VSRR_12_1

Introduction

Creep feeding is a method of supplementing the diet of young goat kids with concentrates or high-quality forage through controlled access (creep grazing). Young kids often experience restricted growth during the pre-weaning period due to competition for milk. Pre-weaning growth depends on both the dam’s milk and supplemental creep feed (Htoo et al., 2018). Creep feeding allows kids to access supplemental feed while restricting larger mature goats, enhancing nutrient intake and growth. This practice is particularly useful in intensive goat farming systems where early weaning is practiced, helping kids start feeding early and easing the transition from milk to dry feed (Zobel et al., 2024).

The goal of creep feeding is to promote adequate intake of palatable feed and provide all essential nutrients efficiently. It is part of accelerated kidding and early weaning management, increasing weight gain before weaning (Razali et al., 2019). Creep-fed kids reach market weight earlier and with greater daily weight gain, which can positively affect net profit. Additionally, creep feeding reduces weaning stress and supports the maturation of the gastrointestinal tract, improving overall growth performance (Huting et al., 2021).

Goats are well suited to harsh, arid environments due to their adaptability, efficient digestive system, and ability to produce high-quality protein in the form of milk and meat (Nair et al., 2021). However, the quality and quantity of natural grazing have declined, providing insufficient nutrients for optimal growth, highlighting the need for supplemental creep feed with appropriate protein and energy content. While creep feeding can enhance growth, careful attention is required to feed costs, weight gains, and market prices. Economical rations can be formulated using crop residues and unconventional feeds without compromising performance (Alhotan, 2021).

Despite these advantages, the growth performance and economic viability of traditional versus improved creep feeding systems under smallholder rural conditions remain poorly understood, representing a key research gap.

Objectives: This study aims to (i) evaluate available feed resources for smallholder farms to maximize benefits under limited conditions, (ii) identify affordable feed ingredients meeting the basic nutrient requirements of goat kids, and (iii) assess growth performance and economic returns under creep feeding practices. The study compares conventional creep feeding with traditional feeding practices, providing insights into both production performance and profitability.

Materials and Methods

Study design and execution

This study was conducted in Tando Allahyar District, Sindh, in collaboration with the AIK SATH Small Ruminants Project funded by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR). The six-month experimental trial involved goat kids aged 2–4 months. A preliminary community survey was carried out to assess health status and existing feeding practices. A total of 100 goat kids were randomly allocated into two groups: G1 (control, traditional feeding only) and G2 (treatment, traditional feeding supplemented with creep feeding). Each group consisted of five replicates with 10 goat kids per replicate, and replicates were included as the experimental unit. Housing consisted of standard smallholder farm pens with shaded areas. Health management included routine vaccination and deworming, and environmental conditions (temperature, humidity) were monitored Table 1 and Figure 1.

Table 1: The experimental design is outlined.

No of household and goat kids	Groups of feeding pattern
No of household and goat kids	G1 (Creep feeding + traditional)	G2 (Traditional feeding)
Feed composition	Creep feed(wheat straw + wheat bran)plus local grasses	Local grasses
No. of Kids in each replicate	n=10 n=5	n=10 n=5
Total=n=100	50	50

Diet composition

Creep feed contained 33% wheat bran and 67% wheat straw, providing 16% crude protein (CP), 11 MJ/kg metabolizable energy (ME), 45% neutral detergent fiber (NDF), and 28% acid detergent fiber (ADF). Traditional feed consisted of locally available crop residues.

Body weight and gain

Body weight and gain were recorded at initial, monthly, and final time points. Daily and monthly gains were analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA, with normality tested by Shapiro-Wilk test. Morbidity (%) and mortality (%) were calculated using standard formulas.

Cost/benefit and nutrient digestibility

Feed intake, cost, and economic returns were calculated. Digestibility trials were conducted for 5 days at mid-point and end of the experiment using five randomly selected goat kids per group. Total fecal collection followed AOAC (2000) protocols.

Blood sampling and analysis

Blood samples from 10 randomly selected goat kids (5 per group) were collected at the end of the trial via the jugular vein. Biochemical parameters (triglycerides, cholesterol, LDL, HDL, glucose, calcium) were analyzed using standard protocols. Units are reported as mg/dL (glucose, lipids) and mmol/L (calcium).

Statistical analysis

Data were recorded in Excel. Repeated-measures ANOVA was used for monthly weight and growth data; Student’s t-test was applied for final measurements. Replicates were included as the statistical unit, and normality was tested using Shapiro-Wilk test.

Results

Effect of creep feeding on weight gain

The results show that creep feeding significantly impacts the body weight of goat kids. The treatment group (G2) started with an initial weight of 20.0 ± 0.5 kg and reached a final weight of 26.2 ± 0.8 kg, while the control group (G1) started at 21.6 ± 0.6 kg and reached 25.3 ± 0.7 kg (Table 2). Daily, monthly, and total weight gains were also higher in G2 (0.07 ± 0.01 kg/day; 2.1 ± 0.3 kg/month; 6.2 ± 0.5 kg total) compared to G1 (0.04 ± 0.01 kg/day; 1.3 ± 0.2 kg/month; 3.7 ± 0.4 kg total).

Growth performance

Early-stage (first 3 months) weight gain showed no significant difference between G1 (20.0–23.0 kg) and G2 (20.0–24.0 kg) (P = 0.233). Late-stage (final 3 months) weight gain was significantly higher in G2 (26.2 ± 0.8 kg) compared to G1 (25.3 ± 0.7 kg) (P = 0.002). Overall (6 months), G2 exhibited superior growth (26.2 ± 0.8 kg) vs G1 (25.3 ± 0.7 kg) (P = 0.004), confirming the effectiveness of creep feeding (Table 3).

Table 2: Effect of creep feeding on average body weight (initial, monthly and final weight) and weight gain (daily, monthly, final) of goat kids.

S. No	Body weight (kg)	G1 (creep feeding + local grass) (n=50)	G2 (traditional feeding) (n=50)
S. No	Body weight (kg)	Mean ± No. of Goat Kids	Mean ± No. of Goat Kids
1	Initial weight	20.0	21.6
2	Monthly weight	26.2	25
3	Final weight	26.2	25.3
4	Daily weight gain	0.07	0.04
5	Monthly weight gain	2.1	1.3
6	Final weight gain	6.2	3.7

Table 3: Comparison of average growth in early, late and overall period of time.

Time period	G1	G2	P value
Early (initial 3 month)	39	44	0.233
Late (Last 3 Month)	32	17	0.002
Whole trial (6 Month)	45	26	0.004

Digestibility at 3rd month of trial

Mean values for DM, CP, ash, crude fiber, and crude fat at 3 months were as follows: DM 42.44±1.2 vs 47.13±1.5, CP 37.1 ± 0.9 vs 44.77±1.1, ash 36.47 ± 0.8 vs 37.77 ± 0.9, crude fiber 47.15±1.0 vs 57.43 ± 1.2, crude fat 36.28±0.5 vs 36.84±0.6 (control vs treatment). Significant differences were observed for CP (P= 0.0008), DM (P = 0.028), crude fiber (P= 0.0241), and ash (P= 0.0025); crude fat was not significantly different (P= 0.257) (Table 4).

Digestibility of 6th month of trial

Mean values for DM, CP, ash, crude fiber, and crude fat at 6 months were: DM 38.62 ± 1.1 vs 45.86 ± 1.3, CP 31.71 ± 0.8 vs 52.58 ± 1.0, ash 44.99 ± 0.9 vs 49.47 ± 1.1, crude fiber 52.50 ± 1.2 vs 57.7 ± 1.3, crude fat 43.12 ± 0.7 vs 42.30 ± 0.6 (control vs treatment). Significant differences were observed for CP (P = 0.0007), DM (P = 0.0301), and crude fiber (P = 0.0009), while ash (P = 0.48) and crude fat (P = 0.077) showed no significant differences (Table 5).

Table 4: Comparison of digestibility’s of nutrients among the group at 3rd month of trial.

Nutrient	DM		CP		ASH		Crude fiber		Crude fat
Group	G2	G1	G2	G1	G2	G1	G2	G1	G2	G1
1	42.5	46.188	33.57	42.8	34.82	47.56	38.25	46.87	28.82	32.3
2	43.15	44.79	35.62	46.4*	33.79	46.75	49.64	63.63*	35.29	38.84*
3	45.92*	50.12	36.78	44.3	31.37	46.21	51.48*	58.75	37.04	36.92
4	40.33	50.85*	40.72*	43.3	36.55	47.56	50.35	57.85	37.64	38.84
5	40.31	43.74	38.83	45.3	45.86*	50.81*	46.05	60.08	42.64*	37.3
Mean	42.44	47.13	37.1	44.42	36.47	47.77	47.15	57.43	36.28	36.84
P value	0.028		0.0008		0.0025		0.0241		0.257

Table 5: Comparison of 6th month digestibility of nutrients.

Nutrients	DDM		CP		ASH		Crude fiber		Crude fat
Group	G2	G1	G2	G1	G2	G1	G2	G1	G2	G1
1	33.87	53.8*	39.06*	46.7	56.25*	53.95	49.7	59.19*	40.6	44.2
2	40.6	44.25	36.71	53.3	45.83	50	52.3	57.39	46.9*	38.5
3	34.34	44.14	26.56	47.71	50	44.74	53.3	57.39	40.6	46.2
4	36.07	43.1	23.43	60.4*	47.91	57.89*	54.4*	55.6	43.8	48.1*
5	45.43*	44.03	32.81	54.82	25	40.78	52.8	59.19*	43.8	34.6
Mean	38.062	45.86	31.71	52.58	44.998	49.47	52.50	57.7	43.12	42.304
P value	0.0301		0.0007		0.48		0.0009		0.077

Effect of creep feeding on lipid profiles

Lipid profiles, glucose, and calcium levels showed no significant differences between groups (Figure 2). Triglycerides: 47.24 ± 3.23 vs 43.0 ± 3.23 mg/dL (P = 0.109), HDL: 15.96 ± 1.01 vs 15.4 ± 1.16 mg/dL (P = 0.262), LDL: 20.68 ± 0.81 vs 21.12 ± 0.76 mg/dL (P = 0.366), VLDL: 12.72 ± 0.62 vs 12.36 ± 0.55 mg/dL (P = 0.290), RBS: 13.56 ± 0.61 vs 12 ± 0.55 mg/dL (P = 0.309), Calcium: 13 ± 0.61 vs 12 ± 0.5 mmol/L (P = 0.308) (control vs treatment).

Mortality and morbidity

Mortality and morbidity were higher in G1 (control) compared to G2 (treatment) (Figure 3). Statistical analysis shows significant differences between groups (P < 0.05).

Effect on cost benefit ratio

The treatment group (G2) had a maximum cost-benefit ratio of 11665.08 R, while the control group (G1) had 10100.51 R, yielding a net benefit difference of 1565.08 R (Figure 4). Currency formatting and calculations have been standardized.

Discussion

Creep feeding is an effective method for promoting the growth of young goats. However, the high cost of prepared feed can pose a significant burden for smallholder farmers. This has led to exploration of locally available, cost-effective feed resources (wheat bran and wheat straw) that can be integrated into traditional feeding systems.

The current study demonstrates that creep feeding enhances average daily gain and overall growth performance in goat kids, particularly in the late stage of the trial. Early-stage growth did not differ significantly (P = 0.233), likely due to an adaptation phase where younger kids were acclimating to supplemental feed. Late-stage growth, however, showed a significant difference (P = 0.002), suggesting cumulative benefits of creep feeding over time. Overall growth was highly significant (P = 0.004), confirming the positive impact of creep feed.

These findings align with previous reports: Yildirim et al. (2023) and Martínez et al. (2015) observed increased lamb weights with creep feeding without affecting ewe live weight, and Htoo et al. (2015) highlighted improvements in rumen morphology and nutrient utilization in kids receiving creep feed, supporting the observed late-stage growth enhancement in the present study. The variation in growth magnitude compared to other studies (Hayes et al., 2019; Htoo et al., 2015) may be due to differences in feed protein content, daily allowance, management systems, and age at initiation of creep feeding.

Mechanistically, creep feeding provides additional nutrients that support gastrointestinal development, early rumen microbial colonization, and enhanced feed intake efficiency, leading to higher weight gain. Incorporation of affordable feed ingredients such as wheat bran and wheat straw offers a viable strategy for smallholder farmers to improve growth performance without substantial cost increases, as supported by Rao et al. (2007) on the use of neem kernel cake.

Our study revealed no significant differences in lipid profiles, calcium, or blood glucose between treatment groups. This is consistent with the fact that creep feeding primarily affects growth and nutrient intake, not systemic metabolic profiles under the trial conditions. Czopowicz et al. (2020) similarly noted that rearing environment, rather than diet alone, can influence serum metabolite profiles, highlighting the importance of considering traditional farm conditions when interpreting physiological data.

Limitations of this study include a small sample size for digestibility trials (5 animals per group), the lack of multivariate analysis to account for environmental and management variation, and potential variation in traditional feeding practices across households. Despite these limitations, the study provides practical insights into the benefits and feasibility of creep feeding in smallholder goat production systems.

Creep feeding using locally available, cost-effective feed sources significantly improves growth performance and economic returns in goat kids under traditional smallholder conditions, without adversely affecting physiological health parameters. These findings provide evidence-based guidance for farmers seeking to optimize pre-weaning growth in resource-limited environments.

Conclusions

Creep feeding with wheat straw and wheat bran increased overall weight gain by ~73% (45 kg vs 26 kg) and improved the cost-benefit ratio (11,665 vs 10,100 R), giving a net gain of 1,565 R per animal. No adverse effects on lipid profiles, calcium, or blood glucose were observed. These results suggest that locally available, cost-effective creep feed can enhance growth and profitability in smallholder goat farms, although extrapolation should be cautious due to variation in management and environment.

Acknowledgements

We express our gratitude to the lab technicians for their exceptional assistance in the Department of Animal Nutrition, Faculty of Animal Husbandry, Sindh Agriculture University Tandojam, Pakistan.

Novelty Statement

This study presents a novel, low-cost creep feed formulation utilizing a simple 2:1 ratio of wheat straw to wheat bran locally available agricultural by-products. We demonstrate its significant benefits on late-stage growth performance, nutrient digestibility, and economic viability specifically for smallholder, resource-limited farming systems in Pakistan, providing a practical and scalable solution not previously documented in the literature.

Author’s Contribution

U and AJDC: Conducted the study and collected data. IHL and AK: Assisted in analysis. AK: Supervised the work, interpreted results, and finalized the manuscript. MSC, FAL, and AK: Contributed to review and editing. All authors approved the final manuscript.

Generative AI and AI-assisted technology statement

The authors declare that no generative AI or AI-assisted technologies were used in the design, execution, or inter pretation of this research study. AI tools were not used to create, analyze, or modify any part of the manuscript. All content and intellectual input are solely the work of the authors.

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared no conflict of interest.

References

Alhotan, R.A., 2021. Commercial poultry feed formulation: Current status, challenges, and future expectations. World’s Poult. Sci. J., 77(2): 279-299. https://doi.org/10.1080/00439339.2021.1891400

AOAC. 2000. Official Methods of Analysis. 17th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.

Brand, T.S. and Brundyn, L., 2015. Improving weaning weights in lambs. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol., 6(1): 12-18.

Czopowicz, M., Moroz, A., Szaluś-Jordanow, O., Mickiewicz, M., Witkowski, L., Nalbert, T. and Kaba, J., 2020. Profile of serum lipid metabolites of one-week-old goat kids depending on the type of rearing. BMC Vet. Res., 16(1): 346. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-020-02575-1

Hayes, E.G., Lourençon, R.V. and Browning Jr, R., 2019. Effects of creep feeding and its interactions with other factors on the performance of meat goat kids and dams when managed on pasture. Trans. Anim. Sci., 3(4): 1466-1474. https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txz122

Htoo, N.N., Khaing, A.T., Abba, Y., Htin, N.N., Abdullah, J.F.F., Kyaw, T. and Lila, M.A.M., 2015. Enhancement of growth performance in pre-weaning suckling Boer kids supplemented with creep feed containing alfalfa. Vet. World, 8(6): 718. https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2015.718-722

Htoo, N.N., Zeshan, B., Khaing, A.T., Kyaw, T., Woldegiorgis, E.A. and Khan, M.A., 2018. Creep feeding supplemented with roughages improve rumen morphology in pre-weaning goat kids. Pak. J. Zool., 50(2): 703-709. https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.pjz/2018.50.2.703.709

Huting, A.M., Middelkoop, A., Guan, X. and Molist, F., 2021. Using nutritional strategies to shape the gastro-intestinal tracts of suckling and weaned piglets. Animals, 11(2): 402. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11020402

Martínez, M.E., Barra, R.D.L. and Fuente, F.D.L., 2015. Effect of early creep feeding in the performance of Chilota breed lambs.

Nair, M.R., Sejian, V., Silpa, M.V., Fonsêca, V.F.C., de Melo Costa, C.C., Devaraj, C. and Bhatta, R., 2021. Goat as the ideal climate-resilient animal model in tropical environment: Revisiting advantages over other livestock species. Int. J. Biometeorol., 65: 2229-2240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-021-02179-w

Rao, V.K., Kowale, B.N. and Verma, A.K., 2007. Lipid profile and fatty acid composition of chevon as effected by feeding water washed neem seed (Azadirachta indica) kernal cake. Indian J. Small Rumin., 13(1): 19-26.

Razali, S.N.Z., Mohamed, W.Z., Arshad, M.M., Aziz, A.R., Daud, N.H.A., Mokhtar, S.N. and Sithambaram, S., 2019. Effect of varying dietary energy to protein ratio in creep feed on feed intake, growth performance and nutrient digestibility of pre-weaning Boer goats. J. Trop. Resour. Sustain. Sci., 7(2): 88-97. https://doi.org/10.47253/jtrss.v7i2.515

Shike, D.W., Faulkner, D.B., Cecava, M.J., Parrett, D.F. and Ireland, F.A., 2007. Effects of weaning age, creep feeding, and type of creep on steer performance, carcass traits, and economics. Prof. Anim. Sci., 23(4): 325-332. https://doi.org/10.15232/S1080-7446(15)30985-2

Shim, S.B., Verstegen, M.W.A., Kim, I.H., Kwon, O.S. and Verdonk, J.M.A.J., 2005. Effects of feeding antibiotic-free creep feed supplemented with oligofructose, probiotics or synbiotics to suckling piglets increases the preweaning weight gain and composition of intestinal microbiota. Arch. Anim. Nutr., 59(6): 419-427. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450390500353234

Yildirim, F., Kesen, A.O. and Varalan, A., 2023. The comparative effect of creep and conventional feeding methods on growth performance and oxidative stress markers in Akkaraman lambs. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 55(6): 382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-023-03804-z

Zobel, G., Neave, H.W. and Nawroth, C., 2024. Goats’ natural behaviour. In: The welfare of goats. Springer, Cham. pp. 21-75. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-62182-6_2