Advertisement

Tropical Animal Health and Production

, Volume 44, Issue 7, pp 1429–1435 | Cite as

Characterisation of smallholder dairy production systems using animal welfare and milk quality

  • Bettie S. Kawonga
  • Mizeck G. G. ChagundaEmail author
  • Timothy N. Gondwe
  • Sera R. Gondwe
  • James W. Banda
Original Research

Abstract

The aim of the current study was to characterise and evaluate production system of smallholder dairy farmers using an index based on combined score of animal welfare and milk quality. Farms were grouped into three categories, tier 1, tier 2 and tier 3. To test the robustness of the characterisation, milk yield (MY), calving interval (CI) and body condition scores (BCS) were used. In the study area, the majority (66.3%) of smallholder dairy farmers practiced cut-and-carry as compared to 15.3% who grazed their cows. The rest combined cut-and-carry and grazing. Cows of farmers in tier 1 had the lowest mean MY (5.4 kg/day, SE = 0.4), lowest mean BCS (2.1 kg/day, SE = 0.09) and longest mean CI (603 days, SE = 27) than farmers in tier 3, mean MY (10.8 kg/day, SE = 0.6), mean BCS (2.6, SE = 0.06) and mean CI (404 days, SE = 17). The study demonstrated that a simple and yet novel method based on farm level indicators can be developed and could assist to timely identify specific problems on the farm.

Keywords

Smallholder dairy production system Animal welfare Milk quality 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This study was conducted as part of the Optimising Smallholder Dairying project portfolio. The financial support from the Scottish Government through the International Development Fund (IDF) is greatly appreciated.

References

  1. Anon 1996. Cow nutrition. In, S. Schelling (ed.) The Comprehensive Reference to the Australian Dairy Industry (East Hawthorn, Vic., Morescope Publishing and the Australian Dairy Industry Council), 161-90Google Scholar
  2. Banda, L.J., Kamwanja, L.A., Chagunda, M.G.G., Ashworth, C.J. and Roberts, D.J. 2011. Status of dairy cow management and fertility in smallholder farms in Malawi. Tropical Animal Health and Production. doi: 10.1007/s11250-011-9972-4
  3. Chagunda, M.G.G., Wollny, C.B.A. and Bruns, E.W. 2002. Potential genetic gain in dairy production of Holstein Friesian cattle applying a selection index. Tropical Agriculture, 79, 42-47Google Scholar
  4. Cook, N.B. 2007. A toolbox for assessing cow, udder, and teat hygiene. Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meetings of the National Mastitis Council, San Antonio, TX (National Mastitis Council, Madison, Wisconsin, USA), 31–43Google Scholar
  5. Delgado, C., Rosegrant, M. and Meijer S., 2001. The Revolution continues. Annual meetings of the International Agriculture Trade Research Consortium (IATRC), Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  6. Dunne, L.D., Diskin, M.G., Boland, M.P., O’Farrel K.J. and Sreeman J.M., 1999. The effect of pre- and post-insemination plane of nutrition on embryo survival in beef heifers. Animal Science, 69, 411-417Google Scholar
  7. Falvey L. and Chantanthalaka C, 1999. Smallholder dairying in the Tropics (International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya)Google Scholar
  8. Gibbons, J.M., Kawonga, B., Gondwe T.N., Chagunda M.G.G. and D.J. Roberts. 2010. Measuring welfare of dairy cattle in Malawi—challenges, constraints and opportunities. The 5th All Africa Conference on Animal Agriculture, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (All Africa Society of Animal Agriculture)Google Scholar
  9. Gibbons, J., Lawrence, A.B. and Haskell, M.J. 2009. Responsiveness of dairy cows to human approach and novel objects. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 116, 163-173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gipson, T.A and Grossman, M., 1990. Lactation curves in dairy goats: a review. Small Ruminant Research, 383-396Google Scholar
  11. Hanigan, M.D., Rius, A.G., Kolver, E.S and Palliser, C.C., 2007. A redefinition of the representation of mammary cells and enzyme activities in a lactating dairy cow model. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 3816-3830PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ibrahim, N., Abraha, A. and Mulugeta, S., 2011. Assessment of reproductive performances of crossbred dairy cattle (Holstein Friesian × Zebu) in Gondar town. Global Veterinaria, 6, 561-566Google Scholar
  13. Land O’Lakes, 2005. Phase 2 Baseline Survey Report. Lilongwe, Malawi (unpublished report, Land O’Lakes, Lilongwe, Malawi)Google Scholar
  14. Malawi Government, 1996. Smallholder Dairy Study (unpublished Technical Report, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development, Lilongwe, Malawi)Google Scholar
  15. Manson, F.J. and Leaver, J.D. 1989. The effect of concentrate: silage ratio and of hoof trimming on lameness in dairy cattle. Animal Production, 49, 15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Msiska, A.C.M., 2003. Developing recording systems for smallholder dairy producers in Malawi—a case study of Lilongwe milk shed area (unpublished MSc thesis, Bunda College of Agriculture, University of Malawi)Google Scholar
  17. Mwale, S.E., 1999. Economic analysis with reference to assumed interactions between genotype and management system in smallholder dairy production in Mzuzu milkshed area—Northern Malawi (unpublished MSc thesis, Bunda College of agriculture, University of Malawi)Google Scholar
  18. Nicholson, C.F, Thornton, P.K., Mohammed, L., Muinga, R.W., Mwamachi, D.M., Elbasha, E.H., Staal, S.J. and Thorpe, W., 1999. Smallholder dairy technology in coastal Kenya: an adoption and impact study (unpublished report International livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, Kenya)Google Scholar
  19. Olafadehan, O.A. and Adewumi, M.K., 2010. Livestock management and production system of agropastoralists in the derived savanna of South-west Nigeria. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems, 12, 685-691Google Scholar
  20. Rekik, B., Gara, A.B., Hamouda, M.B., and Hammami, H., 2002. Fitting lactation curves of dairy cattle in different types of herds in Tunisia. Journal of Animal Science, 20, 63-69Google Scholar
  21. Roche, J.R., Friggens, N.C., Kay, J.K., Fisher, M.W., Stafford, K.J and Berry, D.P., 2009. Body condition score and its association with dairy cow productivity, health and welfare: a review. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 5769-5801PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rutherford, K.M.D., Langford, F.M., Jack, M.C., Sherwood, L., Lawrence, A.B. and Haskell, M.J. 2008. Hock injury prevalence and associated rick factors on organic and non-organic dairy farms in the United Kingdom. Journal of Dairy Science, 91, 2265-2274PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. SAS System for Windows version 8, 1999. SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
  24. Sørensen, J.T., Sandøe, P. and Halberg, N., 2001. Animal welfare as one among several values to be considered at farm level: the idea of an ethical account for livestock farming. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A—Animal Science Supplement, 30, 11–16Google Scholar
  25. Stockdale, C.R. 2001. Body condition at calving and the performance of dairy cows in early lactation under Australian conditions: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 41, 823-839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tarawali, S.; Herrero, M.; Descheemaeker, K.; Grings, E. and Blümmel, M., 2011. Pathways for sustainable development of mixed crop livestock systems: taking a livestock and pro-poor approach. Livestock Science, 139, 11-21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tekerli, M., Akinci, Z., Dogan, I. and Ackan, A., 2000. Factors affecting the shape of lactation curves of Holstein cows from the Balikesir province of Turkey. Journal of Dairy Science, 83, 1381-1386PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Waltner, S.S., McNamara, J.P. and Hillers, J. K., 1993. Relationships of body condition score to production variables in high producing Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 76, 3410-3419PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wanapat, M. and Chanthakhoun, V., 2011. Food-feed-systems for smallholder livestock farmers. FAO Animal Production and Health Proceedings, 11, 69-74Google Scholar
  30. Washburn S.P., Silvia W.J., Brown C.H., McDaniel B.T. and McAlister A.J., 2002. Trends in reproductive performance in south-eastern Holstein and Jersey DHI herds. Journal of Dairy Science, 85, 244-251PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wildman, E. E., Jones, G. M., Wagner, R.L., Boman, H.F., Troutt, Jr and Lesch, T.N., 1982. A dairy cow body condition scoring system and its relationship to selected production characteristics. Journal of Dairy Science, 65, 495-501CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bettie S. Kawonga
    • 1
  • Mizeck G. G. Chagunda
    • 2
    Email author
  • Timothy N. Gondwe
    • 1
  • Sera R. Gondwe
    • 3
  • James W. Banda
    • 1
  1. 1.Animal Science Department, Bunda College of AgricultureUniversity of MalawiLilongweMalawi
  2. 2.Sustainable Livestock Systems GroupSAC ResearchEdinburghUK
  3. 3.Agribusiness Management Department, Bunda College of AgricultureUniversity of MalawiLilongweMalawi

Personalised recommendations