Indian J. Anim. Res., 42 (1) : 10-16, 2008 NUTRITIONAL STATUS OF CROSSBRED AND LOCAL COWS P. K. Madke 1, J. S. Murkute, S. S. Lathwal 2 and I. M. Kheir 3 Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying College of Agriculture, Nagpur, 440 010, India ABSTRACT Present study indicated that overall nutritional status of local milch cows were deficient in DM, DCP and TDN (-3.79, -62.28 and -0.26 % respectively). The supply of DM was surplus in crossbred milch cows (+5.76%) but they were deficient in DCP and TDN (-35.78 and -2.72%) respectively. Hence, it was concluded that the crossbred milch cows had better nutritional status than the local milch cows. The overall nutritional status of dry cows indicated that local as well as crossbred cows were deficient in DM (-17.99 and -20.80% respectively) and DCP supply (-73.42 and -69.64% respectively) but both the categories were surplus in TDN supply (+3.80 and + 2.51% respectively). The crossbred dry cows had better supply of DCP and TDN than local dry cows. INTRODUCTION India has a large livestock population comprising 185.5 millions cattle and 97.7 millions buffaloes, which yield about 91.5 millions tonnes of milk (FAO, 2004). The contribution of cow milk to total milk production is 45 percent. The milk production in India is characterized by low yield, non-descript cows and buffaloes, million of small producer with little or no holdings, use of crop residues and natural herbage with or without costly concentrates as feed supplements, scarce land for pasture and forage production. The milk production can be improved further by adequate feeding, scientific management and crossbreeding of Indian cattle with exotic milch breeds. A lot of research work has been done in the field of animal nutrition and scientific knowledge available in this respect is being transferred through various extension agencies at university and state level for the benefit of livestock owner and ultimately for the development of dairy industry of the country. Hence, it was thought important to survey the livestock population in rural area in respect of nutritional status. With this consideration, the study was undertaken to assess the nutritional status of local and crossbred cows. Mohadi was selected on the basis of size of land holding of farmer such as landless, marginal, small, medium and large farmers categories. Out of three Tahsils, 9 villages were randomly selected. Fifty farmers from each Tahsil engaged in dairy business were selected. Thus, 150 farmers were selected for the study. The data were collected by personnel interview and also by observation during the month of January to April 2001. The quantity of feed and fodder offered to different category of animals during 24 hrs was recorded by actual weighing. The milk production of animals was also recorded. The body weight of animals was estimated from their chest girth and length measurement by Minnesota Formula. The quantity of nutrients required for each category of animals was calculated from body weight and quantity of nutrients offered in the stall was estimated as per Sen et al. (1977). The production requirement of milch animal was calculated on the assumption that the milk from the cow contained 3.5 per cent fat. The dry matter requirement was taken at 2.5 percent of live weight and the DM, DCP and TDN value were calculated by using the values of coefficient of digestibility Sen et al. (1977). MATERIAL AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The present study was undertaken in The data revealed that all categories of three Tahsil of Bhandara district of Maharashtra farmers were feeding paddy straw as the only state. The Tahsil viz. Lakhani, Bhandara and stall fed roughage and rice bran and to some 1,2,3 Present address: NDRI, Karnal, 132001 India
Vol. 42, No. 1, 2008 11 TABLE 1.1: - Nutritional status of milch cows per as category of farmers Type of Owners Milch Local cows Milch crossbred cows DM (Kg) DCP (Kg) TDN (Kg) DM (Kg) DCP (Kg) TDN(Kg) Landless Requirement 5.625 0.23 2.342 6.25 0.347 3.278 Availability 6.712 0.076 2.923 8.505 0.219 3.934 Deviation (+) 1.087 (-) 0.154 (+) 0.58 (+) 2.26 (-) 0.128 (+) 0.656 % Deviation (+) 19.32 (-) 66.96 (+) 24.80 (+) 36.16 (-) 36.89 (+) 20.01 Marginal Requirement 5.625 0.213 2.229 6.25 0.324 3.116 Availability 3.756 0.0482 1.364 5.595 0.189 2.681 Deviation (-) 1.869 (-) 0.165 (-) 0.865 (-) 0.655 (-) 0.135 (-) 0.435 % Deviation (-) 33.23 (-) 77.40 (-) 38.81 (-) 10.48 (-) 41.67 (-) 13.96 Small Requirement 5.625 0.226 2.320 6.25 0.327 3.139 Availability 5.118 0.0899 2.247 6.069 0.218 2.912 Deviation (-) 0.507 (-) 0.137 (-) 0.073 (-) 0.181 (-) 0.109 (-) 0.227 % Deviation (-) 9.01 (-) 60.29 (-) 3.147 (-) 2.896 (-) 33.33 (-) 7.23 Medium Requirement 5.625 0.228 2.333 6.25 0.338 3.211 Availability 5.112 0.0773 2.247 6.195 0.203 2.974 Deviation (-) 0.513 (-) 151 (-) 0.086 (-) 0.055 (-) 0.135 (-) 0.237 % Deviation (-) 9.12 (-) 66.10 (-) 3.69 (-) 0.88 (-) 39.94 (-) 7.38 Large Requirement 5.625 0.242 2.431 6.25 0.371 3.442 Availability 6.36 0.140 2.846 6.678 0.265 3.244 Deviation (-) 0.735 (-) 0.102 (+) 0.415 (+) 0.43 (-) 0.106 (-) 0.198 % Deviation (+) 13.07 (-) 42.15 (+) 17.07 (+) 6.848 (-) 28.57 (-) 5.75 extent Sugrass as concentrate mixture to the cows. It was also observed that farmers did not consider the milk production into account while feeding the animals. It was therefore felt necessary to evaluate whether the animals were getting the feed as per the requirement. The amount of feed given in the stall was mainly considered for assessing the nutritional status. The Dry Matter (DM), Digestible Crude Protein (DCP) and Total Digestible Nutrition (TDN) were calculated. NUTRITIONAL STATUS OF MILCH COWS The requirement and availability of nutrients for milch cows as per the category of farmer are presented in Table 1.1 and the overall nutritional status of animals is presented in Table 1.2. A)Local Milch Cows: The data from Table 1.1 indicated that only the animals of landless and large farmer were getting surplus DM (19.32 and 13.07%, respectively) and other categories were deficient in DM supply. The per cent deficit was maximum in marginal followed by medium and small categories. About the DCP availability, it was noted that all the local milch cows of all categories were highly deficient in DCP content. The per cent deficit was maximum in marginal category and minimum in large category. Hence it was clear that large farmers were feeding comparatively more DCP to their animals than other categories but were still short of the requirement. The deficit of DCP in all the categories was due to feeding of less amount concentrates and green to the animals and also due to use of paddy straw as the major source of roughage, which contains nearly no DCP content. Feeding of DCP rich feeds like oilseed cakes was not observed in any of the categories. The TDN supply was surplus in landless and large
12 INDIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL RESEARCH TABLE 1.2: - Overall nutritional status of milch cows Milch Local cows Milch Crossbred cows DM (Kg) DCP (Kg) TDN (Kg) DM (Kg) DCP (Kg) TDN (Kg) Requirement 5.625 0.228 2.331 6.25 0.341 3.237 Availability 5.412 0.086 2.325 6.610 0.219 3.149 Deviation (-) 0.213 (-) 0.142 (-) 0.006 (+) 0.36 (-) 0.122 (-) 0.088 % Deviation (-) 3.79 (-) 62.28 (-) 0.26 (+) 5.76 (-) 35.78 (-) 2.72 categories and cows of other categories were deficient in TDN supply. The percent deficit was maximum in marginal category followed by medium and small categories. The deficit of TDN was again due to less feeding of concentrates and green and maximum use of paddy straw, which is low in TDN content. It was therefore observed that the nutritional status of local milch cows of marginal farmers was poorest of all categories in respect of DM, DCP and TDN content. The overall nutritional status of local milch cows (Table 1.2) revealed that the animals were deficient in DM, DCP and TDN supply. The percent deficit for DM, DCP and TDN was (-) 3.79 %, (-) 62.28% and (-) 0.26% respectively. Hence it was clear that the overall nutritional status of local milch cows was poor and the animals were deficient in DM, DCP and TDN. The present findings are in agreement with the findings reported earlier by Gill et al., (1970) and Singh et al., (1998). However, Raut et al. (1969) reported that the standard of daily ration for a non-descript milch cows of suburban area fed with 1.67, 4.44 and 0.78 kg green, dry and concentrate, respectively. TABLE 2.1: - Nutritional status of dry cows per as category of farmers Type of Owners Dry Local cows Dry Crossbred cows DM (Kg) DCP (Kg) TDN (Kg) DM (Kg) DCP (Kg) TDN(Kg) Landless Availability 4.572 0.158 1.843 4.791 0.0281 1.977 Deviation (-) 1.053 (-) 0.142 (+) 0.003 (-) 1.459 (-) 0.1399 (-) 0.043 % Deviation (-) 18.75 (-) 89.87 (+) 0.16 (-) 23.34 (-) 83.27 (-) 2.12 Marginal Availability 3.384 0.0211 1.369 3.657 0.0307 1.506 Deviation (-) 2.241 (-) 0.471 (-) 0.471 (-) 2.593 (-) 0.137 (-) 0.514 % Deviation (-) 39.84 (-) 25.60 (-) 25.60 (-) 81.73 (-) 81.73 (-) 25.44 Small Availability 4.323 0.034 1.788 4.614 0.0363 1.895 Deviation (-) 1.302 (-) 0.124 (-) 0.052 (-) 1.636 (-) 0.1317 (-) 0.125 % Deviation (-) 23.15 (-) 78.48 (-) 2.83 (-) 26.17 (-) 78.39 (-) 6.18 Medium Availability 4.863 0.0585 2.032 5.124 0.06 2.14 Deviation (-) 0.762 (-) 0.0995 (+) 0.192 (-) 1.126 (-) 0.108 (+) 0.12 % Deviation (-) 23.55 (-) 62.97 (+) 10.43 (-) 18.02 (-) 64.28 (+) 5.94 Large Availability 5.922 0.0805 2.541 6.552 0.102 2.836 Deviation (+) 0.297 (-) 0.0775 (+) 0.701 (+) 0.302 (-) 0.066 (+) 0.816 % Deviation (+) 5.28 (-) 49.05 (+) 38.09 (+) 4.832 (-) 39.28 (+) 40.39
Vol. 42, No. 1, 2008 13 TABLE 2.2: - Overall nutritional status of dry cows Dry local cows Dry crossbred cows DM (Kg) DCP (Kg) TDN (Kg) DM (Kg) DCP (Kg) TDN (Kg) Availability 4.613 0.042 1.91 4.95 0.051 2.07 Deviation (-) 1.012 (-) 0.116 (+) 0.07 (-) 1.30 (-) 0.117 (+) 0.05 Deviation (-) 17.99 (-) 73.42 (+) 3.80 (-) 20.8 (-) 69.64 (+) 2.51 B) Crossbred Milch Cows: Table 1.1 indicated that the DM supply was surplus in landless and large categories whereas it was deficient in other categories. The per cent deficit was maximum in marginal category followed by small and medium category. Hence it was clear that landless livestock owners fed maximum DM and marginal farmers fed minimum DM to their crossbred milch cows. All the crossbred milch cows of all categories were highly deficient in DCP supply. The percent Deficit was maximum in marginal category followed by medium, landless, small and large category. Hence, it was clear that large farmers were feeding comparatively better DCP to their animals but were still short of requirements. The deficient of DCP was obviously because of feeding less concentrate and greens and oilseed cakes were not at all offered. The TDN supply was surplus only in landless category whereas it was deficient in other categories. The percent deficit was maximum in marginal category and minimum in large category. It was further observed that the nutritional status of crossbred milch cows of marginal farmers was poorest of all categories in respect DM, DCP and TDN content. The overall nutritional status of crossbred milch cows (Table 1.2) revealed that these animals received more DM over the requirement but were deficient in DCP and TDN. It was observed that the overall nutritional status of crossbred milch cows was better in respect of DM and DCP but the local milch cows received better TDN than that of crossbred milch animals. NUTRITIONAL STATUS OF DRY COWS The nutritional status of dry cows as per the categories in presented in Table 2.1 and the overall nutritional status of dry cows in presented in Table 2.2. A) Local Dry Cows: The data from Table 2.1 indicated that the DM was surplus only in large category whereas it was deficient in all other categories. Maximum DM deficit was noted in marginal category followed by small, landless and medium category. Hence large farmers fed maximum and marginal farmers fed minimum dry matter to their local dry cows. The local dry cows of all the categories were highly deficient in DCP supply. The percent deficit was obviously due to feeding of less concentrates and green to the animals, use of rice bran as the only source of concentrate and non-incorporation of oilseed cakes in the ration. The TDN supply was surplus in large, medium and landless categories and deficient in marginal and small categories. It was further observed that the nutritional status of local dry cows of marginal farmers was poorest of all categories in respect of DM and TDN. The overall nutritional status of local dry cows (Table 2.2) revealed that these animals received more TDN over the requirement but were deficient in DM and DCP supply. B) Crossbred Dry Cows: The data from Table 2.1 revealed that the DM was surplus only in large category and deficient in other categories. The percent deficit was maximum in marginal category followed by small, landless and medium categories. The crossbred dry cows of all the categories were highly deficient in DCP supply. The percent deficit was maximum in landless category followed by marginal, small and medium and large categories. The studies on TDN availability revealed that it was surplus in
14 INDIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL RESEARCH TABLE: 3 Feeding of roughages and concentrates to milch local cows and crossbred cows Type of owners Average milk Local cows Average feeding (kg)/ kg milk production Roughages Concentrates Paddy straw Green Total Sugras Ricebran Total Roughages Concentrates Landless 1.59 6.00 1.50 7.50 0.018 0.94 0.98 4.720 0.620 Marginal 1.23 3.04 2.11 5.15 Nil 0.43 0.43 4.190 0.350 Small 1.52 3.72 3.68 7.40 0.06 0.68 0.74 4.870 0.490 Medium 1.56 4.00 2.76 6.76 0.02 0.74 0.76 4.330 0.490 Large 1.87 4.25 5.10 9.35 0.167 0.95 1.117 5.000 0.597 Crossbred cows Landless 3.98 6.89 1.50 8.39 0.73 1.33 2.06 2.108 0.518 Marginal 3.47 3.60 2.75 6.35 0.54 1.16 1.70 1.830 0.490 Small 3.54 3.62 3.88 7.50 0.62 1.21 1.83 2.120 0.517 Medium 3.77 3.61 4.00 7.61 0.40 1.54 1.94 2.019 0.515 Large 4.50 3.46 5.42 7.88 0.73 1.42 2.15 1.751 0.478 MY = Milk Yield large and medium categories and other categories were deficient in TDN Supply. The overall nutritional status of crossbred dry cows (Table 2.2) revealed that these animals received more TDN (+ 2.51%) over the requirement but were deficient in DM and DCP supply. It was therefore clear that the nutritional status of crossbred dry cows was better than local dry cows in respect of DCP but the local dry cows received better DM and TDN than crossbred dry cows. The present findings are in agreement with the findings reported earlier by Gill et al. (1970). FEEDING OF ROUGHAGES AND CONCENTRATES TO MILCH ANIMALS: Proper proportion of feeding roughages and concentrate to produce average milk yield / animal / day was calculated and presented in Table 3 for local and crossbred cows respectively. A) Local milch cows : The data in Table 3 indicated that the average milk produced by the local cows of landless, marginal, small, medium and large categories were 1.59, 1.23, 1.52, 1.56 and 1.87 kg, respectively. The results indicated that as the land holding increased, milk production increased except in landless category, where the average milk production was found more than medium, small and marginal categories. The table also indicated large farmers fed maximum roughages (5.00kg) per kg milk produced followed by small, landless, medium and marginal farmer. Similarly, landless farmer fed maximum concentrate per kg milk (0.620 kg) followed by large, small, medium and marginal farmers, respectively. B) Crossbred milch cows: The data from Table 3 indicated that the average milk produced by the crossbred cows of landless, marginal, small, medium and large categories were 3.98, 3.47, 3.54, 3.77 and 4.50 kg respectively. The results indicated that as the landholding increased, milk production increased, except in landless category, where the average milk production was found more than medium, small and marginal categories. It was also observed that small farmers fed maximum (2.120 kg) roughages per kg of milk produced followed by landless, medium, marginal and large farmers. Similarly, landless farmers fed maximum concentrates to their crossbred milch cows as they depended solely on the sale of milk to meet the day to day expenditure. The present findings are in agreement with the findings reported earilier by Arora et al. (1990). A) Local dry cows: The data from Table 4 about feeding of dry local cows, it was observed that the farmers do not provide ready-made concentrate mixture i.e Sugrass (concentrate feed mixture) in any category of holding. However
Vol. 42, No. 1, 2008 15 TABLE: 4 Feeding of roughages and concentrates to dry local cows and dry crossbred cows Type of owners Dry local cows Roughages (kg) Concentrates (kg) Paddy straw Green Total Sugras Ricebran Total Landless 4.58 1.50 6.08 Nil Nil Nil Marginal 3.09 2.01 5.1 Nil Nil Nil Small 3.89 2.20 6.09 Nil 0.18 0.18 Medium 3.78 4.12 7.90 Nil 0.25 0.25 Large 4.60 4.08 8.68 Nil 0.62 0.62 Dry crossbred cows Landless 4.62 1.51 6.13 Nil 0.20 0.20 Marginal 3.19 2.29 5.48 Nil 0.11 0.11 Small 4.08 2.78 6.86 Nil 0.12 0.12 Medium 4.04 4.18 8.22 Nil 0.26 0.26 Large 4.78 5.16 9.94 Nil 0.78 0.78 TABLE: 5 Data on daily milk production by local and crossbred cows. Milk production(kg) Local Cows Crossbred Cows Total Percent Total Percent Upto 1 39 33.05 Nil Nil 1.1-2 72 61.02 6 4.72 2.1-4 7 5.93 82 64.57 4.1-6 Nil Nil 34 26.78 Above 6 Nil Nil 5 3.93 small, medium and large farmers do provide meager quantity of rice bran (0.18, 0.25 and 0.62 kg, respectively) to their dry local cows. Incase of roughages feeding, it was observed that local dry cows received 4.58, 3.09, 3.89, 3.78 and 4.60 kg paddy straw in landless, marginal, small, medium and large categories, respectively. B) Crossbred dry cows: The data regarding the feeding of roughages and concentrate to crossbred dry cows are presented in Table 4. It was observed that crossbred dry cows received 4.62, 3.19, 4.08, 4.04 and 4.78 kg paddy straw in landless, marginal, small, medium and large categories, respectively. However, it was noted that many of the farmers provided concentrates to their dry local and crossbred cows in advanced pregnancy. It is seen from Table 4 that, the farmer does not provide ready-made concentrate mixture (i.e. sugrass) in any categories of landholding to the dry crossbred cows. However, landless, marginal, small, medium and large farmers provided some quantity of rice bran i.e. 0.20, 0.11, 0.12, 0.26 and 0.78 kg, respectively. This indicated that large farmer fed maximum paddy straw while marginal farmers fed minimum paddy straw to their crossbred dry cows. This could be due to the availability and non-availability of crop residues in respective categories. It was also observed that the large farmers fed maximum green (5.16 kg) followed by medium, small, marginal and landless categories, respectively. The present findings are in agreement with the finding reported earlier by Singh et al. (1998). Body Weight The average body weight of animals was recorded to be 438.50±2.79 and 164.33± 10.95 kg for crossbred milch cows and local milch cows, respectively. While the average value of body weight of crossbred dry cow and local cow were 413.70± 5.39 and 151± 9.34 kg respectively. Similar finding s were also reported
16 INDIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL RESEARCH by Thakuria et al. (1982) and Bhaskar and Gupta (1997). Milk Production in Local Milch and Crossbred Milch Cows The data from Table 5 revealed that 33.05, 61.02 and 5.93 percent local cows produced upto 1, 1.1 to 2 and 2.1 to 4 kg milk, respectively. No local cow produced more than 4 kg milk per day. Incase of crossbred cows, 4.72, 64.57, 26.78 and 3.93 percent cows produced 1.1 to 2, 2.1 to 4, 4.1 to 6 and above 6 kg milk per day, hence, it is clear that the crossbred cows producing more milk than the local cows. It could due to superior genetic potential of crossbred cows as well as more nutrients given to the crossbred cows as compared to the local cows. The present findings are in agreement with the findings reported earlier by Sohal et al. (1982). REFERENCES Arora, D.N. et al (1990) Dairy Guide 12 (4-6): 15-17 Bhaskar, M. L. and Gupta, M.P.(1997). Indian J. Anim. Sci. 67 (9): 822. FAO (2004). Report by the commission on Genetic Resources for Food & Agriculture on the Intergovernmental Technical Working Group on Animal Genetics Resources for Food and Agriculture Third session, 31 March-2 April 2004.Food and Agricultural Organization of United Nations, Rome. Gill, R. S.; (1970). PAU J. Res 7: 80. Raut, K.C. and Amble, V.N. (1969). Agric Situat India,, 23 (20): 1434. Sen, K. C.; et al (1977). Nutritive Values of Indian Feeds and Fodder Pub. No. 25, I.C.A.R., New Delhi. Singh, R.; et al (1998). Indian J. Anim. Res., 32 : 75. Sohal, T. S., et al (1982) : Annual Report, N.D.R.I. Karnal. Thakuria, K., et al (1982). Indian Vet. J. 59: 944.