By
Index
INTRODUCTION
The rearing of livestock plays an important role in the development of rural economy.
The livestock husbandry not only provides milk, meat, wool, manure, urine energy etc. but
also provides self-employment for unemployed youth. In India at present about more than
50% of the rural population is engaged in rearing of livestock. India largest milk producer in
world, shares 15 per cent in the global output of 630 million tones. India ranks first in the
milk production due to large number of cattle population, about 185 million. However, the
As per last 17th census, crossbred cattle constitute 13.3 per cent of the total cattle and
86.7 per cent are indigenous cattle. There is tremendous increase in the crossbred in the
country i.e. 22.8 per cent but while indigenous cattle population is declining. This increase in
crossbred population can enhance the milk productivity/animal provided they are managed
scientifically.
In addition to the above, proper feeding of the dairy animals is must in order to
harness their full genetic potential. Since, there is a shortage of green fodder especially during
the months of May-June and October-November during the year. As a result, dairy farmers
face great difficulty in feeding their dairy animals for getting optimum production. Hey and
silage making practices has not been adopted by farmers on large scale. Under such situation,
crop residues such as rice straw, wheat straw, maize stalks and natural herbage like grass, tree
4
leaves etc. are fed to the animals along with a small quantity of costly concentrate. Such
feeding practice does not provide adequate nutrients to the animals for improving their
growth and exploiting their productive potential. In general, low quality crop residues are
have been made to make use of locally available feed resources so that crops and livestock
strategies have been developed to correct the nutrient deficiency of poor quality roughages
Earlier, the main focus was on increasing the straw utilization by ruminants.
However, straw is available in large quantities but it is low in its nutritive value due to
presence of high lignocellulose content, small amounts of crude protein and essential
minerals. Though the feeding value of poor quality straws have been shown to be improved
by using physical, chemical and biological treatments, but none of these treatments became
popular amongst farmers because of the extra cost and extra work involved. In order to find
out suitable supplements for optimizing rumen fermentation so that enhanced production and
reproductive performance can be achieved, another technique used was, to supplement the
diet with more readily available energy and protein, which were lacking in the basal diet. The
technology thus identified was use of Urea molasses mineral block lick.
The unique ability of the ruminants to synthesize enough protein for maintenance
through microbial action permits the use of urea as a NPN source, provided ready source of
energy is available. Thus, it is now well established that urea molasses mix can provide
the dairy animals kept in the village mainly on straws and crop residues. However, the whole
5
purpose is defeated if the blocks are not hard enough and hence utmost care needs to be
exercised that these blocks are meant only to serve as licks. It should release the urea nitrogen
more slowly and frequently so as to minimize the chances of ammonia toxicity. In addition,
such a system can also facilitate the supply of other nutrients such as minerals and vitamins.
UMMB also helps in overcoming the malnutrition/under nutrition of our livestock and
increase production at farm level and generate better returns for a dairy farmer.
Advantages
1. The various feed ingredients being used in the formation of UMMB are easily
2. The method of its preparation is very easy. Farmers can make UMMB for themselves
3. UMMB can be stored for a long time under dry conditions. Similarly, it can be
4. UMMB are more suitable for supplementing dry fodder based diets for sustainability
6. UMMB is comparatively cheaper source of energy, protein and minerals than the
conventional source of proteins like mustard or cotton oil cakes and concentrated
feeds.
METHOD OF PREPARATION
After studying the nutritional status of the animals in a particular region, the selected
supplements are made available in the form of a UMMB that could be licked by the animals
as per the requirements. The UMMB is prepared by using locally available feed ingredients
6
that are cheap and easily available. For supplementing the crop residue-based diet of large
and small ruminants, the use of urea–molasses mineral block (UMMB) licks has been
recommended by many livestock researchers. The main aim is to improve the nutritive value
of the traditional straw-based diet thus promoting healthy growth and milk productivity of
dairy animals. The UMMB contains high crude protein (CP) content due to inclusion of urea
which contains 46 per cent nitrogen or 46.0 X 6.25 = 281 per cent crude protein. Most of the
lick blocks contain Ca, P and Mg, and micro-minerals such as Fe, Cu, Mn, Zn, Co, I and Se,
but the mineral contents differ greatly between the blocks manufactured by different workers.
The UMMB block consists of urea, molasses, wheat flour, mineral mixture, deoiled
mustard cake, deoiled rice polish and common salt. In order to set the well mixed feed
ingredients in the shape of a block Guar gum can be used as a binding agent. Calcium Oxide
needs to be added at last as it will generate heat and make the mixture into gel like form.
Table 1 : Feed ingredients required for a 3 Kg. UMMB lick in India ( Punjab)
It is worth to mention that the formula of UMMB may vary as per the requirement of
the animals; feeding strategies and raw material available viz. formulae used in china are
given as under:
Anima Ure Molasse Salt Cemen Lim Cla Minera Whea Maiz Oil Bon Gras
l a s t e y l t bran e seed e s
Mixtur meal mea meal meal
7
e l
Cow 16 8 26 - 10 11.5 23.8 - 5 - - -
Heifer 12 10 26 - 10 15 22 - 5 - - -
Calf 0 15 22. - 10 15 22.2 - 10 - 5 -
8
Source : Chen et al. 1993
Considering the nutritive value and cost of block constituents, the composition of a
typical block was 39 per cent sugar-cane molasses, 20 per cent wheat bran, 20 per cent rice
polish, 10 per cent urea, 6 per cent lime powder and 5 per cent common salt.
Brar and Nanda (2003) evaluated five feed formulations (I–V) for the production of
blocks using locally-available agro-industrial by-products (Table 1). Urea was added to
molasses, stirred and left standing overnight. The rest of the ingredients were mixed together
on a polythene sheet or in an iron pan. To obtain a uniform distribution in the whole premix,
common salt was mixed with the cement, and was poured into this premix and blended
thoroughly. A measured quantity of this semi-solid mixture (1.0 or 2.0 kg) was put in an iron
frame covered with a wooden sheet tightly fitting the frame and pressed for 20–30 seconds
using the foot pressure of one person. The iron frame was then removed, leaving a UMMB
block on the polythene sheet. The blocks were left at room temperature to air-dry so that it
becomes hard enough for handling, transport and feeding. The time taken to harden off and
Ingredients Formulations
8
(%) I II III IV V
Molasses 40 40 35 35 35
Urea 10 10 10 10 10
De-oiled rice - 26 - 33 17
bran
Oiled rice bran 26 - 33 - 16
Groundnut-nut- 10 10 10 10 10
cake
Common salt 4 4 2 2 2
Cement 10 10 10 10 10
Characteristics Formulations
I II III IV V
Hardness + + +++ +++ +++
Days to Dry at ambient - - 8-10 2-4 3-6
temperature
Brittleness - - + ++ +
Acceptability Not tried Not tried 100 % 100 % 100 %
It was found that the blocks prepared from formulations I and II, with 40 percent
molasses, were too soft to retain their block shape. The blocks prepared from formulations
III, IV and V were acceptably hard, although a variable number of days were required for
them to reach the desired hardness. The blocks from formulation IV (33 per cent de-oiled rice
bran) were relatively more brittle and had a high breakage percentage during transport,
leading to wastage, while the blocks from formulation III (33 per cent oiled rice bran) were
sticky, difficult to prepare and took longer to harden off. Blocks from formulation V, with 16
per cent oiled and 17 per cent de-oiled rice bran, were relatively easier to prepare, sufficiently
hard, less brittle and required only a moderate time (3–5 days) to harden. Blocks weighing
one kilogram had a greater tendency to break than the two-kilogram blocks.
Table 3 : Proximate analysis of fresh and stored UMMB prepared using different
Formulations
The preparation of UMMB can be classified into two categories namely Hot Process
on a larger scale depending on the requirements. It has been found that under Punjab
conditions, blocks weighing 3 kg are most appropriate for feeding dairy cattle.
Urea
The urea is available in granules, therefore, it may be necessary to crush the lumps,
either by hand or by passing the urea through a hand mill and sieve.
Common salt
For uniform mixing, common salt needs to be finely ground.
Cement or quicklime
Lime or cement has been used commonly as a solidifier and binder. Ordinary clay or
bentonite has also proved efficient for block making (Chen et al., 1993b; Guan et al., 1998).
If quicklime is to be used it should be finely ground and its reaction to the addition of water
10
tested. In Punjab, addition of Guar Gum @ 5 % helped in solidifying the block to the desired
level.
Bran
Bran does not need any preparation. However, if the bran is replaced by another fibre
source such as peanut hulls or straw, these materials should be ground before mixing.
possible. With 2 labourers and one supervisor, approximately 100 blocks of 3 kg each could
It has been observed that the order of adding feed ingredients plays an important role
• Molasses
• Urea
• Salt
• Mineral mixture
• Cement or quicklime or guar gum
• Bran
• Calcium oxide
Following this order a homogenous mixture of the urea, salt and gelling agent in the
molasses is assured. When using a mixer the bran must be introduced in small quantities at a
Step 3. Moulding
Many workers have used a simple moulding process to manufacture lick blocks (Ma
et al., 1992; Yang, Jiang and Wen, 1996; Chen et al., 2001b). In this process, ingredients are
mixed in a manner similar to the hot process and then transferred to moulds.
Moulds are necessary to set the blocks in an acceptable shape. Once UMMB has
hardened, the frame can be removed for reuse and to allow the drying process to continue.
Moulds can be of different shapes. The size of the mould will depend on the desired size of
the block. The blocks produced by Yang, Jiang and Wen (1996) were square in shape with a
11
round hole in the centre (1.5 cm in diameter) to allow the blocks to be hung on a fence. The
breaking strength was 56.9 kg/cm2. The hardness increased when formaldehyde-treated urea
Small plastic containers have been used successfully in Indonesia for preparing urea-
molasses blocks. They produce blocks with acceptable solidity and are suitable for use in
small units. An advantage of this type of mould is that the block can be offered to the animal
while it is in the plastic container and once the block has been consumed the container can be
re-used.
Step 4. Drying
After taking out from the moulds, blocks are arranged on a drying area. Blocks must
not be exposed to direct sunlight, but placed under a shade with good ventilation. It would be
better if these UMMB blocks are wrapped in polythene sheets to avoid moisture absorption
because these contain urea and common salt and both are hygroscopic in nature.
In this method, the weighed quantity of urea and molasses are mixed together in an
iron pan and heated for about half an hour while being stirred slowly. Still hot, other feed
ingredients are added and mixed thoroughly. Blocks are prepared by using a hydraulic press.
This method, involves the heating up of all the ingredients, is labour intensive, takes a longer
time and needs costly equipment, such as a hydraulic press. Further, the blocks so produced
have been reported to be highly hygroscopic, leading to poor shelf life (Tripathi, 1997; Garg,
Mehta and Singh, 1998). Although the method was adopted by a few commercial firms, the
high costs of equipment, infrastructure, and additional energy required for heating, and
cumbersome procedure militated against its acceptance by small-scale farmers. On the other
hand the cold process had the merits of saving time, energy, labour and overall costs in
12
comparison to the hot process. Therefore, now farmers can make use of cold process in
FEEDING PERFORMANCE
A. Supplementation of feed with UMMB
Various studies have been conducted to assess optimum level of feeding of UMMB
for cross bred cattle. The effect of feeding UMMB on milk yield and reproductive
performance of crossbred cows reared fed a rice-straw-based diet was studied in Bangladesh.
The average body weight of crossbred cows was 300 kg and it was fed 2.75 kg/head/day of
homemade concentrate mixture. Average initial milk production was about 6 kg/day. The
lime powder CaO 6 % and common salt 5 %. The blocks were prepared using the cold
process. Four levels of UMMB 0, 350, 500, and 650 g/head/day of UMMB were fed to the
crossbred cows in treatment groups T0, T1, T2 and T3, respectively to assess the optimum
amount of UMMB required for maximum production. In this context, it should be noted that
long anoestrus periods and infertility are serious problems in rearing crossbred cows in
13
Bangladesh. Results obtained were encouraging. On feeding UMMB, milk yields of dairy
cattle increased by 1 to 1.5 kg/day. The optimum level of UMMB for crossbred cows to
achieve higher milk production and better reproductive performance was found to be 500
g/head/day. Cows and calves with access to UMMB licks gained more body weight than their
counterparts without access to UMMB. Also the intervals from calving to initiation of luteal
activity, oestrus and conception were shorter in UMMB-fed lactating cows. The postpartum
reproductive intervals of cow can be reduced by feeding UMMB (Hendratno, 1999), which is
of economic significance. It was interesting that the difference between first progesterone rise
and first detectable oestrus were 66 to 80 days in groups T0 and T3 (Table 6.4), which
indicated that the farmers were unable to detect heat at its first occurrence, resulting in 3 to 4
heats lost without insemination. The calving interval of cows was reduced by 64 days in
group T2, which has an economic value as more calves are produced over the total
expected that a cow in the T0 group will produce 7 calves in her total reproductive life, while
cows in group T2 group will produce 8 calves each. The additional calf and lactation from
Table : Mean values for milk yield, body weight change in cows and calf weight gain.
Generally, concentrate feeds are costly and therefore, dairy farmers are reluctant to
feed costly ration to their animals especially when milk production goes down at the end of
the lactation. Many farmers rear cows on very small amount of concentrate to minimize feed
cost. To study the effect of replacing concentrate by UMMB, 60 multiparous crossbred dairy
cows reared on straw-based diets were selected. Three diets, comprising a daily ration per
head of 2.75 kg concentrate (T0), 2.45 kg concentrate + 0.30 kg UMMB (T1) or 2.25 kg
concentrate + 0.50 kg UMMB (T2), were fed to three groups of 20 lactating cows each. Rice
straw was fed as roughage, with a very small amount of cut-and-carry grass (1.4 kg/head/day)
under zero grazing conditions for 180 days. The results are presented in Table 6.6. Animals in
group T2 had significantly (P <0.001) higher roughage intake, and milk yield was also
improved significantly (P <0.05) (6.94 kg/head/ day). The fat content of milk increased in T1
(45.8 g/kg) and T2 (48.4 g/kg) groups compared with the control, T0 (40.4 g/kg). The highest
content of fat was in the T2 group, which resulted in higher economic return. Body weight
gain of calves was improved significantly (P <0.05). Calving interval was also reduced by 60
days. The highest profit was in the T2 group, and derived mostly from replacing concentrate
UMMB, and non-fat milk solids (SNF) and total solids (TS) also increased when concentrate
was replaced with 300 g and 500 g UMMB in groups T1 and T2, respectively. Conclusively ,
Table : Effect of UMMB supplements on intake, milk yield and body weight change of
cows and calves
Parameters Diet(1) SEM Level of
T0 T1 T2 significance
Roughage intake (kg DM/ Day 6.9 8.0 9.2 0.177 S
Total DM intake (kg /day) 9.4 10.5 11.3 0.29 NS
Milk yield (kg/day) 5.6 5.8 6.9 0.07 S
3.5 % FCM (kg/day) 6.1 6.9 8.5 0.09 S
Body weight change of cow (g/day) 6.1 13.7 42.9 5.46 NS
Calf weight gain (g/day) 160 181 248 4.74 S
Calving interval (days) 485 483 425 10.48 NS
Note : (1) *** = P < 0.001; Ns = not significant (P> 0.05), (2) The diets were T0 = 2.75 kg
concentrate per day, no UMMB, T1 = 2.45 kg concentrate + 0.30 kg/day UMMB g/head/day; T2 =
15
2.25 kg/day concentrate + 0.50 kg/day UMMB. Means with different superscripts differ significantly (
P <0.05). DM = dry matter
In order to test the effect of UMMB lick intake on the performance of animals,
various field trials has been conducted in various countries. It has been indicated that the
intake of UMMB licks has affected the milk yield, growth, milk fat and reproductive
performance of animals. Some of the field trials conducted at various places have been
discussed here.
a. Milk yield
In one trial UMMB licks were distributed to farmers who were rearing indigenous
cows on straw-based diets. Milk yield, increased on providing UMMB licks for cows. In
another trial by Wang et al. (1995), 10 dairy cows supplemented with UMMB produced 1.1–
1.5 kg more milk than those without supplement. Chen et al. (1993a) observed that the cows
having access to UMMB licks had an average milk yield of 20.7 kg/day, which was 1.3 kg
higher (P < 0.01) than the average of the control group. In another trial by Wang et al.
(1995), 10 dairy cows supplemented with UMMB produced 1.1–1.5 kg (5.3–5.9 percent)
more milk than those without blocks . Xu, Zhao and Liu (1993) investigated the performance
of Holstein dairy cows in the middle stage of lactation and found that when urea-containing
lick blocks were provided, the cows produced 20.5 kg/ day of milk, which was 4.1 kg (25
Various studies show that body weight gain, calf weight gain and body condition
score increased on providing UMMB licks for cows. When buffalo heifers fed on rice straw
diets were supplemented with UMMB, daily weight gain was 650 g. versus 620 g. for control
animals (Lu et al., 1995). Further it has been reported that use of UMMB increased live
supplementation with straw-based diets for indigenous cows resulted in 4.8 percent increased
It has been shown that UMMB supplementation resulted in early heat symptoms in
cows after calving. The first progesterone rise of a cow after calving, first detectable heat,
Note : (1) The diets were T0 = control (no UMMB), T1 = 350 g/head/day; T2 = 500 g/head/day; T3 :
650 g/head/day, (2) FCM = fat-corrected milk. (3) a , b = means with different superscripts differ
significantly (P < 0.05)
Zhang et al (1997) studied the effect of supplementary urea containing lick blocks on
NH3- N concentration and pH value in the rumen of wethers. The pH did not alter, while
13 mg/100 ml rumen fluid, the optimal level of NH3-N for rumen microbial activity
suggested by Hume, Moir and Somers (1970). The improvement in the rumen ecosystem is
beneficial to rumen microbial activity, and hence rumen digestion. Xue et al. (1995) observed
that when the animals were supplied with an additional urea block of 50 g per head per day,
the microbial protein yield was increased (11.87 vs 10.18 g/day) and synthetic efficiency was
improved compared to that of control. Further ,it has also been reported that when rice straw,
maize stover and sugar cane bagasse were incubated in the rumen of buffaloes supplemented
with UMMB, the 48- hour degradation of feedstuff nutrients was significantly higher than in
Many investigators have observed that the supplementation with UMMB can improve
digestion and utilization of nutrients in the diets. Wu and Liu (1996) studied the effects of
giving an urea mineral lick block on the kinetics of ruminal fibre digestion, nutrient
digestibility and nitrogen utilization of rice straw, ammonium bicarbonate (AB)-treated straw
and hay prepared from wild forage. The results are given in Table 7.10. It was noted that with
block supplementation, the digestibility of dry matter and organic matter of rice straw were
increased by 13.1 and 12.7 percent (P < 0.05) and was comparable to that of the AB-treated
straw, indicating that the effect of the blocks on digestibility of rice straw may be similar to
that of AB treatment. The digestibility of the treated straw was improved slightly when
animals had access to blocks. Nitrogen retention was highest in lambs on AB-treated straw
18
alone, followed by hay with blocks, and was lowest in animals on rice straw with blocks.
However, both the amount of nitrogen retention and proportion relative to intake were
increased by block supplementation in lambs fed on hay. The proportion of nitrogen retained
to that digested decreased with block supplementation in lambs on both untreated and treated
straw. Access to blocks did not significantly influence the rumen degradation of either dry
matter or crude protein in any of the three diets. From the results, it is inferred that while the
improved ruminal fibre digestion, a simultaneous supply of nitrogen and energy to rumen
microbes should be considered to improve the utilization efficiency of nitrogen when the
basal diet is ammoniated straw. The effect of the blocks on digestibility of rice straw was
ammoniated straw was obtained by supplementation with the blocks. Retention and net
utilization efficiency of nitrogen were improved more in the animals fed untreated rice straw
than in those fed ammoniated straw. It might be due to the oversupply of nitrogen when
adult buffaloes.
Hosmani et.al.(2005) reported that 16 adult male Murrah buffaloes were divided in to
4 groups and fed on diets containing wheat straw and urea-molasses mineral block (UMMB)
lick ad libitum and crushed maize grain to meet energy requirement plus urea 0, 15, 30 and
45 g/head daily. It was observed that there were no significant differences in intake of
UMMB, wheat straw, total DM and total digestible nutrients between groups but CP intake
was higher (P<0.05) in group 4 than in groups 1 and 2. Digestibility of nutrients in all groups
was similar, except that for CP which was higher (P<0.01) in group 4. Nitrogen balance was
not significantly different between groups. There was no significant effect of different levels
of urea supplementation on blood urea, protein or ammonia. It appears that the fermentable N
19
from UMMB was not sufficient to meet buffalo requirements when fed with dry fodder.
EXTENSION STRATEGIES
Extensive efforts have been made to transfer the technologies to the end user, the
(ii) Training of farmers through field demonstrations given to rural dairy farmers
line departments and ATMA. The UMMB licks were distributed free-of-cost
to the farmers in order to assess its feeding effect on the performance of dairy
cattle.
(iii) Efforts are being made by the Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Kapurthala to develop
developed by the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana for the last 4 to 5 years through
lectures, trainings, seminars, conferences and posters but was not able to conduct feeding
experiment at farmer’s field. As a result, farmers were not convinced about this technology or
we can say that it remained in theory. During the year 2007-08, ATMA became operative in
the district and KVK Kapurthala was involved in this project by the District Magistrate who
was the Chairman of ATMA Governing Board. KVK was asked to help the poor dairy
farmers by disseminating the most sustainable and economical technologies which can
21
increase milk production in cattle and buffaloes during lean periods so that a maximum
returns can be accrued. It was also assured that all the necessary help would be provided by
the Project Director ATMA, Kapurthala. During the month of September-October, 2008, in
the governing board of ATMA, it was decided to conduct demonstrations on the feeding of
Urea Molasses Mineral Blocks on cattle and buffaloes at farmers’ field in the whole district.
Hence, KVK, Kapurthala procured UMMB from the university and conducted
demonstrations at farmers field during the months of January, February, March , April, May
II. The extension approach of AMUL and Mehsana milk union (Haijarabad, Gujrat)
22
Case of AMUL: Amul introduced UMMB to the dairy farmers for the first time in the mid-
1980s through the extension staff of the Department of Animal Husbandry and the
Department of Procurement and Inputs. Amul used various approaches to popularize the use
of UMMB licks among the farmers. Amul’s extension staff members were the most
important sources of information for the respondents. The veterinary staff, who visited the
village for pregnancy diagnosis or artificial insemination, also advised farmers to use
UMMBs for pregnancy-related problems. Role of literature like posters, brochures, Amul
patrika etc. ,was very limited in the spread of the technology. But overall Amul’s extension
milk producers. Promotion of UMMB was undertaken in the form of a campaign.The key
extension strategy used for generation of awareness about UMMB was an intensive contact
Case of Mehsana : The extension approach of the Mehsana Milk Union for popularisation of
UMMB was somewhat different. Unlike Amul, extension work was taken up primarily by
small teams of extension staff, who were provided with all their prerequisites for field trials
and extension activities, including vehicles for mobility, salaries for the union
staff/supervisors, extension materials etc. The extension work was undertaken primarily
through intensive contact programmes at the village level. Discussions and meetings were
held with milk producers, DCS staff and management committee members, women dairy
farmers and the villagers. Posters, film shows and other educational materials, developed by
NDDB, were also used to generate awareness about UMMB licks and motivate dairy farmers
to use them.
The use of UMMB licks was first promoted free of charge in a few experimental
villages and then introduced for sale in additional villages. Despite concerted extension
23
efforts, a few dairy farmers adopted UMMB licks. Most of the early adopters of UMMB licks
in Mehsana milk shed were primarily concentrated in the green areas. However, most of them
discontinued the use of UMMB after the trial phase. As a result, the demand for UMMB
declined.
Although Amul tried to popularise UMMB among all milk producers (including
smallholders), the early adopters of UMMB were primarily those who had taken up dairying
as an important income generating activity. They were progressive farmers who were
receptive to new ideas and strove to improve milk productivity. In the words of the extension
staff their mindset was very different. Therefore, they adopted UMMB licks and used them.
Similar receptivity to new ideas is not found among other communities who are in the dairy
business now.
In summary, beyond the trial phase only a few small-scale milk producers used
UMMB licks on a continuous basis. In Mehsana Milk Union, some of the users of UMMB
from the green areas switched over from UMMB licks to urea molasses granules.
Unfortunately, the use of granules does not have adequate scientific support. Due to once-a-
day feeding practices, the granules release a short-lived high concentration of ammonia in the
rumen, much of which is wasted. In a few villages, however, some large-scale dairy farmers,
who have undertaken animal husbandry as a primary occupation continued to use UMMBs.
REACTION OF FARMERS
I. EXPERIENCES FROM INDIA
A. Case of Punjab
During the investigation, majority of the respondent farmers (46.5 per cent) reported
that water intake was increased whereas only 28.9 per cent of the respondent farmers had
24
indifferent reaction about effect of UMMB feeding on water intake in dairy animals. On the
other hand, about 21 per cent of them did not take note of water consumption. Similarly,
majority of the respondent farmers (73.13 %) reported that animals had higher dry matter
intake with the use of UMMB licks. Only about 4 per cent of the respondent farmers reported
As data pertain to the use of UMMB licks for three months only, no significant
impact of UMMB licks on animal health could be found (Fig 1). Large numbers of
respondent farmers (84.62 %), therefore, were indifferent about the effect of UMMB licks on
animal health. About twelve per cent respondent farmers reported positive effect of this
technology on the health of dairy animals under study. Only about 4 per cent of respondent
farmers observed negative effect of use of UMMB licks on the health of the animals. This
was probably due to the fact that the animals could take large amount of UMMB lick, when
provided ad lib. and thus could have created imbalance in rumen digestion.
Fig 1: Reaction of farmers about impact of UMMB licks on dairy animal (n =200)
Majority of the respondent farmers (44 %) informed that there was an increase in the
milk yield varying from 0.5 l to 2.0 l per animal per day whereas 28 per cent of them were
indifferent about the effect of UMMB licks feeding on milk yield. On further probe from the
respondents who were indifferent about effect on milk yield, about 71 per cent of them
realized that unlike previous years there was no reduction in the milk yield especially during
hot months ( April to June). This means that feeding of UMMB helped in sustaining the milk
yield in milch animals during the period when there was a shortage of green fodder and thus
reduced dry matter intake. Farmers reported that use of UMMB licks with wheat straw was
able to maintain milk yield equivalent to yield obtained when animal was fed on berseem
fodder. Thus, by supplementing UMMB, the farmers could harvest a yield similar to that of
25
green fodder feeding. Researchers have revealed that wheat straw along with UMMB licks
is able to provide maintenance energy to maintain the health of dairy animals. Perhaps that’s
why the animals were able to maintain milk yield in absence of green fodder. Only eight per
cent of the respondent farmers informed that there was no effect of feeding UMMB on the
milk yield. Since at most of the dairy farms, major dairy farm operations are being performed
by hired casual labourers, so 28 per cent farmers reported that they did not record the milk
yield but were happy with the performance due to the fact that they were of the opinion that
There is an inverse relationship between milk fat and milk yield. This is evident from
the farmers’ observations as only 11.5 per cent respondent farmers informed that fat
percentage increased whereas 44 per cent farmers informed that milk yield increased.
Similarly, 61.5 per cent of them observed that fat percentage remained same and 28 per cent
Figure 2 : Reaction of farmers about impact of using UMMB licks on milk yield and fat
percentage (n =200)
It is very important for the research scientists as well as extension workers to know
the fate of technologies generated and transferred by them among the end users. With this
concept in mind, effort was made to know about the satisfaction level reached by the dairy
farmers after making use of UMMB in the daily feeding schedule of milch animals.
It was noticed that about 81 per cent of respondent farmers were fully satisfied with
the results obtained and had adopted this technology (Fig 3). That’s why all of them were
ready to purchase UMMB from the suppliers at their own level. Non-availability of UMMB
26
licks as and when required by the farmers was observed as the major hindrance in the
adoption of this technology. Only about 8 per cent respondent farmers were not satisfied.
Moreover, these were the farmers who had adopted wrong strategy to feed the animals.
Fig 3 : Satisfaction level of farmers about the utility of UMMB licks (n =200)
B. Case of Gujrat
In general, any product for animals launched by Amul was viewed favourably by the
members, because of Amul’s high credibility among the members. The Dairy farmers used
the UMMBs during the trial stage. The experiences of the farmers are summarised below:
1. Seven of 15 respondents mentioned that UMMBs were good for the animals, but they
2. One landless labourer reported that UMMBs were useful for improving reproductive
3. One marginal farmer thought that UMMBs were good for crossbred cows.
4. Common problems in using the UMMBs included melting of the blocks and spoiling
In practice, benefits of UMMB were not visible to the respondents, as their animals did
not lick an adequate quantity of the blocks. Considerable efforts were made by NDDB to find
an appropriate dispenser for holding the UMMBs. However, none of the options offered an
acceptable solution. For example, initially the farmers used tagaras (small round metal
vessels) for UMMB. As tagaras were lightweight, the animals used to tip them over and the
blocks became soiled. To solve this problem, heavy cement blocks were introduced in the
Mehsana milk shed for holding the UMMBs. However, neither tagaras nor cement blocks
offered the right solution; as these dispensers were placed on the ground in front of the
animals, cow dung, urine, dust, water, straw etc. spoiled the UMMBs. Once the blocks were
spoiled, the animals would not eat them. NDDB further designed plastic dispensers for
28
holding UMMBs. These plastic dispensers could be hung where they were accessible to the
animals; however, the animals easily broke them, even when they were hung or placed above
ground level. Similarly, metal boxes were designed in such a way that the animals could not
chew the UMMB, but could easily lick them. Nevertheless, their use was also limited, as
most farmers did not have a proper place in their cattle shed to hang them.
Irrespective of the type of dispenser used, a common problem reported by the early
adopters was melting of the blocks. The blocks prepared through the hot process were
sensitive to humidity and temperature and melted easily. This made the blocks very messy
and unhygienic. The blocks also attracted flies and other insects due to their molasses
content. Instead of licking the blocks over a period of time, some of the animals chewed
them. Unlike hot process blocks, the cold process blocks did not melt easily. However, some
of the animals did not lick the blocks, presumably because of problems in palatability. The
farmers sometimes used to sprinkle flour on the blocks to induce licking. Unused hard blocks
were wasted, dissolved in water or cut into small pieces and mixed with cattle feed. The
benefits of using UMMBs were not easily visible to the farmers when the animals did not
consume an adequate quantity of the blocks. Inability to maintain quality of the UMMB was
The principal animal feed source in Bangladesh is rice straw and rice by-products,
such as rice polish. Farmers also feed their cattle with mixed green fodder cut from roadsides,
but during the dry season i.e., November to April, such mixed green fodder is not available
and the animals are completely dependent on rice straw as the sole feed. To sustain the level
of milk production, supplementary feeding is essential for dairy cattle. In addition, many of
lactating cow can sustain milk production without any concentrate. Many farmers have been
29
making UMMB on their farms and feeding to lactating cows for more milk and to bring their
cows into heat early. Some farmers have been using UMMB as a substitute for concentrate. A
considerable number of farmers have accepted this technology on their own initiative.
• Farmers reported that their animals looked healthier, their skin appeared shiny, and
• Their animals consumed more feed, especially roughages, with increased straw
intake.
• Cows with access to UMMB continued giving milk for a longer period.
Lessons learnt
The observation and experiences from different studies shows that results were
varying at different places. There are cases where farmers were convinced about the benefits
of the technology but at the same time at places farmers discontinued the use of technology
after trial basis. Further, these studies present data of limited period. Hence, long term
experiment work is needed to find the real impact of this technology. Further, as studies
reports that farmers used licks when they were available free of cost or on trial basis only in
spite of the benefits realized by them. This necessitates, finding out the constraints realized
CONSTRAINTS IN ADOPTION
significance only if it is accepted by the farmers. A farmer will accept a new technology only
if he is convinced that the method is suitable and profitable to him. The introduction of
innovation to small holder farmers, even if they are “appropriate” is one of the most difficult
tasks of research and extension personnel. A technology that has been successful at Institute
level or at an organized farm may not necessarily succeed at village level primarily because
of small holding of farmers who rear livestock for supplementing income and are reluctant to
change their traditional practices, especially when the innovations call for extra time and
labour. The more likely application of new technologies could perhaps be with large-scale
operations where benefits are clear and sufficiently large to warrant the extra efforts. The
technologies evolved with regard to the animal nutrition areas have far-reaching
consequences in bringing socio-economic transformation of the rural and urban dairy owners
What should be the appropriate approach for developing innovations for small-scale dairy
approaches?
Diffusion of UMMB through extension will depend upon the following factors which are
same for any proven technology for its dissemination among end- users.
For any innovation, the extension support or lack of it can speed up or retard its rate of
adoption.
Institutional aspects of transferring research results are very important for commercialisation
comparative evaluation of studies on UMMB diffusion and adoption among dairy farmers
shows that even an intensive extension approach is unlikely to be effective unless the
innovation that it promotes is perceived as relevant by the potential adopters and meets their
needs or solves their problems. If the technology is introduced at time when there is
abundance of green fodder or at stage where benefits of UMMB are not visible to the milk
producers, the technology will not be adopted by the farmers as the milk producers are not
And if for various reasons the animals did not lick adequate quantities of blocks or
consume in large quantities it can be a permanent blockade in the adoption and diffusion
process. So, the technology has to be introduced at time when results are immediate i.e. time
Farmers have to be trained about the precautions needed to be taken while using the
licks as from the farmers’ observation and experience it has been seen that in certain cases
over feeding has caused off feeding in cows for several days. There are various factors that
can affect the adoption UMMB lick among farmers so it is necessary to take farmers
of UMMB.
3. The major emphasis of development and diffusion of UMMB has been to try to fit the
innovative product within the existing system. Improving milk production of the
animals of small-scale dairy farmers from divergent livestock and farming systems
32
needs to move away from such a top–down approach for ‘transfer of technology’ to a
farmer-centred approach that is based on people’s felt needs and problems?. For that
4. The case study is based on limited field research, however, the findings and the trends
discussed need to be examined further through in-depth and rigorous research, for a
approach.
For example, the price of molasses, maize etc in the local market are unstable,
reflecting its seasonal availability. Its availability is higher and price lower in the
• Farmers are interested to purchase the UMMB licks from the local market, but there is
• Level of education of the farmers is an important factor. The technology was adopted
• The economic condition of farmers affects technology adoption. Poor farmers are
unable to purchase UMMBs due to lack of money, as they purchase their food daily
possible without financial support from the Government, due to lack of capital
investment.
• Usually, medium-scale milk producers (5–15 kg milk/day) at village level are more
concerned about increasing milk production and are ready to invest in the technology.
• Farmers having only one or two cows with low production levels are less interested
in additional investment.
33
As women dairy farmers play major role in animal husbandry, so the perspective of
woman dairy farmer and resource-poor women on the use of UMMB and the constraints to
Focused group discussion was held with four poor women who had one to two milch
animals. Agricultural wage labour was their primary source of income. For them, animal
however, kept their milch animals in a subsistence manner. Only, in the monsoon season,
grass is available in abundance from agricultural fields where the smallholders worked. At
times they buy or collected wheat straw from fields for their milch animals. The net income
of from dairy was used for meeting household expenses. Thus, they hardly had any surplus
income to spend on a new feed supplement, such as UMMB. Some of the resource-poor
women dairy farmers had used UMMBs for a few days when they were available free of
charge under ATMA scheme. These dairy farmers found use of UMMB beneficial in
has taken up animal husbandry as a primary occupation. The gross annual family incomes’
major share comes from dairy. According to Swaran Singh nearly fifty per cent of the dairy
1. He started with dairy on commercial scale few years back. He has now about 70 milch
animals. He always strives to get higher productivity per animal by improving the
ration of his animals. He finds that cows are more profitable than buffalo because they
2. Concentrates are purchased from the market and are given mainly to the milk animals.
He is feeding UMMB licks to 30 animals. According to Singh UMMB licks has more
beneficial effect on cow than buffaloes. He feels that 300 g dose of UMMB licks is
3. Swaran Singh came to know about UMMBs in from the Krishi Vigyan Kendra
trainings. In year 2009 he visited KVK where experts informed him about the use of
UMMB licks in times when green fodder in not available. From then on he is using
these blocks regularly. He was aware of UMMBs as a feed supplement with nutrients.
In his opinion, the benefits of UMMBs are (1) to increase feed intake and (2) to
Apart from few success stories the adoption of UMMBs was limited. Most of
the milk producers did not use the blocks beyond the trial stage due to inconvenience
Thus, the case study of UMMB diffusion and adoption among small-scale
potential adopters and meets their needs or solves their problems. Benefits of UMMB
were not visible to the milk producers, as for various reasons the animals did not lick
adequate quantities of blocks. The milk producers were not greatly concerned about
the long-term benefits of using UMMBs, as most of them were not engaged in
systematic livestock care and consequently they did not notice these benefits.
35
36
PROSPECTUS OF TECHNOLOGY
The fast increasing human population pressure is reducing the land available for
fodder production. However, the increased cereal production leaves abundant agro-industrial
by-products, and UMMB has a great role to play in the profitable utilization of these by-
play in meeting the nutritional needs of animals. The use of medicated blocks for control of
endoparasites should be exploited in small ruminants. The authors’ have already started
exploring the use of UMMB in solving the major problem of “delayed puberty” in buffaloes.
The use of UMMB as carrier to deliver many herbal digestive stimulants, herbal
The use of UMMB can be popularized among farming community probably due to the
following reasons
• Area under fodder crops is decreasing due to preference of farmers for cereal crops
which has assured market. Due to poor soil health the deficiency of micro nutrients
has also been observed in animals fodder and thus animals. Secondly, severe scarcity
of quality feeds. The quality of feed available in the market is very poor. Very few
progressive farmers are making feed at their home after taking training from the
Krishi Vigyan Kendra. Moreover the higher cost and rigorous labour involved in
preparation of feed at home will not promote entrepreneurship in this area. So the
diets having N-containing supplement can increased milk production and reproductive
• Good demand for milk will encourage the farmers to take the dairy farming on
commercial scale but for that productivity will be the key to survive in globalized
37
marketing. Farmers need animals having good health, higher milk productivity and
less calving interval. This encourages farmers to use a supplement, such as UMMB,
that can be produced at home using cheap, locally available, feed resources.
The value addition in the UMMB licks will further enhance the adoption of this
technology among end users. Limited work on this aspect of UMMB use has been done in
production in buffaloes (Knox, 1995; Sanyal and Singh, 1995). Preliminary trials on
medicated blocks carrying Replanta, a herbal drug, hastened uterine involution and
postpartum ovarian activity. Further work on his aspect needs to be taken up by the scientists.
nutrient deficits observed due to feeding of poor quality roughages. Its use as a feed
diets. Similarly, high-cost concentrates can be replaced by UMMB licks. The studies showed
that milk production could be sustained by providing UMMB without any concentrate up to
outputs levels of 5 kg of milk per day. There is a need to extend this technology to a greater
Precautions
animals which have not eaten anything for the whole day.
3. UMMB should be stored at a dry place and must be protected from rainwater so that it
REFERENCES
Brar P S and Nanda A S (2003) Formulation and development of UMMB by cold method for
improving fertility in dairy buffaloes. XIX Annual convention and National
symposium of Indian society for study of animal reproduction, 22-24 August 2003,
Calcutta, India. .
Chen Y Z, Wen H, Ma X, Li Y and Gao Y (1993b) Manufacture and utilization of
multinutrient lick blocks for dairy cattle. Gansu Journal of Animal Husbandry and
Veterinary Medicien, 23 (1): 4-6
Chen Y Z, Wen H, Ma X, Li Y, Gao Z and Peterson M A (1993) Multinutrient lick blocks for
dairy cattle in Gnsu Province, China. Livestock Research and Rural Development, 5
(3) : 60-63.
Garg M R, Mehta A K and Singh D K (1998) Advances in the production and use of urea
molasses mineral blocks in India. World Animal Review, 90: 1
Guan Y Y, Wen Q Y, Huang F and Fang W Y (2001) Effect of molasses urea block
supplementation on rumen degradation of nutrients of straws in buffalos. Animal
Husbandry and Veterinary medicine, 33 (3) : 15-16.
Hendranto C (1999) Development of UMMB as a feed supplement for ruminants and the
application by traditional farmers. pp. 1-9 in: Papers presented to the IAEA regional
training workshop on Self-Coating Solid-Phase Radiomimmunoassay for measuring
progresterone in m ilk of ruminant livestock. Mataram, Indonesia, 23-27 August 1999
Hosamani, S.V., Mehra, U.R. and Dass, R.S. (2003). Effect of different source of energy on
urea molasses mineral block intake, nutrient utilization rumen fermentation pattern
and blood profile in Murrah buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis). Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci.
2003, 16(6): 818-822.
Hume I D, Moir R J and Somers m (1970) Synthesis of microbial protein in the rumen.
Influence of the level of nitrogen intake. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research,
21 : 283-296
Knox M (1995) The use of medicated blocks to control nematode parasites of ruminants.pp.
116-121, in : Recent advances in animal nutrition in Australia. Armidale, Australia:
University of New England.
Lu Y, Yang B Y, Guan Y Y, Huang F, Fang W Y and Tang X F (1995) Effect of NPN-
containing lick blocks on fattening performance of beef cattle, 15:23
Ma Y Z, Ti X Y, Zhen R L and Xu J Y (1992) Manufacturing and evaluation of molasses
urea lick block. Tianjin Agricultural Sciences, 1 : 25-26
Mazed M A (1997) Effect of urea molasses mltinutrient blocks on the productive and
reproductive performance of indigenous cows under the village condition of
Bangladesh using readiommunoassy techniques. M. S. thesis, Department of Dairy
Science, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, Bangladesh. 46 pp.
40