![]() |
![]() |
[ Ana Sayfa | Editörler | Danışma Kurulu | Dergi Hakkında | İçindekiler | Arşiv | Yayın Arama | Yazarlara Bilgi | E-Posta ] |
Fırat Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Veteriner Dergisi |
2012, Cilt 26, Sayı 1, Sayfa(lar) 009-016 |
[ Turkish ] [ Tam Metin ] [ PDF ] |
The Structural Features of Cattle Farms in Muş Province |
İbrahim ŞEKER1, Hasan TASALI2, Hakan GÜLER3 |
1Fırat Üniversitesi, Veteriner Fakültesi, Zootekni Anabilim Dalı, Elazığ, TÜRKİYE 2Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi, Meslek Yüksek Okulu, Gıda İşletme Bölümü, Muş, TÜRKİYE 3Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi, Veteriner Fakültesi, Hayvancılık Ekonomisi ve İşletmeciliği Anabilim Dalı, Samsun, TÜRKİYE |
Keywords: Cattle breeding, cattle farms, structure of farm, Muş province |
A survey study was conducted at 125 farms in Muş city center and its sub-provinces to determine
the characteristics of cattle breeders, some of the problems in the field, and the structural features
of farms. The percentage of the farms which have 1-5 animals was 13.0%, while those which have
6-10 and ≥11 animals were 43.5%. The breed distribution of cattle was as follows: 46.9% native,
37.2% crossbred and 15.9% culture-breeds. Brown Swiss (70.3%) is commonly preferred in these
farms as culture breed. In 46.0% of farms, cows were milked until dry period. 30.4% of farms
obtained 3.0-5.0 kg milk per cow/day and 3.2% of them obtained ≥15 kg milk per cow/day. The
problems faced were foot and nail problems (50.7%), mastitis (13.7%), and abortion (13.7%). As a
result, it was determined that majority of cattle farms in Muş town center and surrounding villages
had 6-10 or more cattle, Brown Swiss and Simmental among other culture breeds were more
commonly preferred, cattle barns were usually separate buildings, and husbandry practices varying
from use of bedding material to construction materials used in barns, or from practice of dry-period
in cows to barn hygiene were poor for modern practices. In addition, primary problems faced by the
farmers were high expenses of feed/feed raw material and marketing problems. Expectations of the
farmers were technical support in veterinary services, marketing, and financial credits.
|
[ Turkish ] [ Tam Metin ] [ PDF ] |
![]() |
[ Ana Sayfa | Editörler | Danışma Kurulu | Dergi Hakkında | İçindekiler | Arşiv | Yayın Arama | Yazarlara Bilgi | E-Posta ] |