Breeding and healthcare management practices of crossbred dairy cattle in Khasi and Jaintia Hill districts of Meghalaya

Introduction

Dairy cattle management in hilly regions is largely shaped by land availability, climatic conditions, access to institutional veterinary services, and the operational awareness of farmers. In the North-Eastern region of India, particularly in the Khasi and Jaintia Hill districts of Meghalaya, crossbred dairy farming serves as a vital component of rural livelihoods and livestock enterprise. Efficient herd productivity in these terrains is contingent upon sound reproductive techniques-such as accurate heat detection and artificial insemination -and systematic healthcare practices, including strategic deworming and routine immunization programs. Artificial insemination offers dairy farmers several advantages over natural service, including access to genetically superior sires at comparatively low cost, reduced risk of inbreeding, elimination of the expense and management burden of maintaining a breeding bull, and control of venereal disease transmission; in Meghalaya, AI services are further subsidized by the state Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department, which has encouraged its widespread adoption. However, the reproductive benefit of AI can be undermined when animals suffer from common production diseases-such as fever, diarrhoea, mastitis, retention of placenta, and anoestrus-since these conditions are associated with delayed uterine involution, irregular ovarian cyclicity, and repeat breeding, all of which lower conception rates and prolong the calving interval irrespective of the breeding method used. Diseases affecting dairy cattle also depress milk yield and increase treatment costs, thereby reducing the overall profitability of crossbred dairy enterprises in the hill districts (Prajapati et al., 2015; Sharma et al., 2023) [1,2] . This study was designed to document and systematically analyze the existing breeding and healthcare management practices adopted by crossbred dairy cattle keepers across the Khasi and Jaintia Hill districts of Meghalaya. By evaluating parameters such as breeding methods, semen selection, reproductive disorders, parasitic control, and prophylactic health measures, this study highlights critical operational strengths and identifies key management constraints within the regional livestock management systems.

Materials and Methods

Study area and sampling

The field survey was carried out across selected dairy clusters in the Khasi and Jaintia Hill districts of Meghalaya, India. A total of 120 crossbred dairy cattle farmers were selected and stratified based on their herd size into three distinct operational categories: Small herd owners:≤ 2 adult dairy cows (n = 10) Medium herd owners: 3-5 adult dairy cows (n = 95) Large herd owners:> 5 adult dairy cows (n = 15) Farmers were selected through purposive sampling from active dairy clusters and cooperative societies operating within the two districts; households that had reared crossbred cattle continuously for at least one year, and were therefore familiar with routine housing, feeding, breeding, and healthcare protocols, were included in the survey. Across all respondents, the mean herd strength was 2.27 ± 0.18 adult cows expressed in Standard Animal Units (SAU), reflecting the generally small scale of dairy holdings in the study area.

Data collection and variable selection

Primary data were gathered using a pre-tested, structured questionnaire administered through direct farm observation and personal interviews with the principal decision-maker of each household. Key parameters investigated under Breeding Management included the system of breeding, type of breeding bull used, service provider/inseminator, semen type employed, heat detection methods and schedules, incidence of reproductive disorders, and corrective actions taken. Parameters under Healthcare Management evaluated calf and adult deworming practices, choice of anthelmintic drugs, frequency of anthelmintic administration, prophylactic vaccination coverage, prevalence of common morbidity, and health service providers consulted for animal treatment.

Statistical analysis

The collected qualitative and quantitative data were coded, compiled, and summarized using standard statistical metrics including frequency distribution (N) and percentages (%). For continuous variables such as floor space and manger dimensions, herd-size category means were compared using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA); means bearing different superscripts within a row differ significantly (P < 0.01). Descriptive analysis was utilized to evaluate the trends across different management variables.

Results and Discussion

Breeding management practices

Artificial insemination (AI) was found to be the overwhelmingly primary breeding method, utilized by 95.83% (n = 115) of the surveyed farmers (Table 4). Natural breeding alone accounted for 3.34% (n = 4), while a combination of natural breeding and AI was practiced by 0.83% (n = 1) of respondents. Correspondingly, 95.83% of farms did not maintain a breeding bull on site; only 3.34% maintained their own bull and 0.83% relied on community/village bulls. Veterinarians were the primary inseminators, delivering AI services in 55.80% (n = 67) of instances, followed by doorstep AI technicians (15.80%, n = 19) and a combination of both (25.00%, n = 30). Conventional unsexed semen was used by 78.30% (n = 94) of farmers, whereas 18.30% (n = 22) utilized a combination of conventional and sexed semen. The high preference for conventional semen was linked to its lower cost, higher perceived conception rates, and lower abortion concerns compared to sexed semen options. High AI adoption aligns with prior reports on dairy production systems in similar agro-climatic zones (Sabapara et al., 2016; Tewari et al., 2018; Deb, 2022) [4,5,3] . The present survey did not record breed-wise conception rates, calving outcomes, or the comparative cost of veterinary AI relative to natural service; capturing such reproductive-outcome and economic indicators in future studies would help clarify how affordability and access to professional breeding services shape farmers' choice of breeding method and its resulting fertility performance in this hill terrain.

Heat detection and reproductive problems

Bellowing accompanied by clear vulval mucus discharge was recorded as the principal heat detection index, reported by 75.00% (n = 90) of dairy farmers ( [1,2] . The high prevalence of repeat breeding and anoestrus reported here likely reflects constraints identified in the housing and feeding sections above (Sections 3.1 and 3.2): restricted per-animal floor space in tie-barn sheds limits movement and expression of overt oestrus signs such as mounting, while mineral mixture supplementation reaching only 35.63% of farmers, and largely confined to lactating animals, can impair ovarian function and delay resumption of post-partum cyclicity. This suggests that the comparatively high conception failure observed despite near-universal AI coverage is driven less by the breeding technique itself than by underlying nutritional and housingrelated stress, consistent with the view that AI cannot fully compensate for poor body condition and chronic micronutrient deficiency in dairy cows (Sharma et al., 2023) [2] .

Remedies Consulted

Qualified Veterinarian 120 100.00

Healthcare management practices

Anthelmintic administration was largely concentrated on young stock, with 62.50% (n = 75) of farmers deworming calves under one year of age (Table 6). Deworming of adult cattle exclusively was reported by 5.83% (n = 7), whereas only 3.34% (n = 4) dewormed both young and adult animals; 28.33% (n = 34) did not follow any systematic deworming protocol. Fenbendazole was the dominant broad-spectrum anthelmintic used (63.33%, n = 76), followed by Albendazole (6.67%, n = 8). Regarding deworming frequency, 44.17% (n = 53) treated their animals twice a year, and 25.83% (n = 31) administered anthelmintics once a year. [7,6] . Sustaining and expanding these healthcare outcomes depends substantially on the state Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department, which currently provides subsidized AI, organizes annual mass FMD vaccination camps, and deploys veterinarians and Veterinary Field Assistants to remote hill villages where private practitioners are largely absent. Strengthening the Department's outreach-through additional doorstep AI and vaccination personnel and improved coldchain vaccine delivery-would likely help close the 20.00% vaccination gap and the 28.33% deworming gap identified in this study, particularly among the more remote small-and medium-herd households.

Conclusion

Crossbred dairy cattle owners in the Khasi and Jaintia Hill districts of Meghalaya demonstrate a high adoption rate of artificial insemination, routine estrus monitoring, and reliance on professional veterinary care for treatment and reproductive management. However, significant constraints persist regarding the high incidence of reproductive disorders (notably repeat breeding and anoestrus), inadequate parasite control in adult cows, and gaps in complete livestock vaccination schedules. Targeted extension interventions focusing on improved strategic adult anthelmintic regimes, and full prophylactic immunization coverage are essential to enhance herd reproductive efficiency and health status in the region.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgmentsThe authors sincerely acknowledge the dairy farmers and livestock field personnel of the Khasi and Jaintia Hill districts of Meghalaya for their cooperation, assistance, and valuable participation during the data collection phase of this research work.

References

1. Prajapati VS, Singh RR, Kharadi VB, Chaudhary SS. Status of breeding and health care management practices of dairy bovines in the rural and urban areas of South Gujarat of India. Journal of Animal Science Advances. 2015;5(11):1514-1521.
2. Sharma S, Kadian KS, Meena HR. Breeding and healthcare management practices of dairy animals followed by farmers in Varanasi district of Uttar Pradesh. Indian Journal of Dairy Science. 2023;76(1):97-99.
3. Deb S. Study on management practices, performance and welfare status of dairy cattle reared under dairy cooperative societies in Tripura. M.V.Sc. thesis, Central Agricultural University (Deemed University), Imphal, Manipur, India. 2022.
4. Sabapara GP, Padheriya YD, Kharadi VB. A field survey of feeding and breeding practices at peri urban buffalo farms of Surat city of Gujarat. Journal of Animal Research. 2016;6(5):933-939.
5. Tewari H, Kumar S, Rath R, Tyagi K. Existing housing and breeding management practices adopted by dairy farmers in Tarai region of Uttarakhand, India. Indian Journal of Animal Research. 2018;52(3):449-453.
6. Pasare G, Waghmare PG, Patil VM, Chandra S, Biradar PR, Dodamani S. Management practices of indigenous cattle in North Karnataka. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2022;11(9):19992002.
7. Patel PC, Sabapara GP, Sorathiya LM. Health care management practices followed by dairy animal owners in tribal areas of Gujarat. Indian Journal of Animal Production and Management. 2019;35(1-2):54-58.