Indian Journal of Animal Research

  • Chief EditorM. R. Saseendranath

  • Print ISSN 0367-6722

  • Online ISSN 0976-0555

  • NAAS Rating 6.40

  • SJR 0.233, CiteScore: 0.606

  • Impact Factor 0.4 (2024)

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December)
Indexing Services :
Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Scopus, AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Indian Journal of Animal Research, volume 42 issue 1 (march 2008) : 10-16

NUTRITIONAL STATUS OF CROSSBRED AND LOCAL COWS

P. K. Madke1, J. S. Murkute, S. S. Lathwal2, I. M. Kheir3
1Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying College of Agriculture, Nagpur, 440 010, India

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Madke1 K. P., Murkute S. J., Lathwal2 S. S., Kheir3 M. I. (2025). NUTRITIONAL STATUS OF CROSSBRED AND LOCAL COWS. Indian Journal of Animal Research. 42(1): 10-16. doi: .

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.

KEYWORDS

    REFERENCES

    1. Arora, D.N. et al (1990) Dairy Guide 12 (4-6): 15-17
    2. Bhaskar, M. L. and Gupta, M.P.(1997). Indian J. Anim. Sci. 67 (9): 822.
    3. FAO (2004). Report by the commission on Genetic Resources for Food & Agriculture on the Intergovernmental
    4. Technical Working Group on Animal Genetics Resources for Food and Agriculture Third session, 31
    5. March-2 April 2004.Food and Agricultural Organization of United Nations, Rome.
    6. Gill, R. S.; (1970). PAU J. Res 7: 80.
    7. Raut, K.C. and Amble, V.N. (1969). Agric Situat India, , 23 (20): 1434.
    8. Sen, K. C.; et al (1977). Nutritive Values of Indian Feeds and Fodder Pub. No. 25, I.C.A.R., New Delhi.
    9. Singh, R.; et al (1998). Indian J. Anim. Res., 32 : 75.
    10. Sohal, T. S., et al (1982) : Annual Report, N.D.R.I. Karnal.
    Thakuria, K., et al (1982). Indian Vet. J. 59: 944.
    Reviewed By

    Download Article
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)