Ven Finrepo

A STUDY ON IMPROVEMENT IN RURAL LIVELIHOODS THROUGH DAIRY FARMING I.
Introduction
The sustenance of rural livelihoods is currently at stake than ever before, in the face of economic liberalization. Livelihoods options are shrinking in rural areas in general and more so in eco-fragile regions, such as drought, desert prone, hilly areas and other under developed /backward districts. Rapidly growing markets for livestock products in general, and dairy products in particular (owing to rise in per capita incomes) are opening new avenues for enhancing rural incomes. Dairy farming plays significant role in sustaining the rural livelihoods, although the phenomenon of farmers suicides, migration, malnutrition/ill health are widely prevalent in rural India. However, some of the dairy based drought prone districts made rapid strides in ameliorating poverty by substantially contributing to the District/State agriculture economy. The importance of dairying in our country hardly needs emphasizing. The vast resources (more than 50 percent of the world's buffalos and 20 percent of its cattle) of livestock in the country play an important role in the national economy as well as in the socio-economic development of millions of rural households. Although the contribution of agriculture and allied sectors to the national GDP has declined during the past few decades, the contribution of the livestock sector has increased from less than 5 percent in the early 1980s to over 6 percent in the late 1990s. The operation flood programme, which was launched during 1970, organizing dairy farmers' cooperatives in rural areas and linking them with urban consumers created a strong network for procurement, processing, and distribution of milk over a lakh villages in rural India. During the past three decades, milk production in the country has increased from about 21.2 million tons in 1969 to 91 million tons in 2004-05 (Department of animal Husbandry and Dairying (DAHD), GOI, 2005). The per capita availability of milk increased from 112 grams in 1969 to 232 grams in 2004-05 and also kept pace with the growing population (DAHD, GoI).
Livestock sector provides employment to 18 million people and nearly 70 per cent of them are women. Further, dairy sector is the major source of income for an estimated 27.6 million people (Subbarama Naidu, 2004). Among these, 65 to 70 per cent are small, marginal farmers and land-less labor. The dairy sector supports around 10 million members / farmers through one lakh cooperative societies existing in the country. Apart from employment generated by rearing of animals, the procurement of milk and its processing also provides substantial employment. For example in Punjab, MILKFED, with its network of over 5,000 village Milk Producers Cooperative Societies, supports over 3 lakh Milk Producers. Further, MILKFED and its units have a work force of about 5,000 employees and gives employment to another 10,000 workers who engaged in milk procurement and technical input supply, etc. (website of Milkfed). Similar number of workforce is employed in almost all the milk federations. Further, under SGSY, the only self-employment programme for rural areas, about 35 per cent swarojgaries opted for dairy farming as income generating activity. The incremental employment generated was 11 man-days per month and the incremental net income generated was Rs. 865 per month per person (Nationwide Study on SGSY, NIRD, 2005). Recognizing the importance of dairy farming in its substantial contribution to the agriculture economy and to the livelihoods of resource poor farmers/rural population, high priority is attached in several locations strengthening the milk marketing infrastructure, veterinary services for breed improvement and health care, extension support for capacity building of farmers, developing entrepreneurship, technical skills and knowledge on scientific dairy farming practices, etc. several programmes have been launched from time to time by State/Central Governments for promoting the sector, although the impact of such programmes varied widely. It may be noted that the importance of livestock rearing is highlighted of late in the development world due to its potentiality in ensuring sustainable livelihoods that addressed the development issues of food security, equity and decentralized governance through peoples participation. Livestock rearing is a means for sustainable livelihoods in rural India, more so in eco-fragile regions. As per Indian Meteorological Department (IMD), 15 drought years were registered during the past 5 decades registering one out of every
third year as drought year. It may be noted that they are 182 DPAP and 40 DDP districts and 150 are backward districts as of now India. It may also be noticed that 60 districts are identified both as DPAP/DDP and backward districts. In all, around 312 districts, out of the 602 Indian districts are either DPAP/DDP or Backward where livelihoods are under constant stress. Some of the districts in these drought prone areas made spectacular progress in dairying in terms of contribution to the share of agriculture economy and in ensuring sustainability of the rural livelihoods of the resource poor farmers. Dryland agriculture accounts for 68 per cent of the total cultivated area contributing only 44 per cent of the countrys food requirement and supporting 40 per cent of human and 60 per cent of the livestock population (National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning, 2001). Therefore, to explore and examine the development pattern in such drought prone districts, the present study is designed with the following objectives.
Objectives:
1. To examine the role of dairy farming in rural economy in drought prone areas. 2. To study the factors affecting the performance of dairy farming and to examine their potential role in further enhancement /sustenance of rural livelihoods. 3. To identify and study the feasibility of community action in brining out efficiency in dairy output and, thereby, improvements in rural livelihoods 4. To study the impact of sustainable dairy farming on the social development aspects of rural livelihoods. 5. To suggest measures to improve rural livelihoods through dairy farming.
II. Methodology
Data Collection : The present study was taken up in two drought prone districts leading in milk production ,namely Chittoor and Prakasam district of Andhra Pradesh .The criteria of district selection was their progress in dairy performance, existence of contrasting milk production systems and geographic similarity. Two mandals each, namely Santhanuthanapadu and Jarugumalli in Prakasam district and Penumuru and Yadamari mandals in Chittoor district were selected. Mungamooru, and Indluru, Pernimitta, Mynampadu, Study villages namely Jarugumalli, Challappalem,
Chintalapalem, K.Bitragunta, Cherrikurapalem and Davagudur from Prakasam district Atlavaripalli, Balijapalli, Pedarajulapalli, Jattigundlapalli, Maniyanampalli, Sanyasipalli, Yadamuru, Bondaluru, Varadarajulapalli, Bandivandavallavuru from Chittoor were selected in consultation with the department of animal husbandry and dairy development. The primary data were collected through the structured schedule (AnnexureIII), which was developed and administered for this purpose. From each district 200 respondents were selected randomly from dairy farmers of above villages and thus, the total sample size was 400. The variables of the study included the livestock holding, land holding, dairy type/category, herd size and composition, family labour utilization, annual family income, family milk consumption pattern, inter caving period, proportion of crossbred animals, breed up gradation efforts, cost of milk production, cropping pattern, feeding practices, technology adoption, productivity, extension support and service delivery, access to market, price realization, market
channels, effect of processing units/dairies, income and employment generation, Social development aspects like migration, school dropouts, infant mortality rates, malnutrition, incidence of farmers suicides, etc., Data were also collected from secondary sources of information such as official documents, records, registers and reports of Department of Animal Husbandry, Milk Unions / Private dairies and DRDA. Discussions were held with officials of these 4
departments, experts, executives, programme implementers, elites, non-dairy farmer groups, progressive farmers, etc to elicit their views, ideas and opinion on the important issues pertaining to dairy farming. were studied. Analytical Frame: Primary data were analyzed using simple statistical tools such as average, frequency, percentages. Secondary data regarding the cattle census (herd composition), the district milk production and productivity, animals inseminated, calves born, vaccinations, mini kits distributed, etc. for the reference period from 1990-1991 to 2004-2005 were analyzed. In addition data on social development aspects like litreacy, school dropouts, infant mortality rate, malnutrition, migration, farmers suicides were also analyzed for the reference period. Few success cases relating to community organisation in service delivery, value addition and innovative practices
III. Dairy Development perspective

3.1 Dairy Development in India :
Livestock in general and dairying in particular play a vital role in the Indian economy. The contribution of the livestock sector to total national gross domestic product (GDP) was 5.9 percent in 2000-01, with the milk group making the highest contribution to the total value of the agriculture and allied sector (Rs. 1,44,088 crores). As indicated above in introduction, millions of people are employed in the livestock sector and women constitute about 70 percent of the labor force. Milk production in India increased from 17 million tons in 1950-51 to 31.60 million tons in 1980-81. In the subsequent years it further increased to 91.00 million tons in 2004-05 (Table.2). From being a recipient of massive material support from the World Food Program and European Community in the 1960s, India has rapidly positioned itself as the world's largest producer of milk due to the policy initiatives of Government Of India (GOI) and contributions by national institutions, ICAR Institutions, agricultural Universities, dairy cooperative unions, line departments and other agencies. During the late 1960s, the GoI initiated major policy changes in the dairy sector to achieve self-sufficiency in milk production. Producing milk in rural areas through producer cooperatives and moving processed milk to urban demand centres became the cornerstone of government dairy development policy. This policy initiative i.e. Operation flood, gave a boost to dairy development and initiated the process of establishing the much-needed linkages between rural producers and urban consumers. The performance of the Indian dairy sector during the past three decades has been very impressive. Milk production grew at an average annual rate of 4.57 percent during the 1970s, 5.68 percent during the 1980s, and 4.21 percent during the 1990s (Table 1). The per-capita availability of milk was 128 gms in 1980-81 gradually increased to 232 gms in 2004-05 (Table.2). Despite, its being the largest milk producer in the world, India's per capita availability of milk is still lower than the recommendations (minimum nutritional requirement of 280 gm per day) of ICMR. Several factors have contributed to the increased milk production in the country. First, milk and milk products have cultural significance in the Indian diet and have become 6
an important source of protein in the diet. The socioeconomic and demographic changes, rising income levels, urbanization and changing food habits and lifestyles, have also reinforced growth in demand for dairy products. Further, on the supply side, technological progress in the production and processing sectors, institutional factors, and infrastructure played an important role.
Table.1 Annual Growth Rates of Major Livestock Products ( All India) Year Annual Growth Rate (%) Milk 1950-51 to 1960-61 1960-61 to 1973-74 1973-74 to 1980-81 1980-81 to 1990-91 1990-91 to 2000-01
Source: DAHD, GoI, 2006
Egg 4.63 7.91 3.79 7.69 5.67
Wool 0.38 0.34 0.77 2.32 1.62
1.64 1.15 4.51 5.48 4.11
Table.2 : Recent trends in Milk production and percapita availability
Year
Milk Production
Per Capita Availability
All India*
Miil.tons
AP
Chittoor
Prakasam
All India*
AP
Chittoor (gm./day)
Prakasam
(thousand tons)
552 1 581 4 658 3 695 9 725 533 466 508 539 646 339 310 305 349 537 220 225 230 231 232 194 209 231 238 263
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05*
80.6 84.4 86.2 88.1 91.0
389 336 361 377 445
304 274 265 299 453
*
**-Provisional *Source : DAHD, GoI, 2006
3.2 Dairy Development in Andhra Pradesh and Study Districts

3.2.1 The state ranks seventh in milk production in the country and it is the home tract of Ongole, Punganur and Deoni breeds of cattle. Prakasam district is a home tract of world famous Ongole breed while Chittoor, for punganur breed of cattle . Dairy accounted for 11% of agricultural GDP in the state. According to 17th Quiquennial livestock census 2003, the total population of cattle and buffalos in the state was 106.3 lakhs and 93 lakhs respectively. Milk production in the state in 1980-81 was 2.01 million tons and increased to 7.257 million tons in 2004-05 (table.1) registering a growth rate of 3.74% per annum raising the per capita availability of 263 gms. According to the sample survey report of Department of Animal Husbandry, AP 2006-07, the average milk yield per animal in milk was only 1.888 Kgs, 2.84 Kgs, 7.147 Kgs and 6.541 Kgs per day for non-descript cows, non-descript buffalos, crossbred cows and graded murrah buffalos, respectively. 3.2.2 The district-wise milk production data for last 6 years is furnished below in Table.3. Chittoor and Krishna districts top the list with 9% of total milk production of the State followed by Guntur and Prakasam districts with 8% and 7%, respectively. In the study districts, there was a decline in the milk production during 2001-02 and later increased gradually with a growth rate of 9.7% in Chittoor and 18% in Prakasam. In Prakasam district the milk production almost got doubled during 2004-05. According to the sample survey report (2004-05) of Department of Animal husbandry, 16.30% of milk produced by farmers was consumed by them, 11.31% was kept for conversion and 72.39% was sold either to organized dairy or to private vendors.
Table . 3 District-wise Estimated Milk Production during the years 1996-97 to 2004-05 in Andhra Pradesh ( '000 tons)
S.No. District
1999-20 % 00 375.375 397.944 478.818 302.675 7 8 9 6
2000-01
% 2001-02 % 2002-03 % 2003-04 % 2004-0 % 5 6 426.900 10 465.910 10 538.900 6 309.980 8 396.768 7 426.000 4 227.001 5 209.900 4 287.100 4 181.972 5 225.200 3 168.924 3 240.913 3 156.786 3 354.100 4 287.100 2 130.000 2 157.200 3 181.100 3 124.990 2 141.900 2 129.100 7 485.995 8 508.000 9 528.738 5 305.001 7 444.995 7 482.995 4 314.000 4 224.999 5 358.997 3 194.520 4 265.699 3 187.996 4 310.008 3 181.502 6 439.002 5 329.004 2 156.003 3 171.007 3 207.999 2 158.698 2 136.002 2 137.006 7 533.786 8 539.906 8 599.354 5 348.649 7 549.685 7 535.924 5 320.983 3 233.802 5 365.125 3 185.004 4 267.927 3 187.131 5 329.652 3 178.401 7 354.141 5 333.690 2 186.723 3 159.934 3 204.022 2 161.914 2 149.321 2 141.087 8 658.93 7 8 646.24 9 592.77 4 5 536.71 3 8 522.64 2 8 459.71 1 5 365.50 8 3 338.74 1 5 291.77 5 3 276.79 7 4 276.65 3 276.29 9 5 276.05 5 3 240.18 3 5 212.64 5 5 208.01 7 3 200.79 9 2 187.40 3 3 172.11 8 2 165.96 8 2 152.02 5 2 146.41 6 1 53.363 10 7256.8 0 3 9 9 8 7 7 6 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 10 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Krishna Chittoor Guntur Prakasam
357.981 533.031 568.255 338.954 438.044 374.139 240.045 273.004 210.704 202.682 254.496 185.204 169.872 183.021 183.620 213.070 85.170 127.113 158.643 156.610 131.335 122.532
West Godavari 515.528 10 East Godavari 352.627 7 4 4 4 3 5 2 4 3 4 4 3 2 3 3 2 2
Visakhapatnam 217.969 Nellore Kurnool 207.981 191.284 152.399 238.063 122.716 201.196 149.837
10 Ananthapur 11 Nalgonda 12 Srikakulam 13 Khammam 14 Vizianagaram
15 Mahabubnagar 203.124 16 Karimnagar 17 Ranga Reddy 18 Adilabad 19 Medak 20 Warangal 21 Cuddapah 22 Nizamabad 23 Hyderabad Total 191.169 145.116 121.116 150.235 137.822 128.443 108.630
31.576 1 0 46.000 1 54.999 1 92.647 13.693 5151.643 10 5521.476 10 5813.74 10 6583.16 10 6958.81 0 0 0 0 4 5 0
Source: Sample Survey reports of Department of Animal Husbandry , AP
3.2.3 The Department of Animal Husbandry (DAH) is providing veterinary health cover through 4976 veterinary institutions (Table.4) in the State, 197 in Prakasam 10
and 302 in Chittoor district. The number of adult cattle units covered by each veterinary graduate institution is 9733 and by including rural livestock units the coverage will be 4100. Similar pattern was observed in study districts also. The state has 3 veterinary colleges, one each at Hyderabad, Tirupati and Gannavaram. There is one Veterinary Biological Research Institute in the state which produces 11 different types of bacterial / viral livestock vaccines and supplies to veterinary institutions. Overall, in the State AI services are being provided through 4792 AI centres of DAH and also through 1791 Gopalmitras, 150 centres of JK Trust {100 in Chittoor and 50 in Anantapur), 49 BAIF centres {Mahabubnagar, Anantapur, Karimnagar, Hyderabad-Nalgonda and Warangal districts} and 224 Dairy Coop. Centres. During 2004-05, 11 lakh calves were born in the state, 1.5 lakh calves in Chittoor dominated by Crossbreds and 0.5 lakh in Prakasam district dominated by buffalos (Table.5). The success rate of AI is 37% in the state, and 34.5% in the study districts.
Table.4. Coverage and no. of veterinary institutions in Andhra Pradesh and study districts (As on 31.3. 2004) No. of Technical Persons Employed in Veterinary Institutions
Deputy Total Directors Assistant Directors Veterinary Assistant Surgeons
No. of Veterinary Institutions Catering to Veterinary Aid Districts

Veterinary Rural Poly Veterinary Veterinary Livestock Clinics Hospitals Dispensaries Units
Prakasam Chittoor Andhra Pradesh
1 1 22
9 15 282
90 99
97 187
197 302
1 3 30
17 24 390
96 107 1626
1793 2879 4976
Table.5 Livestock Development Services Provided in Andhra Pradesh and study districts ( as on 31st March, 2004)
Districts No. of No. of Artificial Inseminations Done Castra- Vaccina(No.) tions tions Exotic Indige- Murrah Total Done Done Nous Calves Born (No.) Exotic Indige Murrah nous Total No. of Area Artificial Brought Insemin Under Fodder ation Develop Centres ment (In Acres) 192 301 84982 54501 131307 4792 3
Prakasam Chittoor Andhra Pradesh
44148
2421443
987
2449
131554
134990
266
784
45264
46314
79455 3922311 382046 2 29250 411298 133360 - 10320 143680 135813 7024751 84625 16343 195184 296154 30471 66185 111892 3 8 7 9 6 2 5 52360 4 9
11
3.2.4 Fodder shortage is a major impediment for dairy development in the state. Only 3% of the geographical area (7.79 lakh hectares) is under permanent pasture and grazing land against recommended 8%. The dry matter requirement, availability and gap has been estimated by the department of animal husbandry as 50.32 million tons, 40.31 million tons and 10.01 million tons respectively. Similar trend exists in the study districts also. 3.2.5 Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Co-operative Federation ltd.(APDDCF) is providing milk marketing support to dairy farmers in the state through 9 milk unions and direct federation units. The federation and district unions procure 37.24 crore litres of milk per annum through a network of 456 milk routes, 9154 milk collection centres covering 10249 villages. Total milk processing capacity created in the state is 29 LLPD under co-operative sector and 14 LLPD under private sector (Table. 6). About 19% of the milk produced in the state is procured by the organized sector. Among the private dairies, majority of them are working in Chittoor and Prakasam districts collecting nearly 70% of procurement of organized sector. The major private dairies existing in Prakasam district are Jersey, creamline, Ravileela, Tirumala, Dodla, etc. and in Chittoor district are Heritage and Jersey.
Table.6 Dairy Plants Registered under MMPO in Andhra Pradesh (Capacity ' 000 litres per Day)
Cooperative Private Others Total Registering Authority No. Capacity No. Capacity No. Capacity No. Capacity Central Authority 13 2905 6 855 1 200 20 3960 State Authorities 0 0 9 588 0 0 9 588 Total 13 2905 15 1443 1 200 29 4548
Source: DAHD, GoI, 2006
12
IV General Profile of Study districts

The demographic profile and land use pattern of the study districts is furnished in the table.7 (Census 2001). The population density is less in Prakasam district (173) than Chittoor. In many developmental fronts, i.e.in respect of litreacy, urbanization, net irrigated area, net sown area, rain fall, cropping intensity, etc., Performance of Chittoor district is better than Prakasam district. Both the districts are predominantly dependent on agriculture for livelihoods. Of the total households, 61% in Chittoor and 70% in Prakasam district are dependent on farming. About 44% of total area is under cultivation and 74 % of farmers in Prakasam are having less than 2 ha of land holding. Similar pattern (42% of area and 71 % of farmers) was observed in Chittoor also (PLPs, NABARD). How ever, the area under irrigation specifically under canal irrigation was more in Prakasam than in Chittoor (Table 7). The major crops grown in Chittoor district are Paddy, groundnut, sugarcane, mango, Banana, Citrus fruits and in Prakasam district are Tobacco, Paddy, Bajra, Maize, Ragi, Bengalgram, Redgram, Blackgram, Greengram, subabul, Cotton, Chillies, Mango, Guava, Sapota, Cashew and other forestry species.
Table. 7 Profile of the study districts
Item Area
Units Sq.km.
Chittoor 15152
Prakasam 17626 13
Population Male Female Urban Rural Population Growth (decadal) Population Density Litreacy Male Female Urbanisation Agro-climatic Region & Zone
In Thousands In Thousands In Thousands In Thousands In Thousands % (Persons/Sq.Km) % % % %
3735.2 1883.45 1851.75 810.01 2925.18 14.54 247 67.46 78.29 56.48 19.8
3054.94 1549.89 1505.05 466.7 2588.23 10.72 173 57.86 69.78 45.6 16.45
Zone XI - East Coast Plains and Hills Region , Southern Scarce Rainfall Zone.
Rain fall
Geographical area Net Sown area and its % to total geographical area Lakh ha. Forest area coverage Lakh ha. Fallow land Lakh ha. Land not available for cultivation Lakh ha. Cropping Intensity % Net Irrigated area and its % to Net sown area Lakh ha. By canals (in ha): Ha % to Net irrigated area % By wells/Filter Points etc (in ha): Ha % to Net irrigated area % By Tanks and lift irrigation (in ha): Ha % to Net irrigated area %
Source: Aponline.gov.in
Normal (mm) Actual (mm)during 2004-05 Lakh ha.
908 699 15.15 3.51(23%) 4.51(29%) 2.88 4.24 113 1.31(37%) 677 1 115,146 88 15570 12
872 586 17.14 5.38 (31%) 4.43 (22%) 3.11 4.49 106 1.22(22%) 44000 33 68000 52 20000 15
14
V. Socio-economic profile of sample respondents

The data were collected from 200 farmers each from Prakasam and Chittoor from the villages and mandals as mentioned in Table 8. The selection was done using simple systematic random sampling technique.
Table.8 Details of mandals and villages
S.No. Name of the Name of the district Mandal 1 Chittoor Penumuru
Name of Village Atlavaripalli, Balijapalli, Pedarajulapalli, Jattigundlapalli, Maniyanampalli, Sanyasipalli Yadamuru, Bondaluru, V a r a d a r a j u l a p a l l i , Bandivandavallavuru Mungamooru, Indluru, Pernimitta, Mynampadu and Challappalem Jarugumalli, Chintalaplaem, K.Bitragunta, Cherrikurapalem and Davagudur
Yadamari
Prakasam
Santhanuthanapadu
Jarugumalli
15
5.1 Age-wise and category-wise classification of sample :

Among the respondents, 34% belonged to the age group of 41-50 years in Prakasam followed by age group 51-60, 31-40, above 61 and 21-30 (Table.9). In Chittoor also the maximum number of farmers were in the age group of 41-50 years. Table.10 shows that 5% of sample farmers were women farmers in Prakasam district and only 2% of sample farmers were women farmers in Chittoor district. These female farmers are mostly heading the families when the male counterpart is not existing or not in a position to take care of family. Further, in very few families (1%) the women being SHG members, assets like land, house and livestock are on their name. Three and half & 6.0% of the sample dairy farmers belonged to Agricultural Labour (AL) category in Chittoor and Prakasam districts respectively: Similarly 28.0 & 17.5% to Marginal Farmer (MF), 35.5 & 26.0% to Small Farmer(SF), 28.0 & 31.5% to Medium Farmer (Med.F), and 5.0 & 19.0% to Big Farmer(BF) categories in Chittoor & Prakasam respectively. Thus chittoor district has higher concentration of Agricultural Labour (AL), Marginal Farmer (MF) and Small Farmer (SF) category accounting for 67.0% of the sample dairy farmers while the corresponding figure for prakasam district is only 50.0%
Table.9 Age-wise and Category-wise classification of the sample respondents
Category of farmers (no.) District Age Marginal Small Farmer farmer 0 3 17 14 1 35 18 2 18 25 7 4 56 28 Medium Big Agriculture Total Farmer farmer labourer 4 4 3 2 13 10 18 9 3 43 20 19 10 2 68 13 13 6 5 51 5 9 10 0 25 52 63 38 12 200 26 32 19 7 100 7 1 1 1 12 19 15 0 0 52 15 21 3 2 66 18 9 3 4 41 12 10 3 0 29 71 56 10 7 200 36 28 5 4 100
Prakasam 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 Above 61 Total % to total Chittoor 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 Above 61 Total % to total
Source: Data collected from Study districts
16
Table .10. Gender classification of sample N-400

District Prakasam Male Female Male Female 10 28 0 25 1 33 2 30 1 28 0 25 2 5 0 5 1 4 0 95 5 98 2 Sex Marginal Farmer Small farmer Category of farmers (%) Medium Big Farmer farmer Agriculture labourer Total
Chittoor
5.2 Educational status of sample dairy farmers:

The percentage of farmers who can read and write were 54% in Prakasam and 69% in Chittoor district and the trend was similar to educational status shown in census (Table.7). The big and medium farmers were more educated than the other category of dairy farmers in both the districts.
Table. 11. Educational status of sample farmers
N=200 each
Category of farmers (%) District Marginal Small Medium Big Agriculture Total Farmer farmer Farmer farmer labourer Prakasam Illitreate 5 13 13 8 5 43 Read and W rite 4 13 18 17 2 54 Graduate & Above 1 3 3 Chittoor Illitreate 12 8 5 2 27 Read and W rite 15 26 21 4 2 69 Graduate & Above 1 1 1 1 4
Source : Data collected from Study districts
Litreacy level
5.3 Occupational status of sample dairy farmers:

The primary occupation of 91% and 83% of all categories of farmers in Prakasam and Chittoor respectively was agriculture and practicing dairying as secondary occupation. However, the primary occupation in respect of majority of marginal (23 and 34% of marginal farmers in Prakasam and Chittoor) and small farmers (around 8% in both the districts) was not agriculture and they were working as labourers in neighbours fields or in industries. The trend was on higher side in Chittoor than in the Prakasam district. Whenever they are working as field labour the landlord allowed them taking fodder grass for their cattle.
Table.12 Occupational status of sample dairy farmers
17
Category of farmers (%) District Primary Marginal Small Medium Big Agriculture Total Occupation Farmer farmer Farmer farmer labourer Prakasam Farming 7 23 32 27 1 91 Non-Farming 1 1 Labour 2 2 4 8 Chittoor Farming 19 33 27 5 83 Labour 10 3 1 4 17
5.3 Land holding pattern

The average landholding of individual farmer in the study area was 0.60 and 4.37 acres under irrigated and Rainfed areas in Prakasam district and corresponding figures for Chittoor were 1.27 and 0.86 acres, respectively. The average land holding per farmer under rainfed conditions was higher in Prakasam than in Chittoor district in respect of all categories of the farmers (Table.13). Table.13 Landholding pattern of sample dairy farmers
Prakasam District Chittoor District Total category/land in acres Irrigated Rainfed Total Irrigated Rainfed Total Irrigated Rainfed Total Marginal Farmer Small farmer Medium Farmer Big farmer Agri .labourer Total 0.00 0.10 0.20 1.93 0.00 0.60 0.95 0.95 2.30 2.40 3.81 4.02 11.1 9.25 8 2.00 2.00 4.37 4.97 0.29 1.20 2.03 3.86 0.00 1.27 0.48 0.77 0.58 1.78 1.42 3.45 2.36 6.21 0.00 0.00 0.86 2.13 0.21 0.74 1.06 2.24 0.00 0.94 0.61 0.82 1.30 2.04 2.69 3.75 10.3 8.13 7 1.33 1.33 2.62 3.55
5.4 Cropping pattern in the study area

The farmers of Prakasam district mainly grow Bengal gram (25%), Tobacco (18%), Subabul (12%), Paddy (12%), Jowar (5%), social forestry species, vegetables and fruits (Table.14) and in Chittoor they grow Groundnut, (48%) Sugarcane (25%), Jowar (13%) and Paddy (3%). Further, 66% of the farmers in Prakasam and 45% of the farmers in Chittoor are following multiple cropping patterns i.e. growing more than one crop in a season. The average yield per acre and acreage per farmer for major crops grown (as primary crop) is furnished below in the table.14. Thus the cropping
18
pattern is more livestock friendly in Prakasam (paddy, jowar, pulses, Subabul) district as well as in Chittoor district (paddy, jowar, groundnut). The production system is highly dependent on home grown feeds, fodders and crop residues. Farmers in the study area are cultivating many green fodder varieties like fodder Jowar, NB21, pillipesara and Paragrass. However, the percentage of the farmers who are growing green fodder is 6.0% & 4.5% in Prakasam and Chittoor districts respectively.
Table.14 Cropping pattern in the study districts

Kharif District Name of the crop Rabi % of total of farmers
Average Yield per Average Yield per Acereage acre Acereage/ acre /farmer (quintals) farmer (quintals) Prakasam Paddy/Rice 1.39 21.00 0.25 2.81 Jowar 0.76 12.13 0.60 10.43 Subabul ( Perrennial) 2.41 187.94 Tobacco 2.65 56.67 2.13 31.94 Bengal Gram 1.22 7.80 1.36 9.00 Jute 2.25 3.50 0.00 0.00 N.B.21 4.00 300.00 0.00 0.00 Paragrass 0.25 40.00 0.20 0.00 Fodder Jowar 0.28 42.00 0.15 0.00 Orange 2.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 Vegetables 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 Eucalyptus Trees 2.50 132.50 0.00 0.00 Sapota 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 Chittoor Paddy/Rice 1.25 46.25 0.13 3.75 Jowar 0.76 9.12 0.00 0.00 Red Gram 0.30 1.00 0.00 0.00 Ground Nut 1.25 3.96 0.00 0.00 N.B.21 0.50 150.00 0.00 0.00 F.Jowar 0.35 45.00 0.25 39 APBN 1.33 117.33 0.00 0.00 Sugar Cane 1.54 215.07 0.00 0.00 Malbari 0.00 0.00 2.00 1500.00
12.0 5.0 12.0 18.0 25.0 1.5 0.5 0.5 12.00 1.5 1.5 2.0 0.5 3.0 11.0 0.5 48.0 0.5 2.0 2.0 25.0 0.5
19
VI. Management Practices and Profitability of Dairy Farming in Study Districts

6.1 Livestock holding pattern and Yield:
In general, the Prakasam district has buffalo based dairy farming system and Chittoor has crossbred (CB) cow based dairy system. Table.15 shows that about 39% of farmers in Chittoor were rearing 2 CB cows on an average followed by 3-5 CB cows (36%). Only 8% of the farmers were rearing more 5 animals. The majority of farmers (57%) holding of CB cows yielding in the range of 5-6 litres per day and only 10% of the farmers were holding the CB cows yielding more than 10lit. In Prakasam also 44% of the farmers were holding 2 graded buffalos, 12% farmers have more than 3 buffalos and 19% were having single graded buffalos. The majority of the farmers (63%) were getting a yield of 5-6 lit / day/animal. Only 6% of the farmers possessed the graded buffalos yielding 10-12 lit / day. The average productivity of milk for AL, MF, SF, Med.F, and BF is 3 & 4, 5 & 4, 5 & 6, 7 & 8, and 5 & 10 litres per day for buffalo in prakasam and CB cows in chittoor district respectively. Thus in both the districts the germ plasm was of good quality resulting from either cross breeding or up-gradation. Culling is a precondition for milk productivity enhancement and it is practiced in Chittoor. Dairy farmers are ingenious, progressive and enterprising in the district that no sooner the animal productivity decreased, than they would replace with other quality animal. Usually farmers were retaining young female animals (70% of farmers) and only 33% of the farmers were rearing young male animals. The male young ones were usually disposed off within a year age. Field study reveals that none of the farmers were maintaining bullocks or bulls in both the districts and hiring tractors for ploughing. Though the Prakasam district is a home tract of world famous Ongole breed, very few of the sample farmers were holding these Ongole cattle, either cows or bulls or bullocks. Apart from dairy animals, 7% of farmers in Chittoor and 3% of farmers in Prakasam were rearing other livestock like sheep, goat and poultry. The details of livestock holding pattern is furnished below in the table.15. The category wise livestock holding was provided in table 16, where the frequency of holding a pair of 20
milch animals is more in prakasam with 62% of the farmers and 32% of the farmers in chittoor obtaining two animal dairy unit.
Table.15 Livestock holding pattern
Particulars
Indigenous cows Crossbred cows
Prakasam No. of Yield in lit/ animals animal/day -
Buffalos local
Graded buffalos
1 (14%) 2 (4 %) 3 (3%) 1 (19%) 2 (44%) 3-5 (12%) 1(14%) 2 (6%) 1 (26%) 2 (11%) 1 (13) 2 (1%) 1 (28%) 2 (13%) > 20 (0.7%)
1-2 lit (12%) 3-4 lit (8%) 5-6 lit (63%) 7-8 lit (9%) 9-12lit (6%) -
Chittoor No. of Yield in lit/ animals animal/day 1 (3%) 3 4 (3%) 1 (10%) 5-6 lit (57%) 2 (39%) 7-8 lit (26%) 3-5 (36%) >10 lit (10%) >5 (8%) -
2 (2%)
8 (2%)
Young stock Local buffalos male Local buffalos female Graded buffalos male Graded buffalos female Sheep
2 (1%)
Goat Poultry
>10 (2%) -
<10 (4%) 10-20 (2%) >20 (0.7%) >10 (2%) B ackya rd (2%)
Figures in parenthesis indicate the percentage farmers responded under that category
21
Table.16 Category-wise large animal holding pattern

Percentage of farmers responded No. of animals Marginal farmers Small farmers Medium farmers Big farmers AL Total Chittoor 1 14 6 1 21 2 10 11 8 1 2 32 3 1 9 6 16 4 2 4 6 1 1 14 5 & more 1 6 6 3 1 17 Prakasam 1 4 6 2 4 1 17 2 10 15 24 9 4 62 3 4 3 4 3 1 15 4 & more 2 2 3 1 8
6.2 Management practices followed by dairy farmers in study districts

6.2.1 Breeding efficiency
The age at first calving (AFC) and intercalving period is considered to be a good indicator/ parameter among the management practices adopted by farmers. Majority of the farmers (53%) responded that the dairy animals calved first time at the age of 3 years (53%) followed by 2 years (41%) and 4 years (2%) in Chittoor (Table.17), While in Prakasam, majority of the farmers reported that the age of first calving was 4 years in respect of local buffalos (13%) as well as graded buffalos (43%). Further, 10% of the farmers faced reproductive problems and AFC increased to 5 years. In respect of intercalving period 69% of farmers in Chittoor reported that the calving interval was up to 1.5 years (table.17). Similar trend was observed in Prakasam also (60%). AFC as well as calving interval indicated that medium and big farmers were taking care of the animals well in Prakasam, while in Chittoor it was by small and marginal farmers.
Table.17 Age at First Calving (AFC) of dairy animals Response of farmers

District Category Response of farmers (%) in Chittoor Crossbred cows Indigenous Response of farmers (%) in Prakasam Local buffalos Graded buffalos
22
cows Age at first calving in years Prakasam Marginal Farmer Small farmer Medium Farmer Big farmer Agrilabourer Chittoor Marginal Farmer Small farmer Medium Farmer Big farmer Agrilabourer 2 3 4 years years years 3 years 3 4 5 3 4 5 years years years years years years 2 4 1 4 6 3 3 4 1 6 11 2 2 4 1 8 14 3 7 11 2 1 3 3 1 6 13 2 27 43 10 1 2 2 2
11 15 12 2 1 41
16 19 13 3 2 53
Table.18 Calving Interval of dairy animals Response of farmers

Chittoor district CB cows Up to 1.5 to Above 2.5 1.5 2.5 and up to year years 3.5 % of farmers gave response 69 Category wise response Marginal Farmer 21 Small farmer 26 Medium Farmer 16 Big farmer 4 Agrilabourer 2 69 25 7 5 9 1 3 25 6
Prakasam district
Up to 1.5 year 15 2 3 6 2 1 14 Local buff. Graded buff 1.5 to above Up to 1.5 to above 2.5 2.5 1.5 2.5 2.5 years year years 3 2 1 1 4 2 2 1 1 46 6 12 16 10 2 46 30 5 8 8 6 3 30 4 2 1 1 4
2 4
Further, 52% of sample respondents in Chittoor indicated that CB cows were conceived with 1 service. Around 21% farmers reported to have faced reproductive problems with CB cows i.e. the number of services per conception were more than 3. The corresponding figures for Prakasam district were 44 and 7% in respect of graded buffalos and 11 & 9% in respect of local buffalos. The reason for higher number of services per conception in Prakasam district are : i) buffalos are seasonal breeders compared to cows ii) Silent heat in buffalos -detection of heat is difficult resulting in delayed AI leading to failure iii) Moreover, in the district, farmers are feeding their 23
animals entirely on Subabul which also causes reproductive problems iv) feeding mainly with Paddy straw reproductive failure. with out vitamin and mineral supplements also cause
6.2.2 Feeding practices

Usually dairy animals whether crossbred cow or graded buffaloe, they are fed with 20 kg of green fodder, 5 kg. of dry fodder and 1 2 kgs of concentrate feed for sustaining the milk yield of 7 10 litres of milk. There can be variations and adjustments in the quantity of feed among the types namely dry, green and grain residues / concentrate feed ingredients. However, a thumb rule in dairy farming with regard to feeding is that feeding green fodder at lib can sustain an average milk yield of 6-7 litres per day without inclusion of either dry fodder or concentrate feed. Such a feeding has greater benefits including the health of the animal, in addition to easy conception. The metabolism of the animal is such that it adjusts the nutrients from the feed and fodder resources accessed to the animal depending upon the availability and the conveniences of the dairy farmers. Thus, in place of concentrates the farmers in Prakasam and Chittoor fed with farm grown Bengal gram / rice bran and deoiled groundnut cake and kuduthi which is a semi-liquid stored in either a big pot or a stony structure. The kitchen waste, the food waste, vegetable cut waste, washings of the food plates, the left over foods including the buttermilk, form a semi-liquid, nutritious, delicious food cherished by the buffaloes inserting their jaws deep inside sucking and enjoing the kudithi. Usually, rice bran of 200 400 grms. and little of salts is added just before it is offered to the buffaloes. In lean season, the stalks and the dried stems of these crops are fed to the animals duly adopting hay making practices. 6.2.2.1 Grazing practice: Grazing is a common practice i.e. 79% of farmers in Prakasam and 70% of farmers in Chittoor send their animals for grazing. However it is restricted to dry animals in Chittoor district. Generally animals in milk are not sent for grazing in the first 4-5 months. The grazing hours varied from 4 to 10 hours i.e. 62 % of farmers in Chittoor sent the animals for grazing for 4-6 hours and 27% for 8-10 hours. While in Prakasam the reverse trend was observed. Further, grazing is a common practice on individual basis. The grazing opportunity is more in Chittoor than 24
in Prakasam due to the presence of green cover round the year on arable, uncultivated lands and orchards due to the activity of both the south west and north east monsoons, although the total quantity of rain fall is less. Thus even less time on grazing in Chittoor gives enough grass to the animal. Seventy percent of the farmers of Chittoor indicated that the fodder banks run by Department of Animal Husbandry during drought period were very much useful (supply feed and fodder & checkup for diseases) and 11% expressed that fodder banks were not useful because of long distance. In Prakasam the fodder banks were not established and farmers purchased paddy straw @ Rs. 50 per bundle (apx. 25 kg) from neighbouring Nellore district during drought period. 6.2.2.2 Fodder: The common green fodder fed to dairy animals were Jowar, wild green grass in Chittoor and Jowar (10%) and Subabul (22% of farmers) in Prakasam district. Only 4 - 6% of the farmers were growing fodder species like NB21, Pillipesara, etc. in the study area. About 40% of Chittoor farmers were feeding green fodder @ 10 kg per day per animal. Where as in Prakasam, majority of farmers (53%) were feeding only 10 kg green fodder per day. In both the districts the common dry fodder is paddy straw, which was stored out of paddy crop after harvesting and used through out the year. As mentioned in previous para Prakasam district was reeling under drought for last 3 years and farmers were purchasing paddy straw to feed the animals. The majority of farmers were feeding their dairy animals with 5 kg of dry fodder per day in addition to the green grass either collected or grazed along with concentrate ingredients. 6.2.2.3 Concentrates : The common concentrate ingredients used were ground nut cake and rice bran and usage of ingredients was mostly coinciding with cropping pattern. As could be seen from table 14, majority of the farmers in chittoor district were growing groundnut, the de-oiled cake of which is used as rich source of protein for sustaining high productivity levels. Similarly Bengal gram, Rice bran and subabul are used in prakasam district. The quantity of primary concentrate (Table 18) ingredient fed was on lower side (37% of farmers in Chittoor and 30% of farmers in Prakasam fed less than 1 kg of concentrate). Apart from this, 25% of the farmers in Prakasam
25
and 35% of farmers in Chittoor are feeding more than one concentrate item which include rice bran (around 200 grams), seed coat (300-400 gms). About 7% of farmers in Chittoor and 43% of farmers in Prakasam district were not feeding any concentrate (Table 19). The reason for feeding of no or lower amount of concentrates in Prakasam by majority of the farmers could be i). Prakasam district dominated by buffalos based dairy farming, which are efficient converters of crop residues ii). The milk yield was lower than 4 lit per day in respect of 30% of the farmers iii) Green and dry fodder without concentrate can support easily an animal yielding up to 4-5 lit of milk per day. Over all Buffalo dominant farming systems are found to be efficient converters of crop waste of inferior quality of these straws (crop residues) in supporting the livelihoods of the dairy farmers compared to the cow dominant farming system. The feeding practice followed in a household was a combination of ingredients in ration, in general, feeding pattern per animal in milk is as follows:. Chittoor Quantity 2-3 kgs/day 1-3 kgs/day 0.5 1.5 kg/day 10-20 kgs/day 5 kgs/day Prakasam Quantity 1 3Kgs 100 gms 200 gms. 200 gms 300 gms 10-25 kgs/day 5-10 kgs/day
Groundnut(deoiled) Cake Bran Black/Bengal/Greengram seed coat Green Fodder Paddy/Jowar straw
In both the dairy dominant farming systems, the value addition of the crop wastes (crop residue, grain residue, stalks and hovers), kitchen wastes, and labour wastes (infirm, aged, and women members etc) are adding to the income and food security in normal years. Majority of the farmers are growing bengal gram and ground nut in the study area. The stalks, seed coat of bengal gram and stalks, kernels of ground nut and deoiled cake are excellent sources of Total Digestible Nutrients (TDN) and Digestible Crude Protein (DCP). 6.2.2.4 : Feeding vitamin and mineral mixture : About 8% of Prakasam and 11% of Chittoor farmers were always feeding vitamin and mineral mixture while 43% and 65% of farmers respectively were not yet all feeding vitamin and mineral mixture. The 26
main sources of purchase of vitamin and mineral mixture was Shop (for 33% of respondents in both the districts) followed by dairy cooperative society (DCS) (for 12% of Prakasam farmers and 1% of Chittoor farmers) and private dairy (for 2 % of Prakasam farmers and 12% of Chittoor farmers). Occasionally when the animals was sick, farmers get the vitamin and mineral mixture from veterinary dispensary at free of cost. The cost of 500 gm pack was Rs. 25 at DCS and Rs. 42 at veterinary medical shop. Overall Quantitative and qualitative insufficiency of feeds and green fodder at small/marginal farmer level had been the biggest impediment in exploiting genetic potential of the dairy animals in existing farming system in both the districts. Farmers are not aware of benefit of growing and feeding of Azolla rather feeding beer extract / residue. The production cost of Azolla is only half rupee per kg. which is cost effective and brings down the production costs drastically. It is rich in the critical amino acids that are absent in normal feeds.
Table.19 Feeding pattern by dairy farmers in study districts

% of farmers responded Chittoor Prakasam 4& 0. 4& 2 3 above Total 0 5 1 2 3 above Total 1 13 7 3 1 30 1 1 3 6 6 8 0 2 4 1 2 2 52 3 2 15 60 6 7 8 1 10 1 1 5 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 18 1
0. Concentrate feeding (kg/day/animal) 0 5 1 None Rice Bran Groundnut Cake Bengal Gram Sead Coat D.Oil Cake Maize Powder 7
1 2 7 2 3 1 1 3 0 4 1 1
27
Sesame cake Coconut cake Beer pottu Total
1 2
1 2
No response Green Grass Jowar Paragrass N.B.21 APBN Cowpea(Pillipesara) Subabul Total
No response Paddy Straw Jowar straw Total
1 1 11 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 7 11 6 1 4 21 3 15 5 9 3 15 Green fodder feeding (kg/day/animal) 1 2 2 2 2 10 5 0 5 30 Total 10 15 0 5 30 Total 1 1 4 14 0 10 1 9 4 6 1 1 32 21 3 4 44 1 1 10 1 1 22 10 12 0 1 17 1 1 1 1 2 1 7 5 1 1 15 1 1 6 2 7 15 0 1 1 1 1 22 2 1 25 1 1 4 1 1 4 26 3 0 4 3 100 0 53 18 6 0 3 100 Dry fodder feeding (kg/day/animal) 1 1 1 2 5 0 5 20 Total 5 10 5 0 Total 1 36 36 8 18 4 1 0 5 6 3 64 37 31 7 6 81 1 1 4 1 1 36 0 5 6 3 100 8 37 31 8 6 100
6.2.3. Housing for dairy animals

Study data reveals that 64% and 75% of farmers of Prakasam and Chittoor, respectively have shed for dairy animals. Of this, 80% of the farmers had thatched shed and 19% have the shed with asbestos roof irrespective of category of farmers (marginal, small, medium or big farmer). The average cost for thatched shed for 2 animals was Rs. 3800 in Chittoor and Rs.4200 in Prakasam district and it would double, if it was of asbestos roof. Farmers constructed the sheds 2 years back in Prakasam (28%) and Chittoor (37%). Specially, for thatched shed, the roof was repaired or put a new roof every 3-4 years depending on the condition of roof and also weather conditions. The
28
animal shed is near by the residence of the majority of the farmers (84% in Prakasam and 88% in Chittoor) and only 5% of farmers constructed shed at the place of agriculture fields. In both the districts 48% of farmers indicated that the cleanliness of the shed is important and were cleaning the shed daily.
6.2.4 Animal Health management

6.2.4.1 Veterinary Services: Veterinary dispensary (either Rural Livestock Unit or veterinary institution headed by a veterinarian) is available to 70% of farmers in Prakasam and 79% of Farmers in Chittoor district with in 2 km. range. Another 28% and 20% of farmers of Prakasam and Chittoor respectively indicated that the veterinary facilities are available in the range of 3 to 5 kms. Rest 2-3% of farmers have to travel more than 5 km to visit a veterinary centre. As mentioned in the para 3.2.3, each Rural Livestock Unit (RLU not headed by a veterinarian) in Prakasam and Chittoor district covered around 5400 and 5300 animal units, respectively. There is a urgent need to upgrade the RLUs in to veterinary dispensary (hospital with a veterinarian) to provide efficient services and also to improve productivity. Usually the RLUs vaccinate the livestock and treat the animals and all major cases will be referred to Vet. Dispensary/Vet.polyclinic. It was reported (Table.19)that the frequency of
vaccination was more in Chittoor compared to Prakasam and the same reflected in frequency of treatment for dairy animals by the farmers. The animals were commonly vaccinated with Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD)and Haemorrhagic Septicaemia (HS). Compared to Prakasam, very few farmers got their animals treated more than 3 times in Chittoor. However, the farmers of Prakasam incurred more expenditure (Rs.397) on animal health management than the Chittoor farmers (Rs. 227) (Table 21&22). The cost incurred for treatment varied from Rs. 100 to Rs. 2000 with high frequency falling between Rs. 200 to Rs. 600. The medium (Rs. 296 and Rs.430 in Chittoor & Prakasam) and big farmers (Rs.450 and Rs.588 in Chittoor & Prakasam) incurred more
29
expenditure than the other categories of farmers (Table.21& 22). Farmers reported to have encountered the common diseases in dairy animals like Anorexia, Pyrexia, Mastitis, Food and Mouth Diseases (FMD), Constipation, Diarrohea, etc.,
Table 20. Frequency of vaccination and treatment
Percentage of farmers Percentage of farmers responded for responded for frequency of frequency of Treatment Vaccinations in a year in a year No. of times Prakasam Chittoor Prakasam Chittoor 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 71 28 0 0 6 1 60 29 4 2 1 30 35 15 13 4 37 6 24 15 7 6 5
Table.21 Cost of treatment for dairy animals

Percentage of farmers incurred the Treatment cost expenditure Rs./animal/year Prakasam Chittoor 0 7 38 100 4 4 200 11 20 300 21 17 400 16 8 500 23 7 600 11 2 700 2 1 800 3 1 1000 1 1 1500 1 1
30
Table.22 Category-wise average cost of treatment for dairy animals Avg. Cost in Rs./animal
District/ Category Marginal Farmer Small Farmer Medium Farmer Big farmer Agri. labourer Total Chittoor Prakasam 184 315 262 332 296 430 450 588 136 390 227 397
6.2.4.2 Breeding services: Regarding breeding services, most of the dairy farmers
in Chittoor preferred Artificial insemination (AI) to natural service for their dairy animals. Where as in Prakasam, 33% of farmers took their dairy animals for natural service due to a strong belief on it and rest 66% farmers preferred AI for their animals. All the animals were inseminated with Murrah breed in Prakasam district and 91% of animals in Chittoor inseminated with Jersey and rest with Holstein Friesian ( HF). The Department of animal husbandry in both the districts charged Rs. 20 per AI, DCS charged Rs. 25 per AI, private person charged Rs. 50 per calf born and for natural service, the cost was Rs. 50 per service. In Chittoor all most all the farmers reported satisfied with the breeding services available in their area, but in Prakasam 41% of farmers were not satisfied. The reasons for dissatisfaction were infertility problems, repeat breeding, irregular attendance by veterinary hospital staff, lack proximity to veterinary hospital and, not posting veterinary doctor. The reasons for satisfaction were breed improvement, proximity of hospital to village and good cooperation & availability of veterinary staff.
6.2.4.3 Farmers perceptions about choice of veterinary services: In Chittoor district 99% of the farmers preferred AI for their animals reason mentioned was breed upgradation for better yield (46%), faith on AI (25%) and nearness (20%). W here as in Prakasam 74% of the farmers preference was AI to Natural Service (NS), reason mentioned was breed up-gradation for higher yield (26%) and nearness (24%). Further, 26% of the farmers preference was for NS (49%) and the reason mentioned was the belief on it.
31
6.2.5 Mortality
As per the study, 20% of farmers in Prakasam and 24% of farmers in Chittoor reported average mortality of an animal in a year. FromTable 22 it can be interpreted that the loss in value up to Rs.1000 indicated the mortality in young animals below 6 months, Rs. 1001 to 5000 indicated the mortality of young animals more than 6 months but less than 2 years, and Rs. 5000 above indicated the mortality of adult animals. Thus mortality among adults is more than the young animals. The disease pattern and other reasons indicated in Table 23 also revealed the same.
Table.23 Average loss in value (Rs.) due to mortality per annum per farmer No. of farmers responding
Margi nal Farm er Prakasam Up to 1000 1001 to 5000 5001 to 10000 10001 to 15000 Total Chittoor Up to 1000 1001 to 5000 5001 to 10000 10001 to 15000 Total Small farmer Medium Farmer Big Agri Total farmer labourer
2 1 1 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 5
3 2 1 4 3 3 3 2
2 4
1 3
1 1 1 2 1
5 6 5 11 27 9 7 6 11 33
Source: Field data ; N= 200 in Prakasam and N=200 in Chittoor
Table.24 Reasons for mortality

No. of farmers responded Prakasam Chittoor 2 1 7 3 1 2 2 1 1 3 8 7 1 7 1 1 2 1
Reasons for mortality High Fever Ascariasis Protozoan diseases Due to Injury Died due to Snake Bite Haemorrhagic Septiceamia. Died due to viral Fever Calf Dead in Rainy Season Fallen in the Mud Canal and died Suffered with Nervous Weakness Jaundice
32
Died due to Mad Dog Bite Bloat Worms Died due to Brain Fever Tetanus to Calf Died due to eating of Poisonous fodder Total % to total no. of farmers
1 1 1 1 1 27 20%
1 2 1
33 24%
Source : Field data ; N= 200 in Prakasam and N=200 in Chittoor
6.2.6 Level of adoption of technology and awareness:

The level of adoption varied from district to district. The awareness levels were higher among the farmers of Chittoor than the farmers of Prakasam (Table.24). In all aspects, practicing of technology to the advantage of farmers was more in Chittoor compared to Prakasam i.e, usage of chaff cutter, milking machine, BMCU, cream separator, teat dip, washing of udder before milking and cleaning of shed and vaccination. Though the awareness levels were high, the usage in practice was less in both the districts especially in respect of usage of chaff cutter, milking machine, BMCU, cream separator and teat dip those are cost intensive. The other reasons were given below: Around 20 % of farmers opined that not useful for lesser number of animals and also for low yielders Due to financial problems, 15% and 20% of farmers of Prakasam and Chittoor were not inclined for these 15% of Chittoor farmers and 10% of Prakasam farmers indicated that they adopt these technologies if some incentive provided by government to purchase the instruments. 8% of Chittoor farmers felt that, these technologies can not be adopted on a group basis due to management problems, lack of coordination among the farmers.
In respect of washing of udder before milking and cleaning of shed and vaccination, more than 80% of farmers in both the districts were aware of the importance of these parameters and majority of these were practicing because of higher milk yield, hygiene & cleanliness and disease prevention. Further, 50% of the small & medium farmers and 72% of big farmers were adopting these practices. 33
Table. 25. Level of adoption of technology
Technology
Chaff cutter M i l k i n g machine BMCU 12 81 0 92 46 C r e a m 7 86 0 93 26 separator Teat dip 10 81 1 89 35 W ashi ng 99 1 84 10 97 udder Cleaning of 75 7 46 10 100 shed* B a l a n c e 79 13 29 56 94 Feeding Vaccination 98 2 80 12 99 Note: Total-(aware+notaware) and total-(using+notusing) percentage of farmers did not respond * 36 % of farmers in Prakasam do not have shed
Source : Field Data collected from Study districts
Prakasam Chittoor % of farmers responded % of farmers responded (N=200) (N=200) Aware Not Using Not Aware Not Using Not aware using aware using 38 56 4 88 41 56 7 91 29 76 0 90 27 69 1 96 51 57 42 3 0 3 8 2 10 97 100 94 85 80 66 1 0 3
1 99 1 gives the figure of
6.3 Extension and veterinary services:

6.3.1 Generally Department of Animal Husbandry (DAH) or District Milk producers Union provides the veterinary services including treatment of diseased animals, infertility cases, castrations, AI Work and extension support. Apart from these, in Chittoor, district private agencies like JK trust and BAIF also are providing these services but the network is very thin. Free vaccination is provided by DAH and Milk Unions in case of diseases like FMD and HS. As indicated in Table 4 the network of veterinary hospitals was more in Chittoor than in Prakasam (97 RLUs, 90 veterinary dispensaries, 9 veterinary hospitals and 1 veterinary polyclinic in Prakasam district and 187 RLUs, 99 veterinary dispensaries, 15 veterinary hospitals and 1 veterinary polyclinic in Chittoor district). Similarly the AI centres are also more in Chittoor (301) than in Prakasam (192) district. As part of extension services, the DAH was
34
conducting fertility camps, supplying fodder seeds and slips, providing training in livestock rearing at their farms and disseminating the information related to livestock rearing in villages. Milk union provided similar facilities also through its functional DCS. During last year DAH conducted 186 training programmes & 395 fertility caps in Prakasam district and milk union conducted more fertility camps (1033) and demonstration(303) than DAH. Evan a private dairy conducted 120 fertility camps and 80 exposure visits. Although multiple service providers are operating with their vested interests, the problems of the farming community are not fully met. For instance, the information on raising Azolla in the ponds is absent / inadequate. This would reduce utilization of concentrated feeds. Perhaps, that might be the reason why such useful messages are not passed on to the farming community. Raising of Azolla doesnt require land: a pond size of 3m x 2m x 1m would suffice, which even agricultural labourers could do. 6.3.2 The field data reveals that 99% of farmers of Chittoor and 77% of farmers of Prakasam got the information related to dairy farming from various agencies like DCS, DAH, private dairies, Gram Panchayat and neighboring farmers (table 26). In Prakasam district, majority of the farmers (40%) got the required information from DCS followed by DAH (26%), private dairy (4%), neighboring farmers (4%) and gram panchayat (2%) while in Chittoor majority of the farmers (38%) got the required information from DAH followed by private dairy (37%) and DCS (24%). In Chittoor district, the information related to dairy was quite frequently passed on to the farmers compared to Prakasam (Table.27). Regarding training, field data indicates that 95% of farmers did not get any type of training in dairy farming and rest were taken to exposure visits of 3 days duration by DCS (4%) and DAH & a private dairy (each 1%) in Prakasam district and DAH (4%), Private dairy(2%) and DCS (1%) in Chittoor district. About 63% of Prakasam farmers and 35% of Chittoor farmers were desired of training in future in dairy farming.
Table.26. Extension service & Information provider
Information provider Name of the agency No response DCS DAH Private Dairy Percentage of farmers responded Prakasam Chittoor Total 24 24 40 24 63 26 38 18 4 37 87
35
Neighbouring Farmers Gram Panchayat N=
4 2 200
1 200
5 2
Table. 27 Frequency of information provision

Frequency of information No response Quarterly Monthly Fortnightly Weekly N=
Percentage of farmers responded

Prakasam 23 1 47 22 7 200 Chittoor 1 8 24 26 41 200 Total 24 10 71 48 48 400
6.4 Credit support to dairy farmers

The 11th Five Year Plan is poised with the concept of Financial Inclusion (FI). FI is a strategy to include the underprivileged who are hitherto deprived of the banking services. SHG banker linkage is also a programme in one way similar to FI which is claimed to be a big success. As on 30-1-2006, 22 million SHG groups had been formed with bank finance of Rs.10,631 crores under the programme. The various credit sources in the districts for various purposes like crop production, purchase of animals, children education, health and house hold purpose and working capital are cooperative banks (Coop), commercial banks (CBs), regional rural banks (RRBs), self-help groups (SHGs), moneylenders, relatives and private dairies. In total 35.5% of farmers of Prakasam and 38% of farmers of Chittoor availed credit (table 28). Cooperative bank provided credit to majority of farmers (26 nos.) in Prakasam district followed by SHGs (22 nos.), Commercial banks (20 no.s) and private dairies (13 nos.) while in Chittoor private dairies provided credit to majority of the farmers (28 no.s) followed by cooperative banks (20 no.), CBs (16 no.s) and RRBs (10 nos.). Major purpose for which credit availed was for crop production and purchase of animals. Farmers utilized the credit for other purposes like children education, health, household expenditure, etc. Out of 71 farmers in Prakasam who availed credit, 68% of them availed credit less than Rs. 20,000 (Table. 29) and the interest rate is 8 36
percent. In Chittoor also similar trend was observed. Only 16% and 18% of farmers of Prakasam and Chittoor, respectively utilized the loan for purchase of animals. Further, 11% more farmers availed loan for livestock along with crop loans in Prakasam district. The repayment period fixed by various banks for crop loans was 1 year and for other investment loans, it was even 5 to 6 years. The defaulters percentage was more in Prakasam (24%) than in Chittoor (2%). Field data showed that the loans were rescheduled for an amount of Rs. 5000 for 3 years incase of 3 farmers in Prakasam due to the draught and an average of Rs. 30000 was rescheduled in Chittoor for a period of 5 years in respect of 13 farmers. The SHGs were collecting the loan from members within 3 years period. In Prakasam district private dairies offered a loan of Rs.10000 to dairy farmers with a repayment period of 6 months without any interest. If the farmer pays back after 6 months, the interest changed on the loan was 16% per annum. Dairy farmers in study area have suggested few of the measures (Table.30) to remove indebtedness in rural areas and important among them are marketing arrangements to get remunerative prices of milk as well as crop produce, improvement in irrigation facilities and low cost or subsidized loans. About 7 and 3% of farmers of Prakasam and Chittoor also opined that social pressure through SHGs would help in better recovery. Further, they (11%) opined that integrated or mixed farming would help in removal of debt burden. At macro level, as per the NSSO 59th Round, it is revealed that, out of 89.35 million farm households, 43.42 million accounting for 48.6% were reported indebted.
Table. 28 Purpose-wise sources of credit

District Purpose and sources of credit Total No. of Cooperativ Commercia Regiona SHG Money Relative Privat farmers availed e banks l banks l rural s lenders s e credit banks dairies
Number of farmers availed credit facilities
Prakasam Crops For Purchase of Animals 19 3 13 1 3 5 6 3 6 13 49 23
37
For Children Education For Crops & Animals Purchase For Medical &Health Purpose Working Capital Chittoor Crops For Purchase of Animals For household Expenditure Working Capital
3 1 26 10
1 4 0 1 20 13 1 1 1 16
2 8 1 3 5 5 22 3 3 2 6 2 28 13
3 15 2 1 71 (35.5
10 20
10
28
33 36 1 11 76 (38.0
Source : Field Data collected from Study districts figures in the parenthesis indicate percentage
Table .29 Bank-wise and purpose-wise credit by dairy farmers

From CBs From RRBs From SHGs Fro m Fro Mo Rel m ney ativ Priv len es ate der Fro dair s m ies
From cooperative banks
Up Rs. Rs. Up to Up 3000 Up to Up to Up to Up to Up to 3000 Up to Rs. to Rs to Up to 0 to Up to Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. 0 to Rs. 30000 Rs. . Rs. Up to Rs. Rs. 5000 Rs. 2000 1000 2000 1000 2000 5000 2000 to 200 100 100 10000 20000 0 100000 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 50000 00 00 00
Prakasam ( total 71 farmers availed credit from various sources

Crops For Purchase of Animals For Children Education For Crops & Animals Purchase For Medical &Health Purpose For household Expenditure Working Capital Total % to farmers availed credit (71 farmers) Chittoor Crops For Purchase of Animals For household Expenditure Working Capital T total % to farmers availed credit (76 farmers)
4 3 1 8 2 3 1 1 1 3 1 4 1 5 8 3 5 6 2 8 3 6 13
4 5 4
5 7 1
13 18 4
3 4
1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 11 15 5
8 11 7
3 4 2 5 3
14 20
8 11
3 4 3
3 4 2
13 18
1 2 6 8 4 5 7 4 8 11 1 1 2 3 1 7 9 7 9 7 9 3 4 2 3 3 4 2 3 28 37
38
Table. 30 Suggestion for removal of rural indebtedness by farmers in study districts

Measures for removal of indebtedness Percentage of farmers responded Prakasam Chittoor N=200 N=200 89 80 4 2 2 6 7 11 4 2 2 15 3 11
No response Getting Good Crops and good income through better marketing Improvement in irrigation Facilities Remunerative prices to milk Subsidised/loe interest Loans Due to social pressure no indebtedness Farming with more than one crop and integrated farming
6.5 Insurance
Livestock insurance was not so much popular as life or motor insurance. Only 11 and 18% of farmers of Prakasam and Chittoor insured their animals with New India Insurance company. The premium ranged between Rs. 300 to 450 in Prakasam district and Rs. 450 to Rs. 800 in Chittoor. Premium amount varied with the yield of the animals, usually not exceeding 2.5% per annum for long term policy. Generally, all the loany animals were insured at least for 3 years but non-loany animals were never insured. Farmers opined that the claim settlement was satisfactory in both the districts. Government of Andhra Pradesh introduced a new subsidized (80% of premium) insurance scheme for milch animals and sheep which is boosting the livestock insurance to some extent.
6.6 Milk Marketing

6.6.1 Marketing system in the study districts : In both the Districts, as in
many parts of the State, the public sector milk procurement system became defunct and often either closed down or running in low capacity consequent upon economic reforms. Private dairies are dominating the milk market. On an average 14 lakh litres of milk is being produced in Chittoor per day. On marketing side, around 10 lakh litres is procured by private dairies and 1.5 lakh litres by Balaji (Govt /NDDB) dairy, and the rest by milk vendors. Recently, DRDA established 19 BMCUs of 3000 litres 39
per day capacity units . Farmers reported that BMCUs are paying comparatively good price than private dairies. All BMCUs are maintained by SHGs only. All BMCUs are functioning effectively with full capacity. General average price paid by private dairies is around Rs.8/litre, where as BMCUs paid Rs. 9.40/ litre , which is again based on the quality of milk (fat content). This pattern of BMCUs establishment by DRDA in Prakasam is non-existent. As against the handling capacity of 5 lakh litres per day, the Prakasam District Milk Producers Union is handling a mere quantity of 0 .65 lakh litres per day. The Prakasam District Milk Producers Union was taken up by Mother dairy of NDDB recently and therefore farmers were expecting few positive changes in milk marketing in the district. In the district, 42 Private dairies like Indiana, Ravileela, Jersey, Creamline, Heritage, etc.. are procuring considerable quantities of milk (around 4 LLPD) from the district. Usually, wherever there is a dairy cooperative society (DCS) operating for milk procurement, private dairies are not operating in such villages. However in faction ridden villages, both DCS and private dairies are operating. It is interesting to notice that private dairies are getting a substantial quantity of milk despite of non-extension of veterinary/input services. Private dairies are attracting farmers by adopting simple strategies like spot payment, loan facility, direct (transparency) on spot reading basis in milk testing and acceptance of all types of milk including watered one (which in many cases is only fraction/ occasional).
6.6.2 Marketing by individual farmers: Usually farmers keep some milk for
household consumption and rest is sold / marketed. As per the study, 3% and 7% of farmers of Prakasam and Chittoor were not retaining any milk for household consumption; 58 and 49%, respectively, retained a litre of milk (average family size is 5 in both the districts and just meets the requirement i.e 280ml per day per head as per ICMR recommendations) and about 11% in both the districts retained 1.5 litres of milk. Only 9% of farmers were consuming more than the recommended quantity of milk. The financial or economic problems were the main reason for low consumption of milk in both the districts. One more reason was lack of awareness about the nutritional value of the milk. 40
Table 31 & 32 provides information on the average quantity of milk produced per animal and marked in the study area by the farming community. The average productivity of milk for AL, MF, SF, Med.F, and BF is 3 & 4, 5 & 4, 5 & 6, 7 & 8, and 5 & 10 for buffalo in prakasam and CB cows in chittoor district respectively. It is interesting to note that 51 and 68% farmers in Prakasam and Chittoor districts sold 7 litres to 14 litres of milk daily; much amazing is that 32% of the farmers in Prakasam sold 10 liters per day while 33% farmers in chittoor districts sold 12 to 14 litres of milk daily. Thus, the overall average milk marketed is 7 litres / day. However, this level of marketable surplus was not uniform through out the year specially, for agri labourers and marginal farmers due to shortage of feed and fodder. In both the districts, 14 percent of farmers were selling more than 10 litres of millk per day. In both the districts, 95% of farmers were selling their milk at near by place i.e. less than 1km distance. Only 5% were traveling up to 5km to sell the milk.
Table 33 shows that DCS was a better marketing place for milk in Prakasam district followed by private dairy. DCS was attracting more number farmers because of payment of higher price per litre than the private dairies or middlemen coupled with veterinary / extension services /loan. The average procurement prices by DCS in the Prakasam district are Rs. 10 per litre with 5% fat and Rs. 14 per litre with 7% fat. The private dairies are also procuring the milk at the same price. The payment to farmers is once in fortnight by DCS and daily or weekly by private dairies. The fat testing is done manually by DCS and electronically by private dairies. The concept of electronic milk testing, smart card using digital technology, bulk milk cooling system has not penetrated in the Prakasam district in the cooperative system. At the time of study there was no milk holiday. Further, the milk was not rejected based on quality.
Table.31 Marketable milk by dairy farmers
Productivity Prakasam (%) 1-2 lit 10 3-4 lit 30 5-6 lit 35 7-9 lit 8 Chittoor (%) 10 38 21 12
41
10-12 lit Source: Field data
18
20
Table.32 Category-wise marketable milk by dairy farmers

Chittoor Prakasam Productivity Milk Milk Marketed Farmer Category Productivity Marketed 5 Agri. Labourer 3 5 4 6 Marginal Farmer 5 6 4 8 Small Farmer 5 7 6 12 Medium Farmer 7 10 8 14 Big Farmer 5 8 10 8 Total 6 7 7 Source: Field data
42
Table.33 Agency-wise marketing channel and sale price of milk

Frequency of Price in Rs. 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 Total Source: Field data 2 31 22 3 58 35 2 8 15 9 1 1 5 40 43 15 2 % of farmers responded Prakasam Chittoor N=200 N=200 Private dairy Others DCS Private dairy 1 15 19 6 5 28 8 2 Total
DCS
Others 6 10 12 52 27 10 13 46 32 4
6.6.3 Marketing Infrastructure at Village level: Usually at DCS level

equipment for fat testing (AMCU or Physical fat testing equipment) and farmer-wise milk records are present. But, of late, DCS are using milking machine and BMCUs also for efficient milk procurement. About 68% of Prakasam farmers and 10% of Chittoor farmers indicated that milk was tested electronically by AMCU and 9 and 26% of farmers, respectively indicated that the milk is tested through Physical fat testing equipment. In Chittoor, 26% of farmers are pouring milk in to BMCUs and none in Prakasam district.
6.6.4 Farmers perceptions on milk marketing channel:

Farmers of Prakasam preferred DCS (56%) as a very good marketing channel to private dairy (36%). Very few farmers inclined towards marketing of milk by self (3%) or through vendor (4%). But in Chittoor the preferred marketing channel was private dairy (62%) followed by DCS (24%) and vendor (15%). The various reasons for choice of milk marketing channel were given below in Table 33. The main reason for preferring DCS as a marketing channel in Prakasam district is nearness followed by prompt payment and other services. Whereas in Chittoor the main reason for preferring private dairy is prompt payment.
Table.34 Farmers perception : Milk marketing channel
Reasons Farmers Perception (% of farmers)
43
Milk union Prakasam Near by Prompt Payment Financial Assistance by the Pvt. Sector Higher Rate for milk sold Good Facilities Vendor purchase milk at door step Receiving amount directly Supply Milk to Hotel and get money daily/weekly Dairy cooperative not available Belief on him/them Total Chittoor Near by Prompt Payment Financial Assistance by the Private Sector Higher Rate for milk sold Good Facilities Vendor purchase milk at door step Dairy cooperative not available By the advice of Indirakranthipatham (Velugu) Officers Belief on him/them Higher payment for good quality of milk Used to sell milk to dairy cooperative Dairy closed, So selling the Private Dairy Total Source ; Field data 45 7 3 1
Private Dairy 11 5 10 2 1
Vendor
Directly by Total Self 56 13 10 7 3 3 1 1 6 1 100 5 30 4 32 1 3 8 1 7 3 2 1 100
1 1 3 1 1 1
57 1 7 12
6 1 36 3 18 4 20 1 5
4 1 5 1 1 3 3
1 2 1
24
3 2 2 1 62
15
6.7 Income and Employment generation from Dairy Farming:

The income and employment generation is good indicator of, as to what extent the ultimate goal of any development programme is realized. Dairy farming has a proven record in amelioration of rural poverty by way of providing assured, constant income on the day one it self, in the habitat providing nutritional security to the family members. Its importance of late, more often than not, as an instrument to fight against poverty in rural India has come to limelight.
6.7.1 Source wise average annual income (from livestock): The sources of
income from dairy farming are through selling of milk, dung, stock, milk products. Table 35 provides source-wise income from agriculture, dairying and wages which varied among farmer categories. Table 34 shows that except big farmers and agricultural laborers, all other types of farmers were getting nearly 50% of the income from dairying and livestock
44
sources in both the districts. The percentage of income from dairy for agri labourer was 47% and 52% respectively in Prakasam and Chittoor districts. In respect of agrilabourers, since the amount of marketable milk was not constant (Para 6.7.2) their income was on lower side. Of the total income, the income levels from dairying were more than that of the crop or other sources in Prakasam district compared to Chittoor district. The reasons could be the price paid for buffalo milk was more than the cow milk, the level of milk yield in Chittoor district could not give advantage over price of buffalo milk. Further, the maintenance cost for crossbred cows was more than that for buffalos. Table 35 indicates that the average annual income from dairy ranges between Rs. 19940 to Rs. 34920 in Prakasam and Rs. 5880 to 23799 in Chittoor district. The major source of income in a dairy enterprise is milk (80 to 98% of total livestock income) followed by stock sales (11 to 24 % in Prakasam district and 2-17% in Chittoor). Dung is used as farm yard manure in their crop production. Usually farmers dont prefer to sell the dung. Table. 35 Category-wise average annual income from different sources
(Rs. Per annum)

Total Annual Family Income Prakasa Marginal Farmer 21621 (54%) 10357 (26%) 4071(10%) 3929 (10%) 39978 m Small farmer 19974 (51%) 15726 (40%) 3000 (8%) 571 (1%) 39271 Medium Farmer 34348 (50%) 33823 (50%) 0 0 68172 Big farmer 25071 (29%) 60906 (71%) 0 0 85977 Agri labourer/ 17500 (47%) 0 19940 (54%) 0 36940 Tenant Farmer(2) 34920 (69%) 16000 (31%) 0 0 50920 Chittoor Marginal Farmer 9477 (47%) 7658 (38%) 2668 (13%) 513 (3%) 20316 Small farmer 17084 (44%) 13521 (35%) 5089 (13%) 3375 (9%) 39068 Medium Farmer 23799 (52%) 18684 (41%) 1737 (4%) 1868 (4%) 46089 Big farmer 19235 (35%) 34286 (63%) 1200 (2%) 0 54721 Agri labourer / 14728 (52%) 0 13250 (47%) 500 (2%) 28478 Tenant Farmer (1) 5880 (37%) 10000 (63%) 0 0 15880 Source: Field data Figures in parenthesis indicates the 5 to total family income District Category Income Income from Income from dairy crop from wages & livestock production Other Income
45
Table.36 Average annual income from various components of livestock

Category Income source within livestock Young and adult Milk Dung other livestock Total animals Amt. In Rs. / Amt. In Rs. Amt. In Rs. Amt. In Rs. / Amt. In Rs. / % % % % year / year / year year year 19264 16811 30188 20160 13665 26420 89 84 88 80 69 76 0 0 360 0 275 0 0 0 0 0 2500 0 2357 3163 3800 4911 3500 8500 11 16 11 19 18 24 21621 19974 34348 25071 19940 34920
Prakasam Marginal Farmer Small farmer Medium Farmer Big farmer Agri labourer / Tenant Farmer (2) Chittoor Marginal Farmer Small farmer Medium Farmer Big farmer Agri labourer / Tenant Farmer (1) Source: Field data
1 1
12
8564 13405 22247 18764 12078 5880
90 78 93 98 82 10 0
111 196 0 43 150 0
1 1 0. 5 1
158 542 0 0 0 0
1. 5 3
645 2942 1553 429 2500 0
7 17 7 2 17
9477 17084 23799 19235 14728 5880
6.7.2 Employment generation from dairying : The major activities involved

in dairy farming include collection of fodder/cultivation of fodder, grazing the animals, feeding & watering, cleaning the animals and shed, milking and marketing of milk. Maximum number of farmers spent half an hour to one hour on all activities (Table. 36). The operations are flexible and staggered depending upon the convenience of the family members and need not necessarily be attended foregoing wage employment opportunities. Each family was spending nearly 4 to 6 hours on dairying excluding time spent for collection of water. In Chittoor district, farmers were spending more time on dairy farming than those in Prakasam district. In both the districts, the cleaning of shed and feeding / watering of animals was done by women (nearly in 50% of the families) (Table.37). Usually female members of the family attend the animal rearing activities. Interestingly, milking of the animals (vendor himself), marketing of the milk was done by male members of the family depending upon the category i.e social status. The usage of labour was very less i.e. less than 10% of families were using labour for different services. Collection of water for 46
animals is another time consuming activity to the tune of 2 hours daily, on an average. For a pair milch animal, 6 hours of the day is spent for rearing the animals including the proportionate time allocated for collection of water. Thus, the total number of hours spent accounted for 8 hours daily per family for the average 4 animal unit comprising of a pair of milch animals with or without a pair of bullocks/heifers / sheep & goat. Thus the activity is generating full-time employment to one person in a family for the average animal unit size of 4. The issue that emerges is while wages are paid for various activities in development of arid lands under water shed programme, how come activities of dairy farming are not considered on par with soil and moisture conservation activities under wage employment programmes duly supporting the livelihoods of the similarly placed socio economic counterparts of the same habitation. Under National Rural Employment guarantee programme, any citizen of rural India has right to demand 100 wage days. Under this back-drop , there is a growing concern to include cost of wages in arriving at cost of milk production and in the study an attempt is made to examine with and without imputing family labour cost (Annexure I).
Table.37 Activity-wise average number of hours spent on dairy farming
Activity Percentage of farmers responded
Time spent in hours

Shed Feeding & watering Cleaning of animals Milking Marketing
0.5
55 82 76 90 99
1
Prakasam 13 18 21 10 1
1.5
5 0 4 0 0
0.5
40 54 42 76 90
1
Chittoor 41 46 45 24 10
1.5
0 0 13 0 0
Time spent in hours

Fodder collection Source: Field data
1
60
2
28
3
13
1
62
2
25
3
13
47
Table.38 Activity-wise work performers

Activity Performed by Self % of farmers responded Wife Labour Other Self Wife Labour Other family family members members Prakasam Chittoor 53 9 7 21 62 7 4 47 7 10 42 43 4 10 19 10 10 65 20 4 12 14 5 7 61 23 4 12 22 8 3 77 18 2 2 12 8 10 60 23 5 12
Shed 8 Feeding & watering 36 Cleaning of animals 61 Milking 74 Marketing 67 Fodder 70 Source: Field data
Cost of Milk Production :
Analysis of cost of milk production provides clues to the decision making bodies and helps the decision support system to understand whether or not farmers get remunerative prices; it also provides insights on the relative efficiencies of the production systems, gap analysis, farm gate price, and finally the extent of profit / losses. Dairy enterprise, like any other comparable economic activity can be regarded as a zero sum; the farm gate price provides the finances that reward and guide the whole production system from basic capital cost to feed resources and labour on which the whole chain was founded. The cost of production of milk was calculated based on the field data and investigators observations (Annexure I). The production cost of milk was done keeping in view the farming conditions of all categories of farmers viz. Big, Medium, small, marginal farmers, agricultural labour of the study area. This was done for different levels of milk productivity obtained in the field conditions farmer category wise for cross bred cows(4,6,8 and 10 lit ),graded buffalos (3,5 and 7 lit). Similarly cost of milk production was done for Agricultural Labour category, who, more often, maintained local buffaloes whose average milk yield was 3 litres / day in Prakasam district and 4 litres / day for CB cow in Chittoor district. It is to be noted that the optimum productivity levels of 7 litres for graded Buffalos and 10 litres per crossbred cows could be obtained by the Medium farmers of Prakasam district and Big Farmers of Chittoor district under improved management conditions in the study area. Due to purchased inputs, scarcity of dry fodder / crop residue and non availability of green grass coupled with prohibitive cost of concentrate feed 48
rendered dairying much difficult for few of the small and marginal farmers and agricultural labour in reaping the benefits to the extent the resource rich could get. Lack of access to the fodder resources and availability of surplus passive labour for utilization of grazing opportunities, low cost of the animal prompted the latter to go in for local buffalo which they feel is more relevant to their situations. The farm grown fodder and crop residues were imputed for the market costs and the expenditure for 8 months flush period and the purchased cost of paddy straw during the 4 months of scarce period of the year, the market cost of concentrate ingredients for entire year and the cost of grazing were included in the paid out costs. The cost of two animals along with equipment, shed and transport were included in the capital cost. The assumptions taken for consideration were drawn mostly from the situations of the study area. It is interesting to note that the net income accrued is highest for the Med.F and BF among all categories of farmers which accounted for Rs.16997 and 26929 in Prakasam and Chittoor districts respectively. The annexure provides information on net incomes accrued and the minimum price of milk at no profit no loss (remunerative) for both the species for all categories of farmers in the study area. The net incomes of AL, MF, SF, Med.F and BF was Rs.5612 & 6743, 9185 & 7703, 10185 & 8724, 16997 & 23005, 9553 & 26929 for Prakasam district and Chittoor districts respectively. As discussed earlier (6.6.1) the sale price for cow milk was Rs. 8.50 and that of buffalo was Rs.14.00 which was much lower than / below the cost of milk production i.e. Rs.9.46 14.54 per litre of cow milk and Rs.12.77 -19.00 per litre of buffalo milk (Annexure I) which indicated that dairying was not a remunerative enough to cover all costs including imputed costs for family labour and farm grown inputs, even at the higher productivity levels of 8 & 10 litres for cow and 5 & 7 litres for buffalo irrespective of farmers category. Although it is not highly remunerative proposition farmers expressed that they are pursuing the activity in absence of alternative employment opportunities coupled with crop failures. However, there is enough margin of profit when the cost family labour component and farm grown feed and 49
fodder values are not taken into account. The major cost of concentrate feeding is met by his own sources i.e. ground nut cake extracted / derived from de-oiled farm grown ground nuts / crop in case of BF and Med.F categories in Chittoor district. The family labour component accounted for 30 to 39% of the total expenditure (all costs) for BF and Med.F where as it accounted for 51 to 71% of the total expenditure in case of SF, MF and AL in the study area (Annexure I). This perhaps might be a strong point favouring the Marginal & Small farmer and Agricultural labour category compared to Medium and Big farmer category in pursuing the activity not withstanding the non remunerative price component. The BF and Med.F category are pursuing dairying by making use of the farm grown grain / gram / ground nut and crop residues in addition to efficient utilization of family labour. The living compulsions of the resource poor dairy farmers force them to pursue the activity in absence of any other opportunities. This perhaps might be the only point which keeps the commercial dairying / mechanised dairy farming out of place in Indian context favouring the farming community in general and more particularly the small farmer category intrinsically associating. It is this small margin of profit that is safeguarding the interest of the small & marginal farmer keeping the commercial dairy farming in rural areas away from competition from the rural milk producers. Had there been a higher margin of profit, perhaps, the mechanised inputs replacing the labour component would have taken place, as has happened in western societies and also in the Indian commercial poultry farms. It is urban consumers that are getting benefited from such an exploitative marketing mechanism that got established during last four decades. Farmers are not getting the higher remuneration for their produce. It is only the market value of the butter fat that they hardly get for their whole milk. It is often complained in the public meetings as well as in the forums that the cost of a litre of mineral water bottle (drinking) is higher than the procurement price of the milk in rural India. It is important to note that the data were collected during November & December 2006. However the APDDCF & Private dairies have revised the milk prices twice there after i.e. February 2007 & June 2007. Currently the price for litre of cow milk with 4.5 % fat is Rs.10.50 and that of buffalo is Rs. 14.30 for 6.5 % fat both of which are far below the cost of milk production as envisaged in the Annexure I. An analysis 50
was made to find out the proportion of family labour component in the overall expenditure of milk production for various levels. The family labour cost component accounted for Rs.15000-20000 depending upon the farming category. This suggested that the farmers in all the five situations rearing the animals were relevant to the given setting, since they are getting value/returns for their family labour which otherwise do not have value in absence of alternate opportunities. Even the agriculture labour rearing local buffalo getting only 3 litres of productivity was found to be getting higher income for his farm labour, which otherwise has no value. It is interesting to note that inclusion of family labour and farm grown inputs component played a deterministic role to make dairying either remunerative or un-remunerative. Once the family labour and farm grown feeds and fodder values are imputed, even at optimum productivity levels of 10 lit. and 7 lit. in case of crossbreds and graded buffalos also, the dairying didnt become a remunerative enterprise as was envisaged. Even to achieve these levels of productivity (low against potential) the input support system and market system needs to adopt a pro-farmer policy such that the inputs are made available and accessible at a reasonable rate for a reasonable period without reducing the margin of profit. Such a dynamic service oriented input system can only be achieved through farmers representation at various levels in all the dairies, feed mixing plants, vaccine production units, biological units, disease investigation laboratories, bulk drug manufacturing units etc. both in public sector as well as private sector units. The producer controlled market system would go a long way in addressing the multitude of the problems including the milk price. (Fig1, chapter X)
6.9 Preferences of the of dairy farmers

All most all the farmers were taking up the dairy activity by hereditary. How ever, they preferred dairying because of lack of knowledge on other activities coupled with familiarity with the vocation (table 38). Majority of the farmers opined that the dairying is a profitable proposition with continuous and immediate income. They also opined 51
that at any point of time marketing is not a problem for milk. At the same time farmers faced few of the challenges like un-remunerativse milk prices, lack of assured irrigation, labour problems, high cost of inputs, management and disease problems and lack of enough knowledge on dairy farming. To face these challenges, farmers (2%) have installed drip system for efficient utilization of water and part of land (1/4 acre) devoted for growing fodder crops (3 and 4% in Chittoor and Prakasam). Few agri labourers (2%) were taking part of their wages as fodder from the landlord. However, the collective action taken by the farmers to tackle the problem was very rare. The details of collective action by stake holders was discussed in the ensuing chapter.
Table.39 Reasons for preferring dairy farming
Reason Profitable proposition and getting continuous income Less investment coupled with immediate returns Under any circumstances there is market for milk Lack of knowledge on other activities and it is hereditary Peaceful and no tension Crop residues utilized for dairy Dairying is better than crop production and business Getting loans easily for dairying Milk used for domestic use Prevents migration Livestock and crop production together is better
% of farmers responded Prakasam Chittoor 20 44 25 14 5 8 32 22 5 8 19 8 4 6 14 12 3 2 4 7 5 5
Table.40 Challenges faced by dairy farmers
Problem Lack of irrigation and water Low/Insufficient milk price Manpower / Labour problems Diseases and fertility problems Lack of Veterinary service High cost of feed and fodder Less knowledge on dairying No response
% of farmers responded Prakasam Chittoor 44 24 14 22 26 8 13 23 3 1 5 8 4 6 19 32
No traditional/cultural belief systems relating to dairy farming was observed in the study area. The usual perception of some elites was that reallocation of resources 52
such as increasing the herd size of milch animals by sale of few acres of land should provide them more earning opportunities. It was ascertained with the farmers whether it is correct or not. The reflections of the respondents in 98 per cent cases were negative. Such re-allocation is not possible and the following reflections were made by the respondents: Priority for cultivation of crops useful for household consumption and inability to devote land for fodder cultivation Shortage of green fodder sources Shortage of dry fodder more so in drought years Lack of Drinking water for animals Lack of assured irrigation Maintenance is a big problem as 75% farmers are marginal and small. Traditional attitude of farmers is such that they do not want to sell out the land being inherited. They also expressed that they may face difficulties in the input procurement and caring of animals due to labour shortage/high cost of labour. Majority of the farmers wanted their children to study and do the job, which is fetching more and comfortable. The assumption behind such proposition is animal rearing activities are anti-development particularly in promotion of litreacy, reduction in school dropouts, if their herd size is increased. Few farmers said that due to small family size and the recent trend of the current generation it may not be possible to increase the herd size whether or not such reallocation would benefit.
VII. Feasibility of Collective Action in Livestock Endeavors

It is generally believed that communities with common interest will participate in collective actions. This belief was challenged by Mancur Olson who reported that 53
some members do not contribute equally but get equal benefits. More over the living compulsions of the poor might not enable them to participate in the community activities although they were interested. Yet, another factor is self interest coupled with lack of alternatives force the collective irrationalism. This explained the over exploitation of grazing lands. Individuals in their anxiety to get more benefit (due to their self-interest) lose sight of project objectives. The individuals are rational in their thinking but collectively the act leads to irrationality. This also explains why community pasture development programmes fail. The farmers expressed doubts about peoples participation in maintenance of community grazing lands. They are non-existent and majority of the farmers reported that they are absent. About 9% of farmers in Prakasam and 5% of farmers in Chittoor district said that Panchayat lands were available for grazing. In Chittoor, 22% of the farmers reported that they had their own grazing lands. In both the districts the condition of grazing lands was often precarious, denuded, devoid of any green cover, unattended and uncared for. In this background, the respondents did not feel the possibility of peoples initiatives in maintaining either community grazing land or for that matter any community initiative be it - chaff cutter, milking machine and even milk collection unit (Table. 41). The reasons, they expressed on Community Grazing lands were: (1) No coordination between villagers, (2) Difficulty of maintenance, (3) Violence/factionalism etc. The reasons expressed for the non-feasibility of Community Milking Machines were lack of awareness and un-preparedness for payment for milking the animal, which they feel by doing it themselves they can reduce expenditure/ production cost. Many farmers were aware of Chaff cutters and majority of them used long back on individual basis when Department of Animal Husbandry gave them free of cost. At present only few farmers were using it (Para 6.2.6). However, on Community basis reservations were expressed.
Table. 41 Perceptions of farmers about community mobilization for collective action Activity % of farmers pro for community mobilization Prakasam Chittoor Maintaining Community Grazing lands 17 5 Community milking machines 3 4 Feed manufacturing units/ chaff cutters or min. mix. 7 10
54
Plant Community milk products making house Collective milk marketing Marketing of milk through BMCU Community medicines replacement depot Gobar collection and gobar gas plant
0 49 2 4 2
2 18 47 5 1
Further, in respect of Community Medicines Depot and Gobar gas Plant, majority of the farmers in both the Districts expressed non-feasibility of such collective initiatives due to lack of trust and non-cooperation among the villagers. Similarly, majority of them expressed lack of confidence on the feasibility of community Gobar plants. However, in the study area (Challapalem in Prakasam,) the Self Help Groups (SHGs) are very active and majority of the members are rearing milch animals: SHG members in collaboration with Panchayat have constructed veterinary hospital building and are now requesting the department to post a veterinary doctor instead of veterinary assistant in this village. Further, in another village viz. Jarugumalli, one of the big farmer has donated building for setting up of veterinary hospital. This phenomenon was a common feature. Many of the hospitals in the state were similarly established with public donations / contributions. The feasibility of Milk Products Manufacturing Unit by SHGs : Although several vendors tried preparing khoa and selling to urban places (such as Chittoor, Tirupati, Bangalore, Ongole) duly collecting milk from the villagers, making higher payments on several occasions, experience suggested that the farmers incurred heavy losses suddenly due to non-payment by the urban marketers. Several times the milk proceeds of the village (Jagamarla village near Palamaner) amounting to Rs.50,000 to Rs.1,00,000 is lost due to the sudden disappearance / cheating done by the khoa sellers (at Bangalore.). With this back drop almost all the farmers opined that it is not feasible (Table.38). Community Milk Collection through BMCU: A multi tier institutional public-private partnership between DRDA/ SERP , Mandal Mahila Samakhya/ Village organization, and Balaji dairy promoting community milk collection from the SHG members through village organizations, supplying milk to the bulk milk cooling units operated 55
by All Women Dairy Employees working under the guidance of Mandal Mahila Samakhya is in operation. There are 19 such BMCUs promoted in the District by DRDA spending amounts ranging Rs.12 lakhs to 25 lakhs for establishment of each BMCU with or without building using Velugu / IKP funds. The salary of the five-member staff usually amounting to Rs.8000 10,000 and the operational expenses amounting to Rs.8,000 Rs.10,000 are met from the commission received from the dairy towards chilling expenses @ 25 paise for litre which on an average accounts for Rs.22,000 25,000 per month. At village level, a woman worker (Palamitra) is engaged in collection of the milk at village organization/ centre and the samples (20-25 ml vials) sent to BMCU for testing. Pricing and Payment is done based on fat percentage. Generally the average price ranged between Rs. 9 to 10 per litre (cow milk), which is higher than the private dairy rate. SHG dairy federations in particular got benefited and other farmers in general felt happy at the arrangement of BMCU and the initiative of DRDAs in mobilizing the community for collective marketing of milk. This approach is timely intervention and is a win-win situation having tremendous advantages at all levels. This novel experience is worth emulation elsewhere in similarly placed drought-prone Districts where the public sector dairy unions either lost or at the verge of loosing place in the market due to onslaught of private diary entry following Milk and Milk Products Order (MMPO 1992) following economic reforms. The Bulk Milk Cooling Unit (BMCU) promoted in the District by DRDA helped each milk producer to earn on an average Rs. 1.50 to 2.00 rupees per litre. On an average each milk producer got Rs. 225/- to Rs. 300/- extra per month by supplying milk to BMCUs. Milk Producers are getting prompt payment every fortnight as per the quality of milk i.e., fat and Solids Not Fat (SNF) when compared with he Private Dairies. With the result, income levels have increased and quality of life in the family has also improved, and they are able to pay the loan installments regularly and recoveries have improved in SHGs. In the study area (Yadamari Mandal headquarter) two months ago Bulk Milk Cooling Unit (BMCU) was established by DRDA, Chittoor. The BMCU procured its full capacity of milk i.e. @ 3200 litres. (1726 litres. In morning + 1500 litres in evening) every day. There is good response for this community milk 56
procurement endeavor, particularly from SHGs and Mandal Mahila Samakhya. There are few initial problems, one of them that even minimum wages amount is not paid to the women workers (staff ) presented in AnnexureII. Community milk marketing: The farmers (2% of farmers) of Prakasam were forming in to groups/SHGs at the instance of Private dairy. On behalf of the group, one member collects the milk from other members and send it to the collection of private dairy existing at far of place (5 kms.). The members on rotation attend the works with a shift interval of a week or fortnight till all the members in the group complete their turn. This method is followed in the village(s) where the milk collection was on lower side and private dairy is not sending a vehicle, in which case, the group is paid a collection charge of paise 20 per lit as transportation charges. in the BMCU, Erpedu . The detailed case study is
57
VIII. Impact on Social Development

Whether crossbred dominant farming system or buffalo dominant farming system, dairying in any case, provided constant continuous assured income to the family members and prevented starvation even during long dry spells and stress. Out of total farmers interviewed, about 92% of farmers in Chittoor and 72% of farmers in Prakasam expressed that dairy animals easily compensated the crop loss during drought years. This is the reason why farmers in Chittoor compared to Prakasam are not sensitive to crop failure during droughts. The long dry spell for last 5 years is being experienced by them but without much damage to the household level activities (livelihoods) which was only due to daily earnings from milk proceeds and stock sales. Few dairy farmers reported, that, although like any other Indian farmers, they also are born in debts, live in debts and die indebted, were always preoccupied, busy with animals and hardly get time to think of suicides. Many farmers of Prakasam district also reported that dairy provided regular income and it was used for meeting household expenditure. The dairy income is used in troublesome days of drought. Although 85.0% and 81.0% dairy farmers opined that dairy farming decreased the incidence of farmer suicides (Table44), it may be too simplistic to conclude dairy farming prevented farmer suicides. An attempt is made to find out, at macro level, whether there is any relation between the incidence of farmer suicides and dairy development of the given area / district (Table 42). Dairy farmers with less holdings do not go in for commercial / Risky Crops rather go for cultivation of dairy friendly crops (paddy, jowar, groundnut, Bengal gram , subabul etc.) as discussed earlier (Table 14). Although the incidence of farmers suicides in the study districts is less, there is no correlation between farmers suicides and dairy development as could be observed from the table 41. For instance cuddapah although low milk production district the incidence of farmer suicides is also less compared to Guntur district which is well developed in dairy development (contributing 8% of the milk production of the state) has also registered high rate of farmers suicides. This shows that even in dairy developed areas so long as risky capital intensitive crops
58
Table. 42 District wise Farmer Suicide and milk production data

S. NO Name of the District Farmer Suicides (1-7-98 to 6-6-05)
No. %
Milk production ( 2004-05)

( 000 tons) %
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.
SRIKAKULAM VIZIANAGARAM VISAKHAPATNAM EAST GODAVARI WEST GODAVARI KRISHNA GUNTUR NELLORE PRAKASAM CHITTOOR CUDDAPAH ANANTAPUR KURNOOL MAHABUBNAGAR MEDAK NIZAMABAD ADILABAD KARIMNAGAR WARANGAL KHAMMAM NALGONDA RANGA REDDY HYDERABAD TOTAL
5 1 9 7 6 18 86 12 55 44 16 266 117 179 104 117 145 208 430 71 114 42 2057
0.24 0.05 0.44 0.34 0.30 0.87 4.18 0.58 2.67 2.14 0.78 12.93 5.69 8.70 5.05 5.69 7.05 10.11 20.90 3.45 5.54 2.04 100.00
276.3 240.2 365.5 459.7 522.6 658.9 592.8 338.7 536.7 646.2 152.0 276.8 291.8 212.7 172.1 146.4 187.4 208.0 166.0 276.1 276.7 200.8 53.4 7256.8
4 3 5 6 7 9 8 5 7 9 2 4 4 3 2 2 3 3 2 4 4 3 1 100
Source:1. A.P.Govt. statement genuine number of farmer suicides for the period from 1-7-98 to 6-6-2005. 2.A.P.Govt. statement on number of farmers suicides confirmed & relief measures extended as per G.O.Ms.No.421, Revenue D.A.II.Dept dated 1-6-2004. (Cotton) are resorted the hypothesis that, in the dairy developed areas the rate of suicides are less is not tenable. Conversely, Cuddapah, a district, with low milk production registered less number of suicides which might be due to reasons beyond dairy farming i.e. perhaps due to not resorting to risky capital intensive crops. Since
59
in majority of the districts where dairy development is more, the incidence of the farmers suicides is less suggesting that dairy farming is one of the strong factors associated with reduction of vulnerability and prevention of suicides while on the other end of the continuum exists capital intensive risky venture / crop. The farmers suicides is attributed to high indebtedness often loans taken on high rate of interest from private money lenders. Repeated failures of capital intensive risky venture/ crop would result in loss of hope of recovery frustration leading to suicides. However, for the AL, ML, SF who maintain dairy animals are compelled go for cultivation of dairy friendly crops (paddy, jowar, groundnut, Bengal gram , subabul etc.) for food & folder security as discussed earlier. (Table 14). In such a system of mixed farming there is hardly any scope for AL, ML, & SF category to go in for capital intensive risky crops.
Table. 43 Farmers perception on vulnerabililty reduction in small farmers economy

S.No.
Percentage of total respondents Total Prakasam Chittoor

Live stock rearing reduces vulnerability In dairy developed areas farmers suicides are less Dairy provides sustainable livelihoods Dairy based families faces stresses and shocks Integrated farming only provides sustainable rural livelihoods Commercial agriculture increased suicidal rate in A.P Yes 98 97 97.8 4.8 98.2 96 No 2 3 2.2 95.2 1.8 4 Yes 97.1 95.6 96.3 7.4 97.1 97.1 No 2.9 4.4 3.7 92.6 2.9 2.9 Yes 99.3 100 99.3 2.2 99.3 94.9 0.7 97.8 0.7 5.1 No 0.7
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Table.44 Impact of dairy farming on Social development

Parameter Farmers response in percentage on impact of dairy farming on social development Prakasam Chittoor
No response Increased Decreased No Change No response Increased Decreased No Change
60
School dropouts / child labour Infant mortality Malnutrition Indebtedness Farmers suicide Alcoholism Domestic violence Interaction with government or banmk officials
26
60
95
30 8 5 3 11 35 4
1 7 7 4 23 1 71
63 79 75 85 55 42 18
6 6 13 9 11 22 7
3 5 17 18 37 16
96 95 80 81 60 74 4 3 1 3 10 3
90
Family planning Sanitation Chulla Adult education Housing Assets purchased
15 12 1 21
64 85 90 45 80
13 2 4 5 1 2
9 1 5 29 18 23
99 99 99 98 94 98
1 1 1 1 6 1 1
73
Participation in village activities
82
97
Table 43 provides information on farmers perception of the effect of dairy farming on reduction of vulnerability and farmers suicides. It is interesting to find that 98.0% of the farmers opined that livestock rearing reduces vulnerability in drought years. Ninety seven percent of the sample respondents indicated that farmers suicides are less in dairy developed areas and 97.8% expressed that it provides sustainable livelihoods. It is also reported that integrated farming (98.2%) ensured sustainable rural livelihoods and commercial agricultural (96.0%) increased suicidal rate in A.P. In the study area the percentage of indebtedness among the dairy farmers was very low i.e only 35.5 and 38% in Prakasam and Chittoor respectively as against the state average of 82% house holds indebtedness as evinced through the recent report of NSSO. In the light of these it can be stated that dairy dominant integrated farming system which ensures sustainable income, reduces vulnerability marked by less 61
indebtedness was one of the important factor preventing the incidence of the suicides.
Switching from labour intensive dairy farming to capital intensive risky ventures / propositions involving high investments and often loans taken on high rate of interest from private money lenders exhausting institutions credit sources and the subsequent failures due to either vagaries of monsoons or policy distortions led to suicides as happened with cotton growing farmers of Andhra Pradesh. (Table 42, Warangal, Karimnagar, Mahabubnagar, cotton growing areas and less dairy developed areas) whether or not dairy farming prevented universally suicidal deaths who also indulged in risky capital intensive crops remains inconclusive warranting further exploration through an exhaustive and exclusive study on farmers suicides. The study area is marked by dairy dominant farming system which did not promote risky capital intensive ventures (like cotton, table 14) rather promoted dairy friendly crops like ground nut, paddy, jowar, subabul, sugar cane, and cultivated forage crops. Thus dairy farming can be considered as one of the strong barrier prevention of farmers suicides. It is also reported that women members used milk income for payment of children fee, purchase of school uniforms, books etc. For meeting petty expenses, they did not depend on husband or elders. It was also reported that dairying enhanced the women status. They could escape misery of life. It also enhanced family self respect, dignity, and nutritional status. In Chittoor district, on an average, the milk consumption is around 100 gms/day/person only, which is far below the ICMR recommended nutritional requirement level of 280gms per day. The extension system should develop strategies for disseminating the nutritional importance of milk as a complete food endowed with critical amino acids which help in prevention of malnutrition and other deficiency diseases. It is interesting to note that the Chittoor households traditionally consume less milk although they are good milk producers. The findings given at Para 6.7.2 also reveal the same. which helped in
62
The levels of infant mortality, migration, school dropouts, alcoholism were found to be less in dairy farmer households compared to non-dairy farmers - be it Chittoor or Prakasam district. The social mobilization and empowerment of women is apparent and appreciable in the rural areas.
Table.44 indicated that the status of farmers in both the districts improved due to dairying when compared to their own situations when dairying was not a major avenue of livelihood. Such improvement was reported to be more pronounced in Chittoor compared to Prakasam district. Few farmers in Prakasam expressed that income levels increased due to dairy and due to high income, alcoholism also increased. Over all, they were able to purchase more assets like utensils, gas stove, fan, TV, bicycle / motorbike, house etc. Their participation in village activities increased and also association with government agencies, banks and others increased. In the light of above , it is evident that income from dairy farming triggered social development process in such drought prone districts .
63
IX. Areas of Concern and Suggested Measures

The sustenance of rural livelihoods is currently at stake than ever before, in the face of economic liberalization. Livelihoods options are shrinking in rural areas in general and more so in eco-fragile regions. Both the milk production systems viz. crossbred dominant and buffalo dominant farming systems are found to be highly relevant and well suited for reducing the vulnerability in drought-prone districts in compensating the crop losses. About 39% of farmers in Chittoor were rearing 2 CB cows on an average followed by 3-5 CB cows (36%). The average yield of majority of CB cows was falling in the range of 4-6 litres per day and only 10% of the farmers were holding the CB cows yielding more than 10lit. In Prakasam also 44% of the farmers were holding 2 graded buffalos, 12% were holding more than 3 animals and 19% were having single graded buffalo. The majority of the farmers (63%) were getting a yield of 4-6 lit / day. Although dairying contributed to social development and helped in reduction of vulnerability, non-remunerative price of milk had ,indeed, remained a cause of worry in milk based rural economy zone . In both the districts, very few farmers were rearing bulls or bullocks or Ongole bred animals .Loss of biodiversity due to absence of native breeds conservation be it Ongole or Punganur in their home tract should be a matter of concern for the policy makers. As a matter of policy, only single species, be it either crossbred or buffalo to be promoted in a particular drought-prone district in the interest of the farmers keeping in view the community needs. in the same district. The on-going breeding policy needs revision in the light of the field observations more particularly of the neglect of indigenous breeds of cattle, viz. Ongole, that is disappearing in its home tracts despite programmes implemented preventing the bio-diversity loss and conserve the indigenous germplasm. It is, in other words, to suggest discouraging promotion of both the types of dairy animals (buffalo and crossbred)
64
The another areas of concern specifically breeding related are Low conception rate, infertility and repeat breeders and higher level of exotic inheritance beyond 87.5% blood level among the crossbreds. Chronic shortage of feeds and fodder and high feed costs at micro level coupled with Quantitative and qualitative insufficiency of feeds and fodders at National Level is also a matter of concern for realization of optimum genetic potentiality. Augmentation of feed and fodder resources, raising of Azolla, cultivation of fodder varieties, maintenance of grazing lands etc, which are inadequately addressed, high prices of purchased fodder, non-availability of fodder and lack of access to the fodder bank, and non establishment of fodder banks at Mandal level has been rendering dairying unviable during scarce periods. Measures and means have to be evolved for establishment of permanent fodder banks at mandal or cluster of villages level with full subsidy to small and marginal farmers for the scarce period of 4 months in a year as noticed in the study area in order to make dairying a viable and remunerative enterprise. The idea behind such a strategy is to provide livelihood expansion by way of reducing the cost on the expenditure side. The capacity building measures and extension mechanism to impart strategies, suggesting best practices for augmentation of feed and fodder resources, raising of Azolla inoculation ponds (3m x 2m x 1m) etc., for reducing the cost of feeds and fodder are highly inadequate. Livelihood expansion strategies based on location specific opportunities in the form of development of community grazing lands, maintenance of gochar lands and utilisation of other non-conventional feeds with or without mixture of kitchen wastes need to be explored further. Integration with ongoing watershed development programmes / joint forest management programmes where pasture / fodder development is a component providing entitlements for cut and carry for better synergy . Such opportunities shall reduce the expenditure towards purchase of crop residues / dry fodder duly replaced with vitamin and mineral rich collected grass . These common pooled resources would be of immense help more particularly to the resource poor dairy
65
farmers in livelihood expansion by way of reducing the feed expenditure and enhancing the margin of profit. Each Rural Livestock Unit (RLU not headed by a veterinarian) in Prakasam
and Chittoor district covered around 5400 and 5300 adult livestock units, respectively. There is a need to upgrade the RLUs in to veterinary dispensary (hospital with a veterinarian). There is a need to restructure the roles of functions of extension bringing more thrust on livelihood expansion messages to the dairy farmers in addition to the conventional disease prevention and treatment messages. Regarding training, field data indicated that 95% of farmers did not get any type of
training in dairy farming and rest were taken to exposure visits of 3 days duration.
Therefore, it is suggested to increase the awareness levels of farmers as well as adoption levels of technology by farmers extension ,accessing infrastructure , created through enhanced for such facilitation. The
existing training institutions needs to be doubly strengthened to train the para veterinarian and the Gopal Mitra to ensure higher level of adoption through capacity building of the stakeholders. The level of adoption varied from district to district. The awareness levels were higher among the farmers of Chittoor than the farmers of Prakasam. In many aspects, practicing of technology to the advantage of farmers was more in Chittoor compared to Prakasam i.e. usage of chaff cutter, milking machine, BMCU, cream separator, teat dip, washing of udder before milking and cleaning of shed and vaccination. The breeding infrastructure support, market infrastructure support and feed mixing units needs to be suitably strengthened for facilitating technology adoption. While funds for provision of infrastructure are available under Swarn Jayanthi Gram Swarozgar Yozana (SGSY) / Indira Kranthi patham (IKP), Venture Capital Fund and Rural Infrastructure Development Fund (RIDF) of
66
NABARD and other GOI schemes, the availment and utilization of funds was very meager. The district administration of the sectoral department should play proactive role and should have tapped more funds for enhancing livelihood opportunities of the dairy farmers in the study area. For instance, there was no single case of establishment of BMCU in entire Prakasam district. The same is case with establishment of fodder banks. The philanthropic offers for establishment/development of Goshalas / pinjarapools needs to be sought for development of fodder banks and conservation of germplasm. Towards this, matching grant from government funds may be earmarked from the annual budgets at district level which can be managed by the trustees of the Goshalas / pinjarapools with due representation of farmers in the executive body.
The average productivity of milk for AL, MF, SF, Med.F, and BF is 3 & 4, 5 & 6,7 & 8,and 5 & 10 for buffalo in prakasam and CB cows in chttoor district respectively. It is interesting to note that 51 and 68% farmers in Prakasam and Chittoor districts sold 7 litres of milk daily; much amazing is that 32% of the farmers in Prakasam sold 10 litres per day while 33% farmers in Chittoor districts sold 12 to 14 litres of milk daily. The DCS was a better marketing place for milk in the Prakasam districts followed by private dairy. DCS was attracting more number of farmers because of payment of higher price per litre than the private dairies/middlemen coupled with veterinary / extension services. In Chittoor the preferred marketing place was private dairy due to prompt payment and loan assistance by private dairies. There is a need to review the procurement and input policy of milk in the dairy cooperatives such that farmers needs are fully met. The expression of the farmers in the management of dairy cooperatives, in general and similar milk procurement organizations can be more functional than a mere representation on paper. Of the total income, the income levels from dairying were more than the crop or other sources in Prakasam district compared to Chittoor district. The reasons could be the price paid for buffalo milk was more than the cow milk, the level of
67
milk yield in Chittoor district could not give advantage over price of buffalo milk and maintenance cost for crossbred cows was more than the buffalos. The genetic potential of the cross breds was not exploited even to the optimum level due to economic forces operating in the study area. There has been a constant hike in the cost of concentrates and paddy straw while the cow milk prices remained constant at Rs. 6-7 lit from the year 2000 onwards upto 2006 . The oil cake export policy to earn foreign exchange ignoring the domestic needs of livestock farmers needs to be restructured with due representation of the farmers in the governing body. It is interesting to note that the net income accrued is highest for the Med. F and BF among all categories of farmers which accounted for Rs.16997 and 26929 in Prakasam and Chittoor districts respectively. The annexure 1 provides information on net incomes accrued and the minimum price of milk at no profit no loss (remunerative) for both the species for all categories of farmers in the study area. The net incomes of AL, MF, SF, Med.F and BF was Rs.5612 & 6743, 9185 & 7703, 10185 & 8724, 16997 & 23005, 9553 & 26929 for Prakasam district and Chittoor districts respectively. The family labour component accounted for 30 to 39% of the total expenditure (all costs) for BF and Med.F where as it accounted for 51 to 71% of the total expenditure in case of SF, MF and AL in the study area (Annexure I). This perhaps might be a strong point favouring the Marginal & Small farmer and Agricultural labour category compared to Medium and Big farmer category in pursuing the activity not withstanding the non remunerative price component. The BF and Med.F category are pursuing dairying by making use of the farm grown grain / gram / ground nut and crop residues in addition to efficient utilization of family labour. The major source of income in a dairy enterprise obviously is milk (80 to 98% of total livestock income) followed by stock sales (11 to 24% in prakasam district and 2-17% in chittoor). Non remunerative price of milk rendered the farmers to find out ways and means of reducing the cost of production and by decreasing the paid out costs.
68
Towards this end much of the resource poor categories substitute family labour by way of collecting green grass for feeding the animals replacing the purchased concentrate. However they feel that they are not getting remuneration for the labour, they used in dairying. Although they dont have always opportunities for wage employment round the year, they feel exploited by the market force. There is a growing concern, of late that these peasant farmers could have been enrolled as wage earners under NREGA which could have entitled them for fixed hours work of 8 for 100 days without much tension as could be found from NIRD social laboratory experience of Vikarabad in 1987 with milch animals. the tribals who ran away reported, (after a few days) that they could not withstand the busy schedule of life, attending the animals even during night time and suffered from a constant feeling of pressure & tension, etc. Further they lost the freedom of life, free movement, easy life style and much more importantly, to have to live, foregoing the freedom of entertainment by way of dancing and drinking, etc. Majority of the farmers were rearing 4 animals unit comprising of a pair of milch animals, young ones and bullocks with or without sheep and goat. The time spent on animal rearing was ranging between 7-9 hours. Thus the activity is giving full-time employment to one of the family member. However, the present generation youth / daughters-in-law are not showing interest in the animal rearing activities. In absence of alternative avenues of livelihood, farmers opined that dairying is a profitable proposition with continuous and immediate income. They also opined that at any point of time milk marketing is not a problem for milk although not getting remunerative prices. The respondents did not feel the possibility of peoples initiatives in maintaining either community grazing land or for that matter any community initiative - be it chaff cutter, milking machine and even milk collection unit (Table. 40). The reasons, they expressed on Community Grazing lands are lack of coordination between villagers, difficulty of maintenance, may lead to violence due to already existing factionalism etc. The reasons expressed for the non-feasibility of Community Milking Machines are lack of awareness and un-preparedness for 69
payment for milking the animal, which they feel by doing it by themselves they can reduce expenditure/ production cost. Due to the initiative of DRDA, Chittoor, BMCUs have been established to collect the milk and supply to Balaji dairy and with this, SHGs were very happy as they were getting more price than other marketing channels. However non payment of Minimum wages to the operating staff at critical position in BMCU is a matter of concern. Part of the rural developments funds may be made available through budgetary allocations for prevention of poverty as a prophylactic measure to prevent the slip of pre-poor into poverty. More often the small and marginal farmers agricultural labour in the dry lands are vulnerable to the vagaries and victims of market forces and inadvertent government policies.
70
X. Pro-farmer initiatives for dairy based livelihoods

The Macro economic fundamentals of the nation are robust. A sustained growth rate of 8-9% GDP was registered during the past four years making India one of the worlds fastest growing significant economies. Other fundamentals like foreign exchange reserves are also strong touching the new heights of $200 billion mark. It may not be widely known that India is worlds third largest producer of Agricultural products. India is worlds largest producers of milk; second largest producers of rice, wheat and sugar. Along with spectacular achievements made in food production fronts in 70s and 80s resulting from green, white, pink and blue revolutions, the maladies in rural development such as regional inequality, socio economic disparities, growing unemployment, rural poverty and migration widened and surfaced. It is alleged that rich became more rich and poor became further poor. This is mainly attributed to the fact that small and marginal farmers do not have control on the factors that influence their livelihoods. They are more vulnerable to the market forces such as hike in input costs and depressing prices of their farm produce due to the market glut entailing them indebted. Thus many Indian small and marginal farmers were victims of market forces and were in perpetual state of poverty and more often slip into absolute poverty. This category of pre-poor could be rescued through pro-farmer policy support which can be termed as the prophylactic measures of poverty which should be a part of the national poverty alleviation programme. Till 80s the top down mode of development, although contributed to the economy, there has been a growing concern for a paradigm shift in the development process and in the execution of development programmes to address the equity concerns. Such a shift brought about empowerment of the clientele through the decentralized mode of governance by way of inclusion in the executive committee /policy / decision making body.
71
NEEDS COLLECTIVE DECISION OUTPUTS TASK REQUIREMENTS FACILITATION COMPETEN CLIENTELE SYSTEM OPERATING DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME TASK REQUIREMENTS
OUTPUTS
NEEDS
CAPABILITY
FARMER
IMPLEMENTER EXPRESSION FACILITATION
Fig. 1 Pro-farmer model for Livestock based Livelihoods Security Since such a mode of development approach was now missing, (In absence of such a mode), the farmers gave negative reflections towards the possibility for community initiatives for fodder development, pasture development, medical depot, etc. in the study area. Due to depressed procurement price , it is often noticed that they made agitations, rasta roko, dharnas for hike in procurement price of milk. Such protests reached to a phenomenal height during recent past(2000-06) particularly in Chittoor and other parts of the country in general. These reflections are attributed to the failure of the development programmes mainly due to no people participation , top down and lack of social check . Proper representation of the stakeholders in decision making process in execution of development programmes in collaboration with the
72
operating staff would go a long way in achieving the desired results / ultimate goal i.e. the clienteles well being. More over, 5 consecutive drought years passed with the unrest, helplessness and the neglect of their justified demand for hike in milk price, which could have been avoided, had there been concern for pro-farmer mode of initiative in livestock/dairy development with due representation in the governance at various levels. As could be deciphered from the diagram the needs/preferences of the farmers /clientele could only be best understood by the clientele themselves whose representation could possibly bring a best fit between the needs and programme output entailing its success. For instance at macro level the goal of dairy development programme should be maximization of production / productivity / output. However, at micro level, the goal of the farmer need not necessarily be the same; rather concern of the farmer is rate of return on investment and margin of profit i.e. profit maximization. They need remunerative prices for their produce. In other words, farmers priority is profit maximization rather than production maximization. The fig 1 is developed based on the BMCU case experience taking cue from David C. Kortens9 lessons in rural development learning process. The schematic presentation assumes that the clientele/women dairy farmers are close to ground realities and knowledgeable on local situations and their inclusion would benefit richly for the success of the programme, as it deciphered from the match between the needs of the dairy farmers and the output of the programme, match between task requirements of the programme and the capability of the staff ( implementer) and also the match between the functioning of the ( implementer) officers and the mode of the expression by women dairy farmers (Fig.1). The farmers are considered partners in development process and could express themselves in decision making process relating to day to day functioning of the dairy in close association with the operating system. It is under such circumstances, a transparent, responsive, accountable governance would emerge ensuring the farmers voice be audible in the decision making process and make the farmer community to live with self respect, freedom and dignity in rural India. It is unfortunate, while, even the wage earners are guaranteed of the employment through national policy(NREGA), the self-employed rural dairy farmers are deprived their justified rate of milk imputed on the basis of 73
family labour cost (Cost of milk production with and without family labour as mentioned in Annexure I). Time and again the models evolved, failed to provide remunerative prices to the dairy farmers for want of expression on the operating system and due representation in the policy making body . Hence there is a dire need for inclusion of farmers/ quota in the executive committee / general council of the dairies/ feed mixing plant / corporations / federations at various levels be it private or government. Such a pro-farmer mode of development ensures remarkable gains to the community at large. It also ensures sustainable livelihoods providing food security, equity and livelihood security through effective participation of the farmer. Farmers representation in the executive committee would be of immense use in translating policy intention of the development programmes into field reality as they could act as watch dog on the operating system. Annexure II Provides a case of best practices for benefiting the institutions of poor, linking with institutions of market through empowerment of women self-help group who together form a cooperative called village organization which again federated into Mandal Mahila Samakhya at Block level. The best practice needs to be replicated on a large scale in all the 222 DPAP/DDP districts across the country either through DRDA intervention or NABARD assistance for establishment of BMCUs as a marketing partnership. Despite the constraints, dairying has reduced the vulnerability arising out of shocks and stresses which was amply addressed by the sample respondents in such drought prone districts during past 5 consecutive drought years. Livestock provided insurance against the failure of crops. Rural dairy farmers adopted different strategies by reallocating their limited resources. Adaptation through extending grazing periods, feeding non conventional feeds during scarce period, modifying feeding regime, redeploying the family members, reducing the size of the small ruminants (sale) are some of the coping mechanisms evolved through indigenous technical knowledge and wisdom. It is the livestock income that survived many of these small and marginal farmers, agriculture labour and rural artisans even during the drought years. 74 intervention through tripartite agreement building private public
It is reported that there was an increase in the milk production during 2002 drought year as many rural youth and unemployed artisans took up dairy enterprise in absence of other avenues of income. (NIRD2004)10 Livestock rearing offered
potential livelihoods security for enhancing the coping strategies and to recover from shocks in addition to acting as a strong barrier in preventing suicides, migration and providing family nutritional security, sustenance of income and livelihoods.
75
XI. Concluding Remarks

Thus, it is clear that both the contrasting dairy dominant farming systems namely crossbred cow and graded buffalo milk production systems ensured reduction of vulnerability and sustained rural livelihoods althrough the past five consecutive years of drought period. And in both the animal dominant farming systems, dairy animals played multiple roles in sustenance of rural economy by acting as sources of milk, draft, manure, capital and most importantly as powerful instrument of insurance against crop loss, reducing the vulnerability and poverty. Considering the existing higher / optimal levels of productivity of individual components, further improvements in the overall productivity of the farming systems through technological interventions without affecting /interfering with the productivity of individual components, seemed simply not possible. However, timely intervention of the District administration (DRDA) i.e the institutional intervention of linking village level SHG dairy institutions / mandal level federation i.e Mandal Mahila Samakhya with District Dairy (Balaji dairy, Chittoor /NDDB) promoting collective milk procurement arrangement through Tripartite agreements, building public private partnership and establishment of BMCU in such drought prone District, indeed had paid rich dividends it rightly deserved. The SHG members of the village organization, who are the members of the cooperative consistently call upon each member to consult with and participate in the process of production, procurement, transportation of milk and settlement of bills which created a sense of ownership and pride among the members. It is to be remembered that 95% of the members of these SHGs/VOs (institutions of poor) are women in Andhra Pradesh. Despite the above constraints, the achievements of the contrasting dairy farming systems in reducing the vulnerability and poverty need to be appreciated. It is, in other words, to conclude that the expected out comes in terms of (i) the amount of the benefit proposed to be derived from the DRDA by the Self-help groups for elimination of rural poverty, (ii) The sincerity, transparency and the managerial efficiency expected to be provided to the development administration from the multi-tier private-public partnership and the (iii) community mobilization forming Mandal Mahila 76
Samakhya as a Federation of village organisations and decision making at various stages, coordinating the activities and owning the BMCU during the Management to be achieved were, however , fulfilled to a greater extent. In sum, it may be concluded that the intellectual efforts and the administrative energy devoted in building institutions of poor, nurturing and developing them through partnership linking the Village Organisations / Mandal Mahila Samakhya with institutions having market, technology network (Balaji dairy ), negotiating with them to the advantage of SHGs and establishment of BMCU is paying the rich dividends, it rightly deserved. For instance, each SHG dairy women members at BMCU At District level, it is apparent, results are visible and Gangavaram on an average are getting benefited Rs 450-500 per month through price difference alone. perceptible with the revival of the rest of the milk plants and from the revitalized mood of the milk producers of Chittoor in general and of the dairywomen self help groups in particular. This net working and partnership brought about a great deal of success through these three best fits /match: (i) between best possible dairy services from dairy with least possible operating costs using the already existing village level dairy women self help group institutions, another fit /match (ii) between capacity building measures of SHG dairy institutions at village level & enhancement of competency of all women BMCU operating staff, and the required level of technical and managerial competency and yet another fit /match (iii) between the expression of self help groups milk producers and the facilitation /delivery mode of the operating system that run BMCU . The BMCU experiment in toto can be tried in similarly placed DRDAs for benefiting self help groups (dairy women), SHG federations through payment of remunerative price and also help revival of dairy industry which is in the crises with huge dairy infrastructure of public sector remaining idle for want of milk supply on the face of stiff competition with private sector dairies who more often found to be exploiting the farmers through their money lending strategies. The components such as involving the self help groups in the decision making process, decentralized governance with focus on empowering the self help group dairy women, accessing technology and 77
market through strategic private public partnership, and above all the initiative of the DRDA in establishment of BMCU are worth replication across the country on a wider scale on war footing. These remarkable gains, if spread properly, would go a long way in eliminating rural poverty, empowering the women and sustaining the livelihoods of the resource poor dairy farmers eking out livelihoods in such similar 222 DPAP/DDP districts spread across the country. Linking the institutions of poor with the institutions of the market and technology through tripartite agreement for establishment of BMCUs leading to capacity building of SHGs, decentralized governance through farmers representation both at policy and execution levels would go a long way in poverty reduction and ensuring sustainable livelihoods and rural prosperity.
References :
1) David C. Korten Community Organisation and Rural Development: A Learning Process Approach, public Administration Review, September October, 1980 pp 480-510 2) Directorate of Animal Husbandry, GoAP Sample survey reports, 3) Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying (DAHD), Annual reports GoI, 2006 4) Department of Animal Husbandry and dairying (2003). 17th Quiquennial livestock census, GOI New Delhi. 5) Milkfed, (2005) report of the Punjab state cooperative Milk Producers Federation 6) National Bureau of Soil Survey an Land Use Planning (2001), Clasification of dry land regions in India, Nagpur 7) National Seminar on Integration of Cattle and Buffalo programmes with rural development scheme, 16-18th March, 2005 8) National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO), 59th Round, Ministry of Statistics and PI.GOI India. 9) NABARD Potential Link Plans (PLPs) of Chittoor and Prakasam 10) NIRD 2004. Managing droughts------------------- : Rapid Interactive Research Study on Management of Drought 2002. A study across 12 States. Ed. B.K. Thapliyal National Institute of Rural Development Hyderabad, India. 11) NIRD, 2005 Nationwide Study on SGSY, 12) NIRD physical verification of IRDP assets 1986-87 Social Laboratory Vikarabad experiences. 13) Olson and Mancur (1971), the Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, Rev.Ed.New York, Schocken Books. 14) Subbarama Naidu.A and Kondaiah.N (2004). Livestock production and post production systems Need for a pragmatic approach. Ind.Jour.Agril. Mktg ( Conf. Spl.) 18(3) 2004: 91-105 15) Tata Institute of Social Sciences (2005) causes of farmers suicides in Maharashtra an inquiry. Osmanabad, India.
78

Ven Finrepo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ven Finrepo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A STUDY ON IMPROVEMENT IN RURAL LIVELIHOODS THROUGH DAIRY FARMING I.

III. Dairy Development perspective

Egg 4.63 7.91 3.79 7.69 5.67

Wool 0.38 0.34 0.77 2.32 1.62

1.64 1.15 4.51 5.48 4.11

Table.2 : Recent trends in Milk production and percapita availability

Per Capita Availability

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05*

80.6 84.4 86.2 88.1 91.0

389 336 361 377 445

304 274 265 299 453

3.2 Dairy Development in Andhra Pradesh and Study Districts

1999-20 % 00 375.375 397.944 478.818 302.675 7 8 9 6

Krishna Chittoor Guntur Prakasam

West Godavari 515.528 10 East Godavari 352.627 7 4 4 4 3 5 2 4 3 4 4 3 2 3 3 2 2

10 Ananthapur 11 Nalgonda 12 Srikakulam 13 Khammam 14 Vizianagaram

Source: Sample Survey reports of Department of Animal Husbandry , AP

No. of Veterinary Institutions Catering to Veterinary Aid Districts

Prakasam Chittoor Andhra Pradesh

1793 2879 4976

Source: Sample Survey reports of Department of Animal Husbandry , AP

Prakasam Chittoor Andhra Pradesh

Source: Sample Survey reports of Department of Animal Husbandry , AP

IV General Profile of Study districts

Table. 7 Profile of the study districts

In Thousands In Thousands In Thousands In Thousands In Thousands % (Persons/Sq.Km) % % % %

Normal (mm) Actual (mm)during 2004-05 Lakh ha.

V. Socio-economic profile of sample respondents

S.No. Name of the Name of the district Mandal 1 Chittoor Penumuru

5.1 Age-wise and category-wise classification of sample :

Source: Data collected from Study districts

Table .10. Gender classification of sample N-400

Source: Data collected from Study districts

5.2 Educational status of sample dairy farmers:

5.3 Occupational status of sample dairy farmers:

5.3 Land holding pattern

Source : Data collected from Study districts

5.4 Cropping pattern in the study area

Table.14 Cropping pattern in the study districts

VI. Management Practices and Profitability of Dairy Farming in Study Districts

Table.15 Livestock holding pattern

Indigenous cows Crossbred cows

Prakasam No. of Yield in lit/ animals animal/day -

Table.16 Category-wise large animal holding pattern

6.2 Management practices followed by dairy farmers in study districts

Table.17 Age at First Calving (AFC) of dairy animals Response of farmers

Source : Data collected from Study districts

Table.18 Calving Interval of dairy animals Response of farmers

Source : Data collected from Study districts

6.2.2 Feeding practices

Table.19 Feeding pattern by dairy farmers in study districts

Sesame cake Coconut cake Beer pottu Total

No response Paddy Straw Jowar straw Total

Source : Data collected from Study districts

6.2.3. Housing for dairy animals

6.2.4 Animal Health management

Source: Data collected from Study districts

Table.21 Cost of treatment for dairy animals

Source: Data collected from Study districts

Source: Field data ; N= 200 in Prakasam and N=200 in Chittoor

Table.24 Reasons for mortality

Source : Field data ; N= 200 in Prakasam and N=200 in Chittoor

6.2.6 Level of adoption of technology and awareness: