Explore

Communities in English

Advertise on Engormix

A Goal Programming Approach to Ration Formulation Problem for Indian Dairy Cows

Published: October 25, 2018
By: Ravinder Singh Kuntal 1, Radha Gupta 2, Duraisamy Rajendran 3 and Vishal Patil 4. / 1,4 Department of Mathematics, Jain University, Bangalore, India; 2 Department of Mathematics, Dayananda, Sagar University, Bangalore, India; 3 ICAR-National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology, Adugodi, Bangalore, India.
Summary

Due to limitation of feedstuffs in Mandya, district of Karnataka, small dairy farmers faced many problems to feed balanced, least cost diet to dairy cattle’s. From earlier research, it was clear that the productivity of cattle’s maintained by different dairy farmers was lower and this is mainly due to limited resources for feeding and small farmers are not having proper knowledge as well as resources to provide low cost balanced ration to cattle’s. Therefore, there is a need to focus on minimizing the diet cost by upgrading the scientific dairy farming practices. However, several techniques are in use for animal diet formulation but a successful application of soft computing technique to improve the quality of the solution is always preferred as the rigidity of the functions in Linear Programming Problem (LPP) can be easily handled. Hence, to meet the nutrient requirement,a Primitive Goal programming model for three category of dairy cattle’s weighing 500kg each and yielding 10lit of milk with 4% fat content during 7th, 8th and 9th month of pregnancy is been formulated by dividing the goals into set of priorities. In our earlier work [10], LP models for three categories of dairy cattle’s have been formulated and solved by Simplex-method, GRG Nonlinear, EA-method and RGA. In the present work, a goal programming model (GP model) has been developed by dividing each goal into set of priorities for all the three categories of animal as there are two high priority objectives i.e. least cost and dry matter intake, to be achieved if possible. This GP model is solved by real coded genetic algorithm with hybrid function, which shows that five goals are overachieved whereas one goal is fully achieved and one is underachieved for Cattle 1& 2. It could be concluded that real coded genetic algorithm (RGA) with hybrid function can effectively be used to formulate least cost diet such that the feed requirements of the animals are met without any nutrients deficiency.

Key words: Dairy feed, least cost, real coded genetic algorithm, Goal Programming

India has largest livestock population in world. Livestock is one of the important economic activities especially in the rural areas of country providing income for most of the family. In dairy farming, feeding cost accounts about seventy percent of total operation cost. Even though dairying Programme have attained considerable importance in various Five Year Plans and the States and the Centre for the development of this sector have taken up several schemes/projects but different diet plan is needed for different categories of dairy cows in which while calculating the low cost balanced diet it requires an understanding of nutrient requirement of dairy cow’s at different condition.
As per the 19th livestock census report the population of cows is been increased by 6.52% over previous census report (2007) and the total number of cows estimated in 2012 was 122.9 million. The total number of milking animal in India is 116.77 million, in which the 12% contribution is from cattle [13].  Also as per the Basic animal husbandry & Fisheries statistic 2017, the per capita availability of average milk in Karnataka was 291 gram per day during 2016-17, which are less than 12 top milk-producing states in India like Uttar Pradesh. [14] Karnataka has only 4% share in milk production in year 2016-17. From 2012 to 2016, the cattle population is increased from 1142.62  to  1370.69  (in  000  nos.)  which  estimate  the  milk production of milk production of 5718.22 to 6562.15 (in 000 nos.) in which the Average Yield per In-Milk Animal of Non- Descript/Indigenous Cows during 2012-13 to 2016-17 in Karnataka was 2.32- 2.43 kg/day. Area under Fodder Crops is increased from 35 thousand hectares to 2006-07 to 36 thousand hectares and Permanent Pastures and other Grazing lands is decreased from 930 thousand hectares to -906 thousand hectares since 2006-07 to 2013-14 [4]. According to past survey, it was clear that farmers are not feeding the dairy cattle’s properly due to high feed cost and unavailability of proper feedstuffs [5].
Therefore, it is necessary to supply least cost balanced diet to dairy cattle’s especially during pregnancy and milking period. Since 1991 many researcher studied feeding practices in which small farmers have limited resources for feeding practice [6]. As livestock, industry plays an important role in development of Indian Economy as the share of Livestock in agriculture GDP is increased from 13.88% to 29.20% since 1990 to 2013. Livestock also contributes to 4% of the National Gross Domestic Product [1,2]. Hence, by considering the economic importance and difficulties of Indian farmers an improvement in feeding practice is required, which results in least cost feed plan for dairy cows at different hypothetical condition.
Linear programming is one of the most commonly used methods followed by many commercial and noncommercial feed formulation programs but Rehman and Romero addressed the limitation of LP while formulating ration in practice. The assumption in LP restricts objective function to be single and constraints to be fixed-RHS, which means the reduction of goal programming model consists of constraints and sets of goals, which are prioritized sometimes. The objective of goal programming is to find the solution, which satisfies the constraints, and come close to the stated goals of respective problem. Theoretically, goals could be satisfied completely, partly, or in some extreme cases, some of them might also not be met. This violence is measured using positive and negative deviation variables that are defined for each goal separately, commonly known as over- or under-achievement of the goal. Since the objective function of the WGP formulation minimizes the sum of total deviation from set goals, the obtained result might yield compromise solution between contradictory goals [11]. Zoran babic et.al, applied goal programming method to determine an optimal blend of ingredients for livestock feed in which, goal programming model proves to be a use full procedure in determining the optimal livestock feed blend [13]. Evolutionary Algorithms (EA) consist of Genetic algorithm, Genetic programming and their hybrid functions [3] and EA highly depend upon its operators [7]. Furuya et.al in 1997 used genetic algorithms in which the ratio of ingredients has evolved. Sahman et al., used GA to find least cost diet for a livestock, which results in good solution with few constraints [8]. Shilpa Jain et al., done the comparative analysis of real and binary coded genetic algorithm on fuzzy time series prediction. Author concluded that the real coded GA runs much faster than binary coded GA [12].
In our earlier research, Linear programming model of dairy cows weighing 500 kg which are pregnant at three different months (7th ,8th ,9thmnts) is formulated and solved using LP simplex, GRG nonlinear, EA and different parameters of Real coded Genetic algorithm based on primary data. This study resulted in  “no significance difference between techniques (p>0.05) and concluded that RGA can be used to formulate the least cost diet. Hence, in present study we have extended the work and formulated the Goal programming model of dairy cows,  which  are pregnant  at  third  trimester i.e.  7th, 8th, and 9thmonth, which required balanced diet to maintain health and to produce milk with 4% fat [10] and is solved using real coded hybrid Genetic Algorithm.
Goal programming model
In agreement with the decision maker (nutritionist), it was decided to try the linear model developed by [10], by formulating it into goal programming models. In earlier work, a linear model for cattle 1, cattle 2 and cattle 3 is been developed for cows with body weight of 500 kg, which is pregnant at third trimester and they need balanced ration for body maintenance, and 10 liter of milk production with 4% fat. Hence three goal programming models for above mentioned cattle’s is formulated by considering several goals, where all the constraints except dry matter intake (DMI) are given priority in which least cost is highly prioritized.
In earlier work, the upper and lower bounds for each constraint is been set by the decision maker as per the Indian Council of Agricultural Research-ICAR 2013 and NRC 2001 standard. In this paper, the constraints are converted to goals and their target values on dry matter basis are as follows:
  1. To determine the diet plan the cost will be Rs 126.71for cattle-1, Rs 131.82 for cattle-2 and Rs 136.65 for cattle- 3.
  2. To determine the diet plan total dry matter (DM) intake will be 16.75  kg for  cattle-1,  16.89  for  cattle-2  and 17.03 for cattle-3.
  3. To determine the diet plan the share of Crude protein (CP) will be 1.644 kg for cattle 1, 1.691kg for cattle 2 and 1.738 kg for cattle 3.
  4. To determine the diet plan the share of Total Digestible Nutrients (TDN) will be 8.5425 kg for cattle 1, 8.6139 kg for cattle 2 and 8.6853 for cattle 3.
  5. To determine the diet plan the share of Calcium (Ca) will be 0.1176 kg for cattle 1, 0.1223 kg for cattle 2 and 0.1207 kg for cattle 3.
  6. To determine the diet plan the share of phosphorus will be 0.04193 kg for cattle 1, 0.04 for cattle 2 and 3.
  7. To determine the diet plan the share of roughage will be 12.2858 kg for cattle 1, 12.2076 kg for cattle 2 and 12.1495 kg for cattle 3.
  8. To determine the diet plan the share of concentrates will be 4.4642 kg for cattle 1, 4.6824 kg for cattle 2 and 4.8805 kg for cattle 3.
This establishes the goal-programming model in which seven goal functions except DM intake have been formulated as goals. Eventually, it is difficult to achieve all the seven goals, therefore deviational variables are introduced. The achievement function of the GP model becomes the sum of the square root of deviation variables, which has to be minimized. This goal-programming model is solved by real coded hybrid genetic algorithm.
A Goal Programming Approach to Ration Formulation Problem for Indian Dairy Cows - Image 1
 
A Goal Programming Approach to Ration Formulation Problem for Indian Dairy Cows - Image 2
 
A Goal Programming Approach to Ration Formulation Problem for Indian Dairy Cows - Image 3
Real Coded Genetic Algorithm with hybrid function
Genetic algorithm is a search-based technique, which is based on evolution theory. The difference between binary and real coded GA is that in binary coded GA, variables are represented by bits of zeros and ones while GA based on real number representation are called real coded GAs (RGA). GA works on solution space instead of state space, where it builds new solutions based on existing one. We first created initial population then decided the gene representation, we choose default population type “double vector” to represent genes. After representation of genes, it undergoes three main operators such as selection, crossover and mutation to create next generations. Matlab provides gaoptimset to create or modify the GA option structure. Matlab does not provide every method available in literature but provides lot of options to find the optimal solution. The selection procedure decides how an individual is selected to become parents. We used tournament selection procedure of size 2 where an individual can be selected more than once as a parent.
Crossover combines two parents to create new offspring for next generation. Crossover heuristic returns offspring because it moves from worst parents to past best parent. Default value of ratio is 1.2. If P1 and P2 are parents where P1 has better fitness then offspring=P2+1.2*(P1-P2). Mutation decides how algorithm makes small changes in the individual randomly to create new mutation offspring’s. Mutation is important operator as a diversity point of view, which allows GA to search in broader space. We have linear constraints and bounds; hence, adaptive feasible mutation is used which generates a direction that is adaptive with respect to last successful or unsuccessful generation. The feasible region is Goal 6 Maximize Roughages: i=1 ibounded by the constraints and inequality constraints. A step length is chosen along each direction so that linear constraints and bounds are satisfied. After specifying above genetic algorithm options for linear models, Genetic algorithm sometimes return a local minimum instead of global minimum, i.e. a point where the objective function value is less than the nearby points but possibly greater than the distant point in solution space. Therefore, to overcome this deficiency of Genetic algorithm we have introduced hybrid command “fmincon” inside Genetic algorithm, in which we allow GA to find the valley that contains global minimum and after last generation, it takes the last value of GA as the initial value of fmincon to converge quickly. Another way to make GA explore the wider range of points is to increase the diversity of the population, and it can be done by setting initial  range of population. However, we have rigid constraints and bounds so we want to search the point in the specified lower and upper bounds only.   Based  on  GP   model,   we   have  31  decision i=1 17 – variables and 7 goals (1- Equality constraint). We have to find the minimum cost of diet based on Dry matter, hence, we set the no of variables to 31 from which we have developed three goal-programming models with different priorities for cows with body wt. 500 kg, which is pregnant at third trimester.
Result in Dry matter and Fresh basis
A Goal Programming Approach to Ration Formulation Problem for Indian Dairy Cows - Image 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 1 shows the results obtained for all the goal- programming models.
On assigning the weights P1 (goal1: cost) , P2 (goal 2 : CP) , P3  (goal3 : TDN), P4  (goal  4 : Ca) , P5 (goal5 : Ph), P6 (goal6 : Roughage), P7 (goal7: Concentate) as 0.9, 0.8, 0.7, 0.6, 0.5, 0.4, 0.3 and solving the GP Model 1, using RGA with hybrid function, we obtain dcost = 9.7909,  dTDN = 1.9453,  dca = 0.0086,  dPh = 0.0132,  dRough = 0.0056,  dconc = 0.0074 and rest of the variables  dcost+,  dcp+, dcp-, dTDN-, dca+, dph+, drough+, dconc+ as zero.We observe that goals 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 are overacheived and goal 3 is underachieved whereas goal 2 is fully achieved without any deviation obtaining Minimum Z = 0.0127.
Similarly on assigning the same weights P1 (goal1: cost), P2 (goal 2 : CP) , P3 (goal3 : TDN), P4 (goal 4 : Ca) , P5 (goal5 : Ph), P6 (goal6 : Roughage),  P (goal7 : Concentate) as 0.9, 0.8, 0.7, 0.6, 0.5, 0.4, 0.3 and solving the GP Model 2 using RGA with hybrid function, we obtain dcost = 10.5312,  dCP = 0.0002,  dTDN = 1.9789,  dCa = 0.0115,  dPk = 0.011,  dRough = 0.0062, dconcl = 0.0081 and rest of the variables dcost, dCP,  dTDN,  dCa ,  dPk,  dRough, dconcl as zero. Here also weobserve that goals 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 are overacheived and goal 3 is underachieved whereas goal 2 is slightly over achieved with dCP = 0.0002 obtaining Min imum Z = 0.0132 .
But On assigning the same weights P1 (goal1: cost), P2 (goal 2 : CP) , P3 (goal3 : TDN), P4 (goal 4 : Ca) , P5 (goal5 : Ph), P6 (goal6 : Roughage), P7 (goal7 : Concentate) as 0.9, 0.8, 0.7, 0.6, 0.5, 0.4, 0.3 and solving the GP Model 3, using RGA with hybrid function, we obtain dcost = 11.4146 , dCP - = 0.0001, dTDN+ = 2.012 , dCa- = 0.01, dpk- = 0.0096, dRough- = 0.0054, dConc = 0.0071 and rest of the variables dcostdCP+, dTDN+, dca+, dPk+, dRough+, dconc+, as zero.Here it is seen that goals 1, 5, 6, 7 are overacheived and goal 3 is underachieved whereas goals 2 and 4 is slightly overachieved with deviation dCP= 0.0001 and dCa = 0.01obtaining Min imum Z = 0.0115.
The obtained solution does not completely satisfy the decision maker; hence, decision maker has to work on overachieved targets. First, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh goal are analyzed and the reason for the overachievement can be searched in the diet plan. The choice of the final solution depends on the decision maker. In our case, we have shown three different GP-models representing the diet plan that decision maker may make. All possibilities are not considered, as the LP model developed in [10] allows introduction of additional constraints anytime which results new set of solutions, whereas some constraints (if added) can also  lead to “no solution” which means that additional constraints are too complex that it is necessary to mediate in the model by increasing some of the requirements. However, for better output we need a further discussion with qualified cattle nutritionist.
CONCLUSION
The present works focused on improving the results of LP model developed by Ravinder et.al. [10], by formulating it into goal programming models. The GP models are solved by real coded genetic algorithm with hybrid function to improve the quality of feed mix to the dairy cows. The goal programming method proves to be a useful method in determining the optimal diet plan for dairy cows at three different body conditions. As the results obtained reveals that RGA with hybrid function can be applied to formulate least cost ration, however fixing the constraints and use of code for making software is considered while choosing the technique for making least cost diet plan. Further detailed research with various additional constraints needs to fine-tune the technique.
This article was originally published in International Journal of Current Advanced Research. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24327/ijcar.2018.11510.1995. This is an Open Access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License.

  1. Annual Report 2016-17., Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers.
  2. Angadi, U. B., Anandan, S., Gowda, N. K. S., Rajendran, D., Devi, L., Elangovan, A. V. and Jash, S. (2016) “ Feed Assist”- An Expert System on Balanced Feeding for Dairy Animals", AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, Vol. 8, No. 3, Pp. 3 - 12. ISSN 1804-1930, DOI 10.7160/aol.2016.080301
  3. A. R. Rehman, Evolutionary algorithms with average crossover and power heuristics for aquaculture diet formulation [Ph.D. thesis], University Utara Malaysia, Sintok, Malaysia, 2014.
  4. Basic Animal Husbandry & Fisheries Statistics 2017, AHS Series-18, Government of India Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare Department Of Animal Husbandry, Dairying And Fisheries Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi.
  5. FAO. 2012. Balanced feeding for improving livestock productivity - Increase in milk production and nutrient use efficiency and decrease in methane emission, by M.R. Garg. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper No. 173. Rome, Italy.
  6. Leng, R.A., 1991. Feeding strategies for improving milk production of dairy animals managed by small-farmers in the tropics. Feeding dairy cows in the tropics. (Eds. Speedy, A. & Sansoucy, R.) Proceedings of the FAO Expert Consultation held in Bangkok, Thailand, p.82.
  7. M. Koda, “Chaos search in Fourier amplitude sensitivity test version,” Journal of Information and Communication Technology, vol. 11, pp. 1-16, 2012.
  8. M. A. Sahman, M. Çunkas, S. Inal, F. Inal, B. Coskun, and U. Taskiran, “Cost optimization of feed mixes by genetic algorithms,” Advances in Engineering Software, vol. 40, no. 10, pp. 965-974, 2009.
  9. Rehman, T. and Romero, C. 1984. Multiple-criteria decision-making techniques and their role in livestock ration formulation. Agri. Sys.15, Pp.23-49.
  10. Ravinder Singh Kuntal, Radha Gupta, Duraisamy Rajendran and Vishal Patil, 2016. Application of real coded genetic algorithm (RGA) to find least cost feedstuffs for dairy cattle during pregnancy. Asian J. Anim. Vet. Adv., 11: 594-607.
  11. Radha Gupta, Ravinder Singh Kuntal, Kokila Ramesh, 2013. Heuristic Approach to Goal Programming Problem for Animal Ration Formulation. International Journal of Engineering and Innovative Technology (IJEIT), Volume 3, Issue 4, Pp. 414-422.
  12. Shilpa, Jain, Dinesh, Bisht and Prakash, C,. 2013(3). Comparative Analysis of Real and Binary Coded Genetic Algorithm for Fuzzy Time Series Prediction. International Journal of Education and Information Sciences, 299-304.
  13. ZoranBabic., Tunjo Peric.(2011) optimization of livestock feed blend by use of goal Programming”, Int. J.Production Economics, 130, Pp.218-223.
  14. 19 Livestock Census-2012 All India Report Ministry of Agriculture Department Of Animal Husbandry, dairying and fisheries Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi

 

Related topics:
Authors:
Dr Ravinder Singh Kuntal
Rajendran Duraisamy
Recommend
Comment
Share
Emanuel Rauchle
Cladan
8 de marzo de 2023
Great article. Congrats on being able to take down to earth such heavy information. As a matter of fact, I was wondering whether the methods you are reflecting can be exported? In Argentina we have several dry problems and I was concerned about the implications that might rise. Look forward to hearing from you and once again, thank you for the great article!
Recommend
Reply
DR.MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE
31 de agosto de 2020
Complicated and methamatical papper common farmer has difficulty to follow this knowledge wise it extra orderinar article auther is really apprecible with thanks
Recommend
Reply
DR-Al Mamun
27 de septiembre de 2019
Good article for ration formulation. Thanks
Recommend
Reply
Robert Kennedy
3 de noviembre de 2018

Using byproducts as a portion is fine but feeding best available ingredients will always yield best performance milk is only one of the aspects you feed for animal well being and additional lactation will only come from quality diets you can't get them bred.

Recommend
Reply
suleiman kurfi
3 de noviembre de 2018

A very good experiment. It is also available here in Nigeria.

Recommend
Reply
Dr Suyash Vardhan
Trouw Nutrition
3 de noviembre de 2018

Good Study on the linear program for ration formulation. Yes, it is the basic approach for right calculation as per the mathematical model, Appreciate efforts from Liner Programming point of view.

From practical aspect, few queries for clarity on the mentioned subject,

1. Selection of the late lactating animals ( Span 6-9 months), for higher intake of the Dry Matter, for 10 Ltr. milk DM ( Range 16-17 Kg).
2. The targeted CP in rage of 10 %? and TND @ 51 %, are we targeting too low from nutrient point of view especially if we consider it for Steamers in 8-9 months?
3. Qualification of 6 out of 7 parameters, which have Ca and P also in consideration, may not lead to the right conclusion for practical adoption of the suggested concept.

I trust, it is important to look into the parameters like MP, NE and DCAD for final month i.e. 9 months and its spill over in the fresh period. Further, it may give good idea if Fresh and Early lactation animals are put in the consideration to extend this study beyond Dry Period. This will certainly beneficial for the average Dairy Farmer in South Asia to look at the possible solution when forage is limited and compound is relatively expensive.

Best Regards,


Recommend
Reply
Dr Ravinder Singh Kuntal
3 de noviembre de 2018

Yes, sir, you are right but corn cub is not available everywhere in India, I check once... Thanks for suggestions.

Recommend
Reply
Hafiz Wasi Muhammad Khan
3 de noviembre de 2018

Sustainable feed formulation prepared from crop residues is the main target. Such formulations are cheaper and it helps to utilize crops residues in most efficient ways. In the article, experiments are based on residues available in a specific area of India while many more useful crop residues are also available and cheaply available in other areas of India as well as in the world. In Pakistan, corn cob is easily and cheaply available in Punjab Pakistan. I use the same as Corn cob meal where I use corn cob 30% while remaining 70% ingredients help in making the concentrate as balanced diet required full nutritional profile required for the animals.

Recommend
Reply
Dr. MD. Ali Asgar Khan
3 de noviembre de 2018
Thanks for the article. It is essential for dairy farmers about choosing least cost feeding everywhere.
Recommend
Reply
Dr Ravinder Singh Kuntal
2 de noviembre de 2018

Thank you, Sir. Looking forward to work with untouched field in animal nutrition. Please suggest if any.

Recommend
Reply
Profile picture
Would you like to discuss another topic? Create a new post to engage with experts in the community.
Featured users in Animal Feed
Dave Cieslak
Dave Cieslak
Cargill
United States
Inge Knap
Inge Knap
DSM-Firmenich
Investigación
United States
Lester Pordesimo
Lester Pordesimo
ADM Animal Nutrition
ADM Animal Nutrition
United States
Join Engormix and be part of the largest agribusiness social network in the world.