Rangnekar, D.V.

Rao, S.V.N.

Schiere, J.B.

Name not available

Some common recommendations in animal production systems reconsidered.

NARCIS 

Wageningen Yield 

3.5. SOME COMMON RECOMMENDATIONS IN ANIMAL 
PRODUCTION SYSTEMS RECONSIDERED 
D.V. Rangnekar, J.B. Schiere and S.V.N. Rao 
INTRODUCTION 
This chapter discusses common beliefs, recommendations and assumptions 
about animal production that are held by either the scientific community or 
by farmers. Some of these may need a second consideration in the face of 
new information and changing farming systems. Therefore, the purpose is 
to encourage rethinking of traditional recommendations, taking into account 
the whole farming system approach, farmers' perceptions, indigenous 
knowledge and applicability of extension messages and management practices 
under different conditions. While mentioning farmers' perceptions, it needs 
to be emphasised that small farmers account for a large proportion of the 
farming population in India. They are therefore, a major target group and 
focus of most discussions of this paper. It is the intention of this chapter to 
provide food for thought, not so much to take one position or the other, nor 
to provide answers. 
•Handbook for Straw Feeding Systems 
Kiran Singh and J.B. Schiere (eds.), 1995 
ICAR, New Delhi, India 
Rangnekar et al. 
COMMON BELIEFS - SOME CASES 
Traditional farmers' knowledge and scientific reasoning are both based on 
time tested experience. However, something that is true in one place or time, 
may be untrue in another condition. Particularly in rapidly changing and 
regionally variable systems, it is, therefore, useful to test and retest existing 
ideas. Some of them may reflect wisdom for other farming systems than 
prevalent in India. The following topics will be briefly discussed: 
green fodder feeding 
efficiency of high producers 
the need for early weaning 
balanced feeding 
oxalate poisoning 
"scientific requirements" 
technology and progress 
straw is poor quality feed 
the interest of the farmer 
Green fodder feeding 
The need to provide green fodder on a year round basis for maintaining 
crossbred cattle is a common recommendation. Green fodder requirements 
are often worked out and deficits projected. However, only a small fraction 
of farmers with crossbreds are able to provide green fodder more than a few 
months in a year and still their animals produce milk. Also, large farms as 
well as many smallholder dairy systems in many parts of the world produce 
milk by feeding hay or straw for a considerable part of the year. Still in 
India, many meetings or discussions are held to orient farmers with respect 
176 
#3.5. Some common recommendations 
to green fodder production and its benefits. Demonstrations are arranged as 
if a new technology is being introduced, and sometimes it is stated that 
except for farmers from Haryana, Punjab or Western U.P. or a few pockets 
in other States, hardly anyone cultivates fodder. 
The reality might be different in a few ways. In the first place, fodder has 
traditionally been produced in many farming systems or states besides 
Haryana, Punjab or Western U.P. and many farmers are well aware of the 
usefulness of green fodder. Authentic records are available from the British 
Period (early 19th century) where colonial officers described indigenous 
husbandry practices based on cultivation of sorghum, pearlmillet and lucerne 
for the feeding of livestock. In the second place, even though nutritionally 
the fodder can be called good feed, many farmers cannot afford to spare 
land for production of green fodder. Particularly, the systems approach tell 
us that the introduction of one technique will affect the output of other parts 
of the farm. Therefore, it may not always be profitable to grow grass, even 
more so for low producers. In the third place, the production of a cow may 
be so high in terms of milk, that even with extremely good fodder, the 
nutrient requirements can only partly be covered with good green fodder. At 
such high levels of output, fodder like grass or straw is fed to provide fibre 
to maintain rumen function rather than to provide energy, protein or 
vitamins. The feeding practices in urban dairies are a case in point (#4.3.). 
Efficiency of high producers 
High producing, fast growing and regularly breeding animals are often 
believed to be most profitable and efficient. However, in the case of many 
small farmers this may not always be true. There is a need to critically 
177 
Rangnekar et al. 
analyze and understand aspects like quality and cost of feed, returns from 
milk and other products, availability of feed/fodder, labour, housing, 
veterinary care, etc. A well-known Indian saying goes as follows: 
"Kuch paane ke Uye, kuch khona hai" 
It implies that in order to gain something one has to lose something. The 
cost to achieve high output of a single commodity may simply be too high, 
particularly for small farmers who have no access to other supporting 
agencies like veterinarians, reliable artificial insemination services or 
fertilizer inputs, marketing or management information. Money or other 
resources spent on cows can be often be used with more benefit on other 
farm activities, e.g. cropping, and benefits like dung, draught and saving 
accounts from low producers are often underestimated. 
In the same vein, many reports state that indigenous animals are uneconomic 
and non-descript animals are often referred to as unproductive. It is 
necessary to rethink some of these aspects since for many farmers the 
animals are productive even if they produce only little milk. Many times 
milk is not even the (only) product for which cattle, buffaloes and goats are 
maintained. The concept of productive cow varies from farmer to farmer 
depending upon the objective of rearing the cow. In some parts of India, it 
is not uncommon to find the farmers using heifers and dry cows for draught 
purposes. In such situations these animals appear productive to the farmers, 
in spite of the low milk production, and thanks to the indirect effect on crop 
output. 
Fortunately, there is a change in the approach of economists and animal 
production officers in the last few years. By using a farming systems 
178 
#3.5. Some common recommendations 
approach they are forced to take most of these aspects into account, as is 
done customarily by many farmers. The importance of social aspects like 
prestige and economic aspects like labour, avoidance of use of cash, 
convenience etc. is now increasingly recognised. It alters the way one looks 
at unproductive cows. Products like ghee, male animals for draught, 
security, and dung also make a significant contribution to the economy. 
The need for early weaning 
One common management recommendation is to wean calves at an early 
age. Early weaning is considered to be a scientific way of calf rearing. But 
one wonders why suckling is marked as unscientific? If science is defined as 
a process of repeated observation and testing of ideas, would not farmers 
practice/knowledge imply at least some scientific methodology? Practically 
speaking, on many small farms, and even on some institutional farms, early 
weaning creates problems. Early weaning is beneficial when the price of 
milk is high and where the alternative calf rearing feeds are well available, 
a condition that does not apply everywhere. In this respect however it is 
necessary to stress that farmers' practice is not beyond "strange" concepts 
either (#2.3.). Unbelievable as it may seem, many farmers believe that 
colostrum feeding to new born calves is harmful. The effects like diarrhoea 
and worm infestation are ascribed to colostrum feeding, but it may not be 
due to colostrum per se. However, the fact remains that in spite of years of 
effort to promote colostrum feeding soon after calving, it is still not a 
commonly accepted practice. In some areas colostrum is fed to new born 
calves only after the placenta is shed and some farmers offer colostrum to 
rivers as a form of sacrifice. It is also common in some places for farmers 
to sell colostrum at a high price as it is used for preparation of sweets. 
179 
Rangnekar et al. 
Balanced Feeding 
Similarly, use of balanced concentrate mixtures is emphasised as if it were 
the most critical aspect of proper feeding. The reality is that balancing of the 
entire ration (#3.1.) is essential rather than harping on the use of balanced 
concentrate mixtures only. Also the prices of balanced feeds may be 
prohibitive and moreover the required mix differs between animals and 
production objectives. Balanced feeding makes little sense to dairy farmers 
that have neither the knowledge to compute the ration, nor the facility to 
feed the animals separately on the basis of their body weight and production 
requirements. Since the very concept of requirements depends on economics 
it is impossible to provide a nationally valid standard for balanced feeding 
(#3.1.). 
Oxalate Poisoning 
Excess oxalates may cause gastro-intestinal irritation, but the major effect is 
that of precipitation of blood calcium resulting in muscular weakness and 
paralysis. However, the stress on oxalate problems appears to be a little 
excessive. Oxalates are normally metabolised in the rumen and even the 
continued ingestion of oxalates in small quantities increases the ability to 
decompose the oxalate. In addition not all the oxalate ingested is absorbed, 
and oxalate "poisoning" occurs only when large quantities are suddenly 
ingested by the animals. 
Scientific Requirements 
Scientific requirements, or similar terms, are expressions used in many 
technical publications or textbooks, often based on experiences in other 
countries, times or farming systems. The feeding tables of NRC, ARC or 
180 
#3.5. Some common recommendations 
ICAR are in a sense no more scientific than data sets collected in the so 
called ignorant or illiterate minds of farmers with vast experience. Both 
contain fact and fiction. Also, scientific recommendations can appear to be 
correct, but they can at the same time be irrelevant for the particular farming 
system. The major points of difference where scientists and farmers might 
misunderstand each one are such as: 
the evaluation criteria of feeds. Scientists use measures such as TDN, 
degradability, ME and CP whereas farmers use indirect criteria like 
effects of the feed on butter fat content, intake of feed, skin 
appearance, dung texture etc. The scientists rely more on indirect 
measurements that may not mean anything to the farmers. Better 
translation of "scientific" measurements to field criteria might solve a 
large part of the disagreement between science of farmers and 
researchers (Table 1, in #3.3.); 
the production objectives. Whereas many scientists aim for high 
production of a single commodity, farmers look at other criteria or their 
combination, e.g. milk, draught and dung. Many scientists and policy 
makers aim at high biological output of a single product, whereas, most 
if not all farmers aim for economic output which may imply low milk 
yield (#2.2.). 
Good interaction between farmers and scientists can pave the way for better 
understanding. It will even show that many criteria are the same, though 
expressed differently. Ultimately, there may be differences in objectives and 
criteria between farmers (men and women ) of different farming systems, ie. 
to talk about farmers' versus scientists' perceptions is a serious 
oversimplification. 
181 
Rangnekar et al. 
Technological progress 
Technology is often seen as the solution to problems or as a way to 
progress. The expression "necessity is the mother of invention" shows 
however that application of a technology can be a response to a need, rather 
than a step on the way to progress. In most cases, the researchers work on 
a problem which they perceive as a farmers' need though the farmers may 
not really want it. And what is progress for one farmer, may be a loss for 
another farmer. For example, it could be that farmers starting to feed treated 
straw now have insufficient straw left to give it to the labourers. 
Agrochemicals can save on labour, but they rid other people from their jobs 
and landless animal keepers from weeds for their cows or goats. 
Straw is poor quality feed 
Straw is commonly believed to be poor quality feed, but is this true? For 
many farmers in low input systems straw is an extremely valuable feed in 
times of feed shortage. Even for farmers in high input systems, straw may 
have high value, e.g. in peri-urban dairy systems where straw is a valuable 
source of fibre to buffer rumen acidity, to provide structure for better 
digestion, or to prevent low butter fat content in the milk. In low input areas 
with seasonal droughts, the straw is valuable because it can be the only way 
to let animals survive. The value that the farmers attach to the straw also 
differs. Farmers in Haryana and Punjab perceive wheat straw to be superior 
to paddy straw, whereas farmers in Gujarat consider the reverse to be true. 
The farmers' interest 
Sometimes, everything is believed to be alright if "the scientist" listens to 
"the farmer", as if both scientists and farmers come only in one kind. 
182 
#3.5. Some common recommendations 
Nothing is less true, because some farmers are lazy, others are hardworking, 
some are cattle keepers and others only cultivate crops. Even husband and 
wife may disagree on priorities just as well as father and son (#2.1.). A 
single solution and problem for each one of the actors in development is 
therefore unlikely to be found. In fact, clashes of interest may occur. Lately, 
the contribution of women to agriculture and the existence of woman headed 
families became rightly recognised. Males are generally considered superior 
to females in terms of their prevailing labour wages/hiring charges, and 
some economists consider one male as equivalent to two women or four 
children. It is time that those standards be reconsidered. 
CONCLUSION 
This chapter uses a number of cases/exceptions to illustrate that standard 
concepts may need to be reconsidered, in the light of new developments as 
well as due to differences between farming systems. A number of these 
concepts and issues in ruminant nutrition and development of livestock 
systems are discussed. They may have been true at one point time or in a 
particular farming system, but if they are extrapolated to other systems they 
may do more harm than good. No definite answers on each of these can be 
given but the points are made to provoke thinking and further research. 
Improved interaction between farmers and scientists paves the way for 
improved communication/ collaboration. 
183 
Rangnekar et al. 
SUGGESTED READING 
Jackson, M.G., 1981. Who needs feeding standards? Animal Feed Science and 
Technology 6: 101-104. 
Schiere, J.B. and De Wit, J. 1993. Feeding standards and feeding systems. Animal Feed 
Science and Technology 43:121-134 
Rangnekar, D.V. 1993. Farmers' perceptions of quality and value of feeds, fodder and 
feeding systems, pp. 415-422. In: Kiran Singh and J.B. Schiere (eds.). Feeding 
of ruminants on fibrous crop residues. Proceedings of an International Workshop 
held at NDRI-Karnal. ICAR, New Delhi, India 
Indian Science and Technology in the Eighteenth Century by Dhanpal Academy of 
Gandhian Studies, Hyderabad. Plants, animals and people by CM. McCorkle 
west View Press, Boulder 
184 


Some common recommendations in animal production systems reconsidered.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Name not available

NARCIS

Wageningen Yield