Evidence suggests that Bos Taurus and Bos Indicus split in two independent events the first being over 200,000 years ago and the second some 10,000 years ago. Essentially Taurine cattle were developed in the Fertile Crescent region while the zebu type was domesticated in the Indus Valley region. (Scherf, 2000). Further details are provided by Hall (2004).

Since then, many breeds have been developed in both sub-types so that there are now many taurine types and many zebu types throughout the world. The number and variation of the breeds is dependent upon the definition of ‘breed’ as well as on local activities.

FAO uses a definition which states “either a subspecific group of domestic livestock with definable and identifiable external characteristics that enable it to be separated by visual appraisal from other similarly defined groups within the same species, or a group for which geographical and/or cultural separation from phenotypically similar groups has led to acceptance of its separate identity. Note: Breeds have been developed according to geographic and cultural differences, and to meet human food and agricultural requirements. In this sense, breed is not a technical term. The differences, both visual and otherwise, between breeds account for much of the diversity associated with each domestic animal species. Breed is often accepted as a cultural rather than a technical term.” (Scherf, 2000).

The two types have been developed over at least 10,000 years in different regions and environments that, inevitably, have lead to different characteristics and qualities. However, there is considerable variation between breeds of the taurine type as indeed there is between breeds of the zebu type. While generalizations are useful they can also be misleading if taken as the whole story.
A useful summary of the differences can be found in Cunningham and Syrstad (FAO 1987). ‘Most of the cattle indigenous to the tropics belong to the zebu species.’ They have a high degree of heat tolerance, are partially resistant to ticks and many tickborne diseases and have low nutritional requirements. The authors go on to point out that potential for milk production is poorly developed in most zebu cattle and that milk let-down is a problem. Zebu cattle are late maturing too.
While in the Indian sub-continent has several breeds for milk, many breeds for dual purpose and many for draught purposes, in Africa most zebu breeds have been developed for beef production with some having good dual purpose abilities.
Evidence to support the generalizations is variable but, in general, does provide sufficient evidence to provide a good basis for discussion of the implications. There is now much better evidence from some major breed comparison trials such as the USDA Breed Evaluation Research based at Clay Centre and the CRC Beef research in Australia. Evidence from the USA and from Australia shows that breed type performance depends on the environment and that rankings change in the different environments (Cundiff, 2005; Arthur et al (1999) and Olson et al 1991). Anderson and Uquhart (1986) stated that animals with zebu genes could range further than taurine types in semi-arid rangelands in Mexico.
Hammond et al (1996) reported on heat tolerance and that Brahman (zebu) had lower respiratory rates, greater packed cell volume but poorer temperament. Several contend that greater skin area also contributes to the zebu heat tolerance (e.g. Ghosh et al 2006). Godfrey et al (1991) showed that Bos indicus calves exposed to cold were more susceptible than Bos taurus calves. Chakravarthi et al (2004) report both on the additional surface area (about 12% over taurine breeds) and on the Ongole skin secreting sebum which acts as a fly repellent and filters the sun’s UV rays.
Aggarwal and Singh (2006) reported Upper (UCT) and Lower Critical Temperatures (LCT) for different breed types –38ºC and 10ºC respectively for Indigenous breeds, 24ºC and 2ºC for Jersey and crosses, 20ºC and -10ºC respectively for Holsteins. Ghosh at al (2006) reports temperatures at which milk production starts to reduce as 21ºC for Holsteins, 24/27ºC for Jersey and Brown Swiss and 32ºC for Zebu type.
A review by Thrift and Thrift (2003) reported on the longevity of crossbreds in hot, humid conditions and attributed it to the heat tolerance, lower ecto and endo parasites, less eye disorders, teeth deterioration and grass tetany from the indicus component. He reported that the animals had more udder and teat problems/abnormalities. Frisch (1973) reported lower death rates in Bos indicus cattle in central Queensland.
Several trials report that on the differences in disease resistance – examples are Ndungu et al (2005) on Theileria parva, Mwangi et al (1998) on tick infestation, Aulakh et al (2005) quotes Nerladker et al (1995) as showing that symptoms of babesiosis are more marked in exotic breeds. The CRC (2006) work in Australia confirms tick resistance but also shows the poorer temperament in Brahman cattle. In general, poorer temperament means that animals grow slower (Voisinet et al 1997)as well as possibly causing more difficulties for management.
Clearly the generalizations do apply and have consequences for management requirements but, as an example of the danger of taking generalizations as the whole story, the Brahman was imported into Thailand in the early 1990s. In some areas there was reference to the “plastic’ cow which, on further enquiry was the Brahman which according to local farmers “Looked good but produced nothing”. This was shown to be due to the lower feed availability in some areas since work in Texas has shown clearly that the Brahman reduced reproduction if not on full feed whereas the Nellore did not . Indeed in that part of Thailand, the local White Lamphun cattle reproduced normally on the feed available. In Africa, there are now several taurine breeds which have been developed to produce efficiently in tropical conditions (see Jenkins and Farrell 2004).
While the general consensus is that zebu type cattle can deal with poorer feeds better than taurine cattle, there is little evidence to show that they are inherently more efficient (see Hall, 2004). Indeed there is little evidence on feed efficiency beyond some work by Gibson 1986 showing the Holstein to be more efficient than the Jersey for milk volume but there was no difference in terms of milk energy produced. Van Arendonk et al (1991) show a strong genetic correlation between milk yield and the production/feed intake ratio, which may reflect some measure of efficiency. Thiessen et al (1985) show that most of the genetic variation in efficiency is within breed whereas for body weight the reverse is true, which means that to improve efficiency one should select within breed not between breeds.
What has all this to do with managemental differences?
The evidence is sufficient to make it clear that there are conditions under which certain management practices will either be essential or not necessary. Some of these practices will impose permanent, repetitive annual costs which add to costs of production and cannot easily be reduced. The use of different breeds will mean that, in certain environments, such costs can be avoided.
As reported by Gandhi and Singh (2006), the 2003 census in India showed that there are some 179 million cattle of which 69 million are breedable cows and about 7 million are crossbred. Notwithstanding the increase in total numbers, cattle are now 42.7% of total livestock whereas 30 years ago they were 50.4% - Buffalo have risen from 16.3% to 18.3% but produce 55% of the milk whereas cattle produce about 40% (24% from indigenous and 16% from crossbreds).
FAO (2006) reports an estimate of 1493.5 thousand metric tons for 2005 for beef and veal and 1487.6 thousand metric tons for buffalo meat. While the dairy industry is the key to cattle production, beef and veal constitute 26% of the meat production recorded in India – a figure similar to that for buffalo (25%). However the authors (Anantham et al 2006) comment on the inexplicable low contribution of sheep and goat meat(12%) relative to the live population (30%) and suggest that slaughter of these animals may not be fully recorded in rural areas. Clearly, the section of the population which eats beef and veal cannot be ignored and may well offer assistance to the future for those breeds traditionally used for draught purposes.

Table 2.11 from Falvey and Chantalakhana (1999) by de Jong (1996) shows the structure of the dairy industry but does not indicate the proportion of buffaloes.

Ananthram et al (2006) reports on structure, classifying 81% of holdings as Small (with 0.74 hectares), 12% as Medium (2.96 hectares) and 7% as Large (aver 6.50 hectares) and points out that the Small farms are grossly overstocked relative to land holding. They also comment that more efficient production from Common Property Land could do much to reduce the feed deficit as could better use of good indigenous dairy breeds and crosses.

Potential problems?
Herd size is very small but this is really little different from the situation in Europe in the not too distant past – indeed in some parts of Europe herds are still relatively small (10 cows – even beef herds in UK some 15 years ago averaged this). However land area is smaller and, therefore, feed availability needs better planning but in a situation where farmers are less well educated and have less resources. Herd size is reported to increase in India [Rao (2005) quoting Conroy] and this is likely to be the trend. However, it is to be hoped that the normal arguments of economies of scale are treated with considerably more suspicion than in the past. For example, Dr (Miss) Amrita Patel at the Dairy Industry Conference in 2005 (see Indian Dairyman 57:12) showed that the ‘Gini’ factor for dairying was 0.11 compared to 0.86 for crops. This demonstrates clearly the more equitable sharing that dairy production gives to society. At the same conference, Dr Trevedi emphasized the local breeds advantages in resistance, ability to survive and to perform on poor feeds and fodder and with poor management and Dr Misra identified the problem as being large deficits of Green fodder (56%) and Concentrate(30%).
Interestingly Dr (Miss) Amrita Patel at the All India Dairy Industry Conference in 2006 commented that the yield of crossbreds was reducing now due to indiscriminate crossing and lack of consideration of the agro-climatic conditions and that the use of selected local dairy breeds needed to be improved rather than the use of exotic breeds and farmers should be better educated about this matter by the extension services. A paper by Kumarvelan and Obireddy (2006) described how farmers in Tamil Nadu were changing back to Tharparkar from crossbreds due to the high veterinary bills and other inputs and the infertility of the crosses and were now receiving a premium in local towns for their milk.
Two other points could be made regarding crossing – Cunningham (Balaine, 1979) pointed out that ‘there is a great danger that many local populations of cattle , with great potential for the future, will simply be obliterated by top crossing with these developed strains’ after pointing out that the European populations were unimproved and unproductive just a few generations ago. He advised that the local breeds be selected as a matter of urgency. Cunningham and Syrstad (1987) point out that criss-crossing two breeds can yield better than forming a synthetic of the same two breeds – if there is no need to progeny test one of the breeds then it clearly can be more cost effective in terms of milk production. Rege (1998) is an example of many reports showing that, in general, the first cross indicus x taurus dairy animal is rarely bettered.
The number of local breeds depends on the definition used officially but is around thirty – many of these can be regarded as dual purpose or dairy breeds but the breeds specifically developed for draught purposes are now under greater pressure as the need is reduced due to mechanization. Whether such mechanization is justified is not part of this paper but certainly the problem is one which needs to be addressed. Kumar and Dixit (2006) reporting on the decline of the Hariana state that the lack of market for male calves, the shortage of grazing areas and the attraction of the buffalo, which has no limitations on markets, all contribute to the breed’s demise. This is a problem which, in terms of animal genetic resources, needs addressing at the highest levels.

The number of local breeds could well be much more than officially noted – particularly if the FAO definition is used. Many of the ‘non-descript’ populations may well be pure breeds but due to the colonial influence the old, incorrect view of breeds still seems to hold sway. From my previous experience within India, it is obvious that Goshalas can play a major role in the improvement and development of indigenous breeds – indeed some are already doing so. Cooperation between Goshalas could provide sufficiently large populations to make significant genetic change, to avoid inbreeding and to provide animals and genetic material to farmers in need.
Future Management
Speedy and Sansoucy (1991) edited an FAO publication Animal Production and Health Paper No 86 (reporting proceeding of an expert consultation in late 1989) which contains comments regarding the “greenhouse effect’ and its implications – now accepted as Global Warming and Climate Change – Preston quoted Dupont (1989). Preston discussed the goals and means for both industrialized and developing systems and quoted the Netherlands Development Corporation which had been trying to introduce innovations into developing countries “The animals (Dutch dairy cattle) were generally unable to adjust to local conditions; climate feed and management systems all posed problems. The cattle were unsuited to small farmers’ needs;…” and “the experience of twenty years revealed that the route (intensive livestock projects) had been ill-chosen.”
Preston then summarized what he believed were the requirements of a system:
· “be at least self –sufficient in, and preferably a net exporter of, energy
· not contaminate the environment
· not destroy natural ecosystems
· optimize employment opportunities, and
· promote a maximum degree of self-reliance”
There is nothing in these objectives which does not apply now – perhaps the urgency is even greater now after almost twenty years.
At the same consultation, Leng discusses in detail the use of techniques to improve nutritional efficiency in the ruminant – again the same points that are just as valid today – “The efficiency of feed utilization is enormously improved if the rumen of the animal has a healthy microbial population adequately supplemented by providing a molasses/urea block which often increase the intake of the basal diet. Adding a by-pass protein supplement will further improve the efficiency of utilization of the basal feed resources but will also allow animals to maintain feed intake at high temperatures and humidity. Conversely, the productivity of lactating animals can be maintained at a lower feed intake provided the rumen is made efficient and the animal’s metabolism is made efficient by supplementing with a molasses/urea block and by-pass protein respectively.” Again, this is as true now as it was in 1989.

It is absolutely crucial that the type of animal must be suitable for the local agro-climatic conditions. Evidence shows that size of animal is not genetically linked to milk yield (at least in Holsteins – Hansen et al 1998) and that large size means additional feed for maintenance. Clearly there is not a single solution for India given its vast range of agro-climatic conditions but the ability of indigenous breeds to withstand heat cannot be ignored since the costs to keep animals sufficiently cool is permanent and likely to increase. Thailand is a classis case where milk price is high but farmers cannot make profit due to the additional costs to maintain a suitable environment for the cows in use.
Disease resistance and tick tolerance must also come into the picture – even the choice between Jersey and Holstein can affect this particular problem. However since the Holstein is more efficient for milk volume, the Jersey needs a situation in which milk quality is rewarded. Obviously the reduction in veterinary treatments can be important but not at the expense of using the essential treatments to avoid major difficulties such as vaccinations so that indigenous breeds still need careful management.
Clearly the ability of indigenous breeds to use poorer types of fodder can be used in management decisions. However it is crucial to be aware that poorer fodder will not provide adequate nutrition for milk production. It is therefore essential that the other feeds are used in the most advantageous manner if the animal is to use low quality fodder. There is no excuse for not using straw treatment neither for the lack of molasses/urea /mineral blocks. Even though straw treatment is time consuming and most small farmers (especially the ladies) have no spare time, the policy adopted in parts of China might well be adopted – they have one person in a community who treats all the straw farmers deliver straw and collect the treated product for a small fee. The cooperative systems in India are ideal for such arrangements and may already be used but this author is not aware of examples. One major factor in India’s favour is that most of the animal feed is non-human feed which is in stark contrast to several other countries with large cattle populations – the most obvious example being the USA which uses vast amounts of human feed (maize) in cattle feed-lots and dairy herds.
The techniques for improving rumen efficiency and reducing methane production hold out hope for the future – as long as they can be made available at an economic price to the people who need them most – the users of low quality roughages. However, all efforts at present should address the present well known techniques to assist good rumen efficiency – the simple molasses/urea block.
The use of bypass protein is advocated and, indeed, assisted by the major cooperative organizations but this should be a universal policy across the country. The evidence is overwhelming and the process is cost effective. Protein is too valuable to be wasted – it is a bad as throwing money down the drain – in fact worse because the protein may cause pollution of the water system as well!
Pollution can be as serious in small units as in large ones – it all depends on the management system and the density of the farms. Many small farms with little land and overstocked can provide a real pollution problem. Given the rising costs of energy and the climate change effects, it is crucial that the industry gears itself up for a future where energy is used more efficiently and air and water pollution is reduced since it has to be paid for (if not directly, then indirectly). Animal wastes should be used to provide energy (it often is and India has a good record in this respect) and to ensure soil quality. There is growing evidence that the reliance on chemical fertilizer alone is providing problems for the future and a better balance must be achieved. In small herds, it may be possible to use the waste from the biogas process on Common Property Lands in an effort to improve fodder availability.
There is an expectation that herd size will increase and this is probably correct. However, the lessons of the past should be carefully noted – most economists basically had extremely limited vision and their calculations frequently ignored many of the crucial factors in the complete picture. The number of cases where ‘externalisations’ are not properly costed is legion and, in the view of the author, is irresponsible. Such calculations have lead to many incorrect policies and the world can no longer ignore full costing of all activities.
The costs of dealing with soil degradation due to ‘mining’ i.e. the crop being removed a long distance and no part thereof or manure being returned to the land is rarely if ever mentioned. This aspect must be considered in the transfer of feeds to cover deficits in various regions in India. Two classic examples are (1) manioc(cassava) from Thailand to the Netherlands to feed pigs and the manure to the rivers and/or North Sea with the reduced growing abilities of land in Thailand; and (2) the feed movement to the Buffalo colonies near Karachi. Pollution of waterways is often ignored although awareness is growing – even where there are regulations governing the release of water into waterways there are still cots involved in making it suitable for human consumption (the cost of water treatment in UK is over $100 per hectare – Steinfeld, pers. comm.).
There are now many economists who question the real benefits of ‘economies of scale’ (e.g. Schumaker 1973, Falvey 2000) – perhaps the only real supporters nowadays are the large international supermarket chains. India has probably the greatest experience of using small farms for production of a major product with Operation Flood and all the associated activities since then. While small herds may get larger as they use their resources more efficiently there is no reason for moving from the present successful social model which reflects the famous statement by Mahatma Gandhi that ‘production should be by the masses not by mass production’.
There is therefore nothing in the principles of management which should differentiate between Bos Indicus and Bos Taurus – management should aim to utilize the resources available in the most efficient and sustainable manner in the specific agro-ecological situation relevant t the farmer and to the community. In addition, management must aim to provide the most hygienic and safe product possible for the consumer. Recent developments in regulatory mechanisms should help in this respect both in terms of processing by the application of the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system and, on farm, by the Good Animal Husbandry Practices (GAHP) as reported by Rajorhia (2006) who comments that awareness of the latter is low among milk producers.
• Given that a safe product is essential for all markets, it is even more important that the whole system is such that it can be used as an aid to marketing of products both at home and abroad. In this respect, I see an additional role for Goshalas in helping local farmers develop products according to the requirements for safe food production. Patil (2005) points out that the potential market overseas is of high value (North America is valued at $500 million). Given that the richer nations are now becoming more conscious of the whole process of food production and are more aware of ethical, welfare and poverty issues, it is crucial that the Indian industry ensures that the local small farmer industry can exploit such preferences. The welfare issue is now of considerable importance in Europe and has changed management practices even where there is no evidence that the animals did not like the practice. In fact, in the UK a series of five freedoms has been developed by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) in 1995. These are:
a) Freedom from hunger & thirst by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigour.
b) Freedom from discomfort by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area.
c) Freedom from pain, injury or disease by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment.
d) Freedom from fear and distress by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering.
e) Freedom to express normal behaviour by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of animals of their own kind.
The problems clearly are not in the knowledge of what is required technically but are more likely to rest with the lack of sufficient and high quality extension. There are obviously good extension people serving many communities and many organizations attempting to help. Nevertheless, it is still the case that researchers are regarded as being ‘better’ than extension people – academics have greater kudos than the local farm adviser. However, little research is really essential for improving the farm production efficiency of milk – the technical knowledge is available but not necessarily applied. It is important that the extension adviser is regarded as the key to the future of the dairy industry in India and that the importance of this role is fully recognized in all respects. The good adviser is not someone who is not good enough to do research (a view often held in Asia) nor is he/she lacking in ability – the abilities are different and are crucial to the long-term future of the industry. It mat well be possible that the Goshalas can also assist by education and demonstration and local advice as long as they use similar management systems as those used by local farmers. This should be the case since maintaining breeds also requires consideration of the normal management system.
As mentioned earlier, even within the last few months, one of the most important persons in your dairy industry, pointed out the same need for better extension and education of the small farmer. It is crucial that the quality and status of the extension worker is properly considered – to this end it may be necessary to have a system of recognition similar to that in academia. Certainly in Britain, for example, the extension adviser can and does become an elected Fellow of the Institute of Biology (recognized by royal charter) just as the academic researcher but obviously for the application of technology rather than for research. When considering buying/selling a house, the advice is that there are three crucial factors – location, location, location. In the context of a good future for your cattle industry there are three crucial factors – extension, extension, extension.
Given the present realization of the need for such improvement and the organizational abilities and experience in the country, then it is likely that this situation will be resolved and management levels will be improved and added value markets exploited to enable more efficient use of local resources and the continued success of indigenous cattle in India.

References

Aggarwal, A. and Singh, M. 2006 Impact of Micoclimatic Modification on
Production of Dairy Animals in Summer. Indian Dairyman, 58: 3.

Ananthram, K., Raju, S.S., Prasad, C.S. and Sampath, K.T. 2006 Commercialisation of Indian Livestock Economy – Problems and Prospects Indian Dairyman, 58: 10.

Anderson, D.M. and Urquhart, N.S. 1986 Using digital pedometers to monitor travel of cows grazing arid rangeland. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 16:11-23

Arthur, P.F., Hearnshaw, H. and Stephenson, P.D. 1999 Direct and maternal additive and heterosis effects from crossing Bos indicus and Bos Taurus cattle: cow and calf performance in two environments. Livestock Production Science, 57: 231-241.

Aulakh, G.S., Singla, L.D., Kaur, P. and Alka 2005 Bovine Babesiosis due to Babesia bigemina: Haematobiochemical and therapeutic studies. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 75 (6): 617-622

Balaine, D.S. 1979 Dairy Cattle Breeding in the Humid Tropics Working papers presented at the FAO/GOI Expert Consultation held at Hissar, India. pp21-29.

Chakravarthi, K., Bidarkar, D.K., Guta, B.R., Rao, G.N., Sudharkar, K. and Rao, K.B. 2004 Draught performance of Ongole bulls under thermal stress conditions. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences, 74: 119-121.

CRC Cooperative Research Centre for Beef Genetic Technologies 2006 Annual Report 2005/2006, Armidale, NSW, Australia

Cundiff, L. 2005 Implications of Breed Evaluations. http://www.int-brangus.org/modules.php. Accessed 3 April 2007

Cunningham, E.P. and Syrstad, O. (eds) 1987 Crossbreeding bos indicus and bos Taurus for milk production in the tropics. FAO Animal Production and Health paper 68. FAO, Rome, Italy.

FAO 2006 Selected Indicators of Food and Agricultural Dedvelopment in the Asia-Pacific Region 1995-2005. RAP Publication 2006/16. FAO, Bangkok, Thailand.

Falvey, L. 2000 Thai Agriculture: Golden Cradle of Millennia Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Falvey, L. and Chantalakhana, C. (eds) 1999 Smallholder dairying in the tropics. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya. 462pp

Frisch, J.E. 1973 Comparative mortality rates of Bos indicus and Bos taurus cattle in central Queensland. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 13(61): 127-133.

Gandhi, R.S. and Singh, S. 2006 Impact Assessment of Crossbreeding of Indigenous Cattle with European Dairy Breeds. Indian Dairyman, 58: 2.

Ghosh, C., Roy, B., Pankaj, P.K., Prasad, S. and Brahma, B. 2006 Managemental Strategies to Alleviate Heat Stress in Dairy Animals. Indian Dairyman, 58:4.

Gibson, J.P. 1986 Efficiency and performance of genetically high and low milk-producing British Friesian and Jersey cattle. Animal Production,42: 161-182.

Godfrey, R.W., Smith, S.D., Guthrie, M.J., Stanko, R.L., Neuendorf, D.A. and Randel, R.D. 1991 Physiological responses of newborn Bos indicus and Bos Indicus x Bos Taurus calves after exposure to cold Journal of Animal Science, 69: 258-263.

Hall, S.J.G. 2004 Livestock Biodiversity Genetic Resources for the farming of the future. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK.

Hammond, A.C., Olson, T.A., Chase, C.C., Bowres, E.J., Randel, R.D., Murphy, C.N., Vogt, D.W. and Tewolde, A. 1996 Heat tolerance on two tropically adapted Bos Taurus breeds, Senepol and Romosinauno, compared with Brahman, Angus and Hereford cattle in Florida. Journal of Animal Science, 74: 295-303.

Hansen, L.B., Cole, J.B. and Marx, G.D. 1998 Body size of lactating cows: results of divergent selection for over 30 years. Proceedings of the 6th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, 25: 35-38

Jenkins, T.G. and Ferrell, C.L. 2004 Preweaning efficiency for mature cows of breed crosses from tropically adapted Bos indicus and Bos Taurus and unadapted Bos Taurus breeds. Journal of Animal Science, 82: 1876-1881.

Kumar, D. and Dixit, S.P. 2006 Decline in population of Hariana cattle (Bos indicus) breed: causes and remedies. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences, 76: 927-930.

Kumarvalen, N. and Obireddy, A. 2006 Tharparkars in Tamil Nadu – A Case Study. Indian Dairyman, 58: 5.

Mwangi, E.K., Stevenson, P., Ndung’u, J.M., Stear, M.J.,Reid, S.W.J., Gettingby,G. and Murray, M. 1998 Studies on Host Resistance to Tick Infestation among Trypanotolerant Bos indicus Cattle Breeds in East Africa. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 849: 195-208.

Ndungu, S.G., Brown, C.G. and Dolan, T.T. 2005 In vivo comparisons of susceptibility between bos indicus and bos taurus cattle types to Theileria parva infection. Journal of Veterinary Research 72: 13-22.

Olson, T.A., Filho, K.E.,Cundiff, L. V., Koger, M., Butts, W.T. Jr and Gregory K.E. 1991 Effects of breed group by location interaction on crossbred cattle in Nebraska and Florida. Journal of Animal Science, 69: 104-114.

Patil, G.R. 2005 Innovative Processes for Indigenous Dairy products. Indian Dairyman, 57: 12 (Conference Special).

Rajorhia, G.S. 2006 Implications of Implementing Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Indian Dairyman, 58: 12 (Conference Special)

Rao, S.V.N. 2005 Dairy Farming – Poverty Alleviation and Women Empowerment. Indian Dairyman, 57: 12 (Conference Special)

Rege, J.E.O. 1998 Utilization of exotic germplasm for milk production in the tropics. Proceedings of the 6th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. 25: 193-200.

RSPCA 1995 Farm Animal Welfare: You Can Make a Difference. RSPCA Information, P41. 6.95 Horsham, U.K.

Scherf, B.D. 2000 (ed) World Watch List for domestic animal diversity 3rd edition FAO, Rome Italy.

Schumaker, E.F. 1973 Small is Beautiful A Study of Economics as if People Mattered. Abacus edition 1974, Sphere Books Ltd, London, UK.

Speedy A. and Sansoucy, R. 1991 (eds) Feeding dairy cows in the tropics. Proceedings of the FAO Expert Consultation held in Bangkok, Thailand, July 1989. FAO Animal Production and Health paper 86. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Thiessen, R.B., Taylor, St C.S. and Murray, J. 1985 Multibreed comparisons of British cattle. Variations in growth rate, relative food intake and food conversion efficiency. Animal Production (Journal of the British Society of Animal Production) 41: 193-199

Thrift, F.A. and Thrift, T.A. 2003 Review: Longevity attributes of Bos indicus x Bos Taurus crossbred cows Professional Animal Scientist Oct 2003 accessed 3rd April 2007.

Van Arendonk, J.A.M., Nieuwhof, G.J., Vos,H. and Korver, S. 1991 Genetic aspects of feed intake and efficiency in lactating dairy heifers. Livestock Production Science, 29: 263-275.

Voisinet, B.D., Grandin, T., Tatum, J.D., O’Connor S. F. and Struthers J.J. 1997 Feedlot cattle with Calm Temperament have higher Gaily Gains than Cattle with Excitable Temperament. Journal of Animal Science, 75: 892-896