ESTIMATION OF DRAUGHTABILITY AND RELATED BIOCHEMICAL PARAMETERS IN BARGUR AND KANGAYAM CATTLE

A. GOGOI¹*, S.M.K. KARTHICKEYAN², P. HEPHSHIBA³, N. KUMARAVELU⁴, T. ANNA⁵, K. SENTHILVEL⁶, R. SARAVANAN⁷, P. GANAPATHY^8
1Lakhimpur College of Veterinary Science, Joyhing, North Lakhimpur, 787051, Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat, 785013, Assam, India
²Madras Veterinary College, Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chennai, 600051, Tamil Nadu, India
³Madras Veterinary College, Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chennai, 600051, Tamil Nadu, India
⁴Barghur Cattle Research Station, Barghur, Erode, 638501, Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chennai, 600051, Tamil Nadu, India
⁵Veterinary College and Research Institute, Tirunelveli, 627358, Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chennai, 600051, Tamil Nadu, India
⁶Veterinary College & Research Institute, Namakkal, 637002, Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chennai, 600051, Tamil Nadu, India
⁷Veterinary College & Research Institute, Namakkal, 637002, Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chennai, 600051, Tamil Nadu, India
⁸Barghur Cattle Research Station, Barghur, Erode, 638501, Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chennai, 600051, Tamil Nadu, India
* Corresponding Author : drankita.vet009@gmail.com

Received : 26-05-2018     Accepted : 07-06-2018     Published : 30-06-2018
Volume : 10     Issue : 6       Pages : 443 - 445
Genetics 10.6 (2018):443-445

Keywords : Draughtability, creatine kinase, lactic acid, Kangayam, Bargur
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), New Delhi for the financial assistance provided to the Department of Animal Genetics and Breeding, Madras Veterinary College, Chennai under the scheme ‘Core Laboratory’ functioning through National Bureau of Animal Genetic Resources, Karnal.
Author Contribution : A. Gogoi, S. M. K. Karthickeyan and P. Hephsibha – Molecular laboratory work and estimation of biochemical parameters. N Kumaravelu, T Anna, K Senthilvel, R Saravanan, P Ganapathy - Collection of blood samples and phenotypic data pertaining to speed an

In the present study, draughtability and related biochemical parameters were estimated in two draught breeds of cattle viz., Bargur and Kangayam. The mean creatine kinase level in Bargur and Kangayam cattle were estimated as 128.00 ± 6.34 and 94.41 ± 3.84 units per litre respectively. The other parameter, lactic acid level averaged 30.86 ± 3.51 mg/dL in Bargur and 58.53 ± 4.11 mg/dL in Kangayam. The levels of creatine kinase and lactic acid were found to differ highly significantly (P<0.01) between Bargur and Kangayam. In Bargur, gender of the animal had significant (P<0.05) effect on the level of serum lactic acid. The means for draughtability parameters like speed and stride length of Kangayam cattle were 1.31 ± 0.03 m/s and 0.77 ± 0.01 m respectively. The respiration rate averaged 57.37 per minute. The level of bovine IGF1 in serum was 3.41 ± 0.30 ng/ml in Burgur and 3.11 ± 0.16 in Kangayam cattle. It was found that Kangayam cattle are superior and better adapted to all agricultural operations; while the medium-built Bargur is suitable for hilly areas.

1. Ganapathi P. (2007) http://krishikosh.egranth.ac.in/handle/1/80828
2. Panneerselvam S. and Kandasamy N. (1999) Draught Anim. News, 31, 17-20.
3. Livestock Census Report (2012) 19th Livestock Census. Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, New Delhi.
4. Pearson R., Archibald R.E. (1989) Anim. Prod., 48, 375-384.
5. Snedecor G.W., Cochran W.G. (1989) Statistical Methods. (8th Edn.) Iowa, 503.
6. Harvey, W.R. (1996) LSMLMW with Parmcard.
7. Knitter A.E., Panton L., Rathmacher J.A., Peterson A.,and Sharp R. (2000) J. Appl. Physiol., 89, 1340-1344.
8. Hazar S. (2004) Sportmetre J. Physical Edu. Sport Sci., II(3), 119-126.
9. Smith A.F. (1972) Clin. Chem. Acta., 39, 351-353.
10. Otto F., Vilela F., Harun M., Taylor G., Baggasse P., and Bogin E. (2000) Israel J. Vet. Med., 55(33), 95-102.
11. Holmes J.H.G., Robinson D.W., and Ashmore C.R. (1972) J Anim. Sci., 35(5),1011-1013.
12. Singh S., Sharma S., Arora J.S., and Sarkhel B.C. (2011) Biochem. Genet. 49, 242-250.
13. Thomas C.K. (2000) Draught Anim. News, 32, 4-11.
14. Kumaravelu N. (1995) Thesis submitted to Kerala Agricultural University, Thrissur, 680 651.
15. Devadattam D.S.K., and Maurya N.L. (1978) Indian J. Dairy Sci. 31(2), 120-127.
16. Maurya N.L., and Devadattam D.S.K. (1982) Indian J. Dairy Sci., 35(1), 26-30.
17. Vinoo. R., Rao G.N., Gupta B.R., and Babu Rao K. (2010) Tamilnadu J. Vet. Anim. Sci., 6(1), 24-30.
18. Williamson G., and Payne W.J.A. (1978) 2nd Edn. English Language Book Society., 237-247.
19. Munoz A., Trigo P., Riber C., Malonda V., and Castejon F. (2011) Vet. Med., 56(5), 231-242.
20. Davis M. E., Bishop M.D., Park N.H. and Simmen R.C.M. (1995) J. Anim. Sci., 73, 1927-1932.
21. Davis M. E. and Simmen R.C.M. (1997) J Anim. Sci., 75, 317-324.