You are on page 1of 78


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 country’s 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.

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.


registers and reports of Department of Animal Husbandry. Challappalem.Bitragunta. Balijapalli. price realization. Discussions were held with officials of these 4 . Jattigundlapalli. access to market. breed up gradation efforts. Maniyanampalli. Bondaluru. existence of contrasting milk production systems and geographic similarity. Social development aspects like migration.II. feeding practices. family labour utilization. incidence of farmers suicides. Mynampadu. land holding. inter caving period. Study villages namely Jarugumalli. herd size and composition. records. Pernimitta. Pedarajulapalli. From each district 200 respondents were selected randomly from dairy farmers of above villages and thus.The criteria of district selection was their progress in dairy performance. The primary data were collected through the structured schedule (Annexure–III). Sanyasipalli. income and employment generation. which was developed and administered for this purpose. cropping pattern. K. technology adoption. Varadarajulapalli. market channels. The variables of the study included the livestock holding.. and Indluru. Milk Unions / Private dairies and DRDA. annual family income. malnutrition. infant mortality rates. Two mandals each.namely Chittoor and Prakasam district of Andhra Pradesh . namely Santhanuthanapadu and Jarugumalli in Prakasam district and Penumuru and Yadamari mandals in Chittoor district were selected. proportion of crossbred animals. Data were also collected from secondary sources of information such as official documents. Mungamooru. Yadamuru. etc. Cherrikurapalem and Davagudur from Prakasam district Atlavaripalli. extension support and service delivery. Bandivandavallavuru from Chittoor were selected in consultation with the department of animal husbandry and dairy development. family milk consumption pattern. school dropouts. cost of milk production. productivity. Chintalapalem. the total sample size was 400. effect of processing units/dairies. Methodology Data Collection : The present study was taken up in two drought prone districts leading in milk production . dairy type/category.

experts. were studied. executives. mini kits distributed.departments. percentages. In addition data on social development aspects like litreacy. programme implementers. etc to elicit their views. value addition and innovative practices 5 . progressive farmers. Secondary data regarding the cattle census (herd composition). animals inseminated. malnutrition. Few success cases relating to community organisation in service delivery. for the reference period from 1990-1991 to 2004-2005 were analyzed. non-dairy farmer groups. vaccinations. school dropouts. Analytical Frame: Primary data were analyzed using simple statistical tools such as average. ideas and opinion on the important issues pertaining to dairy farming. frequency. etc. elites. farmer’s suicides were also analyzed for the reference period. the district milk production and productivity. calves born. migration. infant mortality rate.

The contribution of the livestock sector to total national gross domestic product (GDP) was 5. Milk production grew at an average annual rate of 4. As indicated above in introduction. and 4.2). Milk production in India increased from 17 million tons in 1950-51 to 31. agricultural Universities. millions of people are employed in the livestock sector and women constitute about 70 percent of the labor force. ICAR Institutions. This policy initiative i. Despite. Several factors have contributed to the increased milk production in the country.1 Dairy Development in India : Livestock in general and dairying in particular play a vital role in the Indian economy.9 percent in 2000-01.2).21 percent during the 1990s (Table 1). Producing milk in rural areas through producer cooperatives and moving processed milk to urban demand centres became the cornerstone of government dairy development policy. 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. Operation flood. First. 5. The per-capita availability of milk was 128 gms in 1980-81 gradually increased to 232 gms in 2004-05 (Table. The performance of the Indian dairy sector during the past three decades has been very impressive. From being a recipient of massive material support from the World Food Program and European Community in the 1960s. dairy cooperative unions.III. it’s being the largest milk producer in the world. line departments and other agencies.57 percent during the 1970s.68 percent during the 1980s.60 million tons in 1980-81. Dairy Development perspective 3. the GoI initiated major policy changes in the dairy sector to achieve self-sufficiency in milk production.00 million tons in 2004-05 (Table. 1. gave a boost to dairy development and initiated the process of establishing the much-needed linkages between rural producers and urban consumers.e. In the subsequent years it further increased to 91.088 crores). During the late 1960s. India's per capita availability of milk is still lower than the recommendations (minimum nutritional requirement of 280 gm per day) of ICMR.44. milk and milk products have cultural significance in the Indian diet and have become 6 . with the milk group making the highest contribution to the total value of the agriculture and allied sector (Rs.

institutional factors. rising income levels. Table. on the supply side. and infrastructure played an important role.91 3. Further.34 0.63 7. technological progress in the production and processing sectors.69 5.51 5.6 84. have also reinforced growth in demand for dairy products.4 86.32 1.77 2.38 0.2 : Recent trends in Milk production and percapita availability Year Milk Production Per Capita Availability All India* Miil.1 91.0 389 336 361 377 445 304 274 265 299 453 7 . important source of protein in the diet./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* 80.62 1.64 1.1 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. 2006 Egg 4.79 7.15 4. urbanization and changing food habits and lifestyles.11 Table.67 Wool 0.2 88.48 4. The socioeconomic and demographic changes.tons AP Chittoor Prakasam All India* AP Chittoor (gm.

* **-Provisional *Source : DAHD. 2006 7 8 . GoI.

7% in Chittoor and 18% in Prakasam. According to 17th Quiquennial livestock census 2003.2.3. Milk production in the state in 1980-81 was 2. 7. Dairy accounted for 11% of agricultural GDP in the state. According to the sample survey report (2004-05) of Department of Animal husbandry.2. In Prakasam district the milk production almost got doubled during 2004-05. 16.888 Kgs.01 million tons and increased to 7.1) registering a growth rate of 3. respectively. In the study districts.74% per annum raising the per capita availability of 263 gms. AP 2006-07.2 Dairy Development in Andhra Pradesh and Study Districts 3.31% was kept for conversion and 72. 3.39% was sold either to organized dairy or to private vendors. According to the sample survey report of Department of Animal Husbandry. crossbred cows and graded murrah buffalos.2 The district-wise milk production data for last 6 years is furnished below in Table. 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%.1 The state ranks seventh in milk production in the country and it is the home tract of ‘Ongole’. 11. the average milk yield per animal in milk was only 1. 2. there was a decline in the milk production during 2001-02 and later increased gradually with a growth rate of 9. Prakasam district is a home tract of world famous Ongole breed while Chittoor. for punganur breed of cattle .541 Kgs per day for non-descript cows.257 million tons in 2004-05 (table.3. respectively.147 Kgs and 6. ‘Punganur’ and ‘Deoni’ breeds of cattle. the total population of cattle and buffalos in the state was 106. 3 District-wise Estimated Milk Production during the years 1996-97 to 2004-05 in Andhra Pradesh ( '000 tons) 9 . Table . non-descript buffalos.30% of milk produced by farmers was consumed by them.3 lakhs and 93 lakhs respectively.84 Kgs.

643 156.972 5 225.063 122.000 1 54.116 121.693 5151.995 7 482.996 4 310.649 7 549.910 10 538.698 2 136.822 128.29 9 5 276.81 0 0 0 0 4 5 0 Source: Sample Survey reports of Department of Animal Husbandry .169 145.914 2 149.006 7 533.01 7 3 200.24 9 592.170 127.354 5 348.630 31.002 2 137.11 8 2 165.768 7 426.41 6 1 53.124 16 Karimnagar 17 Ranga Reddy 18 Adilabad 19 Medak 20 Warangal 21 Cuddapah 22 Nizamabad 23 Hyderabad Total 191.699 3 187.652 3 178.204 169.954 438.044 374.3 The Department of Animal Husbandry (DAH) is providing veterinary health cover through 4976 veterinary institutions (Table.786 3 354.200 3 181.924 3 240.022 2 161.100 7 485.944 478.79 7 4 276.100 2 130.64 5 5 208.738 5 305.003 3 171.000 2 157.532 West Godavari 515.900 6 309.610 131.520 4 265.995 8 508.690 2 186.100 4 287.900 2 129.93 7 8 646.399 238.981 533.401 7 354.74 10 6583.716 201.031 568.007 3 207.476 10 5813.100 4 181.999 5 358.235 137.990 2 141.900 4 287.141 5 333.927 3 187.001 5 209.070 85.No.004 2 156.4) in the State.999 1 92.125 3 185.837 10 Ananthapur 11 Nalgonda 12 Srikakulam 13 Khammam 14 Vizianagaram 15 Mahabubnagar 203.647 13.995 4 314.2.008 3 181.77 5 3 276.363 10 7256.004 4 267.255 338.200 3 168.8 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 357.045 273.997 3 194.969 Nellore Kurnool 207.576 1 0 46.685 7 535.100 3 124.S.496 185.704 202.802 5 365.71 3 8 522.18 3 5 212.50 8 3 338.02 5 2 146.004 210. District 1999-20 % 00 375.64 2 8 459.000 4 227.999 2 158.528 10 East Godavari 352.087 8 658.001 7 444.981 191.443 108.002 5 329.05 5 3 240.196 149.643 10 5521.934 3 204.000 4 224.818 302.71 1 5 365.284 152.16 10 6958.77 4 5 536. 197 in Prakasam 10 .786 8 539.40 3 3 172.627 7 4 4 4 3 5 2 4 3 4 4 3 2 3 3 2 2 Visakhapatnam 217.113 158.021 183.131 5 329.620 213.65 3 276.335 122.983 3 233.79 9 2 187.96 8 2 152.900 10 465.502 6 439.116 150.139 240.906 8 599.872 183.980 8 396.675 7 8 9 6 2000-01 % 2001-02 % 2002-03 % 2003-04 % 2004-0 % 5 6 426.682 254.74 1 5 291.000 9 528.375 397. AP 3.924 5 320.913 3 156.723 3 159.321 2 141.

2004) Districts No. Table. of veterinary institutions in Andhra Pradesh and study districts (As on 31. 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 .) Exotic Indige Murrah nous Total No. Centres. of Technical Persons Employed in Veterinary Institutions Deputy Total Directors Assistant Directors Veterinary Assistant Surgeons No.5 lakh in Prakasam district dominated by buffalos (Table.Vaccina(No. of No. Karimnagar.3. 1. Coverage and no. 49 BAIF centres {Mahabubnagar. AP 11 . one each at Hyderabad. Tirupati and Gannavaram. 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 Source: Sample Survey reports of Department of Animal Husbandry . 11 lakh calves were born in the state. AP Table. 2004) No. in the State AI services are being provided through 4792 AI centres of DAH and also through 1791 Gopalmitras.5% in the study districts. Hyderabad-Nalgonda and Warangal districts} and 224 Dairy Coop. Overall.and 302 in Chittoor district.4.) tions tions Exotic Indige. 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. The number of adult cattle units covered by each veterinary graduate institution is 9733 and by including rural livestock units the coverage will be 4100.5). and 34. 150 centres of JK Trust {100 in Chittoor and 50 in Anantapur). During 2004-05.5 lakh calves in Chittoor dominated by Crossbreds and 0.Murrah Total Done Done Nous Calves Born (No. of Artificial Inseminations Done Castra. The success rate of AI is 37% in the state. Similar pattern was observed in study districts also.5 Livestock Development Services Provided in Andhra Pradesh and study districts ( as on 31st March. The state has 3 veterinary colleges.10320 143680 135813 7024751 84625 16343 195184 296154 30471 66185 111892 3 8 7 9 6 2 5 52360 4 9 Source: Sample Survey reports of Department of Animal Husbandry . Anantapur.

40. Total milk processing capacity created in the state is 29 LLPD under co-operative sector and 14 LLPD under private sector (Table. etc. Capacity No. and in Chittoor district are Heritage and Jersey. creamline. 9154 milk collection centres covering 10249 villages. 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. Capacity No.24 crore litres of milk per annum through a network of 456 milk routes.2. 2006 12 . Among the private dairies. Only 3% of the geographical area (7. Similar trend exists in the study districts also. The federation and district unions procure million tons and 10. 6).79 lakh hectares) is under permanent pasture and grazing land against recommended 8%.32 million tons.4 Fodder shortage is a major impediment for dairy development in the state. Ravileela. 3. Capacity No.5 Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Co-operative Federation ltd. 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. Dodla.(APDDCF) is providing milk marketing support to dairy farmers in the state through 9 milk unions and direct federation units. Tirumala. About 19% of the milk produced in the state is procured by the organized sector.6 Dairy Plants Registered under MMPO in Andhra Pradesh (Capacity ' 000 litres per Day) Cooperative Private Others Total Registering Authority No. availability and gap has been estimated by the department of animal husbandry as 50. Table. The dry matter requirement.01 million tons respectively. GoI.

The major crops grown in Chittoor district are respect of litreacy. net irrigated area. Ragi. net sown area. Maize. Chittoor 15152 Prakasam 17626 13 . Table. Similar pattern (42% of area and 71 % of farmers) was observed in Chittoor also (PLPs. How ever. Cashew and other forestry species. i.7 (Census 2001). urbanization. Redgram. The population density is less in Prakasam district (173) than Chittoor. Mango. Cotton.e. Paddy. cropping intensity. 61% in Chittoor and 70% in Prakasam district are dependent on farming. Sapota. Citrus fruits and in Prakasam district are Tobacco. Of the total households. rain fall. etc.. Performance of Chittoor district is better than Prakasam district. About 44% of total area is under cultivation and 74 % of farmers in Prakasam are having less than 2 ha of land holding. Bajra. Blackgram. 7 Profile of the study districts Item Area Units Sq. Banana. Chillies. In many developmental fronts. Both the districts are predominantly dependent on agriculture for livelihoods. Bengalgram. sugarcane. Guava. groundnut. Greengram. mango.IV General Profile of Study districts The demographic profile and land use pattern of the study districts is furnished in the table. the area under irrigation specifically under canal irrigation was more in Prakasam than in Chittoor (Table 7). NABARD).

Forest area coverage Lakh ha.45 1851.23 10. Fallow land Lakh ha.49 106 1. Rain fall Geographical area Net Sown area and its % to total geographical area Lakh ha.05 Normal (mm) Actual (mm)during 2004-05 Lakh ha.22(22%) 44000 33 68000 52 20000 15 14 .31(37%) 677 1 115.51(23%) 908 699 15.88 4.43 (22%) 3.8 3054.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.7 2588.24 113 1.51(29%) 2.72 173 57. Land not available for cultivation Lakh ha.86 69.94 1549.75 810.2 1883.15 3.46 78.146 88 15570 12 872 586 17.01 2925.54 247 67.11 4.29 56.Km) % % % % 3735.18 14.38 (31%) 4. 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.6 16. Cropping Intensity % Net Irrigated area and its % to Net sown area Lakh ha. Southern Scarce Rainfall Zone.48 19.East Coast Plains and Hills Region .89 1505.14 5.78 45.45 Zone XI .

Pernimitta. Bandivandavallavuru Mungamooru.V. Pedarajulapalli.No. Cherrikurapalem and Davagudur Yadamari 2 Prakasam Santhanuthanapadu Jarugumalli 15 . Name of the Name of the district Mandal 1 Chittoor Penumuru Name of Village Atlavaripalli. Mynampadu and Challappalem Jarugumalli. Bondaluru.8 Details of mandals and villages S. Balijapalli. K. Table. Maniyanampalli.Bitragunta. V a r a d a r a j u l a p a l l i . The selection was done using simple systematic random sampling technique. Indluru. Sanyasipalli Yadamuru. 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. Jattigundlapalli. Chintalaplaem.

5.1 Age-wise and category-wise classification of sample : Among the respondents. and 5. Thus chittoor district has higher concentration of Agricultural Labour (AL).0 & 19. 35. assets like land. 28.5% to Medium Farmer (Med. Marginal Farmer (MF) and Small Farmer (SF) category accounting for 67. Further.5 & 26.0 & 17.9 Age-wise and Category-wise classification of the sample respondents Category of farmers (no.0% to Big Farmer(BF) categories in Chittoor & Prakasam respectively.9). in very few families (1%) the women being SHG members. In Chittoor also the maximum number of farmers were in the age group of 41-50 years. 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.F). 34% belonged to the age group of 41-50 years in Prakasam followed by age group 51-60. house and livestock are on their name.0% of the sample dairy farmers while the corresponding figure for prakasam district is only 50.0 & 31.0% of the sample dairy farmers belonged to Agricultural Labour (AL) category in Chittoor and Prakasam districts respectively: Similarly 28.) 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 .0% to Small Farmer(SF). above 61 and 21-30 (Table. Three and half & 6. Table.0% Table. 31-40.5% to Marginal Farmer (MF).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.

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 Source: Data collected from Study districts 5. Table.Table . 11. Whenever they are working as field labour the landlord allowed them taking fodder grass for their cattle. The big and medium farmers were more educated than the other category of dairy farmers in both the districts. Table. The trend was on higher side in Chittoor than in the Prakasam district.12 Occupational status of sample dairy farmers 17 .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. 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. 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 5.10.2 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). However.

27 0.06 2. 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. Tobacco (18%).04 2.60 0.97 0.00 4.13 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 .81 4.20 1.75 10.86 0.3 Land holding pattern The average landholding of individual farmer in the study area was 0. 66% of the farmers in Prakasam and 45% of the farmers in Chittoor are following multiple cropping patterns i. growing more than one crop in a season.3 8.37 acres under irrigated and Rainfed areas in Prakasam district and corresponding figures for Chittoor were 1.37 4. vegetables and fruits (Table. (48%) Sugarcane (25%).86 acres.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 Source: Data collected from Study districts 5.02 11.77 0.33 1.00 0.69 3.48 0. Jowar (5%).33 2.e.13).78 1.10 0.00 2.60 and 4.00 0.14) and in Chittoor they grow Groundnut.24 0. The average yield per acre and acreage per farmer for major crops grown (as primary crop) is furnished below in the table.14.13 0. Thus the cropping 18 .30 2. Table.1 9.86 2.58 1.55 Source : Data collected from Study districts 5. Jowar (13%) and Paddy (3%).93 0.74 1.45 2.27 and 0.29 1. respectively.21 0.42 3.20 2.25 8 2.00 0.00 0.36 6.03 3.21 0.00 1. Subabul (12%). social forestry species.13 7 1.00 0.95 2. Paddy (12%). Further.61 0.4 Cropping pattern in the study area The farmers of Prakasam district mainly grow Bengal gram (25%).95 0.82 1.30 2.40 3.labourer Total 0.94 0.62 3.

41 187.25 0.00 0.0 2.25 3. Farmers in the study area are cultivating many green fodder varieties like fodder Jowar.13 3.00 Sugar Cane 1.00 0.0 18.76 9.00 Paragrass 0.21 4.0 0.B.0% & 4.5 48. pulses.00 0. NB21.00 0.0 11.50 132.30 1.0 5.00 Malbari 0.12 0.00 0. jowar.0 12.00 Eucalyptus Trees 2.50 150.35 45.0 25.60 10.25 46. fodders and crop residues.00 N.81 Jowar 0.00 Orange 2. the percentage of the farmers who are growing green fodder is 6. The production system is highly dependent on home grown feeds.36 9.94 Tobacco 2.43 Subabul ( Perrennial) 2.96 0.00 0.21 0.00 50.5 3.0 0.75 Jowar 0.14 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 1.22 7.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.5 19 .00 0.5 1. pillipesara and Paragrass.20 0.67 2.00 Jute 2.00 0.5 2.15 0. jowar.00 Fodder Jowar 0.0 1.00 0.00 2.13 31.50 0.00 300.00 Vegetables 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 Red Gram 0.0 25.54 215.5 0.00 0.25 39 APBN 1. groundnut).5 0.00 1.00 Source : Data collected from Study districts 12.0 0.25 0.00 0.00 N.33 0.5% in Prakasam and Chittoor districts respectively.00 0. However.25 40.5 2. Table.pattern is more livestock friendly in Prakasam (paddy.00 Sapota 0.00 1500.00 0.76 12.00 Chittoor Paddy/Rice 1.Jowar 0.00 Ground Nut 1.28 42.5 12.25 2.00 F.80 1.0 0.07 0.00 0.13 0.25 3.00 0.39 21.00 0. Subabul) district as well as in Chittoor district (paddy.33 117.B.65 56.94 Bengal Gram 1.00 0.

The male young ones were usually disposed off within a year age. The majority of the farmers (63%) were getting a yield of 5-6 lit / day/animal. 7% of farmers in Chittoor and 3% of farmers in Prakasam were rearing other livestock like sheep.1 Livestock holding pattern and Yield: In general. 12% farmers have more than 3 buffalos and 19% were having single graded buffalos. either cows or bulls or bullocks. SF. progressive and enterprising in the district that no sooner the animal productivity decreased. Though the Prakasam district is a home tract of world famous Ongole breed. Apart from dairy animals. and BF is 3 & 4. 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. very few of the sample farmers were holding these Ongole cattle. Only 8% of the farmers were rearing more 5 animals.15. Dairy farmers are ingenious. In Prakasam also 44% of the farmers were holding 2 graded buffalos. than they would replace with other quality animal. goat and poultry. Thus in both the districts the germ plasm was of good quality resulting from either cross breeding or up-gradation. Only 6% of the farmers possessed the graded buffalos yielding 10-12 lit / day. The details of livestock holding pattern is furnished below in the table. the Prakasam district has buffalo based dairy farming system and Chittoor has crossbred (CB) cow based dairy system. Management Practices and Profitability of Dairy Farming in Study Districts 6. Culling is a precondition for milk productivity enhancement and it is practiced in Chittoor. Med. and 5 & 10 litres per day for buffalo in prakasam and CB cows in chittoor district respectively. Field study reveals that none of the farmers were maintaining bullocks or bulls in both the districts and hiring tractors for ploughing. MF. The category wise livestock holding was provided in table 16. Usually farmers were retaining young female animals (70% of farmers) and only 33% of the farmers were rearing young male animals. Table. The average productivity of milk for AL. 7 & 8. 5 & 6.15 shows that about 39% of farmers in Chittoor were rearing 2 CB cows on an average followed by 3-5 CB cows (36%). where the frequency of holding a pair of 20 .VI.F. 5 & 4.

7%) >10 (2%) B ackya rd (2%) Figures in parenthesis indicate the percentage farmers responded under that category Source : Data collected from Study districts 21 . 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.milch animals is more in prakasam with 62% of the farmers and 32% of the farmers in chittoor obtaining two animal dairy unit. 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 (0.15 Livestock holding pattern Particulars Indigenous cows Crossbred cows Prakasam No.7%) 1-2 lit (12%) 3-4 lit (8%) 5-6 lit (63%) 7-8 lit (9%) 9-12lit (6%) - Chittoor No. Table.

5 years (table.17). 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. In respect of intercalving period 69% of farmers in Chittoor reported that the calving interval was up to 1.2.17). AFC as well as calving interval indicated that medium and big farmers were taking care of the animals well in Prakasam.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 . 10% of the farmers faced reproductive problems and AFC increased to 5 years. 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%). 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. while in Chittoor it was by small and marginal farmers. Further.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.2 Management practices followed by dairy farmers in study districts 6.Table.16 Category-wise large animal holding pattern Percentage of farmers responded No. Table. Similar trend was observed in Prakasam also (60%). While in Prakasam.

5 and up to year years 3.18 Calving Interval of dairy animals – Response of farmers Chittoor district CB cows Up to 1. the number of services per conception were more than 3.5 to Above 2.5 1. farmers are feeding their 23 .5 2.5 2. The corresponding figures for Prakasam district were 44 and 7% in respect of graded buffalos and 11 & 9% in respect of local buffalos. Around 21% farmers reported to have faced reproductive problems with CB cows i.5 2. Graded buff 1.5 to above 2.5 1.5 year 15 2 3 6 2 1 14 Local buff.e. 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.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 2.5 to above Up to 1.5 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 6 Source : Data collected from Study districts Further.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 1 2 2 2 Source : Data collected from Study districts Table. 52% of sample respondents in Chittoor indicated that CB cows were conceived with 1 service. in the district.

the stalks and the dried stems of these crops are fed to the animals duly adopting hay making practices. 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. rice bran of 200 – 400 grms. However. vegetable cut waste. Such a feeding has greater benefits including the health of the animal.2 Feeding practices Usually dairy animals whether crossbred cow or graded buffaloe. grazing is a common practice on individual basis. 79% of farmers in Prakasam and 70% of farmers in Chittoor send their animals for grazing. with out vitamin and mineral supplements also cause 6. the food waste. 62 % of farmers in Chittoor sent the animals for grazing for 4-6 hours and 27% for 8-10 hours. 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.1 Grazing practice: Grazing is a common practice i. and little of salts is added just before it is offered to the buffaloes. The grazing opportunity is more in Chittoor than 24 . Usually.2. The kitchen waste. in addition to easy conception. 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. Further. the left over foods including the buttermilk. washings of the food plates. While in Prakasam the reverse trend was observed.2. Generally animals in milk are not sent for grazing in the first 4-5 months. Thus.e. There can be variations and adjustments in the quantity of feed among the types namely dry. However it is restricted to dry animals in Chittoor district. they are fed with 20 kg of green fodder.animals entirely on Subabul which also causes reproductive problems iv) feeding mainly with Paddy straw reproductive failure. green and grain residues / concentrate feed ingredients.2. delicious food cherished by the buffaloes inserting their jaws deep inside sucking and enjoing the kudithi. of dry fodder and 1 – 2 kgs of concentrate feed for sustaining the milk yield of 7 – 10 litres of milk. form a semi-liquid. 6. The grazing hours varied from 4 to 10 hours i. nutritious.e. In lean season. 5 kg.

About 40% of Chittoor farmers were feeding green fodder @ 10 kg per day per animal.2. In Prakasam the fodder banks were not established and farmers purchased paddy straw @ Rs. although the total quantity of rain fall is less. 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. As could be seen from table 14. wild green grass in Chittoor and Jowar (10%) and Subabul (22% of farmers) in Prakasam district. majority of the farmers in chittoor district were growing groundnut. majority of farmers (53%) were feeding only 10 kg green fodder per day.2. Thus even less time on grazing in Chittoor gives enough grass to the animal. Apart from this.2 Fodder: The common green fodder fed to dairy animals were Jowar. Rice bran and subabul are used in prakasam district.3 Concentrates : The common concentrate ingredients used were ground nut cake and rice bran and usage of ingredients was mostly coinciding with cropping Prakasam due to the presence of green cover round the year on arable. etc. 25 kg) from neighbouring Nellore district during drought period. 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. Only 4 . which was stored out of paddy crop after harvesting and used through out the year. 6. 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. uncultivated lands and orchards due to the activity of both the south west and north east monsoons. Where as in Prakasam. the de-oiled cake of which is used as rich source of protein for sustaining high productivity levels.2. 25% of the farmers in Prakasam 25 . Pillipesara. 50 per bundle (apx.2. 6. in the study area. Similarly Bengal gram. In both the districts the common dry fodder is paddy straw. 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).6% of the farmers were growing fodder species like NB21.

the value addition of the crop wastes (crop residue.2. 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.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. seed coat of bengal gram and stalks. feeding pattern per animal in milk is as follows:.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). and labour wastes (infirm. 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 stalks. and women members etc) are adding to the income and food security in normal years.5 – 1. kernels of ground nut and deoiled cake are excellent sources of Total Digestible Nutrients (TDN) and Digestible Crude Protein (DCP). in general.5 kg/day 10-20 kgs/day 5 kgs/day Prakasam Quantity 1– 3Kgs 100 gms – 200 gms. About 7% of farmers in Chittoor and 43% of farmers in Prakasam district were not feeding any concentrate (Table 19).2. Prakasam district dominated by buffalos based dairy farming. The 26 . which are efficient converters of crop residues ii). 6. 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. grain residue. stalks and hovers). Majority of the farmers are growing bengal gram and ground nut in the study area. Chittoor Quantity 2-3 kgs/day 1-3 kgs/day 0. aged. The reason for feeding of no or lower amount of concentrates in Prakasam by majority of the farmers could be i). kitchen wastes. The feeding practice followed in a household was a combination of ingredients in ration.

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). 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. 42 at veterinary medical shop. Farmers are not aware of benefit of growing and feeding of Azolla rather feeding beer extract / residue. farmers get the vitamin and mineral mixture from veterinary dispensary at free of cost. 25 at DCS and Rs. Occasionally when the animals was sick. 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.Oil Cake Maize Powder 7 1 2 7 2 3 1 1 3 0 4 1 1 27 . The cost of 500 gm pack was Rs. The production cost of Azolla is only half rupee per kg. 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. which is cost effective and brings down the production costs drastically.

the roof was repaired or put a new roof every 3-4 years depending on the condition of roof and also weather conditions.B.4200 in Prakasam district and it would double.3. for thatched shed.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 Source : Data collected from Study districts 6. The average cost for thatched shed for 2 animals was Rs. Housing for dairy animals Study data reveals that 64% and 75% of farmers of Prakasam and Chittoor. Farmers constructed the sheds 2 years back in Prakasam (28%) and Chittoor (37%). Specially. Of this. 80% of the farmers had thatched shed and 19% have the shed with asbestos roof irrespective of category of farmers (marginal. medium or big farmer).2. small. 3800 in Chittoor and Rs.Sesame cake Coconut cake Beer pottu Total 1 2 1 2 No response Green Grass Jowar Paragrass N. The 28 . if it was of asbestos roof. respectively have shed for dairy animals.

2.430 in Chittoor & Prakasam) and big farmers (Rs.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. the farmers of Prakasam incurred more expenditure (Rs.3. 296 and Rs. As mentioned in the para 3. 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. However. 227) (Table 21&22). Usually the RLUs vaccinate the livestock and treat the animals and all major cases will be referred to Vet. each Rural Livestock Unit (RLU not headed by a veterinarian) in Prakasam and Chittoor district covered around 5400 and 5300 animal units. 2000 with high frequency falling between Rs. The cost incurred for treatment varied from Rs. 600. 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. It was reported (Table. range.397) on animal health management than the Chittoor farmers (Rs. The animals were commonly vaccinated with Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD)and Haemorrhagic Septicaemia (HS).450 and Rs.2. Rest 2-3% of farmers have to travel more than 5 km to visit a veterinary centre. 200 to Rs.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. 6. 100 to Rs.polyclinic.588 in Chittoor & Prakasam) incurred more 29 . In both the districts 48% of farmers indicated that the cleanliness of the shed is important and were cleaning the shed daily. Compared to Prakasam. The medium (Rs. Dispensary/Vet.4 Animal Health management 6.19)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. very few farmers got their animals treated more than 3 times in Chittoor.2. respectively.4.

Pyrexia. Diarrohea. Farmers reported to have encountered the common diseases in dairy animals like Anorexia. Food and Mouth Diseases (FMD).. Table 20. Mastitis.expenditure than the other categories of farmers (Table. 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 Source: Data collected from Study districts Table.21& 22)./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 Source : Data collected from Study districts 30 . etc.21 Cost of treatment for dairy animals Percentage of farmers incurred the Treatment cost expenditure Rs. 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. Constipation.

faith on AI (25%) and nearness (20%). reason mentioned was breed up-gradation for higher yield (26%) and nearness (24%). irregular attendance by veterinary hospital staff. Where as in Prakasam. 6.2.4. 26% of the farmers’ preference was for NS (49%) and the reason mentioned was the belief on it.4. 20 per AI. The Department of animal husbandry in both the districts charged Rs. The reasons for satisfaction were breed improvement.2 Breeding services: Regarding breeding services. but in Prakasam 41% of farmers were not satisfied. W here as in Prakasam 74% of the farmers’ preference was AI to Natural Service (NS). lack proximity to veterinary hospital and. 25 per AI. repeat breeding. private person charged Rs. 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).2. 31 . DCS charged Rs.22 Category-wise average cost of treatment for dairy animals Avg. In Chittoor all most all the farmers reported satisfied with the breeding services available in their area. The reasons for dissatisfaction were infertility problems.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%).Table. 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 Source: Data collected from Study districts 6. 50 per calf born and for natural service. 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. proximity of hospital to village and good cooperation & availability of veterinary staff. the cost was Rs. not posting veterinary doctor. 50 per service. most of the dairy farmers in Chittoor preferred Artificial insemination (AI) to natural service for their dairy animals. Further.

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 . FromTable 22 it can be interpreted that the loss in value up to Rs. and Rs. Rs. Died due to viral Fever Calf Dead in Rainy Season Fallen in the Mud Canal and died Suffered with Nervous Weakness Jaundice 32 . 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. Thus mortality among adults is more than the young animals.5 Mortality As per the study.6. 5000 above indicated the mortality of adult animals. 1001 to 5000 indicated the mortality of young animals more than 6 months but less than 2 years.1000 indicated the mortality in young animals below 6 months. N= 200 in Prakasam and N=200 in Chittoor Table.2. The disease pattern and other reasons indicated in Table 23 also revealed the same. Table.23 Average loss in value (Rs. 20% of farmers in Prakasam and 24% of farmers in Chittoor reported average mortality of an animal in a year.24 Reasons for mortality No.) due to mortality per annum per farmer No.

teat dip. milking machine. practicing of technology to the advantage of farmers was more in Chittoor compared to Prakasam i. of farmers 1 1 1 1 1 27 20% 1 2 1 33 24% Source : Field data . In respect of washing of udder before milking and cleaning of shed and vaccination. BMCU. the usage in practice was less in both the districts especially in respect of usage of chaff cutter. Though the awareness levels were high. lack of coordination among the farmers. BMCU.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. cream separator and teat dip those are cost intensive.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. In all aspects.e. usage of chaff cutter.24). milking machine. these technologies can not be adopted on a group basis due to management 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. 50% of the small & medium farmers and 72% of big farmers were adopting these practices. 33 . 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. 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. cream separator. 8% of Chittoor farmers felt that. N= 200 in Prakasam and N=200 in Chittoor 6.2. hygiene & cleanliness and disease prevention. Further. washing of udder before milking and cleaning of shed and vaccination.

the DAH was 34 .1 Generally Department of Animal Husbandry (DAH) or District Milk producers Union provides the veterinary services including treatment of diseased animals.3 Extension and veterinary services: 6. Apart from these. infertility cases. As indicated in Table 4 the network of veterinary hospitals was more in Chittoor than in Prakasam (97 RLUs.Table. Free vaccination is provided by DAH and Milk Unions in case of diseases like FMD and HS. 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. As part of extension services. Similarly the AI centres are also more in Chittoor (301) than in Prakasam (192) district. 90 veterinary dispensaries.3. 9 veterinary hospitals and 1 veterinary polyclinic in Prakasam district and 187 RLUs. AI Work and extension support. 25. 99 veterinary dispensaries. in Chittoor. 15 veterinary hospitals and 1 veterinary polyclinic in Chittoor district). castrations. district private agencies like JK trust and BAIF also are providing these services but the network is very thin.

Gram Panchayat and neighboring farmers (table 26).27). Raising of Azolla doesn’t require land: a pond size of 3m x 2m x 1m would suffice. Regarding training.3. About 63% of Prakasam farmers and 35% of Chittoor farmers were desired of training in future in dairy farming. supplying fodder seeds and slips.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. majority of the farmers (40%) got the required information from DCS followed by DAH (26%). For instance. 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%).26. Milk union provided similar facilities also through its functional DCS. Evan a private dairy conducted 120 fertility camps and 80 exposure visits. Table.conducting fertility camps. private dairies. Although multiple service providers are operating with their vested interests. the information on raising Azolla in the ponds is absent / inadequate. Private dairy(2%) and DCS (1%) in Chittoor district. 6. This would reduce utilization of concentrated feeds. 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%). In Chittoor district. that might be the reason why such useful messages are not passed on to the farming community. which even agricultural labourers could do. providing training in livestock rearing at their farms and disseminating the information related to livestock rearing in villages. In Prakasam district. 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. DAH. Perhaps. the information related to dairy was quite frequently passed on to the farmers compared to Prakasam (Table. the problems of the farming community are not fully met. private dairy (4%). 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 .

Commercial banks (20 no. The various credit sources in the districts for various purposes like crop production.).). children education. 68% of them availed credit less than Rs. regional rural banks (RRBs).) in Prakasam district followed by SHGs (22 nos. self-help groups (SHGs). Farmers utilized the credit for other purposes like children education. etc.5% of farmers of Prakasam and 38% of farmers of Chittoor availed credit (table 28). FI is a strategy to include the underprivileged who are hitherto deprived of the banking services.s) and private dairies (13 nos. relatives and private dairies. In total 35. Out of 71 farmers in Prakasam who availed credit. health and house hold purpose and working capital are cooperative banks (Coop).10. household expenditure. health. commercial banks (CBs). As on 30-1-2006. 22 million SHG groups had been formed with bank finance of Rs. 20. CBs (16 no.) while in Chittoor private dairies provided credit to majority of the farmers (28 no. SHG banker linkage is also a programme in one way similar to FI which is claimed to be a big success. Major purpose for which credit availed was for crop production and purchase of animals. moneylenders.4 Credit support to dairy farmers The 11th Five Year Plan is poised with the concept of Financial Inclusion (FI). purchase of animals.631 crores under the programme. Cooperative bank provided credit to majority of farmers (26 nos. 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 Source : Field Data collected from Study districts 6.s) and RRBs (10 nos.000 (Table. 29) and the interest rate is 8 36 .s) followed by cooperative banks (20 no.Neighbouring Farmers Gram Panchayat N= 4 2 200 1 200 5 2 Source : Field Data collected from Study districts Table.).

At macro level. The defaulters percentage was more in Prakasam (24%) than in Chittoor (2%).10000 to dairy farmers with a repayment period of 6 months without any interest. If the farmer pays back after 6 months. Table. Dairy farmers in study area have suggested few of the measures (Table. 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 . improvement in irrigation facilities and low cost or subsidized loans. 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 Chittoor also similar trend was observed. The repayment period fixed by various banks for crop loans was 1 year and for other investment loans. In Prakasam district private dairies offered a loan of Rs. Further. it was even 5 to 6 years. About 7 and 3% of farmers of Prakasam and Chittoor also opined that social pressure through SHGs would help in better recovery.6% were reported “indebted”. 28 Purpose-wise sources of credit District Purpose and sources of credit Total No.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. the interest changed on the loan was 16% per annum. it is revealed that. 11% more farmers availed loan for livestock along with crop loans in Prakasam district. Further.42 million accounting for 48.percent. Only 16% and 18% of farmers of Prakasam and Chittoor. respectively utilized the loan for purchase of animals. 43. out of 89. 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. as per the NSSO 59th Round. they (11%) opined that integrated or mixed farming would help in removal of debt burden.35 million farm households.

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.5 10 20 10 2 28 33 36 1 11 76 (38. Rs. 0 to Rs.0 Source : Field Data collected from Study districts figures in the parenthesis indicate percentage Table . Rs. to Rs to Up to 0 to Up to Rs. 5000 Rs. 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 2 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 Source : Field Data collected from Study districts 38 .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. Up to Up 3000 Up to Up to Up to Up to Up to 3000 Up to Rs. Up to Rs. Rs. Rs. 30000 Rs. Rs.

Farmers opined that the claim settlement was satisfactory in both the districts. as in many parts of the State. Recently. Generally.Table. the public sector milk procurement system became defunct and often either closed down or running in low capacity consequent upon economic reforms.6. all the loany animals were insured at least for 3 years but non-loany animals were never insured.6 Milk Marketing 6. Premium amount varied with the yield of the animals. 300 to 450 in Prakasam district and Rs. usually not exceeding 2. 6. around 10 lakh litres is procured by private dairies and 1. 450 to Rs. On an average 14 lakh litres of milk is being produced in Chittoor per day. DRDA established 19 BMCUs of 3000 litres 39 .1 Marketing system in the study districts : In both the Districts. Only 11 and 18% of farmers of Prakasam and Chittoor insured their animals with New India Insurance company. and the rest by milk vendors. The premium ranged between Rs. Private dairies are dominating the milk market. On marketing side.5% per annum for long term policy.5 lakh litres by Balaji (Govt /NDDB) dairy. 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 Source : Field Data collected from Study districts 6. 800 in Chittoor. 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.5 Insurance Livestock insurance was not so much popular as life or motor insurance.

In the district. 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). General average price paid by private dairies is around Rs. Private dairies are attracting farmers by adopting simple strategies like spot payment. Ravileela. Jersey.6. Farmers reported that BMCUs are paying comparatively good price than private dairies. 58 and 49%.5 litres of milk. However in faction ridden villages. Usually.per day capacity units . the Prakasam District Milk Producers Union is handling a mere quantity of 0 .e 280ml per day per head as per ICMR recommendations) and about 11% in both the districts retained 1. This pattern of BMCUs establishment by DRDA in Prakasam is non-existent.2 Marketing by individual farmers: Usually farmers keep some milk for household consumption and rest is sold / marketed. As against the handling capacity of 5 lakh litres per day. 6. are procuring considerable quantities of milk (around 4 LLPD) from the district. One more reason was lack of awareness about the nutritional value of the milk.65 lakh litres per day. Creamline..8/litre. etc.40/ litre . loan facility. private dairies are not operating in such villages. where as BMCUs paid Rs. Only 9% of farmers were consuming more than the recommended quantity of milk. which is again based on the quality of milk (fat content). retained a litre of milk (average family size is 5 in both the districts and just meets the requirement i. 42 Private dairies like Indiana. wherever there is a dairy cooperative society (DCS) operating for milk procurement. As per the study. All BMCUs are functioning effectively with full capacity. 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. 40 . Heritage. The financial or economic problems were the main reason for low consumption of milk in both the districts. All BMCUs are maintained by SHG’s only. 9. respectively. It is interesting to notice that private dairies are getting a substantial quantity of milk despite of non-extension of veterinary/input services. both DCS and private dairies are operating. 3% and 7% of farmers of Prakasam and Chittoor were not retaining any milk for household consumption.

At the time of study there was no milk holiday. The average productivity of milk for AL.Table 31 & 32 provides information on the average quantity of milk produced per animal and marked in the study area by the farming community. this level of marketable surplus was not uniform through out the year specially. less than 1km distance. 10 per litre with 5% fat and Rs. The payment to farmers is once in fortnight by DCS and daily or weekly by private dairies.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 . the milk was not rejected based on quality. Table. In both the districts. the overall average milk marketed is 7 litres / day. 95% of farmers were selling their milk at near by place i. Further. and 5 & 10 for buffalo in prakasam and CB cows in chittoor district respectively. 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. 7 & 8.F. It is interesting to note that 51 and 68% farmers in Prakasam and Chittoor districts sold 7 litres to 14 litres of milk daily. 5 & 4. bulk milk cooling system has not penetrated in the Prakasam district in the cooperative system. Table 33 shows that DCS was a better marketing place for milk in Prakasam district followed by private dairy. MF. The average procurement prices by DCS in the Prakasam district are Rs. The fat testing is done manually by DCS and electronically by private dairies. In both the districts.e. 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. SF. Med. 14 percent of farmers were selling more than 10 litres of millk per day. 14 per litre with 7% fat. and BF is 3 & 4. Only 5% were traveling up to 5km to sell the milk. The concept of electronic milk testing. 5 & 6. The private dairies are also procuring the milk at the same price. However. Thus. smart card using digital technology. for agri labourers and marginal farmers due to shortage of feed and fodder.

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 .32 Category-wise marketable milk by dairy farmers Chittoor Prakasam Productivity Milk Milk Marketed Farmer Category Productivity Marketed 5 Agri.10-12 lit Source: Field data 18 20 Table.

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.33 Agency-wise marketing channel and sale price of milk Frequency of Price in Rs. DCS are using milking machine and BMCUs also for efficient milk procurement. Whereas in Chittoor the main reason for preferring private dairy is prompt payment.Table. Table. The main reason for preferring DCS as a marketing channel in Prakasam district is nearness followed by prompt payment and other services.4 Farmers perceptions on milk marketing channel: Farmers of Prakasam preferred DCS (56%) as a very good marketing channel to private dairy (36%). 6. But. respectively indicated that the milk is tested through Physical fat testing equipment.6. But in Chittoor the preferred marketing channel was private dairy (62%) followed by DCS (24%) and vendor (15%). About 68% of Prakasam farmers and 10% of Chittoor farmers indicated that milk was tested electronically by AMCU and 9 and 26% of farmers.34 Farmer’s perception : Milk marketing channel Reasons Farmers Perception (% of farmers) 43 . of late. The various reasons for choice of milk marketing channel were given below in Table 33. 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. 26% of farmers are pouring milk in to BMCUs and none in Prakasam district.6. In Chittoor. Very few farmers inclined towards marketing of milk by self (3%) or through vendor (4%).

all other types of farmers were getting nearly 50% of the income from dairying and livestock 44 . 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. as an instrument to fight against poverty in rural India has come to limelight. in the habitat providing nutritional security to the family members. So selling the Private Dairy Total Source . dung. Its importance of late. Table 34 shows that except big farmers and agricultural laborers. Table 35 provides source-wise income from agriculture. more often than not.7. 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 3 1 2 1 24 3 2 2 1 62 1 15 6. dairying and wages which varied among farmer categories.1 Source wise average annual income (from livestock): The sources of income from dairy farming are through selling of milk.Milk union Prakasam Near by Prompt Payment Financial Assistance by the Pvt. constant income on the day one it self. 6. stock.7 Income and Employment generation from Dairy Farming: The income and employment generation is good indicator of. 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. milk products.

since the amount of marketable milk was not constant (Para 6. Table 35 indicates that the average annual income from dairy ranges between Rs. 35 Category-wise average annual income from different sources (Rs.7. The percentage of income from dairy for agri labourer was 47% and 52% respectively in Prakasam and Chittoor districts. 34920 in Prakasam and Rs. The reasons could be the price paid for buffalo milk was more than the cow milk. Further. Of the total income. 5880 to 23799 in Chittoor district. the income levels from dairying were more than that of the crop or other sources in Prakasam district compared to Chittoor district.sources in both the districts. Usually farmers don’t prefer to sell the dung. Dung is used as farm yard manure in their crop production. the maintenance cost for crossbred cows was more than that for buffalos. 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 .2) their income was on lower side. 19940 to Rs. 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). In respect of agrilabourers. Table. the level of milk yield in Chittoor district could not give advantage over price of buffalo milk.

Maximum number of farmers spent half an hour to one hour on all activities (Table. Amt. Each family was spending nearly 4 to 6 hours on dairying excluding time spent for collection of water. In Rs. / Amt. milking of the animals (vendor himself). marketing of the milk was done by male members of the family depending upon the category i.7. Amt. Usually female members of the family attend the animal rearing activities. 36). / Amt.2 Employment generation from dairying : The major activities involved in dairy farming include collection of fodder/cultivation of fodder. grazing the animals. feeding & watering. In Rs. the cleaning of shed and feeding / watering of animals was done by women (nearly in 50% of the families) (Table.e social status. The operations are flexible and staggered depending upon the convenience of the family members and need not necessarily be attended foregoing wage employment opportunities.e. In Rs. The usage of labour was very less i. In both the districts. 5 1 158 542 0 0 0 0 1. less than 10% of families were using labour for different services. 5 3 645 2942 1553 429 2500 0 7 17 7 2 17 9477 17084 23799 19235 14728 5880 6.Table. / % % % % 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. In Rs.37). farmers were spending more time on dairy farming than those in Prakasam district. cleaning the animals and shed. milking and marketing of milk.36 Average annual income from various components of livestock Category Income source within livestock Young and adult Milk Dung other livestock Total animals Amt. Interestingly. Collection of water for 46 . In Rs. In Chittoor district.

5 40 54 42 76 90 1 Chittoor 41 46 45 24 10 1.5 55 82 76 90 99 1 Prakasam 13 18 21 10 1 1. on an average. Table. Under National Rural Employment guarantee programme. Thus. any citizen of rural India has right to demand 100 wage days. The issue that emerges is while wages are paid for various activities in development of arid lands under water shed programme.5 5 0 4 0 0 0.animals is another time consuming activity to the tune of 2 hours daily.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 . Thus the activity is generating full-time employment to one person in a family for the average animal unit size of 4. 6 hours of the day is spent for rearing the animals including the proportionate time allocated for collection of water. 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).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. 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. For a pair milch animal. 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.

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. gap analysis. like any other comparable economic activity can be regarded as a zero sum. This was done for different levels of milk productivity obtained in the field conditions farmer category wise for cross bred cows(4. scarcity of dry fodder / crop residue and non availability of green grass coupled with prohibitive cost of concentrate feed 48 .graded buffalos (3. The cost of production of milk was calculated based on the field data and investigators observations (Annexure I). Due to purchased inputs. Big.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 8 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. Medium.Table.6. it also provides insights on the relative efficiencies of the production systems. 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.8 and 10 lit ). more often. Similarly cost of milk production was done for Agricultural Labour category.5 and 7 lit). The production cost of milk was done keeping in view the farming conditions of all categories of farmers viz. who. farm gate price. maintained local buffaloes whose average milk yield was 3 litres / day in Prakasam district and 4 litres / day for CB cow in Chittoor district. and finally the extent of profit / losses. marginal farmers. small. agricultural labour of the study area. Dairy enterprise.

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.16997 and 26929 in Prakasam and Chittoor districts respectively.12. 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.1) the sale price for cow milk was Rs. there is enough margin of profit when the cost family labour component and farm grown feed and 49 . SF. even at the higher productivity levels of 8 & 10 litres for cow and 5 & 7 litres for buffalo irrespective of farmers category. 9553 & 26929 for Prakasam district and Chittoor districts respectively. the market cost of concentrate ingredients for entire year and the cost of grazing were included in the paid out costs. 16997 & 23005.50 and that of buffalo was Rs.77 -19. The net incomes of AL.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.54 per litre of cow milk and Rs.6. 9185 & 7703. 8.14.00 which was much lower than / below the cost of milk production i.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. Rs.46 – 14. However. low cost of the animal prompted the latter to go in for local buffalo which they feel is more relevant to their situations.F and BF was Rs.F and BF among all categories of farmers which accounted for Rs.5612 & 6743. As discussed earlier (6. 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. 10185 & 8724. The cost of two animals along with equipment. Med.9.e. 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. MF.

the mechanised inputs replacing the labour component would have taken place. Had there been a higher margin of profit. It is important to note that the data were collected during November & December 2006. Farmers are not getting the higher remuneration for their produce. perhaps.F categories in Chittoor district.F where as it accounted for 51 to 71% of the total expenditure in case of SF. An analysis 50 . 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.e. The living compulsions of the resource poor dairy farmers force them to pursue the activity in absence of any other opportunities. MF and AL in the study area (Annexure I).30 for 6. February 2007 & June 2007.50 and that of buffalo is Rs. It is urban consumers that are getting benefited from such an exploitative marketing mechanism that got established during last four decades.5 % fat both of which are far below the cost of milk production as envisaged in the Annexure I. Currently the price for litre of cow milk with 4. 14. It is only the market value of the butter fat that they hardly get for their whole milk.10. ground nut cake extracted / derived from de-oiled farm grown ground nuts / crop in case of BF and Med. The BF and Med. 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. 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.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. 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. However the APDDCF & Private dairies have revised the milk prices twice there after i.fodder values are not taken into account. The family labour component accounted for 30 to 39% of the total expenditure (all costs) for BF and Med. The major cost of concentrate feeding is met by his own sources i. as has happened in western societies and also in the Indian commercial poultry farms.5 % fat is Rs.e.

both in public sector as well as private sector units. the dairying didn’t 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. (Fig1.9 Preferences of the of dairy farmers All most all the farmers were taking up the dairy activity by hereditary. even at optimum productivity levels of 10 lit. in case of crossbreds and graded buffalos also. Once the family labour and farm grown feeds and fodder values are imputed. feed mixing plants. chapter X) 6. How ever. 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. They also opined 51 . Even the agriculture labour rearing local buffalo getting only 3 litres of productivity was found to be getting higher income for his farm labour. since they are getting value/returns for their family labour which otherwise do not have value in absence of alternate opportunities.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. Such a dynamic service oriented input system can only be achieved through farmers representation at various levels in all the dairies. and 7 lit. bulk drug manufacturing units etc. The producer controlled market system would go a long way in addressing the multitude of the problems including the milk price.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. they preferred dairying because of lack of knowledge on other activities coupled with familiarity with the vocation (table 38). vaccine production units. biological units. which otherwise has no value. Majority of the farmers opined that the dairying is a profitable proposition with continuous and immediate income. disease investigation laboratories.

labour problems. The usual perception of some elites was that reallocation of resources 52 .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. However.that at any point of time marketing is not a problem for milk. Table. high cost of inputs. The details of collective action by stake holders was discussed in the ensuing chapter. 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). the collective action taken by the farmers to tackle the problem was very rare. Few agri labourers (2%) were taking part of their wages as fodder from the landlord. lack of assured irrigation. At the same time farmers faced few of the challenges like un-remunerativse milk prices.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.

which is fetching more and comfortable.such as increasing the herd size of milch animals by sale of few acres of land should provide them more earning opportunities. This belief was challenged by Mancur Olson who reported that 53 . reduction in school dropouts. Traditional attitude of farmers is such that they do not want to sell out the land being inherited. The assumption behind such proposition is animal rearing activities are anti-development particularly in promotion of litreacy. 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. 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. if their herd size is increased. It was ascertained with the farmers whether it is correct or not. VII. Majority of the farmers wanted their children to study and do the job. They also expressed that they may face difficulties in the input procurement and caring of animals due to labour shortage/high cost of labour. Feasibility of Collective Action in Livestock Endeavors It is generally believed that communities with common interest will participate in collective actions.

2. The reasons. unattended and uncared for. The farmers expressed doubts about people’s participation in maintenance of community grazing lands. Individuals in their anxiety to get more benefit (due to their self-interest) lose sight of project objectives. mix. devoid of any green cover. 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. 41). Yet. 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. denuded. At present only few farmers were using it (Para 6.some members do not contribute equally but get equal benefits. on Community basis reservations were expressed. They are non-existent and majority of the farmers reported that they are absent. This explained the over exploitation of grazing lands. About 9% of farmers in Prakasam and 5% of farmers in Chittoor district said that Panchayat lands were available for grazing.chaff cutter. This also explains why community pasture development programmes fail. 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. another factor is self interest coupled with lack of alternatives force the collective irrationalism. In this background. More over the living compulsions of the poor might not enable them to participate in the community activities although they were interested. they expressed on Community Grazing lands were: (1) No coordination between villagers. (3) Violence/factionalism etc. In Chittoor. Table. However. 22% of the farmers reported that they had their own grazing lands. In both the districts the condition of grazing lands was often precarious. The individuals are rational in their thinking but collectively the act leads to irrationality. (2) Difficulty of maintenance. the respondents did not feel the possibility of people’s initiatives in maintaining either community grazing land or for that matter any community initiative be it .6). milking machine and even milk collection unit (Table. 7 10 54 .

With this back drop almost all the farmers opined that it is not feasible (Table. Ongole) duly collecting milk from the villagers.1. This phenomenon was a common feature. The feasibility of Milk Products Manufacturing Unit by SHGs : Although several vendors tried preparing khoa and selling to urban places (such as Chittoor. and Balaji dairy promoting community milk collection from the SHG members through village organizations. Bangalore.000 is lost due to the sudden disappearance / cheating done by the khoa sellers (at Bangalore.50. majority of them expressed lack of confidence on the feasibility of community Gobar plants.38). Jarugumalli. Mandal Mahila Samakhya/ Village organization. supplying milk to the bulk milk cooling units operated 55 . 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. Tirupati. Similarly. one of the big farmer has donated building for setting up of veterinary hospital.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 another village viz.).000 to Rs.) 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.00. Further. Community Milk Collection through BMCU: A multi tier institutional public-private partnership between DRDA/ SERP . making higher payments on several occasions. in the study area (Challapalem in Prakasam. However. Many of the hospitals in the state were similarly established with public donations / contributions. 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. in respect of Community Medicines Depot and Gobar gas Plant.

This approach is timely intervention and is a win-win situation having tremendous advantages at all levels. With the result.000 per month. 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. Generally the average price ranged between Rs. Pricing and Payment is done based on fat percentage.50 to 2. In morning + 1500 litres in evening) every day. fat and Solids Not Fat (SNF) when compared with he Private Dairies. which is higher than the private dairy rate. 1. 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. 9 to 10 per litre (cow milk).extra per month by supplying milk to BMCUs.8000 – 10. 225/. income levels have increased and quality of life in the family has also improved. 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. The BMCU procured its full capacity of milk i. There are 19 such BMCUs promoted in the District by DRDA spending amounts ranging Rs.000 – Rs.. @ 3200 litres.000 are met from the commission received from the dairy towards chilling expenses @ 25 paise for litre which on an average accounts for Rs. Chittoor.00 rupees per litre.e.10.e. The Bulk Milk Cooling Unit (BMCU) promoted in the District by DRDA helped each milk producer to earn on an average Rs. At village level.12 lakhs to 25 lakhs for establishment of each BMCU with or without building using Velugu / IKP funds. Milk Producers are getting prompt payment every fortnight as per the quality of milk i.8. 300/. The salary of the five-member staff usually amounting to Rs. (1726 All Women Dairy Employees working under the guidance of Mandal Mahila Samakhya is in operation. 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. On an average each milk producer got Rs.000 and the operational expenses amounting to Rs.22.000 – 25. There is good response for this community milk 56 .

the group is paid a collection charge of paise 20 per lit as transportation charges. in the BMCU. Community milk marketing: The farmers (2% of farmers) of Prakasam were forming in to groups/SHGs at the instance of Private dairy. in which case. 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. 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.). There are few initial problems. This method is followed in the village(s) where the milk collection was on lower side and private dairy is not sending a vehicle. one of them that even minimum wages amount is not paid to the women workers (staff ) presented in Annexure–II. particularly from SHGs and Mandal Mahila Samakhya. Erpedu .procurement endeavor. The detailed case study is 57 .

VIII. although like any other Indian farmers. Although 85. jowar. live in debts and die indebted. subabul etc. provided constant continuous assured income to the family members and prevented starvation even during long dry spells and stress. there is no correlation between farmers suicides and dairy development as could be observed from the table 41. whether there is any relation between the incidence of farmer suicides and dairy development of the given area / district (Table 42). The dairy income is used in troublesome days of drought. 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. 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 farmer’s suicides.) as discussed earlier (Table 14). An attempt is made to find out. groundnut. Many farmers of Prakasam district also reported that dairy provided regular income and it was used for meeting household expenditure. it may be too simplistic to conclude dairy farming prevented farmer suicides. Bengal gram . 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. that. they also are born in debts.0% and 81. dairying in any case. This is the reason why farmers in Chittoor compared to Prakasam are not sensitive to crop failure during droughts. Few dairy farmers reported. Impact on Social Development Whether crossbred dominant farming system or buffalo dominant farming system. were always preoccupied. Although the incidence of farmers suicides in the study districts is less. at macro level.0% dairy farmers opined that dairy farming decreased the incidence of farmer suicides (Table44). busy with animals and hardly get time to think of suicides. This shows that even in dairy developed areas so long as risky capital intensitive crops 58 . Dairy farmers with less holdings do not go in for commercial / Risky Crops rather go for cultivation of dairy friendly crops (paddy.

69 7. with low milk production registered less number of suicides which might be due to reasons beyond dairy farming i. 13.1 276.A.87 4. 5. 7.00 276.4 7256. Conversely. A.2 152. 17. 10. Revenue D.14 0. 4.90 3.24 0.P.05 10.e.7 536.0 166.78 12.67 2. 2.11 20.8 338.Govt. 15. 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 0.8 212. 9.34 0.8 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:1.8 53. (Cotton) are resorted the hypothesis that.18 0.30 0. a district. 6. 42 District wise Farmer Suicide and milk production data S. 11.8 291.Ms. 16.O. 8.9 592. statement on number of farmers suicides confirmed & relief measures extended as per G. “in the dairy developed areas the rate of suicides are less” is not tenable.45 5.7 172.69 8.2 365.421.93 5. % Milk production ( 2004-05) ( ‘000 tons) % 1. 22. 3.6 658.54 2.0 276. 21. 20.7 646.5 459.05 5.7 200.1 146. 19. Cuddapah. Since 59 .Dept dated 1-6-2004. perhaps due to “not resorting to risky capital intensive crops”.58 2.II.4 208.P. 12.70 5. statement genuine number of farmer suicides for the period from 1-7-98 to 6-6-2005.No. NO Name of the District Farmer Suicides (1-7-98 to 6-6-05) No.05 0. 2.A.44 0.Govt.3 240.7 522.0 276. 18.04 100. 14.Table.4 187. 23.

2 95.8 0. ML. (Table 14).3 2.4 97. groundnut.3 7. 3.4 3.8 98. 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.9 Yes 99.7 92. Table.1 No 0. ML.9 0. 2. subabul etc.2 96 No 2 3 2.No.P Yes 98 97 97. Repeated failures of capital intensive risky venture/ crop would result in loss of hope of recovery frustration leading to suicides. SF who maintain dairy animals are compelled go for cultivation of dairy friendly crops (paddy.8 4.2 1. However. & SF category to go in for capital intensive risky crops. Table. Bengal gram . 6.1 97.6 96.7 5. In such a system of mixed farming there is hardly any scope for AL.2 99.9 2.3 100 99.44 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 .1 No 2. 43 Farmer’s perception on vulnerabililty reduction in small farmers economy S.1 95. The farmers suicides is attributed to high indebtedness often loans taken on high rate of interest from private money lenders.7 1. for the AL.3 94.6 2.) for food & folder security as discussed earlier.8 4 Yes majority of the districts where dairy development is more. Percentage of total respondents Total Prakasam Chittoor Live stock rearing reduces vulnerability In dairy developed areas farmer’s 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.7 97. jowar. 5. 4.9 4.

2%) ensured sustainable rural livelihoods and commercial agricultural (96. In the light of these it can be stated that dairy dominant integrated farming system which ensures sustainable income. It is interesting to find that 98.0% of the farmers opined that livestock rearing reduces vulnerability in drought years. reduces vulnerability marked by less 61 .0%) increased suicidal rate in A.P.e only 35. It is also reported that integrated farming (98.8% expressed that it provides sustainable livelihoods.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. Ninety seven percent of the sample respondents indicated that farmers suicides are less in dairy developed areas and 97.School dropouts / child labour Infant mortality Malnutrition Indebtedness Farmers suicide Alcoholism Domestic violence Interaction with government or banmk officials 26 8 60 6 5 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 1 3 5 17 18 37 16 96 95 80 81 60 74 4 3 1 3 10 3 2 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 1 2 73 Participation in village activities 6 82 4 7 97 1 2 Table 43 provides information on farmers perception of the effect of dairy farming on reduction of vulnerability and farmer’s suicides. In the study area the percentage of indebtedness among the dairy farmers was very low i.

they did not depend on husband or elders. It also enhanced family self respect. paddy. purchase of school uniforms. 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 farmer’s suicides. It was also reported that dairying enhanced the women status. on an average. sugar cane. the milk consumption is around 100 gms/day/person only. Karimnagar.2 also reveal the same. They could escape misery of life. Warangal. For meeting petty expenses. (Table 42. The study area is marked by dairy dominant farming system which did not promote risky capital intensive ventures (like cotton. jowar. It is also reported that women members used milk income for payment of children fee. Thus dairy farming can be considered as one of the strong barrier prevention of farmers suicides. which is far below the ICMR recommended nutritional requirement level of 280gms per day. 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. subabul. and nutritional status. Mahabubnagar. The findings given at Para 6.7. and cultivated forage crops. which helped in 62 . dignity. table 14) rather promoted dairy friendly crops like ground nut. In Chittoor district. 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.indebtedness was one of the important factor preventing the incidence of the suicides. books etc.

Such improvement was reported to be more pronounced in Chittoor compared to Prakasam district. they were able to purchase more assets like utensils. The social mobilization and empowerment of women is apparent and appreciable in the rural areas. 63 . fan. Over all. it is evident that income from dairy farming triggered social development process in such drought prone districts . school dropouts. TV. migration. bicycle / motorbike. banks and others increased. alcoholism also increased.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. Their participation in village activities increased and also association with government agencies. Table. Few farmers in Prakasam expressed that income levels increased due to dairy and due to high income. In the light of above . gas stove.The levels of infant mortality. house etc. alcoholism were found to be less in dairy farmer households compared to non-dairy farmers .be it Chittoor or Prakasam district.

remained a cause of worry in milk based rural economy zone . Livelihoods options are shrinking in rural areas in general and more so in eco-fragile regions. It is. In both the districts. In Prakasam also 44% of the farmers were holding 2 graded buffalos.Loss of biodiversity due to absence of native breed’s conservation be it Ongole or Punganur in their home tract should be a matter of concern for the policy makers. 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. The majority of the farmers (63%) were getting a yield of 4-6 lit / day.IX. 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. non-remunerative price of milk had . only single species. 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. very few farmers were rearing bulls or bullocks or Ongole bred animals . in other words. viz. Ongole. Both the milk production systems viz. in the face of economic liberalization. Areas of Concern and Suggested Measures The sustenance of rural livelihoods is currently at stake than ever before. The on-going breeding policy needs revision in the light of the field observations more particularly of the neglect of indigenous breeds of cattle. About 39% of farmers in Chittoor were rearing 2 CB cows on an average followed by 3-5 CB cows (36%).indeed. As a matter of policy. to suggest discouraging promotion of both the types of dairy animals (buffalo and crossbred) 64 . 12% were holding more than 3 animals and 19% were having single graded buffalo. in the same district. that is disappearing in its home tracts despite programmes implemented preventing the bio-diversity loss and conserve the indigenous germplasm. Although dairying contributed to social development and helped in reduction of vulnerability.

raising of Azolla. 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. cultivation of fodder varieties. The idea behind such a strategy is to provide livelihood expansion by way of reducing the cost on the expenditure side. Augmentation of feed and fodder resources. suggesting best practices for augmentation of feed and fodder resources. high prices of purchased fodder. 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 .5% blood level among the crossbreds. and non establishment of fodder banks at Mandal level has been rendering dairying unviable during scarce periods. non-availability of fodder and lack of access to the fodder bank.. Such opportunities shall reduce the expenditure towards purchase of crop residues / dry fodder duly replaced with vitamin and mineral rich collected grass . maintenance of grazing lands etc. 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. infertility and repeat breeders and higher level of exotic inheritance beyond 87. Livelihood expansion strategies based on location specific opportunities in the form of development of community grazing lands. These common pooled resources would be of immense help more particularly to the resource poor dairy 65 . which are inadequately addressed. maintenance of gochar lands and utilisation of other non-conventional feeds with or without mixture of kitchen wastes need to be explored further. The capacity building measures and extension mechanism to impart strategies. for reducing the cost of feeds and fodder are highly inadequate. raising of Azolla inoculation ponds (3m x 2m x 1m) etc.The another areas of concern specifically breeding related are Low conception rate.

Regarding training. respectively. Each Rural Livestock Unit (RLU not headed by a veterinarian) in Prakasam and Chittoor district covered around 5400 and 5300 adult livestock units. milking machine. In many aspects. The breeding infrastructure support. The awareness levels were higher among the farmers of Chittoor than the farmers of Prakasam. teat dip. Venture Capital Fund and Rural Infrastructure Development Fund (RIDF) of 66 .accessing infrastructure . it is suggested to increase the awareness levels of farmers as well as adoption levels of technology by farmers extension .farmers in livelihood expansion by way of reducing the feed expenditure and enhancing the margin of profit. washing of udder before milking and cleaning of shed and vaccination. 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. While funds for provision of infrastructure are available under Swarn Jayanthi Gram Swarozgar Yozana (SGSY) / Indira Kranthi patham (IKP). cream separator. created through enhanced for such facilitation. The level of adoption varied from district to district.e. 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. 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. market infrastructure support and feed mixing units needs to be suitably strengthened for facilitating technology adoption. usage of chaff cutter. BMCU. practicing of technology to the advantage of farmers was more in Chittoor compared to Prakasam i. Therefore.

The same is case with establishment of fodder banks. Med. in general and similar milk procurement organizations can be more functional than a mere representation on paper.NABARD and other GOI schemes. The reasons could be the price paid for buffalo milk was more than the cow milk. The DCS was a better marketing place for milk in the Prakasam districts followed by private dairy. SF. The expression of the farmers in the management of dairy cooperatives. In Chittoor the preferred marketing place was private dairy due to prompt payment and loan assistance by private dairies. 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. Of the total income.7 & 8. and BF is 3 & 4. 5 & 6. There is a need to review the procurement and input policy of milk in the dairy cooperatives such that farmers needs are fully met. For instance. the level of 67 .F. MF.and 5 & 10 for buffalo in prakasam and CB cows in chttoor district respectively. Towards this. there was no single case of establishment of BMCU in entire Prakasam district. the availment and utilization of funds was very meager. The average productivity of milk for AL. It is interesting to note that 51 and 68% farmers in Prakasam and Chittoor districts sold 7 litres of milk daily. The philanthropic offers for establishment/development of Goshalas / pinjarapools needs to be sought for development of fodder banks and conservation of germplasm. 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. 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 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. the income levels from dairying were more than the crop or other sources in Prakasam district compared to Chittoor district.

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.F where as it accounted for 51 to 71% of the total expenditure in case of SF. 9553 & 26929 for Prakasam district and Chittoor districts respectively.F and BF was Rs. 16997 & 23005. 10185 & 8724. The family labour component accounted for 30 to 39% of the total expenditure (all costs) for BF and Med. The net incomes of AL. MF. 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. 68 .16997 and 26929 in Prakasam and Chittoor districts respectively.5612 & 6743. It is interesting to note that the net income accrued is highest for the Med. MF and AL in the study area (Annexure I). 9185 & 7703. SF. 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.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. 6-7 lit from the year 2000 onwards upto 2006 . F and BF among all categories of farmers which accounted for Rs. 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. The BF and Med. 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. Med.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.

Majority of the farmers were rearing 4 animals unit comprising of a pair of milch animals. The reasons. difficulty of maintenance. milking machine and even milk collection unit (Table. 40). free movement. 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. farmers opined that dairying is a profitable proposition with continuous and immediate income. However. The respondents did not feel the possibility of people’s initiatives in maintaining either community grazing land or for that matter any community initiative .be it chaff cutter. The time spent on animal rearing was ranging between 7-9 hours. etc. they feel exploited by the market force. may lead to violence due to already existing factionalism etc. young ones and bullocks with or without sheep and goat. easy life style and much more importantly. foregoing the freedom of entertainment by way of dancing and drinking.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. the tribals who ran away reported. There is a growing concern. Although they don’t have always opportunities for wage employment round the year. attending the animals even during night time and suffered from a constant feeling of pressure & tension. to have to live. Thus the activity is giving full-time employment to one of the family member. they used in dairying. However they feel that they are not getting remuneration for the labour. the present generation youth / daughters-in-law are not showing interest in the animal rearing activities. Further they lost the freedom of life. They also opined that at any point of time milk marketing is not a problem for milk although not getting remunerative prices. etc. they expressed on Community Grazing lands are lack of coordination between villagers. The reasons expressed for the non-feasibility of Community Milking Machines are lack of awareness and un-preparedness for 69 . In absence of alternative avenues of livelihood. (after a few days) that they could not withstand the busy schedule of life.

SHGs were very happy as they were getting more price than other marketing channels. 70 . 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. BMCUs have been established to collect the milk and supply to Balaji dairy and with this. 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. Due to the initiative of DRDA. Chittoor. which they feel by doing it by themselves they can reduce expenditure/ production cost. However non payment of Minimum wages to the operating staff at critical position in BMCU is a matter of concern.payment for milking the animal.

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. 71 . pink and blue revolutions. Pro-farmer initiatives for dairy based livelihoods The Macro economic fundamentals of the nation are robust. It may not be widely known that India is world’s third largest producer of Agricultural products. the maladies in rural development such as regional inequality. This is mainly attributed to the fact that small and marginal farmers do not have control on the factors that influence their livelihoods. wheat and sugar. white. although contributed to the economy. Along with spectacular achievements made in food production fronts in 70’s and 80’s resulting from green.X. Other fundamentals like foreign exchange reserves are also strong touching the new heights of $200 billion mark. 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. second largest producers of rice. 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. socio economic disparities. India is world’s largest producers of milk. rural poverty and migration widened and surfaced. 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. 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. 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 80’s the top down mode of development. It is alleged that rich became more rich and poor became further poor. growing unemployment.

“ top down “ and “ lack of social check “. it is often noticed that they made agitations. pasture development.NEEDS COLLECTIVE DECISION OUTPUTS TASK REQUIREMENTS FACILITATION COMPETEN CLIENTELE SYSTEM OPERATING DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME TASK REQUIREMENTS OUTPUTS NEEDS CAPABILITY FARMER IMPLEMENTER EXPRESSION FACILITATION Fig. etc. Proper representation of the stakeholders in decision making process in execution of development programmes in collaboration with the 72 . Such protests reached to a phenomenal height during recent past(2000-06) particularly in Chittoor and other parts of the country in general. the farmers gave negative reflections towards the possibility for community initiatives for fodder development. Due to depressed procurement price . These reflections are attributed to the failure of the development programmes mainly due to “ no people participation “. dharnas for hike in procurement price of milk. rasta roko. medical depot. 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). in the study area.

operating staff would go a long way in achieving the desired results / ultimate goal i.e. the clientele’s 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. Korten’s9 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. Farmer’s 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 BMCU’s 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.


draft. Chittoor /NDDB) promoting collective milk procurement arrangement through Tripartite agreements. Concluding Remarks Thus. (ii) The sincerity. manure. It is. transportation of milk and settlement of bills which created a sense of ownership and pride among the members. further improvements in the overall productivity of the farming systems through technological interventions without affecting /interfering with the productivity of individual components. The SHG members of the village organization. in other words. building public private partnership and establishment of BMCU in such drought prone District. capital and most importantly as powerful instrument of insurance against crop loss. timely intervention of the District administration (DRDA) i. indeed had paid rich dividends it rightly deserved. It is to be remembered that 95% of the members of these SHG’s/VO’s (institutions of poor) are women in Andhra Pradesh. seemed simply not possible. procurement. reducing the vulnerability and poverty. the achievements of the contrasting dairy farming systems in reducing the vulnerability and poverty need to be appreciated. 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. Despite the above constraints. who are the members of the cooperative consistently call upon each member to consult with and participate in the process of production. dairy animals played multiple roles in sustenance of rural economy by acting as sources of milk. 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. 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 . However.e the institutional intervention of linking village level SHG dairy institutions / mandal level federation i. Considering the existing higher / optimal levels of productivity of individual components.e Mandal Mahila Samakhya with District Dairy (Balaji dairy.XI. And in both the animal dominant farming systems.

results are visible and Gangavaram on an average are getting benefited Rs 450-500 per month through price difference alone. decentralized governance with focus on empowering the self help group dairy women. it rightly deserved. however . For instance. 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. negotiating with them to the advantage of SHG’s and establishment of BMCU is paying the rich dividends. it may be concluded that the intellectual efforts and the administrative energy devoted in building institutions of poor. In sum. nurturing and developing them through partnership linking the Village Organisations / Mandal Mahila Samakhya with institutions having market. The components such as involving the self help groups in the decision making process. The BMCU experiment in toto can be tried in similarly placed DRDAs for benefiting self help groups (dairy women). technology network (Balaji dairy ). 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. another fit /match (ii) between capacity building measures of SHG dairy institutions at village level & enhancement of competency of all women BMCU operating staff. 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. coordinating the activities and owning the BMCU during the Management to be achieved were. accessing technology and 77 . it is apparent. each SHG dairy women members at BMCU At District level.Samakhya as a Federation of village organisations and decision making at various stages. fulfilled to a greater extent. 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 .

14) Subbarama through strategic private public partnership. GOI New Delhi. Clasification of dry land regions in India. 3) Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying (DAHD). Osmanabad. the Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Mktg ( Conf. 78 . 59th Round.” public Administration Review. 1980 pp 480-510 2) Directorate of Animal Husbandry. Rev. Livestock production and post production systems – Need for a pragmatic approach. 11) NIRD. September – October.) 18(3) 2004: 91-105 15) Tata Institute of Social Sciences (2005) “causes of farmers suicides in Maharashtra an inquiry.New York. 2005 8) National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO). A study across 12 States. if spread properly. 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. India. would go a long way in eliminating rural poverty.K. Korten “ Community Organisation and Rural Development: A Learning Process Approach. Ind.Ed. Ministry of Statistics and PI. Spl. 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. 5) Milkfed. These remarkable gains. B. 16-18th March.GOI – India.A and Kondaiah. (2005) report of the Punjab state cooperative Milk Producer’s Federation 6) National Bureau of Soil Survey an Land Use Planning (2001). Thapliyal National Institute of Rural Development Hyderabad. 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. Annual reports GoI. 2005 Nationwide Study on SGSY. “ Managing droughts-------------------“ : Rapid Interactive Research Study on Management of Drought 2002.Jour. Schocken Books. 13) Olson and Mancur (1971). 2006 4) Department of Animal Husbandry and dairying (2003).N (2004). 17th Quiquennial livestock census. India.Agril. References : 1) David C. 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. 12) NIRD “physical verification of IRDP assets 1986-87” Social Laboratory Vikarabad experiences. GoAP “Sample survey reports”. 9) NABARD Potential Link Plans (PLPs) of Chittoor and Prakasam 10) NIRD 2004. Nagpur 7) National Seminar on Integration of Cattle and Buffalo programmes with rural development scheme. Ed.