Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 79 (8): 829833, August 2009

Feeding and housing management practices of dairy animals in Uttar Pradesh

R R K SINHA1, TRIVENI DUTT2, R R SINGH3, BHARAT BHUSHAN4, MUKESH SINGH5 and SANJAY KUMAR6

Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, Uttar Pradesh 243 122 India
Received: 16 January 2009; Accepted: 26 February 2009

ABSTRACT A field survey was conducted to acquire the first hand information on bovine herd management in rural, semi-urban and urban areas of Bareilly Tahsil of Bareilly district. The information on feeding and housing management practices was collected using structured schedule from 90 households rearing cattle and buffalo each from rural, semi-urban and urban area. Wheat straw was used as dry fodder by 86 to 98% of farmers in rural, semi-urban and urban areas. In urban areas 97.8% farmers fed concentrate round the year but in rural and semi-urban areas, only 66.7 and 75.6% farmers followed this practice. None of the farmers used silage, hay making or urea treated straw. Results revealed that 63.3% of the rural farmers shared their residence with the animals; this percentage was higher in semi-urban areas (83.3%). Brick floor was observed in 85.6, 72.2 and 80% houses respectively in rural, semi-urban and urban areas. Size and height of the houses were optimum in more than 75, 65 and 90%, of the farmers in rural, semi-urban and urban areas. Key words: Dairy animals, Feeding, Housing, Management practices

Feeding, management along with housing plays a very important role in exploiting real potential of dairy animals. It constitutes about 75% of total cost of milk production in buffaloes (Gangwar 1988). Optimum feeding and housing is the prerequisite factor for milk production but feed scarcity is the biggest challenge for increasing milk production in India (Jain et al. 1996, Saha et al. 1997). Balanced and proper feeding results in better utilization of nutrients and optimum milk production. To utilize the feeding material more efficiently, housing management becomes an important factor (Dubey and Singh 1975). As housing helps to maintain thermo neutral zone, in which animals are most productive. The present study was conducted to gather information regarding existing housing and feeding practices adopted by farmers of Bareilly Tahsil of Bareilly district and to provide help in adoption of scientific management practices in the area. MATERIALS AND METHODS A multistage stratified random sampling procedure was used for selection of panchayats and wards. Bareilly Tahsil which includes 3 blocks, viz. Bithrichainpur, Bhojipura and Kiyara, covers 171 village panchayats (rural areas), 3 nagar
Present address: 1,3Ph.D. Scholar, 2Principal Scientist, 4Senior Scientist, Livestock Production and Management; 3Senior Scientist, Animal Genetics and Breeding; 5Senior Scientist, Livestock Economics and Statistics.
71

panchayats (semi-urban areas) and 1 Nagar nigam (urban areas). For rural areas study, 3 village panchayats (Dalpatpur,Trikunia and Sahasia Hussainpur) were selected randomly, from each block whereas for semi-urban areas 6 wards were selected (wards no.1 and 13,4 and 6;4 and 9 from Dhaura Tanda,Thiriya Nizabat Khan and Rithora nagar panchayats respectively). Six wards (ward no.8,16,22,29,32 and 39) were selected randomly from Bareilly nagar nigam for the study of urban areas. All the farmers who were rearing at least one milch cattle or buffalo were selected for the study. A total of 270 cattle and buffalo rearers were selected from rural, semi-urban, and urban areas (90 cattle and buffalo rearers from each area). From rural area, 30 cattle and buffalo rearers were selected from each village panchayat and 15 from each ward from semi-urban and urban areas. Cattle and buffalo rearers were categorized on the basis of land holding as landless (0 ha), marginal (0<1 ha), small (12 ha), medium (2<4 ha) and large (4 ha and above). The data were collected through personal interviews using the structured schedule. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Feeding management practices: In rural, semi-urban and urban areas 100, 97.8 and 88.9% of dairy farmers respectively gave green fodder after chopping but 11.1% farmers from urban areas also gave green fodder as such (Table 1).This might be due to a shortage of labour or ignorance about advantages of giving chopped fodder. In urban areas, 97.8% fed concentrate round the year but in rural and semi-urban

830

SINHA ET AL.

[Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 79 (8)

Table 1. Feeding management practices followed by dairy farmers Characteristics/ categories Rural bovine dairy farmers No. Feeding green fodder After chopping Given as such Feeding concentrate whole year Method of feeding concentrate Mixed with fodder Separately At the time of milking Feeding more concentrate during pregnancy Increased feed quality of crop residue Use of feed supplement No. of times of feeding Once Twice Thrice or more Feeding fodder and concentrate timely Dry fodder mostly fed Wheat straw Paddy straw Both Grazing practice followed Management of fodder and concentrate during dry condition Own Purchased Leaves of trees Feeding of common salt Feeding of mineral mixture 90 0 68 Percent 100.00 0 75.56 Semi-urban bovine dairy farmers No. 88 2 60 Percent 97.78 2.22 66.67 Urban bovine dairy farmers No. 80 10 88 Percent 88.89 11.11 97.78

67 22 1 83 11 3 1 15 74 76

74.44 24.44 1.11 92.22 12.22 3.33 1.11 16.67 82.22 84.44

68 20 2 73 13 3 0 33 57 72

75.56 22.22 2.22 81.11 14.44 3.33 0 36.67 63.33 80.00

77 7 4 68 30 7 0 66 24 87

85.56 7.78 4.44 75.56 33.33 7.78 0 73.33 26.67 96.67

77 4 9 37 80 10 50 20 78 6

85.56 4.44 10.00 41.11 88.89 11.11 55.56 22.22 86.67 6.67

81 4 5 29 78 21 51 6 75 10

90.00 4.44 5.56 32.22 86.67 23.33 56.67 6.67 83.33 11.11

88 1 1 18 87 3 83 1 78 14

97.78 1.11 1.11 20.00 96.67 3.33 92.22 1.11 86.67 15.56

areas, only 66.7 and 75.6% followed this practice. The cost factor may be implicated in urban areas where high cost of green fodder prohibited farmers from feeding it to their animals. The method of feeding concentrate was by mixing it with fodder, which was practiced by 74.4, 75.6 and 85.6% farmers, respectively, in rural, semi-urban and urban areas. Similar findings were observed in Rajasthan, where nearly three-fourths households fed the concentrate after soaking it in water and then mixed with the available roughages and this was offered to the bovines in milk (Gupta et al. 2008). Farmers gave more concentrate during pregnancy in all areas, which was similar to the findings of Malik (1997) in the home tract of Murrah and Kumar et al. (2005) in the breeding tract of Nili-Ravi buffaloes. No farmer practised improving feed quality by urea treatment. Similar findings were observed in Nagpur district of Maharashtra (Kavathalkar et al. 2007). Improving feed quality by adding jiggery, however, was practised by 33.3% of rural farmers. Uses of other feed
72

supplements were negligible. This is in concordance with the finding of Deoras et al. (2004). None of the farmers practised silage or hay making which was similar to the findings of Malik and Nagpaul (1998), and Gupta and Arneja (1981). This might be due to regular availability of green fodder in rural and semi-urban areas, whereas in urban areas, on account of a majority of farmers being landless did not have sufficient fodder to conserve. In rural areas 54.4% of the farmers fed (fodder and concentrate) their animals separately which was also similar in semi-urban areas (63.3%), but in urban areas, farmers fed (fodder and concentrate) their animals in herd. This might be due to a shortage of space in urban areas. In rural areas, farmers fed their animals thrice or more (82.2%) but in urban areas animals were fed twice, which may be due to the high cost of feed and feeding in urban areas. Feeding 2 or 3 times a day is a good practice, which has also been recommended by Thomas and Sastry (1991).

August 2009]

FEEDING AND HOUSING MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Table 2. Housing management practices followed by dairy farmers

831

Characteristics/ categories

Rural bovine dairy farmers No. Percent 63.33 36.67 44.44 55.56 33.33 65.56 1.11 8.89 26.67 64.44 74.44 22.22 3.33 41.11 58.89 14.44 8.89 1.11 14.44 2.22 58.89 37.78 45.56 16.67 55.56 44.44 2.22 16.67 34.44 20.00 28.89 35.56 64.44 7.78 13.33 86.67 73.33 26.67 78.89 21.11 74.44 25.56 6.67 73.33 13.33 13.33
73

Semiurban bovine dairy farmers No. 75 15 48 42 23 65 2 3 30 57 57 24 9 30 60 27 10 3 15 1 34 44 29 17 51 39 3 11 48 10 21 23 67 10 12 66 12 62 28 69 21 64 26 10 37 40 13 Percent 83.33 16.67 53.33 46.67 25.56 72.22 2.22 3.33 33.33 63.33 63.33 26.67 10.00 33.33 66.67 30.00 11.11 3.33 16.67 1.11 37.78 48.89 32.22 18.89 56.67 43.33 3.33 12.22 53.33 11.11 23.33 25.56 74.44 11.11 13.33 73.33 13.33 68.89 31.11 76.67 23.33 71.11 28.89 11.11 41.11 44.44 14.44

Urban bovine dairy farmers No. 54 36 46 44 12 72 6 0 59 31 49 35 6 5 85 23 11 20 20 5 11 75 1 14 77 13 33 2 76 1 11 13 77 8 18 52 20 83 7 82 8 78 12 23 20 26 44 Percent 60.00 40.00 51.11 48.89 13.33 80.00 6.67 0 65.56 34.44 54.44 38.89 6.67 5.56 94.44 25.56 12.22 22.22 22.22 5.56 12.22 83.33 1.11 15.56 85.56 14.44 36.67 2.22 84.44 1.11 12.22 14.44 85.56 8.89 20.00 57.78 22.22 92.22 7.78 91.11 8.89 86.67 13.33 25.56 22.22 28.89 48.89

Type of house Part of residence Separate Direction of house NorthSouth EastWest Type of floor Kuccha Bricked Cemented Slope of floor Towards front Towards back No slope Wall of house Full Half No wall Type of wall Kuccha Pucca Type of roof Thatched Kuccha Tin RCC Asbestos Khaprail Manger Pucca Kuccha Iron drum/tyre/wooden Size of manger Optimum Not optimum Provision of water trough Ventilation in house Poor Fairly good Good No provision of ventilation Cleanliness of house Dirty Clean Use of disinfectant in house Location of manure pit Adjacent Distant No Size of house Optimum Not optimum Height of house Optimum Not optimum Floor space for animals Optimum Not optimum Proper drainage of urine (Pucca gutter) Use of bedding materials in winter Sugarcane leaves Straw No bedding

57 33 40 50 30 59 1 8 24 58 67 20 3 37 53 13 8 1 13 2 53 34 41 15 50 40 2 15 31 18 26 32 58 17 12 78 66 24 71 19 67 23 6 66 12 12

832

SINHA ET AL.

[Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 79 (8)

Wheat straw was the best choice as dry fodder and was fed by 85.6, 90, 97.8% of farmers in rural, semi-urban and urban areas respectively. Animals were allowed to graze by only 41.1%, 32.2 and 20% farmers in rural, semiurban and urban areas, respectively, of which the majority was of landless farmers. Common salt feeding was practiced by more than 83% farmers across the 3 areas. Mineral mixture feeding was not a common practice in any area of the study. However, in urban areas 15.6% of the farmers fed mineral mixture, irregularly. Similar observations were made by Dhiman et al. (1990), Malik and Nagpaul (1998) and Kalyankar et al. (2008). Management of fodder and concentrate during dry conditions through purchase was practiced by more than 80% of farmers. Besides, 22.2% of rural farmers also gave tree leaves but this was practiced to a limited extent in semiurban and urban areas. Housing management practices: Rural farmers (63.3%) shared their residence (Table 2) with the animals and this percentage was higher in semi-urban areas (83.3%), this was in contrary to findings of Gupta et al. (2008) in Rajasthan and Roy et al. (2007) in rural areas of West Bengal, where on an average 86% and 82% households, respectively, provided seperate stall within or outside the human dwelling. Regarding direction of houses, in rural areas 55.6% houses were in east-west direction but majority of houses in semiurban (53.3%) and urban areas (51.1%) were in north-south direction. As far as type of floor was concerned, 85.6%, 72.2% and 80% houses had brick floor in rural, semi-urban and urban areas, respectively. Only around 36% of farmer houses in rural and semi-urban areas had slope on floor against the 65.6% farmer houses in urban areas and mostly slope toward back in houses. This might be due to awareness of keeping slope in floor to maintain hygienic conditions. Majority of the animal houses (5474%) had full wall. It was also noted that the respondents kept their animals at different places, viz. inside the shed, in open and under tree depending upon the season and environmental conditions. As far as type of wall is concerned, in urban areas 94.4% wall of houses were pucca, and in semi-urban and rural areas 66.7% and 58.9% houses had pucca wall respectively. This shows some improvement in urban areas. Roof of the houses in rural areas were of khaprail in 58.6%, thatched in 14.4% and RCC in 14.4% of farmers house. In semi-urban areas 37.8% houses were khaprail, 30% thatched and 16.7% were of RCC but in urban areas 25.6% housed were thatched, 22.2% houses of RCC and tin each and only 12.2% of khaprail. This might be due to good economic status of the urban farmers. Majority of feeding manger were kuccha in rural areas but, in semi-urban and urban areas majority of the farmers had pucca manger although some farmers (1519%) from all the areas, were using iron drum or tyre or wooden manger for their animals. In urban areas, 36.7% farmers provided separate water trough to the animal, which was less in rural and semi-urban
74

areas. These findings were in agreement with Garg et al. (2005) in Baran district of Rajasthan. In 84.4% of urban houses ventilation was in fairly good condition and this was 34.4 and 53.3% in rural and semi-urban houses, respectively. In rural areas, 20% of animal houses were having good ventilation, which was comparatively higher than other areas. In rural areas, 85.6% of animal houses were clean in comparison to 74.4% semi-urban and 64.4% urban houses. Disinfectants were used by 7.8%, 11.1% and 8.9% of rural, semi-urban and urban farmers, respectively, in their shed. This might be due to lack of knowledge about benefits of disinfectants. Similar findings were made by Garg et al. (2005). There was distantly located manure pit in 86.7, 73.3 and 57.8% in rural, semi-urban and urban areas. In urban areas 22.2% and in semi-urban areas 13.3% farmers were not having manure pit, they were simply putting dungs at selected places. Size and height of the houses were optimum in 75, 65 and 90%, of the farmers in rural, semi-urban and urban areas respectively. Floor space was also found optimum in 74.4, 71.1 and 86.7% cases in rural, semi-urban and urban areas. Drainage for urine disposal were proper in 25.6% cases of urban areas but in semi-urban and rural areas drainage was proper in 11.1 and 6.7% houses only. In rural areas, 73.3% farmers were using sugarcane leaves and 13.3% using straw as bedding material in winter, but in semi urban areas, 44% of the farmers were using straw and 41.1% using sugarcane leaves whereas, in urban areas 28.9% were using straw and 22.2% using sugarcane leaves. Others were using different types of bedding materials like sawdust, khoyee (residue of crushed sugarcane), and other waste dry fodders. The present study indicated that feeding practices were comparatively better in rural areas followed by semi-urban and urban areas. Farmers were not making silage and hay and they were unaware of the quality improvement of urea treated straw. However, common salt feeding was in practice, but mineral mixtures feeding among farmers were negligible. The housing practices were better in rural areas followed by urban and semi-urban areas. Water trough facility, feed manger size, cleaning and type or location of houses needs improvement in all the areas of the study.
REFERENCES Deoras Rajiv, Nema R K, Tiwari S P and Singh Mohan. 2004. Feeding and housing management practices of dairy animals in Rajnandagaon of Chhatisgarh plain. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 74(3): 30306. Dhiman P C, Singh Narendra and Yadav B L. 1990. A study on cattle and buffalo feeding and breeding practices in adopted and nonadopted village of Hisar district. Indian Journal of Animal Production and Management 6(2): 9094. Dubey V K and Singh S S. 1975. What crossbred cattle owners know about scientific dairying. Paper presented at Summer Institute on Modernization of Dairy farming held at NDRI, Karnal.

August 2009]

FEEDING AND HOUSING MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

833

Gangwar A C. 1988. Performance of buffaloes kept on different categories of farms. Indian Journal of Animal Production and Management 4(34): 11923. Garg M K, Jain L S and Chaudhary J L. 2005. Studies on housing, feeding and milking management practices of dairy cattle in Baran district of Rajasthan. Indian Journal of Dairy Science 58(2): 12328. Gupta A K, and Arneja C S. 1981. Animal husbandry practices, practised by farmers. Livestock Advisor 6(3): 2426. Gupta D C, Suresh A and Mann J S. 2008. Management practices and productivity status of cattle and buffaloes in Rajasthan. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 78 (7): 769774. Jain D K, Sharma K N S, Walli T K and Rai S N. 1996. Estimates of nutrient requirement and availability for bovine population across major states in India. National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana, Publication No. 281. Kalyankar S D, Chavan A A, Khedkar and Kalyankar S P. 2008. Studies on management practices of buffaloes in different agro climatic zones of Maharashtra. Indian Journal of Animal Research 42 (3): 15763. Kavathalkar N G, Patil S R, Kankhare D H, Desale R J and Mane S H. 2007. Constraints in adoption of scientific recommendations

in feeding of dairy animals in Nagpur district. Indian Dairyman 59 (12): 5155. Kumar M, Mehla R K and Chandra R. 2005. Feeding and housing managemental practices of NiliRavi buffalo under field conditions. Indian Journal of Dairy Science 58 (5): 376 78. Malik D S. 1997. Studies on managemental practices of Murrah buffalo in its hometract of Haryana. Ph.D Thesis, NDRI, Karnal India. Malik D S and Nagpal P K. 1998. Studies on housing and feeding management practices of Murrah buffalo in its hometract of Haryana. Indian Journal of Animal Production and Management 14(3): 18688. Roy P K, Saha R C, Singh R B and Nagpaul P K. 2007. Dairy cattle housing under different farming systems and its effect on milk production in rural households of West Bengal. Indian Journal of Dairy Science 60 (2): 11923. Saha R C, Singh R B, Saha R N and Choudhury A B. 1997. Feed resources and milk production in the eastern states. National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana, Publication No. 282. Thomas C K and Sastry N S R. 1991. Dairy Bovine Production. Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi.

75