Feeding strategies
In ARS Dairy Farm-1, the animals are fed with maize silage grown on 17 acre land. Silage making is carried out on land with Bunker silo method above the ground level using tractor driven harvester cum chopper. To meet concentrate feed requirements they procure the feed with 34% protein containing Distilled Dry Grain Soluble (DDGS) offered 3 kg per animal per day and Tapioca, GNC and Bengal gram based total mixed ration offered 3.5 kg per animal per day. Water is provided
adlibitum which is automatically controlled by ball valve. There is intense labour saving with most of machine operations. In ARS Dairy Farm-2, the animals are fed with maize silage grown on 25 acre land. Silage making is carried out on land with Bunker silo method above the ground level using tractor driven harvester cum chopper. To meet concentrate feed requirements they procure the compounded feed from Charoen popkhoend feed pvt.ltd. containing maize, soybean meal, wheat bran as major component, offered 3 kg per animal per day. Watering system is similar to ARS Dairy farm-1. Concentrate feeding schedule to calves up to six months for 10 kg body weight.
In CRS Dairy Farm-1 and Farm-2, Calf was fed first four days on colostrums, later on milk was fed based on 10 per cent of body weight in CRS Dairy Farm-1 and soya milk was fed based on 10% of body weight CRS Dairy Farm-2. Calf rations starts from thirty days and ends up to 180 days in both conventional dairy farms. Calf ration is a mixture of greens and concentrates and Guinea grass, Rhodes grass are primarily used as green feeding and concentrate fed based on 12 per cent of body weight in CRS Dairy Farm-1 where as Calf ration is a mixture of green, concentrates and sprouted maize fodder and Napier and sprouted green fodder are primarily used as green feeding and concentrate fed based on 12% of body weight in CRS Dairy Farm-2. In both the conventional dairy farms, heifer was fed greens @22.5 kg per animal and concentrates was fed for maintenance@ 3kg per animal. Dry fodder fed @10 per cent of green fodder
i.e. 2.25 kgs. Lactating cow was fed greens@45kg per animal and concentrates was fed for maintenance and production@ 3 kg per animal and 40 per cent of milk production, respectively. Dry fodder was fed @ 10 per cent of green fodder. However, the leftover residue after soya milk production will be fed to dairy cow by replacing 20% of total concentrates feeding.
Farm Characteristics (Table 2)
Feeding System
ARS Farm-1, ARS Farm-2 and CRS Farm-1 used feed mixer wagon alley without robotic pusher with the help of tractor whereas CRS Farm-2 done manual conventional feeding. The feeding of cows was done twice a day in all the studied farms.
Types of milking system
ARS Dairy Farm-1 has Herringbone (Fishbone) milk Parlour where 12 cows can be milked at one time. Cows stand on an elevated platform in a 45° angled or herringbone manner with their back to the centre of milking area
(Veysset et al., 2001). This exposes enough of the back half of the cow to access to milk her from the side. The milking cup was attached from the sides
(Pichler et al., 1998). There was a single entry and exit point for this milking parlour. ARS Dairy Farm-2 was equipped with Parallel (Side by side) milk parlour for the lactating cow. Cows stand on an elevated platform at a 90o facing away from the operator area
(Axelsson et al., 2012). Access to the udder between the rear legs, reduces the visibility of fore quarters. This configuration makes the walking distance shorter than in herringbone parlour. The cow platform is wider than a herringbone parlour to accommodate the length of the cow. To assure that each position is filled in order, a series of interlocking fronts prevent a position from being used until the one next to it has been occupied. Most parallel parlours use rapid exit stall fronts and use dual return lanes. Both CRS Dairy Farm-1 and CRS Dairy Farm-2 equipped with Bucket automatic milk parlour for the lactating cow. The simplest autonomous machine milking included vacuum pump, single or dual buckets and pulsator for milking one or two animals simultaneously.
Lactation yield and persistency of milk production
There was significant difference (P ≤ 0.05) in lactation yield of animals in automation over conventional system. The average lactation yield at fourth lactation (Table 3) for dairy cattle rear in automatic rearing system recorded 6115.45 litres as compare to 5785.20 litres of milk production of dairy cattle rear in conventional rearing system. In the present study increased in Automation occurred at all four lactation stages. AMS feeding programs involves concentrates that completing the nutrient to meet the requirements of animal and increased the production. The findings of current study were in agreement with those of
de Koning (2010),
Jacobs and Siegford, (2012),
Prescott et al., (1998),
Rodenburg, (2011) who reported increase in milk yield due to AM system. Total mixed ration feeding strategies strive to maintain a constant nutrient composition to encourage milk production and a more accurate understanding of nutrient consumption (
Coppock, 1977). However there was no significant (P ≤ 0.05) influence recorded in persistency of milk production (Table 3) among two rearing systems. A typical lactation curve can be described as increasing from initial yield at calving to maximum peak yield, a plateau maintaining peak yield and a decrease from peak yield to the end of the lactation (
Grossman and Koops, 2003).
Age at first calving, lactation length and service period
The comparison between automation and conventional system of rearing showed (Table 4) that there was significant difference (P ≤ 0.01) in Age at first Calving and service period. The average age at first calving and service period in automatic rearing system was recorded 843.65 days and 122.15 days respectively where as average age at first calving and service period in conventional rearing system was recorded 903.05 days and 142.55 days. However, there was no significant difference in lactation length. These results will be in agreement of the findings of (
Ali et al., 2015) who reported that location differences in reproductive performance are often results of difference in feed and feeding strategies, microclimatic conditions including temperature and humidity and management practices. As reported by
(Obese et al., 1999; Domecq et al., 1997), cows reared under very limited resources and unfavourable climate of extensive management systems may fail to become pregnant. On contrary to these findings,
(Carson et al., 2002) reported that effect of rearing regime does not influence on reproductive traits like age at first calving, fertility
etc in Friesian cattle. However, reproductive performance, as indicated by the number of services per conception, was somewhat poorer than previous work with Friesian heifers (
Leaver, 1977) but similar to that reported, more recently, by other workers using Holstein heifers
(Pirlo et al., 2000; Lammers et al., 1999; Carson et al., 2000).
Working time measurement
The comparison between automation and conventional system of rearing showed in Table 4, that there was significant difference (P ≤ 0.01) in manpower minutes for feeding, watering and milking in automatic rearing system than conventional rearing system. Automatic feeding systems are relatively expensive and require a high initial investment. The reason is that if at all possible they should be used for all feeding groups, including dry cows and young animals. The storage containers for the various feed components, particularly roughage, account for a substantial proportion of the investment cost, so the number of basic ration components used has a major effect on investment cost. Working time measurement modelling showed a significantly lower time requirement for feeder-mixer wagon than for a conventional manual feeding system. This supports corresponding statements by farmers in the survey conducted previously.
Bisaglia et al., (2012) arrived at a similar result in a simulated comparison of working times between automatic feeder-mixer wagons versus conventional feeding system. Working time measurement of feeder wagon was also studied by
Grothmann et al., (2010) and reported the similar manpower minutes requirement in these system. However there should be extensive work and research required to understand the economics of modern dairy farming in India.
