Characterization and statistical analysis of milking and housing management practices among crossbred cattle farmers in Jaipur District of Rajasthan

Introduction

The dairy sector constitutes a significant component of the Indian agricultural economy, contributing substantially to rural livelihoods, nutritional security, and employment generation with nearly 70% of the rural population dependent on them for livelihood (Economic Survey of India, 2022-23). The increasing demand for milk and milk products has led to a shift toward the rearing of crossbred cattle, which are known for their superior milk production potential. The average daily milk yield per animal is 9.82 kg for exotic cows, 8.35 kg for crossbred cows, 4.20 kg for indigenous cows, and 4.73 kg for non-descript buffaloes. In Rajasthan, particularly in Jaipur district, dairy farming has emerged as an important supplementary source of income for rural households. The productivity of crossbred cattle depends largely on the management practices adopted by farmers. Among these, milking and housing management play a crucial role in determining milk yield, quality, and animal health. Crossbred cattle perform best within a thermoneutral zone of 18-24°C, while heat stress occurs at 32-35°C, reducing feed intake and milk production (Aggarwal and Singh, 2006) [1] . In the arid and semi-arid climate of Rajasthan, especially in Jaipur district, high temperatures, low humidity, and poor ventilation increase heat stress in dairy animals. Therefore, scientific housing management is essential for maintaining animal health, welfare, and productivity. Scientific milking practices, including hygienic handling, regular milking intervals, and proper udder care, are essential to prevent diseases such as mastitis and ensure quality milk production.

However, in many rural areas, farmers continue to follow traditional practices due to lack of awareness, limited resources, and inadequate access to extension services. This results in wide variability in management practices and ultimately affects dairy productivity. Therefore, it is essential to systematically assess and analyse these practices to identify existing gaps and suggest appropriate interventions. The present study aims to characterize and statistically analyse the milking and housing management practices adopted by crossbred cattle farmers in Jaipur district of Rajasthan.

Materials and Methods

The present study was conducted in Jaipur district of Rajasthan, purposively selected for its highest crossbred cattle population. Two tehsils (Chomu and Amer) with the highest number of crossbred cattle were chosen and from each tehsil ten villages were selected based on cattle density, totaling 20 villages. From each village 10 farmers were randomly selected, yielding a sample size of 200 respondents covering a total of 887 cows (416 from Chomu and 471 from Amer). Data were collected during 2023-2024 through a pre-tested interview schedule via personal interviews, visual observations and direct measurements. The schedule comprised management-related parameters. Statistical analyses such as frequency, percentage, chi-square test and pvalue calculations were employed to interpret the data meaningfully and identify significant differences across variables.

Results and Discussion 1 Milking management practices 1.1 Method of Milking

Results revealed that most respondents practiced the knuckling method (74%), followed by full-hand milking (20.5%) and machine milking (5.5%). Similar results were observed by Kumar et al. (2017) [13] and Swathi (2017) [14] , while Vineesha et al. (2019) [17] reported higher use of stripping. The predominance of knuckling indicates reliance on traditional techniques, possibly due to lack of training and limited access to modern equipment. The low adoption of machine milking reflects the need to promote mechanized milking for improved milk hygiene and animal welfare.

Frequency of Milking

It was observed that 95.5% of farmers milked their animals twice daily, while a few practiced milking thrice a day. These results are consistent with Sumer et al. (2022) [12] and Patel et al. (2022) [4] , who also noted that twice-a-day milking is the most common practice across India. The uniform adoption suggests farmers' preference for maintaining milk yield and udder health while balancing labor efficiency.

Cleaning of Udder and Teats Before Milking

Findings showed that 93.5% of farmers cleaned udders and teats before milking, indicating good hygienic awareness. Similar trends were reported by Rathore (2010) [6] , Tiwari and Rajeev (2022) [15] , and Vinod et al. (2022) [18] , who found this practice nearly universal among dairy farmers. Regular cleaning helps reduce bacterial contamination, ensuring better milk quality and animal health. However, a small percentage of farmers still neglected this step, highlighting a need for further awareness programs.

Washing Hands Before Milking

Only 29.5% of respondents washed their hands before milking, while the majority did not follow this practice. This finding contrasts with Borar and Rajeev (2022) [2] and Swathi (2017) [14] , who reported higher levels of handwashing among dairy farmers. The low prevalence observed here suggests inadequate hygiene knowledge and emphasizes the need for training on clean milking techniques to prevent microbial contamination.

Cleaning of Milking Utensils

It was found that 87.5% of respondents used detergent and water for cleaning milking utensils, 7.5% used ash, and 5% used sand with water. Similar results were reported by Swathi (2017) [14] , Varma et al. (2021) [16] , and Singh et al. (2023) [10] , indicating that most farmers recognize the importance of utensil hygiene. Regular cleaning with detergent ensures better milk quality and helps prevent spoilage, reflecting satisfactory hygiene awareness among the dairy farmers in the study area.

House management practices 2.1 Site of Animal House

It was observed that most respondents (70%) kept their cattle attached to their residence, followed by 9% on farms and 20% away from home. A higher proportion in Amer (80%) maintained attached housing than in Chomu (54%), showing a significant difference. Similar observations were made by Singh et al. (2024) [9] and Tiwari and Rajeev (2022) [15] , while Rajadurai et al. (2020) [5] reported more separate housing. The preference for attached housing may be due to limited land and the convenience of daily care.

Type of Housing System

Findings revealed that a majority (50.50%) of farmers adopted loose housing, 34% used sheds, and 15.50% had mixed systems, with no significant regional difference. These results are consistent with Singh et al. (2024) [9] and Narsimha et al. (2019) [3] , who found loose housing popular for its comfort and ventilation. Variations from Sabapara (2010) [7] may be linked to local climate and economic factors.

Type of Roof

The study found that iron sheet roofs were most common (85%), followed by cement concrete (9%) and asbestos (6%), with no thatched roofs. The results differ from Saurav et al.

(2023) [8] and Sabapara (2010) [7] , who reported higher use of thatch. The widespread use of iron sheets reflects modernization, affordability, and their suitability to regional weather.

Type of Floor

Results showed that 46.50% of respondents had kachcha (mud) floors, 34.50% used mixed flooring, and 19% had pucca floors, with a significant location-wise difference. Similar findings were noted by Sabapara (2010) [7] , Rajadurai et al. (2020) [5] , Singh et al. (2020) [11] , and Tiwari and Rajeev (2022) [15] . The shift toward pucca and mixed floors indicates gradual improvement in housing hygiene and durability.

Space Provided for Housing

It was found that farmers maintained nearly similar space standards in both tehsils for lactating, dry, and pregnant animals, showing no significant difference. This uniformity suggests consistent awareness and adherence to recommended housing space requirements.

Type of Boundary Wall

Observation revealed that 58.50% of farmers had pucca boundary walls, 34% used barbed wire fencing, and 7.50% had partial or kachcha boundaries. These findings align with Rajadurai et al. (2020) [5] and indicate a growing focus on durability and security in cattle housing.

Materials Used for Flooring

It was noted that 48.50% of respondents used no special flooring material, 29% used bricks, 13% stone slabs, and 9.50% concrete. A significant difference existed between areas. These results support Rajadurai et al. (2020) [5] and Saurav et al. (2023) [8] , reflecting a gradual shift toward durable and hygienic flooring, although cost limits widespread concrete use.

Presence of a Manger in Shed

Findings indicated that 54.50% of farmers lacked mangers, while 45.50% had them, with no significant difference between tehsils. The proportion was higher than that reported by Rajadurai et al. (2020) [5] but lower than Singh et al.

(2024) [9] . The moderate adoption highlights improving awareness but also the continued influence of traditional practices.

Type of Manger Used

Among farmers with mangers, 38% used common cement, 33% individual cement, 15.50% stone slabs, and 13.50% double-tier mangers. The high use of cement mangers (71%) suggests better feeding hygiene and improved infrastructure, contrasting with Rajadurai et al. (2020) [5] , who found greater reliance on wooden or floor mangers.

Drainage System

Results showed that 51.50% of farmers had pucca drains, while 48.50% had kachcha systems, with slightly better adoption in Amer. Though not significant, the trend marks improvement over Sabapara (2010) [7] , where only 6% had pucca drains, indicating increased hygiene and waste management awareness.

Housing of Different Categories of Animals

It was observed that 45% of respondents housed animals separately by category, while others kept cows with calves (23.50%), males and females apart (16.50%), or all together (15%). The lack of significant variation across tehsils suggests similar management awareness levels.

Type of Bedding Material Used

Findings revealed that 57% of farmers used dry sand, and 43% used crop residues as bedding, with no significant regional difference. These results differ from Saurav et al.

(2023) [8] , who found a higher preference for wheat straw. The greater use of sand bedding in this study reflects awareness of its hygienic and comfort benefits for dairy animals.

Conclusion

The study on milking and housing management practices of crossbred cattle rearers in Chomu and Amer tehsils revealed satisfactory adoption of scientific practices with some regional variations. Milking practices were largely hygienic, as most farmers followed proper udder and teat cleaning and used appropriate materials for cleaning utensils, reflecting a good understanding of milk hygiene and quality maintenance. However, handwashing before milking was found to be relatively less common, indicating a need for awareness on personal hygiene and its impact on milk safety. In terms of housing management, the majority of respondents maintained their animal sheds close to their residences and preferred loose or semi-loose housing systems, which are suitable for crossbred cattle under local climatic conditions. Roofing materials and drainage systems were generally adequate, although the prevalence of kachcha or partially pucca floors suggests room for improvement in shed sanitation and durability. Significant regional differences in site selection and flooring materials indicate variation in infrastructure investment and resource availability. Overall, the results suggest that crossbred cattle rearers in the study area are progressively adopting improved milking and housing practices, though further emphasis on shed design, flooring improvement, drainage management, and hygienic handling during milking is essential. Strengthening farmer training and extension support on scientific housing and milking management can further enhance animal productivity, milk quality, and overall dairy farm efficiency.

References

1. Aggarwal A, Singh M. Effect of water cooling on physiological responses, milk production and composition of Murrah buffaloes during hot-humid season. Indian Journal of Dairy Science. 2006;59(6):386389.
2. Borar K, Rajeev. Management practices followed by dairy farmers in Kanarpura village of Rajasthan. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2022;11(6):2578-2582.
3. Narsimha B, Rajanna N, Chandra AS, Ekambaram B. Analysis of Deoni cattle housing and health care management practices in Telangana. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2019;8(2):621-625.
4. Patel HA, Odedra MD, Ahlawat AR, Gamit VV, Prajapati VS, Agravat PH. A review on milking management practices of dairy animal in India. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2022;11(10):109-112.
5. Rajadurai A, Rajamanickam K, Ali MS, Kumeravelu N. Housing management practices of dairy cows in Villupuram district of Tamil Nadu. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2020;9(7):1-4.
6. Rathore RS. Study on feeding management practices of dairy cattle in Churu district of Rajasthan. Bikaner (IN): Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences; 2010.
7. Sabapara GP, Desai PM, Kharadi VB, Saiyed LH, Singh RR. Housing and feeding management practices of dairy animals in the tribal area of South Gujarat. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences. 2010;80(10):22-27.
8. Saurav SK, Chakravarty R, Yadav P, Pandey S, Mishra S, Chandran V. Feeding and housing management practices of dairy animals followed by dairy farmers of North Bihar. Biological Forum -An International Journal. 2023;15(1):69-74.
9. Singh AK, Upadhyay PK, Singh D, Solanki D, Kumar V, Kumar S, et al. Studies on different breeding management practices and housing management practices of cattle in Hardoi district of Uttar Pradesh. International Journal of Agriculture Extension and Social Development. 2024;7(9):183-190.
10. Singh G, Singh D, Singh S, Chundawat DS. Different management practices followed by dairy farmers in Udaipur district of Rajasthan. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2023;12(10):1798-1804.
11. Singh PK, Sankhala G, Singh PK, Jadoun YS. Management practices for rearing of Gangatiri cattle in native tract. Indian Journal of Animal Research. 2020;54(7):905-911.
12. Sumer P, Singh R, Kharsati K. Milking practices and management of dairy farmers in Meghalaya. Indian Journal of Animal Research. 2022;56(5):512-518.
13. Kumar S, Subash S, Jangir R. Feeding and milking management practices adopted by indigenous cattle farmers in Thar Desert of Rajasthan. Journal of Animal Health and Production. 2017;5(1):14-18.
14. Swathi YY, Reddy R, Babu SD, Rao SD. Milking management practices by crossbred milk producers in rural and urban areas of YSR Kadapa district. International Journal of Science, Environment and Technology. 2017;6(2):1315-1320.
15. Tiwari A, Rajeev. Management practices followed by dairy farmers in Chaheru village of Punjab. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2022;11(6):1486-1490.
16. Varma CG, Teja A, Praveen CS, Swathi Y. Milking management practices in buffaloes of north coastal Andhra Pradesh. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2021;10(5):66-68.
17. Vineesha R, Dutta TK, Ghosh S. Milking management practices followed by dairy farmers in Hooghly district of West Bengal. Indian Journal of Dairy Science. 2019;72(3):345-350.
18. Vinod P, Reddy AG, Sreenivasulu D. Milking practices followed by dairy farmers in Andhra Pradesh, India. Indian Journal of Dairy Science. 2022;75(4):456-461.