Assessments of welfare of Marathwadi buffalo calves under different housing systems

Introduction

Livestock plays a vital role in Indian agriculture, engaging nearly 70% of the population, most of whom are small to medium-scale farmers. Buffalo farming is especially significant, contributing over 50 million tons of milk and 1.43 million tons of meat annually (ICAR), and supporting the livelihood of marginal farmers and landless laborers. According to the 20th Livestock Census, the total bovine population in India is 302.34 million, with 109.85 million buffaloes, known for high-quality milk and adaptability to low-quality feed and harsh climates. India has emerged as the world's largest milk producer, growing from 17 million tons in 1950-51 to 230 million tons in 2022-23 (Agrawal and Raju, 2021) [2] , improving per capita availability from 130 g/day to 460 g/day (Chattacharjee and Patel, 2016) [6] . The buffalo sector accounts for 66.3% of global buffalo milk production (ICAR-CCARI, 2019) [12] , highlighting its economic and nutritional importance. The calf stage is critical for lifelong productivity, with welfare conditions impacting growth, immunity, and future yield. Proper housing plays a major role in calf health, comfort, and behavior, influencing parameters such as feed and water intake, growth rate, and stress indicators like serum cortisol. Despite its importance, research on buffalo calf welfare, particularly comparing housing systems in India, remains scarce. Most farmers rely on traditional tie-barn systems without standardized planning, which may negatively affect animal welfare (Sastry and Thomas, 2005) [19] . The Marathwadi buffalo, an indigenous breed well-suited to the region, thrives on low external inputs (Bande et al., 2018) [4] and is widely reared by smallholders in Maharashtra.

Materials and Methods

The present study was conducted to assess the growth, feed and water intake, hematological parameters, serum cortisol, environmental parameter, physiological responses, behavior, and welfare of Marathwadi buffalo calves under two different housing systems: Barn Housing (T1) and Loose Housing (T2). A total of 16 buffalo calves (all older than three months) were randomly divided into two groups of 8 animals each. The barn housing system (T1) had a concrete floor, whereas the loose housing system (T2) had an earthen (Katcha) floor, providing different flooring conditions to study their effects on calf health and performance. The experiment was carried out over a period of 105 days (15 weeks) at the Calf Unit, Livestock Farm Complex (LFC), College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Udgir, Maharashtra, India.

Results and Discussion

Weekly body weight and weight gain Studies have reported varying effects of housing systems on the growth performance of buffalo calves, particularly in terms of body weight and weekly weight gain (Table 1). In the present study, the average initial body weight of calves in barn housing was 75.49±1.70 kg, increasing to a final weight of 82.02±1.16 kg, while those in loose housing started at 74.66±1.60 kg and reached 81.48±1.22 kg. Similarly, the average weekly weight gain increased from 0.83±0.05 kg/week to 0.95±0.01 kg/week in barn housing and from 0.76±0.03 kg/week to 1.01±0.02 kg/week in loose housing, with no statistically significant variation between the groups. These findings suggest that both housing systems provide comparable conditions for supporting calf growth when nutrition and management are standardized. This is in agreement with Patil and Bhokre (2016) [16] , Mane and Kharwadkar (2018) [15] , and Kadam (2019) [13] who also reported non-significant differences in body weight and weight gain between housing types, though loose housing tended to show slightly better performance. In contrast, Sanap et al. (2018) [18] reported significant improvements in growth under certain housing modifications, indicating that structural or environmental differences may impact growth outcomes in specific contexts. Although all differences were nonsignificant, the consistently higher intake observed in loose housing may be attributed to improved comfort, reduced stress, and easier access to feed, supporting better feeding behavior. These findings are in agreement with Patil and Bhokre (2016) [16] and Sudam (2021) [21] , who also noted higher feed intake in loose-housed calves. However, studies such as Yacob et al. (2005) [23] reported no significant variations, indicating that housing type alone may not significantly affect feed consumption unless combined with factors like feed quality, management, and environmental modifications. [7] , Mane and Kharwadkar (2018) [15] , and Patil and Bhokre (2016) [16] , which reported greater water intake in loose housing systems due to factors such as increased movement, higher exposure to ambient temperature, and behavioral freedom. Conversely, Gautam (2012) [10] observed no significant differences, suggesting that environmental design and climatic conditions may modulate the effect. Overall, the present study confirms that loose housing promotes greater hydration, potentially contributing to improved physiological regulation and comfort in buffalo calves. [16] and Bhatta et al. (2005) [5] , who observed stable rectal temperatures across housing types. However, heart rate and pulse rate differed significantly (p<0.05), with barn-housed calves showing higher values (71.03±0.81 bpm and 65.52±0.82 bpm, respectively) compared to those in loose housing (65.63±0.83 bpm and 60.62±0.76 bpm). These differences suggest elevated physiological stress in confined housing. The results align with studies by Kumari et al. (2017) [14] and Gaikwad (2018) [9] , which reported lower heart rates in loose housing due to reduced stress. Similarly, Wagh (2009) [22] and Patil and Bhokre (2016) [16] noted higher pulse rates in more restrictive housing setups. Overall, while thermal regulation was unaffected, the significantly lower heart and pulse rates in loose housing indicate better welfare and lower stress levels in calves housed under more open, flexible conditions.

Behavioural observation

Behavioral observations revealed significant differences between barn and loose housing systems in Marathwadi buffalo calves (Table 5). Calves in loose housing spent more time ruminating, with an average of 407.38±2.58 min/day compared to 382.28±3.45 min/day in barn housing (p<0.05), indicating better digestive comfort and reduced stress. These findings support earlier studies by Wagh (2009) [22] and Kadam (2019) [13] , which highlighted increased rumination in open housing systems. In contrast, self-licking/grooming behaviors were significantly more frequent in barn-housed calves (74.03±2.40 acts/day) than those in loose housing (57.94±2.06 acts/day). Suggesting that restricted environments may promote repetitive or stress-induced behaviors. Similar conclusions were drawn by Gautam (2012) [10] , linking increased self-grooming to reduced space and behavioral restriction. Within the loose housing group, calves spent an average of 629.8±4.12 min/day under shade and 810.19±4.13 min/day in open areas, indicating a preference for open spaces for exploration and social activity, while still actively seeking shade for thermal comfort. These trends underscore the importance of providing both covered and open spaces in calf housing systems. Additionally, calves in loose housing exhibited more social behavior (23.24±0.87 acts/day) than those in barn housing (19.50±0.23 acts/day), showing that increased space and freedom of movement enhance opportunities for interaction, play, and natural behavior expression. Overall, these findings suggest that loose housing environments are more conducive to promoting natural, healthy behaviors in buffalo calves, contributing positively to their overall welfare and psychological wellbeing

Biochemical Parameter

Stress is a key indicator of animal welfare, as prolonged stress can impair growth, immunity, and overall health in calves (Table 6). Serum cortisol is a reliable biomarker used to assess stress levels. In this study, the initial serum cortisol level was 0.52±0.08 ng/ml in barn housing and 0.44±0.06 ng/ml in loose housing, which changed to 0.49±0.13 ng/ml and 0.42±0.07 ng/ml, respectively at the final stage. Calves housed in barn systems showed higher cortisol levels compared to those in loose housing, with the difference being statistically significant (p<0.05). These findings suggest that loose housing provides a more comfortable and less stressful environment. This is supported by Cucuzza et al. (2014) [8] and Sudam (2021) [21] , who reported lower cortisol levels in loose-housed animals due to better space allowance and reduced confinement. However, Habeeb et al. (2012) [11] noted that stress may still occur in loose systems under extreme heat without adequate shading, emphasizing the importance of well-managed housing conditions.

Hematological parameter

The hematological parameters of Marathwadi buffalo calves revealed no statistically significant differences between barn and loose housing systems (Table 7), indicating that both environments effectively supported stable blood profiles. The average hemoglobin (Hb) concentration was 10.48±0.15 g/dL in barn housing and 10.78±0.22 g/dL in loose housing, suggesting slightly higher oxygen-carrying capacity in the latter, though the difference was not significant. This finding aligns with Patil and Bhokre (2016) [16] and Kadam (2019) [13] , while Sudam (2021) [21] reported similar trends of elevated Hb in loose systems. Similarly, packed cell volume (PCV) averaged 32.83±0.34% in barn-housed calves and 33.65±0.50% in loose housing, indicating stable circulatory function across systems. These outcomes support earlier work by Patil and Bhokre (2016) [16] , though Sanap et al. (2014) [18] observed housing-induced variations under different environmental conditions. White blood cell (WBC) counts were also comparable, recorded at 9.93 × 10³/cm in barn housing and 10.12 × 10³/cm in loose housing, showing no significant change in immune response. While Radkowska and Herbut (2014) [17] noted higher WBCs with greater environmental exposure, controlled management in the current study likely minimized such effects. Red blood cell (RBC) counts remained stable as well, averaging 6.65 × 10⁶/cm in barn housing and 6.80 × 10⁶/cm in loose housing, in agreement with the findings of Patil and Bhokre (2016) [16] and Ahmad et al. (2017) [3] . Overall, the data suggest that both housing systems maintained a healthy physiological and hematological profile with loose housing showing marginal, though non-significant, improvements in certain parameters. The body condition score (BCS) of buffalo calves ranged from 2.5 to 3.5 in barn housing and 2.5 to 4.0 in loose housing, indicating that both systems maintained adequate nutritional status. Most calves in barn housing showed moderate to good body condition, whereas loose housing calves exhibited slightly higher overall BCS, with one calf reaching a score of 4.0 (fat condition). This slight improvement in loose housing may be attributed to increased access to forage and natural movement, which supported better metabolic balance. Importantly, no calves had a BCS below 2.5 in either system, confirming proper nutritional management and the suitability of both housing systems for calf growth and welfare.

Conclusion

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementThe authors sincerely thank Dr. KN Pawankar (Associate Professor & Guide) for his valuable guidance, continuous encouragement, and constructive suggestions throughout the research and manuscript preparation. We also express our heartfelt gratitude to the Associate Dean, College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Udgir, for providing institutional support and research facilities. Special thanks are extended to the staff and laborers of the Livestock Farm Complex (LFC) for their dedicated help in managing animals, assisting in data collection, and ensuring smooth execution of the experiment. Lastly, we appreciate our colleagues and well-wishers for their support and motivation during the study period.

References

1. 20 th Livestock Census. Dept. of AHD & Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India; 2019.
2. Agrawal A, Raju R. Economics of milk production in Malwa and Kymore zones of Madhya Pradesh. Haryana Vet. 2021;60(2):170-175.
3. Ahmad M, Bhatti JA, Abdullah M, Javed K, Din R, Ali M, et al. Effect of different ambient management interventions on milk production and physiological performance of lactating Nili-Ravi buffaloes during hot humid summer. Livest Res Rural Dev. 2017;29:230.
4. Bande KD, Deshmukh JM, Wanole SN, Dhulgand VG. Utility perception of Marathwadi buffalo by the rearers in Latur district of Maharashtra state. Multilogic Sci. 2018;8(Special Issue A):164-168.
5. Bhatta R, Swain N, Verma DL, Singh NP. Studies on feed intake and nutrient utilization of sheep under two housing systems in semi-arid region of India. AsianAustralas J Anim Sci. 2004;17(6):814-819.
6. Chattacharjee B, Patel VA. Consumption pattern of liquid milk by home production and purchase households, potential markets and demand estimation-some insights. Indian J Agric Econ. 2016;71(4):479-492.
7. Choure KK. Performance, behaviour and economics of crossbred cattle under loose housing system [dissertation]. Nagpur (India): Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University; 2010.
8. Cucuzza LS, Riondato F, Macchi E, Bellino C, Franco G, Biolatti B, et al. Haematological and physiological responses of Piemontese beef cattle to different housing conditions. Res Vet Sci. 2014;97(2):464-469.
9. Gautam K. Comparative performance of Red Kandhari calves in loose versus conventional housing system [dissertation]. Nagpur (India): Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University; 2012.
10. Habeeb AAM, Gad AE, El-Tarabany AA. Effect of hot climatic conditions with different types of housing on productive efficiency and physiological changes in buffalo calves. Isot Radiat Res. 2012;44(1):109-126.
11. Kadam VM. Growth performance of Deoni calves under bran and loose housing system [Dissertation]. Udgir (India): College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences; 2019.
12. Kumari A, Kodape A, Patwardhan S, Ghorpade P. Behaviour and physiological response of Osmanabadi kids under different housing systems. Indian J Anim Prod Manag. 2017;29(1-2).
13. Patil VG, Bhokre SM. Comparative performance of Pandharpuri buffalo calves under different rearing system [thesis]. Shirwal (India): Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University; 2016.
14. Radkowska I, Herbut E. Hematological and biochemical blood parameters in dairy cows depending on the management system. Anim Sci Pap Rep. 2014;32(4):317325.
15. Sanap VN, Ludri A, Mir NA, Kumar B, Mittal KK. Physiological performance of crossbred cattle calves (Karan Fries) under different housing conditions during different seasons. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2018;7:2738-2748.
16. Sastry NSR, Thomas CK, Pearson RA. Livestock production management. Ludhiana: Kalyani Publishers; 2005.