NationalLibraryOfScotland/medical-history-of-british-india huggingface dataset:
N. C. DAS GUPTA 39
TABLE V
Nutrients available from extra feed
Particulars
Barley . . .
Bajra . . .
Maize . . .
Gram . . .
Other food Crops .
Wheat bran . .
Pulse chunies .
Total
Quantity in
thousand
tons
630
138
350
1,156
90
59
(20 per cent of
wheat)
84
(12.5 per cent of
other grains)
2,507
Dry matter
in thousand
tons
567
124
315
1,040
81
54
76
2,257
Digestible protein
Per cent.
7.90
7.82
7.40
11.41
20.00*
9.96
11.95
..
Total in
thousand
tons
49.8
10.8
25.9
131.9
18.0
5.9
10.0
252.3
Net energy
Therms
per 100 lb.
80.7
90.3
90.0
78.1
78.2
55.1
58.4
..
Total
therms in
thousands
1,139,000
279,100
700,600
2,022,000
157,700
73,360
110,200
4,481,960
* On the basis of Morrison's figure for peas
Increase necessary in the milk yield. For human consumption some protein of animal origin is
essential and a vegetarian should get at least one-fifth of the protein from this source [Health
Bulletin, 1937]. If this amount is to be met from milk alone, the requirement should be 13 oz. per
head per day.
Considering the non-vegetarians of the province, if the level of average intake of this protective
food is aimed at 8 oz.†, the yield will have to be increased by 1,544 thousand tons as shown in Table
VI.
TABLE VI
Increase necessary in milk production
Actual
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Required . . . . . . . . . . . .
Increase necessary . . . . . . . .
Population
..
56,346,456
..
Total yield
(tons)
3,047,000
4,591,000
1,544,000
Consumption
per head
per day
(oz.)
5.3
8.0
2.7
The amount of this extra milk provided for human consumption will release some food for the
use of the livestock, which is equivalent to the total of 24,592 and 75 thousand tons of jowar maize
and 'other food grains' respectively and contains 371 thousand tons dry matter, 36.1 thousand
tons digestible protein and 734,700 thousand therms net energy. On the other hand, the production
of 1,544 thousand tons milk of cow and buffalo will require 80.3 thousand tons digestible protein
and 1,283,000 thousand therms net energy. Taking all the points into consideration the position
of the food supply for livestock can be summarized as in Table VII.
† Suggested in a private communication by Major G. Williamson, Animal Husbandry Commissioner with the Govern-
ment of India.
44
A Survey of Feeds and Fodders
Morrison, F. B. Feeds and Feeding, 20th Ed
Pugh, B. M. and Dutt, C. P. (1940). Crop Production in India and also from the records of the Department of
Agriculture, U.P.
Report of the Royal Commission on Agriculture in India (1928), 179
Return of Live-stock and Agricultural Machinery and Implements for 1944
Season and Crop Report of the United Provinces for the year 1942-43
Sen, K. C. (1938). The Nutritive Value of Indian Cattle Foods and the Feeding of Animals and the data arrived at
the Cattle Feeding Research Station, Bharari, Jhansi
Wright, N. C. (1937). Report on the Development of Cattle and the Dairy Industry in India
CATTLE FOOD POSITION IN DELHI PROVINCE
By RAM SWARUP, I. D. D., Assoc I. D. I., Officer-in-Charge, Animal Husbandry Bureau,
Imperial Council of Agricultural Research
(Received for publication on 14 May 1946)
I N this note an attempt has been made to estimate and compare the amount of animal feed
produced in Delhi* with the amount needed to put the livestock in the optimum nutritional
condition for full production.
The computation has been based on assumptions which appear to be, and probably are, reason-
able but might nevertheless be erroneous and on data of present production and animal population
which are not unquestionable. The note has been prepared more with a view to demonstrate the
method which might be employed for making similar estimates rather than to propound an estab-
lished fact.
It is found that the cattle feed production in Delhi province and the amounts actually required
to insure proper feeding are as indicated in Table I.
TABLE I
Cattle feed position in Delhi province
Bhoosa . . . . . . .
Green fodder crops and maize (dry fodder
basis)
Straw of gram and pulses .
.
.
.
Oil cake . . . . . . .
Gram . . . . . . .
Bran and pollards . . . . .
Amounts
available
in tons
32,030
106,024
19,100
1,290
17,000
542
Amounts
required
in tons
71,580
84,398
30,141
17,338
20,642
15,858
Amounts re-
quired to be
imported or
by which pro-
duction should
be increased
39,550
..
11,041
16,048
3,642
15,316
Percentage of
requirements
available
44.7
125.6
63.4
7.4
82.4
3.4
The statement above is based upon the calculations and assumptions as stated below:
ASSUMPTIONS
A. (a) All stock except horses and ponies get all their requirements during July and August
from grazing.
(b) Milch stock get half their requirements for two months from grazing in addition to (a) above.
(c) Young stock and dry stock get all their requirements during July to November both inclusive
and half their requirements for the rest of the year from grazing.
(d) All bulls and work animals get all their requirements from grazing during July and August.
The rural bullocks get in addition half their requirements for half the remaining period but the urban
bullocks get half their requirements for two months only from grazing.
(e) Idle stock get all their requirements from grazing.
(f) Horses and ponies get half their roughage requirements from grazing all the year round.
B. (a) It is assumed further that cows weigh 900 lb., bullocks 1200 lb. and horses 600 lb.
(b) Cows are Hariana and give three-fourth of the average milk output of farm Harianas.
Buffaloes are Murrah and should give the average output of farm Murrahs. (This works out to 7 lb.
and 9 lb. milk per day—5 per cent and 7 per cent fat.)
(c) That all work animals do on the average about four hours work per day for the year.
*Presented before the Crops and Soils Wing Meeting held in December, 1945, at Delhi.
45
46
Cattle
Food Position in Delhi Province
CALCULATIONS
The cattle of Delhi are enumerated under the following headings in the Livestock Census Report
for 1940:
(a) Males over 3 years
(i) Breeding bulls
(ii) Work animals
(iii) Not used for breeding or work
(b) Females over 3 years
(i) Breeding cows in milk
(ii) Breeding cows dry
(iii) Breeding cows not calved
(iv) Cows used for work
(v) Cows not used for work or
breeding
(c) Young stock
(i) Birth to one year
(ii) One year to three years
Of these categories (a) (iii) (b) (v) and (c) (i) may be ignored for our purpose, categories (a) (i), (a) (ii) and (b) (iv) may
be grouped together. (b) (iii) may be grouped with (c) (ii). We have then, groups in cattle and also in buffaloes with their
populations as indicated in Table II.
TABLE II
Groups in cattle and buffaloes with their population
Class
A Breeding bulls and work animals
(1) Rural . . . . . . . . . . .
(2) Urban . . . . . . . . . . .
B Cows in milk . . . . . . . . . . .
C Dry oows . . . . . . . . . . .
D Young stock over one year . . . . . . . . .
E Horses and ponies . . . . . . . . . . .
Cattle (Zebu)
30,675
3,777
8,649
12,860
24,122
7,715
Buffaloes
579
287
18,442
6,486
14,214
..
The feed requirements for a balanced ration of the above categories are given in Table III. In
practice the usual substitutions can be made, e.g. barley and oats bhoosa instead of wheat bhoosa
etc. All the quantities are given on dry feed basis.
TABLE III
Feed requirements for a balance ration of different categories
Bulls and work animals
.
.
.
.
.
Cows in milk (Zebu) . . . . .
Cows in milk (buffalo) . . . . .
Cows dry
.
.
.
.
.
Young stock
.
.
.
.
.
Horses &
ponies
.
.
.
.
.
Bhoosa
12
8
6
10
4
2
Jowar or
bajra
fodder
12
8
10
10
4
8
Gram or
legume
fodder
6
4
4
4
..
..
Oil cake
2.5
1.5
2.0
1.0
2.0
..
Gram
2.0
2.0
2.0
..
2.0
4.0
Bran
2.0
1.0
2.0
..
..
4.0
Balanced according to Imperial Council of Agricultural Research Miscellaneous Bulletin No. 25
(Reprint 1945).
Based on the above balanced ration, and the assumptions listed before the annual requirements
of cattle feeds will be as given in Table IV.
RAM SWARUP 47
TABLE IV
Annual requirements of cattle feed in tons
Bulls and work animals
Rural . . .
Urban . . .
Cows in milk (Zebu) .
Cows in milk (buffaloes)
Cows dry . . .
Young Stock (1.3 years) .
Horses . . .
Total
Popula
tion
31,254
4,074
8,649
18,442
19,346
38,336
7,715
No. of
days
to be
stall
fed
152
275
275
275
108
108
Fodder
182
365
Wheat
or
other
bhoosa
25,464
5,988
8,496
13,584
9,330
7,464
1,254
71,580
Jowar
or
bajra
fodder
25,464
5,988
8,496
22,640
9,330
7,464
5,016
84,398
Gram
or
legume
fodder
10,610
2,495
4,248
9,056
3,732
..
..
30,141
Oil cake
5,305
1,247
1,593
4,528
933
3,732
..
17,338
Gram
4,244
998
2,124
4,528
3,732
5,016
20,642
Bran
4,244
998
1,062
4,528
..
..
5,016
15,858
The following figures of production in Delhi province are based on the estimates given in the
Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the Central Fodder and Grazing Committee of the Imperial Counc
of Agricultural Research pages 41-56:
Fodder crops, maize and kadbi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rice wheat and barley straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fodder from gram and pulses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Oilcakes and cotton seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gram (total production) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
106,024 tons
32,030 „
19,100 „
1,290 „
17,000 „
542 „
It thus appears that Delhi produces only 84.5 per cent of the fodder requirements and 35 per
cent of the concentrate requirements of her livestock population. If the livestock is to be kept in a
nutritional condition for optimum production, it is necessary to make the balance good.
50
Suitability of Sugarcane Tops for Silage Making
TABLE II—contd.
Daily milk yield of the animals in pounds during the experimental period
Days
5 . . . .
6 . . . .
7 . . . .
8 . . . .
9 . . . .
10 . . . .
11 . . . .
12 . . . .
13 . . . .
14 . . . .
15 . . . .
16 . . . .
17 . . . .
18 . . . .
19 . . . .
20 . . . .
21 . . . .
22 . . . .
23 . . . .
24 . . . .
25 . . . .
26 . . . .
27 . . . .
28 . . . .
29 . . . .
30 . . . .
31 . . . .
Group I
1
17.0
17.2
17.5
16.7
16.5
17.0
17.2
16.7
16.5
16.7
17.0
16.7
16.5
16.0
15.7
15.7
15.7
15.5
15.7
15.2
15.2
15.7
15.5
15.0
15.2
15.2
15.0
2
18.5
18.2
18.5
18.0
17.7
17.7
17.7
18.0
17.5
17.7
17.5
17.7
17.2
17.0
17.2
17.2
17.5
17.5
17.2
17.0
16.7
16.7
16.5
16.2
16.5
16.2
16.2
3
17.7
18.0
17.7
17.5
17.7
17.5
17.7
17.5
17.2
17.2
17.5
17.2
16.7
16.7
16.5
16.2
16.5
16.2
16.2
16.0
15.7
15.7
15.5
15.7
15.7
15.5
15.5
Group II
1
12.0
11.7
11.7
11.7
11.7
11.5
11.5
11.7
11.2
11.5
11.2
11.7
11.2
10.7
10.7
11.0
10.7
11.0
11.2
10.7
10.7
11.0
10.7
10.5
10.5
10.7
10.5
2
13.5
13.2
13.0
13.2
13.2
13.0
13.0
13.0
12.7
12.7
12.5
12.7
12.7
12.7
13.5
13.2
12.7
12.5
12.0
12.2
12.0
11.7
11.7
11.2
11.0
11.2
11.2
3
13.7
13.7
13.7
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.7
13.7
13.7
13.5
13.5
13.2
13.2
13.0
13.2
13.5
13.5
13.2
13.0
12.7
12.5
12.7
12.5
12.2
12.0
12.2
12.2
Group III
1
12.7
12.5
12.5
12.2
12.2
12.2
12.0
12.0
11.7
11.5
11.7
11.5
11.0
11.2
11.0
11.5
11.2
11.0
10.7
10.7
10.7
1.0.5
10.7
1.0.2
10.7
10.5
10.7
2
11.7
11.7
11.5
11.5
11.2
11.5
11.0
11.2
10.7
10.7
10.5
10.7
10.5
10.5
10.7
10.7
10.7
10.7
10.5
10.7
10.5
10.7
10.5
10.2
10.5
10.2
10.2
3
12.0
12.2
11.7
12.0
11.7
12.0
11.7
11.5
11.7
11.5
11.7
11.5
1.1.5
11.2
11.0
11.0
11.2
11.0
10.7
11.7
11.0
10.7
10.7
10.7
10.5
10.2
10.0
Group IV
1
14.7
15.0
14.7
14.5
14.2
14.2
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.2
14.0
14.0
14.2
13.7
13.7
13.5
13.2
13.5
13.7
13.7
13.5
13.2
13.5
13.2
13.0
13.2
13.0
2
14.0
13.7
13.7
13.5
13.5
13.7
13.5
13.2
13.5
13.2
13.0
13.0
13.2
13.0
13.2
13.0
12.7
13.0
12.7
12.7
12.2
12.5
12.7
12.5
12.7
12.7
12.5
3
13.0
13.0
13.2
12.7
12.7
13.0
13.2
13.0
12.7
12.5
12.5
12.2
12.0
12.2
12.5
12.0
12.0
11.7
11.5
11.5
11.7
11.5
11.2
11.5
11.0
11.2
11.2
TABLE III
Average daily fat percentage
Inrtial . .
1st week . .
2nd „ . .
3rd „ . .
4th „ . .
1
M
4.4
4.5
4.3
4.7
4.8
E
6.0
6.0
6.2
6.3
6.2
Group I
2
M
4.0
4.1
4.3
4.2
4.4
E
5.3
5.1
5.5
5.3
5.5
3
M
5.2
5.3
5.1
5.0
5.5
E
6.0
6.2
0.4
0.1
6.4
1
M
3.9
4.1
4.2
4.4
4.4
E
4.7
4.S
4.7
5.1
5.0
Group II
2
M
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.3
4.4
E
5.1
5.3
5.2
5.3
5.2
3
M
3.7
3.8
3.9
4.1
4.0
E
4.3
4.2
4.4
4.7
4.9
1
M
4.3
4.2
4.4
4.3
4.5
E
5.2
5.0
5.3
5.2
5.3
Group III
2
M
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.5
4.4
E
5.0
5.3
5.2
5.4
5.3
3
M
4.0
4.0
4.3
4.2
4.4
E
5.1
5.2
5.1
5.3
5.5
1
M
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.3
E
5.0
5.1
5.5
5.2
5.6
Group IV
2
M
4.0
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
E
4.6
4.7
4.9
4.8
5.1
3
M
3.9
3.9
4.1
4.3
4.5
E
4.5
4.6
4.4
5.1
5.2
M = Morning sample
E = Evening sample
T. M. PAUL AND M. C. RANGASWAMY 51
TABLE IV
Weight of the animals in pounds
Initial .
.
.
.
1st week
2nd „
.
.
.
3rd „
.
.
.
4th „
Group I
1
721
715
728
723
719
2
687
678
695
684
691
3
595
587
602
611
599
Group II
1
643
648
640
643
638
2
590
597
602
595
598
3
605
601
608
600
610
Group III
1
685
098
679
684
691
2
593
608
602
595
599
3
635
642
629
632
638
Group IV
1
795
796
793
802
794
2
780
788
799
778
782
3
765
763
766
772
768
DISCUSSION
The feeding of the silage to the cows does not seem to have affected their milk yield. There
was no sudden change either way in the milk yield in any of the three experimental groups. But
there was a gradual decline in the average daily milk yield in all the groups. The control groups also
showed such a decline and hence this common fall in milk production has to be attributed to advance
in both lactation and pregnancy. Even if the fall in milk yield of the experimental groups was due
to the silage feeding, it is not statistically significant when compared to that of the control group.
The fat percentage of the milk also did not show any unusual change that could be attributed
to the feeding of the silage. As is commonly observed, the morning milk contained less fat than
the evening milk.
The body weight of the animals also remained unaffected throughout the experimental period.
The general health of the animals were quite satisfactory. There was no digestive or any other
disturbance during the period when the silage was fed.
In general the cows liked the silages made with molasses and with the mixture of farm grasses
better than that made with cane tops alone probably because they were less dry and softer. There
was no adverse effect noticed on the cows that could be attributed to the feeding of silage.
SUMMARY
Silage was made from sugarcane tops alone, sugarcane tops with molasses and sugarcane tops
with a mixture of guinea and Napier grasses.
The molasses and mixed grass methods produced more palatable silage than that made from
sugarcane tops alone.
The silages produced no adverse effect on the milk yield, fat output, general health and body
weight of milking cows when fed to them in quantities upto 20 lb. each daily.
REFERENCE
Morrison (1944). Feed and Feeding
54
Preparturient Milking of Dairy Animals
Premilking of heifers. (i) Forty heifers belonging to the Sindhi, Gir and cross-bred herds were
taken for study and after dividing them into control and experimental groups were subjected to
similar treatment, as indicated above for the cows. In this case as the milking potentialities of the
animals were not known it was rather difficult to evenly distribute high and low yielders. (ii) After
the premilking was started, as in the case of cows, the daily maximum yield obtained was 4.5 lb.,
the usual average being about 2.5 lb. (iii) After calving the heifers were milked four times a day
for a week and this was reduced to three times a day for the following four weeks. By this time the
animals settled down and the milking was subsequently done only twice a day for the rest of the
lactation. (iv) The obervations made in respect of the heifers are given in Table II. (v) It was
found that out of 55 animals subjected to the preparturient milking treatment, four showed some
udder trouble and about 20 animals were slightly nervous at the time of calving.
TABLE II
Premilking of Heifers
Serial No.
1 . .
2 . .
3 . .
4 . .
5 . .
6 . .
7 . .
8 . .
9 . .
10 . .
11 . .
12 . .
13 . .
14 . .
Average .
1 . .
2 . .
3 . .
4 . .
5 . .
6 . .
7 . .
8 . .
9 . .
10 .
No. of the
animals
310
318
316
317
318
329
331
333
337
330
341
343
347
350
—
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
Lactation milk yields during the experimental
period (in lb.)
1,721
2,503
1,204
415
3,248
1,545
205
828
4,706
2,542
2,347
4,475
4,186
3,663
—
3,198
944, 1,560, 1,400
2,095
7,116
2,235
847
1,168
1,406
2,739
225
Average
annual milk
yield
during the
experimental
period
Sindhi heifers—Control group
—
—
1,616
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2,936
3,375
3,003
788
2,521
2,261
322
2,432
3,345
2,170
—
—
—
—
—
2,328
2,939
1,914
551
2,784
1,903
263
1,630
4,025
2,356
2,347
4,475
4,186
3,663
2,526
Sindhi heifers—Experimental group
3,120
—
2,464
5,885
2,108
—
1,531
—
3,734
1,674
3,608
886
598
3,344
2,677
—
3,509
—
3,669
1,747
3,308
1,197
1,717
5,448
2,510
847
2,069
1,406
3,381
1,215
Sex and borth weights of calves born
the experimental period
M. 53
M. 38
M. 48
M. 40
M. 40
M. 42
M. 42
M. 45
F. 40
M. 47
M. 42
F. 45
M. 38
M. 42
M. 44
M. 30
M. 49
F. 47
F. 38
F. 44
F. 40
M. 53
M. 39
F. 45
M. 50
M. 50
M. 45
F. 48
F. 47
F. 47
F. 42
M. 47
M. 42
M. 42
M. 49
F. 42
M. 50
—
F. 39
F. 42
F. 38
M. 30
M. 55
F. 45
M. 47
—
M. 49
M. 50
M. 53
M. 43
F. 47
—
F. 48
F. 33
F. 30
—
—
F. 47
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
M. 52
F. 37
M. 45
M. 60
M. 50
—
M. 57
—
F. 50
F. 43
ZAL R. KOTHAVALLA AND A. J. LAZARUS 55
TABLE II—contd.
Premilking of Heifers
Serial No.
11 . .
12 . .
13 . .
14 . .
15 . .
16 . .
17 . .
18 . .
19 . .
20 . .
21 . .
22 . .
23 . .
24 . .
25 . .
26 . .
Average
No. of the
animals
304
307
309
312
314
315
327
330
332
335
338
340
344
346
348
349
—
Lactation milk yields during the experimental
period (in lb.)
200
659
258
1,156
940
1,695
3,872
2,956
2,871
4,363
2,800
3,945
1,889
2,702
3,395
2,185
—
Average
annual milk
yield
during the
experimental
period
Sindhi heifers—Experimental group
2,984
1,777
154
—
943
—
3,053
3,002
—
3,240
—
3,971
1,968
—
—
—
—
3,616
—
—
—
3,127
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2,216
1,218
206
1,156
1,670
1,695
3,462
2,979
2,871
3,801
2,800
3,958
1,968
2,702
3,395
2,185
2,360
Sex and birth weights of calves born during
the experimental period
M. 55
M. 52
M. 45
M. 43
M. 49
M. 48
F. 44
M. 44
F. 40
F. 42
F. 40
F. 39
F. 38
F. 43
M. 43
F. 45
M. 48
M. 56
F. 44
F. 41
M. 41
M. 57
F. 38
F. 42
F. 57
M. 43
M. 48
—
M. 43
M. 39
F. 54
—
F. 38
F. 44
M. 47
—
—
—
M. 47
—
F. 56
M. 66
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
TABLE IIB
Serial No.
1 . .
2 . .
3 . .
4 . .
5 . .
6 . .
7 . .
8 . .
Average .
1 . .
2 . .
3 . .
4 . .
5 . .
6 . .
7 . .
8 . .
Average .
No. of the
animals
44
45
47
50
51
54
55
57
—
34
36
38
48
49
53
56
58
—
Lactation milk yields during the experimental
period (in lb.)
3,604
3,618
1,623
333
2,890
3,646
3,279
3,255
—
4,761
2,486
1,674
2,600
1,986
1,876
1,042
3,894
—
Average
annual
milk yield
during the
experimental
period
Gir heifers—Control group
3,851
3,555
—
3,548, 3,224
2,895
2,446
—
2,764
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3,727
3,586
1,623
2,368
2,892
3,066
3,279
3,009
2,943
Gir heifers—Experimental group
3,134
2,675
1.876
1,286
2,189
1,143
1,075
—
—
2,911
—
1,875
—
—
—
—
—
—
3,602
2,580
1,842
1,943
2,087
1,509
1,058
3,894
2,304
Sex and birth weights of calves born during
the experimental period
F. 37
M. 55
M. 56
F. 40
M. 50
M. 65
F. 50
M. 53
F. 48
M. 50
F. 45
F. 50
M. 60
F. 37
M. 52
M. 56
M. 50
M. 54
F. 47
F. 46
F. 52
F. 52
F. 47
F. 50
—
F. 58
M. 55
M. 64 F. 45
F. 48 M. 55
F. 52 F. 54
M. 59
F. 45 F. 47
M. 54 F. 51
M. 53
M. 55
F. 47
F. 44
—
—
F. 48
M. 51
F. 60
—
—
—
M. 54
—
M. 46
—
—
—
—
—
—
56
Preparturient Milking of Dairy Animals
TABLE IIB—contd.
Serial No.
1 . .
2 . .
3 . .
4 . .
5 . .
6 . .
7 . .
8 . .
9 . .
10 . .
Average .
1 . .
2 . .
3 . .
4 . .
5 . .
6 . .
7 . .
8 . .
9 . .
10 . .
Average ,
No. of the
animals
600
605
607
611
616
618
620
622
624
626
—
599
601
602
603
606
609
610
621
623
625
—
Lactation milk yields during the experimental
period (in lb.)
2,829
3,700
6,647
3,857
6,259
3,968
7,545
6,999
5,734
7,291
—
4,402
3,015
6,997
3,640
5,144
3,594
3,242
6,166
5,948
4,593
—
Average
annual milk
yield
during the
experimental
period
Gross-bred heifers—Control group
—
—
8,964
3,547
7,084
4,829
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2,829
3,700
7,805
3,702
6,671
4,828
7,545
6,999
5,734
7,291
5,710
Cross-bred heifers—Experimental group
—
—
7,075
3,665
6,263
4,215
2,480
—
—
—
—
2,445
—
6,477
3,644
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3,423
3,015
7,059
3,650
5,703
3,904
2,861
6,616
5,948
4,593
4,677
Sex and birth weights of calves born during
the experimental period
F. 50
F. 47
F. 44
F. 47
F. 47
M. 50
M. 56
M. 47
F. 58
M. 50
M. 56
F. 60
F. 47
M. 62
F. 55
F. 54
M. 42
F. 45
F. 70
M. 53
F. 55
F. 56
F. 53
F. 37
M. 50 M. 52
F. 50 M. 51
M. 70 M. 64
M. 63
M. 06
F. 55
F. 51
M. 60
F. 49
M. 40
F. 54
F. 65 F. 52
M. 61 M. 55
M. 63
F. 58 F. 58
M. 57 F. 60
—
—
M. 70
M. 55
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
M. 60
M. 56
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
All the experimental and control animals received the same treatments mentioned for each group.
The animals were from the same herd, housed in the same place and looked after by one of the authors
throughout. The calvings were distributed evenly throughout the year.
DISCUSSION
Premilking of cows. From Table I, in which are given the results of the experiment on the Sindhi
cows, the following conclusions can be drawn:—(i) For the control group the average annual milk
yield in the year previous to the start of the experiment was 3,554 lb. The corresponding average
for the experimental animals was also 3,554 lb. The animals were either in their second or third
lactation when this investigation started. (ii) The experiment was carried out for three years. The
average yield for all the control animals during this period was 4,105 lb. This showed an increase of
about 15.5 per cent over the yield in the pre-experimental period. This can be explained by the fact
that the animals selected were either in their 2nd or 3rd lactation and therefore the increase, even
in the control group, during the period of experiment was to be expected. (iii) The rise in the milk
yield in the corresponding period for the animals in the experimental group was from 3,554 lb. to
3,862 lb. or an increase of only 8.7 per cent. This would indicate that the animals in this group did
not fare so well as in the control group, and the preparturient treatment instead of helping to increase