Feeding Practices of Gangatiri cattle
Feeding is the most important factor in livestock farming. Until an animal is well fed, it can never performs with their full potential. Different aspects of feeding of Gangatiri cattle under study are shown in Table 1. Grazing was found to be main source of animal feeding. A total of 53.70% respondents were feeding their animals solely on grazing, whereas, 6.48% solely on stall feeding, however about 39.82% farmers opted grazing and stall feeding both as a source of feeding of their animals. Grazing is a practice of Gangatiri cattle rearing, which was followed from generation to generation in the locality. Grazing of cattle herd for 6-10 hrs/day was followed by majority (53.70%) of the respondents while 39.82% respondents practiced grazing of their animals for one to five hours. Besides grazing, 26.85% respondents provided paddy straw and wheat straw as dry fodder where as, 19.50% respondents provided only wheat straw as dry fodder to their animals. Findings of the study were in line with the findings of
Malik et al., (2005), Singh et al., (2007b) who reported that, grazing was most prevalent practice adopted by cattle owners in rural area of Uttar Pradesh.
Rathore et al., (2010a) and Akila and Senthilvel (2012) in their study in different part of India also observed that most of their respondents were practicing grazing of their livestock. About 46.36% respondents provided green grasses or leaves of fodder trees available in pasture land. Around 34.26% respondents provided with cultivated leguminous green.
Green fodder cultivation practices were adopted by very few farmers in the area under study and agricultural lands were mainly use for crop production. Rathore
et al.,
(2010a) and
Sabapara et al., (2010a) also observed similar pattern of fodder cultivation in other regions of India. Since, respondents had poor capacity of purchasing feeding materials, majority (68.51%) of the respondents were not feeding concentrate to their animals. Only 31.49% respondents provided concentrate to their animals. Home-made concentrate was provided by 21.31% respondents whereas, 10.18% respondents provided readymade concentrate to their animals, purchased from market.
As ingredients of concentrate, 31.49% respondents used oil cakes like mustard cake, linseed cake, groundnut cake, etc. and 24.10% respondents also provided mill byproducts like bran,
Chunni, etc., whereas, 20.37% respondents also provided grains and seeds like barley,
Jowar,
Bajra, Maize, etc. to their animals. Majority of respondents (87.97%) were not feeding mineral mixture to their animals. It was observed that respondents were not aware about benefits of feeding mineral mixture. Similar findings were also reported by
Chowdhry et al., (2006), Madke et al., (2006), Kumar and Mishra (2011b) and
Sheikh et al., (2011) in their studies in different part of India. It can be established from above facts that most of the respondents were adopting traditional feeding practices for their cattle. However, few respondents were practicing recommended feeding schedule, which depends upon their resource capacity and level of skill.
Breeding Practices of Gangatiri cattle
Different aspects of breeding practices have been summarized in Table 2. It reveals that, frequent bellowing of cows was the symptom used for detection of estrus by all the respondents whereas, other symptoms of estrus of cows
viz. restlessness of cows, transparent vaginal discharge and mounting of cows on other cattle of the herd were used by 87.96, 87.04 and 84.25 per cent of respondents, respectively. Awareness about estrus symptoms was based on their experiences in cattle rearing and passed from generation to generation. Therefore, majority of farmers were known to different estrus symptoms.
Patel et al., (2005) and
Chowdhry et al., (2006) in their study also observed high awareness of the livestock keepers about different signs of estrus.
Natural service to the cows in estrus was performed by cent per cent respondents. For natural service, majority of respondents (53.70%) preferred bulls available in village locality followed by 39.80% respondents preferred government provided bulls and only 6.48% respondents practiced natural service of cows with stray bulls. Gangatiri bull semen was not available at A.I. centers but bulls were easily available in study area (Anonymous, 2013 and
Singh et al., 2007b). There is State Livestock Farm at Arazilines, Varanasi, where herd of good quality Gangatiri cattle was maintained. Respondents from nearby area preferred to natural breeding of their Gangatiri cows with bulls from the farm. Similar findings of preferred natural mating in other regions of India have also been reported by Rathore and Kachwaha (2009),
Rathore et al., (2010a) and Kumar and Mishra 2011b.
Majority of respondents (54.63%) provided natural service to their cows between 12 to 16 hours after detection of estrus, while 28.70% respondents within 12 hrs and 16.67% respondents provided natural service after 16 hrs of detection of estrus. Majority of respondents (51.85%) preferred other experienced farmers in village for diagnosis of pregnancy in their cows. A little more than one third (34.26%) respondents preferred veterinarian/ stock man for pregnancy diagnosis. It may be due to negative attitude related with pregnancy diagnosis by physical handling of cows. Besides, there were many farmers in the area under study, who can predict pregnancy as well as time of pregnancy just by seeing the cow’s gait and other symptoms on the basis of their experience. This may be possible reason for avoiding veterinary doctors or stockman for pregnancy diagnosis. Slightly more than half (53.70%) of the respondents considered non occurrence of estrus after 21 days of service as measure of diagnosis of pregnancy. About 34.25% respondents diagnosed pregnancy also by watching the style of walking of cows, while 12.05% respondents diagnosed pregnancy on the basis of fact that cows were not allowed milking. This knowledge was also related to their long experiences in cattle rearing. Less dependency of livestock farmers on veterinary doctors was also reported by
Yadav et al., (2009) and
Sabapara et al., (2010 b). After calving, next service of cows was provided after three months by majority (59.27%) of respondents followed by two to three months after calving by 31.48% respondents and within two months after calving by 9.25% respondents. The results have lineage with the findings of
Yadav et al., (2009) and
Sabapara et al., (2010b) but in contrast to
Malik et al., (2005). It can be concluded that establishment of breeding infrastructure in the area of study and awareness about recommended breeding practices were required to Gangatiri cattle farmers.
Healthcare practices of Gangatiri cattle
Disease and reproductive disorders in Gangatiri cattle has been given in Table 3. During study a total of 518 animals were observed for one year health history, out of which 20.86% suffered with FMD, 13.41% with bloat and 11.36% with mastitis. The occurrence of other diseases was less than 10.00% in last one year. Gangatiri cattle are indigenous cattle and well acclimatized to the local climatic condition. These cattle had more resistance to the disease and parasites. FMD was endemic disease of the area. Most of the farmers practiced knuckling method of milking which causes damage to the teat which may be one of the causes of mastitis. Moreover, many farmers were having
kuccha floor which may also increase the chances of infection to teats.
The health care management parameters are depicted in Table 4. When disease encountered in the herd, about 35.20% of respondents initially self medicated with indigenous materials and then consulted with veterinary doctors/ stockman. About one fourth (25.00%) of respondents consulted with veterinary doctors, 22.20% with local quacks, 9.10% with stockman and 8.50% respondents preferred complete self medication of sick animal with indigenous material. Knowledge about identification and use of medicinal plant for curing disease was transferred from generation to generation vertically and within society horizontally. In most of cases, it was effective and therefore, respondents prefer initially self medication with this indigenous knowledge for treatment of diseased cattle. Majority of the respondents (79.63%) vaccinated their herd only during sponsored vaccination programme organized by NGOs or State Animal Husbandry Department. Majority of the respondents (87.04%) vaccinated cattle herd for FMD, 55.56% for HS and 51.85% vaccinated their animals for BQ. Majority of the respondents (75.93%) followed the vaccination schedule.
Pawar et al., (2006), Singh et al., (2007a), Gill and Saini (2008) and
Varaprasad et al., (2013) in their study in different part of India reported that most of livestock farmers were practicing vaccination of their livestock. Most of the respondents (85.18%) practiced de-worming in their cattle herd.
Malik et al., (2005) in Uttar Pradesh and Kumar and Mishra (2011a) in Uttarakhand, also reported that majority of livestock farmers were practicing de-worming of their livestock.
General management practices of Gangatiri cattle
General management practices followed in rearing of Gangatiri cattle are shown in Table 5. Majority of the respondents (70.37%) were having cattle shed as a part of their own house, while 29.63% respondents were keeping cattle in a separate shed.
Kushwaha et al., (2007) surveyed livestock farmers of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh and recorded that most of livestock farmers kept their bovine stock shed as part of their houses. Similar findings were also observed by Kumar and Mishra (2011b) in Uttarakhand. In majority of cattle sheds (81.48%) housing floor was
kuccha and in clean sanitary conditions, while 13.89% respondents were having cattle shed with
pucca floor and 4.63% respondents were having cattle shed with
kuccha floor and poor sanitary conditions.
Bainwad et al., (2007), Singh et al., (2007b) and
Ahirwar et al., (2009) also reported in Maharastra, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh respectively that majority of the respondents kept their livestock in clean and
kaccha livestock shed. Majority of the respondents (75.92%) were practiced regular cleaning of cattle shed and animals.
Village ponds and bore well/ hand pumps were used as main source for drinking water by majority (65.74 % and 62.96 %) of the respondents in study area. About half of the respondents were also using river water for drinking their cattle. In the age of bore well/ hand pumps, use of wells as source of drinking water was decreasing because it needs lot of physical efforts. However, 10.19% of respondents still using well as source of water for their cattle. It may be due to nearness of the well. Many respondents were implemented small jet pumps in the wells and draw water for house hold and cattle rearing purposes. The finding were in concordance with
Deoras et al., (2004), Malik et al., (2005) and
Singh et al., (2007a) who reported that village ponds and hand pumps were the main source of water for livestock in rural area.
Majority of respondents (82.41%) were milking their animals twice a day followed by 17.59% respondents who were milking once a day. Majority of respondents (59.25%) were used knuckling method of milking while 40.75% respondents were using full hand milking. Knuckling is not good practice and causes damage to teats. It might be reason of poor management practices for rearing of Gangatiri cattle and poor extension services in the study area. However, knuckling and twice a day milking was practiced by majority of the livestock farmers in other regions also as reported by
Chowdhry et al., (2008), Rathore
et al., (2010a) Kumar and Mishra (2011a). Majority of respondents (69.45%) used milk vessel made up of stainless steel, followed by 22.22% aluminum vessel and 8.33% milk vessel made up of iron. All the respondents practiced regular cleaning of milk vessel, 50.93% practiced cleaning utensils with water and ash followed by 49.07% respondents, who used water and detergent for the same. After washing, 87.04% respondents left the utensils in sun light. In this way they developed an alternative to the costly cleaning and disinfecting the milk utensils.
Bainwad et al., (2007), Rathore and Kachwaha (2009), Kumar and Mishra (2011a) also observed that livestock farmers were practicing regular cleaning of their milking utensils. Majority of respondents (65.74%) preferred natural shedding of placenta, whereas 34.26% respondents preferred to call the veterinarian for the same. After parturition only 37.04% respondents practiced naval chord cutting. Naval chord cutting is a recommended practice but many of the livestock farmers from rural areas were still not adopting it. Similar pattern of practices were reported by
Pawar et al., (2006) and
Kushwaha et al., (2007) in other rural areas. All the respondents practiced colostrum feeding to newly born calf. About 40.74% respondents practiced colostrum feeding to calf just after birth followed by 35.19% respondents provided colostrum whenever calf became able to stand and 24.07% provided colostrums to calf after shedding of placenta off. Finding were in concordance with that of
Malik et al., (2005), Divekar and Saiyed (2008),
Rathore et al., (2010b) Kumar and Mishra (2011a) and
Sheikh et al., (2011). Male Gangatiri cattle were fit for agricultural operations and rural transport, therefore, fetch privileged money on sale. The farmers were feeding colostrum after expulsion of placenta because they believed that feeding colostrum before expulsion of placenta might cause hindrance in expulsion. Majority of respondents (79.63%) practiced castration of male calf. Findings of study contradict to the findings of the Roy (2009), Rathore and Kachwaha (2009) and Kumar and Mishra (2011a), who reported that majority of livestock farmers were not practicing castration of male calves. Only 15.75% respondents practiced de-horning of calf. De-horning of calves is a recommended practices and not adopted by majority of rural livestock farmers as observed by
Malik et al., (2005), Sabapara et al., (2010b) Kumar and Mishra (2011a). However, this is adopted mostly by livestock farmers who were involved in more intensive and commercial type of dairy farming as observed by
Gupta et al., (2008) and
Rathore et al., (2010b).
