|
|
The study was carried out in the peri-urban areas of Hochiminh City, which is located in the South of Vietnam. The objective of the survey was to understand the setting of the dairy production and management in smallholder dairy farms. Data on milk production and management were obtained by using a 120-question structured questionnaire and field observations from 120 smallholder dairy farms in two districts of Hochiminh City.
There a great variation in experience of dairy production, with 60.8% having experience of from 10-20 years. Almost all of the farmers (79%) adopted the techniques from the training on dairy production provided by the extension centers in the districts. The dairy activities of the farms were managed by their own family labors, with an average of 5 people per farm. The average herd size was 12 (ranging from 2 to 17 head), and milking cows were the highest proportion of herd structure (6 cows per household). The main breeds of dairy cattle in the farms were Holstein-Friesian (95.8%), and 4.2% crossbred Sindhi. The farmers used Napier grass, natural grasses, brewery by-products, cassava waste and commercial concentrates for feeding their dairy cows. The amount of feeds given satisfied nutrient requirements, but the concentrate proportion (52:47, concentrate: roughage ratio) was high. The success of artificial insemination (AI) was low, 43.4 % of milking cows for 5-7 time s/ pregnancy.
The findings of the survey show that the milk yield of this breed is high (15.98 kg/day/cow), and fat, protein, lactose, dry matter, solid non-fat were 4.1%, 3.2%, 4.7%, 12.6 and 8.6%, respectively, and were acceptable.
Smallholder dairy production systems are potentially very important for the food production of animal origin in developing countries. Their importance is expressed by the government support to this sector in many countries, due to excessive imports of milk and milk products, and more importantly, because of the recognition of the influence of dairy on income generation, tangible economic benefits, household nutrition and poverty reduction (Devendra, 2001).
Dairy production in Vietnam has been strongly promoted by the government since October 2001, with the aims of replacing imported milk, and generating rural employment and incomes. To achieve these goals, the dairy cattle herd is expected to increase from 38,000 heads in 2001 to 100,000 heads and 200,000 heads in 2005 and 2010, respectively (MARD, 2006). Currently, according to government statistical data, 95% of the dairy cow herd is raised in backyard/household farms, with an average number of 4-5 dairy cows per farm (in the North) and 7-10 cows per farm (in the South). Only 5% of the national herd is in what are considered commercial operations with a thousand cows or more, and the largest populations are in the provinces of Hochiminh City (56,162 head) (MARD, 2006).
Hochiminh City is one of the target areas of the National Dairy Development program. From 25,089 heads and a total milk production of 44,218 ton per year in 2000 the dairy herd increased to 56,162 head and 129,000 tons of milk were produced in 2005 (DARDH, 2006), while the whole dairy herd of the country was 107,609 and total milk production is 197,700 tons (Thuong et al., 2006). In this area, there are many strategies to develop dairy production, in improving milk marketing, veterinary, extension services and dairy cattle feed resources. Fresh milk can be sold easily to customers or to the processing factories, which are located in Hochiminh City and Binh Duong Province (30 km from Hochiminh City). Abundant industrial by-products (such as brewery byproduct, cassava wastes, soybean residues and molasses etc) are available in this area, and can be used for feeding dairy cows, and a strong system of veterinary and extension services has been developed up to district level for technical transfer and veterinary services.
However, the dairy production is still rather new to the farm sector in Vietnam, and the farmers have very little practical experience of production systems and management. Due to the pressure of urbanization and environmental considerations, the dairy herds had to move to the suburbs, where the farmers have rather little experience and capital and in addition to the problem of shortage of land, and roughage, there is the high price of mixed feed (Khang 1999).
The survey was carried out in order to obtain information on the situation of dairy production in the smallholder dairy farms in Hochiminh City, Vietnam.
The survey was carried out in the area around Ho Chi Minh City, which is located in the South of Vietnam. This area accounts for 54% of the total dairy cattle of Vietnam. The individual farms participating in the survey were spread out in two districts, Cu Chi and District Number 12. The main agricultural activities in these districts are rice, cash crops and dairy cattle, and there are at least 1,000 dairy farms within each district. Dairy cows are mainly kept in smallholder systems that have 2 to 50 cows per farm and mostly managed by family labor. Green grasses from backyards or fields and agricultural crop-residues such as rice straw, bean vines etc. are used as the main roughages. Beer distiller by-products, cassava wastes and commercial concentrates are used as supplement feed.
The secondary data on socio-economic aspects, dairy production and maps of the districts were collected and used in the first processing and evaluation of the research sites. The visit to district and village offices before the survey started was to understand the dairy production of the district from the corresponding local authorities and groups of farmers. Sixty smallholder dairy farms were randomly selected within each district. Sampling was then done by withdrawing farms from the list of all dairy farmers by matching with a series of randomized numbers generated from Microsoft Excel worksheet. A total of 120 farms is representative of approximately 6% of the total number of small-scale dairy farms, based on census records of the two districts.
Questionnaire for direct interviews and a checklist for observations were designed to obtain basic information about milk production and management of household farms. Ninety questions related to information about household, breeds and breeding, feeding and management systems, milk production capacity, milking routines and management, and calve rearing were included in the questionnaire form. Checklists for observation were used to check farm conditions in practice at the studied farms regarding animal health, hygiene, feed and water, milking routines and practices.
Before the survey started all questions in the questionnaire form were pre-tested in the field, modified and clarified for later official interviews with the farmers. In practice, interviewers took the interview with the respondents, who were representative for the household and well understood their dairy production. The duration of each interview was at least 3 hours. The interviewers asked for an additional visit to the farm for observation or for any necessary measurements and an appointment with the farmer, and collection of milk samples for analyses of milk composition.
Milk samples were taken from individual cows randomly, which corresponded to at least 20 percent of cows per herd at the studied farms. Milk samples were analyzed for dry matter, fat, protein, lactose, solid non-fat by a mid infrared spectroscopy method (Farm Milk Analyzer, Miris AB, Uppsala, Sweden).
Feed samples were taken from the studied farms. The samples of brewery residues, cassava waste, concentrates, Napier grasses, rice straws and natural grasses were analysed for dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) at the animal nutrition laboratory, Angiang University. The DM and CP were determined according to AOAC (1990). CP content was analyzed by the Kjeldahl method as Total N* 6.25. The contents of NDF and ADF were determined according to Van Soest and Robertson (1991).
Collected data of the questionnaires were checked and transferred into the same unit of measurement. The quality variables were coded into categorical values. Collected data were then entered into worksheets of Microsoft Excel 2003 (Microsoft Corporation, copyright © 1985-2003). The statistical analyses were performed using SPSS for Windows version 14.02 (SPSS Inc., copyright © 1989-2005). Descriptive statistics with mean, median, frequencies, max, min, and range were used. The independent-samples T-test procedure was used to compare the means of the quantitative variables, and to test if there were any significant differences (p<0.05) between the sites. Pearsons correlation was used for chi-squared statistics evaluation for categorical variables.
One hundred and twenty farmers answered the questionnaires. This represents 6% of all smallholder dairy farms in the two districts. The results showed wide variation in experience in dairying farming, that varied from 2 to 30 years. However, 60.8% of the farmers had experience of from 10-20 years. Most of the farmers (77.8%) had started their dairy production by use of family capital, 6.7% with capital from the banks (agricultural or commercial bank), 15% with capital from their relatives or donation, and 5% got their capital from micro credits of local organizations. There were three main dairy-based systems in the area: dairy only, dairy and crops, and dairy and other animals. Most of the systems (77.5%) had dairy only, 20% dairy and crops, and 2.5 % dairy and other animals. Most of the farmers in both districts started their dairy farming some years before or after 1990, with crossbred Sindhi and F1 cows (crossbred Holsteins).
Table 1 describes the structure of the farms. The main activities on the farms were managed by laborers from 20 to 60 years old. For dairy production management, the respondents of the survey were responsible for most of the activities (81%), whereas other members of the family managed the dairy activities only in 19% of farms. The average age of respondents was 45 years, with 11 years of experience in dairy farming. For the education of respondents or heads of the dairy farms, 41.7% had elementary school, 35.8% primary high school, 20% high school, 0.8% vocational schools and 1.6% had studied at college or university. Almost all of the dairy farm owners (90.8%) were farmers, while 9.2% were local officials, teachers and retailers. There was no statistical correlation between education and farm size, number of cows, and milk yield. Most of the farmers (79.2%) attended training programs on dairy production, whereas, 20.8% did not attended any training. They operated their farm production by learning from their neighbors or self-experience. There was no correlation between training and farm size, milk yield and milk quality.
|
Table 1: Labor used on smallholder farms (n = 120) |
|||
|
Item |
Mean |
Min Max |
SD |
|
Family size (persons) |
5 |
2-12 |
1.72 |
|
Age of respondent (years) |
45 |
21-70 |
11.07 |
|
Years of experience in dairying |
11 |
2-30 |
5.6 |
On average, the dairy farm owners hold 4,832 m2. The average land sizes for pasture, cropping and animal house were 3,322m2, 2,162m2, and 208m2, respectively; the animal houses were set up in the backyard near the farmers houses (Table 2).
|
Table 2: Land holding and use on dairy farms (n = 120) |
|||
|
Type of land use (m2) |
Mean |
Min max |
SD |
|
Land for pasture |
3,322 |
0-12,000 |
2,501 |
|
Land for cropping |
2,162 |
0-30,000 |
4,946 |
|
Land for animal housing |
208 |
20-1000 |
147 |
|
Total land holding |
4,692 |
140-33,000 |
5,695 |
There were 72.4% and 10% of the dairy farmers who did not have any land for pasture or for crops, respectively. There was a significant correlation between land size holding and herd size (r (120) =0.29, p=0.001), years of experience and herd size (r (120) = 0.33, p=0.001).
There was a wide variation in the herd size, and farmers kept from 2 to 50 cows. The majority of the studied households owned between 2 to 17 cattle (mean = 12). The number of milking cows was the highest part in the in herd structure (Table 3). The main breeds of dairy cattle used in the farms were HF (95.8%) and crossbred Sindhi (4.2%).
|
Table 3: Herd structure of dairy cattle on smallholder farms (mean SD, n = 120) |
||||
|
Type of cattle |
Number of cattle |
Percentage in herd structure |
Breed |
Generation |
|
Milking cows |
6 (+5.4) |
50 |
Holstein-Friesian, crossbred Sindhi |
F1, F2, F3, pure HF |
|
Dry cows |
1 (+2.1) |
8.3 |
Holstein-Friesian |
F1, F2, F3, pure HF |
|
Heifers |
2 (+2.7) |
16.7 |
Holstein-Friesian |
F3, pure HF |
|
Calves |
3 (+3.4) |
25 |
Holstein-Friesian |
F3, pure HF |
According to the results of the survey, almost the dairy cattle were kept in the cow house. Cut and carry was common in this area. Fifty-nine percent of dairy farmers reported that milking cows suffered from heat stress during the onset of the dry season, whereas the figures were 40% for dry cows and less than 12 percent for heifers. A higher number of farmers (83.4%) reported that milking cows were sensitive to increase in temperature during periods of sunshine (83.4%). By observation, almost all of the farmers did not apply any cooling system to control temperature and the micro-environment of the dairy barn. The most common way to solve that problem was to water the dairy cattle at noon.
All of the cows were milked twice per day, in the early morning (04.00 - 0600h) and at 16.00 to 17.00h. The most common method was hand milking (91.6%) and only 9.4% by machine milking (table 4). Udder cleaning with water was done before and after milking. In the case of mastitis occurrence dipping the teats in anti-germ solution was applied. Forty-four percent of the dairy farmers employed laborers for milking, whereas the others (56.4%) managed by using their family labor. There were no statistical correlations between milk yield and hand milking or machine milking or family labor and hired labor.
|
Table 4: Milking routines and labor for milking |
||
|
Items |
Frequency (n=120) |
Percent (%) |
|
Machine milking |
10 |
9.4 |
|
Hand milking |
110 |
91.6 |
|
Family labor |
62 |
54.6 |
|
Hire labor |
48 |
43.6 |
The labor cost for milking was five hundred VND per 1 kg of milk. Hiring labor for milking is common in this area, especially in the newer dairy farms, in which farmers lack knowledge and skill in milking, and in these cases they sell some milk directly to the hired milker.
|
Table 5: AI per pregnancy for heifers and milking cows (n = 120) |
|||
|
AI times |
1-2 |
3-4 |
5-7 |
|
Heifer (%) |
98.4 |
1.6 |
0 |
|
Milking cows (%) |
9.2 |
47.5 |
43.4 |
Table 5 shows the number of AI services for conception of heifers and milking cows. The percentage of milking cows getting pregnant with AI services of 3- 4 times and 5-7 times was 47.5% and 43.4 %, respectively. Otherwise nearly 100% of the heifers conceived after 1-2 AI services. Usually, farmers sold their cows if they failed with AI more than 7 times.
In total 71.4 % of farmers kept record books for simple facts of production such as disease prevention, calving and breeding. The recording for milk was managed by the milk collection centers and therefore no exact data was available for individual cows, only information directly made by the respondents of the questionnaires collected.
Considering calf rearing methods, 79% of dairy farms applied bucket feeding and 21% used restricted suckling. However, there was no significant difference between the methods of calf rearing with respect to the milk yield and milk quality. Ninety-percent of the farmers reported that saleable milk yield increased if the calves were raised by artificial rearing methods, but there was no evidence from the results of the survey.
The chemical composition of roughages, industrial by-products and commercial concentrates is shown in Table 6. The mean contents of CP, EE, NDF, ADF and Ash in Napier grass and natural grasses were almost identical. The concentrates played an important role as protein and energy supplements due to their high CP content (17%). Cassava waste had very poor nutritional values compared with other feed sources, while brewery byproduct had a high CP content (25.87%).
|
Table 6: Chemical composition of feeds for milking cows (Mean, SD) |
|||||||
|
Items |
n |
DM |
CP |
NDF |
ADF |
EE |
ASH |
|
|
|
% |
-------------------(% DM)------------------- |
||||
|
Brewery residues
|
10
|
20.7 (2.33) |
25.9 (5.43) |
57.8 (5.85) |
22.4 (3.69) |
10.5 (2.13) |
3.98 (0.88) |
|
Cassava waste
|
10
|
18.4 (2.57) |
2.07 (0.66) |
13.5 (9.64) |
1.26 (2.38) |
2.28 (0.72) |
1.63 (0.21) |
|
Concentrate
|
8
|
88.0 (1.27) |
17.6 (1.86) |
30.1 (4.22) |
13.6 (2.29) |
6.48 (0.88) |
11.9 (0.95) |
|
Napier grass
|
8
|
15.8 (2.99) |
12.1 (2.02) |
65.9 (4.91) |
37.6 (3.15) |
3.08 (1.44) |
13.1 (3.32) |
|
Natural grass
|
10
|
22.6 (6.66) |
11.1 (3.06) |
62.1 (9.67) |
33.9 (3.05) |
3.60 (0.79) |
10.5 (3.01) |
|
Rice straw
|
6
|
82.8 (1.63) |
4.65 (1.03) |
62.2 (15.9) |
36.5 (1.83) |
1.86 (0.28) |
13.8 (2.47) |
Farmers used green grasses from the fallow land, backyard or from pasture land for feeding their lactating cows, and fed from 20 to 40 kg of green grass per cow per day, depending on the availability of grasses and rice straw, stage of lactation and amount of commercial concentrates. Eighty eight percent of farmers feed from 3 to 6 kg of rice straw to their cattle. Industrial by-products (brewery residues and cassava waste) were fed in all of the households with a mean amount of 2.7 kg DM (Table 7). The estimation of commercial concentrates for feeding milking cows was from 4 to 6 kg per day. Industrial byproducts and concentrates were mixed with water and fed to the dairy cows twice per day. The farmers adjusted the proportion of feeds according to the daily milk yield of the cow, and in the milking cow diet the mean proportions of roughages, byproduct and concentrate were 47%, 17% and 36%, respectively (Table 7). The feed residues from the troughs were removed and water was added to give the cows free access throughout the day. In our observation, 45% of drinking water troughs were not clean enough, and this often made the cows reluctant to drink. There was no statistical correlation between water supply and heat stress status and milk yield.
|
Table 7: Amount and proportion of feeds for dairy cattle (kg(DM)/cow/day) |
|||||
|
Item |
n |
Milking cows |
Heifers |
||
|
Mean (SD) |
% |
Mean (SD) |
% |
||
|
Roughage |
120 |
6.43(1.63) |
46.8 |
4.12 (1.06) |
60.9 |
|
Byproducts |
120 |
2.68(0.53) |
19.5 |
1.30 (0.44) |
19.2 |
|
Concentrates |
120 |
4.62(0.86) |
33.7 |
1.56 (0.26) |
23.0 |
|
Total |
|
13.7 |
100 |
6.77 |
100 |
According to the data in the questionnaires, the average milk yield was 15.93 kg/day, and there was no significant difference between the districts. The average contents of fat, protein, lactose, dry matter, and solid non-fat were 4.1%, 3.2%, 4.7%, 12.6% and 8.6%, respectively (Table 8). Milk yield and milk quality did not correlate with milking method (hand milking or machine milking), hand milking routines (full hand and thumb in), herd size (large, medium and small size) and number of years of experience of the farm owners.
|
Table 8: Milk composition on smallholder farms (n = 120) |
|||
|
Item |
Means |
Min-max |
SD |
|
Fat (%) |
4.1 |
2.8-5.5 |
0.54 |
|
CP (%) |
3.2 |
2.8-3.9 |
0.15 |
|
Lactose 8%) |
4.7 |
3.7-5.3 |
0.75 |
|
DM (%) |
12.6 |
9.6-14.2 |
0.31 |
|
SNF (%) |
8.6 |
7.0-9.3 |
0.31 |
Dairy cows in the south of Vietnam were introduced into the traditional farming systems in 1989, when the demand of the domestic market increased (Tam, 2004). The dairy production in the area had mainly been started in the districts near to the central of the city and was on a backyard scale, with a small number of milking cows per household, and only a few large scale, modern dairy farms (i.e. more than 100 cows per farm) had been established in the peri-urban areas of Hochiminh City and its vicinity. In the present study, the situation of dairy production related in respect to farm conditions (Table 1, 2) was nearly the same as in Thailand in last decade, as reported by Chantalakhana and Skunmun (2002). Smallholders tend to gradually increase the number of cows in their farms from 2 to 17, according to their management capacity (Falvey and Chantalakhana, 2001), and access to and cost of green grasses and commercial concentrates. The fact is that the dairy production in the studied area depends on the price of commercial concentrates and the salable milk price and these factors exert a strong effect on the herd size per household. The fast development in dairy production in this area is based on a good market (milk price and milk collection), low cost of feeds and labor, and comparative high productivity compared to other agricultural enterprises (Tam, 2004).
The variation observed in the years of experience in dairy production is an indication of the development of dairy production in the research area. Land competition from urbanization is very high and has forced dairy producers to move farther away from the city. As a result of this situation the number of dairy farms has increased, and land holding and herd size decreased. Where dairying is an integral part of the farming system, more farm households involved in the production resulted in increasing cattle population. Consequently area pasture land was reduced and there was a shortage of grass for dairy cattle. Labor need is an important factor in dairy production, but at this time it seems not to be a big problem, due to the small scale of the production, so the majority of farm work can be done by the family.
The herd structure per household in Table 3 shows that the mean percentage of milking cows in the herd is similar to data reported in Thailand (50.6%; Chantalakhana and Skunmun, 2002). Milking cows in smallholder farms are to generate cash for reinvestment to continue production (Mutukumira et al., 1996 and Lanyasuna et al., 2006) and for family expenses. In response to the question on what part of the herd should be increased in the future, 94.6% of the farmers answered that would like to increase the number of milking cows in order to increase salable milk. Heifers were used to replace milking cows or to expand the herds. According to the information given in Table 3, the ratio of heifers to total dairy cows was 28.6%, a ratio that is rather high compared to the need of cow replacement. This probably mean that more heifers were kept at this time because of the increase in the milk price.
The data on reproduction performance, represented as the number of AI services for conception (Table 8) show a high fertility of heifers and low fertility in the milking cows. This result is agreement with Ho (1999) who found that AI use in smallholder dairy farms was 34% for milking cows. In the case of heifers, nearly all (98%) became pregnant after 1 to 2 AI services. The high conception percentage of heifers shows that they are reared in good conditions. Otherwise conception was low in milking cows (> 3 AI services required for conception). Low fertility in dairy cows results from numerous factors, including genetics, environment and male fertility. It is estimated that about 80 percent of the variance in fertility is due to environmental factors, of which more than 50% is explained by nutrition (Lotthammer, 1989). In feeding dairy cows maintaining a balanced diet is very important, as an excess as well as a nutritional deficiency can affect reproduction. By observation, the dairy cows in this area varied considerably in their body appearance and this may be related to the low conception ratio. In addition, the fertility rate also depends on the knowledge and skills of the farmer and the technical service, namely heat detection inaccuracies, poor semen quality, faulty insemination technique, reproductive tract infection etc. (Thiep and Trach, 2004)
Green forages were from two main sources: cultivated and natural grasses. The farmers planted grass in the backyard, fallow land and used manure the cattle to fertilize the plots. The most popular cultivated grass was Napier grass (Pennisetum purpurerum), with an average fresh matter yield of from 230-250 ton/ha/year. The farmers could not supply sufficient fresh grass for their dairy cows during the dry season because of the lack of land and shortage of water at this time. The surplus of grass in the rainy season was not used to make either silage or hay, preserved as feed for the dry season. None of the farmers planted any leguminous or fodder trees for their dairy.
Natural grasses (Digitaria adscendens, Panicum repens, Brachiaria mutica, Chloris barbata etc.) are the main roughage source for dairy cows in this area, especially in the dry season. Farmers find and collect grasses and weeds from the roadsides, fallow land and pasture. Some of the farmers have to buy grasses from their neighbors, at a price of 400 VND per kg.
Rice straw was used as the main source of roughage in the dry season, when there is a lack of grass and/or a shortage of labor to collect enough green grass. Moreover, almost all farmers believed that rice straw could increase milk quality. Due to the urbanization pressure, the area of paddy land and supply of rice straw had decreased. Thus, the farmers have to buy rice straw off-farm with a price of 400 VND per kg. At present, the survey found that 88% of owners used rice straw to supply additional roughage. Rice straw was fed to the dairy cattle directly, without being chopped or subjected to any treatment.
According to the explanation of the farmers, brewery residues are very suitable for dairy cows. The nutritional values are higher than in other by-products, especially CP and digestible fiber. Its price was 800 VND per kg. One hundred percent of the farmers used brewery residues as feed for cows in fresh form, mixed with cassava waste and concentrate and water. In the present study, its nutrient values were lower than reported by Dong (2005), Manh et al (2003) and Nghi and Do (1995).
Cassava waste is the remaining part of cassava starch processing. In this region, it is the main source of by-product, and 100% of the farmers use it for their animals. In our study, the nutrient contents were higher when compared to the results reported by Nghi and Do (1995) and similar with Khang (2005).
The concentrates found in this area are commercial feeds, formulated from the abundance of available ingredients by the feed companies. The owners used concentrates as the main supplement source to their dairy cows, and fed from 3 to 6 kg/cow/day according to milk yield. Commercial concentrate, cassava waste and brewery residues were mixed with water and fed to the animals twice per day after milking. There were no households using homemade concentrates.
The feedstuffs and their proportions used in dairy cattle diets as discussed above represent typical feed and feeding regimes in the peri-urban areas of Hochiminh City. Similar conditions have been reported by Chantalakhana and Skunmun (2002) in Thailand. Of course farmers in this region use more concentrate and crop residues because of difficulties in land holding. Using local protein-rich foliages that are available in the region, such as cassava leaves, Tropical Kudzu, Gliricidia etc. (Tham, 2007; Hiep, 2007; Man, 2001) could reduce the need for concentrate and the feeding cost. However, in our study no farmers were found that used these foliages.
In the present study, results for total dry matter intake both of milking cows and heifers were similar to the results reported in a survey of the usage of locally available feed resources in Hochiminh City by Khang (1999), and corresponded to the nutritional requirement if crossbred dairy cows suggested by Cai (1995). However, the dairy cattle were fed a higher ratio of concentrates, which resulted in high feed cost and increased the risk of lactic acidosis syndrome in lactating cows (Leng, 1997).
Milk productivity in the study area is based mainly on HF crossbred cows with a high proportion of Holstein blood. Milk yield and composition of the studied cows was likely to be linked to many factors such as heterosis, genotype, selection, feeds and feeding, and milking management, as mentioned by Chantalakhana and Skunmun (2002). The average milk yield of the crossbred Holstein cows of 15.93 (SD=2.02) kg per day, was high compared with the values reported by Do and Hoang (2001) in the North of Vietnam and Chantalakhana and Skunmun (2002) in Thailand. Faced with the low price of milk during the last two years, farmers in the region have started to select the high yielding cows to keep in their farms and sell the lower-yielding animals, which may explain the high yields.
The large variation in milk composition between the study farms (Table 8) is possibly due to differences in parity, individual cow performance, feed and feeding or management (Schmidt and Van Vleck, 1974; Sargeant et al., 1998; Kennelly et al., 1999; Hurley, 2003). However, the obtained values were similar to those reported by Madalena et al. (1990) and Teodoro and Madalena (2003) for crossbred HF in Brazil, and could be considered to be acceptable.
Dairy production is a new component in the small household production and is developing rapidly to meet consumer demand.
Most of the dairy farmers interviewed practice intensive systems based on cut and carry of grasses, plus by-products and commercial concentrates.
The main breed was mostly crossbred HF with a high HF blood proportion.
Although the milk yield and milk quality were acceptable, problems of high feed cost and poor reproduction performance were the main constraints in dairy production development in Hochiminh City.
The authors are grateful to the Swedish International Development Agency-Swedish Agency for research Cooperation with Developing countries (Sida-SAREC) for supporting this study. Thanks are also given to the farmers, and Departments of Agriculture and Rural Development in Hochiminh City, who supported and made it possible to conduct this study.
AOAC 1990 Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Official methods of analysis. 15th ed. Washington DC, USA
Cai D V 1995 Nutrition requirement of cross breeds dairy cow. In training book for the third dairy cattle breeds examination in Hochiminh city 2003, Hochiminh city, Vietnam.
Chantalakhana C and Skunmun P 2002 Sustainable smallholder animal systems in the tropics. Kasetsart University Press. Bangkok, 302 p.
DARDH 2006 Report of dairy cattle development and breeds management in Hochiminh city. Department of Agricultural and Rural development of Hochiminh city. Hochiminh city, Vietnam.
Devendra C 2001 Smallholder dairy production systems in developing countries: characteristics, Potential and opportunities for improvement - Review. Asian-Australia Journal of Animal Sciences. 14, 104-113.
Dong N T K 2005 Evaluation of Agro-industrial by-products as protein sources for duck production in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam. Doctoral Thesis. Swedish University of Agricultural Science. Upssala, Sweden
Falvey L and Chantalakhana C 2001 Supporting smallholder dairying in Asia. Asia-Pacific Development Journal 8, 90-99.
Ho L T T, Lemke U and Valle Zαrate A 1999 Ruminant breeds and production systems in North Vietnam and their contribution to smallholder households in mountainous areas, Institute of Animal Production in the Tropics and Subtropics, p. 72.
Hiep N V 2007 Evaluation potentiality of Tropical Kudzu legume as a protein source for cattle in Vietnam. MSc Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, Uppsala, Sweden.
Hurley W L 2003 Factors affecting milk yield and milk composition. Lactation biology. University of Illinois. http://classes.aces.uiuc.edu/AnSci308/index.html.
Kennelly J J, Glimm D R and Ozimek R 1999 Milk composition in the cow. In (Overton, T. Ed) Cornell Nutrition conference for Feed Manufacturers 1, 6.
Khang D N 1999 Cassava leaf meal on rumen environment and as replacement for cotton seed meal in Napier grass diets for dairy cattle. MSc thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Science. Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, Uppsala, Sweden.
Khang D N 2005 Performance of growing heifers fed high intakes of fresh or ensilage cassava residues from starch processing supplemented with or without dried cassava folige. In Preston T.R., Ogle. B. (Eds). Regional Seminar-workshop on Livestock-base Suitable Farming systems in The Lower Mekong Basin. Cantho 2005, pp 146-151.
Lanyasuna Z C, Nkya R, Schoonman L and van Eerdenbrg F J C M 2006 Post partum reproductive performance of crossbred dairy cattle on smallholder farms in sub-humid coastal Tanzania. Tropical Animal Health and Production 36, 269-279.
Leng R A 1997 Tree foliage in ruminant nutrition. FAO animal production and health paper, 139.FAO, Rome.
Lotthammer K H 1989 Influence of nutrition on reproductive performance of the milkinh/Gestatin cow in the tropics. In Andrew. S., Renι, S., (Eds.) Feeding dairy cows in the tropic. Proceedings of the FAO Expert Consulation held in Bangkok, Thailand. 1989.
Man N V 2001 Better use of local forages for dairy cattle in Vietnam: Improving grasses, rice straw and protein rich forages. Doctoral Thesis. Swedish University of Agricultural Science. Upssala, Sweden
Madalena F E, Lemos A M, Teodoro R L, Barbosa R T and Monterio J B N 1990 Dairy Production and Reproduction in Holstein-Friesian and Guzera Crosses. Journal of Dairy Science 73, 1872-1886.
Manh L H, Dung N N X and Ogle B 2003 Effects of replacement of fish meal with brewery waste on the performance of growing pigs. In Preston T.R., Ogle. R.B. (Eds) Workshop-seminar "Making better use of local feed resources" SAREC-UAF, Hue, March, 2003
MARD 2006 Dairy cattle production in Vietnam and development plan for 2002-2010, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Miris AB 2005 Farm Milk Analyzer User manual, Upssala, Sweden.
Mutukumira E, Kusina N T, Sibanda S and Majoni C 2006 A survey of the reproductive status of cattle in Nharira-Lancashire smallholder dairy scheme, Zimbabwe. Livestock Research for Rural Development 18, 12pp.
Nghi N and Do V V 1995 Results of determining chemical composition and nutritive values of some major feedstuffs used for dairy cows around Ho Chi Minh city. Improve feeding systems for dairy cattle and milk production in small holder farms In Devendra, C. (Ed.) Proceeding of Project Improved milk production in Vietnam. 67-77.
Sargeant T P, Wang H R, Mukisira E A, Abdulrazak S A and Ayako W O 1998 Effect of seasonality on feed availability, quality and herd performance on small holder farms in Ol-Joro-Orok loaction/Nyandurua district, Kenya. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems, Tropical 6, 7.
Schmidt G H and Van Veleck L D 1974 Factors affecting yield and composition of milk. In: Salishury, G.W., Crampton, E.W. (Eds.), Principles of dairy science. USA. 84-98
SPSS 2004 SPSS for introductory stastitics, Use and interpretation. Version 12. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey, London.
Tam P T G 2004 Securing Small Producer Participation in Restructured National and Regional Agri-food Systems: The Case of VIETNAM. Governing market report. http://www.regoverningmarkets.org/en/filemanager/active?fid=98
Teodoro R L and Madalena F E 2003 Dairy Production and Reproduction by Crosses of Holstein, Jersey or Brown Swiss Sires with Holstein-Friesian/Gir Dams. Tropical Animal Health and Production 35, 105-115.
Tham H T 2007 Performance of young cattle fed rice straw sprayed with mixture of urea and molasses supplemented with different levels of cassava leaf meal. MSc Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, Uppsala, Sweden.
Thuong N V, Duc N V, Huong H T T, Ngoc L V and Luong N H 2006 Results of classification and milk production of crossbred dairy cattle in Bavi and Hanoi area. Journal of Animal Husbandry, Vietnam Animal Husbandry Association 1, 83, 4-8
Thiep P N and Trach N X 2004 Growth and reproductive performance of purebred Holstein Friesian dairy cattle raised in Lam Dong province. Vietnam Academy of Agricultural sciences. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology 1. 2.
Van soest P J, Robertson J B and Lewis B A 1991 Method for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and non-starch polysaccharide in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583-3587.
SLU-MEKARN
HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONAIRE
Time: begin .Closed: ..date: ../ /06
Household depending on number of cows: Small herd ...........average: ............Large herd: .
(this is to be identified and classified the group of household)
1. Name of village:..................commune ...................... District :(qa1) ................. Province:.........
2. Estimation of distance to Ho Chi Minh central (qa2): ..km
3. Estimation of distance to milk collection center (qa3) .km
4. Age (bb4): ________________
5. Sex (qb5): ________________
6. Occupation (qb6): ________________
7. Educational background (qb7_1): ________________Professional record: (qb7_2): Yes ..........No......
If Yes, what certification level (qb7_3): .
and on what subject (qb7_4): ...
8. Number and age of members of immediate family (*including the respondent) (qc8)
|
Age (years) |
Male |
Female |
Total |
||
|
At school |
At work |
At school |
At work |
|
|
|
5 10 |
|
|
|
|
qc8_1 |
|
11 20 |
|
|
|
|
qc8_2 |
|
20-60 |
|
|
|
|
qc8_3 |
|
> 60 |
|
|
|
|
qc8_4 |
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
qc8_5 |
9. How many cattle are you keeping? (qc9)
Animal |
Age (range) |
Number |
|
Milking cows |
qc9_1 |
qc9_2 |
|
Dried cows |
qc9_3 |
qc9_4 |
|
qc9_5 |
qc9_6 |
|
|
Calves |
qc9_7 |
qc9_8 |
|
Bulls |
qc9_9 |
qc9_10 |
|
Beef cattle |
qc9_11 |
qc9_12 |
|
Others |
qc9_13 |
qc9_14 |
10. Who are responsible for dairy work daily? (qc10).......................................
11. How many years of dairy production experience? (qc11)...............year(s)
12. Land size and land use (qc12)
|
Type of Land |
Hectares |
|
Land for cropping (qc12_1) |
(m2) |
|
Land for pasture (qc12_2) |
(m2) |
|
Land for animal housing(qc12_3) |
(m2) |
|
Total: (qc12_4) |
(m2) |
13. What kind of main farming system (dairy cattle, crop and other animal systems) are you applying ? (qc13)
14. For dairy production, how do you invest your capital in production? (qc14_1)
a. Capital of family
b. Borrow/loan from banks ..name of the bank (qc14_2)
c. Others .name (qc14_3)
15. If you borrow/loan money, where do you borrow? (qc15)
16. Your average return per month: ..VND (qc16)
17. How important is from dairy cattle?(qc17_1)..................................................... (% or numberic)
a. Very important (qc17_2)
b. Moderately important
c. Unimportant
18. What types of breed are you used? (QC18)
Animal |
Breeds |
Generation |
|
Cows |
(qd18_1) |
(qd18_2) |
|
(qd18_3) |
(qd18_4) |
|
|
Bulls |
(qd18_5) |
(qd18_6) |
|
Others |
(qd18_7) |
(qd18_8) |
19. Are there heat stress problem for your cattle: (qd19_1) yes no
Which season? (qd19_2).....................................................................................
20. What types of animal that is sensitive with heat stress?
1. milking cow (qd20_1):very sensitive sensitive not sensitive
2. dried cows (qd20_2): very sensitive sensitive not sensitive
3. heifers (qd20_3) very sensitive sensitive not sensitive
4. calves (qd20_4) very sensitive sensitive not sensitive
21. Are there any difficulties at calving? (qd21_1) Yes no ..
If yes, what are difficulties? (qd21_2)............How common?(qd21_3)......
22. How many kg of milk per lactation?(qd22_1)............kg/ days (qd22_2)
23. Have you concerned on milk composition of your cows (CP, fat, solid)? (qd23)
Yes ..no .(qd23_1)
If not, why (qd23_2)
24. Have you use Artificial Insemination (AI) or directly from the bull? (qd24)
a. AI how many percent of successful (qd24_1) ...
b. Bull .how many percent of successful (qd24_2) ...
c. Both how many percent of successful (qd24_3)
o Who is managing? (qd24_4)
Farmer employed staff animal technician
Or others (qd24_5) .
o How many inseminations per pregnancy (qd24_6) heifer .
and elder cow (qd24_7) .
25. Age at the first IA of heifer (months) (qd25_1) .Calving age: (qd25_2) ..
26. Are there access problems with AI (qd26_1): yes No
And what are the problems: (qd26_2)........................................................
27. Do you use record book to monitoring of your herd? Yes no .(qd27_1)
a. If yes, how often or what occasion do you used it for recording?
breeding calving health problems disease prevention
Or others ...
b. if not, how do you know the yield of individual cow or pedigree of your herd? (qd27_2) .
28. Any payment schemes with this/these breed(s) that you are frequently concerning or occurring? (qd28)
a. Milk let down
c. Pregnant
d. Lactation ...
a) Mastitis
b) Reproduction problems/reduction
c) Metabolic disorders
d) Foot and leg disorders
e) Low production
f) Space limitation
g) Feed scarcity
h) Milk let down problems
30. What kinds of feed do you use to feed for your animals? And amount daily (qe30)
Animal |
Kinds of Feed (kg)/cow/day |
|||||
|
|
F. Grass |
Rice straw |
Concentrates |
By-product |
Cassava waste |
Total |
|
Milking cows |
qe30_1 |
qe30_2 |
qe30_3 |
qe30_4 |
qe30_5 |
qe32_6 |
|
Dried cows |
qe30_7 |
qe30_8 |
qe30_9 |
qe30_10 |
qe30_11 |
qe32_12 |
|
qe30_13
|
qe30_14 |
qe30_15 |
qe30_16 |
qe30_17 |
qe32_18 |
|
|
Calves |
qe30_19
|
qe30_20 |
qe30_21 |
qe30_22 |
qe30_23 |
qe32_24 |
|
Bulls |
qe30_25
|
qe30_26 |
qe30_27 |
qe30_28 |
qe30_29 |
qe32_30 |
|
From: |
qe30_31
|
qe30_32 |
qe30_33 |
qe30_34 |
qe30_35 |
|
31. Go more detail on the name of grasses, hay, silage and brand and composition of concentrate: (qe31)
......
..
..
32. Green grasses; hay; by-products are available all round year or seasonality?(qe32)
a. all round year (qe32_1)
b. seasonally (qe32_2)
33. Feed how many time/day? (QE33)
a) roughages .times/day (qe33_1)
b) concentrate .times/day (qe33_2)
c) by-products ..times/day (qe33_3)
34. Time of feeding (qe34)
In the morning (qe34_1) ...
In the afternoon (qe34_2) .
35. Do you think that animal get enough feed to maximums their production? (qe35)
Yes .. .No
36. If yes, How can you recognize that? (qe36).......................................................
37. If not, Why? (qe37).............................................................................................
38. Cost of feed per kg milk ... .VND/kg (qe38)
39. Do you vaccinate Food and Mouth disease for your cattle? Yes .no (qe39)
40. If yes, how frequency?.............................................................................(qe40)
41. If not, why?...............................................................................................(qe41)
42. Do you de-worm for your cattle? (qe42) Yes ...No ....... .(qe42_1)
If yes, what type of animal or age (qe42_2) . ....
43. Frequency of anti-worm control applied? (qe43)...............................................
44. Do you supply minerals for your cattle? Yes ..no .(qe44_1)
What kind of mineral do you use? (qe44_2)................................................
How much for each kind of cow/day? (qe44_3)
Lactation cow .
Heifer .
Calve .
45. Is there water available the barn for cattle free access or you feed some times a day? (qe45_1)
a) Available all time
b) Feed sometime a day .how many times (qe45_2)
and how much per day (qe45_3)
46. Dou you supply a saltlick? Yes No (QE46)
47. How many cows that you think that suitable with you family in term of economical and management reasons? (QF47)..................................................
48. If expand your dairy production, which type of animal do you like most? (table and check)
milking cows, (QF48_1)why? (QF48-2)...............................................
calve production, why?..........................................................................
fattening beef cattle, why? .
Heifers for selling, why?........................................................................
Milking routines and management (QG, question number_subquestion number)
49. Are you using machine for milking or hand milking? (QG49)
machine milking
hand milking
50. Who are milking daily? (QG50_1)
a farmer
b employed staff
c hired labor
d others
Why? (QG52_2).................................................................................................
51. If machine milking, what kind of machine are you using?
Bucket/liners . .QG51_1)
The advantages of machine milking (1 very important, ...5 least important) (QG51_2)
And reason for explanation: (QG51_3)
- time saving
- save labor
- udder health
- Increase production
- Others
52. Why you do not use machine to milk? (QG52)
a) costly
b) cows udder health effects
c) very few cows
d) others: .
53. Are you planning to invest milking machine in near future? (QG53)
Yes . , No
54. How many times of milking daily? (QG54_1)...................................................
Time in the morning (QG54_2)... in the afternoon (QG54_3) ..
Others ...(QG54_4)
55. After milking, milk will be stored or sale directly to collection center (QG55)
a. Stored (come to question 56)
Immediately sell (come to question 57)
First processing
Making milk products
56. How long do you store milk? (QG56_1).................................................(hours)
How do you store it? (QG56_2)
57. Who will collect milk? (list ) (QG57_1).............................................................
Or you carry it to collection center by yourself? (QG57_2)
Will it add cost to milk production cost (QG57_3) Yes .No .
How much? (QG57_4)........................................................................VND
58. Which month of the peak of milk yield during lactation? (QG58).....................
59. Is it the milk yield of cows depending on the season? Yes .(QG59_1)and why ..
No ..(QG59_2)and why . .
60. What months are milk yield be lowest (QG60_1) ..
What months are milk yield be highest (QG60_2) .
61. How to overcome? (QG61).................................................................................
62. What methods do you prepare cow before milking? (QG62)
a) stimulate by hand (QG62_1)
b) calve around (QG62_2)
c) not stimulation (QG62_3)
63. Do you treat the teat and udder before milking?
Yes . no .(QG63)
64. If yes, what kind of treatment? (QG64)
a) Cleaning with water
b) Chemicals
c) Others
65. By hand milking, what do the ways look like (go to check list for observation, let see?) (QG66)
a) full hand
b) tripping
c) thumb in
66. What do you do if Mastitis exposures at cows? (QG66)
a) can treat the cows by yourself
b) veterinarian
67. Do you cleaning table of barn regularly? (QG68_1)...................................
how often(QG68_2) ..(time/day)
68. How do you manage manure to be cleaning the bed? (QG69)......................................................................................
69. For machine milking, do you clean the equipment regularly?
Yes No(QG69_1)
How often?...................................................................................(QG69_2)
Did you consider the quality of rubber parts yes no (QG69_3)
How long will you change the rubber part of machine? (QG69_4)................Months/year(s)
70. Price of milk depending on what factors? (QG71)
a. composition of milk: protein, fat, non-fat solids, lactose, casein
b. market
c. price of milk processing company
d. seasonally change
71. Who is checking milk quality? (QG71)
a) farmer
b) employed staff
c) at milk collection center
72. What is the equipment and method?(QG73)................... ..
73. If yes, how do you realize the quality of milk?(QG74).........................................
74. How long from your house to milk collection center? .........................................
75. Do you sign any contract with milk processing company? (QG75)
Yes .no
If yes, what kind of contract? (QG75_1)
And any supports from the company throughout the contract? (QG75_2)
76. How many cows get mastitis per year?.....................cow(s)/year (QG76)
77. What months is mastitis most common occurred? (QG77).....................
H. Calve rearing (QH, question number_subquestion number)
80. What is the rearing methods you applying to raise your calves? (QH80)
a. Artificial (feed from their mother milk)
b. Restricted suckling
c. Freely access their mother teats
81. How many times do you feed for calves daily? (QH81)
a. Three times
b. Two times
c. Or more
82. How many kg of milk do you feed for a calf per day and per time? (QH82)
Per time ...kg (QH82_1), per day kg(QH82_2)
83. When will you wean your calves?..........................weeks/months (QH83)
84. How many kg at weaning? (QH84_1)...................................................kg,
and at birth (QH84_2) ... kg.
85. Any problems at weaning? (QH85)................................................. ...
86. Calve morality?..................Yes.....................no.........................(QH86_1)
No. of calves death at birth per year ...(QH86_2)
No. of calves death before 8 months ....(QH86_3)
87. Calves rearing by this way will develop well afterward?
Yes .no ..(QH87_1)
If not, Why? (QH87_2)................................................................................
88. Supplement for calve? (QH88)..............................................................................
89. Calve in single box or group? box ...group ...(QH89)
90. What are the health problems of calves? (QH90)
|
Common |
Not common |
|
|
respiration disease |
|
|
diarrhea |
|
|
skin disease |
|
|
feed and leg problem |
|
|
others (names)? |