Comparative economics with different feeding frequency in Sirohi goat of Rajasthan

Introduction

Animal husbandry has been the backbone of Indian agriculture and a source of employment in rural areas for centuries. Livestock provides a livelihood for about 2.05 crore people. Compared to the average of 14 percent for all rural households, livestock generated 16 percent of the revenue of small farm households. The livestock sector contributes 5.73 percent of the total GDP and 30.19 percent of the Agriculture GDP (National Accounts Statistical-2022-23) [10] . Goats provide a substantial economic contribution to India (Kumar et al., 2014, Kamboj et al., 2015, Lata et al., 2021) [1,2,3] . In India, the current goat population is 148.88 million which is a 27.8 percent contribution to the total livestock population (20 th Livestock Census, 2019). India has 39 recognized breeds of goat distributed over the entire 15 agro-climatic zones (NBAGR-2023). In India, goat meat contributes 14.47 percent of the total meat production of the country. Goat milk contributes 3.3 percent of the total milk production of the country (BAHS, 2022-23) [9] . Rajasthan ranks first in goat population with 20.8 million which accounts for 16.03 percent of India's total goat population (Animal Husbandry Department Rajasthan, 2019) [7,8] . The total goat population in Chittorgarh is 488760 with 77178 male goats and 411582 female goats (Animal Husbandry Department Rajasthan, 2019) [7,8] . Animal farming is a high-investment business. Expenditure in goat farming is divided into two categories i.e. fixed and variable costs. Cost of animals, buildings, equipment, fences, land, and other property items included in non-recurring cost. Recurring cost is also divided into fixed or variable costs. Depreciation of livestock, buildings, and equipment, and interest on fixed capital are considered fixed costs. Similarly, feed cost, wages of labor, salary of staff, and repairing cost are involved in variable costs. The variable cost, expenditure on labor was the major component of cost and was 81% under goat farming (Oberoi et al., 1992) [4] . The most crucial factor in goat farming is economic consideration. The evaluation of expenses and profits in goat husbandry, together with the percentage contribution of each input to the overall cost. This minimizes unnecessary costs and makes goat husbandry profitable, which contributes to the security of livelihood. According to Sahoo et al. (2015) [15] , 70-80 percent of the entire revenue from small ruminant farming comes from meat production. Feed and fodder costs have been reported to be the highest in the raising of sheep and goats, followed by veterinary care, labor costs, and capital interest. In sheep and goat rearing, the cost of feed and fodder has been found maximum, followed by veterinary care, hired labour, and interest on capital (Suresh et al. 2008) [5] .

Material and Methods

The experiment was conducted at Livestock Research Station (LRS), Boujunda, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan, to investigate the effect of different feeding frequencies of concentrate on the growth performance as well as the economic status of female Sirohi goat kids. Twenty-one weaned Sirohi kids of nearly the same age (170-185 days) and nearly the same weight (13-14 kg) were selected from available flocks at LRS. The kids were vaccinated and ear-tagged for identification. The kids were randomly allocated into three groups (T 1, T 2 , and T 3 ), with seven kids in each group. The kids of all groups were offered berseem (Trifolium alexandrium) as green fodder ad-libitum, gram straw as dry fodder, and concentrate @ 1% of their body weight once (9 A.M.), twice (9 A.M. and 12 P.M.), and three times daily (9 A.M., 12 P.M., and 6 P.M.), respectively.

A) Collection of Data

The measured quantity of green fodder, roughage, and concentrate was placed in the feeder of each kid of the T 1 , T 2, and T 3 groups. Daily feed consumed in each container/tub was weighed starting from zero day to the end of 90 days of the experiment. The refusal quantity of feed in all treatment groups was measured the next day before placing feed. Feed was given to the kids and refusals were recorded daily in each group kid by using of weighing machine throughout the experimental period.

B) Comparative economics

After the ninety-day trial period, a cost-benefit analysis was calculated. The cost of feed was computed using the real cost of feed and fodder at Livestock Research Station, Boujunda, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan, and Department of Livestock Production and Management, College of Veterinary and Animal Science, Navania, Udaipur, Rajasthan. Based on daily man-hours and 210 Rs. per day, one laborer was used for feeding and managing all twenty-one kids in three groups. Green fodder (Berseem), dry fodder (Gram straw), and readymade concentrate feed cost 2 Rs. /Kg, 6 Rs. /Kg and 30 Rs. /Kg, respectively. With the current sale prices provided by dealers taken into account, the market price per kilogram live weight was calculated to be 350 Rs. The total income based on live body weight gain was determined using the market rate of goat and the cost of all feed consumed.

Results and Discussion

The data collected during the experiment was used in the current study to analyze the economics of female Sirohi goats across all treatment groups. All groups had identical criteria, except for dietary differences. The details of economics are given below in Table 1. The total feed cost was 3779.24, 3907.00, and 4075.78 Rs. consumed by experimental kids and income from live body weight was 5663, 5838, and 6027 Rs. for groups T 1, T 2, and T 3, respectively. The net income was 1884.48, 1931.00, and 1951.22 Rs. for groups T 1, T 2, and T 3, respectively (Figure 1). The comparison of total income across the treatment groups suggests that there were marginal variations in income levels. Although the T 3 group exhibited slightly higher total income compared to the T 1 and T 2 groups. This indicates that the frequency of concentrate feeding may have a substantial impact on total income in goat farming. The analysis of the Cost-benefit ratio across the treatment groups indicates consistent trends. All treatment groups demonstrated ratios close to 1.49, with the T 3 group slightly lower at 1.47 (Figure 2). This suggests that regardless of the feeding frequency, the cost-benefit ratios remained relatively stable, indicating efficient resource utilization and management across the different feeding regimes. Similarly, Bhandwalkar et al., 2021 [3] , obtained the highest additional income and profit in thrice feeding group compared to twice and once-feeding of Osmanabadi goat kids. Oppositely, Yashim, 2016 [11] , found that significant decline in cost per kg feed as the daily feeding (62.21/kg feed) to skip two days of supplementation (52.11/kg feed). Khan et al., 2023, observed the highest return on investment (26%) for animals fed on a diet comprising 33% concentrate compared with 67% concentrate diet. The findings of this study provide insights into the economic implications of the feeding frequency of concentrates in Sirohi goat kids. While there were slight variations in total income and cost-benefit ratios among the treatment groups. This suggests that factors beyond feeding frequency, such as overall herd management practices, breed selection, and environmental conditions, may have more substantial influences on economic outcomes in goat farming.

Conclusion

This study highlights the economic impact of different feeding frequencies on the growth performance and profitability of female Sirohi goat kids. While the group receiving concentrate feed three times a day showed marginally higher income, the overall cost-benefit ratios across all groups remained consistent, indicating efficient management. These findings suggest that feeding frequency alone may not be the most significant factor in determining profitability. Other factors, such as herd management, breed selection, and environmental conditions, could play a larger role in ensuring sustainable economic returns in goat farming.

References

1. Kumar U, Reader ML, Singh R, Balwada G, Chaturvedi D. Economics of goat farming under traditional low input production system in Bikaner district. Asian Journal of Animal Sciences. 2014;2:160-163.
2. Kamboj S, Rahman Z. Marketing capabilities and firm performance: Literature review and future research agenda. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management. 2015;8:1041-1067.
3. Lata M, Mondal BC. Role of goats in Indian economy: Major constraints and routine managemental practices for their well-being. Vigyan Varta. 2021;24:41-46.
4. Oberoi RC, Morti TV, Sharma AK. Comparative economics of sheep and goat rearing: A study of tribal farms in Western Himalaya. Livestock Adviser. 1992;17(1):25-30.
5. Suresh A, Gupta DC, Mann JS. Returns and economic efficiency of sheep farming in a semi-arid region of Rajasthan. Agricultural Economics Research Review. 2008;21:227-234.
6. Sahoo A, Bhatt RS, Tripathi MK. Stall feeding in small ruminants: Emerging trends and future perspectives. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition. 2015;32(4):353372.
7. Animal Husbandry Department (AHD), Rajasthan. 20th Livestock Census Rajasthan-2019. Available from: http://animalhusbandry.rajasthan.gov.in.
8. Animal Husbandry Department (AHD), India. 20th Livestock Census-2019. Available from: http://dahd.nic.in/dahd/WriteReadData/Livestock.pdf.
9. Basic Animal Husbandry Statistics (BAHS) 2022-23. Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying. Government of India, New Delhi.
10. Yashim SM. Cost-benefit analysis of inclusion levels and feeding frequency of Ficus sycomorus supplement in Yankasa rams fed Digitaria smutsii basal diet. Journal of Animal Production and Resources. 2016;28(1):235-244.
11. Khan S, Shahzadi F, Hayat SU, Khan F, Khan AH, Iqbal M, et al. Effect of feeding different levels of forages and concentrate ration on production performance, serum biochemical and hematological profile in Ghaljo sheep (Ovis aries). Pure and Applied Biology. 2023;12(2):1034-1043.