Production efficiency of Swamp buffaloes and Mehsana river buffaloes

Original ArticleBuffalo Bulletin (March 2012) Vol.31 No.1PRODUCTION EFFICIENCY OF SWAMP BUFFALOESAND MEHSANA RIVER BUFFALOESWanna Marchiew 1 , Pisai Wongpanich 2 and Sorachai Kongsuk 3ABSTRACTThis study investigated the productionefficiency of Swamp buffaloes and Mehsana riverbuffaloes under ordinary Thai conditions. Theresults showed that Swamp buffaloes raised undergrazing with the roughage supplementation everymorning and evening had significantly higheraverage weight gain and growth than other groups(P>0.01), while the heart girth and body length ofSwamp buffaloes were similar (P>0.05). However,the Mehsana river buffaloes raised under grazingand under grazing with roughage supplementationevery morning and evening gained more weightand had higher growth than buffaloes raised in thepen because they could eat more feed.This study also investigated the productionefficiency of Swamp buffaloes under river basinconditions. The results showed that buffaloesgrazing on land made higher gains in weight onaverage than those grazing on land and in water orthose grazing in water, but the average heart girthsand body heights of all groups were close (P>0.05).Swamp buffaloes grazing on land had higheraverage higher weight gain and growth becausethe usual aquatic plants on which the buffaloes fed,such as water snowflake and tape grass, were lowin dry matter.Keywords: Swamp buffaloes, Mehsana riverbuffaloes, production efficiency, grazing, aquaticplantsINTRODUCTIONAt this time when the number of buffaloesis declining, raising buffaloes as a primaryoccupation is very attractive. Buffaloes are easyto raise, the costs involved in raising them arelow, and they can grow very well with low qualitynative forage. They can be used for cultivationunder the self-sufficiency economy, and their dungcan be soil fertilizer to reduce expenditure onchemical fertilizer and preserve the environment inline with the Thai government’s policy supportingthe restructuring of production toward moresustainable and organic agriculture. Moreover,buffalo raising can reduce import of buffalo meatand live buffaloes from abroad. (Jintana, 2008)MATERIALS AND METHODSIn the first experiment, the productionefficiencies of Swamp buffaloes and of Mehsanariver buffaloes were studied under ordinary Thai1Rajamangala University of Technology Isan, Surin Campus, Surin, Thailand, E-mail: w.marchiew@gmail.com2Mahasarakham Livestock Research and Testing Station, Mahasarakham, Thailand3Nakhon Phanom Livestock Research and Testing Station, Nakhon Phanom, Thailand40

Buffalo Bulletin (March 2012) Vol.31 No.1conditions using 24 females 18-36 months of agefor experimentation. They were divided into threegroups: Group 1 animals were grazed, Group 2were grazed and given roughage supplementationevery morning and evening, and Group 3 were penraised. The experiment lasted 120 days.In the second experiment, the productionefficiencies of Swamp buffaloes were studied underriver basin conditions. Nine males, 18-36 monthsof age, were divided into three groups. Group 1were grazed on land, Group 2 were grazed on landfor 4 h a day and in water for 4 h a day, and Group 3were grazed in water for 8 h a day. The experimentlasted 120 days.The data of the two experiments wereanalyzed statistically using analysis of variance ofrandomized complete block design to compare theaverages using Duncan’s new multiple range test.(Steel and Torrie, 1980).RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONThe production efficiency of Swamp buffaloesand Mehsana river buffaloes under ordinaryconditionsThe Production Effi ciency of Swamp buffaloesGroup 2 buffaloes, given roughagesupplementation, consumed 23.10 to 29.75 kg offresh roughage (Napier grass) a day, and Group 3buffaloes, raised in a pen, consumed 34.90 to 38.80kg of fresh roughage a day (13.20 percent bodyweight). These groups of buffaloes ate native grassand Napier grass, which are low in nutrients (Table1).Group 2 buffaloes, which were given someroughage supplementation, gained more weight andhad a higher rate of growth (P0.05) because they were at growthage and the amounts of food eaten were not verydifferent. This amount of feed could not produce adifference (Table 2).The production effi ciency of Mehsana riverbuffaloesThe buffaloes of Group 2, given roughagesupplementation, consumed 20-25 kg of freshroughage (Napier grass) a day while the pen-raisedGroup 3 buffaloes, ate 40 - 45 kg (12.82 percentbody weight) of fresh roughage a day. Thesebuffaloes ate Ruzi grass, which is low in nutrients.(Table 1)Group 1 buffaloes, raised by grazing, andGroup 2 buffaloes, raised by grazing with roughagesupplementation, gained more weight and had ahigher rate of growth (P0.05), but there wastendency for Group 3 buffaloes, raised in a pen, tohave a higher hearth girth than either the grazedGroup 1 of the grazed and supplemented Group 2.The average gains in body height of thebuffaloes of Groups 1 and 2 were greater (P

Buffalo Bulletin (March 2012) Vol.31 No.1Table 1. Chemical Composition of Different types of Roughage (%).Kinds of Roughage Dry Matter Protein Fat Ash NDF ADFNative Grass 27.20 5.07 0.97 7.55 71.47 43.48Ruzi Grass 27.79 5.81 0.98 8.94 71.89 42.97Napier grass 22.39 5.83 1.42 8.24 68.42 49.54Tape grass 4.35 6.85 0.73 8.47 71.62 46.78Water Snowflake 8.34 11.64 1.10 7.81 68.42 51.82Table 2. Production efficiency of Swamp buffaloes.Group 1 Group 2 Group 3Period of experimentation (days) 120 120 120Average weight gain (kg) 42.94 b 68.25 a 61.25 aRate of growth (g/day) 357.81 b 568.75 a 510.42 aHeart girth gain (cm) 11.21 11.84 9.50Body length gain (m) 14.00 15.53 14.94Body height gain (cm) 5.45 5.92 6.38Different superscripts in a row show a significant difference (P

Buffalo Bulletin (March 2012) Vol.31 No.1Table 4. Comparison of production efficiency of Swamp buffaloes and Mehsana river buffaloes.ContentsPeriod of experimentation(days)Average weightgain (kg)Rate of growth(g/day)Heart girth gain(cm)Body lengthgain (cm)Body heightgain (cm)SwampbuffaloesGrazing Roughage Supplementation Raising in the PenMehsanabuffaloesAverageSwampbuffaloesMehsanabuffaloesAverageSwampbuffaloesMehsanabuffaloesAverage120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 12042.94 62.63 52.78 b 68.25 64.00 66.13 a 61.25 46.13 53.69 b357.81 521.88 439.84 b 568.75 533.34 551.04 a 510.42 384.38 447.40 b11.21 9.75 10.48 11.84 9.88 10.86 9.50 11.13 10.3114.00 6.75 10.38 15.53 6.50 11.01 14.94 6.75 10.845.45 6.28 5.86 5.39 6.55 6.24 6.38 4.68 5.53Different superscripts in a row show a significant difference (P

Buffalo Bulletin (March 2012) Vol.31 No.1Table 5. Comparison of production efficiency in Swamp and Mehsana buffaloes.Contents Swamp buffaloes Mehsana buffaloesPeriod of experimentation (days) 120 120Average weight gain (kg) 57.48 57.58Rate of growth (g/day) 478.99 479.86Body length gain (cm) 10.85 10.25Body length gain (cm) 14.82 a 6.67 aBody height gain (cm) 5.92 5.83Different superscripts in a row show a significant difference (P0.05). These two kinds of buffaloeswere able to adjust themselves to living in humidweather (Table 5).Both Swamp buffaloes and Mehsana river buffaloesshould be raised by grazing with roughagesupplementation every morning and evening sothat they obtain enough nutrients. If they receive alot of nutrients, their growth is greateThe production efficiency of buffaloes underriver basin conditionsBoth water snowflake and tape grasscontain good nutrients, but they have low dry matterand made the buffaloes full quickly (Table 1). Asa result, the production efficiency of buffaloesunder the river basin conditions was low. However,both water snowflake and tape grass can be fed tobuffaloes during feed shortages.Group 1 buffaloes, grazed on land, tended44

Buffalo Bulletin (March 2012) Vol.31 No.1to have slightly higher weight and rate of growth(P>0.05) than either Group 2, grazed in water andin water, or Group 3, grazed in water (Table 6)because the first group was able to graze all day.The gains in hearth girth, body length, andbody height of the three group of buffaloes weresimilar (P>0.05).REFERENCESJintana Intramonkon. 2006. Thai Buffaloes forStable Development. Animal HusbandryDivision, Department of Livestock, Ministryof Agriculture and Cooperatives. Bangkok.234p.Rajchasuk Chuaychuwong. 2002. The DocumentText for Teaching Beef and Cattle Subject.Faculty of Veterinary Science, RajamangalaInstitute of Technology, Nakhon Si ThammaratCampus, Nakhon Si Thammarat. 303p.Wittaya Chiengkoon. 2005. The SustainableDevelopment and Poor Problem Solution.Amarin Printing and Pulishing Co.Ltd.(Thailand), Bangkok. 152p.National Economic and Social Development Office.2008. A Conclusion of National Economic andSocial Development Plan with the 10 th issue(2008-2011). Retived from http://www.do.rtaf.mi.th/file/E- Plan10. pdf 9/7/2010.Steel, R.G.D. and J.H. Torrie. 1980. Principles andProcedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill BookCo., New York. 630p.45