See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/299523569

Effect of Area Specific Mineral Mixture Feeding On Milk Yield and Composition
of Dairy Animals of Central Zone of Punjab

Article · January 2016

DOI: 10.5455/ijlr.20160326103223

CITATIONS READS

2 300

5 authors, including:

Sushma Chhabra S.s. Randhawa

Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University 159 PUBLICATIONS   279 CITATIONS   
56 PUBLICATIONS   92 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Dhiraj Kumar Gupta

Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University
55 PUBLICATIONS   111 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Immunomodulatory Activity of Medicinal Plants View project

Bovine udder health View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sushma Chhabra on 08 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Vol 6(03) Mar’16
International Journal of Livestock Research ISSN 2277-1964 ONLINE

Effect of Area Specific Mineral Mixture Feeding On Milk Yield and

Composition of Dairy Animals of Central Zone of Punjab
Shivdeep Singh, S. Chhabra, S.N.S. Randhawa, C.S. Randhawa and D.K. Gupta*
Department of Veterinary Medicine, Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University,
Ludhiana-141004 INDIA

*Corresponding author: drdhirajvet@yahoo.co.in

Rec. Date: Mar 14, 2016 10:56
Accept Date: Mar 26, 2016 10:32
Published Online: March 28, 2016
DOI 10.5455/ijlr.20160326103223

Abstract

The present study was conducted to observe the effects of area specific mineral mixture supplementation
of dairy animals of central zone of Punjab on milk yield and milk components over a period of six months.
Sixty nine cattle (51 in treatment group, 18 in control group) and 71 buffaloes (53 in treatment group, 18
in control group) were selected randomly from 23 villages of central Zone of Punjab (Ludhiana,
Nawanshahr and Fatehgarh Sahib). Animals from treatment group were fed area specific mineral
mixture @ 50 grams/animal/day for a period of 6 months; whereas animals from control group were not
supplemented. Milk yield of these animals was recorded by their owners and these values were averaged
for 0-3 months and 3-6 months interval. Milk components such as milk fat, milk solids, milk proteins and
milk lactose were also evaluated from milk samples collected at 0 day, 3 months and 6 months interval. In
this study, area specific mineral mixture supplementation resulted in increased milk yield particularly
during mid-lactation. However, no effect was observed on milk components during this feeding trial.

Key words: Area Specific Mineral Mixture, Cows, Buffaloes, Milk, Milk Components

How to cite: Singh, S., Chhabra, S., Singh, C., Randhawa, S. S. & Gupta, D. K. (0) Effect of Area
Specific Mineral Mixture Feeding On Milk Yield and Composition of Dairy Animals of Central Zone of
Punjab. International Journal of Livestock Research, 6 (3), 62-65.doi:10.5455/ijlr.20160326103223

Introduction

India is the highest milk producing country in the world, largely due to the large population of its dairy
animals. However, per animal milk production in the world is still very low in India which can be
attributed to poor nutritional management leading to several metabolic disorders such as mineral
deficiency diseases. Sharma et al. (2002) and Sharma et al. (2003) reported that dairy animals with
macro- and micro mineral deficiencies were producing milk sub optimally and subsequently showed
improved milk production levels post mineral supplementation. Regular feeding of area specific mineral
62

mixture supplements have reportedly improved milk yield in some parts of India (Tiwari et al., 2013).
Page

The present study was conducted to observe the effects of area specific mineral mixture supplementation

GIF 2015 – 0.667 Hosted@www.ijlr.org DOI 10.5455/ijlr.20160326103223

 Vol 6(03) Mar’16
International Journal of Livestock Research ISSN 2277-1964 ONLINE

of dairy animals of central zone of Punjab on milk yield and milk components over a period of six
months.

Materials and Methods

Sixty nine cattle (51 in treatment group, 18 in control group) and 71 buffaloes (53 in treatment group, 18
in control group) were selected randomly from 23 villages of central Zone of Punjab (Ludhiana,
Nawanshahr and Fatehgarh Sahib) during the study period (October 2012 to May 2013). All the animals
selected were at a comparable stage of lactation i.e. within first month of lactation and were maintained
under similar management conditions throughout the trial.

Animals from treatment group were fed area specific mineral mixture (Table 1) at the rate of 50
grams/animal/day for a period of 6 months; whereas animals from control group were not supplemented.
Milk yield of these animals was recorded by their owners and these values were averaged for 0-3 months
and 3-6 months interval. Milk components such as milk fat, milk solids, milk proteins and milk lactose
were also evaluated by Lactoscan (Milkotronic Limited, Bulgaria) from milk samples collected at 0 day, 3
months and 6 months interval.

Two way split analysis of variance after logarithmic transformation of values was employed to compare
difference between treatment and control groups (T) and changes in milk yield and composition due to
physiological changes over time (t) using SPSS for Windows (Version 16.0; Microsoft).

Table 1: Composition of area specific mineral mixture (per 100 Kg)

Source Weight (in Kg)
Dicalcium phosphate 66.66
Limestone 17.15
Magnesium oxide 6.66
Potassium iodate 0.067
Copper sulphate 0.549
Cobalt sulphate 0.0363
Manganese sulphate 0.462
Zinc oxide 1.245
Sodium sulphate 7.171

Results and Discussion

Animals classified in treatment and control groups showed significant within group difference in terms of
milk yield (Tables 2 and 3). However, no significant difference was observed between treatment and
63

control groups in both cattle and buffaloes during first 3 months of trial but a significant difference
(p<0.05) was observed during 3 to 6 months of trial period. Overall, the difference in milk yields of
Page

GIF 2015 – 0.667 Hosted@www.ijlr.org DOI 10.5455/ijlr.20160326103223

 Vol 6(03) Mar’16
International Journal of Livestock Research ISSN 2277-1964 ONLINE

control and treatment groups was significant (p<0.05). These findings are similar to those of Hackbart et
al. (2010) who reported an increase in milk production in dairy cattle at mid-lactation stage of milk
production. In Indian conditions, Tiwari et al. (2013) has reported an increase in milk production as well
as increased in total lactation length in cattle post area specific mineral mixture supplementation. Nocek
et al. (2006) observed an increase in milk production during second lactation as compared to first
lactation post mineral supplementation. It can be interpreted that mineral feeding may take certain amount
of time to express its effects on milk production.
No significant difference in milk fat, protein, lactose and solids not fat was observed between treatment
and control groups in either cattle or buffaloes whereas significant effect of time (p <0.05) on these
parameters was observed, except for milk lactose (Tables 2 and 3). Hence, the changes in milk
components can be attributed to physiological changes in milk quality over the duration of lactation. In
support of the findings of the present study, Wu et al. (2000), Sharma et al. (2002), Rabiee et al. (2010)
and Begum et al. (2010) reported no significant changes between supplemented and non-supplemented
groups in milk components such as milk lactose, milk protein, milk fat and milk SNF.
Table 2: Comparative changes in milk yield and milk components in buffaloes over duration of trial
(Mean ± S.E.)

Parameter Group Day 0 0-3 Months 3-6 Months Sig.

Milk yield Treatment 7.93 ± 0.67a 8.62 ± 0.57b 8.21 ± 0.49ab T*
b b a
(L/day) Control 7.73 ± 0.49 8.15 ± 0.69 5.78 ± 0.72 t

Milk Lactose Treatment 4.58 ± 0.13 4.68 ± 0.11 4.76 ± 0.10 T

(%) Control 4.44 ± 0.15a 4.72 ± 0.19b 4.83 ± 0.14b t

Milk Protein Treatment 4.81 ± 0.10b 4.56 ± 0.13a 4.89 ± 0.11b T

b a b
(%) Control 4.68 ± 0.12 4.27 ± 0.10 4.63 ± 0.14 t*
Treatment 7.86 ± 0.19b 7.01 ± 0.26a 8.06 ± 0.23b T
Milk Fat (%)
Control 7.79 ± 0.25b 6.89 ± 0.22a 7.93 ± 0.27b t*

Milk SNF Treatment 9.59 ± 0.13a 9.48 ± 0.17a 9.83 ± 0.14b T

(%) Control 9.36 ± 0.14ab 9.18 ± 0.15a 9.68 ± 0.11b t*
Where Sig. = Significant for, T= difference between treatments, t= effect of time,* = significant at p
(<0.05); Figures in a row having different superscripts are significantly different from each other (p <
0.05)

Table 3: Comparative changes in milk yield and milk components in cattle over duration of trial (Mean
64

±S.E.)
Page

Parameter Group Day 0 0-3 Months 3-6 Months Sig.

GIF 2015 – 0.667 Hosted@www.ijlr.org DOI 10.5455/ijlr.20160326103223

 Vol 6(03) Mar’16
International Journal of Livestock Research ISSN 2277-1964 ONLINE

Milk yield Treatment 10.86 ± 0.65a 11.98 ± 0.75b 11.70 ± 0.53b T*

(L/day) Control 10.46 ± 0.64 b
10.89 ± 0.54 b
8.16 ± 0.61 a t

Milk Lactose Treatment 4.76 ± 0.12 4.83 ± 0.14 4.96 ± 0.11 T

(%) Control 4.53 ± 0.16 a
4.69 ± 0.14 ab
4.81 ± 0.13 b t

Milk Protein Treatment 3.86 ± 0.09a 3.53 ± 0.11b 4.08 ± 0.09c T

(%) Control 3.61 ± 0.10 b
3.35 ± 0.13 a
3.85 ± 0.15 c t*

Treatment 3.39 ± 0.23a 3.02 ± 0.25b 3.63 ± 0.21a T

Milk Fat (%)
Control 3.49 ± 0.26 b
2.92 ± 0.21 a
3.47 ± 0.19 b t*

Milk SNF Treatment 8.89 ± 0.13a 8.53 ± 0.11b 9.23 ± 0.15c T

(%) Control 8.39 ± 0.10 a
8.26 ± 0.16 a
8.66 ± 0.15 b t*
Where Sig. = Significant for, T= difference between treatments, t= effect of time, * = significant at p
(<0.05); Figures in a row having different superscripts are significantly different from each other (p <
0.05)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Head of Department, Department of Veterinary Medicine,
GADVASU and Diresctor-Research, GADVASU for providing infrastructural support and to Rashtriya
Krishi Vikas Yojana for proving financial funding to carry out this research.

References

1. Begum, I., Azim, A., Akhter, S., Anjum, M.I. and Afzal, M. (2010). Pak. Vet. J., 30(2): 105-09.
2. Hackbart, K.S., Ferreira, R.M., Dietsche, A.A., Socha, M.T., Shaver, R.D., Wiltbank, M.C. and
Fricke, P.M. (2010). J. Anim. Sci., 88:3856-70.
3. Nocek, J. E., Socha, M. T. and Tomlinson, D. J. (2006). J. Dairy Sci., 89:2679–93.
4. Rabiee, A.R., Lean, I.J., Stevenson, M.A. and Socha, M.T. (2010). J. Dairy Sci., 93:4239–51.
5. Sharma, M.C., Joshi, C. and Sarkar, T. K. (2002). Asian Austral. J. Anim., 15(9): 1278-87.
6. Sharma, M.C., Raju, S., Joshi, C., Kaur, H. and Varshney, V.P. (2003). Asian Austral. J. Anim.,
16(4): 519-28.
7. Tiwari, R., Sharma, M.C., and Singh, B.P. (2013). Indian J. Anim. Sci., 83 (4): 435–37.
8. Wu, Z., Satter, L.D. and Sojo,R. (2000). J. Dairy Sci., 83:1028–41.
65Page

GIF 2015 – 0.667 Hosted@www.ijlr.org DOI 10.5455/ijlr.20160326103223

View publication stats