878

Comparative Feeding of Male Dairy, Beef Cattle and Swamp Buffalo

I. Economics of Beef Production

P. Skunmun, C. Chantalakhana*, R. Pungchai, T. Poondusit and P. Prucsasri

Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand

ABSTRACT : Due to rising trend of beef demand in Asia in the next two decades it is necessary to find additional sources of beef
supply. In most Southeast Asian countries, male dairy and swamp buffalo have not yet been raised for a primary purpose of quality beef
production. This study was aimed to compare growth and feeding performances as well as economic returns from feeding male dairy,
beef cattle and swamp buffalo for quality beef. Thirty-six animals, 12 of each breed group, were used in feeding trial to compare the cost
of beef production. Two levels of concentrate feeding, 1.75% of body weight (BW) and 1.00% of BW, were used for each breed group
in order to compare feeding methods i.e. high and low levels. Within each breed group two animals of similar initial BW were randomly
assigned to the two levels of feeding. The animals were fed from about 150 kg BW until reaching the final weight of about 400 kg. The
results from this study showed that under the prevailing economic conditions in Thailand the cost of beef production from buffalo was
lowest due to very low cost of feeder stocks, followed by dairy and beef. However, the cost of feeding per kg of BW gain was lowest in
beef and highest in buffalo i.e. when disregarding the differences in cost of feeder stocks. Beef calves grew faster than dairy and buffalo,
with better feed efficiencies. The results indicated that beef cattle could be more suitable for beef production for high-quality beef
market, while buffalo could be more suitable for small farms where high roughage feeding is common. Male dairy calves appeared to
require higher level of concentrate feeding than 1% BW in order to maintain good body conditions. (Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 2002.
Vol 15, No. 6 : 878-883)

Key Words : Cost of Beef Production, Male Dairy, Swamp Buffalo, Growth, Carcass Traits

INTRODUCTION efficiency. Pao-in (1995) obtained average daily gains

(ADG) of 0.31 and 0.21 kg/day from swamp buffalo and
The demand for beef in Asia in 2020 was predicted to Brahman crossbred (with Thai native), respectively, when
be 2.6 times of that in 1993 (Delgado et al., 1999). The feeding was based only on roughages; but these respective
increasing trends of beef demand have already been evident ADG’s increased to 0.67 and 0.54 kg when concentrate
in several Southeast Asian countries such as Indonesia, supplement of 1% BW was given to these animals, and 0.76
Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand. Additional sources and 0.76 kg for animals given concentrate supplement of
of beef supply could come from male dairy calves, which 1.5% BW. Kanthapanit et al. (1972) found that European
have not been utilized in most countries in Asia. Good crossbred beef grew at 0.90 vs 0.40 and 0.60 kg/day for
quality beef can also be produced from buffaloes. In 2020 Brahman crossbred and swamp buffalo, respectively, on the
the demand for milk in Asia will also rise to 2.7 times as same feeding level. Wanapat and Wachirapakorn (1990)
compared with that in 1993 (Delgado et al., 1999), and the reported an ADG of 0.53 kg from swamp buffalo fed with
increase in milk supply will most likely come from roughage and concentrate available at village level at 50:50
increasing number of dairy animals, which means that more ratio.
male dairy calves will be available for beef production. Feeding of Holstein-Friesian (HF) crossbreds in
Furthermore, the use of swamp buffalo for draft power in different studies found the ADG from 0.92 (Nijthavorn,
several Southeast Asian countries showed a steadily 1995), 0.8 to 1.0 (Ruaengsiri, 1991), and 0.51 for 75% HF
declining trend (Chantalakhana, 2001), and these animals and 0.40 for 50% HF (Thubcharoen, 1986). Kanthapanit
can also be diverted to beef production. (1984) found the ADG’s of HF cross, Brahman cross, and
It is commonly believed that swamp buffalo can utilize Charolais cross to be non-significantly different when these
poor quality feeds such as crop residues more efficiently animals were fed the same ration. However, so far there has
than cattle and, hence, increase body weight at lower cost. been no comparative study on feeding of dairy, beef cattle,
However, in case where better quality feeds are used in and swamp buffalo for beef production. This study was
animal feeding beef cattle could grow faster with better feed aimed firstly to make an economic comparison of beef
production from beef cattle versus male dairy and swamp
* Corresponding Author: C. Chantalakhana. Buffalo and Beef
Production Rand D Center Kasetsart University, PO BOX 1014, buffalo, and, secondly, to examine whether animals from
Kasetsart PO Chathuchak, Bangkok 10903, Thailand. Tel: +66-2- these three breed groups respond differently to different
5794214, Fax: +66-2-5798555, E-mail: swkcrc@nontri.ku.ac.th levels of feeding.
Received July 24, 2001; Accepted December 10, 2001
 ECONOMICS OF BEER PRODUCTION 879

MATERIALS AND METHODS the experimental animals were 167.1±10.9, 211.5±39.1 and
153.1±10.9 kg for dairy, beef and buffalo, respectively. All
Selection of experimental feeding levels animals were fed to the final weight of approximately 400
Two feeding levels were used in this experiment (1) kg after which they were slaughtered for carcass and meat
feeding of concentrate supplement at 1.75% of BW and (2) studies. This experiment was carried out at the Buffalo and
feeding of concentrate supplement at 1.00% of BW. The Beef Production Research and Development Center
first feeding level was considered an optimal level of (BPRADEC) of Kasetsart University at Kamphaengsaen
concentrate supplement practiced by beef fattening Campus during July 1998 to November 1999.
operators, while the second level represented possible
feeding practice by small-scale cattle raisers in Thailand. Experimental design and data collection
The experimental feeds were formulated to contain 18% Within each breed group, two animals of similar initial
crude protein (CP) for animals below 200 kg BW, while BW were chosen as a pair, and the two feeding levels were
16% CP ration was used for animals above 200 kg BW (see assigned randomly to each member of each pair. Hence,
feed composition in table 1). Animals were fed individually there were 6 pairs within each breed group. Paired
twice a day at 8:00 and 13:00 o’clock, at which time each comparison was used to analyze the data within each breed
animal received concentrate feeding and then green forage group. The combined data of three breed groups conformed
grass ad libitum. that of the split-plot design. The following mathematical
model was used to analyze the combined data.
Experimental animals
Thirty-six male calves of dairy crossbreds (>75% HF), Yijk=µ+Bi+Pj/i+Fk+BFik+eijk
beef crossbreds (mostly Kamphaengsaen breed i.e. 50%
Charolais, 25% Brahman, and 25% Thai indigenous cattle), When
and Thai swamp buffaloes, with 12 animals of each breed yijk=observation on an individual animal of ith breed
group, were used in this experiment. The initial weights of within jth pair received kth level of feeding
µ=an overall average
Table 1. Feed and nutrient composition of experimental Bi=the difference due to breed groups
concentrate rations Pj/i=the effect of pairs (different initial body weight) for
pair jth of breed ith
Ration 1 Ration 2
Feed ingredient, kg Fk=the influence of feeding level kth
(BW 150-200 kg) (BW 200-400 kg)
BFik=the interaction between the ith breed and feeding
Cassava chips 44.90 42.60
level kth
Dry brewery waste 20.00 20.00
eijk=random variation peculiar to an individual animal
Palm kernel cake 10.00 14.00
(special grade)
Duncan’s New Multiple Range Test was used to test the
Palm kernel cake - 10.00
significant differences of three breed groups.
Corn 8.00 -
As for data collection, daily measures of feed intake and
Soybean meal 4.00 -
cost of production for each animal were recorded.
Molasses 8.00 8.00
Individual animal was weighed once a month. All animals
Urea 2.00 2.00
were slaughtered at about 400 kg BW at the University
Bone meal 1.50 1.80
slaughterhouse and carcass data were recorded.
Salt 1.00 1.00
Premix1 0.50 0.50
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Sulfur powder 0.10 0.10
Total 100.00 100.00
Feeding and growth performances
Nutrients (%)
Detailed figures in table 2 show feeding and growth
Crude protein 18.00 16.00
performances of male dairy, beef and swamp buffalo. The
TDN 78.00 80.00
initial weight of beef calves was relatively heavier
Calcium 1.16 1.22
(211.50 kg) as this was determined by the availability of
Phosphorus 0.50 0.58
feeder stocks at the time of experiment. The ADG of beef
Price per kg, baht 5.54 4.22
1 calves was highest (793.73 g) as compared with dairy
One kg consisted of Vitamin A 2,160,000 IU, Vitamin D 400,000
IU, Vitamin E 2,700 IU, Mn 8.5 g, Zn 6.4 g, Fe 8.0 g, Cu 1.6 g,
(707.54 g) and swamp buffalo (607.04 g). These results
Co 320 mg, I 800 mg, Mg 16 mg, Se 32 mg, EDTA 66 mg, and were similar to many past reports (Kaewkong, 1983;
the rest was filler. Thubcharoen, 1986; Pao-in, 1995; Kanthapanit et al., 1972;
880 SKUNMUN ET AL.

Table 2. Feeding and growth performances of three breed groups

Item Dairy Beef Buffalo
No. of animals 12 12 12
Initial BW, kg 167.13±10.86 211.50±39.14 153.13±10.95
Final BW, kg 413.68±10.16 411.51±8.91 398.88±9.13
Days of feeding 354.17b±46.45 263.42c±80.42 411.00a±49.05
Total BW gain, kg 246.04a±14.26 200.01b±42.54 245.76a±10.48
Average daily gain, g 707.54b±91.69 793.73a±166.12 607.04c±86.01
Daily feed intake, kg
Concentrate 4.09a±1.16 4.11a±1.01 3.67b±0.94
Roughage 12.65a±0.71 11.71b±1.01 11.85b±0.91
Kg of feed per 1 kg BW gain
Concentrate 5.76ab±1.31 5.29b±0.92 6.08a±1.12
Roughage 18.27a±2.87 15.38b±3.50 19.97a±3.71
a,b,c
Different superscripts indicate significant difference (p<0.05).

Wanapat and Wachirapakorn, 1990). The amount of feeds among the three breed groups. This is mainly due to higher
required for 1 kg BW gain appeared to be lowest in beef cost of feeder stocks (beef calves), which was 63.14 baht
calves i.e. 5.29 kg for concentrate and 15.38 for roughage, per kg of initial BW as compared with 28.10 and 12.42 for
while feeds per kg BW in buffalo calves were highest i.e. dairy and buffalo, respectively. Dairy calves were fed from
6.08 kg for concentrate and 19.97 for roughage, and that in 167.13 kg initial BW until reaching average final BW of
dairy calves was medium i.e. 5.76 for concentrate and 18.27 413.68 kg, with total BW gain of 246.04 kg ; the cost per kg
for roughage. of final BW was 53.23 baht. Feeding of buffalo calves
Figures in table 3 show the differences of animal traitsstarted at average initial BW of 153.13 kg until the average
resulting from two feeding levels of concentrate. The final BW reached 398.88 kg, with total BW gain of
differences of average daily gain, feed conversion ratios for
245.76 kg; the average cost per kg of final BW was 47.16
concentrate and roughage, and daily feed intakes were baht and lowest among the three breed groups (p<0.05).
highly significant (p<0.01). This was mainly due to the fact that the average cost per kg
of initial BW of buffalo calves was only 12.42 baht, 5 times
Cost of production less expensive than beef calves. However, when feeding
Beef calves were raised from an average initial BW of cost per kg of BW gain (excluding the costs of initial BW)
211.50 kg until reaching average final weight of 411.51 kg, was calculated beef calves appeared to be lowest
with total BW gain of 200.01 kg; the cost per kg of final (52.87 baht) and significantly lower than buffalo
BW was 57.22 baht (table 4) which was highest (p<0.05) (63.04 baht) but non-significantly different from dairy

Table 3. Feeding and growth performances of animals received two concentrate levels
Feeding of concentrate Significant
Item
1.75%BW 1.00%BW levels
No. of animals 18 18
Initial BW, kg 177.50±34.48 177.34±35.30
Final BW, kg 408.70±14.23 407.62±14.23
Days of feeding 311.83±83.51 373.89±77.12 **
Total BW gain, kg 230.93±34.01 230.28±34.75 NS
Average daily gain, g 776.74±149.39 626.82±78.59 **
Daily feed intake, kg
Concentrate 4.92±0.40 2.99±0.21 **
Roughage 11.56±1.03 12.58±0.52 **
Kg of feed per 1 kg BW gain
Concentrate 6.22±1.27 4.82±0.53 **
Roughage 15.35±2.92 20.39±2.78 **
** Highly significant difference (p<0.01).
NS: Non-significant difference (p>0.05).
 ECONOMICS OF BEER PRODUCTION 881

Table 4. Costs of beef production from male dairy, beef cattle and swamp buffalo, Thai baht*
Item Dairy Beef Buffalo
No. of animals 12 12 12
Total cost 21,975.82b±1,547.61 23,544.88a±1,406.84 18,814.16c±1,668.85
Cost per kg final BW 53.23b±3.64 57.22a±3.34 47.16c±4.01
Cost of concentrate/d 18.82 ±5.33
b
19.45a±5.03 16.67c±4.36
Cost of roughage/d 12.65 ±0.71
a
11.71b±1.01 11.85b±0.91
Feeding cost/kg BW gain1 58.53b±6.30 52.87b±6.77 63.04a±7.29
* Approximately 45 baht=US$ 1.
1
Not including cost of animal purchase.
a,b,c
Different superscripts indicate significant difference (p<0.05).

(58.53 baht). This was mainly due to the fact that beef dairy (p<0.05) and 92.55 in buffalo (p<0.05). This
calves grew faster (ADG 793.73 g) than buffalo (607.04 g), indicated that improved breed of beef cattle responded to
with better feed efficiencies for both concentrate and higher level of feeding better than dairy or buffalo calves.
roughage feeds (table 2) as compared with buffalo calves However, the effect of lower feeding level was less distinct
(p<0.05). in buffalo. This could indicate that under small-farm
Figures in table 5 show various cost items for beef conditions in developing countries where feed resources
production per kg of BW gain of dairy, beef, and buffalo; as were usually limited in quality and quantity, buffalo might
well as the cost of feeding using two levels of concentrate offer a better alternative for beef production from crop
(1.75% BW vs 1.00% BW). The average cost per kg BW residues and other farm wastes and by-products, especially
was 58.85 baht for 1.75% BW group and 56.79 for 1.00% where farmers could not afford cash inputs such as
BW group, the difference was not significant (p<0.05). It concentrate feeds or premixes. As concerning feed
can be seen that the first group (1.75% BW) used more efficiency, the amounts of feeds per kg of BW gain were
concentrate (6.22 kg) per kg BW gain (table 3) which lowest in beef calves fed with high level of concentrate,
resulted in higher cost for concentrate feed (table 5), but while these figures were higher in dairy and buffalo,
this was somewhat offset by less use of roughage feed as accordingly.
compared with the second group (1.00% BW). Although the
ADG of the second group (626.82 g) was lower than the Carcass traits
first group (776.74 g) but the cost of production of the Warm dressing percentages of male dairy, beef and
second group was slightly lower though not statistically buffalo being fed two levels of concentrate were shown in
significant. table 7. Warm dressing percentage of beef cattle was
Figures in table 6 show detailed feeding performances of significantly higher (56.20%) than that of dairy (53.78%)
male dairy, beef and buffalo being fed on two feeding levels and buffalo (52.30%), while the difference between dairy
of concentrate. It should be noted that beef calves grew at and buffalo was non-significant. It should be noted that only
910.16 g per head per day on high level of concentrate, but the difference of dressing percentages between two levels of
only 677.31 g on low level of concentrate. The difference concentrate feeding in dairy group was significant (p<0.05),
of 232.85 g per animal per day was highly significant but not in beef or buffalo group. It was clearly evident that
(p<0.01), while the same differences were only 115.74 in male dairy calves receiving low level of concentrate feeding

Table 5. Cost of beef production per kg BW gain, Thai baht

Breed Concentrate level
Cost item
Dairy Beef Buffalo 1.75% BW 1.00% BW
Variable cost 58.10 52.53 62.54 58.45 56.34
Labor 4.92 3.87 5.73 4.53 5.41
Concentrate 26.51 27.46 27.38 30.27 23.97
Roughage 18.27 12.67 19.97 15.35 18.59
Supplies1 2.89 2.53 3.29 2.75 3.04
Opportunity cost 5.51 6.00 6.17 5.55 5.33
Fixed cost 0.43 0.34 0.50 0.40 0.45
Farm rent 0.43 0.34 0.50 0.40 0.45
Total cost 58.53 52.87 63.04 58.85 56.79
1
Veterinary supplies, electricity, water, and miscellaneous items.
882 SKUNMUN ET AL.

Table 6. Feeding performances of dairy, beef and buffalo on two planes of nutrition
Plane of concentrate feeding
Item Significant level
1.75%BW 1.00%BW
Dairy
No. of animals 6 6 -
Initial BW, kg 168.05±9.40 167.22±13.06 -
Final BW, kg 411.17±5.95 415.98±13.38 -
Days of feeding 322.33±39.02 386.00±28.14 **
Total BW gain, kg 243.32±13.37 248.77±15.82 -
Avg. daily gain, g 762.44±86.62 646.70±54.37 *
Feed intake/d
Concentrate 5.18±0.24 2.99+0.04 **
Roughage 12.29±0.78 13.01+0.41 NS
Kg feed/1 kg BW
Concentrate, kg 6.87±0.83 4.65±0.34 **
Roughage, kg 16.29±2.14 20.24±2.03 **
Beef
No. of animals 6 6
Initial BW, kg 211.72±40.56 211.28±41.53 -
Final BW, kg 411.15±9.67 411.87±9.00 -
Days of feeding 230.17±82.10 296.67±69.53 NS
Total BW gain, kg 199.43±43.52 200.58±45.67 -
Avg. daily gain, g 910.16±160.07 677.31±50.56 **
Feed intake/d
Concentrate 5.03±0.34 3.18±0.22 **
Roughage 11.19±1.14 12.23±0.55 NS
Kg feed/1 kg BW
Concentrate 5.76±0.97 4.27±0.50 *
Roughage 12.60±2.59 18.16±1.33 **
Buffalo
No. of animals 6 6
Initial BW, kg 152.73±7.81 153.52±14.23 -
Final BW, kg 402.77±3.86 395.00±11.49 -
Days of feeding 383.00±35.14 439.00±46.64 *
Total BW gain, kg 250.03±6.91 241.48±12.25
Avg. daily gain, g 657.62±64.21 565.07±77.54 *
Feed intake / d
Concentrate 4.55±0.30 2.79±0.11 **
Roughage 11.20±0.84 12.50±0.29 **
Kg feed/1 kg BW
Concentrate 7.07±0.67 5.09±0.68 **
Roughage 17.15±1.93 22.78±2.75 **
* Significant difference (p<0.05), ** Highly significant difference (p<0.01).
NS: Non-significant difference (p>0.05).

showed low body condition reflecting insufficient feeding high plane of nutrition was provided to bovine animals in
level, while their body structure remained large. This beef production, beef cattle (Kamphaengsaen breed) grew
indicated that low plane of concentrate feeding probably significantly faster than buffalo by about 38% of the
provided less than satisfactory level of nutritional average daily gain of buffalo, while dairy calves outgrew
requirements for high-grade HF crossbreds. buffalo by only 16%. However, at lower plane of nutrition
beef calves outgrew buffalo by less than 20%, while dairy
CONCLUSION calves outgrew buffalo by only 14%. When planes of
nutrition were compared the beef calves on higher plane of
The results from this experiment indicated that when feeding outgained those beef calves on lower plane by more
 ECONOMICS OF BEER PRODUCTION 883

Table 7. Warm dressing percentages of male dairy, beef and buffalo

Dairy Beef Buffalo
Item
1.75%BW 1.00%BW 1.75%BW 1.00%BW 1.75%BW 1.00%BW
Mean 54.85 52.71 56.36 56.03 52.49 52.10
SD 2.60 1.10 2.71 1.32 1.66 1.94
CV (%) 4.74 2.09 4.82 2.36 3.17 3.73
Difference between
* NS NS
two feeding levels
b
Breed mean 53.78 56.20a 52.30b
CV (%) 4.10 3.72 3.32
* Significant difference (p<0.05), NS Non-significant difference (p>0.05).

than 34%, while the corresponding estimates were only REFERENCES

about 16 and 18% for buffalo and dairy, respectively. This
indicated that buffalo calves were less responsive to high Chantalakhana, C. 2001. Contribution of water buffaloes in rural
plane of concentrate feeding, and probably more adaptable development. In Proceedings of FAO (APHCA)/JLTA/DLD
Regional Workshop on “Water Buffalo Development : Water
to traditional feeding systems of roughage feeding.
Buffalo for Food Security and Sustainable Rural Development”.
When considering growing and feeding performances of FAO, Bangkok. p. 9.
dairy, beef and buffalo together with cost of production, it Delago, C., M. Rosegrant, H. Steinfeld, S. Ehui and C. Courbois.
can be generally concluded that wherever premium prices 1999. Livestock to 2000 : The next food revolution.
are paid for high-quality beef high level feeding of IFPRI/FAO/ILRI. Food, Agriculture, and the Environment
crossbred beef cattle in tropical environment can be more Discussion Paper 28. p. 72.
profitable as compared to buffalo or dairy beef. However, Kaewkong, T. 1983. Body weight gain, feed efficiency and carcass
quality of male dairy crossbreds of Holstein-Friesian, Brown
for common consumer market, such as that in Thailand and
Swiss and Red Dane. M.S. Thesis, Kasetsart University Library.
Southeast Asia raising of buffalo by rural farmers utilizing Bangkok, Thailand.
locally available feed resources can be more profitable due Kanthapanit, C. 1984. Production of quality beef from dairy.
to lower cost per kg of BW, though the time period taken Beef and Buffalo Journal 7(2):5-10. Kasetsart University,
for buffalo feeding to reach mature BW would be somewhat Bangkok.
longer. Kanthapanit, C., U. Pisone and F. Pinkerton. 1972. Study on
roughage to concentrate ratio in cattle and buffalo fattening.
Annual Report, The Northeast Agricultural Center, Khon Kaen,
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thailand. pp. 15-29.
Nijthavorn, C. 1995. Effects of feeding cotton seedmeal to male
This research project has been financially supported by dairy calves on growth, carcass quality and cost of production.
the Thailand Research Fund (TRF) through the TRF Senior Kasetsart University Library. Bangkok, Thailand.
Research Fellow Project. The TRF is an autonomous Pao-in, T. 1995. Comparison of beef performance and economic
research funding agency of the Government of Thailand. return between swamp buffalo and Brahman crossbred. M.S.
Thesis, Kasetsart University Library. Bangkok, Thailand.
The authors also wish to thank Kasetsart University and
Ruaengsiri, T. 1991. Use of wastes from baby-corn production for
Buffalo and Beef Production Research and Development fattening of Holstein-Friesian male crossbreds. M.S. Thesis,
Center (BPRADEC) for their supports in terms of research Kasetsart University Library. Bangkok, Thailand.
facilities. Thubcharoen, S. 1986. Growth, puberty and semen quality of
Holstein-Friesian crossbreds. M.S. Thesis, Kasetsart University
Library. Bangkok, Thailand.
Wanapat, M. and C. Wachirapakorn. 1990. Utilization of roughage
and concentrate by feedlot swamp buffalo. Asian-Aus. J. Anim.
Sci. 3:195.
884 SKUNMUN ET AL.
CATTLE REMEMBER LOCATIONS OF PREFERRED FOOD 885

ED#01-265
886 KSIKSI AND LACA

ED#01-276
CATTLE REMEMBER LOCATIONS OF PREFERRED FOOD 887

ED#01-265
888 KSIKSI AND LACA

ED#01-276
CATTLE REMEMBER LOCATIONS OF PREFERRED FOOD 889

ED#01-265
890 KSIKSI AND LACA

ED#01-276
CATTLE REMEMBER LOCATIONS OF PREFERRED FOOD 891

ED#01-265