Project Topics Seminar Topics Post UTME Nursing Exam Past Questions
Search Topic
PARKLYN
ERVICES
· RC: 2994849
Feeds and Feeding of Sheep and Goat

Feeds and Feeding of Sheep and Goat

@SparklynServices
WhatsApp Channel

DEDICATION

This research material, titled “Feeds and Feeding of Sheep and Goat” is dedicated to God for His boundless grace and guidance. It is also a tribute to all computer enthusiasts whose contributions made my research journey smoother and enriched my documentation process, making the experience truly fulfilling.




ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am profoundly grateful to everyone who contributed to the successful completion of this project. I am especially grateful to my Supervisor (Name), the Head of Department (Name), and the Lecturers in the Department of Agricultural Engineering (AE) for their invaluable guidance and support. I also acknowledge the contributions of authors and scholars whose works on Feeds and Feeding of Sheep and Goat provided essential insights. Special thanks go to my study area (and any funding organizations, if applicable) for their financial assistance. I am equally thankful to stakeholders, including mentors, teachers, and colleagues, for their encouragement and support. Finally, I deeply appreciate my family and friends for their patience and unwavering support throughout this journey. Your contributions have been instrumental in making this research a reality.




ABSTRACT

Comparisons were made between 24 Ethiopian rams and 24 Galla goats for voluntary intake, feed selectivity and growth performance when offered three levels of sorghum stover. The levels observed were 25,50 and 75 g/kg live weight per day. Measurements of intake, growth and feed selectivity were taken over a period of 10 weeks.
Both sheep and goats consumed more stover (P<0.001) as rate of offer was increased (22, 31, 32 gDM/kg live weight per day; 19,26,29 g/kg live weight per day, respectively, for sheep and goats). Increasing the level of offer beyond 50g/kg live weight per day did not, however, promote a substantial increase in intake. No difference (P>0.05) was observed in the pattern of feed selectivity between sheep and goats.

Both species showed a similar preference for leaf and sheath matter as the level of offer was increased.Sheep gained weight faster (P<0.001) than goats at all rates of offer, (28.0 vs 9.0; 54.0 vs 23.0; 62.0 vs 31.6 in favour of sheep). Those on a higher level of offer showed a faster rate of gain than those on a lower level of offer.

It was concluded that both species can benefit from generous offers and that the benefit, judged by improved intake and growth, is due to selective feeding.



Feeds and Feeding of Sheep and Goat


1.0 Introduction

Previous studies (Aboud et al, 1992) clearly indicate the value of selective feeding. Sheep were shown to perform better and consume more digestible matter through selective intake of leaf and sheath fractions of sorghum stover as a result of liberal offers. This observation is of practical value for small ruminants in the tropics because the traditional feeding systems depend largely on crop residues. However, there is little evidence in the literature that the approach adopted by Aboud et al (1992) would be as effective for goats as it was for sheep. Results from comparative studies between sheep and goats of selective efficiency are generally conflicting (Huston, 1978; Devendra and Bums, 1983). Goats in the tropics are more able than sheep to consume feed fractions of higher nutritional quality when offered the opportunity to eat selectively (Devendra and Burns, 1983; Hoppe et al, 1977; Huston, 1978).

This observation does not agree with studies carried out in temperate countries, where sheep have been shown to perform better than goats under most practical feeding systems. A comparative feeding and performance study on Small East African goats and the Red Maasai sheep in Tanzania (Shoo, 1986) was inconclusive, although sheep appeared to perform better than goats when offered a basal diet of Chlorisgayanahay with Leucaenaas a supplementary forage. However, observations in Shoo’s (1986) study did not include an assessment of selective feeding ability between the two species. The inclusion of a supplementary forage may have confounded the results, as it is known that goats would preferentially consume browse species (Lu, 1988). Most of the comparative studies in the tropics were made under grazing conditions, whereas those in the temperate countries involved comparisons under stall-feeding conditions in which feed was offered at restricted levels, usually at 35 g dry matter M(D)/kg live weight per day or to achieve 10-20% rate of refusal. Comparative studies under grazing or in stalls at restricted levels of offer may give misleading results (Demment and Van Soest, 1983). Restricted levels of offer do not usually provide sufficient opportunity for selective feeding (Aboud et al, 1993). This is particularly serious where low-quality crop residues are used in comparisons.

No performance comparison has been made between sheep and goats that have been fed untreated crop residues at levels that would allow selective intake. Alimon (1989) only measured the digestible organic matter (OM) intake of goats offered increasing levels of feed, but did not measure any related growth performance. Aboud et al (1993) showed that certain levels of offer encouraged sheep to eat selectively. By offering goats and sheep the same type of sorghum stover at these levels both species may perform similarly.

1.1 Objectives Of The Study

The general objective of the studies was to find better methods of feeding sugar cane and some protein-rich foliage species to get the highest feed intake and the best performance in small ruminants.

The specific objectives were:

  • To assess the effect of animal factors such as animal species(sheep and goats) and group size (single and group pens) on feed intake, behaviour and growth rate.
  • To test the effect of some feed factors such as
    • Processing method of sugar cane and Acacia foliage
    • Level of feed offered of sugar cane
    • Supplementation with concentrate
    • Method of presentation of foliage and mixtures of foliages
    • Utilization of bamboo charcoal to reduce the antinutritional effect of tannins in Acacia foliageon feed intake, behaviour and growth rate.
  • To identify the intake potential of sugar cane and three tropical foliage species by small ruminants.

CHAPTER TWO

2.0 Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

This chapter focuses on the review of related literature. A literature review includes the current knowledge as well as theoretical and methodological contributions to a particular topic. It documents the state of the art with respect to the topic you are writing. It surveys the literature in the topic selected. In this research work the literature review includes the conceputal review, theoretical framework, the review of related literature …

Procedure for Accessing and Downloading the Complete Material in PDF or DOCX Format

Above is a preview excerpt of the full study on “Feeds and Feeding of Sheep and Goat”. The complete material, including all five chapters, is available for download upon request.


To obtain the complete research material content, simply place an order by paying the specified project or seminar fee using the account details or electronic payment (E-payment) system provided below.


Seminar Material
₦3,000
Project Material
₦5,000

For Mobile Money (MoMo) and Researchers Outside Nigeria, Kindly Request Complete Material via WhatsApp.


Account Details - For USSD / POS Transfer

ACCT NAMESPARKLYN SERVICES
Zenith Bank PLC1222599051
MoniePoint (MFB)8030511988
Paycom (OPay)8030511988

–– or ––



After payment, send message containing your payment receipt to Sparklyn Services with the phone number displayed below.


Once payment is confirmed, the complete document will be delivered via WhatsApp or email in Microsoft Word (MS-Word) format.




You can get more research topics on Agricultural Engineering, if you did not see your preferred topic from the alternate list above.

Defense Procedure for Agricultural Engineering Researchers


In preparation for defending a project or seminar on Feeds and Feeding of Sheep and Goat, it is imperative that as a nursing student, you demonstrate comprehensive knowledge of your research. The defense process is structured to include presenting your work, answering questions, and illustrating its pertinence. Initially, provide a succinct yet thorough introduction to your research topic, emphasizing its importance and the objectives, ensuring that both the audience and the External Examiner can understand the scope of your study.


Prior to your defense, be thoroughly acquainted with your research abstract and the critical elements of Chapter One, including motivation for embarking on this research, problem statement, objectives, and significance. In Chapter Two, be ready to cite at least two references from the literature review. For Chapter Three, you should be equipped to discuss the methodologies, tools, and techniques utilized. In Chapter Four, defend your research by justifying the findings and linking them to your research objectives.


Conclude your defense by succinctly summarizing the study and offering insightful, evidence-based recommendations. A professional dress code, such as wearing a suit and tie, is vital to create a favorable impression and elevate your presentation.


During the question and answer segment, the External Examiner may pose questions pertaining to your research. If confronted with a challenging or irrelevant question, respond diplomatically with, “Sorry, Sir/Madam, the question asked is beyond the scope of my study.” Whenever possible, direct your answers back to your research findings to reinforce your expertise.


Page Content Headings - Feeds and Feeding of Sheep and Goat

    Download Material (Docx)