheep. Ind J. Anim. Res. 10: 90-92.
Mahgoub O, Lu CD, Early RJ. 2000. Effects of dietary energy density on feed intake, body
weight gain and carcass chemical composition of Omani growing lambs Small
Rumi. Res. 37 (1): 35-42.
Mahmut K, Ahmet S, Osman B, Sabri G, Serafettin K, Ayan S, Metin D. 2005. Feeding
behaviour of Awassi sheep and Shami (Damascus) goats. Turk. J. Vet. Anim.
Sci. 29: 435-439.
Manayea T, Tolerab A, Zewdua T. 2009. Feed intake, digestibility and body weight gain of
sheep fed Napier grass mixed with different levels of Sesbania sesban. Liv.
Sci. 122(1): 24-29.
McDowell RE, Woodward A.1982. Concepts in animal adaptation. Comparative suitability
of goats, sheep and cattle in tropical environments. Proc. 3rd. Int. Goat Conf.
Tucson, AZ. p387.
McGregor BA. 1985. Growth, Development and Carcass Compositionof Goats: a Review.
Goat Production and research in thetropics. University of Queensland,
Brisbane. p. 82-90.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LITERATURE CITED
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐122‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
McSweeney CS, Kennedy PM. 1992. Influence of dietary particle size on chewing activity
and reticulo-ruminal motility in goats and sheep fed wheaten (Triticum
aestivum) hay. Small Rumi. Res. 9: 107–115.
Mellado M, Salas G, Pittroff W. 2008. Sphaeralcea Angustifolia as a Substitute for Alfalfa
for Growing Goats. Rangeland Ecology & Management. 61(4):405-411.
Molina Alcaide E, Garc M A, Aguilera J F. 1997.The voluntary intake and rumen digestion
by grazing goats and sheep of a low-quality pasture from a semi-arid land
Liv. Prod. Sci. 52 (1): 39-47
Morand-Fehr P, Owen E, Giger-Reverdin S. 1991. Feeding behavior of goats at the trough.
Goat Nutrition. EAAP, Wgeningen. p.3-12.
Moujahed N, Salem HB, Kayouli C. 2005. Effects of frequency of polyethylene glycol and
protein supplementation on intake and digestion of Acacia cyanophylla Lindl.
Foliage fed to sheep and goats. Small Rumi. Res. (56): 65-73.
Mtenga LA, Kitalyi AJ. 1990. Performance and carcass composition of Tanzania goats fed
chloris gayana hay with supplements containing different level of protein.
Small Rumi. Res. 3(1): 1-8.
Munir M, Jasra AW, Rafique S. 2008. Lamb production under different systems of
management on rangelands of Balochistan. Pakistan Vet. J. 28(2): 68-70.
Ndosa JEM. 1980. A comparative study of roughage utilization by sheep and goats. Thesis,
University of Reading (UK), p. 164.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LITERATURE CITED
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐123‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Negesse T, Rodehutscord M, Pfeffer E. 2001. The effect of dietary crude protein level on
intake, growth, protein retention and utilization of growing male Saanen kids.
Small Rumi. Res. 39: 243-251.
Olomola OO, Babayemi OJ, Akinsoyinu AO. 2008. Performance characteristics and nitrogen
utilization of pregnant West African dwarf goats fed groundnut cake, urea and
rumen epithelial wastes in cassava flour and citrus pulp–based diets. Tropical
and Subtropical Agroecosystems. 8: 61-67.
Onia AO, Arigbedeb OM, Onid OO, Onwukaa CFI, Aneleb UY, Oduguwac BO, Yusufa KO
.2010. Effects of feeding different levels of dried cassava leaves (manihot
esculenta, crantz) based concentrates with Panicum maximum basal on the
performance of growing West African Dwarf goats. Liv. Sci. 129(1-3): 24-30
Patel KM, Patel KS, Wadawani KN,Parnerker S,Pandaya PR, Ptel AM.2004.Comparative
growth performance of weaner lambs on non-conventional based ration under
intensive production system International journal of Agri. & Bio.1560-853:
860-664
Pathak NN, Kewalramani N, Kamar DN.1992. Intake and digestibility of oats (Avena sativa)
and berseem (Trifolium alexandrinum) in adult black bucks (Antilop
cervicapra) small Rumi. Res 8(3): 265-268
Peacock C. 1996. The feeding habits of goats. Improving goat production in the tropics. A
manual for development workers. Oxfam, UK and Ireland., p66-68.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LITERATURE CITED
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐124‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Ramanzin M, Bailoni L, Schiavon S. 1997. Effect of forage to concentrate ratio on
comparative digestion in sheep, goats and fallow deer. Anim.Sci. 64: 163-170.
Ramli MN, Higashi M, Imura Y, Takayama K, Nakanishi Y. 2005. Growth, feed efficiency,
behaviour, carcass characteristics and meat quality of goats fed fermented
Bagasse feed. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 18: 1594-1599.
Rauw W, Soler MJ, Tibau J, Reixach J, Gomez RL. 2006. Feeding time and feeding rate and
its relationship with feed intake, feed efficiency, growth rate, and rate of fat
deposition in growing Duroc barrows. J. Anim. Sci. 84: 3404-3409.
Reed BA, Brown DL .1988. Almond hulls in diets for lactating goats: Effects on yield and
composition of milk, feed intake, and digestibility. J. Dairy Sci. 71: 530-533.
Reid RL, Jung GA, Cox-Ganser JM, Rybeck BF, Townsen EC.1990.Comparative utilization
of warm and cool season forages by cattle, sheep and goats J Anim Sci. 68:
2986-2994.
Riitta SC, Kangasmaki T. 2000. Performance of Finnish Landrace goat kids and lambs raised
under stall-feeding conditions in Finland. Small Rumi. Res. 38(2, 1): 109-114.
Ryan SM, Unruh JA, Corrigan ME, Drouillard JS, Seyfert M. 2007. Effects of concentrate
level on carcass traits of Boer crossbred goats. Small Rumi. Res.73 (1-3): 67-
76.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LITERATURE CITED
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐125‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Safaria J, Mushia DE, Mtenga LA, Kifarod GC, Eika LO. 2009. Effects of concentrate
supplementation on carcass and meat quality attributes of feedlot finished
Small East African goats. Liv. Sci. 125(2-3): 266-274.
Sahoo A, Garg A K, Arora B M, Pathak NN, 2010Intake and utilization of sorghum and
maize green fodder in spotted deer under captivity Trop. Anim. Health and
Prod. 42(7): 1405-1412.
Saikia G K, Baruah K, Buragohain SC, Saikia BN, Pathak NN .1995. Feed intake, utilization
of nutrients and growth of Assamese X Beetal goats fed three levels of energy.
Small Rumi Res. 15(3): 279-282.
Salem AZM, Salem MZM, El-Adawy MM, Robinson PH. 2005. Nutritive evaluation of
some browse tree foliages during the dry season: Secondary compounds, feed
intake and in vivo digestibility in sheep and goats. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech. 127:
251-276.
Salim HM, Shahjalal AM, Tareque M, Akhter N. 2003. Intake and growth performance of
female goats and sheep given concentrate supplement under grazing
condition. Pakistan J. Bio. Sci. 2(1): 35-37.
Salim HM, Shahjalal M, Tareque AMM, Kabir F. 2002. Effects of concentrate
supplementation on growth and reproductive performance of female sheep
and goats under grazing condition. Pakistan J Nutri. 1(4):191-193.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LITERATURE CITED
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐126‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Santini,F.J.,Lu, C.D.,Pochiba,M.J., Coleman,S.W.1991.Effect of acid detergent fiber intake
on early postpartum milk production and chewing activities in dairy goats fed
alfalfa. Small Rumi. Res.6:63-71
Santra A, Karim SA, Mishra AS, Chaturvedi OH, Prasad R. 1998. Rumen ciliateprotozoa and
fibre utilization in sheep and goats. Small Rumi. Res. 30:13-18.
Sarwatt SV. 1990. Feed intake, growth rate and digestibility coefficients of growing sheep
fed hay Supplemented with Crotalaria ochroleuca. J Ani Feed Sci and Tech.
28(1-2): 51-59.
SAS Institute Inc., Administrator Guide for SAS 9.1.3 Foundation on Microsoft Windows for
64-Bit Itanium-based Systems, Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc., 2007.
Sheridan R, Ferreira AV, Hoffman LC. 2003. Production efficiency of South African
Mutton Merino lambs and Boer goat kids receiving either a low or a high
energy feedlot diet Small Rumi. 50(1):75-82.
Solanki GS. 1994. Feeding habits and grazing behavior of goats in a semi-arid region of
India. Small Rumi. Res. 14:39-43.
Spruzs J, Selegovska E, Remeza I, Vasiljeva S. 2006. Effect of addition feed stuffs on milk
quality and health status in organic goats. Vetinarija Ir Zootechnika. T. 35
(57).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LITERATURE CITED
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐127‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Stephen JC,2008. Feeding Behaviors and Performance Measurementsin Bucks, Rams, and
Bulls Thesis Master of Science the Davis College of Agriculture, Forestry,
and Consumer Sciencesat West Virginia University.
Taylor N, Hatfield PG, Sowell BF, Lewis GS. 2002. Research Note- Influence of supplement
form on ewe performance and reproduction. Sheep and Goat Res.J. 17(2):52-
54.
Tisserand JL, Hadjipanayiotou M, Gihad EA. 1991. Digestion in goats, In:Morand-Faeher, P,
(Ed). Goat Nutrition Pudoc, Wageningen. p. 46-60.
Tolkamp BJ, Brouwer BO. 1993. Statistical review of digestion in goats compared with other
ruminants. Small Rumi. Res. 11, 107–123
Trived MM, Parnerkar S, Patel AM. 2005. Effect of Feeding Non-conventional Creep
Mixtures on Growth Performance of Pre-weaned Lambs. International J
Agri & Bio. 2: 175–179.
Turner KE, Wildeusb S, Collinsb JR. 2005. Intake performance and blood parameters in
young goats offered high forage diets of lespedeza or alfalfa hay. Small Rumi.
Res. 59(1): 15-23.
Urge M, Merkel RC, Sahlu T, Animut G, Goetsch AL. 2004. Growth performance by
Alpine, Angora, Boer and Spanish wether goats consuming 50 or 75%
concentrate diets. Small Rumi. Res. 55(1-3): 149-158.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LITERATURE CITED
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐128‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Van DTT, Ledin I, Mui NT. 2002. Feed intake and behavior of kids and lambs fed sugar cane
as the sole roughage with or without concentrate. Anim Feed Sci and
Tech.100:79-91.
Van NWA, Casey NH. 1988. The Boer Goat II. Growth, nutrient requirements, carcass and
meat quality. Small Rumi. Res. 1: 355-368.
Van Soest PJ, Robertson HB, Lewis BA. 1991. Method of dietary fiber and non-starch
polysaccharides in relation to animal material. J. Dairy Sci. 74: 3583.
Waheda RA, Owena E. 1986. Comparison of sheep and goats under stall-feeding Conditions:
roughage intake and selection. Anim Prod. 42: 89-95.
Warmington BG, Kirton AH. 1990. Genetic and non-genetic Influences on growth and
carcass traits of goats. Small Rumi. Res. 3(2):147-165.
Watson C, Norton BW. 1982. The utilization of Pangola grass hay by sheep and Angora
goats. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Anim Prod. 14: 467–470.
Wildeus S, Turner KE, Collins JR. 2007. Growth, intake, diet digestibility, and nitrogen use
in three hair sheep breeds fed alfalfa hay. Small Rumi. Res. 69: 221–227.
Wildeus S. 1997. Hair sheep genetic resources and their contribution to diversified small
Ruminant production in the United States. J. Anim. Sci. 75: 630-640.
Wilson AD. 1976. The digestibility and voluntary intake of the leaves of trees and shrubs by
sheep and goats. Australian J Agri. Res. 28: 501.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐129‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
APPENDICES
Ia: Chemical composition of offered summer fodders
Fodders DM% CP% NDF% ADF% GE cal/g
Guar 17 17 52.5 42.5 3442
Cowpea 20 19 56.5 47.2 3408
Jantar 18 20 61.5 52.5 3964
Ib: Chemical composition of offered summer fodders
Fodders DM% CP% NDF% ADF% GE cal/g
Maize 23 7 64 49.8 3612
Millet 19 8 62 47 3755
Sorghum 31 4.5 65.5 46 3873
II: Chemical composition of offered winter fodders
Fodders DM% CP% NDF% ADF% GE cal/g
Berseem 17 17 44 40 3511
Lucern 20 18 47.7 42.1 3693
Oats 21 8 48 35 3395
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐APPENDICES
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐130-------------------------------------------------------------------
III: Composition of experimental ration
Ingredient Inclusion level %
Canola 26
Maize grain 45
Wheat Bran 9.4
Rice polishing 6
Molasses 12
Vitamins 0.1
Lime stone 0.3
Mineral mixture 1
Total 100
* 100 kg Mineral mixture will include DCP 70.81Kg, NaCl 18.91Kg, MgSO4 8.64Kg, FeSO4 0.89Kg, MnSO4 0.49Kg, ZnSO4 0.22Kg, CuSO4 0.03Kg, KI 8.77gm, CoCl2 0.89gm and NaSiO3 1.50gm.
IV: Chemical composition of lucern and concentrate ration.
Treatments DM% CP% NDF% ADF% GE cal/g
Lucern 20.5 18.9 46 42 3886
concentrate 85 16 39 17 4149
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐APPENDICES
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐131-------------------------------------------------------------------
V: Chemical composition of offered fodder, total mixed ration (TMR) and concentrate ration
Treatments DM% CP% NDF% ADF% GE cal/g
Berseem 17 18 47.3 38 3165
Concentrate 85 16 39 17 4149
TMR 88 14 49 35 3822
VI: Composition of experimental ration (TMR)
INGREDIENT Inclusion level %
Wheat Straw 35
Maize ground 10
Cotton seed cake 10
Wheat bran 6.5
Maize guluten 30% 6
Rice polish 8
Canola meal 6
Sunflower meal 6
Molasses 10
Mineral Mixture * 2
Vitamin pre mix 0.1
CaCO3 0.4
Total 100
* 100 kg Mineral mixture will include DCP 70.81Kg, NaCl 18.91Kg, MgSO4 8.64Kg, FeSO4 0.89Kg, MnSO4 0.49Kg, ZnSO4 0.22Kg, CuSO4 0.03Kg, KI 8.77gm, CoCl2 0.89gm and NaSiO3 1.50gm.
Recommended