Submitted:
11 February 2025
Posted:
13 February 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Animals and Housing
2.2. Feeding Management
2.3. Feeding Analyses
2.4. Performance Measurements
2.5. Behavioral Observations
2.6. Blood Chemicals and Hormone Analyses
2.7. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Live Weight and Feed Intake
3.2. Behavior
3.1. Blood Chemicals and Hormone Analyses
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Van Soest, P.J. Nutritional Ecology of Ruminants. 2nd Edition, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, London, 1994; p.476. [CrossRef]
- Yurtman, İ.Y.; Savaş, T.; Karaağaç, F.; Coşkuntuna, L. Effect of daily protein intake levels on the oral stereotypic behaviours in energy restrcited lambs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2002, 77, 77–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chishti, M.F.A.; Rahman, M.A.U.; Jatta, K.; Khan, S.; Riaz, M.; Bilal, Q.; Anwar, U.; Ahmad, S.; Bajwa, H.M.; Rasul, F. Effect of forage to concentrate ratio on growth performance and feeding behavior of Thalli lambs. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2022, 21, 54(4): 236. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Demba, S.; Rose, S. Changes in amount and length of periods of stereotypic behavior in Jersey cows with and without access to pasture. Front. Anim. Sci. 2023, 4:1148523. [CrossRef]
- Hobson, P.N.; Stewart, C.S. The rumen microbial ecosystem. Springer Science & Business Media. 1988; p.527.
- Jaramillo-López, E.; Itza-Ortiz, M.F.; Peraza-Mercado, G.; Carrera-Chávez, J.M. Ruminal acidosis: strategies for its control. Austral J. Vet. Sci. 2017, 49(3), 139–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meot, F.; Cirio, A.; Boivin, R. Parotid secretion daily patterns and measurement with ultrasonic flow probes in conscious sheep. Exp. Physiol. 1997, 82, 905–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sauvant, D.; Meschy, F.; Mertens, D. Components of ruminal acidosis and acidogenic effects of diets. INRA Productions Animales 1999, 12, 49–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooper, J.J.; Emmans, G.A.; Friggens, N.C. Effect of diet on behaviour of individually penned sheep. Anim. Prod. 1994, 58, 441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Redbo, I.; Nordblad, A. 1997. Stereotypies in heifers are affected by feeding regime. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1997, 53, 193–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mialon, M.M.; Martin, C.; Garcia, F.; Menassol, J.B.; Dubroeucq, H.; Veissier, I.; Micol, D. Effects of the forage-to-concentrate ratio of the diet on feding behaviour in young Blond d’Aquitaine bulls. Animal 2008, 2(11), 1682–1691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mason, G.; Latham, N. Can't stop, won't stop: Is stereotypy a reliable animal welfare indicator? Animal Welfare, 2004, 13(S1), S57-S69. [CrossRef]
- Rushen, J.; Mason, G. A decade-or-more’s progress in understanding stereotypic behaviour. In: Mason, G., Rushen, J. (Ed.), Stereotypic animal behaviour: fundamentals and applications to welfare, 2nd edition, CABI. 2006. [CrossRef]
- Liu, H.; Xu, T.; Xu, S.; Ma, L.; Han, X.; Wang, X.; Zhang, X.; Hu, L.; Zhao, N.; Chen, Y.; Pi, L.; Zhao, X. Effect of dietary concentrate to forage ratio on growth performance, rumen fermentation and bacterial diversity of Tibetan sheep under barn feeding on the Qinghai-Tibetan plateau. Peer J. 2019, 7, e7462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thakur, T.; Mohini, M.; Malik, T.A.; Howal, S.; Varun, T.K.; Madavi, A.; Yadev, R.D.; Mondal, G.; Datt, C. Performance of crossbred goat kids fed with diets varying in concentrate-to-forage ratio: intake, nutrient utilization, enteric methane emission and body weight changes. Biol. Rhythm Res. 2021, 52, 1334–1341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aguayo-Ulloa, L.A.; Pascual-Alonso, M.; Villarroel, M.; Olleta, J.L.; Miranda-de la Lama, G.C.; Maria, G.A. Effect of including double bunks and straw on behaviour, stress response production performance and meat quality in feedlot lambs. Small Rumin. Res. 2015, 130, 236–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- NRC. Nutrient requirements of small ruminants, National Research Council of the National Academies, Washington, DC, 5. 2007; pp. 69-577.
- AOAC. Protein (crude) in animal feed combustion method 990. 03. In: “Official Methods of Analysis”. First supplement to the15th ed. Arlington, VA, USA: AOAC International; 1990; pp. 18-9.
- Van Soest, P.J.; Robertson, J.B.; Lewis, B.A. Method for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and nostarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci. 1991, 74, 3583–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kirchgessner, M.; Kellner, R.J.; Roth, F.X.; Ranfft, K. For estimating the feed value using crude fiber and the cell wall fractions of the detergent analysis. Landwirtsch. Forsch. 1977, 30, 245–50. [Google Scholar]
- Tölü, C.; Göktürk, S.; Savaş, T. Effects of housing environment on social isolation response, weaning stress, and immune reaction in goat kids. Turk. J Vet. Anim. Sci. 2017, 41, 635–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- SAS. Statistical Analysis System SAS/STAT Software Version 9.0. SAS Institute, Cary, NC. 2002.
- Rahman, M.A.U.; Xia, C.Q.; Su, H.W.; Cao, B.H. Effects of hay grass level and its physical form (full length vs. chopped) on standing time, drinking time, and social behavior of calves. J Vet. Behav. 2017, 21,7-12. [CrossRef]
- Downey, B.C.; Jensen, M.B.; Tucker, C.B. Hay provision affects 24-h performance of normal and abnormal oral behaviors in individually housed dairy calves. J Dairy Sci. 2022, 105(5), 4434–4448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maekawa, M.; Beauchemin, K.A.; Christensen, D.A. Effect of concentrate level and feeding management on chewing activities, saliva production, and ruminal pH of lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2002, 85(5), 1165–1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Desnoyers, M.; Duvaux-Ponter, C.; Rigalma, K.; Roussel, S.; Martin, O.; Giger-Reverdin, S. Effect of concentrate percentage on ruminal pH and time-budget in dairy goats. Animal 2008, 2(12), 1802–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montoro, C.; Miller-Cushon, E.K.; DeVries, T.J.; Bach, A. Effect of physical form of forage on performance, feeding behavior, and digestibility of Holstein calves. J. Dairy Sci. 2013, 96:1117–1124. [CrossRef]
- Rahman, M.A.U.; Chuanqi, X.; Linbao, J.; Binghai, C.; Cao, B.; Huawei, S. Nutrient intake, feeding patterns and abnormal behavior of growing bulls fed different concentrate levels and a single fiber source (corn stover silage). J Vet. Behav. 2019, 33, 46–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bergeron, R.; Badnell-Waters, A.J.; Lambton, S.; Mason, G. Stereotypic oral behaviour in captive ungulates: Foraging, diet and gatrointestinal function. In Stereotypic Animal Behaviour. Fundamentals and Applications to Welfare, 2nd Ed.; Mason, G., Rushen, J., Eds.; CABI:Wallingford, UK, 2006; pp. 19-57.
- Schneider, L.; Kemper, N.; Spindler, B. Stereotypic behavior in fattening bulls. Animals (Basel) 2019, 10(1), 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Redbo, I. Changes in duration and frequency of stereotypies and their adjoining behaviours in heifers, before, during and after the grazing period. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1990, 26, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, S.; Wei, J.; Yu, H.; Hao, X.; Zuo, J.; Tan, C.; Deng, J. Effects of dietary fiber sources during gestation on stress status, abnormal behaviors and reproductive performance of sows. Animals (Basel) 2020, 10(1), 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
- Oh, S.; Hosseindoust, A.; Ha, S.; Moturi, J.; Mun, J.; Tajudeen, H.; Kim, J. Metabolic responses of dietary fiber during heat stress: effects on reproductive performance and stress level of gestating sows. Metabolites 2022, 12(4), 280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kanjanapruthipong, J. , Thaboot, B. Effects of neutral detergent fiber from rice straw on blood metabolites and productivity of dairy cows in the Tropics Center. Anim. Biosci. 2006, 19(3), 356–362. [Google Scholar]
- Hanis, F.; Chung, E.L.; Kamalludin, M.H.; Idrus, Z. Discovering the relationship between dietary nutrients and cortisol and ghrelin hormones in horses exhibiting oral stereotypic behaviors: A review. J Vet. Behav. 2020, 39, 90–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]



| Feeds | DM | CP | NDF | ADF | ADL | EE | CF | OM | Ash | ME |
| Alfalfa | 923.3 | 176.4 | 551.3 | 319.1 | 92.8 | 26.6 | 226.3 | 831.4 | 91.9 | 2.06 |
| Concentrate | 932.5 | 166.5 | 326.9 | 100.6 | 25.5 | 32.1 | 75.1 | 864.4 | 68.1 | 2.88 |
| Animals | Group | 20:80 | 60:40 | 80:20 | ||
| Items | LSM | LSM | LSM | SEM | P | |
| Lambs | Initial LW, kg | 33.48 | 33.76 | 33.51 | 1.02 | 0.9775 |
| Final LW, kg | 37.13 | 36.81 | 35.96 | 1.06 | 0.7293 | |
| LW gain, kg | 3.65a | 3.05ab | 2.45b | 0.35 | 0.0932 | |
| Gain rate, % | 11.08a | 8.97ab | 7.35b | 1.17 | 0.1130 | |
| DMI, kg | 47.10 | 46.45 | 46.75 | 1.50 | 0.9548 | |
| FCR | 14.49 | 15.98 | 20.23 | 2.21 | 0.1970 | |
| Goat-kids | Initial LW, kg | 19.96 | 19.78 | 19.81 | 1.11 | 0.9924 |
| Final LW, kg | 21.81 | 20.16 | 20.50 | 1.05 | 0.5217 | |
| LW gain, kg | 1.85a | 0.38b | 0.68b | 0.31 | 0.0113 | |
| Gain rate, % | 9.54a | 2.13b | 3.72b | 1.66 | 0.0161 | |
| DMI, kg | 28.76 | 26.92 | 26.30 | 1.49 | 0.4947 | |
| FCR | 18.20 | 22.71 | 17.82 | 6.75 | 0.8514 |
| Animals | Group | 20:80 | 60:40 | 80:20 | ||
| Items | LSM | LSM | LSM | SEM | P value | |
| Lambs | F:C, % | 19.97a | 57.43b | 78.29c | 0.25 | <0.0001 |
| WI, kg/day | 4.08 | 3.92 | 3.88 | 0.23 | 0.8081 | |
| DMI, g/day | 1309.7 | 1291.7 | 1299.9 | 10.23 | 0.4580 | |
| TDMI (g/kg W 0.75/d) | 541.7 | 534.8 | 538.9 | 4.05 | 0.4761 | |
| OMI, g/day | 1123.2a | 1092.3b | 1089.9b | 8.68 | 0.0105 | |
| CPI, g/day | 241.9a | 243.9ab | 248.7b | 1.92 | 0.0381 | |
| EEI, g/day | 40.6a | 37.4b | 36.1c | 0.30 | <0.0001 | |
| CFI, g/day | 139.4a | 208.1b | 252.0c | 1.70 | <0.0001 | |
| NDFI, g/day | 489.1a | 587.1b | 654.1c | 4.63 | <0.0001 | |
| ADFI, g/day | 191.1a | 290.5b | 353.9c | 2.39 | <0.0001 | |
| TEI, ME/day | 3.55a | 3.12b | 2.91c | 0.02 | <0.0001 | |
| Goat-kids | F:C, % | 19.51a | 58.14b | 78.25c | 0.19 | <0.0001 |
| WI, kg/day | 3.31a | 3.26a | 2.33b | 0.28 | 0.0472 | |
| DMI, g/day | 803.2a | 748.6b | 731.4b | 8.44 | <0.0001 | |
| TDMI (g/kg W 0.75/d) | 376.1a | 356.0b | 346.7b | 3.46 | <0.0001 | |
| OMI, g/day | 689.1a | 632.7b | 613.2c | 7.15 | <0.0001 | |
| CPI, g/day | 148.2a | 141.5b | 139.9c | 1.58 | 0.0005 | |
| EEI, g/day | 24.9a | 21.6b | 20.3c | 0.24 | <0.0001 | |
| CFI, g/day | 83.9a | 122.3b | 141.8c | 1.35 | <0.0001 | |
| NDFI, g/day | 297.6a | 342.8b | 368.0c | 3.78 | <0.0001 | |
| ADFI, g/day | 114.9a | 170.8b | 199.1c | 1.90 | <0.0001 | |
| TEI, ME/day | 2.18a | 1.80b | 1.64c | 0.02 | <0.0001 |
| Animals | Behaviors % | Group | |||
| 20:80 | 60:40 | 80:20 | P value | ||
| Lambs | Lying | 59.03±1.29a | 50.97±1.31b | 39.44±1.28c | 0.0154 |
| Standing | 11.11±0.82 | 8.33±0.72 | 7.29±0.68 | 0.4689 | |
| Forage feeding | 5.83±0.61a | 16.94±0.98b | 22.29±1.09c | 0.0036 | |
| Concentrate feeding | 7.50±0.69 | 2.29±0.39 | 3.89±0.50 | 0.3680 | |
| Rumination | 10.07±0.79a | 16.25±0.97b | 22.99±1.10c | 0.0059 | |
| Moving | 3.26±0.46 | 2.43±0.40 | 1.88±0.35 | 0.2138 | |
| Abnormal stereotypic | 3.19±0.46 | 2.78±0.43 | 2.22±0.38 | 0.5686 | |
| Goat-kids | Lying | 42.08±1.30 | 45.42±1.31 | 41.46±1.29 | 0.5534 |
| Standing | 19.79±1.05a | 11.11±0.82b | 10.83±0.81b | 0.0172 | |
| Forage feeding | 8.47±0.73a | 14.31±0.92b | 18.89±1.03c | 0.0073 | |
| Concentrate feeding | 8.19±0.72a | 5.69±0.61ab | 4.51±0.54b | 0.0446 | |
| Rumination | 6.11±0.63a | 13.13±0.89b | 15.28±0.94b | 0.0091 | |
| Moving | 5.90±0.62 | 4.17±0.52 | 3.82±0.50 | 0.2552 | |
| Abnormal stereotypic | 9.44±0.77 | 6.18±0.63 | 5.21±0.58 | 0.2822 | |
| Animals | Behaviors, times | Group (G) | |||
| 20:80 | 60:40 | 80:20 | P | ||
| Lambs | Bar bating | 5.86±1.36a | 3.06±0.57b | 2.83±0.84b | 0.0430 |
| Crib biting | 1.56±0.35a | 0.80±0.25b | 0.60±0.18b | 0.0263 | |
| Bucket biting | 2.73±0.82 | 2.36±0.54 | 2.43±0.64 | 0.9741 | |
| Wool-biting | 2.76±1.01a | 1.03±0.51b | 0.30±0.14b | 0.0235 | |
| Chain chewing | 0.86±0.63 | 0.16±0.08 | 0.13±0.09 | 0.3715 | |
| Forage crumbs manipulation | 5.33±0.95 | 6.83±1.41 | 8.50±1.36 | 0.2088 | |
| Pawing | 2.46±0.97 | 1.50±0.50 | 1.63±0.80 | 0.6569 | |
| Social contact | 2.56±0.58 | 2.03±0.37 | 1.60±0.48 | 0.2272 | |
| Bipedal stance | 1.33±0.49 | 1.20±0.33 | 2.46±0.83 | 0.3330 | |
| Grooming | 12.10±1.41 | 8.96±1.11 | 9.10±1.29 | 0.1137 | |
| Lying | 9.46±0.61a | 7.80±0.54b | 6.63±0.65b | 0.0026 | |
| Rumination | 20.56±2.03a | 29.60±3.44b | 37.66±3.40c | 0.0004 | |
| Drinking water | 6.26±0.97a | 3.13±0.54b | 3.80±0.71b | 0.0034 | |
| Goat-kids | Bar biting | 14.83±2.66a | 5.00±0.99b | 4.76±0.88b | <0.0001 |
| Crib biting | 8.83±2.17a | 3.43±0.59b | 2.73±0.52b | 0.0005 | |
| Bucket biting | 6.50±1.44a | 3.56±0.67b | 2.43±0.51b | 0.0121 | |
| Wool-biting | 1.23±0.40 | 2.36±0.71 | 1.76±0.65 | 0.3582 | |
| Chain chewing | 9.66±2.77a | 0.86±0.37b | 0.70±0.28b | <0.0001 | |
| Forage crumbs manipulation | 9.90±1.13 | 14.46±1.76 | 13.30±2.19 | 0.2422 | |
| Pawing | 1.33±0.42 | 0.83±0.32 | 1.73±0.93 | 0.6284 | |
| Social contact | 4.96±1.23 | 2.76±0.55 | 2.76±0.61 | 0.1330 | |
| Bipedal stance | 16.96±2.46 | 18.00±2.21 | 17.13±1.50 | 0.8284 | |
| Grooming | 37.10±4.82a | 33.76±3.42a | 23.16±2.61b | 0.0286 | |
| Lying | 10.73±0.90 | 9.46±1.05 | 8.73±0.87 | 0.2406 | |
| Rumination | 11.73±1.71a | 26.06±3.16b | 29.63±2.67b | <0.0001 | |
| Drinking water | 7.53±1.30a | 5.00±0.48 ab | 4.36±0.68b | 0.0530 | |
| Animals | Group | |||||
| Items | 20:80 | 60:40 | 80:20 | SEM | P value | |
| Lambs | Glucose, mg/dL | 63.81 | 66.20 | 62.18 | 3.74 | 0.7494 |
| BUN, mg/dL | 16.19 | 15.97 | 15.97 | 0.14 | 0.4869 | |
| CK, U/L | 113.92 | 117.58 | 98.14 | 13.27 | 0.5425 | |
| NEFA, mmol/L | 0.22 | 0.22 | 0.19 | 0.02 | 0.4182 | |
| Cortisol, ng/ml | 17.93a | 19.06ab | 22.63b | 1.22 | 0.0477 | |
| Goat-kids | Glucose mg/dL | 71.58 | 75.18 | 72.89 | 2.11 | 0.3487 |
| BUN, mg/dL | 17.28 | 17.70 | 17.17 | 0.22 | 0.3967 | |
| CK, U/L | 78.42 | 77.96 | 81.36 | 8.93 | 0.8747 | |
| NEFA, mmol/L | 0.21 | 0.24 | 0.22 | 0.01 | 0.0681 | |
| Cortisol, ng/ml | 9.82a | 11.56ab | 15.05b | 1.59 | 0.0169 | |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
