EFFECTS OF ARTIFICIAL REARING OF SURTI BUFFALO CALVES ON MILK YIELD, COMPOSITION, SOMATIC CELL COUNT AND POSTPARTUM OESTRUS INTERVAL IN SURTI BUFFALOES

RANA RANJEET SINGH¹, SANDHYA S. CHAUDHARY², KETAN A. PATEL³*, MAHIPAL CHOUBEY⁴, VINAY DAMOR^5
1Department of Livestock Production Management, VCVS&AH, Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari, Gujarat 396450, India
²Department of Physiology and Biochemistry, Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari, Gujarat 396450, India
³Department of Livestock Production Management, VCVS&AH, Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari, Gujarat 396450, India
⁴Department of Animal Nutrition, VCVS&AH, Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari, Gujarat 396450, India
⁵Department of Livestock Production Management, VCVS&AH, Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari, Gujarat 396450, India
* Corresponding Author : ketan9029@gmail.com

Received : 04-10-2017     Accepted : 07-10-2017     Published : 12-10-2017
Volume : 9     Issue : 46       Pages : 4775 - 4778
Int J Agr Sci 9.46 (2017):4775-4778

Keywords : Natural suckling, Artificial rearing, Surti buffalo Calves, Somatic cell count (SCC) and Postpartum estrous interval
Academic Editor : Dr A. K. Soni, Ayman Shelaby, Dr Archana Jain, Dr Dhruv Desai
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : The authors express their sincere sense of gratitude to Vice-chancellor, Director of research and Dean, Veterinary college for the source of funding and research scientist, LRS, for providing all research facilities for the successful completion of this study
Author Contribution : All author equally contributed

The present investigation was conducted on twenty-four Surti buffaloes and their calves maintained at Livestock Research Station, Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari with the objective to study the effects of artificial rearing of Surti buffalo calves on milk yield, composition, somatic cell count and postpartum oestrus interval in Surti buffaloes. Calves were weaned on the day 6 after calving and were raised under natural suckling method where they were allowed to suckle their dam before and after milking whereas calves raised artificially were maintained on whole milk (T1) and milk replacer (T2) fed through milk feeding bottle for first 90 days of their life. Calves and their mother were raised under loose housing and group management systems. Perusal of data revealed that a non-significant difference in milk yield was found among the three groups at all test days. Milk protein (%) of T1 group was significantly higher than control group of animals on the day 6. There was significant difference (p<0.05) in milk fat (%) between T1 (6.83±0.17 %) andT2 (6.13±0.24 %) group on day 76 and between control (7.06±0.18 %) and T2 (6.23±0.27 %) group at day 90 of the study. T1 group of buffaloes had significantly (p<0.05) lower SNF (9.80±0.28 %) than control (10.46±0.19%) and T2 (10.63±0.18 %) group of animals at day 20. There was non-significant difference in the milk lactose (%) among three groups of buffaloes. A non-significant difference was observed (p<0.05) in the somatic cell count (SCC) among three groups of animals. The post-partum estrus interval was comparatively lower in artificially reared than natural suckling group of Surti buffaloes.

1. Mishra B.P., Singh K.P., Chavan D.B., Sadana D.K., Kataria R.S., Kathiravan P. and Ahlawat S.P.S. (2009) Animal Genetic Resources Information, 44, 77-86.
2. Government of India (2014) Basic animal husbandry statistics, AHS Series-15. Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, Krishi Anusandhan Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. Galina C.S. (2010) Livestock Science, 127, 60-66.
4. Khan M.F. and Preston T.R. (1992) Livestock Research for Rural
Development, 4(2).
5. Qureshi M.S. (1995) Buffalo Bulletin, 14, 38–41.
6. Froberg S. (2008) Effects of restricted and free suckling in cattle used in milk production systems. Doctoral Thesis. Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, SLU, Kungsangen Research Centre, SE-753 23, Uppsala, Sweden.
7. Chamberlain A. (1989) Systems of Milk Production. In: Milk Production in the Tropics. Longman Scientific and Technical, Harlow, UK. pp: 242.
8. Mejia C.E., Preston T.R. and Fajersson P. (1998) Livestock Research for Rural Development, 10,1-11.
9. Sanh M.V., Preston T.R., Ly L.V. (1997) Livestock Research for Rural Development, 9.
10. Gratte E. (2004) Effects of restricted suckling on abnormal behaviour, feed intake and weight gain in dairy calves, and udder health and milk let-down in dairy cows. PG Thesis. Section of Ethology, Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 234, SE-532 23, Skara, Sweden.
11. El-Fouly M.A., Kotby E.A. and El-Sobhy A.E. (1976) Theriogenology, 5, 69-79.
12. El-Fadaly M.A. (1980) Veterinary Medicine Journal of Egypt, 28, 399-404.
13. Perera BMAO., Mohan V., Kurovita V.Y. and Abeygunawardena H. (1992) Effect of suckling and nutritional supplementation on postpartum ovarian activity and LH profiles in indigenous buffaloes of Sri Lanka. In: Proceedings of 12th International Congress of Animal Reproduction and Artificial Insemination. Hague, Netherlands. Pp: 2081-2083.
14. Harvey W.R. (1990) Mixed model least squares and maximum likelihood computer programme PC-2.
15. Gaya H., Delaitre C. and Preston T.R. (1977) Tropical Animal Production, 2, 284-287.
16. Orihuela A. (1990) Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 26, 187-190.
17. Margerison J.K., Preston T.R. and Phillips C.J.C. (2002) Journal of Animal Science, 80, 1663-1670.
18. Boonbrahm N., Peters K.J. and Intisang W. (2004) Archiv Tierzucht, 47(3), 211-224.
19. Froberg S. (2005) Studies on restricted suckling in dual purpose and dairy breed cattle in Mexico. PG Thesis. Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, SLU, Kungsangen Research Centre, SE-753 23, Uppsala, Sweden.
20. Froberg S., Aspegren-Guldorff A., Olsson I., Marin B., Berg C., Hernandez C., Galina C.S., Lidfors L. and Svennersten-Sjaunja K. (2007) Tropical Animal Health Production, 39(1), 71-81.
21. Dhakal I.P. (2006) Journal of Veterinary Medicine, 53, 81–86.
22. Bytyqi H., Zaugg K., Sherifi A., Hamidi M., Gjonbalaj S. and Muji Mehmeti H. (2010) Veterinarski Archiv, 80(2), 173-183.
23. Mahendra Singh and Dang A.K. (2001) Range of somatic cell count of milk. National Dairy Research Institute, ICAR, Karnal (Haryana) India.
24. Usmani R.H., Dailey R.A. and Inskeep E.K. (1990) Journal of Dairy Science, 73, 1564-1570.
25. Barkawi A.H. (1993 Egyptian Journal of Animal Production, 30, 129-142.
26. El-Wishy A.B. (2007) Animal Reproduction Science, 97, 216–236.
27. Singh R., Singh Y.P., Raj Kumar R. and Kumar R. (2010) Factors Affecting the Milking Behavior in Buffaloes under Farmers Conditions. In: 9th World Buffalo congress. Argentina. Pp: 554-558.