INTRODUCTION
Vietnam’s geographical features and tropical monsoon climate are favorable for developing pasturelands for dairy cow farming. However, dairy farming requires considerable investment in both technology and finance. There are two types of dairy farms in both the North and the South of Vietnam, which are large farms with good facilities, high technologies and pure Holstein breeds (with high milk yields of over 30 kg/day), while households with limited facilities and technical knowledge raise crossbred cows (Holstein x Red Sindhi) which produce lower milk yields (around 15 kg/day) but have higher milk quality that commands better prices. In practice, approximately 85% of dairy cows in Vietnam are raised on small-scale household farms (Thu et al., 2023). These smallholder farmers often fail to adequately track or record data on daily feed intake, nutrient composition, milk yield, or the milk production potential of their cows, which would help improve the technical and economic efficiency of dairy farming (Thanh, 2021).
In the Mekong Delta (MD), there are currently two relatively large dairy cow cooperatives: Long Hoa Dairy Cow Cooperative in Can Tho City and the Evergrowth Cooperative in Soc Trang (Phong and Thu, 2016). Monitoring the milk production performance at these two cooperatives could help implement effective measures to improve both milk yield and quality. Therefore, this study was conducted with the objective of monitoring, recording, and analyzing the types and quantities of feed, rations, milk yield, and milk quality. The findings can help evaluate the effectiveness of dairy farming practices and provide recommendations to smallholder farmers and dairy cooperatives, contributing to the development of the dairy farming sector.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Location and time
The investigation was conducted at Long Hoa Dairy Cow Cooperative in Long Hoa Ward, Binh Thuy District, Can Tho City, and Evergrowth Agricultural Cooperative in Tai Van Commune, Tran De District, Soc Trang Province. The study period was from April 2022 to April 2023.
Milk and feed samples were collected from the farms and analyzed for chemical composition in the Laboratory E205 of the Faculty of Animal Science, College of Agriculture, Can Tho University.
Experimental design and feeds
The study involved Holstein Friesian (HF) crossbred dairy cows with different genetic proportions: First generation (1/2 HF), second generation (3/4 HF), and third generation (7/8 HF), in their first, second, and third lactation stages, raised at Long Hoa and Evergrowth cooperatives. The average body weights of the 1/2 HF, 3/4 HF, and 7/8 HF crossbred dairy cows were 441 ± 5.25, 447 ± 6,71, and 452 ± 4,84 kg, respectively. The body condition scores (BCS) of all groups ranged from 3.0 to 3.5.
Measurements taken
Milk yield
Daily milk yield and monthly milk production over a 300-day lactation period were measured using a milking machine. Milk yield data were collected by providing farmers with logbooks and instructions for data recording. The research team conducted regular site visits to collect and verify the data.
Milk quality
The samples were stabilized and analyzed using a Master Milkotester automatic milk analyzer (European-made) for the following parameters: Total solids, milk fat, protein, lactose, and minerals. Milk quality was assessed through 183 milk samples collected near the end of the research period, including all HF crossbred generations, lactation stages, and milking months at both cooperatives. Milk samples (300 ml) were taken immediately after milking, and each cow’s milk was analyzed separately for each milking session.
Feed efficiency
feed intake per kg of milk and feed cost per kg of milk.
Feed intake and chemical analysis
Feed was weighed each morning before feeding, and leftovers or spilled feed from each individual cow was recorded. For three days in the middle of each lactation month, feed intake was directly measured to verify data. The mixed feed used at Evergrowth was labeled as concentrate 1 (2.400 kcal ME/kg), and while at Long Hoa was labeled as concentrate 2 (2.300 Kcal ME/kg). The feed types were analyzed for Dry Matter (DM), Organic Matter (OM), Crude Protein (CP), and Total Ash according to AOAC (1990). Neutral Detergent Fiber (NDF) and Acid Detergent Fiber (ADF) were analyzed using the Van Soest et al. (1991) method.
Feed conversion ratio (FCR) per kg of milk was calculated as: FCR = Feed intake (kg DM/day) / Milk yield (kg/day)
Data analysis
All data were calculated using Microsoft Excel 2019. Descriptive statistics (mean, standard error) were then applied. To compare means of different indicators between the two groups of dairy cows, two-sample mean comparison was conducted using Minitab version 18.1 (Minitab, 2017).
RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS
Chemical composition of feeds
The chemical composition of the feed used in dairy cattle farming is presented in Table 1.
Table 1: Chemical composition of the feeds used for dairy cows in the study.
|
Item
|
DM (%)
|
Composition (% of DM)
|
|
OM
|
CP
|
NDF
|
ADF
|
Ash
|
|
Fermented pineapple peels
|
9.50
|
93.0
|
5.28
|
58.6
|
28.5
|
7.00
|
|
Natural mixed grasses
|
12.6
|
94.2
|
8.93
|
65.8
|
33.8
|
5.78
|
|
Napier grass
|
16.4
|
87.2
|
11.5
|
63.7
|
38.9
|
12.8
|
|
Concentrate 1 (Soc Trang)
|
87.0
|
90.2
|
15.9
|
52.2
|
19.4
|
9.81
|
|
Concentrate 2 (Can Tho)
|
94.0
|
90.1
|
15.4
|
43.2
|
16.8
|
9.90
|
DM: Dry Matter, OM: Organic Matter, CP: Crude Protein, NDF: Neutral Detergent Fiber, ADF: Acid Detergent Fiber.
As shown in Table 1, fermented pineapple peel had the lowest DM content (9.50%), while the concentrates 1 and 2 had the highest (87.0% and 94.0%). The highest CP contents were found in concentrate 1 and concentrate 2 (15.9% and 15.4%) respectively, indicating they are the main protein sources in the dairy cow diet. The NDF contents of Napier grass and natural mixed grasses are 63.7% and 65.8%, respectively. Thus, Napier grasses were the main fiber source in the ration.
Milk production
Data on actual milk yields from monitored cow groups are presented in Table 2.
Table 2 shows that 7/8HF cows had the highest 300-day milk yield (4,322 kg), followed by 3/4HF (4,180 kg), and the lowest was 1/2HF (3,289 kg). The difference in milk yield between 1/2HF and both 3/4HF and 7/8HF was statistically significant (P<0.05), while the difference between 3/4HF and 7/8HF was not statistically significant.
These results are consistent with those reported by Hanh (2010), who found that in Lam Dong province of Vietnam, 7/8HF cows produced the highest milk yield (4,919 kg), followed by 3/4HF (4,339 kg) and 1/2HF (3,934 kg) over an average lactation period of 309.6 days. However, Tue et al. (2010) reported the highest 305-day yield in 3/4HF cows, followed by 7/8HF and then 1/2HF cows (4,231 kg; 4,134 kg; and 3,449 kg, respectively) in Bac Ninh. According to Dat (1999), milk yields of 1/2HF, 3/4HF, and 7/8HF cows in Ho Chi Minh City were 3,643 kg, 3,796 kg, and 3,415 kg, respectively. This difference was likely due to the limited adaptation of 7/8HF cows to the hot and humid conditions in Ho Chi Minh City, combined with the less advanced management practices of farmers at that time relative to current standards at both cooperatives. In Lam Dong and Bac Ninh, the cooler climate likely favored the adaptation of 7/8HF cows, supporting improved performance under those conditions.
Table 3 shows that the average milk yield (kg/day) of each cow group at both cooperatives peaked in the second month and then gradually declined over the lactation cycle. The highest yields in month 2 were recorded in the 7/8HF group [19.6 ± 0.024 (kg/day) at Long Hoa; 18.6 ± 0.454 (kg/day) at Evergrowth], while the lowest yields were in the 1/2HF group (16.2 ± 0.113 kg/day at Long Hoa; 15.3 ± 0.174 kg/day at Evergrowth). The average milk production (kg/day) of one lactation for 1/2HF, 3/4HF, and 7/8HF dairy cows were 11.6, 13.9, and 15.2 for the LH cooperative, and 10.8, 13.9, and 14.1 for the Evergrowth cooperative.
Table 2: Comparison of 300-day milk yield (kg) among HF-crossbred cows at Long Hoa and Evergrowth cooperatives.
|
Cow groups
|
P-values are for comparisons between groups (1), (2), and (3)
|
|
1/2HF (1)
|
3/4HF (2)
|
7/8HF (3)
|
P (1 - 2)
|
P (2 - 3)
|
P (1 - 3)
|
|
N
|
30
|
38
|
28
|
0.001
|
0.128
|
0.001
|
|
Mean±SE
|
3,289 ± 47.0
|
4,180 ± 40.0
|
4,322 ± 39.0
|
Statistical analysis used a t-test; Holstein Friesian (HF) crossbred dairy cows with different genetic proportions: 1st generation (1/2 HF), 2nd generation (3/4 HF), and 3rd generation (7/8 HF)
Table 3: Monthly milk production (kg/day) of HF crossbred cow groups at the Long Hoa and Evergrowth cooperatives.
|
Lactation month
|
Long Hoa cooperative (Mean±SE)
|
Evergrowth cooperative (Mean±SE)
|
|
1/2HF
|
3/4HF
|
7/8HF
|
1/2HF
|
3/4HF
|
7/8HF
|
|
n=6
|
n=8
|
n=7
|
n=24
|
n=30
|
n=21
|
|
1
|
14.9±0.095
|
17.5±0.252
|
18.8±0.025
|
14.0±0.183
|
17.6±0.142
|
18.1±0.122
|
|
2
|
16.2±0.113
|
18.5±0.214
|
19.6±0.024
|
15.3±0.174
|
18.6±0.136
|
18.6±0.452
|
|
3
|
15.2±0.114
|
17.5±0.322
|
18.9±0.033
|
14.3±0.192
|
17.5±0.164
|
18.3±0.124
|
|
4
|
14.2±0.142
|
16.6±0.349
|
17.8±0.041
|
13.1±0.220
|
16.4±0.193
|
16.9±0.126
|
|
5
|
12.7±0.122
|
14.8±0.394
|
16.3±0.044
|
11.8±0.189
|
14.9±0.173
|
15.3±0.128
|
|
6
|
11.0±0.151
|
13.5±0.415
|
14.9±0.059
|
10.4±0.175
|
13.4±0.176
|
13.8±0.150
|
|
7
|
10.2±0.093
|
12.3±0.476
|
14.0±0.039
|
9.18±0.205
|
12.4±0.194
|
12.6±0.167
|
|
8
|
8.79±0.092
|
11.0±0.457
|
12.5±0.046
|
7.90±0.181
|
11.1±0.177
|
11.0±0.163
|
|
9
|
7.57±0.099
|
9.69±0.400
|
11.0±0.036
|
6.65±0.167
|
9.68±0.173
|
9.22±0.197
|
|
10
|
5.73±0.234
|
7.77±0.421
|
8.18±0.258
|
5.17±0.151
|
7.82±0.182
|
7.54±0.155
|
|
Average
|
11.6±0.089
|
13.9±0.354
|
15.2±0.041
|
10.8±0.176
|
13.9±0.155
|
14.1±0.123
|
Holstein Friesian (HF) crossbred dairy cows with different genetic proportions: 1st generation (1/2 HF), 2nd generation (3/4 HF), and 3rd generation (7/8 HF).
Milk yield
A comparison of 300-Day Lactation Milk Yield of Dairy Cows at Long Hoa and Evergrowth Cooperatives is presented in Table 4.
The 300-day lactation milk yields of 1/2HF and 3/4HF cows at the Long Hoa cooperative were 3,493 ± 29.0 kg and 4,179 ± 78.0 kg, respectively, which were higher than those of the same crossbred groups at Evergrowth Cooperative (3,238 ± 53.0 kg and 4,180 ± 47.0 kg). However, these differences were not statistically significant (P>0.05). The milk yield of 7/8HF cows at Long Hoa Cooperative was higher than that at Evergrowth Cooperative, with values of 4,556±33.1 kg and 4,243±37.0 kg, respectively, showing a statistically significant difference (P<0.05). This difference likely reflects the feeding practices at Long Hoa, where farmers commonly use fermented pineapple peel together with natural grasses as the main roughage sources. These practices may have contributed to the better adaptability of the 7/8HF cows under the cooperative’s production conditions.
Milk quality
Milk quality is crucial for both nutritional value and economic significance. It is determined by the components present in the milk. The milk composition by cow groups, lactating months and cooperatives are presented in Tables 5, 6, and 7.
Table 4: Comparison of 300-day lactation milk yield (kg) of 1/2HF, 3/4HF, and 7/8HF dairy cows between long hoa and evergrowth cooperatives.
|
|
1/2HF-EV
|
1/2HF-LH
|
3/4HF-EV
|
3/4HF-LH
|
7/8HF-EV
|
7/8HF-LH
|
|
n
|
24
|
6
|
30
|
8
|
21
|
7
|
|
Mean±SE
|
3,238±53.0
|
3,493±29.0
|
4,180±47.0
|
4,179±78.0
|
4,243±37.0
|
4,556±33.0
|
|
P
|
0.556
|
0.994
|
0.001
|
EV= Evergrowth Cooperative; LH= Long Hoa Cooperative; Statistical Analysis used a t-test; P-values indicate statistical significance between groups.
Table 5: Comparison of milk quality (%) among HF crossbred cow groups at Long Hoa and Evergrowth cooperatives.
|
Item
|
Parameters
|
Cow groups
|
P
|
|
1/2HF (1)
|
3/4HF (2)
|
7/8HF (3)
|
1 vs 2
|
1 vs 3
|
2 vs 3
|
|
n=50
|
n=83
|
n=50
|
|
Fat
|
Mean±SE
|
4.14±0.061
|
3.80±0.037
|
3.56±0.039
|
0.001
|
0.001
|
0.001
|
|
Protein
|
Mean±SE
|
3.63±0.024
|
3.57±0.019
|
3.59±0.018
|
0.064
|
0.162
|
0.604
|
|
DM
|
Mean±SE
|
13.4±0.072
|
12.9±0.063
|
12.7±0.047
|
0.001
|
0.001
|
0.003
|
P-values indicate statistical significance between groups, DM: Dry Matter; Statistical Analysis used a t-test; Holstein Friesian (HF) crossbred dairy cows with different genetic proportions: 1st generation (1/2 HF), 2nd generation (3/4 HF), and 3rd generation (7/8 HF).
Table 6: Monthly milk fat percentage of dairy cow groups at long Hoa and ever growth cooperatives.
|
Lactation month
|
1/2HF (n=50)
|
3/4HF (n=83)
|
7/8HF (n=50)
|
|
Mean
|
± SE
|
Mean
|
± SE
|
Mean
|
± SE
|
|
1
|
3.85
|
0.139
|
3.59
|
0.090
|
3.30
|
0.099
|
|
2
|
3.76
|
0.172
|
3.54
|
0.117
|
3.28
|
0.094
|
|
3
|
3.82
|
0.190
|
3.62
|
0.105
|
3.44
|
0.121
|
|
4
|
4.03
|
0.170
|
3.78
|
0.121
|
3.48
|
0.088
|
|
5
|
3.93
|
0.163
|
3.90
|
0.096
|
3.54
|
0.088
|
|
6
|
4.23
|
0.189
|
3.93
|
0.108
|
3.65
|
0.074
|
|
7
|
4.29
|
0.178
|
4.00
|
0.126
|
3.68
|
0.101
|
|
8
|
4.52
|
0.103
|
3.88
|
0.088
|
3.70
|
0.113
|
|
9
|
4.45
|
0.091
|
3.89
|
0.076
|
3.85
|
0.113
|
|
10
|
4.61
|
0.073
|
3.97
|
0.215
|
3.82
|
0.109
|
Holstein Friesian (HF) crossbred dairy cows with different genetic proportions: 1st generation (1/2 HF), 2nd generation (3/4 HF), and 3rd generation (7/8 HF).
Table 7: Comparison of Milk Quality (Mean±SE, %) between Long Hoa (LH) and Evergrowth (EV) Cooperatives
|
Item
|
LH (n=58)
|
EV (n=125)
|
P
|
|
Fat
|
3.51±0.047
|
3.98±0.031
|
0.001
|
|
Protein
|
3.64±0.019
|
3.57±0.015
|
0.009
|
|
DM
|
12.83±0.57
|
13.03±0.54
|
0.024
|
Statistical Analysis used a t-test; P-values indicate statistical significance between groups; EV = Evergrowth Cooperative; LH = Long Hoa Cooperative
Milk quality among holstein crossbred groups
Milk quality, primarily influenced by fat, protein, and dry matter (DM) content, is a critical indicator of both nutritional value and marketability. Table 5 summarizes the comparative milk composition among three Holstein crossbred groups (1/2HF, 3/4HF, and 7/8HF) at Long Hoa and Evergrowth cooperatives. The milk fat content significantly decreased with an increasing proportion of Holstein genetics. These differences were statistically significant (P<0.05 for all comparisons). The decline in milk fat content with increasing HF proportion aligns with the breed’s genetic selection for higher milk volume rather than richness. Cows with lower HF inheritance retained more indigenous traits that promote greater fat synthesis. The observed reduction in milk fat percentage is influenced by multiple factors. Genetically, HF cows are selected for high milk yield, which typically results in lower milk fat due to a dilution effect (Lim et al., 2020; Bondan et al., 2018). In addition, lactation stage and energy balance affect fat content, as early lactation and negative energy balance can reduce milk fat synthesis (Nogalski et al., 2024). Protein content showed no significant differences across groups. This suggests that Protein content may be more stable across different HF crossbreeds and less sensitive to genetic variation compared to fat or dry matter. While dry matter followed a similar trend to fat content. higher dry matter in lower HF-percentage cows reflects the overall denser nutritional profile of milk from animals with more native genetics. which can be advantageous in cheese or yogurt production.
Table 6 shows how milk fat content changed monthly across lactation in different cow groups. All groups followed a similar trend with fat content increasing steadily from month 1 to month 10 for 1/2HF, 3/4HF and 7/8HF cows. These changes reflect physiological adaptations during lactation. As milk yield declines over time, fat concentration naturally increases due to the reduction in overall milk volume. Notably, cows with a higher proportion of native genetics (1/2HF) exhibited greater increases in fat content over time, likely due to more robust energy partitioning toward milk solids.
A comparison of milk quality between cooperatives shows that fat and dry matter contents were significantly higher at Evergrowth (Table 7), likely due to feed composition differences such as higher use of fermented pineapple waste and natural grasses. Protein content was slightly higher at Long Hoa (3.64%) than Evergrowth (3.57%) a statistically significant difference (P= 0.009) though biologically modest. These differences highlight how management practices, forage types, and environmental factors between cooperatives can impact milk composition. Evergrowth’s higher milk fat and dry matter levels suggest a possible focus on milk quality, whereas Long Hoa may prioritize Protein-rich diets.
In summary, milk fat and dry matter contents decline as HF blood level increases, while Protein remains stable, milk fat content rises throughout lactation, with the highest increases in 1/2HF cows. Evergrowth cooperative showed higher fat and dry matter but slightly lower Protein than Long Hoa. These results emphasize the importance of aligning breeding strategies and nutritional management with production goals whether for volume, quality or a balance of both.
Feed consumption per kg of milk
The feed consumption to produce 1 kg of milk by dairy cows is presented in Table 8.
Table 8: Feed consumption to produce 1 kg of milk by dairy cows at Long Hoa and evergrowth cooperatives.
|
Item
|
|
Long Hoa cooperative
|
Evergrowth cooperative
|
|
1/2HF
|
3/4HF
|
7/8HF
|
1/2HF
|
3/4HF
|
7/8HF
|
|
Concentrated Feed (kg/day)
|
As Fed
|
4.15
|
4.91
|
5.32
|
3.61
|
4.29
|
4.46
|
|
DM
|
3.90
|
4.62
|
5.00
|
3.14
|
3.73
|
3.88
|
|
CP
|
0.601
|
0.711
|
0.770
|
0.499
|
0.593
|
0.618
|
|
Fermented Pineapple Peel (kg/day)
|
As Fed
|
34.88
|
38.06
|
36.79
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
DM
|
3.31
|
3.62
|
3.49
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
CP
|
0.175
|
0.191
|
0.184
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
Napier grass / Mixed Grass*
(kg/day)
|
As Fed
|
12.3
|
12.0
|
12.0
|
43.6
|
47.6
|
46.7
|
|
DM
|
2.01
|
1.97
|
2.00
|
5.50
|
6.00
|
5.89
|
|
CP
|
0.231
|
0.226
|
0.230
|
0.491
|
0.536
|
0.526
|
|
Total (kg/day)
|
DM
|
9.22
|
10.21
|
10.49
|
8.64
|
9.73
|
9.77
|
|
CP
|
1.01
|
1.13
|
1.18
|
0.99
|
1.13
|
1.14
|
|
Milk Yield (kg/day)
|
-
|
11.6
|
13.9
|
15.2
|
10.8
|
13.9
|
14.1
|
|
Feed Intake per kg Milk (kg)
|
DM
|
0.795
|
0.735
|
0.690
|
0.800
|
0.700
|
0.693
|
|
CP
|
0.087
|
0.081
|
0.078
|
0.092
|
0.081
|
0.081
|
|
Feed Conversion Efficiency (%)
|
|
22,6
|
25,3
|
28,1
|
22,9
|
26,8
|
27,6
|
Napier grassused at Long Hoa Cooperative; natural mixed grass used at Evergrowth Cooperative; Feed Conversion Efficiency (FCE% = Milk Output / Feed Input * 100).
Table 9: Gross margin (VND/kg milk) at long Hoa and evergrowth cooperatives.
|
Long Hoa cooperative
|
Evergrowth cooperative
|
|
1/2HF
|
3/4HF
|
7/8HF
|
1/2HF
|
3/4HF
|
7/8HF
|
|
Concentrated feed
|
2,795
|
2,719
|
2,746
|
2,625
|
2,434
|
2,53
|
|
Fermented pineapple peel
|
1,199
|
1,075
|
969
|
|
|
|
|
Napier grass/ Mixed grass
|
528
|
424
|
395
|
1,982
|
1,688
|
1,656
|
|
Total feed cost
|
4,522
|
4,218
|
4,110
|
4,607
|
4,122
|
4,186
|
|
Milk price
|
14,000
|
14,000
|
14,000
|
12,800
|
12,800
|
12,800
|
|
Gross margin
|
9,478
|
9,782
|
9,890
|
8,193
|
8,678
|
8,614
|
Concentrated feed cost: Long Hoa: 7.840 (VND/kg); Evergrowth: 8.000 (VND/kg); Fermented pineapple peel: 400 VND/kg; Napier grassat Long Hoa and natural grasses at Evergrowth: 500 VND/kg; Holstein Friesian (HF) crossbred dairy cows with different genetic proportions: 1st generation (1/2 HF), 2nd generation (3/4 HF), and 3rd generation (7/8 HF).
Table 8 shows that the dry matter (DM) intake for 1/2HF, 3/4HF, and 7/8HF cows at the Long Hoa Cooperative was 9.22 (kg/day), 10.21 (kg/day) and 10.49 (kg/day), respectively. At Evergrowth Cooperative, the values were 8.64 (kg/day), 9.73 kg/day and 9.77 (kg/day). These results show that DM intake for each crossbred group at Long Hoa was higher than that at Evergrowth. The crude Protein (CP) intake of 1/2HF, 3/4HF and 7/8HF cows at Long Hoa was 1.01 (kg/day), 1.13 (kg/day) and 1.18 (kg/day), respectively. At Evergrowth the values were 0.99 (kg/day), 1.13 (kg/day) and 1.14 (kg/day). Dry matter consumption per kg of milk for 1/2HF, 3/4HF, and 7/8HF cows at Long Hoa was 0.795, 0.735, and 0.690 (kg), respectively. CP consumption per kg of milk was 0.087, 0.081, and 0.078 (kg). At Evergrowth, DM consumption per kg of milk was 0.800, 0.700, and 0.693 (kg), and CP consumption per kg of milk was 0.090, 0.080 and 0.081 (kg), respectively. Feed intake per kg milk of cow groups was similar at both cooperatives.
Among the groups, the 7/8HF cows at Long Hoa had the lowest DM and CP consumption per kg of milk, while at Evergrowth, 3/4HF and 7/8HF cows had the lowest values. These values are higher than those reported in the study by Hanh (2010), where DM consumption per kg of milk for 1/2HF. 3/4HF. and 7/8HF cows was 0.583; 0.560 and 0.564 (kg), respectively.
Estimated feed cost for producing 1 kg of milk
From Table 9 with feed prices of 7,840 (VND/kg) for Long Hoa and 8,000 (VND/kg) for Evergrowth and forage prices of 400 (VND/kg) (for fermented pineapple peel) and 500 (VND/kg) (grass), the estimated feed cost per 1 kg of milk at Evergrowth was 1/2HF: 4,607 VND, 3/4HF: 4,122 (VND) and 7/8HF: 4,186 (VND) and at Long Hoa, the costs were 1/2HF: 4,522 VND, 3/4HF: 4,218 VND and 7/8HF: 4,110 (VND). The lowest feed cost per 1 kg of milk was for 7/8HF cows at Long Hoa and 3/4HF cows at Evergrowth.
The observed difference in milk price 12,800 VND/kg at Evergrowth and 14,000 VND/kg at Long Hoa, appears to result from differences in cooperative marketing and milk delivery systems. At Evergrowth Cooperative, milk is first collected by the cooperative and then transported to the purchasing company, incurring additional handling and logistical costs. In contrast, farmers at Long Hoa Cooperative deliver milk directly to the purchasing company, reducing intermediary expenses and achieving higher farm-gate prices. The gross margin (Revenue - Feed Cost only) per kg of milk was Evergrowth: 1/2HF: 8,193 (VND), 3/4HF: 8,678 (VND) and 7/8HF: 8,614 (VND); and Long Hoa: 1/2HF: 9,478 (VND), 3/4HF: 9,782 (VND) and 7/8HF: 9,890 (VND).
Conclusions
The milk yield of the cow groups at the Long Hoa and Evergrowth cooperatives increased as the proportion of Holstein Friesian (HF) blood increased. The average daily milk yield (kg/day) of 1/2HF, 3/4HF, and 7/8HF cows at Long Hoa Cooperative was respectively: 11.6±0.089, 13.9±0.354 and 15.2±0.04. While at Evergrowth Cooperative, the corresponding values were: 10.8±0.176. 13.9±0.155 and 14.1±0.123 (kg/day), respectively.
The average total milk yield over a 300-day lactation period was highest in 7/8HF cows (4,322 kg), followed by 3/4HF cows (4,180 kg), and lowest in 1/2HF crossbreds (3,289 kg). All crossbred HF groups at both cooperatives reached peak monthly milk yield in the second month then gradually declined through the remainder of the lactation cycle.
Milk fat and total solids content decreased as the proportion of HF genetics increased. However, there was no significant difference in milk Protein content among the crossbreds. In terms of dry matter (DM) and crude Protein (CP) consumption per kg of milk, the most efficient group at Long Hoa was 7/8HF and at Evergrowth it was 3/4HF. These results indicate that aligning breeding strategies and nutritional management with both Holstein Friesian (HF) inheritance and the specific conditions of each cooperative is critical. Such alignment can optimize milk yield, milk composition and feed efficiency.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors thank both the Long Hoa Cooperative (Can Tho City, Vietnam) and the Evergrowth Cooperative (Soc Trang Province, Vietnam).
Novelty Statement
This study evaluated milk yield, milk composition, feed efficiency, and gross margin of crossbred Holstein Friesian cows with different HF genetic proportions (1/2HF, 3/4HF, and 7/8HF) under cooperative farming conditions in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam. Results showed that milk yield increased with higher HF genetic proportion, whereas milk fat and solids decreased, and feed efficiency and gross margin varied depending on both genetic level and management system. Based on these findings, practical recommendations are provided for selecting appropriate crossbreeding strategies to optimize dairy productivity and profitability in cooperative farming systems.
AUTHOR’S CONTRIBUTION
LVP and NVT conceived and designed the experiments. LVP and NVT performed the experiments. LVP analyzed the data. NVP and NVT wrote the paper. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.
Generative AI and AI-assisted technology statement
The authors confirm that no generative artificial intelligence or AI-assisted tools were used in preparing this manuscript
Conflict of interest
The authors have declared no conflict of interest.
REFERENCES
AOAC, Association of Official Analytical Chemists (1990). Official methods of analysis. Agricultural Chemicals, Contaminants, Drugs, Volume I: 15th edition. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, USA.
Bondan C, Folchini J A, Noro M, Quadros DL, Machado KM, González FHD (2018). Milk composition of Holstein cows: A retrospective study. Ciência Rural, 48(12): e20180123. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20180123
Dat NQ (1999). Some characteristics of crossbred dairy cows (Holstein Friesian × Sindhi crossbreds) raised in Ho Chi Minh City (PhD dissertation in Agriculture). Institute of Agricultural Science and Technology, Vietnam.
Hanh TQ (2010). Study on growth. reproduction. milk yield and milk quality of pure Holstein Friesian (HF) cows and F1. F2. F3 generations crossbred with Sindhi raised in Lam Dong Province (PhD dissertation in Agriculture), Hanoi University of Agriculture, Vietnam.
Lim DH, Mayakrishnan V, Lee HJ, Ki KS, Kim T.I, Kim Y (2020). A comparative study on milk composition of Jersey and Holstein dairy cows during the early lactation. J. Anim. Sci. Technol., 62(4): 565–576. https://doi.org/10.5187/jast.2020.62.4.565
Minitab (2017). Minitab reference manual release 18.1. Minitab Inc. Sydney. Australia.
Nogalski Z, Kuczyńska B, Zaborski D (2024). The health-related fatty acid profile of milk from Holstein–Friesian cows as influenced by production system and lactation stage. Animals, 14(23): 3492. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14233492
Phong LV, Thu NV (2016). Investigation of growth, production and Dairy techniques at Song Hau Farm, Long Hoa and Evergrowth Dairy Cow Cooperative in the Mekong Delta. Can. Tho Univ. J. Sci., 2: 48–55. https://ctujsvn.ctu.edu.vn/ind ex.php/ctujsvn/article/view/2667 https://doi.org/10.22144/ctu.jsi.2016.043
Thanh LP (2021). Survey on herd structure. milk yield and milk quality of dairy cows at Farm Milk Can Tho farm. Can Tho Univ. J. Sci., 57(1): 85–92. https://doi.org/10.22144/ctu.jvn.2021.012
Thu NV, Dong NTK, Trung TT (2023). Textbook of ruminant animal husbandry A. Can Tho University Publishing House. Can Tho City. Vietnam
Tue NV, Binh DV, Sanh MV (2010). Milk productivity of F1, F2, and F3 crossbred dairy cows (Holstein × Sindhi crossbreds) raised by smallholders in Bac Ninh Province. J. Anim. Sci. Technol., 26: 9–16.
Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA (1991). Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 74: 3583-3598. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2
