Research Article

Restricted Feeding and Re-Alimentation: An Approach to Improve Growth Performance of Beetal Kids Under High-Input Feeding System

Muhammad Umar Farooq1, Kashif Ishaq1*, Muhammad Imran Khan1, Muhammad Farooq Iqbal1, Tanveer Ahmad1, Jamil Akbar1, Asim Fraz2, Sara Naeem1 and Aansa Latif1

1Department of Livestock Production and Management, PMAS-Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi 46300, Pakistan; 2Department of Livestock and Poultry Production, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, Pakistan.

Received | August 25, 2022; Accepted | August 18, 2023; Published | October 30, 2023

*Correspondence | Kashif Ishaq, Department of Livestock Production and Management, PMAS-Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi 46300, Pakistan; Email: drkashif@uaar.edu.pk

Citation | Farooq, M.U., K. Ishaq, M.I. Khan, M.F. Iqbal, T. Ahmad, J. Akbar, A. Fraz, S. Naeem and A. Latif. 2023. Restricted feeding and re-alimentation: An approach to improve growth performance of Beetal kids under high-input feeding system. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture, 39(4): 781-786.

DOI | https://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.sja/2023/39.4.781.786

Keywords | Feed restriction, Goat, High input feeding, Re-alimentation

Copyright: 2023 by the authors. Licensee ResearchersLinks Ltd, England, UK.

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Introduction

Pakistani small ruminants (sheep and goats) have an advantage over large ruminants because of their high productive rate, small size, and lower cost than large animals for meat production (Khan et al., 2014). The goat meat is the most expensive in the market and owing to this; the business has fair chances of development. Traditionally, the goats are reared in pastures and wastelands. However, some studies indicated that animal catches lower growth because of traditional feeding systems in goats (Sarwar et al., 2002).

Some recent studies showed more efficiency of high-input feeding systems in elaborating the growth routine of small ruminants by intensifying the availability of nutrients (Kashif et al., 2016; Sarwar et al., 2012; Mukhtar et al., 2010). The higher feed conversion ratio (FCR) is the main hindrance regarding the adoption of high-input feeding technology in farmers. The FCR of goats has been reported in a range of 6-10 (Nisa et al., 2013) whereas it is desired to be lowered to 4-5.

Various researchers worked out approaches to improve feed efficiency. A researcher (Abouheif et al., 2013) found that restricted feeding modifies the rate of metabolic energy consumption and is more feasible and economical as compared to traditional feeding. Iranian investigator (Dashtizadeh et al., 2008) reported that the goats consumed 13% less feed during the feed restriction period. They additionally reported that during the re-alimentation period, the goats consumed only 2% more feed while they found a 60% improvement in FCR of 75 days restricted goats. Feed restriction is a condition when animals are conserved under less sustained feed for a certain period. After feed restriction, there is a period of re-alimentation in which animals catch up on their upping growth because of compensatory growth phenomena (Mitchell, 2007; Hornick et al., 2000). This technique may be used to optimize the FCR in goats under a high-input feeding system.

However, there are some research questions that require investigation, especially for goats reared under a high-input feeding system. What will be the efficacy of restricted feeding under a high-input feeding system? At which stage feed restriction may be used in meat-type goats?

To get answers to the above mentioned research questions, the current study was planned with the hypothesis that feed restriction followed by re-alimentation may be used as an approach to improve the production performance of meat-type goats under a high input feeding system. The research output would help farmers to decrease the FCR and to improve the feed cost-benefit ratio of goats reared under a high-input feeding system.

Materials and Methods

Location of the study

The study was conducted at Yaqoob goat farm (Pvt.) situated in District Hafiz Abad.

Feeding management

The duration of the study was 85 days including 15 days of an adaptation period. A total of 12 Beetal kids were selected for the study. The age of the animals was approximately 9 months, while the weights were 20±2 kg. All the animals were dewormed before the start of the trail. There were two phases of the experiment, 35 days restriction period and re-alimentation period of 35 days. During the restriction phase; the animals were divided into three treatment groups i.e., T1= feeding @2% of body weight (BW), T2=feeding @3% of BW, and T3=feeding @4% of BW. In the re-alimentation phase; all the animals were fed ad-libitum. The animals were kept in individual pens and were offered total mixed pellets. The ration was formulated while following the feeding standard recommended by NRC (2007). Only one type of pelleted total mixed ration was formulated (Table 1) to ensure that rations are iso-caloric and iso-nitrogenous. However, the intake was varied to induce the fasting effect among various treatment groups. All the animals were given free access to fresh and clean water while all other husbandry conditions remained the same. The study was approved by the ethical committee of our department.

Data collection

Data were collected on daily basis on feed intake (FI), fortnightly weight gain (WG), FCR, and feed cost, while average daily gain (ADG) and average daily feed intake (ADFI) were calculated at the end of the experiment by following methods described by scientists (Brown, 1973; Sen et al., 2004).

 

Table 1: Ingredient and chemical composition of ration.

Ingredient name	Inclusion level (%)
Barley	11
Cotton seed cake	10
Maize gluten feed	15
Rice polishing	22
Wheat bran	13
Molasses	6
Oats	5
Oil	5
Limestone	1
Bentonite	1
Urea	1
Wheat straw	10
Chemical composition (Proximate composition)
Crude protein	17.42
Crude fiber	16.87
Ether extract	5.33
Ash	8.61
NDF	39.13
ADF	15.65
ME (MJ/kg)	2.80

Reference: NRC, 2007.

 

The grab fecal samples were a collection from the rectum for the determination of the digestibility of formulated feed using acid-insoluble ash as a marker in the last 5 days of the experiment. For digestibility, the feed and feces samples (weighed 5.0±0.0040 g each) were taken in a previously tare crucible. It was dried overnight in a hot air oven at 100ºC. Then crucibles were cooled in desiccators and again weigh. They were ash for 6 hours at 600ºC in a muffle furnace. After that ash was put in a 600 ml Berzelius beaker added 100 ml of 2N HCl solutions. The beaker was boiled for 5 minutes on a fiber rack. After boiling, filtered hot hydrolysate through Whatman filter paper and then washed with hot distilled water. The filter paper was transferred back into the crucible and ash for 6 hours at 600ºC in a muffle furnace. The crucible was then placed in an air oven at 100ºC to dry. Then the crucible was cooled in a desiccators for 5 minutes. The crucible was weighted again. The percentage of acid-insoluble ash was calculated by using (Van Keulen and Young, 1977) formula given below:

This acid-insoluble ash was used as a marker to determine the digestibility of experimental feed.

The blood was collected from the jugular vein using an aseptic syringe. For serum, the blood was centrifuged (3000 rpm) to remove the blood cells to avoid hemolysis and was frozen at -20oC till the final analysis (Nudda et al., 2013). The serum was thawed and used for the determination of serum glucose and serum protein. The kits of serum glucose and serum protein were manufactured by MERCK, France. Serum glucose was determined by the GOD-PAP method by following Burmin and Price (1985). The blood hemoglobinwas determined by using Sahil’s methods. The analysis was performed at the University Institute of Biochemistry and Biotechnology, PMAS-Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi.

Experimental design and statistical analysis

All the experimental units were exposed to treatments under a completely randomized design (CRD) with a fixed effect model. The data collected was analyzed for analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the “aov” function run in R software except for body measurement which was analyzed by using the “nlme” function. The means were compared using Turkey’s HSD test during the post-hoc test for the comparison of treatments at a 5% level of significance (R Core Team, 2021).

Results and Discussion

The data were analyzed and mentioned in Table 2. In the average daily feed intake (ADFI) during the restriction stage, a significant impact (P<0.001) was observed. The ADFI was calculated in all three groups and found that the T1 group shows the lowest T1 (469.4g) than T2 (593.6 g) and the last T3 (887.7 g). The ADFI during the re-alimentation period was highest in T1 (1039.0 g) than inT2 (979.8g), and last T3 (899.7g) and. In average daily gain during restriction (ADG) it was observed a significant decrease in T1 (64.00g/d) followed by T2 (88.01g/d) than T3 (121.89g/d). But during re-alimentation, the average daily gain was found more (P<0.0001) in T1 (153.00 g/d) followed by T2 (112.10 g/d) and last in T3 (100.08 g/d). The feed conversion ratio (FCR) during the restriction was non-significant (P>0.05) however during re-alimentation it was significantly lower (P<0.606) in T1 (6.835) followed by T2 (8.833) and T3 (8.988). In the study, we also calculated the total feed cost (FC) of all groups. The FC was observed significantly lower in T1 (Rs. 1758) than in T2 (Rs. 1938) and T3 (Rs. 2172.7). We also measured body heart girth and length. Body heart girth measurement

 

Table 2: Effects of restriction and ad-libitum feeding during re-alimentation on growth performance of goats.

Parameters	@2% of BW	@3% of BW	@4% of BW	SEM	P-value
a. Restriction phase
Average daily feed intake (g/d)	469.4b	593.6b	887.7a	53	0.001
Average daily gain (g/d)	64.00c	88.01b	121.89a	4.591	0.001
Feed conversion ratio	7.371	6.748	7.294	0.6608	0.6063
b. Re-alimentation phase
Average daily feed intake (g/d)	1039.0a	979.8ab	899.7b	36.94	0.013
Average daily gain (g/d)	153.00a	112.10b	100.08b	7.686	0.0001
Feed conversion ratio	6.835 b	8.833 a	8.988 a	0.6388	0.014
Total feed cost (Rs.)	1758	1938	2172.7	268.6	0.345
Digestibility (%)	70.33	68.94	67.29	10.76	0.154
Serum glucose (mg/dl)	63.11a	60.56ab	55.97b	2.438	0.040
Serum protein (mg/dl)	6.50	6.27	6.75	0.2211	0.150
Blood hemoglobin (g/dl)	9.88	9.23	9.83	0.7317	0.600
Heart girth (cm)	26.54b	25.08c	26.70a	0.4181	0.0001
Body length (cm)	23.70b	22.54c	24.08a	0.369	0.0001

BW, body weight.

 

was highest in T3 followed by T1 than T2 and body length was highest in T3 followed by T1 than T2.

The result of the study showed improvement in feed intake in more restricted kids. Feed restriction is a condition when animals are conserved under less sustained feed for a certain period (Khan et al., 2014). A researcher (Dashtizadeh et al., 2008) calculated the effect of restricted feeding on goats and documented those goats consumed 13% less feed during the feed restriction period. However, the physiological adaptations affected the hypothalamus to increase feed intake during the re-alimentation period (Drouillard et al., 1991). This was the reason that the T1 group showed more intakes. Some studies also reported surpassing feed intake after a stage of feed restriction has been reported by scientists (Homem et al., 2007). Same as our expectations that we noticed in group T1 increased by 15% more feed intake than T3 (not restricted) due to appetite behavior.

In average daily gain group T1 was maximum restriction bear due to this reason in the re-alimentation period they were maximum ration intake and convert into the body easily. Goats must adjust and control their feeding behavior to the types of diet they receive (Abijaoude et al., 2000). After feed restriction, there is a period of re-alimentation in which animals catch up with their upping growth. This feeding system has been reported more systematically concerning growth performance and feed effectiveness (Khan et al., 2014).

The result of the current study shows improvement in FCR due to restriction. An investigator (Abouheif et al., 2013) reported that restricted feeding modifies the rate of metabolic energy consumption and is more feasible and economical as compared to traditional feeding. Similarly, an Iranian group of scientists (Dashtizadeh et al., 2008) reported that during the re-alimentation period, the goats consumed only 2% more feed, and they found a 60% improvement in FCR of 75 days of restricted goats. Some modern studies showed more efficiency of high input feeding scheme in elaborating the growth presentation of small ruminants by intensifying the nutrient accessibility (Nasir et al., 2010; Sarwar et al., 2012; Nisa et al., 2013; Ishaq et al., 2016). Similarly, feed cost was lowest in T2 because of less feed used during the study and improvement in digestibility.

During the experiment, the digestibility showed a non-significant (P>0.05) impact of restriction whereas it was found highest in T1 (70.33%) followed by T2 (68.94%) and T3 (67.29%). The results of blood analysis showed a significant effect (P<0.04) on glucose but other responses were non-significant. The serum glucose was higher in T1 (63.11 mg/dl) than in T2 (60.56 mg/dl) and T3 (55.95 mg/dl).

The increase in digestibility was due to rumen ability due to fasting as an adaptive mechanism to set high metabolism during re-alimentation after restriction (Drouillard et al., 1991). The high levels of serum glucose in T1 group show the physiological modification in response to fasting in an effort to ensure glucose supply by gluconeogenesis while this is not needed in T3 group where the glucose was least and mainly because of the normal physiological response (Zaheer et al., 2022; Solaiman et al., 2010).

Conclusions and Recommendations

Feed restriction and re-alimentation had some effects on the performance of goats under a high-input feeding system. In light of the results in the current study, it is concluded that feed restriction @ 2% BW has many effects on the performance of Beetal goats and it is recommended that feed restriction and re-alimentation may be one of the good approaches in getting a more economical return from Beetal male kids reared under high input feeding system.

Acknowledgments

The author acknowledges the cooperation of Yaqoob feed mills and Kehrer Pakka for timely help in experimental feed manufacturing.

Novelty Statement

The research is novel as restricted feeding was used first time in goat kids reared under a high input feeding system in Pakistan for improvement of growth performance.

Authors Contribution

Muhammad Umar Farooq: Execution of study, collection of data and lab works.

Kashif Ishaq: Planning research, supervision of study, data analysis, interpretation, write up.

Muhammad Imran Khan: Planning research, supervision of the study.

Muhammad Farooq Iqbal: Planning research, supervision of study, and assistance in the lab.

Tanveer Ahmad: Planning research, supervision of the study, and arrangement of supplies.

Jamil Akbar: Data collection, execution of the study.

Asim Faraz: Planning research, assistance in write up and arrangement of supplies/funds.

Sara Naeem and Aansa Latif: Manuscript write-up, formatting and analysis.

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared no conflict of interest.

References

Abijaoude, J.A., P. Morand-Fehr, J. Tessier, P. Schmidely and D. Sauvant. 2000. Diet effect on the daily feeding behaviour, frequency and characteristics of meals in dairy goats. Livest. Prod. Sci., 64(1): 29-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(00)00173-1

Abouheif, M., A. Al-Owaimer, M. Kraidees, H. Metwally and T. Shafey. 2013. Effect of restricted feeding and realimentation on feed performance and carcass characteristics of growing lambs. Rev. Bras. Zootec., 42(2): 95-101. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982013000200003

Brown, N., 1973. The change in shape and internal form of the lens of the eye on accommodation. Exp. Eye Res., 15(4): 441-459. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-4835(73)90136-X

Burmin, J.M. and C.P. Price. 1985. Measurement of blood glucose. Ann. Clin. Biochem., pp. 327. https://doi.org/10.1177/000456328502200401

Dashtizadeh, M., M.J. Zamiri, A. Kamalzadeh and A. Kamali. 2008. Effect of feed restriction on compensatory growth response of young male goats. Iran. J. Vet. Res., 9(2): 109-120.

Drouillard, J.S., T.J. Klopfenstein, R.A. Britton, M.L. Bauer, S.M. Gramlich, T.J. Wester and C.L. Ferrell. 1991. Growth, body composition, and visceral organ mass and metabolism in lambs during and after metabolizable protein or net energy restrictions. J. Anim. Sci., 69(8): 3357-3375. https://doi.org/10.2527/1991.6983357x

Homem, J.A.C., A.G.S. Sobrinho, S.M. Yamamoto, R.S. Pinheiro, C. Buzzulini and C.S. Lima. 2007. Compensatory body weight gain in growing lambs: Performance and biometrical measurements. Rev. Bras. Zoot., 36(1): 111-119. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982007000100014

Hornick, J.L., C. Van Eenaeme, O. Gérard, I. Dufrasne and L. Istasse. 2000. Mechanisms of reduced and compensatory growth. Domest. Anim. Endocrinol., 19(2): 121-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0739-7240(00)00072-2

Kashif, I., M. Younas, M. Riaz and M. Ali. 2016. Effectiveness of high input feeding system in relation to growth and carcass quality of various classes of Beetal kids. Pakistan J. Agric. Sci., 53(1): 277-282. https://doi.org/10.21162/PAKJAS/16.2900

Khan, M.F., F. Ashfaq and M.A. Masood. 2014. Study on fattening potential of different sheep and goat breeds under different plan of nutrition in Pakistan. J. Anim. Plant Sci., 24(1): 83-86.

Mitchell, A.D., 2007. Impact of research with cattle, pigs, and sheep on nutritional concepts: Body composition and growth. J. Nutr., 137(3): 711-714. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/137.3.711

Mukhtar, N., S. Muhammad, M.A. Sheikh. 2010. Growth response of growing lambs fed on concentrate with or without ionophores and probiotics. Int. J. Agric. Biol., 12(5): 734-738.

Nisa, M.U., M.A. Shahzad, M. Sarwar and H.A. Saddiqi. 2013. Response of growing goats to high input feeding system with or without probiotics and ionophores. Egypt. J. Sheep Goat Sci., 65(1242): 1-2. https://doi.org/10.12816/0005021

NRC, 2007. Nutrient requirements of small ruminants: Sheep, goats, cervids and new world camelids. Amazon Publisher, USA.

Nudda, A., G. Battacone, G. Bomboi, B. Floris, M. Decandia and G. Pulina. 2013. Effect of dietary iodine on thyroid hormones and energy blood metabolites in lactating goats. Animal, 7(1): 60-65. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731112001073

R Core Team. 2021. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria.

Solaiman, S., J. Thomas, Y. Dupre, B.R. Min, N. Gurung, T.H. Terrill and G.F.W. Haenlein. 2010. Effect of feeding sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata) on growth performance, blood metabolites, and carcass characteristics of Kiko crossbred male kids. Small Rumin. Res., 93(2-3): 149-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2010.05.015

Sarwar, M., M.A. Khan and Z. Iqbal. 2002. Status paper feed resources for livestock in Pakistan. Int. J. Agric. Biol., 4(1): 186-192.

Sarwar, M., M.A. Shahzad, M.A. and M.U. Nisa. 2012. Effects of feeding different level of dietary protein with or without probiotics or ionophores on performance of growing kids. Int. Semin. Anim. Ind., 4(1): 186-192.

Sen, A.R., A. Santra and S.A. Karim. 2004. Carcass yield, composition and meat quality attributes of sheep and goat under semiarid conditions. Meat Sci., 66(4): 757-763. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(03)00035-4

Van Keulen, J.Y. and B.A. Young. 1977. Evaluation of acid-insoluble ash as a natural marker in ruminant digestibility studies. J. Anim. Sci., 44(2): 282-287. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1977.442282x

Zaher, H.A., A. Mesalam, A.I. Al-Bloushi, A. Tolba, A.A. Swelum and I. Abu-Alrub. 2022. Hematological and biochemical indices, growth performance, and puberty of goats fed with mombasa and blue panic as salt-tolerant alternatives to alfalfa under arid conditions. Front. Vet. Sci., 9: 961583. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.961583