Advances in Animal and Veterinary Sciences
Housing and Health Care Management Practices Followed by Gir Cattle Owners for Conservation of Gir Cattle in Ajmer District of Rajasthan
Vikramjit Singh1*, Subhash Chander Goswami1, Vijay Kumar Choudhary1, Poonam Choudhary2, Arun Kumar Jhirwal1, Mohan Lal Choudhary1, Surendar Singh Nirwan3
1Department of Livestock Production Management, College of Veterinary and Animal Science, RAJUVAS, Bikaner-334 001, Rajasthan, India; 2Department of Veterinary Parasitology, College of Veterinary and Animal Science, RAJUVAS, Bikaner-334 001, Rajasthan, India; 3Department of Veterinary Obstetrics & Gynaecology, College of Veterinary and Animal Science, RAJUVAS, Bikaner-334 001, Rajasthan, India.
Abstract | The study was conducted in Ajmer district of Rajasthan, out of 10 tehsils of Ajmer district two tehsils i.e. Bhinay and Bijainagar were selected purposively. Further, four villages from each selected tehsil were identified. From each village 20 respondents were selected randomly. Thus, the entire sample consists of 160 respondents. The field survey was conducted to collect the first hand information on existing housing and health care management practices followed by Gir cattle owners in Ajmer district of Rajasthan.All the cattle keepers had kuccha floor in shed and 55 per cent kept their cattle inside dwelling house. About 64.37 per cent of the cattle owners used bedding material during winter season. About 68.13 % of the respondents had less ventilation provision in animal shed. Results indicated that 90.62 per cent of respondents vaccinate their animal against diseases. Majority 97.50 per cent controlled flies by smoke of waste grasses. Only 20.13 per cent of respondents practiced deworming measures. About 25 percent of the owners isolate the sick animals from healthy ones.
Keywords | Management practice, Gir cattle, Conservation, Respondents, Rajasthan
Editor | Kuldeep Dhama, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Received | May 31, 2018; Accepted | June 06, 2018; Published | June 28, 2018
*Correspondence | Vikramjit Singh, Department of Livestock Production Management, College of Veterinary and Animal Science, RAJUVAS, Bikaner-334 001, Rajasthan, India; Email: email@example.com
Citation | Singh V, Goswami SC, Choudhary VK, Choudhary P, Jhirwal AK, Choudhary ML, Nirwan SS (2018). Housing and health care management practices followed by gir cattle owners for conservation of gir cattle in ajmer district of rajasthan. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci. 6(6): 265-270.
ISSN (Online) | 2307-8316; ISSN (Print) | 2309-3331
Copyright © 2018 Singh et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Livestock contributes a large portion of draft power for agriculture, with approximately half of the cattle population and 25 per cent of the buffalo population being used for work and cultivation along with that Livestock production in Rajasthan is pre-dominantly the endeavor of small holders. More than 80% rural families keep livestock in their households. Livestock farming is practiced traditionally mostly for agricultural operations. Contribution of animal husbandry sector to the GDP of the State has been estimated to be around 9.16 per cent. About 35 per cent of the income to small and marginal farmers comes from dairy and animal husbandry. In arid areas the contribution is as high as 50 per cent.So the study was conducted in Ajmer district of Rajasthan to find out the various existing housing and health care management practices followed by Gir cattle owners.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study was conducted in Ajmer district of Rajasthan, out of 10 tehsils of Ajmer district two tehsils i.e. Bhinay and Bijainagar were selected purposively. Further, four villages from each selected tehsil were identified. From each village 20 respondents were selected randomly. Thus, the entire sample consists of 160 respondents. The data was collected through the personal interview. The existing housing and health care management practices were separately enlisted. The frequencies were obtained for different housing and health care management practices included in the study. The score of individual practice was converted into percentage.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The different housing and health care management practices followed by all the 160 Gir cattle owners were studied and each of them has been described in sub points as follows.
Existing Housing Management Practices
Housing management is an important factor as housing helps to encourage the scientific feeding, proper disease control, better care and management along with prevention of animals from adverse climatic conditions and it maintains thermo neutral zone, in which animals are most productive. The result presented in shows that majority (55 per cent) of the respondents kept their animals inside dwelling house, followed by 45 per cent of the of respondents who kept their animals separate from dwelling house. These findings recorded in present study, are in agreement with the reports of , and .
All the respondents had kuccha floor in their cattle shed and only 19.38 per cent had drainage channel. These findings are in close conformity with the earlier reports of , , , , and but are in contrast to findings of , , who reported that 85.6%, 72.2% and 80% per cent of the respondents had pucca floors. Only around 35 per cent of farmers had slope on floor in cattle shed. These findings are in agreement with and in contrary with .
The data collected regarding feature of roof shade reveals that about 59.38 per cent of the respondents had sloppy roof shed followed by 40.62 per cent who had flat roof shed. Around 59.38 per cent respondents used thatch material for cattle shed. Only 10 and 30.62 per cent of respondents used stone slab and asbestos for roofing the shed, respectively. These results are almost similar to findings of , but contrary to that reported by . Brick and lime/cement material were used by 70 per cent of respondents and brick in mud and thatch material is used by 18.13 and 11.27 per cent of respondents respectively in making of wall of sheds in the study area.
shows that 94.38 per cent of the respondents used manger for feeding and 64.38 per cent of the farmers had pucca manger followed by wooden 8.75 per cent and kuccha 26.87 per cent manger for feeding of animals. These findings are in close conformity with the earlier reports of . The present findings are not favoring the findings of , and who reported that majority of feeding manger were kuccha in rural areas. All of the respondents practiced grooming of the cattle. About 64.37 per cent of the respondents used sand as bedding material during winter season. The present findings are similar with the earlier findings of and , who reported that in rural areas, 73.30 per cent farmers were using sugarcane leaves and 13.3 per cent were using straw as bedding material in winter.
Majority (79.38%) of the respondents had not constructed water trough in animal shed. These results are in line with the previous observation of and . About 28.13 per cent of the respondents had proper light provision in the animal sheds. It was mainly due to the lack of electrified houses in rural areas of Ajmer district. The results are in agreement with the findings of , and . The above findings were contrary to the findings of .
The result revealed from that majority (68.13 per cent) of the animal sheds have less ventilation followed by 31.87 per cent optimum ventilation and zero percent animal sheds have excess ventilation. These findings are in close conformity with the earlier reports of , and . These results are not in line with the previous observation of and .
These results of the present study revealed that existing housing management practices are not according to the recommended management practices. There are some lacunas especially with respect to drainage channel, location of shed, defective feeding mangers and lack of scientific cattle shed.
Existing Health Care Management Practices
It was observed from the evaluation shows that 78.13 per cent of the respondents got their sick animals treated by quack first then veterinary doctor. Only 21.87 per cent of the cattle owners got treated their sick animals by veterinary doctor/ stockman directly. Regarding vaccination against H.S., F.M.D. and B.Q. only 90.62 per cent of the respondents were recorded to adopt these practices for their animals. Almost similar results were reported by ), , , and but in contrary to the results of , ,, and .
|1. Location of shed:|
|a. Inside dwelling house||88||55.00|
|b. Separate from dwelling house||72||45.00|
|2. Type of floor:|
|3. Slope in floor:|
|4. Drainage channel/pit:|
|5. Features of roof of shed:|
|6. Roof material in shed:|
|b. Asbestos \ tin||49||30.62|
|c. Stone slab||16||10.00|
|d. Bricks and mud||00||00|
|7. Material used in walls:|
|b. Brick and lime/cement||112||70.00|
|c. Brick in mud||29||18.13|
|8. Manger feeding:|
|9. Type of manger:|
|10. Grooming practice of cow:|
|11. Bedding material used on the floor in winter season:|
|12. Provision of water trough in shed:|
|14. Proper light provision in animal shed:|
|1. Who is consulted for treatment of sick animals:|
|a. Veterinary Doctor/stockman||35||21.87|
|b. Quack first then veterinary Doctor/stockman||125||78.13|
|2. Vaccinate animal against diseases:|
|3. Practiced deworming measures:|
|4. Isolate the sick animals from healthy ones:|
|5. Disposal of dead animals:|
|a. Deep burrial||10||06.25|
|b. Leave as such for decay/vultures||150||93.75|
|6. Cleaning interval of water trough and mangers:|
|b. Alternate day||34||21.25|
|7. Cleaning interval of animal shed:|
|b. Alternate day||05||03.13|
|8. Measures adopted to control flies/mosquitoes:|
|a. Smoke of waste grass||155||97.50|
|b. Electric fan||04||02.50|
|9. Measures adopted to control lice/ticks:|
|b. Dusting of insecticide||122||76.25|
|10. Veterinary aid available in village:|
|11. Availability of veterinary facilities:|
Regarding deworming practices, very few respondents i.e. 20.63 per cent dewormed their animals regularly. The above findings have similarities with the findings of , , and but in contrast with the findings of and .
About 25 per cent of respondents isolate the sick animal from healthy one whereas remaining 75 per cent of respondents were not aware about this practice. Findings of this study are in accordance with the findings of and but in contrast with the results of and . Majority (93.75 per cent) of the Gir cattle owners used to leave the dead body of animals outside the village as such for decay/vultures. These findings are in line with the observation of .
Three-fourth of respondents cleaned water trough and manger at weekly interval. Only 21.25 per cent and 3.75 per cent of the respondents cleaned alternate day and daily, respectively. 96.87 per cent of the cattle keepers cleaned their animals shed daily. These findings are in line with the observation of . Majority (97.50 per cent) of the respondents used smoke of waste grass/fodder to control flies/mosquitoes. Whereas, (23.75 per cent) followed manual method of picking ectoparasites. These findings are in line with the observations of and .
The number of veterinary hospital (1) and stockman centre (1) existed in the surveyed villages was also very less. The remaining villages where veterinary facilities were not available, the minimum and maximum distance of nearest stockman centre/veterinary hospital were 7 to 30 km. According to the surveyed respondents, the availability of veterinary facilities and assistance in general was not sufficient. The per cent of respondents regarded veterinary facilities as good, satisfactory and poor were 9.37, 23.13 and 67.5 per cent, respectively.
The results showed that most of the respondents had not followed recommended health care management practices like vaccinating their animals, regular deworming. It is due to unawareness about importance of these practices. The scenario will change only when government provides adequate veterinary facilities and awareness regarding proper managemental practices in rural areas extensively.
The authors thankfully acknowledged the financial support and facilities provided by RAJUVAS, Bikaner to carry out the research work.
Conflict of interest
We declare that we have no conflict of interest.
Vikramjit Singh: Main Author (M.V.Sc Research).
Subhash Chander Goswami: Major Advisor.
Vijay Kumar: Advisor.
Poonam Choudhary: Help in Research work.
Arun Kumar Jhirwal: Thesis evaluation.
Mohan Lal Choudhary: Thesis evaluation.
Surendar Singh Nirwan: Help in survey during research.