Effect of trough design on behavioral and growth responses of fat-rumped lambs under stall-feeding system

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1600778/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Effect of trough design on behavioral and growth responses of fat-rumped lambs under stall-feeding system

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1600778/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Farm planning, budgeting and profit-making can be achieved by optimizing the feeding welfare of animals through different management practices. The objective of the study was to investigate the effect of feeder design on feeding behavior and lamb performance. Twenty-four growing fat-rumped lambs of 3-4 months were categorized into 3 groups with an average weight of 22.20±0.25kg. Group I lambs were fed individually in the bucket, groups II and III were fed in the group using feeding trough without fence line (conventional) and trough with fence line (designed) respectively. Group I spent significantly (P<0.05) higher time in isolated behavior like idle standing, rumination and vocalization. The eating time was significantly (P<0.05) low in group II with longer and severe agonistic behavior suggesting intense competition within the group. This group showed minimal weight gain and maximal feed wastage due to intense struggle for food during the period of the study. The lamb welfare behaviors like more time spent on lying rumination, least time in agonistic behavior and remarkable body weight gain were apparent in group III. This can be concluded from the study that group feeding in feeding troughs with designated space allocation for individual lamb brings better growth in growing lambs under stall feeding conditions.

Lambs

Growth performance

Behavior

Feeding trough

Group feeding

Sheep are multi-faceted animals and act as a financial cushion for the livestock rearers in developing countries. Owing to progressive shrinkage of natural vegetation, increasing demand for sheep meat (animal protein) and climate change, farmers are now shifting from the traditional extensive system of rearing to stall feeding. Feeding management plays a pivotal role in the stall feeding system. It emphasizes optimal utilization of resources, minimal feed wastage and maximal commercial benefit. Sheep breeds of India are mostly thin-tailed and reared for meat production. A very thin population of fat-rumped sheep breed, locally called Dumba, is recently gaining the attention of researchers and sheep breeders for its extraordinary bodyweight and adaptive attributes. Their growth rate is twice that of locally available thin-tailed breeds (Mohapatra et al. 2018). This unique fat-rumped breed is found in semi-arid regions of India which are prone to drought. Recently many researchers highlighted that if the intensive system of sheep rearing is practiced for only 3–6 month lambs (post weaned lambs), then optimal productivity and profitability can be achieved (Sahoo et al. 2015; Devi et al. 2020). Another fundamental benefit of the stall feeding system is that animal gains more weight investing less energy (Costa et al. 2019) unlike migratory rearing system. Stall feeding controls the spread of contamination/diseases. It is mainly carried out in raised platforms called feeders. The feeder may be feed bunk/trough with or without the fence line. The size of groups, stocking density, design of feeding trough and peer competition are different determining factors for a profitable feeding system. Appropriate feeding trough can reduce feed wastage due to soiling. Sheep are gregarious animals and perform better in group rearing compared to individual rearing (Titto et al. 2010). Adversely, stall feeding might affect animal welfare in terms of sociability, fear, competition for resources, etc. Individual feeding in sheep rearing practices avoid bossism or social dominancy (Coppock et al. 1972) and here it is easy to maintain exact feeding records and set better management in the farm. Therefore, finding out an appropriate feeding method is crucial for any profitable production system. Animal behavior that is normally studied for assessing animal welfare is influenced by both external stimuli (sound, weather, etc.) and internal stimuli (hunger, fear, etc.). According to Broom (2010) animal welfare is directly linked to sustainability. Competition for feed between the animals affects their feeding behavior (DeVries and Keyserlingk, 2009) which ultimately influences the growth of lambs. This study aimed to compare the influence of different feeder designs on lamb performance i.e. body weight gain by assessing the feeding behavior.

Site of experiment

The present study was conducted at the experimental animal farm of Animal Physiology and Biochemistry Division at ICAR-Central Sheep and Wool Research Institute, Avikanagar, Rajasthan, India which is located in the semi-arid region of the country at 26⁰26′N, 75⁰28′E, at an altitude of 320m above mean sea level. The study was conducted in the winter season of (December) of 2020-21where the average ambient temperature is about 15⁰C.

Selection of animal and Animal Management

Twenty-four fat-rumped lambs of 3–4 months of age having body weights between15-28 kg were selected from the herd. All lambs were randomly divided into 3 groups with an average group bodyweight of 22.20 ± 0.25 kg and a group size of 8 with 4 male and 4 female members each. All lambs were kept in an intensive system of rearing, maintained under proper hygienic conditions in a well-ventilated shed made up of chain-link sides and asbestos roofing. All lambs were fed with 2.5percent DM (Dry Matter) on a bodyweight basis. Group I lambs were fed and watered individually (Fig. a), while Group II and Group III lambs were fed in groups. Group II was fed in a feed trough without the fence line (traditional trough) (Fig. b) and Group III was fed in a feed trough with the fence line (designed trough) (Fig. c). They were fed with total mixed ration (TMR) consisting of 60percent roughage (Cenchrus ciliaris hay) and 40percent concentrate feed (barely 650 g/kg, groundnut cake 320 g/kg, minerals 30 g/kg including10 g/kg NaCl, with crude protein = 180 g/kg and total digestible nutrients = 650 g/kg). Feed was offered to lambs twice daily i.e. at 08.00h and 14.00h. It was seen in TMR, there is no scope to become selective (Webb et al., 2014). Therefore, the TMR ration was fed to eliminate individual selective attributes in the group. Adequate drinking water was offered to all the lambs throughout the day. The difference in feed and water offered and left as the residue was considered as the feed and water intake, respectively. Ruminants are specific in selecting their diet particularly concentrates over roughage.

Experimental procedure

All groups were housed in one shed and separated from each other by chain-linked fencing. The lambs were given 21 days adaptation period concerning their housing and feeding regime (Figs. 1 & 3). The feeding space allotted for each lamb was (30x40x20cm³) (Sastry and Thomas, 2021) and the specifications of feeders were given in Table 1. As the designed trough included the fence line, it had a slightly higher length compared to the traditional one. Only one side of the feeder was accessible to lambs by securing another side to the chain-linked side of the shed.

Table 1

**Feeder specifications for each group of lambs.**
Type of feeder	Length	Breadth	Depth	Height from ground
Traditional trough (for 8 lambs)	240cm	40cm	20cm	25cm
Designed trough (for 8 lambs)**	247cm	40cm	20cm	25cm
Bucket feeder (for each lamb)	30cm	40cm	20cm	25cm
**The width of each fence was 7mm.

All lambs were marked individually with body numbers by using temporary paints for their easy identification from a distance. The experiment was carried out for 30 days. The bodyweight of individual animals was recorded at the beginning and end of the experimental period at 08.00h. The difference in body weight was perceived as an indicator of the productivity and welfare of the lambs. The behavioral observations were carried out throughout the experimental period for all the lambs daily for 3 hours (08.00h to 11.00h) by an experienced observer. The behavioral observation was also standardized during the adaptation period. All observations were done by a single trained person for all the groups. Behavior was recorded instantaneously by a scan sampling for 10 minutes (Martin and Bateson, 1993) for each animal of the three groups. Eating, idle standing, idle lying, standing rumination, lying rumination, vocalization, drinking, and agonistic behavior like pushing, butting and total physical displacement were recorded during these 3 hours. The activity of lambs such as eating, chewing, or swallowing near the feeding trough was considered as feeding; while chewing the cud during standing and lying was considered as standing rumination and lying rumination respectively. Lambs were considered to be idle standing when they were standing away from the feeder without showing any additional behavior. Similarly, idle lying was also considered (De et al. 2019) in this study. The data obtained during this 30 days’ experimental period for each lamb was summarized to obtain the overall behavioral expression of the groups.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed by the general linear model (SPSS 16.0, Chicago, IL, USA). The linear model was used for all the respondent variables using a least-squares analysis of variance. The level of statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. Behavior data of the experiment were presented as mean ± SE after summarizing the experimental periods.

Lamb behavior

The feeding behavior of different groups has been depicted in Table 2. As in group I individual feeding was practiced, so no agonistic behavior was recorded. Idle standing, rumination and vocalization time were significantly (P < 0.05) higher and drinking time was significantly (P < 0.05) lower in group I than the group fed lambs. Comparison between group fed lambs highlighted that eating time was significantly lower (P < 0.05) whereas agonistic behavior time was significantly higher (P < 0.05) in group II than in group III. For more comprehensible results, agonistic behavior was grouped as mild agonistic (pushing from the back) and severe agonistic behavior (butting/head collision and complete physical displacement). Results of agonistic behavior time in group II and III are shown in Table 3. Results highlighted that although mild agonistic behavior time was identical in both the groups (II and III) but severe agonistic behavior time was significantly (P < 0.05) higher in group II.

Table 2

**Effect of feeder design on behavior of lambs**
	Mean time spent (min) on different activities during the 3 hour observation period (N = 8 for each group)
Group	Eating	Idle standing	Vocalization	Lying Rumination	Standing Rumination	Idle lying	Drinking	Agonistic behavior
I	117.63 ± 1.24^b	21.25 ± 0.84^b	1.37 ± 0.16^b	8.15 ± 0.26^a	16.35 ± 0.86^a	6.25 ± 0.51	9.00 ± 0.58^a	0.00 ± 0.00^a
II	104.69 ± 1.24^a	13.44 ± 0.84^a	0.52 ± 0.16^ab	5.76 ± 0.26^a	11.53 ± 0.86^a	3.96 ± 0.51	17.50 ± 0.58^b	21.71 ± 0.70^c
III	112.60 ± 1.24^b	12.29 ± 0.84^a	0.42 ± 0.16^a	11.46 ± 0.86^b	5.73 ± 0.86^b	5.52 ± 0.51	15.00 ± 0.58^b	14.69 ± 0.70^b
Values with different superscripts (a,b,c) within a column vary significantly (p < 0.05) with each other

Table 3

**Mean time spent (min) on different agonistic behavior of group fed lambs due to variation in trough design** (N = 8 for each group)
Groups	Pushing	Butting	Physical displacement
Group II	1.35 ± 0.21	13.96 ± 0.55^b	7.40 ± 0.43^b
Group III	1.65 ± 0.21	8.65 ± 0.55^a	4.38 ± 0.43^a
Group II (unfenced conventional trough); Group III (fenced Line designed trough); Values with different superscripts (a,b) within a column vary significantly (p < 0.05) with each other.

Feed and water intake, feed wastage and body weight gain

Table 4 presents the feed and water intake, feed wastage in all the groups along with their body weight gain during the experimental period. Feed intake and feed wastage of group II were significantly (P < 0.05) higher than the rest of the groups. Water intake and body weight gain was significantly (P < 0.05) higher in group III.

Table 4

**Effect of trough design on feed and water intake, feed wastage and body weight gain of lambs of different groups** (N = 8 for each group)
Group	Feed intake (gm)	Water intake (l)	Feed wastage (gm)	Body weight gain (Kg)
Group I	800.00 ± 24.15^a	1.62 ± 0.05^a	230.00 ± 11.20^a	2.60 ± 0.03^a
Group II	860.50 ± 24.15^b	1.81 ± 0.05^ab	515.00 ± 11.20^b	2.10 ± 0.03^a
Group III	820.00 ± 25.15^a	1.96 ± 0.05^b	235.00 ± 11.20^a	3.60 ± 0.03^b
Values with different superscripts (a,b) within a column vary significantly (p < 0.05) with each other.

Feed intake/eating time depend upon the level of hunger, palatability of feed and motivation to take food. Palatability of feed and level of hunger is nullified by offering same kind and quantity of feed at a definite period of time throughout the day to all the groups. Nielsen et al. (2016) reported that motivation to take food depends on the availability of space for feed consumption and competition among peer members. The welfare of lambs was compromised if the space availability is limited or stocking is increased in sheep (Sevi et al. 2009). Lambs manifest this psychological stress by altering their behavior and feed intake (Mohapatra et al. 2020).

Space availability depends on trough design and age of the animal. Hoffman et al. (2007) reported that limit-feeding in cattle reduces the time spent for eating. To nullify the space availability components, we had considered the dimensions of the bucket used for individual feeding to adjust the trough space for 8 animals of groups II and III. Eating time was minimal in lambs of group II. As there was no distinct partition in the trough, group II lambs did not get specified space to feed on, so they gobbled up the feed investing less time in eating (stressed feeding). Tables 2 and 4 reveal that the feed consumed per unit time was maximal in group II lambs. Intense competition for accessibility of food is the prime reason behind the minimal feeding time in this group. It shows that the frequency of swallowing, bite rate and bite weight might be highest in group II due to severe competition as sugessted by Dias-Silva and Filho, (2021). In groups I and III, the eating period was almost equal.

According to Briefer (2012), vocalization was associated with the inner state of the caller. Significantly higher idle standing and vocalization time in the group I might be due to perceived negative emotions. It has been suggested by Feddes et al. (1995) that if an animal spends more time in idle standing then it indicates lack of comfort. da Silva Cordeiro et al. (2013) indicated that vocalization is an ideal technique to access fear, anxiety-like mental states. Manteuffel et al. (2004) also emphasized that expression and communication of emotion in animals are expressed at their best through vocalization. Animal welfare is strongly related to the mental state of the animal (Dawkins, 2008); therefore in group I, even if there is no competition for food still this group experienced more isolated behavior which was apparent from their poor weight gain attribute compared to group III. This result suggests that a minimum level of competition/social bonding is essential for optimal performance in lambs.

Rumination is normally related to the feed intake of the animals. Lying in lambs associated with resting behavior and is linked to animal welfare (Leme et al. 2013; De et al. 2017). In this study, we found that standing rumination of groups I and II was higher than group III and lying rumination of group III was highest among all. Lying rumination is associated with relaxed and positive welfare conditions (Phillips, 2002). Therefore, group III was considered more relaxed compared to the other two groups.

During our experiment, we observed that in group-fed animals, drinking of water was due to allelomimetic behavior/social facilitation; intake of water by one animal was subsequently followed by others. This might be because sheep are highly gregarious and they follow their group members (Gonyou and Keeling, 2001). Secondly, motivation to drink water arises from the body condition. Water lost from body fluids triggers the osmoreceptors of the hypothalamus. As in group I lambs, there was a limited area for movement, so they had the least physical activity that reduced the time spent in water intake. The other reason behind low water intake could be low dry matter intake by lambs of this group.

As the group I lambs were kept individually, there was no agonistic behavior in this group. Agonistic behavior was significantly higher in group II over group III. To make it more clear, the agonistic behavior was graded from mild to severe as pushing, butting and complete physical displacement. It was observed that group II showed prominently severe agnostic behavior (butting and complete physical displacement) compared to group III. Group III lambs showed pushing to get access to the specific headspace (area between 2 fence lines of the feeding trough) and once a lamb got definite headspace it started feeding until satiety. Once all animals got their headspace in the 8 headspace in fenceline feeder, there was synchronous feeding activity in Group III, which was absent in group II. Tuomisto et al. (2019) reported that feeding synchronous behavior is an indicator of animals’ welfare. As the headspace area was not fixed for each lamb of group II, there was a continuous struggle and intense competition.

According to Mattiello et al. (2019) presence of positive experience or sensation rather than the absence of negative experience is linked to actual animal welfare. In group I, there was no competition whereas in group II there was intense competition and aggressive pressure for getting space or place and in group III, there was mild competition which resulted accessibility to definite place or space to each animal to take feed. The wellbeing of group III is validated from the body weight gain apart from lamb's behavior.

Table 4 explains, group II had taken maximal feed spending minimum time but gained least with maximal feed wastage. This indicates that the trough without having the fence line is not beneficial for the stall-feeding system with optimal stocking density and hence may not be profitable as well. Similarly in group I, lambs lack minimal competition needed for feed and water intake and showed isolated behavior. Group III had mild competition, maximal growth with minimal feed wastage.

It can be inferred from this present experiment that for sustainable, profitable and farmer-friendly sheep rearing practices, it is important to design feeding troughs with optimal fence line dimensions for the specific category of sheep breeds as per their chronological ages. Such troughs (with optimal dimensions) suitable for group feeding of sheep in an intensive management system would help to create a conducive social environment that minimizes feed wastage and yields better weight gain of lambs, ultimately more economic gains.

Acknowledgment

The authors are highly thankful to Director, ICAR-Central Sheep and Wool Research Institute, Avikanagar for providing facilities for study. Special thanks must be given to Davendra Kumar Gujjar and the workers of the Farm for their assistance in animal management and handling to carry out this study.

Ethics approval

The study was conducted with the approval of the Central sheep and wool research Institute, Avikanagar. It did not involve any such technical programme which affects animal ethics.

Conflict of Interest Statement

We hereby disclose that there is no actual or potential conflict of interest.

Briefer, E. F., 2012. Vocal expression of emotions in mammals: mechanisms of production and evidence. Journal of Zoology, 288, 1–20.
Broom, D.M., 2010. Animal welfare: an aspect of care, sustainability, and food quality required by the public. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 37, 83–88.
Coppock, C.E., Noller, C.H., Crowl, B.W., McLellon, C.D. and Rhykerd C.L., 1972. Effect of group versus individual feeding of complete rations on feed intake of lactating cows. J. Dairy Sci., 55, 325–327
Costa, R. G., Ribeiro, N. L., Nobre, P. T., Carvalho, F. F. R., Medeiros, A. N. and Martins, F. E., 2019. Ingestive behavior and efficacy of male sheep housed in different stocking densities. Revista Breasileira de Zootecnia, 48:e20180219.
da Silva, Cordeiro., A. F., de Alencar Nääs, I., Oliveira, S. R. M., Violaro, F., de Almeida, A. C. M. and Neves, D. P. 2013. Understanding vocalization might help to assess stressful conditions in piglets. Animals, 3(3), 923–934
Dawkins, M.S., 2008. The science of animal suffering. Ethology. 114, 937–945.
De, K., Kumar, D., Mohapatra, A. and Saxena, V.K., 2019. Effect of bedding for reducing the post-shearing stress in sheep. Journal of Veterinary Behaviour, 33, 27–30.
De, K., Kumar, D., Saxena, V.K., Thirumurugan, P. and Naqvi, S.M.K., 2017. Effect of high ambient temperature on behavior of sheep under semi-arid tropical environment. International Journal of Biometeorology, 61 (7), 1269–1277.
Devi, I., Shinde, A.K., Kumar, A. and Sahoo, A., 2020. Stallfeeding of sheep and goats: An alternative system to traditional grazing on community lands. Indian Journal of Animal Science, 90, 318–326.
DeVries, T.J. and Keyserlingk, M.A.G., 2009. Feeding method affects the feeding behavior of growing dairy heifers. Journal of Dairy Science, 92, 1161–1168.
Dias-Silva, T.P. and Filho, A.L.A., 2021. Sheep and goat feeding behavior profile in grazing systems. Acta Scientiarum. Animal Science, 43, e51265.
Feddes, J., Robinson, B. and Borg, R., 1995. Building for cow comfort in J. Kennelly, ed. Proceedings of the 1995 Western Canadian Dairy Seminar; Alberta. [Online] Available: http://www.afns.ualberta.ca/wcds/wcd95067.htm
Gonyou, H. W. and Keeling, L. J., (Eds) 2001. Social Behavior in Farm Animals. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.
Hoffman, P.C., Simson, C.R. and Wattiaux, M., 2007. Limit feeding of gravid Holstein heifers: Effect on growth, manure nutrient excretion, and subsequent early lactation performance. Journal of Dairy Science, 90, 946–954.
Landefeld, M. and Bettinger, J., 2003. Water effect on livestock Performance. Ohio State University Extension, The Ohio State University. https://ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/ANR-13.
Leme, T.M.C., Titto, E.A.L., Titto, C.G.A., Pereirab, A.M.F. and Netoc, M.C., 2013. Influence of stocking density on weight gain and behavior of feedlot lambs. Small Ruminant Research, 115,1–6.
Mattiello, S., Battini, M., De Rosa, G. Napolitano, F. and Dwyer, C., 2019. How can we assess positive welfare in ruminants? Animals, 9(10), 758.
Manteuffel, G., Puppe, B. and Schön, P. C., 2004. Vocalization of farm animals as a measure of welfare Applied Animal Behaviour science, 88, 163–182.
Martin, P. and Bateson, P., 1993. Measuring Behaviour: An Introductory Guide. CambridgeUniversity Press, UK.
Mohapatra, A., De, K.,Saxena, V. K.,Mallick, P. K., Devi, I. and Singh, R., 2021. Behavioral and physiological adjustments by lambs in response to weaning stress. Journal of Veterinary Behaviour, 41, 47–51.
Nielsen, B.L., De Jong, I.C. and De Vries, T.J., 2016 The Use of Feeding Behaviour in the Assessment of Animal Welfare. In: Phillips C. (eds) Nutrition and the Welfare of Farm Animals. Anim. Welf.16, 59–84. Springer, Cham.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27356-3_4
Phillips, C.J.C., 2002. Cattle Behaviour and Welfare. 2nd ed. Wiley-Blackwell Science Ltd.; Oxford, UK.
Sahoo A, Bhatt R. S. and Tripathi M K., 2015. Stall feeding in small ruminants: emerging trends and future perspectives.Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition32(4): 353–72. Sevi, A., Casamassima, D., Pulina, G., Pazzona, A., 2009. Factors of welfare reduction in dairy sheep and goats. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 8, 81–101.
Titto, E. A. L.,Titto, C. G., Gatto, E. G., Noronha, C. M. S., Mourão, G. B., Nogueira Filho, J. C. M. and Pereira, A. M. F., 2010. Reactivity of Nellore steers in two feedlot housing systems and its relationship with plasmatic cortisol. Livestock Science, 129,146–150.
Tuomisto, L., Huuskonen, A., Jauhiainen, L. and Mononen, J., 2019. Finishing bulls have more synchronised behaviour in pastures than in pens. Applied Animal Behaviour science, 213,26–32.
Webb, L.E., Engel, B., Berends, H., van Reenen, C.G., Gerrits, W.J.J., de Boer, I.J.M. and Bokkers, E.A.M., 2014. What do calves choose to eat and how do preferences affect behaviour? Applied Animal Behaviour science,161,7–19.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Effect of trough design on behavioral and growth responses of fat-rumped lambs under stall-feeding system

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Materials And Methods

Site of experiment

Selection of animal and Animal Management

Experimental procedure

Data Analysis

Results

Lamb behavior

Feed and water intake, feed wastage and body weight gain

Discussion

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Status:

Version 1