Indian Journal of Animal Research

  • Chief EditorK.M.L. Pathak

  • Print ISSN 0367-6722

  • Online ISSN 0976-0555

  • NAAS Rating 6.50

  • SJR 0.263

  • Impact Factor 0.5 (2023)

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December)
Indexing Services :
Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Scopus, AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Research Article

Indian Journal of Animal Research, volume 51 issue 4 (august 2017) : 776-780

Effect of different floor space allowances on the performance and behavior of Beetal kids under stall-fed conditions

A. Thakur, D. S. Malik, S. Kaswan, A.L. Saini
1<p>Department of Livestock Production Management,&nbsp;GADVASU, Ludhiana-41 004, India.</p>
Cite article:- Thakur A., Malik S. D., Kaswan S., Saini A.L. (2016). Effect of different floor space allowances on the performance and behaviorof Beetal kids under stall-fed conditions . Indian Journal of Animal Research. 51(4): 776-780. doi: 10.18805/ijar.10775.

ABSTRACT

Present study was conducted to investigate the effect of different floor space allowances on performance and behavior of Beetal kids from 3 to 6 months of age. Twenty four spring born Beetal kids (3 month old) were randomly divided in to four groups (n=6 each group) on the basis of space allowances i.e. 0.6 m2, 0.7 m2, 0.8 m2 and 0.9 m2 covered area and 1.2 m2, 1.4 m2, 1.6 m2 and 1.8 m2 open area per kid. The results indicated that most of the performance parameters i.e. body weight (BW), average daily gain (ADG) and feed conversion ratio (FCR) were marginally higher with higher space allowance, but these did not differ statistically. However behavioural activities like moving, exploring pen, grooming and resting were significantly higher (p < 0.05) in large space allowance groups whereas, eating, standing and negative social interactions were significantly better (p < 0.05) in lower floor space allowance groups. It is concluded that the increase in floor space allowance had favorable effect on the performance and behavior of Beetal kids.

REFERENCES


  1. Altmann J. (1974). Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour 49: 227-267.

  2. Averos X, Lorea A, Beltrán de Heredia I, Ruiz R, Marchewka J, Arranz J and Estevez I. (2014). The behaviour of gestating dairy ewes under different space allowances. Applied Animal Behavior Science 150: 17-26.

  3. BIS. (2008). Code of Practice for Sheep and Goat Housing 2733. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.

  4. Baxter, S. (1985). Space and place. in Intensive Pig Production: Environmental Management and Design. Granada Publishing Ltd., London, UK, Pages 210–254.

  5. Caroprese M, Annicchiarico G, Schena L, Muscio A, Migliore R and Sevi A. (2009). Influence of space allowance and housing conditions on the welfare, immune response and production performance of dairy ewes. Journal of Dairy Research 76: 66–73.

  6. Duncan D B. (1955). Multiple range and multiple “F” tests. Biometrics 11: 1-42.

  7. Duncan I J. (1998). Behavior and behavioral needs. Poultry Science 77: 1766-72.

  8. Estevez I. (2007). Density allowances for broilers: where to set the limits? Poultry Science 86: 1265–72.

  9. Fisher A D, Crowe M A, O’Kiely and Enright W J. (1997). Growth, behaviour, adrenal and immune responses of finishing beef heifers housed on slatted floors at 1 S, 2.0, 2.5 or 3.0 m2 space allowance. Livestock Production Science 51: 245-54.

  10. Fraser A F and Broom D M. (1990). Farm Animal Behaviour and Welfare. 3rd Edn. Baillière Tindall, London.

  11. Fregonesi J A and Leaver J D. (2004). Influence of space allowance and milk yield level on behaviour, performance and health of dairy cows housed in straw yard and cubicle systems. Livestock Production Science 78: 245-57

  12. Forkman B. (1996). The social facilitation of drinking- what is facilitated, and who is affected? Ethology 102: 252-59.

  13. Hanlon A J, Rhind S M, Reid H W, Burrells C, Lawrence A B, Milne J A and McMillen J R. (1994). Relationship between immune response, live weight gain, behaviour and adrenal function in red deer ( Cervus elaphus) calves derived from wild and farmed stock, maintained at two housing densities. Appl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 41:243"255

  14. Harper A F and Kornegay E T. (1983). The effects of restricted floor space allowance and virginiamycin supplementation on the feedlot performance of swine. Livestock Production Science 10: 397-409.

  15. Hart B L and Pryor P A. (2004). Developmental and hair coat determinants of grooming behavior in goats and sheep. Animal Behaviour 67: 11-19. 

  16. Hyun Y, Ellis M and Johnson R W. (1998). Effects of feeder type, space allowance, and mixing on the growth performance and feed intake pattern of growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 76: 2771-78.

  17. Jensen M B and Kyhn R. (2000). Play behaviour in group-housed dairy calves, the effect of space allowance. Applied Animal Behavior Science 67: 35-46.

  18. Jorgensen G H M, Andersen I L and Boe K E. (2007). Feed intake and social interactions in dairy Goats - the effects of feeding space and type of roughage. Applied Animal Behavior Science 107: 239-51.

  19. Loretz C, Wechsler B, Hauser R and Rüsch P. (2004). A comparison of space requirements of horned and hornless goats at the feed barrier and in the lying area. Applied Animal Behavior Science 87: 275-83

  20. Mohammed H H. (2014). Effect of Some Managerial practices on behaviour and performance of Egyptian balady goats. Global Veterinaria 13: 237-43.

  21. Morrison S R and Prokop M. (1982). Beef cattle performance on slotted floors: effect of animal weight on space allotment. In: Livestock Environment II: Proceedings of the Second International Livestock Environment Symposium. Publication 03.82, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph. MO, pp. 92-100.

  22. Newberry R C and Hall J W. (1990). Use of pen space by broiler chickens: effects of age and pen size. Applied Animal Behavior Science 25: 125–136.

  23. Peterson B A. (2004). ‘The effects of swine sire line, floor space, and gender on the growth performance and carcass characteristics and meat quality characteristics of pigs.’ MS Thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana.

  24. Shinde A K, Verma D L and Singh N P. (2004). Social dominance-subordinate relationships on a flock of Marwari goats. Indian Journal of Animal Science 74: 216-19.

  25. Smith R E, Hanke H E, Lindor L K, Goodrich R D, Meiske J C, Thonney M, Crawford D, Hasbargen P R, Bates D W and Ryan D M. (1981). A comparison of five housing systems for feedlot cattle. Paper No. 81-4057. American Soci-ety of Animal Engineers, St. Joseph, MO, 1 I pp.

  26. Snedecor G W and Cochran W G. (1989). Statistical Methods. 7th Edn. pp 313. The Iowa state University Press Ames, Iowa, USA.

  27. Tapki I, Þahin A and Önal A G. (2006). Effect of space allowance on behavior of newborn milk-fed dairy calves. Applied Animal Behavior Science 99:12–20.

  28. Wierenga H K. (1987). Behavioural problems in fattening bulls. In: Schlichting M C and Smidt D (Eds.) Welfare Aspects of Housing Systems for Veal Calves and Fattening Bulls. CEC, Luxembourg, pp. 105-22.
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)