Research Article

 

Research System [IKRS] for Treatment of Bloat and its Significance towards Greenhouse Gas Emission: Jharkhand, India

 

Sitanath Munda1, Rajeev Pandey2, Bhojne GR3, Dakshinkar NP3, Amol S Kinhekar4, Vivek Kumar4, Ravikumar RK4*, Vipin Kumar4

1Outstanding Traditional Knowledge Holder; 2Social Upliftment Trust & Collaborator, Honey Bee Network; 3Nagpur Veterinary College, MAFSU, Nagpur; 4National Innovation Foundation-India, Satellite Complex, Ahmedabad 380 015, India.

 

 

Editor | Kuldeep Dhama, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Received | May 10, 2016; Accepted | May 27, 2016; Published | May 28, 2016

*Correspondence | Ravikumar RK, National Innovation Foundation-India, Satellite Complex, Ahmedabad 380 015, India; Email: ravikumar@nifindia.org

Citation | Munda S, Pandey R, Bhojne GR, Dakshinkar NP, Kinhekar AS, Kumar V, Ravikumar RK, Kumar V (2016). Indigenous Knowledge Research System [IKRS] for treatment of bloat and its significance towards greenhouse gas emission: Jharkhand, India. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci. 4(5): 241-249.

DOI | http://dx.doi.org/10.14737/journal.aavs/2016/4.5.241.249

ISSN (Online) | 2307-8316; ISSN (Print) | 2309-3331

Copyright © 2016 Munda et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

 

Introduction

 

Bloat, Concern for Animal Productivity and Welfare

Bloat is an important non-infectious systemic disorder affecting digestive system of ruminants. The ailment cause discomfort to animal due to distention of rumen causing management difficulty to veterinary service provider. The rate of occurrence of bloat conditions in the field was to the extent of 9 percent (Sarker et al., 2013). The nature of forage behaviour of animals over legume grass have considerable bloating potential (Maughan et al., 2014). Animals in most part of the world have to thrive on grazing hence alternative legume forages were tried to minimize incidence of bloat. Lack of provision of veterinary services remains an impediment under small ruminant livestock production system (Rao et al., 2013). Available medications and managerial role were expensive, difficult to administer, not able to control bloat every time and not necessarily opt with existing grazing regimen of livestock (Berg et al., 2000). These also pose challenge to farmers who rely on enhancing milk yield through pasture management (Bramley et al., 2013; Lean et al., 2008; Stafford and Gregory, 2008). It is necessary to meet global food security by fostering sustainable practices in respect to environmental concern (Scholtena et al., 2013). The nature of feeding system and changing preference in rearing of livestock by smallholders need to be given adequate consideration in promotion of location specific technologies (Ravikumar et al., 2015).

 

Scientific Assessment of Technologies in Treatment of Bloat

The severity of the condition were observed through visual assessment of distention of rumen, frothiness and codifying the data through scientific scale (Majak et al., 1995). The intra-ruminal pressure and rumen motility were considered as criteria during experimentation involving bloat trials (Colvin et al., 1959). The frequency of ruminal contraction had direct implications on digestion (Sunagawa et al., 2002). Volume of gas produced (Fay et al., 1980), time period in resumption of distended rumen and rumination process (Digraskar et al.,2012) were considered in assessment of technologies for rumen function. Rumen distension causes decrease in feedintake, a critical parameter to relieve animals from bloat (Villalba et al., 2009). Rumen protozoa had significant role not only in digestion but also production of enteric methane (Nguyen et al., 2016). The influence of agent on flora of rumen like protozoa, anaerobic bacterial species and on rumen gas production were found to be critical factors. The use of condensed tanins (CT) against gas production (Min et al., 2005) and saponins on protozoa for aiding digestion (Das et al., 2012) testify relevance of these parameters. The foaming of rumen ingesta is an important factor (Colvin et al., 1959) and cytoplasmic protein plays major role as foaming agent in causing bloat in cattle (Mangan, 1959). This is due to the fact of maintaining desired amount at rumen-reticulum in specified period for to overcome foaming (Reid, 1958). Supplementation of rain tree pod meal and different concentrate ration had decreased pH, protozoa and methanogens among dairy steers (Anantasook et al., 2013). Studies by Liu et al. (2016) refer that rumen pH of less than 6.2 have effect on microbial synthesis and cellulose digestion. The primary aim is to keep incidence of bloat at a threshold level by acting on pH and foam formation. However, there was limited literature indicating likely duration of time medical formulation need to act to control clinical signs of bloat.

 

System of Addressing Rumen Function and Bloat among Farm Animals

Use of penicillin and ionophores such as monensin, lasalocid for treatment and control of bloat was considered safe and advocated (Johns et al., 1959; Katz et al., 1986). Mineral mixture was also considered as an appropriate strategy to minimize occurrence of bloat (Hall et al., 1994). In general, treatment of bloat involves use of antibiotics and or plant based measures that contains CT (Lees, 1992). This is reiterated by the fact that since 2000 to present, role of CT in minimizing occurrence of bloat, methane gas production and on anaerobic bacteria was studied (Vasconcelos and Galyean, 2008). The positive role of CT on milk production and health status were attributed (Dey and De, 2014).

 

Causal relationship of farm grazing pattern and incidence of bloat were demonstrated (Carruthers and Henderson, 1994). Several studies were conducted to bypass rumen so as to make available nutritional requirement at lower gut to ensure enhanced growth performance (Odedra et al., 2016). Further, use of ionophores in cattle diets was part of strategy to curtail enteric methane emissions as well (Guan et al., 2006). Studies indicated that feeding of oak leaves can reduce methane production level and recommended safe inclusion levels in the diet of ruminants (Rajkumar et al., 2015). The general thought is to enhance the forage digestibility and digestible forage intake as key to mitigate methane production (Hristov et al., 2013). The growing public concern over animal welfare, pollution and health aspects of animal produce will have direct bearing on livestock production systems (Wilson and Lawernce, 1985). Knapp et al. (2014) suggested that performance enhancing technologies need to be considered in protecting environment.

 

Relevance of Indigenous Knowledge Research Systems

Need for sustaining Indigenous Knowledge Research Systems (IKRS): The rate of technological requirement necessitates development of skill to innovate and need suitable public support for such innovative human capital (McGuirka et al., 2015). Studies by Ravikumar et al. (2016) referred importance of Indigenous Knowledge Research System in sustaining welfare of livestock. This dynamic knowledge system has been forefront to complement efforts of formal research system like animal husbandry department for health care and productivity. Outstanding traditional knowledge holders had gained valuable insights of medicinal value and are keen to share information to needy farmers (Ravikumar and Kumar, 2015). These environmental friendly formulations need to be encouraged not only for sustenance but for animal welfare (Periyaveeturaman et al., 2015). The environmental challenges demand system-wide transformations in understanding and utilizing sociotechnical systems that were amenable (Seyfand and Haxeltine, 2012; Bruce, 2013). These technologies can help to minimize use of chemicals that cause unwarranted welfare issues in small holder dairy farming system (Ravikumar et al., 2015a). Further, utility of IKRS beyond the place of origin were demonstrated reinforcing belief for its relevance, wider diffusion potential (Ghorai et al., 2016).

 

Scaling up of innovations derived from Indigenous Knowledge Research Systems: Openness in innovation system provides suitable environment for knowledge diffusion through informal mechanisms (Ropera et al., 2013). Working closely with community and to seek their valuable contribution with new social order of knowledge helps to document novel veterinary medication (Kumar and Ravikumar, 2016). These grassroots innovations which can provide technologies for social inclusion has three challenges viz., responding to location specific need simultaneously seeking wide scale diffusion, being appropriate to prevailing needs and towards goal of social justice (Smith et al., 2014). Different models of incubation of IKRS like Non Linear Innovation System (NLIS) and Open Source Innovation System (OSIS) were discussed for wider utility of native wisdom (Ravikumar and Kumar, 2015). The attributes of dairy innovations have to be identified for effective diffusion and adoption among farming communities (Rathod and Chander, 2016). There needs to be shift from presenting these innovations as divider of national innovation wealth to a provider (Jain and Verloop, 2012). Further, sharing of knowledge system is vital for sustaining ability of future generations towards farm animal welfare (Ravikumar et al., 2016a). These knowledge has been confined to surviving older people and few practitioners causing concern of loss of sustainable wisdom (Usha et al., 2016). Gupta (2007) calls for inspiring younger generations so as to improvise knowledge thereby overcoming threat of erosion.

 

Framework for Livestock Innovations

IKRS can able to develop desirable technologies as creative individuals in similar situation can comprehend better and work out appropriate solutions. Scientific governance have to emphasis on responsible innovation to overcome societal difficulties (Stilgoea et al., 2013). Use of these knowledge and technologies brings out positive changes to improvise agricultural development (Ayele et al., 2012). However, in most circumstances custodian of knowledge were not at the forefront. Recognizing outstanding healers who sustained IKRS through their creative spirit and experimentation has been articulated by Honey Bee Network (HBN) (Gupta, 2006; Kumar and Ravikumar, 2016). HBN pioneered the concept of grassroots innovation and laid down basis of support system for future (Ustyuzhantseva, 2015). In-order to avail affordable solutions, society has to learn from green grassroots innovations and traditional knowledge holders (Gupta, 2012). The product derived for wealthy customer may not be fulfilling low income and emerging markets (Simula et al., 2015).

 

Gupta et al. (1997) argues that collaborative learning can be enjoyable and meaningful if only dialogues between farmers-scientists are matched with ethical parlance. Sharing of scientific results with healer and enabling interactive meeting with villagers resulted in sharing of empathetic livestock innovation (Devgania et al., 2015). These novel livestock medications had emerged with participation of outstanding knowledge holders and livestock owners by addressing livestock ailments (Ravikumar et al., 2016b). These arrangements provided meaningful engagements and partnership with informal institutions’ (Kumar and Ravikumar, 2016a). Custodians of this knowledge through their observations had conserved utility value of herbal medications. This had emboldened usage, mode of dispensation, desired dosage against affected animals in their vicinity. Gupta (2007a) refer that communities living close to nature can understand and interpret values of local resources.

 

IKRS and Environmental Responsibility

World’s half of livestock population are raised in tropics and there is imminent need to address methane production by them (Thao et al., 2014). The public concern in overcoming global warming potential of animal farming operations through feed have to be taken cared (Kaufmann, 2015). The major components of gas produced in rumen are CO2 (45-70%) and CH4 (20 to 30%) (Clarke and Rein, 1972). Strategies need to be considered to decrease greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per kg of milk produced (Zehetmeier et al., 2012). The demand for sustainable livestock production compels research system to explore approaches to minimize greenhouse gases (GHG) (Wanapat et al., 2015). The use of trace elements like Zinc and copper for performance enhancement resulted in impairment of plant production, accumulation in animal products, water supply chain and antimicrobial resistance (Brugger and Windisch, 2015). Reducing methane emission by enhancing feed digestibility through rumen microbial ecosystem is pertinent (Anantasook et al., 2013). Evidences to initiate further experiments to understand role of indigenous system in reducing GHG were shared (Ravikumar et al., 2015c). Thornton (2010) indicate that livestock production systems have to operate in responding to environment constraints.

 

Thus the study was carried out to articulate the need for network meeting among creative individuals and to share nature of disclosure by traditional knowledge holder during peer group meeting. This disclosed medication from indigenous knowledge research system was clinically evaluated against bloat conditions based on comprehensive clinical parameters analysed as above. Further experimentation was conducted to determine its role in greenhouse gas emission through in vitro ruminal gas production.

 

MATERIALS AND METHODs

 

The study was conducted over a period of time with help of organizing network meeting among healers in the regions of Jharkhand, India 2013-2015. This involves partnership with creative individuals, building network of knowledge holders through personnel interview, field investigations. The documented practice during the workshop was tested against clinical condition of bloat and evaluated for its impact over greenhouse gas emission. The study was undertaken to share the development of medication based on knowledge of creative communities. This study brings an approach for scientific assessment of indigenous knowledge practice as well as to understand utility value of medication beyond the specific claim. This research also demonstrated useful parameters for evaluation of medication in treatment of bloat. A novel approach for documenting societal learning was shared in the value chain of IKRS.

 

Clinical Evaluation of Indigenous Veterinary Medication against Bloat Condition

Six healthy adult goats affected with natural bloat conditions were selected for efficacy evaluation. Their health parameters like pulse, temperature, respiratory rate, abdominal girth and rumen motility were observed. Girth of the abdomen in (centimetres) for each goat was recorded. The herbal medication AHP/JH/SM was administered orally as per healers’ dosage. Post treatment girth was measured at the same level/spot of first measurement at 2.5 hours and 8 hours.

 

Evaluation of Impact through in vitro Rumen Simulation Model

Collection, preparation and maintenance of rumen contents: The goat ruminal contents were collected from slaughter house and carried to laboratory in air tight pouch. The ruminal contents were strained through muslin cloth with the help of artificial saliva. In order to maintain anaerobic condition, carbon dioxide was blown directly to the container containing strained rumen fluid. The water bath of in vitro rumen model was filled with ordinary water and heated to 380C before start of experiment. This temperature was maintained up-to 30 minutes to prevent any shock to rumen microflora due to temperature difference. Ruminal chambers were filled with strained ruminal fluid of about one litre and assembly were fitted as per manufacturer’s instruction (Rumen In vitro model: RUSI-E-TEK, EAGA tools and instruments, Chennai). Subsequently, ruminal contents were kept in ruminal chambers for 2 hours at 380 C and in anaerobic condition in enabling adaptation of rumen microflora.

 

Preparation of artificial saliva: About two litres of artificial saliva was prepared by dissolving 19.6 g sodium bicarbonate, 9.94 g Disodium hydrogen arthophophate, 1.14 g potassium chloride, 9.4 g sodium chloride, 0.246 g magnesium chloride and 0.08 g calcium chloride in 2 litres of distilled water as per standard protocol. The pH of the artificial saliva was adjusted to 8.2.

 

In-vitro rumen fermentation: The salivation tube, gas collection bags, overflow tubes were fitted and experiment was started. The saliva was regulated in cyclic manner such that after each 20 seconds the saliva was released for duration of 4 seconds. The test medication was enclosed in non-digestive semi permeable membrane pouch in ruminal chamber and assembly was marked as Test chamber. In order to evaluate the efficacy of test preparation, the pH parameter was noted in control chamber (without medication) and test chamber (with medication) for a period of 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 hour’s duration. The experimental protocol was carried out as per earlier studies (Ravikumar, et al., 2015b).

 

Quantification of viability of protozoa: The gas produced was quantified after 4 hours of experimentation. The viability of protozoa was quantified based on observing motility and density of protozoa. They were observed under 40X microscope as per standard method. The rating was based on motility of protozoa in rumen liquor, a score of +++ indicates normal digestive function and ++ suggest poor digestion of feed due to abnormal rumen fermentation. The total number of protozoa was counted with help of haemocytometer and results were expressed as total count per ml (n x 105). A score of 0, 1+, 2+, 3+ represents motility of protozoa in terms of nil & dead, slow & very few, moderate & less number and rapid & very large population movement of protozoa (Ravikumar et al., 2015c).

 

Quantification of total gas production: The gas collection bag was attached to water filled air tight bottle and outlet pipe was kept in measuring jar. The quantity of water collected in measuring cylinder was considered as a quantity of gas produced by artificial rumen in litre(s) unit.

 

Analysis of results: The results were compared and analysed statistically (Gupta, 2000).

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

 

Role of Peer Group Pressure and need for Network Meeting among Creative Individuals

Earlier studies had shared importance of network meeting among creative individuals in different regions (Ravikumar et al., 2015d). These network meetings can able to build mutual respect and trust through understanding the nature of efforts in value chain. Pressure of expectation can be made rationale and demonstrated willingness of outstanding knowledge holders to be part of mainstream activities.

 

Table 1: Efficacy assessment against various health parameters

Health Parameters	0 Hour (Mean±S.E.)	2.5 Hour (Mean±S.E.)	8 Hour (Mean±S.E.)
Pulse rate / min	46.16 ± 8.55	41.83 ± 5.78	44.83 ± 4.10
Temperature in 0F	101.55±0.25	101.41±0.29	101.15 ±0.33
Respiration rate /minute	25.00 ± 1.23	25.66 ± 0.61	24.83 ± 1.10
Abdominal girth (cm)	81.33 ± 3.61	76.66±4.86*	80.66 ± 3.84
Rumen motility /min	0.50 ± 0.34	1.33 ± 0.21*	1.66 ± 0.21*

 

* Mean differ significantly P<0.05

 

An interactive meeting with herbal healers in the regions of Dom Mandae, Raye block, Ranchi District, Jharkhand was conducted. Several healers had participated and shared their knowledge by showcasing medicinal plants brought by them or collected, presented before them. However, outstanding knowledge holder Shri Sitanath Munda did not share his valuable experience at first instance of interaction. Discussion with other healers was conducted along with other healers by observing plants, sharing of medicinal properties. Specific ingredients were informed towards treatment of injuries and such other conditions. Subsequently Shri. Sitanath Munda had narrated novel property of the medicinal plant in treatment of bloat among farm animals.

 

It illustrated the need for interactive intervention programs that can enrich better understanding of utility of plant based treatment under IKRS. This is in concurrence with Gupta (1997) who shared that participatory learning through peer group interaction offer alternatives or variations known to healers. Models of engaging community or stakeholders in disclosing such variations in novel medications were shared through interaction between healer and livestock farmers (Devgania et al., 2015). Technical, ethical and methodological challenges in IKRS have to be unearthed (McCorkle, 1995). These innovations shared to overcome difficulties of farmers have to be basis of livestock service delivery system. In the present study disclosure of knowledge through peer group participation model was demonstrated. This is an illustrative example for an innovation model wherein the peer-group pressure had ensured the knowledge holder to share his knowledge. The social influence had enabled to communicate this unique knowledge and in the process, social learning provided innovative solution. Montgomery and Caterline (1996) referred social influence and social learning as fundamental components for diffusion. These innovation models explain importance of conducting network meetings with stakeholders such as farmers, among knowledge holders to explore different facets of technical know-how of IKRS. The scope of farmer participation in local research with help of creative individuals can be built upon through establishment of common experimental objectives and relationship based on trust (Conroy, 2002).

 

Clinical Efficacy Indigenous Veterinary Medication AHP/JH/SM

The health parameters of affected goat in respect to pulse, temperature, respiration rate per minute, abdominal girth and rumen motility were recorded at 0, 2.5 and 8 hour intervals (Table 1). The study found that experimental animals had average pulse rate of 46.16 ± 8.55, 41.83 ± 5.78 and 44.83 ± 4.10 at 0, 2.5 and 8 hours respectively. Slight reduction in pulse rate was observed in bloated goats during post treatment period of 2.5 and 8 hours. However, this reduction difference was non- significant (Table 1).

 

The average temperature at before treatment (0th hour) was 101.55 ± 0.250F which was slightly reduced down to 101.15 ± 0.330F at 8 hour post treatment. This reduction in body temperature was not significant (P<0.05). The average respiration of bloated goats was 25.00 ± 1.23 before treatment (0 hour) which was slightly reduced to 24.83 ± 1.10 on 8 hour post treatment. This variation in respiration rate was found to be non- significant (P<0.05).

 

The average abdominal girth of bloated goats at 0 hour (before treatment) was 81.33 ± 3.61 cms. After treatment with test medication it was reduced to 76.66 ± 4.86 cm at 2.5 hours and further to 80.66 ± 3.84 cm at 8 hours. Significant (P<0.05) impact of test medication AHP/JH/SM by 2.5 hours post treatment over abdominal girth parameter was noted. The increase in abdominal girth at 8 hour might be due improved appetite and ingestion of feed. This indicated that treatment with AHP/JH/SM was effective against bloat in goats.

 

The animals after treatment with medication AHP/JH/SM was observed with improved ruminal motility from 0 to 8 hour post treatment. Significant (P<0.05) impact over ruminal motility was noted at 2.5 hours as well as at 8 hours interval. This proved that medication AHP/JH/SM was effective at given doses and improved ruminal digestion.

 

Role of IKRS in Minimizing Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The clinical efficacy confirmation necessitated the need to understand role of indigenous medication in rumen

 

Table 2: Impact of medication under In vitro rumen fermentation model

SN

Medications

0 hrs

1 hrs

2 hrs

3 hrs

4hrs

Mean±SE

Effect of medication over pH

1

Control (Negative)

5.9

5.9

5.7

5.6

5.6

5.74±0.06

2

Test Medication (AHP/JH/SM)

6.1

6.0

6.1

6.1

6.1

6.08±0.02

Impact on rumen microflora: Protozoan motility and density

SN

Medications

Before (0 hrs) Start of experimentation

After (4 hrs) In-vitro rumen fermentation

Motility

Density

Motility

Density

1

Control (Negative)

3+

3+

3+

2+

2

Test Medication (AHP/JH/SM)

3+

3+

3+

3+

Total protozoan count

SN

Medications

Before (0 hrs) Start of experimentation (n X 105)

After (4hrs) In-vitro rumen fermentation (n X 105)

Percent change (%)

1

Control (Negative)

11.50

9.00

21.73

2

Test Medication (AHP/JH/SM)

12.25

12.10

01.22

Quantification of gas production: In vitro gas production

SN

Medications

Before (0 hrs) Start of experimentation (ml)

After (4hrs) Invitro rumen fermentation (ml)

1

Control (Negative)

0

1200

2

Test Medication (AHP/JH/SM)

0

600

 

fermentation (Table 2). Rumen fermentation process is influenced by pH (Kang et al., 2016) and prolonged period of decreased pH in rumen environment have to be regulated for effective feed utilization (Brzozowska et al., 2013). The impact of medication over pH was recorded for a duration of 4 hours in rumen simulation model. It was found that in test chamber pH (6.08±0.02 (Mean±SE)) was found to be more than control chamber (5.74±0.06 (Mean±SE)) (Table 2). The pH of rumen content tend to decrease in control chamber due to utilization of carbohydrates. However, the test medication maintained the pH towards alkalinity in the test chamber. The calculated percent change of total protozoan count in control chamber was 21.73% while in test chamber it was only 1.22 per cent. Maintaining suitable pH i.e., buffering capacity might have protected viability of rumen microflora. This was reflected in observed protozoan motility and density pattern.

 

The quantification of gas was carried out and found less in test chamber. The calculated per cent different of gas production between control and test chamber was found to be 50 per cent. This decrease in gas production can minimize release of different components of greenhouse gas such as CO2 and CH4. This may be due to optimum digestive ability of rumen microflora due to impact of medication. This is in agreement with Hristove et al. (2013) who refer that enhancing forage digestibility as recommended efforts for methane mitigation. Thus activities need to be reinforced to understand merit of knowledge prevalent in informal society towards environmental concern.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The research study shared an illustrative model of peer group innovation/ peer group participation model through lateral learning workshops among creative individuals. There were limited studies shared worldwide to enrich creativity and understanding of grassroots livestock innovations. Clinical efficacy of novel medication in treatment of naturally bloated goats was significant as indicated by reduction in abdominal girth and improvement in rumen motility. The other parameters like temperature, pulse were within normal limits. The medication had maintained buffering capacity and sustained the ruminal microflora. This suggested that the novel medication had improved digestive capability and controlled bloat condition in ruminants. Further, the study also articulated role of such medications in minimizing environmental concerns by reducing ruminant gas production. Thus formal research and service delivery system need to join hands to complement welfare of overall livestock production system. The study also calls for revamping structural arrangement to utilize affordable excellence existing at farmer’s doorstep. The study argues that efforts have to be reinforced widely so as to encourage healers to be part of mainstream service delivery system. Appropriate framework needs to be developed for comprehending usage of Indigenous Knowledge Research System as accessibility of technology will remain challenge for farmers.

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

 

Prof Abdul Samad (Retd.), Director of Instruction and Dean Faculty of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University (MAFSU), Nagpur, India for his support and guidance during clinical experimentation.

 

Conflict of interest

 

Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

 

Authors’ contribution

 

All authors contributed equally to the manuscript.

 

REFERENCEs

 

Anantasook, N, Wanapat M, Cherdthong A and Gunun P (2013). Changes of Microbial Population in the Rumen of Dairy Steers as Influenced by Plant Containing Tannins and Saponins and Roughage to Concentrate Ratio. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 26(11): 1583-1591. http://dx.doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2013.13182

Ayele S, Duncan A, Larbi A and Khanh TT (2012). Enhancing innovation in livestock value chains through networks: Lessons from fodder innovation case studies in developing countries. Sci. Pub. Pol. 39(3): 333-346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs022

Berg BP, Majak W, McAllister TA, Hall JW, McCartney D, Coulman BE, Goplen BP, Acharya SN, Tait RM and Cheng KJ (2000). Bloat in cattle grazing alfalfa cultivars selected for a low initial rate of digestion: A review. Can. J. Plant. Sci. 80: 493–502. http://dx.doi.org/10.4141/P99-051

Bramley E, Costa ND, Fulkerson WJ and Lean IJ (2013). Associations between body condition, rumen fill, diarrhoea and lameness and ruminal acidosis in Australian dairy herds. NZ Vet. J. 61(6): 323-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2013.806882

Bruce A (2013). The lore of low methane livestock: co-producing technology and animals for reduced climate change impact. Soc. Pol. 9: 10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2195-7819-9-10

Brugger D and Windisch, WM (2015). Environmental responsibilities of livestock feeding using trace mineral supplements: Review article. Animal Nutrition. 1(3): 113-118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2015.08.005

Brzozowska AM, Sloniewski K, Oprzadek J, Sobiech P and Kowalski ZM (2013). Why are dairy cows not able to cope with the subacute ruminal acidosis? Pol. J. Vet. Sci. 16(4): 813-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/pjvs-2013-0116

Carruthers VR and Henderson HV (1994). Grazing management and pasture composition on paired farms which differed in the incidence of bloat. NZ J. Agri. Res. 37(4): 535-545. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1994.9513092

Clarke RTJ and Reid CSW (1972). Foamy bloat of cattle. A review. J. Dairy Sci. 57(7): 754-785.

Colvin Jr HW, Boda JM and Wegner T (1959). Studies on the Experimental Production and Prevention of Bloat in Cattle. III. The Effect of Vegetable Oil and Animal Fat on Acute Legume Bloat. J. Dairy Sci. 42(2): 333–345. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(59)90570-3

Conroy C (2002). Participatory technology development with livestock keepers: A guide, Livestock production programme, UK Department for International Development (DFID) and BAIF-Development Research Foundation, Reports available at Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, Kent, United Kingdom & BAIF- Development Research Foundation, Pune, India. Pp. 1-51.

Das TK, Banerjee D, Chakraborty D, Pakhira MC, Shrivastava B and Kuhad RC (2012). Saponin: Role in Animal system. Vet. World. 5(4): 248-254. http://dx.doi.org/10.5455/vetworld.2012.248-254

Devgania BS, Khordia D, Chodvadiya MB, Patel R, Patel D, Kinhekar AS, Singh PK, Kumar V, Bhojne GR, Ravikumar RK and Kumar V (2015). Reverence of community towards grassroot livestock innovation: Responding to stakeholders need against sub-clinical mastitis in Amreli District, Gujarat, India. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci. 3(12): 689-693. http://dx.doi.org/10.14737/journal.aavs/2015/3.12.689.693

Dey A and De PS (2014). Influence of Condensed Tannins from Ficus bengalensis Leaves on Feed Utilization, Milk Production and Antioxidant Status of Crossbred Cows. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 27(3): 342-348. http://dx.doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2013.13295

Digraskar SU, Muley VD, Ravikanth K, Dandale M and Maini S (2012). Therapeutic potential of AFANIL against bloat and for early restoration of rumen function in Bovines. JIVA. 10(3): 15-18.

Fay JP, Cheng KJ, Hanna MR, Howarth RE and Costerton JW (1980). In vitro digestion of bloat-safe and bloat-causing legumes by rumen microorganisms: gas and foam production. J. Dairy Sci. 63(8): 1273-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(80)83078-5

Ghorai S, Ghorai N, Dutta L, Bera A, Ghorui S, Kinhekar AS, Ingle VC, Prashant S, Sudhakar A, Prabhakar TA, Kumar V, Ravikumar RK and Kumar V (2016). Protective and Immuno-modulatory effect of Low Cost Locally Available Technology from West Bengal, India under Indigenous Knowledge Research System [IKRS], J. Immunol. Immunopathol. In Press.

Guan H, Wittenberg KM, Ominski KH and Krause DO (2006). Efficacy of ionophores in cattle diets for mitigation of enteric methane. J. Anim. Sci. 84(7): 1896-906. http://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas.2005-652

Gupta AK (2012). Innovations for the poor by the poor. Int. J. Tech. Learning, Innovation Develop. 5(1/2): 28-39.

Gupta AK (2007). Ethical issues in accessing people’s knowledge and innovations: Need for revisiting research protocols with specific reference to low cost health technologies. Working Paper No. 2007-07-05, Research and Publications, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. Pp. 1-18.

Gupta AK (2007a). Indigenous knowledge and innovations for managing resources, institutions and technologies sustainably: A case of Agriculture, medicinal plants and biotechnology. Working Paper No. 2007-07-09, Research and Publications, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. Pp. 1-20.

Gupta AK (2006). From Sink to Source: The Honey Bee Network documents Indigenous knowledge and Innovations in India. Innovations. 1(3): 49-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2005.07.046

Gupta SP (2000). Statistical Methods. Sultan Chand and Sons Educational Publishers, New Delhi.

Gupta AK, Patel KK, Chand PGVS, Pastakia AR, Suthar J, Shukla S, Karodiya D, Chouhan V, Raval A, Srinivas C and Sinha R (1997). Participatory Research: Will the Koel hatch the crows eggs? Presented in the International Seminar on Participatory research and gender analysis for technology development, Organized by CIAT, Colombia, 1996; Published in New Frontiers in Participatory research and gender analysis, as proceedings of the conference. Pp. 209-243.

Hall JW, Walker I and Majak W. (1994). Evaluation of two supplements for the prevention of alfalfa bloat. Can. Vet. J. 35(11): 702-5.

Hristov AN, Oh J, Firkins JL, Dijkstra J, Kebreab E, Waghorn G, Makkar HP, Adesogan AT, Yang W, Lee C, Gerber PJ, Henderson B and Tricarico JM (2013). Special topics--Mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations: I. A review of enteric methane mitigation options. J. Anim. Sci. 91(11): 5045-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas.2013-6583

Jain A and Verloop J (2012). Repositioning grassroots innovation in India’s S&T policy: from divider to provider. Curr. Sci. 103(3): 282-285.

Johns AT, McDowall FH and McGillivray WA (1959). Bloat in cattle. NZ J. Agri. Res. 2(1): 62-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1959.10427124

Kang J, Zeng B, Tang S, Wang M, Han X, Zhou C, Yan Q, He Z, Liu J and Tan Z (2016). Effects of Momordica charantia Saponins on In vitro Ruminal Fermentation and Microbial Population. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 29(4): 500-508. http://dx.doi.org/10.5713/ajas.15.0402

Katz MP, Nagaraja TG and Fina LR (1986). Ruminal changes in monensin- and lasalocid-fed cattle grazing bloat-provocative alfalfa pasture. J. Anim. Sci. 63(4): 1246-57.

Knapp JR, Laur GL, Vadas PA, Weiss WP and Tricarico JM (2014). Invited review: Enteric methane in dairy cattle production: quantifying the opportunities and impact of reducing emissions. J. Dairy Sci. 97(6): 3231-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-7234

Kaufmann, T (2015). Sustainable livestock production: Low emission farm – The innovative combination of nutrient, emission and waste management with special emphasis on Chinese pig production: Review article. Animal Nutrition. 1(3): 104-112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2015.08.001

Kumar V and Ravikumar RK (2016). Indigenous Innovations in Livestock production systems: NIF initiatives, In. Sarjan Reddy K., Prasad RMV and Anand Rao K. [Eds] Invited papers: Innovative Designs & implements for Global Environment and entrepreneurial needs Optimizing utilitarian Sources, Indigenous, International Livestock Conference & Expo, 23rd Annual Convention, ISAPM, Hyderabad, India, 28-31 January, 2016. Pp. 28-35.

Kumar V and Ravikumar RK (2016a). Realistic aspiration for livestock health care through indigenous veterinary system in India, Dairy of India, Sadana Publishers and distributors, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Pp. 162-163.

Lean I, Westwood C and Playford M. (2008). Livestock disease threats associated with intensification of pastoral dairy farming. N Z Vet. J. 56(6): 261-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2008.36845

Lees GL (1992). Condensed tannins in some forage legumes: their role in the prevention of ruminant pasture bloat. Basic Life Sci. 59: 915-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-3476-1_55

Liu YF, Sun FF, Wan FC, Zhao HB, Liu XM, You W, Cheng HJ, Liu GF, Tan XW and Song EL (2016). Effects of Three Feeding Systems on Production Performance, Rumen Fermentation and Rumen Digesta Particle Structure of Beef Cattle. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 29(5): 659-665. http://dx.doi.org/10.5713/ajas.15.0445

Mangan JL (1959). Bloat in cattle. NZ J. Agri. Res. 2(1): 47-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1959.10427123

Maughan B, Provenza FD, Tansawat R, Maughan C, Martini S, Ward R, Clemensen A, Song X, Cornforth D and Villalba JJ (2014). Importance of grass-legume choices on cattle grazing behavior, performance, and meat characteristics. J. Anim. Sci. 92(5): 2309-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas.2013-7297

Majak W, Hall JW and McCaughey WP (1995). Pasture management strategies for reducing the risk of legume bloat in cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 73(5): 1493-8.

McCorkle CM (1995). Back to the future:Lesson from ethnoveterinary RD&E for studying and applying local knowledge. Agri. Human Values. 12(2): 52-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02217297

McGuirka H, Lenihanb H and Hartc M (2015). Measuring the impact of innovative human capital on small firms’ propensity to innovate. Res. Pol. 44(4): 965-976. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.11.008

Min BR, Pinchak WE, Fulford JD and Puchala R (2005). Wheat pasture bloat dynamics, in vitro ruminal gas production, and potential bloat mitigation with condensed tannins. J. Anim. Sci. 83(6): 1322-31.

Montgomery MR, Casterline JB (1996). Social learning, social influence and new models of fertility. Popul. Develop. Rev. 22: 151-175. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2808010

Nguyen SH, Li L and Hegarty, RS (2016). Effects of Rumen Protozoa of Brahman Heifers and Nitrate on Fermentation and In vitro Methane Production. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci., 29(6): 807-813. http://dx.doi.org/10.5713/ajas.15.0641

Odedra MD, Ravikala K, Killedar A, Sarvaiya NP and Padodara RJ (2016). Growth performance and haematological and hormonal profile of Jaffrabadi Buffalo eifers supplemented with rumen bypass Lysine and Methionine. Indian J. Vet. Sci. Biotechnol. 11(3): 8-11.

Periyaveeturaman C, Selvaraju D, Kinhekar AS, Singh PK, Ravikumar RK and Kumar V (2015). Efficacy of herbal composition against ectoparasite infestation in dogs. Adv. Applied Sci. Res. 6(8): 242-245.

Rajkumar K, Bhar R, Kannan A, Jadhav RV, Singh B and Mal G (2015). Effect of replacing oat fodder with fresh and chopped oak leaves on in vitro rumen fermentation, digestibility and metabolizable energy. Vet. World. 8(8): 1021-1026. http://dx.doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2015.1021-1026

Rao AK, Rao SK, Rao JS, Ravi A and Anitha A (2013). Analysis of sheep production systems: North coastal zone of Andhra Pradesh. Int. J. Agri. Sci. Vet. Med. 1(3): 131-144.

Rathod P and Chander M (2016). Perception of dairy farmers towards attributes of dairy innovations in North India. Indian J. Vet. Sci. Biotechnol. 11(3): 25-29.

Ravikumar RK, Dutta L, Kinhekar, AS and Kumar V (2016a). People’s knowledge for addressing societal needs: Lessons Learnt while engaging farming communities as a part of research system. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci. 4(1s): 1-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.14737/journal.aavs/2016/4.1s.1.8

Ravikumar RK, Periyaveeturaman C, Selvaraju D, Kinhekar AS, Dutta L and Kumar V (2016b). Community oriented ectoparasite intervention system: Concepts for on-farm application of indigenous veterinary medication. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci. 4(1s): 9-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.14737/journal.aavs/2016/4.1s.9.19

Ravikumar RK and Kumar V (2015). New frontiers for indigenous knowledge research system [IKRS]: Non Linear Innovation System [NLIS] and Open Source Innovation System [OSIS], In Jaswinder Singh, HK Verma, Navdeep Singh, Simrinder Singh, Rajjesh Kasrija [Eds] Lead Paper: Technologies and proven practices for sustainable livestock production, Push to the livestock farming through knowledge empowerment of the farmers, First National Conference, SVAHE, Ludhiana, India, 18-20 November, 2015. Pp. 239-242.

Ravikumar RK, Choudhary H and Kumar V (2015). Means for retaining farming communities in semi-arid regions of Gujarat state. Agric. Update. 10(2): 158-163. http://dx.doi.org/10.15740/HAS/AU/10.2/158-163

Ravikumar RK, Kumar V, Choudhary H, Kinhekar AS and Kumar V (2015a). Efficacy of indigenous polyherbal ectoparasiticide formulation against hard tick infestation in cattle (Bos indicus). Ruminant Sci. 4(1): 43-47.

Ravikumar RK, Kinhekar AS and Kumar V (2015b). Indigenous veterinary medication: An approach for mitigating climate change in livestock production system. Ruminant Sci. 4(2): 29-32.

Ravikumar RK, Kinhekar AS and Kumar V (2015c). Innovative means for regulating global warming through indigenous veterinary system: Are we missing sustainable solutions? J. Chem. Pharma. Res. 7(5): 951-954.

Ravikumar RK, Dutta L, Kumar V and Kumar V (2015d). Strengthening indigenous veterinary system- An approach for mobilizing community from West Bengal. Asian Academic Res. J. Social Sci. Human. 34(1): 286-290.

Reid CSW (1958). Bloat in cattle. NZ J. Agri. Res. 1(3): 349-364.

Ropera S, Vahterb P and Lovec JH (2013). Externalities of openness in innovation. Res. Pol. 42(9): 1544–1554. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.006

Sunagawa K, Arikawa Y, Higashi M, Matsuda H, Takahashi H, Kuriwaki Z, Kojiya Z, Uechi S and Hongo F. (2002). Direct Effect of a Hot Environment on Ruminal Motility in Sheep. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 15(6): 859-865. http://dx.doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2002.859

Sarker MAS, Aktaruzzaman M, Rahman AKMA and Rah MS (2013). Retrospective study of clinical diseases and disorders of cattle in Sirajganj district in Bangladesh. Bangl. J. Vet. Med. 11(2): 137-144.

Scholtena MCT, Boerb IJM, Gremmen B and Lokhorst C (2013). Livestock Farming with Care: towards sustainable production of animal-source food. NJAS – Wageningen. J. Life Sci. 66: 3-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2013.05.009

Seyfang G and Haxeltine A (2012). Growing grassroots innovations:exploring the role of community based initiatives in governing sustainable energy transitions, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy. 30: 381 – 400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/c10222

Simula H, Hossain M and Halme M (2015). Frugal and reverse innovations-Quo vadis? Curr. Sci. 109(9): 1567-1572. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2678861

Smith A, Fressoli M and Thomas H (2014). Grassroots innovation movements: challenges and contributions, Special Volume: Sustainable Production, Consumption and Livelihoods: Global and Regional Research Perspectives. J. Cleaner Prod. 63: 114-124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.025

Stafford K and Gregory N (2008). Implications of intensification of pastoral animal production on animal welfare. NZ Vet. J. 56(6): 274-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2008.36847

Stilgoea J, Owenb R and Macnaghtenc P (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res. Pol. 42(9): 1568–1580. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008

Thao NT, Wanapat M, Cherdthong A and Kang AS (2014). Effects of Eucalyptus Crude Oils Supplementation on Rumen Fermentation, Microorganism and Nutrient Digestibility in Swamp Buffaloes. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 27(1): 46-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2013.13301

Thornton PK (2010). Livestock production: recent trends, future prospects. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 365(1554): 2853–2867. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0134

Ustyuzhantseva OV (2015). Institutionalization of grassroots innovation in India. Curr. Sci. 108(8): 1476-1482.

Usha S, Rajasekaran C and Siva R (2016). Ethnoveterinary medicine of the Shervaroy hills of Easteran Ghats, India as alternatie medicine for animals. J. Tradit. Complement. Med. 6: 118-125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcme.2014.11.013

Vasconcelos JT and Galyean ML (2008). ASAS Centennial paper: Contributions in the Journal of Animal Science to understanding cattle metabolic and digestive disorders. J. Anim. Sci. 86: 1711-1721. http://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas.2008-0854

Villalba JJ, Provenza FD and Stott R (2009). Rumen distension and contraction influence feed preference by sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 87(1): 340-350. http://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas.2008-1109

Wanapat M, Cherdthong A, Phesatcha K and Kang S (2015). Dietary sources and their effects on animal production and environmental sustainability: Review Article. Anim. Nutr. 1(3): 96-103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2015.07.004

Wilson PN and Lawrence AB (1985). Animal husbandry: the period 1973-1995. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 310(1144): 275-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1985.0116

Zehetmeier M, Baudracco J, Hoffmann H and Heißenhuber A (2012). Does increasing milk yield per cow reduce greenhouse gas emissions? A system approach. Anim. 6(1): 154-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731111001467