|
|
1. Digestive system
of goats
|
Since the goat is a small ruminant its dry matter requirements would be less. Therefore it
may not be necessary to fill the rumen with substantial quantity of feed material to
maintain the rumen motility. Frequent and intermittent feeding would suffice the rumen
dry matter requirement and keep the rumen motility at the optimum level. In fact the new
approach tries to bypass nutrients from rumen degradation, as it is necessary to control
the nutrient wastage through rumen fermentation. |
|
|
2. Nutritional requirements
in goats
|
The nutritional requirements of goats are estimated in terms of DCP and TDN. In fact the
nutrients are amino acids, fatty acids, glucose, vitamins and minerals. Therefore the
estimation of nutrients based on apparent digestibility's
may not be prudent. Often the
dry matter requirements are worked out roughly on the basis of body weight. Recent
advances in animal nutrition elucidate the protein and energy requirements in view of
rumen fermentation (see Roy et al 1978). In the normal feeding system where the fodder
dry matter is the major component the availability of nutrients depends upon the
fermentation end products. Further more the nutrient losses are phenomenal owing to
protein degradation and starch fermentation resulting in the production of ammonia,
methane, carbon-di-oxide and heat.
In view of the above an experimental feed was produced to estimate the nutrients
requirements against the body weight changes. The observations are shown as table 1. It
is evident from the data that DM requirements are not related to the body weight alone. It
is rather depended upon the digestibility and the availability of digestible end products.
Another interesting observation is that the prop ionic
acid availability was more in comparison with normal rumen fermentation. The use of bypass protein in the
experimental feed has given more of amino acid availability for growth. Also the
availability of glucose is more. This has resulted in the formulation of a new broiler goat
feed.
|
|
|
|
Table 1. Nutrients estimated in the new regimen at different levels of growth in
goat lings.
|
| Sr.
No. |
Nutrients
(Estimated) |
Body Weights (kg) |
|
Grams |
5 |
10 |
15 |
20 |
25 |
30 |
| 1 |
Dry matter |
180 |
270 |
360 |
450 |
540 |
675 |
| 2 |
Protein |
42 |
63 |
84 |
105 |
126 |
158 |
| 3 |
Met
Protein |
23.5 |
35.3 |
47.1 |
58.8 |
70.6 |
88.5 |
| 4 |
Fat |
10 |
15 |
20 |
25 |
30 |
38 |
| 5 |
Fibre |
24 |
36 |
48 |
60 |
72 |
90 |
| 6 |
NFE |
112 |
168 |
224 |
280 |
336 |
420 |
| 7 |
ME(MJ) |
2.1 |
3.2 |
4.2 |
5.2 |
6.3 |
7.9 |
| 8 |
TVFA
(Mol) |
0.9 |
1.4 |
1.8 |
2.3 |
2.7 |
3.4 |
| 9 |
HAc
(Mol) |
0.5 |
0.7 |
0.9 |
1.1 |
1.4 |
1.7 |
| 10 |
HPr
(Mol) |
0.4 |
0.5 |
0.7 |
0.9 |
1.1 |
1.4 |
| 11 |
Glucose |
32.5 |
48.8 |
65.1 |
81.3 |
91.6 |
122 |
|
|
|
|
NFE Nitrogen Free Extract, ME Metabolisible energy, MJ Mega Joule, TVFA Total
Volatile fatty Acids HAc-Acetic acid, HPr-Propionic acid.
|
|
|
3. Possibilities for rumen manipulation
|
|
|
In the traditional feeding system the fermentation end products are seen as
follows (estimated):
| Dry matter digestibility |
50% |
| Protein degradability |
75% |
| ATP(Y ATP) |
8 |
| Acetic acid |
65% |
| propionic acid |
15% |
| The ration given to those animals kept under stall feeding is shown below |
| Jackfruit tree leaves |
2 kg |
| Rice gruel |
2 liter |
| The estimated nutrients availability from the above regimen is shown as table 2 |
|
|
Table 2. Estimated nutrient availability from the traditional feeding regimen.
|
| Sr.
No. |
Moieties |
Grams |
| 1 |
Protein |
40 |
| 2 |
Met.Protein |
22 |
| 3 |
TVFA(Mol) |
1.99 |
| 4 |
Acetic
acid(Mol) |
1.3 |
| 5 |
Propionic
acid(Mol) |
0.3 |
| 6 |
Glucose (gm) |
26.91 |
|
|
|
The estimated nutrient availability from the traditional feeding regimen was compared
with the experimental feeding regimen (Refer table 1.) It is evident that the nutrient
availability is higher in the experimental feeding regimen, hence the growth rate was
better.
The nutrients in the traditional feeding cannot support growth rate normally. The
condition becomes sever when goats are on grazing. Therefore, in the new feeding
regimen it was aimed at restricting the rumen fermentation in order to
minimize the nutrient losses and to bypass the protein and lipids for maximum availability of nutrients
for growth.
|
|
|
4. Alternate arrangements for grazing of
goats
|
|
|
Broiler goat feed was developed in order to rear goats in cages.
The above feed contains Cereals, oil cakes,
protein meals, bran, molasses, minerals and vitamins. No hormone or steroids are incorporated
Goat House.
While feeding the new feed the grazing was completely stopped. For that purpose, a goat
house was designed. The measurements of the cage are given below: |
|
|
| No of goats caged |
30 |
| Total area |
30
sq. meter |
| Length |
6 meter |
| Width |
5 meter. |
|
|
|
The cage had a raised platform at a height of 5 feet. The platform was made out of reapers
leaving a space of 1 inch in between to facilitate the easy falling of dung and urine. The
height above the platform was 5 feet and was netted with I inch mesh. |
|
|
|
 
|
|
The lay out of the cage is shown above. The floor of the cage was cemented so that the
daily cleaning of dung and urine could be done. Also the dung which is a good fertilizer
could be collected and stored for sale in future. This could also
minimize the release of ammonia which is harmful to the caged goats’ health. The roof of the cage was made out
of asbestos sheets. |
|
|
|
Feed
and water was kept in a separate feeder so
as to make it available to goats round the
clock. The movement of the animals thus
restricted thereby minimizing the nutrients
requirements for walking. Keeping in cages
also protected them from possible disease
problems. In order to keep up the blood
circulation the goats were massaged and
groomed daily. |
|
|
5. New husbandry practices in goat farming
in India
|
Following management practices were carried out to keep goats healthy and grow fast.
1. Kids of 2-3 months old were selected
2. Dipped in 0.5% malthion lotion before entering in the cage.
3. All kids were de-wormed with Prazi plus tablets (half tablet per
goat ling)
4. Brushed and massaged daily.
5. Floor and platform were cleaned daily.
6. Kids were not washed any more.
7. No visitor was allowed into the cage.
8. No fodder of feed other than new feed was offered.
9. Body weights were recorded fortnightly. |
|
|
6. Better growth response to offset the cost of feeding
|
|
|
|
In order to estimate the response on growth rate a feeding trial was carried out. 20 kids of
2.3 to 3 months old where grouped into 2 groups of 10 kids each. All the kids were
de-wormed by using “Prazi plus”. They were also dipped in 0.5% malathion lotion, dried and
kept in a separate goat home. Group 1 was offered Broiler goat feed and group 2 was
given jack fruit leaves and rice gruel. The feeding trial was carried out for a period of 3
months. The total feed consumption for both groups and its economics are shown as table
6.Body weights were recorded fortnightly. The results are shown as table 4 and 5.
The feed was produced in a modern feed plant in the form of 6
mm pellets. |
|
|
|
Table 4. average growth rate recorded in 10 kids reared as per the new feeding
regimen. |
|
BODY
WEIGHTS AT FORTNIGHTS (KG) |
| Kids |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
Average
per day (GMs) |
| 1 |
5 |
8 |
15 |
21 |
25 |
30 |
0.28 |
| 2 |
5.5 |
9 |
16.5 |
22 |
25.6 |
31 |
0.28 |
| 3 |
4.5 |
8 |
14 |
20.5 |
26 |
30 |
0.28 |
| 4 |
6 |
10 |
16 |
23 |
28 |
35 |
0.32 |
| 5 |
5 |
9 |
15 |
22 |
26 |
32 |
0.30 |
| 6 |
6 |
11 |
17 |
24 |
28 |
34 |
0.31 |
| 7 |
5 |
9 |
15 |
23 |
27 |
31 |
0.28 |
| 8 |
4.5 |
8.5 |
14 |
20.5 |
26 |
30 |
0.28 |
| 9 |
5 |
9 |
14 |
23 |
25 |
29 |
0.27 |
| 10 |
5 |
10 |
14.5 |
23 |
27 |
31 |
0.29 |
| Mean |
5.15 |
9.15 |
15.10 |
22.00 |
26.36 |
31.30 |
0.29 |
| Std
Dev |
±
0.53 |
±0.94 |
±
1.07 |
±
1.22 |
±
1.10 |
±
1.89 |
±
0.02 |
|
|
|
|
Table
5. Average growth rate recorded in 10 kids
reared as per the traditional feeding. |
| Kids |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
Average
growth
per
day
(gm) |
| 1 |
5.0 |
5.5 |
6.2 |
7.5 |
9.0 |
9.5 |
0.05 |
| 2 |
5.5 |
5.5 |
6.5 |
8 |
9.2 |
10 |
0.05 |
| 3 |
5.5 |
6.2 |
7.5 |
8.0 |
8.7 |
9.2 |
0.04 |
| 4 |
6.0 |
6.5 |
7.3 |
8.1 |
9.7 |
11.0 |
0.05 |
| 5 |
4.5 |
4.5 |
5.0 |
5.6 |
7 |
8 |
0.04 |
| 6 |
4.5 |
5 |
5.3 |
6.1 |
7 |
7.8 |
0.04 |
| 7 |
4.5 |
5 |
5.7 |
7.5 |
8 |
9 |
0.05 |
| 8 |
4.5 |
4.9 |
5.4 |
7 |
8.1 |
9 |
0.05 |
| 9 |
5.0 |
5.3 |
6.2 |
7.3 |
8 |
8.5 |
0.04 |
| 10 |
5.0 |
5.5 |
6.4 |
7.6 |
8.2 |
9 |
0.04 |
| Mean |
5 |
5.4 |
6.2 |
7.3 |
8.3 |
9.1 |
0.05 |
| Std.
Dev. |
±0.5 |
±0.6 |
±0.8 |
±0.8 |
±0.9 |
±0.9 |
±0.01 |
|
|
|
|
The growth rate noticed in the new feeding regimen was three times more than the
traditional feeding. |
|
|
|
RESPONSE
ON BODY GROWTH IN KIDS
WITH
NEW AND TRADITIONAL FEEDING REGIMEN |
|
|
|
FORTNIGHTS |
|
Results. |
|
At
the end of three months trial, the group
that was given Broiler goat feed attained an
average of 31.3 kg body weight where as the
group that was given traditional feeds
accomplished only an average body weight of
9.1 kg. It is noticed that the goats in the
new feeding regimen almost achieved their
adult body weight in 6 months time. |
|
|
|
Techno
- Economics. |
|
The
results of the trial suggested the economic
advantages for the new system. the details
are shown as table 6. |
|
|
|
Table
6. Economic advantages on the new feeding
system over the traditional system. |
| GROUP |
BROILER
GOAT FEED
(KG) |
JACKFRUIT
TREE LEAVES
(KG) |
RICE
GRUEL (LTRS) |
COST(Rs) |
COST
PER
KG BODY GROWTH |
| NEW
FEED |
45 |
NIL |
NIL |
270 |
10.8 |
|
TRADITIONAL
L FEED |
NIL |
180 |
180 |
360 |
36 |
|
|
|
|
It is worth noticing that as per the new feeding regimen Chevon can be produced much
cheaper than the traditional feeding system. The requirement of feed for one kg body
weight was noticed as 2 kg. against 8 kg in ruminants. The above figure is almost equal to
the chicken. However, the cost of chicken feed is one and half more than the goat feed. |
|
Therefore the feed cost for one kg chicken production would come around Rs 18/-
against Rs 10.8 for chevon. |
|
|
|
Comparison
of feed cost against meat production cost in
chicken and goat. |
|
|
Looking to the tremendous production potential for chevon it is worth considering to put
significant efforts on it.
|
REFERENCES
1. Devendra, C. 1979. Goat and sheep production potential in the
ASIAN region. World Anim. Rev. 32:33.
2. Food and Agriculture Organization. 1979. Production year book
FAO. Rome, Italy.
3. Sands, M. and R.E. Mc Dowell. 1979. The potential of the goat for milk production in
the tropics. Cornell Int. Agri. Mimeo 60.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
