FEEDING BEHAVIOR AND PERFORMANCE OF SHEEP AND GOATS …

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


-----------------------------------------------------------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).


-----------------------------------------------------------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


-----------------------------------------------------------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).


-----------------------------------------------------------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.


-----------------------------------------------------------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.


-----------------------------------------------------------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


-----------------------------------------------------------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


-----------------------------------------------------------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’!


-----------------------------------------------------------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.


-----------------------------------------------------------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


-----------------------------------------------------------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.


-----------------------------------------------------------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


-----------------------------------------------------------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

[email protected]/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


-----------------------------------------------------------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.


-----------------------------------------------------------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.


-----------------------------------------------------------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.


-----------------------------------------------------------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


-----------------------------------------------------------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


-----------------------------------------------------------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


-----------------------------------------------------------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.


-----------------------------------------------------------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


-----------------------------------------------------------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


-----------------------------------------------------------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


-----------------------------------------------------------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.


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.


-----------------------------------------------------------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.


-----------------------------------------------------------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


-----------------------------------------------------------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


-----------------------------------------------------------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.


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


-----------------------------------------------------------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 nonconventional 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.


-----------------------------------------------------------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


-----------------------------------------------------------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


-------------------------------------------------------------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


-------------------------------------------------------------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)


-------------------------------------------------------------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.


-------------------------------------------------------------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.


-------------------------------------------------------------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.


-------------------------------------------------------------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.


2) Average daily gain (g/day)




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.


-------------------------------------------------------------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.


-------------------------------------------------------------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


-------------------------------------------------------------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.


-------------------------------------------------------------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.


2) Weight gain (g/day)





-------------------------------------------------------------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


-------------------------------------------------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)


--------------------------------------------------------------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


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).


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.


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



------------------------------------------------------------------------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)


----------------------------------------------------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


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------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


-----------------------------------------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


------------------------------------------------------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


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------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‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐


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.


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


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


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------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)


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



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


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------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


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RESULTS

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐75‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Table: (4.14) Growth rate, feed efficiency and cost of gain in sheep and goats under different management systems


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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RESULTS

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐76‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

4.5: EXPERIMENT-3

Comparative performance of sheep and goats fed under intensive management

system.


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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------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


-------------------------------------------------------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.


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.


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


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).


‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐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.


‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐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.


‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐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).


‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐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.


‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐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.


‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐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.


‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐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.


‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐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.


‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐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.


‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐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.


‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐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.


‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐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.


‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐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.


‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐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.


‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐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).


‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐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.


‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐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


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


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


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


FEEDING BEHAVIOR AND PERFORMANCE OF SHEEP AND GOATS …

Documents