Effect of flooring type on growth performance & FCR of weaned Vizianagaram lambs

Introduction

Andhra Pradesh ranks second in India's sheep population with 17.6 million sheep, accounting for 23.7% of the national flock (DAH, GOI, 2019). The state is the native tract of the Vizianagaram sheep, known for their hardiness, ability to utilize coarse fibrous feeds, adaptability to local conditions and superior meat quality. These sheep are traditionally reared under extensive systems, but declining grazing resources have reduced productivity, highlighting the need for intensive management. Intensive systems have demonstrated higher growth rates and body weight gains than extensive or semi-intensive systems (Karthik et al., 2021) [17] . Housing, particularly flooring, plays a key role in moderating the microclimate and influencing animal comfort and welfare. Floor type significantly affects welfare and bedding quality, making proper floor design an essential aspect of sheep housing (Stefanowska et al., 2002) [30] .

Materials and Methods

The study evaluated the effect of flooring types on growth, feed intake, DMI, and FCR of Vizianagaram lambs under intensive rearing. Twenty-four 3-4-month-old lambs (10.54 ± 0.27 kg), of either sex, were randomly assigned into three groups (n = 8): moorum floor (T 1 ), concrete floor (T 2 ), and concrete floor with rubber mats (T 3 ; 11 mm thick, diamond-shaped surface). The 90-day trial (24 April-22 July 2023) was conducted in conventional sheds (1.7 m²/lamb) with asbestos roofing. Lambs were dewormed (Albendazole 10 mg/kg), tagged, and maintained under hygienic conditions with ad libitum feeding and clean water throughout the study.

Feeding and watering management

Experimental lambs were fed the routine concentrate mixture with ad libitum green fodder (Super Napier grass) twice daily at 8:00 AM and 3:00 PM, following ICAR (2013) nutrient requirements. Leftovers were recorded every 24 hours to calculate total feed intake. Clean, potable water was provided in separate troughs throughout the experiment.

Body weight gain: Lamb body weight was recorded weekly using a digital electronic balance before feeding. Total weight gain was calculated by subtracting initial body weight from final body weight, allowing assessment of growth performance under moorum (T 1 ), concrete (T 2 ), and rubber mat (T 3 ) flooring systems.

Average Daily Gain (ADG)

The average daily gain was calculated by using the following formula.

ADG was calculated weekly as well as for the total experimental period.

Feed Intake

Feed offered and feed refusal were monitored daily for each group of lambs and feed intake was calculated weekly.

Dry Matter Estimation and Feed Conversion Ratio

Dry matter (DM) of feeds was determined by drying a weighed sample in a moisture cup overnight at 100 ± 2 °C to constant weight. DM (%) was calculated as:

Dry matter intake (DMI): Dry matter intake (DMI) was recorded weekly and over the total experimental period. Feed conversion ratio (FCR) was calculated by dividing total DM intake (kg) by total body weight gain (kg) of lambs. Body weight was recorded weekly using a digital balance before feeding, and total gain was calculated by subtracting initial from final weight.

Statistical analysis

Data were analysed by ANOVA (Snedecor and Cochran, 1994), and means compared using Duncan's multiple range test (Duncan, 1955) [6] with SPSS version 20.0 (SPSS, 2020).

Results

Body weight and weight gain

Initial body weights (kg) of lambs on moorum (T 1 ), concrete (T 2 ), and rubber mat (T 3 ) floors were 10.57 ± 0.55, 10.55 ± 0.43, and 10.50 ± 0.45, respectively, increasing to 18.57 ± 0.81, 18.35 ± 0.68, and 18.98 ± 0.53 by the end of the 90-day trial (Table 2). Overall mean body weights were 14.65 ± 0.30, 14.50 ± 0.27, and 14.69 ± 0.28, with total gains of 8.00 ± 0.35, 7.80 ± 0.44, and 8.47 ± 0.20 kg for T 1 , T 2 , and T 3 , respectively. Lambs on rubber mats exhibited 8.59% higher total weight gain than those on concrete, though differences were non-significant (p > 0.05). 3). Differences among groups were nonsignificant.

Feed intake, dry matter intake and feed conversion ratio

Average daily feed intake (kg) was 1.42 ± 0.12, 1.38 ± 0.11, and 1.50 ± 0.11, DMI (kg/day) was 0.58 ± 0.17, 0.57 ± 0.17, and 0.60 ± 0.17, DMI per 100 kg BW was 3.95 ± 0.31, 3.8 ± 0.30, and 4.08 ± 0.31; DMI per kg metabolic weight (BW^0.75) was 77.34 ± 6.16, 76.67 ± 6.20, and 79.87 ± 6.07 g for T 1 , T 2 , and T 3 , respectively. Overall FCR was 6.90 ± 0.24, 6.83 ± 0.24, and 6.61 ± 0.18, with no significant differences among treatments (Table 4).

Discussion

Body weight

Body weight is a key indicator of animal health. In this study, the overall mean body weights (kg) of Vizianagaram lambs were 14.65 ± 0.30 (T 1 , moorum), 14.50 ± 0.27 (T 2 , concrete), and 14.69 ± 0.28 (T 3 , rubber mat), with no significant differences. Lambs on rubber mats exhibited 1.3% higher body weight than concrete at the end of the experiment, likely due to enhanced comfort and rest, allowing optimal periods of REM sleep, which can influence growth hormone secretion and Ghrelin release from the gastrointestinal tract (Rutters et al., 2012) [27] . The present findings align with Kulkarni et al. (2000) [20] , Jaborek et al. (2016) [15] , Tharuntej et al. (2020) [32] , and Dash et al. (2022) [8] , who reported that floor type had no significant effect on body weight in domesticated lambs. In contrast, Yasotha and Sivakumar (2013) [36] , Deshmukh (2017) [9] , Vijayalakshmi (2023) [34] , and Sundaram et al.

(2002) [31] observed significant differences in lambs, possibly due to variations in housing and flooring comfort affecting feed utilization. Similarly, Kovnerev and Smironov (1988) [19] , Yanar et al. (2010) [35] , Kartal and Yanar (2011) [16] , Divate (2014) [12] , Archana (2018) [2] , and Tony (2023) [33] reported significant differences in body weight across flooring systems, likely influenced by diverse external climatic conditions. The total weight gain of lambs in this study was 8.00 ± 0.35, 7.80 ± 0.44, and 8.47 ± 0.20 kg for moorum, concrete, and rubber mat floors, respectively, with an 8.59% higher gain on rubber mats compared to concrete. This increase may be attributed to greater comfort and reduced stress on rubber mats, promoting optimal feed and fodder utilization. These findings align with Kulkarni et al. (2000) [20] , Jaborek et al.

(2016) [15] , Tharuntej et al. (2020) [32] , and caprine studies by Di Grigoli et al. (2003) [11] , Chikwanda and Muchenje (2017) [4] , Modi et al. (2019) [23] , and Antil et al. (2019a) [1] , which reported no significant differences in total weight gain across flooring types. In contrast, Hanninen et al. (2005) [14] , Yanar et al. (2010) [35] , Kartal and Yanar (2011) [16] , and Archana (2018) [2] observed significant gains in calves on rubber mats, likely reflecting species differences.

Average Daily Gain (ADG)

The overall mean ADG (g) of rubber mat (T 3 ) lambs was 8.64% higher than concrete (T 2 ), though not significant, likely due to better feed conversion on rubber mats. Similar nonsignificant effects were reported in lambs by Kulkarni et al.

(2000) [20] , Tharuntej et al. (2020) [32] , Pandu (2021) [24] , and in kids by Antil et al. (2019a) [1] , Kumari et al. (2013) [21] , Chikwanda and Muchenje (2017) [4] , Hanninen et al. (2005) [14] , Elmore et al. (2015) [13] , and Arvind Kumar et al. (2019) [3] . In contrast, Sundaram et al. (2002) [31] , Cozzi et al. (2013) [5] , and Yasotha and Sivakumar (2013) [36] reported significant differences in weaned lambs, while Divate (2014) [12] and Jaborek et al. (2016) [15] found dissimilar results in kids. Keane et al. (2015) [18] , Archana (2018) [2] , Lowe et al. (2019) [22] , Sorathiya et al. (2019) [29] , and Tony (2023) [33] reported significant differences in calves, likely due to varying feed efficiency and FCR under different climatic conditions.

Feed Intake, Dry Matter Intake (DMI), and Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR): Feed and DMI were nonsignificant among lambs on moorum, concrete, and rubber mat floors, in line with Antil et al. (2019a) [1] in Barbari kids and Tharuntej et al. (2020) [32] in Deccani lambs. Conversely, Di Grigoli et al. (2003) [11] in goats, Divate (2014) [12] in kids, Chikwanda and Muchenje (2017) [4] in goats, Ramachandran et al. (2017) [26] in goats, and Vijayalakshmi (2023) [34] in Nellore brown lambs observed significant increases in feed and DMI under different flooring, likely due to feed type and lineage. The overall mean FCR was 6.90 ± 0.24, 6.83 ± 0.24, and 6.61 ± 0.18 for moorum, concrete, and rubber mat floors, respectively, without significant differences. These results align with Antil et al. (2019a) [1] in Barbari kids and Patel et al. (2020) [25] in Mehasana goats. In contrast, Deshmukh et al.

(2017) [9] and Vijayalakshmi (2023) [34] found significant differences in lambs, possibly due to higher DMI, improved feed assimilation, and climatic variations.

Conclusion

The body weight, average daily gain, feed intake, dry matter intake and feed conversion ratio of growing Vizianagaram lambs were similar among the three treatment groups. However, lambs reared on rubber mat floor were superior but similar to the moorum floor in terms of growth and feed efficiency.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementsWe are very grateful to LRS, Garividi for providing support for the study.

References

1. Antil A, Bhuvaneshwar Rai, Ramachandran Natesan, Chetna Gangwar, Seema Yadav. Effect of bedding material on growth and FCR in of Barbari kids during winter. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Science. 2019;8:1930-1935.
2. Archana. Effect of different types of flooring on growth performance, hoof health and behaviour of Sahiwal calves [thesis]. Hyderabad: PVNR Telangana Veterinary University; 2018.
3. Arvind Kumar, Ramachandran N, Singh SP, Sharma N, Pourouchottamane R, Dass G, et al. Plastic slatted flooring for intensive rearing of Muzaffarnagari lambs in semi-arid region. Indian Journal of Small Ruminants. 2019;25:231-233.
4. Chikwanda, Muchenje. Grazing system and floor type effects on blood bio-chemistry, growth and carcass characteristics of Nguni goats. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science. 2017;30:1253-1260.
5. Cozzi G, Tessitore E, Contiero B, Ricci R, Gottardo F, Brscic M. Alternative solutions to the concrete fullyslatted floor for the housing of finishing beef cattle: effects on growth performance, health of the locomotor system and behaviour. The Veterinary Journal. 2013;197:211-215.
6. Duncan DB. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics. 1955;11:1-42.
7. Department of Animal Husbandry (DAH). Key note 20th Livestock Census. Government of India; 2019.
8. Dash L, Sahoo SK, Rahman FH, Mohanty S, Nanda PK, Kund DP, et al. Kendrapada Sheep: An Insight into Productivity and Genetic Potential of this Prolific Breed. Sheep Farming. Herds Husbandry, Management System, Reproduction and Improvement of Animal Health. 2022. p. 131.
9. Deshmukh AK. Growth performance of Madgyal lambs under different housing system [thesis]. Nagpur: Maharashtra Animal & Fishery Sciences University; 2017.
10. Deshmukh AK, Kodape AH, Hande ST, Jagdale SD, Bhamare PP. Growth performance of Madgyal lamb under different housing system. Journal Bombay Veterinary College. 2017;24:5-7.
11. Di Grigoli A, Bonanno A, Alabiso M, Russo G, Leto G. Effects of housing system on welfare and milk yield and quality of Girgentana goats. Italian Journal of Animal Science. 2003;2:542-544.
12. Divate RT. Effect of different types of flooring material on the growth performance in Osmanabadi kids [thesis]. Nagpur: Maharashtra Animal & Fishery Sciences University; 2014.
13. Elmore MRP, Elischer MF, Claeys MC, Pajor EA. The effects of different flooring types on the behaviour, health and welfare of finishing beef steers. Journal of Animal Science. 2015;93:1258-1266.
14. Hanninen L, De Passille AM, Rushen J. The effect of flooring type and social grouping on the rest and growth of dairy calves. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2005;91:193-204.
15. Jaborek JR, Lowe GD, Fluharty FL. Effect of pen flooring type and bedding on lamb growth and carcass characteristics. Small Ruminant Research. 2016;144:2834.
16. Kartal TZ, Yanar M. Effect of floor types on the growth performance and some behavioural traits of Brown Swiss calves. Veterinarijair Zootechnika. 2011;55:20-24.
17. Karthik D, Suresh J, Reddy YR, Sharma GRK, Ramana JV, Gangaraju G, et al. Farming systems in sheep rearing: Impact on growth and reproductive performance, nutrient digestibility, disease incidence and heat stress indices. Plos one. 2021;16:e0244922.
18. Keane MP, McGee M, O'Riordan EG, Kelly AK, Earley B. Effect of floor type on hoof lesions, dirt scores, immune response and production of beef bulls. Livestock Science. 2015;180:220-225.
19. Kovnerev IP, Smironov AV. The effect of housing conditions on viability of lambs. Ovtsevodstvo. 1988;2:28-29.
20. Kulkarni VV, Karunakaran K, Murgan B. Performance of stall-fed sheep and goats under slatted flooring conditions. In: International Conference on Small Holder Livestock Production System in Developing Countries. Kerala: Kerala Agricultural University; 2000. p. 24-27.
21. Kumari A, Baig MI, Kodape AH, Dagli NR, Patwardhan SH, Ghorpade PP. Growth performance of Osmanabadi kids under different housing systems. Indian Journal of Small Ruminants. 2013;19:215-216.
22. Lowe DE, Lively FO, Gordon AW. The effect of diet and covering fully slatted concrete floors with rubber strips on the intake, performance and cleanliness of dairy-origin bulls. Animal. 2019;13:2092-2100.
23. Modi R, Patel N, Patel R, Wadhwani KN. Effect of different floor types on body weight of Surti goats under asbestos roofed house. Indian Journal of Animal Production and Management. 2019;35:40-44.
24. Pandu. Effect of different floor types on the performance of stallfed Nellore Brown ram lambs [thesis]. Hyderabad: PVNR Telangana Veterinary University; 2021.
25. Patel JV, Chauhan HD, Srivastava AK, Pawar MM, Patel VK. Effect of Different Floor Types on Growth Performance and Feed Conversion Ratio of Mehsana Goat Kids. Indian Journal of Veterinary Sciences and Biotechnology. 2020;16:37-40.
26. Ramachandran N, Singh Shiva, Tripathi MK, Paul S, Bhusan S, Jindal Satish. Intake, growth performance and worm load in goat kids maintained on conventional soiled or raised wooden slatted floor. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences. 2017;87:356-360.
27. Rutters F, Gonnissen HK, Hursel R, Lemmens SG, Martens EA, Westerterp-Plantenga MS. Distinct associations between energy balance and the sleep characteristics slow wave sleep and rapid eye movement sleep. International Journal of Obesity. 2012;36:13461352.
28. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG. Statistical Methods. 9th ed. Affiliated East-West Press, IOWA State University Press. 1994;13:1467-1473.
29. Sorathiya LM, Raval AP, Kharadi VB, Tyagi KK, Patel MD. Effect of flooring on growth performance, behaviour, health and economics in Surti buffalo calves during winter. Indian Journal of Animal Science. 2019;89:1246-1250.
30. Stefanowska J, Swierstra D, Smits AC, Berg JVD, Metz JHM. Reaction of calves to two flooring materials offered simultaneously in one pen. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A-Animal Science. 2002;52:57-64.
31. Sundaram SM, Sivakumar T, Ramesh V, Gnanaraj PT. Comparative performance of Madras Red sheep under different management systems. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences. 2002;72:904-907.
32. Tharuntej E, Rajanna N, Chandra AS, Nagalakshai D. Effect of Flooring Material on Body Weight and Biometry of Growing Deccani Lambs. International Journal of Livestock Research. 2020;10:114-119.
33. Tony. A study on effect of type of flooring on performance and behaviour of Murrah buffalo calves [thesis]. Tirupati: Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University; 2023.
34. Yanar M, Kartal T, Aydin Recep, Koçyiğit Rıdvan. Effect of different floor types on the growth performance and some behavioural traits of Holstein Friesian calves. The Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences. 2010;20:175179.