Effect of different housing systems on feed consumption and body performance of crossbred heifers

Introduction

Livestock production is an important component of Indian agriculture, and dairy farming contributes substantially to food security and rural livelihoods. The productivity of dairy animals is influenced by several interacting factors, including genetic potential, nutrition, environmental conditions and management practices. Among these factors, housing plays an important role in determining animal comfort, health, welfare and productive performance. (Bewley et al. 2017; Nalon and Stevenson, 2021) [1,7] . Housing systems provide protection against unfavourable environmental conditions and create an environment suitable for feeding, resting, movement and other normal activities. This is particularly important for growing replacement heifers because their growth and development influence their subsequent productive and reproductive performance (Jat et al. 2021; Costa et al. 2016) [5,2] . The rearing period also represents a considerable investment in feed, labour, healthcare and housing. Conventional housing generally confines animals to individual stalls and permits close individual observation and feeding management. However, prolonged confinement can restrict locomotion and behavioural expression. In contrast, loose housing provides greater freedom of movement within an open or semi-covered area and permits animals to walk, exercise, rest and interact more freely (Nalon and Stevenson, 2021; Linstädt et al. 2025) [7,6] .

The difference in freedom of movement and environmental conditions may consequently influence feed consumption and growth. Feed consumption is an important component of growth performance because adequate feed intake is necessary to meet the nutrient requirements of growing animals. Similarly, live body weight, body weight gain and linear body measurements provide useful indicators of growth and physical development (Costa et al. 2016; Nalon and Stevenson, 2021) [2,7] . Therefore, comparative evaluation of different housing systems is important for identifying management practices that can support efficient heifer rearing. Although both conventional and loose housing systems are used in dairy production, their relative effects may vary according to breed, climatic conditions, housing design and management practices. Hence, evaluation under local farm conditions is useful for determining the suitability of a housing system. (Bewley et al. 2017; Linstädt et al. 2025) [1,6] . Therefore, the present investigation was undertaken with the following objectives: 1. To compare the effect of different housing systems on feed consumption. 2. To study the effect of different housing systems on body performance.

Materials and Methods

Experimental site and duration

The experiment entitled "Comparative Studies on the Performance of Crossbred Heifers under Conventional and Loose Housing System" was conducted at the Livestock Instructional Farm, Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairy Science, Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola, Maharashtra, during 2025-2026 for a period of 120 days.

Experimental animals and design

A total of 24 crossbred heifers were selected for the experiment. The animals were divided into two housing treatments with three replications (four heifers per replication). The treatments were: T₁-Conventional housing system T₂-Loose housing system The animals were allotted on the basis of average body weight and age. The experimental groups were maintained under comparable feeding and general management conditions during the experimental period.

Housing systems

Under conventional housing, the animals were maintained in individual tie-stall arrangements and were tied with a neck chain except during shed cleaning. Green and dry fodder were offered twice daily, while water was provided three times during 24 hours. Under loose housing, animals were maintained in a system consisting of a shaded roofed area and an open area. A common feeding manger and water trough were provided.

Green and dry fodder were available throughout the day, and the animals were allowed freedom of movement between the open and shaded areas.

Feeding management

The experimental animals were fed according to ICAR feeding standards based on body weight and nutrient requirements. The ration consisted of chickpea straw, soybean straw, hybrid napier, silage and concentrate mixture. Feed quantity was adjusted according to the dry matter requirement of the animals.

Measurement of feed consumption

Chaffed green and dry fodder was weighed before being offered to the animals. Feed was offered twice daily at 08:00 and 17:00 hours, while the predetermined quantity of concentrate mixture was offered at 10:00 hours. The leftover feed was collected and weighed the following morning. Actual daily feed consumption was calculated as the difference between feed offered and feed leftover. Feed consumption was recorded throughout the 120-day experimental period.

Assessment of body performance

Live body weight of individual heifers was recorded at the beginning of the experiment and subsequently at 30, 60, 90 and 120 days. Body weight was recorded in the morning before feeding and watering using a digital weighing balance and expressed in kilograms. Body weight gain was calculated as: Body weight gain (kg) = Final body weight -Initial body weight Body length was measured from the point of shoulder to the point of hip. Chest girth was measured as the circumference immediately behind the shoulder, while body height was measured from ground level to the highest point of the withers. Body measurements were expressed in centimetres.

Statistical analysis

The experimental observations were analysed using the statistical procedure adopted in the study for comparison of the two housing treatments. Treatment differences were interpreted using the standard error of mean and critical difference at the 5 percent level of significance.

Results and Discussion

Effect of housing system on feed consumption

Feed consumption increased progressively with advancement of the experimental period in both housing systems. In conventional housing, mean feed intake increased from 14.10 kg/day/heifer initially to 15.82 kg/day/heifer at 120 days. In loose housing, it increased from 14.58 to 16.93 kg/day/heifer over the same period. The differences between the treatments were not significant during the initial observation periods. However, at 120 days, loose-housed heifers recorded significantly higher feed consumption than conventionally housed heifers, with a critical difference of 1.011 kg/day. The findings suggest that housing conditions may influence voluntary feed consumption. The greater freedom of movement and availability of feed throughout the day in the loose housing system may have contributed to the higher intake observed at the end of the experimental period. Similar findings were reported by Jat et al (2021) [5] .

Effect of housing system on live body weight

Live body weight increased progressively in both housing systems. The mean body weight of heifers under conventional housing increased from 226.92 kg initially to 254.17 kg at 120 days, whereas in loose housing it increased from 231.52 kg to 271.00 kg. The differences in body weight were not significant during the earlier observations, whereas a significant difference was observed at 120 days. Loose-housed heifers therefore attained a higher final body weight than conventionally housed animals. The higher final body weight may partly be associated with the greater feed consumption recorded under loose housing. Similar results were described by Gautam Kumar and Siddiqui (2012) [3] .

Effect on body weight gain and average daily gain

Body weight gain is an important indicator of growth performance (Cost et al. 2016) [2] . During the 120-day experimental period, heifers maintained under conventional housing gained 28.00 kg/heifer, corresponding to an average daily gain of 233.33 g/day. In contrast, loose-housed heifers gained 37.83 kg/heifer, with an average daily gain of 315.25 g/day. [7,4] .

Effect on chest girth

Chest girth also increased progressively in both housing systems. In conventional housing, the mean chest girth increased from 150.87 to 156.63 cm, while in loose housing it increased from 151.67 to 159.17 cm during the 120-day period. The higher chest girth observed in loose-housed heifers during the later stages corresponded with their higher body weight and body weight gain. Progressive increase in chest girth in both groups indicates continued body development during the experimental period. The increase in body height in both treatments indicates normal skeletal growth. Although the differences in body height were comparatively small, loose-housed heifers generally recorded higher values during the experimental period.

Effect on body height

Overall Discussion

The results of the present study demonstrate a favourable numerical response of crossbred heifers maintained under loose housing in terms of both feed consumption and body performance. Feed consumption increased in both systems as the animals grew, but the increase was greater under loose housing, particularly at the final observation. The higher feed intake under loose housing was accompanied by higher final body weight and greater body weight gain. Loose-housed heifers gained 37.83 kg during the 120-day experimental period compared with 28.00 kg under conventional housing. The average daily gain was also higher in loose housing (315.25 g/day) than in conventional housing (233.33 g/day) (Jat et al., 2021; Pempek et al. 2016) [5,8] . The improvement in body performance under loose housing may be related to the greater freedom of movement, availability of open and shaded areas and opportunity for normal feeding and resting behaviour. The study document also indicates that loose housing provided comparatively favourable conditions for growth and performance of the heifers.

The progressive increases in body length, chest girth and body height in both treatments further demonstrate normal physical development. The comparatively higher values recorded under loose housing, particularly at the later observations, were consistent with the greater body weight gain observed in this treatment.

Conclusion

The present study revealed that both conventional and loose housing systems significantly influenced feed consumption and body performance of crossbred heifers during the 120day experimental period. Feed consumption increased progressively in both conventional and loose housing systems, significantly higher feed intake at 120 days was recorded in heifers under loose housing. The significant higher final body weight, body weight gain and average daily gain was also recorded under loose housing system. The total body weight, body length, chest girth and body height increased progressively in both housing systems, with comparatively higher values generally observed under loose housing.

Based on the observations of the present study, the loose housing system showed better overall feed consumption and body growth performance than the conventional housing system for crossbred heifers under the conditions of the experiment. Further studies involving larger animal populations and different agro-climatic conditions may help to confirm these findings.

References

1. Bewley JM, Robertson LM, Eckelkamp EA. A 100year review: lactating dairy cattle housing management. Journal of Dairy Science. 2017;100:10418-10431.
2. Costa JHC, von Keyserlingk MAG, Weary DM. Housing system may affect behavior and growth performance of Jersey heifer calves. Journal of Dairy Science. 2016;99:569-578.
3. Gautam Kumar, Siddiqui MF. Comparative performance of Red Kandhari calves in loose versus conventional housing system [MVSc thesis]. Nagpur: Maharashtra Animal & Fishery Sciences University; 2012.
4. Heinrichs AJ, Lascano GJ, Ishler VA. Assessing the effects of nutrition and management on dairy heifer growth and development. Journal of Dairy Science. 2017;100:8347-8354.
5. Jat M, Jat RP, Bhateshwar V, Paswan VK, Nehra HL. Gir calves growth performance, feed intake and microclimate variation under different housing modification system during winter season. Indian Journal of Dairy Science. 2021.
6. Linstädt P, et al. Review: a systematic review of dairy cow health, welfare, and behaviour in year-round loose range housing. Animal. 2025;19:101411.
7. Nalon E, Stevenson P. Invited review: the welfare of dairy cattle housed in tie stalls compared to lessrestrictive housing types: a systematic review. Journal of Dairy Science. 2021;104:9383-9417.
8. Pempek JA, Eastridge ML, Swartzwelder SS, Daniels KM, Yohe TT. Housing system may affect behavior and growth performance of Jersey heifer calves. Journal of Dairy Science. 2016;99:569-578. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10088.