!   
             
              
    !       
             
"            #
                
             $ !% 
     &         
            '   
             
              
   (



  



 
 


 
)*  + ,'   -../  0+10 2
* 0 -..3 4    5 +6 
+  )  5 ,'  
  
           
     6   )   7  
        
    4 
'

 !"!#$!"%&#"!$



  

     

  
 
 



  

    


  
   

 
!"# $ % 

$$ & $ 


 

 

 
   

 
   
 

 


 
  

 

 
 




 ! 

 

"



 
# 

 

$  !%
 !

   
& 
$

'  

 
'  

($
 

' 

# %
 %
)   %
*  %
'  
  $


'
 

 

+ 
 


" %
 
 
 

&

'  !

#  




  
$,

 

( 

$



  

 
 
-
 
 
   
. 
 
   

 
 

 
 
  

 
  
 

  

 


 ! 

"-
 
 


 


 


(

  %
 

 



  


  


 


. 



 
 %

 %

 %
 
 %




$ 

  
 

 
$



$ -




 
 

 
 -

 






  

 

 


 


-
-

/

/
 
$$$   

0 

 

1"
1"#23.
" 
 







  


"0
"  
)*
4
/
+)

* !5!&
6!7%
66898
& %
  

) -
2 

: !  

*
 

&





 
 


' ()*+,+-.(+,/0-,+.

;

"
-
+  %
3%
9<<9

/- 
=
9<8>
"0
"  
)*
4
/
+)

"
3 
 

"
 

& 
9<8>
 CONTENTS

3DJH
&KDSWHU Title
1R
  

, ,1752'8&7,21 
  

,, 5(9,(:2)/,7(5$785( 
  
  
,,, 5(6($5&+0(7+2'2/2*< 

  
,9 5(68/76$1'',6&866,21 
  
  
9 5()(5(1&(6 
  
  
 I. INTRODUCTION

Milk quality is not option: but is obligation. Milk quality is most

important factor in dairying today. Quality is a result of totally
integrated approach, from farm dairy environment, to the training and
quality of staff, to the factory on plant hygiene and maintenance, to the
quality of cooling and storage of bulk milk at the farm. The long term
prosperity of dairying depends on the quality commitment of all
individual involved in taking milk from the cow and delivering it to the
table.
Ogale (1999)

India, which used to produce 17 million tones of milk in 1947, the year of
deliberance from Foreign Yolk, now produced 121 million tones in 2011 (Economic
Survey). Already, the per capita availability of milk at 253 gms/day in 2009-10 was
much lower than in developed countries, although it was well above the developing
county average. The fact that average milk production per milch animal is one of the
poorest (1015 litres per year compared to even Pakistans 1035 litres per year) is another
story (Sharma and Sharma, 2001). Not only is the quantity per animal low, but quality
of milk in terms of bacteriological quality is also very poor.

Quality of milk is the sum total of chemical quality in terms of fat and solids-not-
fat content, and the microbiological quality is entirely within the control of milk
producers. How we milk the cow; how milk is kept after milking; how it is transported
to the central processing dairies or households to the consumers contribute to the
microbiological quality of milk and milk products. According to the International
Organisation of Standardisation (ISO), quality encompasses safety, hygiene, reliability,
wholesomeness, acceptance by consumers and quality conveys different meanings to
different people.

1
 In view of the WTO regime and the resultant globalisation and liberalization, the
quality aspects of milk have attained importance. If the dairy industry in India has to
gear up to be counted as the best in the world, the stress should be on quality of milk.

India has soils, climates, local agricultural economics, transportation,

infrastructure, educational institutions, research capabilities and above all highest
amount of bovine, that have created the foundation for modern dairy industry. But there
is no room for complacency. If India has to export milk and milk products as a
substantial part of its future growth, it must improve and innovate to sustain its
competitive advantages.

Over the last seven years, India has started looking at dairy products exports.
These exports are not much in itself but these exports have made India the only net
exporter of milk between New Zealand and Europe. Every other country remains a net
importer. The Indian dairy structure, based on small low-cost farms, which proliferate
the Indian landscape, is turning out to be the most cost effective producer due to low
running costs and lesser technological costs. Hence, India is the most cost effective
producer of milk and milk products. It is this input/output ratio which makes India far
more attractive than any other country in the world when it comes to prices (Manmohan
Munjilal, 1998).

This low-cost production of milk also offers radically contrasted conditions

wherein each farmer contributes very small quantities of milk and the farmers are, by
and large, not well aware of good practices of milk production. The microbiological
quality of raw milk also needs to be improved since favourable climatic conditions help
temperate countries to maintain the microbiological quality of milk. There is, therefore,
a need to train and educate farmer for ensuring the adoption of good animal husbandry
practices which shall result in limiting bacterial contamination.

In todays competitive market, consumer is the most important individual who

buys and uses a commodity. So, in this context, the sensory perception and preference
2
of consumer population about milk quality is most important. Growing number of
Indian consumer can be seen every morning walking to nearby Khatals in their localities
or standing in front of the door of their houses to fetch milk. They obviously want to
ensure that the milk their families drink is hygienic and unadulterated and for that they
are ready to pay premium pries as well. This confirms the fact that quality
consciousness among the Indian citizens is rising and also the willingness to pay extra
for the quality is also expected.

In order to fulfill the high expectations of Indian consumers and stiff challenge
from the international market due to globalisation and prevailing tropical humid
conditions, the main task of Indian dairy industry now is to provide clean milk and milk
products without compromising with quality standard so that they do not pose any health
risk and have a reasonable shelf life. Therefore, in the WTO regime of trade
liberalisation our dairy industry is facing a severe challenge regarding quality standards,
sanitation and phytosanitation aspects of milk production. The advanced nations are
introducing sanitary and phytosanitary measures to get prescribed codex standards.
India needs to be vigilant and monitor this development on a continuous basis and
improve upon her own image as a reliable quality, food supplier. India needs to gear
itself up to face the new emerging challenges in this area.

To sum up, we can say that improved quality of milk and milk products is like a
sword with double edge, where extent of improvement in the quality serves as the
sharpness of the edge. The one edge will cut the dissatisfaction, and attract consumers
to buy whereas other edge will improve over the turnover (market share) by winning
over the competitors. Therefore, in order to penetrate in the competitive market and
reach the esteemed customer, organisations have to foresee, plan, improve and practice
the actions required for producing quality milk and milk products. Raw milk quality
being the very basis of winning the market of milk and milk products, all the efforts to

3
improve, maintain and sustain the production of excellent quality raw milk must be
pursued as core improvement activity of the quality assurance system of organisation.

More appropriate than in any other aspect, in case of milk, quality and cleanliness
are the two sides of the same coin. We cannot imagine the concept of quality to be
segregated from concept of cleanliness. Clean milk does not mean milk which is
devoid of any type of extraneous matter, dirt. The term is rather to be used for
designating raw milk from healthy milk animal produced and handled in clean, healthy
and good hygienic practices, containing only small number of non-pathogenic bacteria
and which is capable of remaining sweet till the time it reaches the customer or
processing unit. Theoretically, the clean milk stored at a constant temperature of 15C
will keep 3 to 4 days from the time of milking.

At one time it was generally considered that milk when it is removed from the
udder contained no bacteria. It has subsequently been shown that the udder contains
bacteria due to various unhealthy and unhygienic practices. The bacteria enter the milk
as soon as it is secreted. The clean milk production will come forward when the dairy
farmers take it as a constant challenge in milk production to prevent or minimise the
entry and subsequent growth of bacteria in milk. To achieve this in farm level, it is very
important to have concentrate extension efforts to bring the desired level of adoption of
clean milk production practices. For this, it is imperative to understand the present level
of knowledge of the producers regarding clean milk production practices and the level of
adoption of this practice. It is also important to identify the constraints in adoption, so
that steps can be taken to remove the impediments in adoption. On the other hand,
consumer perception about milk quality has gained importance recently as they are
increasingly demanding higher food safety standards. Hence, it is utmost important to
involve consumer to understand his expectation and preferences, so that it can match
with the attributes of the milk provided to him. Therefore, the study was conceived to
explore the following objectives:

4
1. To study the socio-economic and personal profile of the respondents;
2. To measure the knowledge of producers regarding clean milk production
practices;
3. To ascertain the level of adoption of clean milk production practices and identify
the constraints as perceived by the respondents;
4. To find out the perception of consumers regarding quality of milk.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The dairy development programmes are trying to disseminate new technologies to

livestock owners, but the degree and direction of change cannot be accurately
ascertained unless we are familiar with the dimension of existing technology. This
applies to dissemination and adoption of clean milk production practices too. Hence, an
urgent need was felt necessary to study the issues and benefits related to the following
aspects of clean milk production:

1. The study will be helpful in understanding the level of knowledge and adoption as
well as the constraints of adoption in clean milk production practices among dairy
farmers in research areas.

2. The study will throw light on the relationship of characteristics of producers with
the adoption and knowledge level of the farmer.

3. The study is expected to bring out some salient features responsible for promoting
adoption of clean milk production practices.

4. The study will help to understand the consumer perception about milk quality and
their attitude regarding payment of incentives for clean milk production.

5. The findings of the study will be helpful to the planners, administrators, livestock
development departments, extension agencies and for those who are directly or
indirectly concerned with the dairy development of the districts in particular and
state in general and also in other areas having similar scenario.
5
LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

Although every effort was made to make this study as comprehensive as possible,
but it is subject to the limitations inherent in a single student project. Some of the
limitations are indicated below:

1. The findings are based on the ability of the respondents to recall and on the verbal
opinions expressed by them. Hence, the objectivity of the study is confined to
both their ability to recall and also their honesty in providing the necessary
information.

2. Due to limitations of the time and other resources, the study could not use the
larger sample for quantitative assessment.

3. The study is also confined to a small sample of dairy farmers in two districts of
West Bengal which is a very large state. So, universe of results cannot be
claimed.

6
 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Whenever a researcher undertakes any study, he does an in-depth analysis of the
past work done in that field or related fields, to have a firm grasp over his research
problem. A comprehensive and critical review of past researches provides a solid
foundation for scientific study. The review is meant to determine what work
theoretically and empirically has been done in the past, gives an idea of the procedures
and methods used and also provide a guideline so as to have a proper interpretation of
the results obtained. This chapter provides a view of present research related work that
has been done at both national and international levels.

A very limited published research work was available relating to the present
study. Hence, the review is mainly confined to importance of clean milk production,
knowledge of farmers and adoption of scientific dairy farming practices and to analyse
the bearing of different socio-personal profile of the consumers about their perception of
different parameters regarding milk quality under study. Keeping in view the above
facts and the objectives of the study, the relevant review of literature has been described
under the following headings:

2.1 CLEAN MILK

CLEAN MILK PRODUCTION: BRIEF HISTORY

Let us start with the brief history of concept of clean milk production:

Before 1914, few talked and heard about clean milk production.
During 1914-15, only few enlightened farmers initiated discussions about concept of
clean milk production.
In the late 1914, press took the note for needs for clean milk production following an
agitation for better milk quality.
In 1915 itself, Milk and Dairy (Consolidation) Act was adopted.
By 1922, Milk and Dairy (Amendment) Law came into force.
7
 In 1926, Bacteriological Examination was also placed under the power of local health
authorities.
This was in England and this was not so in India where in the past our aim has
been mainly how to increase production of milk, keeping the quality and cleanliness
aspect at bay as it had been the need of day as we may put it. However, with
globalization of market and post WTO compulsions, it is now important that we also
start a serious effort towards clean milk production (Sharma and Sharma, 2001).
Codex has not specified any microbiological standards for raw milk. It
recommends that counts should be as minimum as practically can be achieved. Several
countries, however, have specified bacterial quality for raw milk as per table given
below.
Table 2.1 Bacterial standards in raw milk of some countries (Varshney, 2000)
Country Total count, lakh/ml Rejection threshold
Highest grade
Australia < 0.2 0.5
Canada < 0.5 1.0
Denmark < 0.3 4.0
Japan < 0.3 10.0
U.K. < 0.2 2
U.S.A. < 0.25 3.0
Source : IDF, Brussels (1996): Bacteriological Quality of Raw Milk

A drive to improve quality of milk and milk products is necessary if we have to

meet the challenges posed by the changing global dairy scenario and if our dairy
entrepreneurs are to look towards the export market.

But dairying is a secondary occupation for Indian farmers, who belong mainly to
the small and marginal categories. On an average, a farmer has only 2-10 heads of cattle
and less than 2 hectares of cultivated land holding. Thus, adequate attention is not
provided in dairying activity. In general, farm management practices are poor as a result
of inadequate awareness and education of farmers on clean milk production and lack
of training in proper cattle herd management and milking practices. Rural India still
8
does not have basic amenities such as adequate supply of potable water and
uninterrupted power supply. Lack of adequate animal health care and veterinary
services results in high incidence of disease in animals, which have the danger of being
transmitted through milk to the consumers. On the other hand, in India clean milk
production does not have an incentive. No premium in price or bonus is offered to the
milk producers for maintaining high bacteriological quality. In fact, raw milk payment
is made only on the basis of fat and SNF content of milk and no weightage is given to
microbiological quality of milk (Poonawalla,1995).

Clean milk production is an important part in any dairy operations. Clean milk
affects the farmers profitability every day. Production of quality milk has many
positive benefits. Research has shown the importance of lowering the somatic cell count
(SCC) in a herd. If a farmer can cut down SCC in half, then milk production can be
increased to 0.6 kg milk per cow per day. Thus, lowering of SCC from 4.00,000 to
1,00,000 in a herd increases its production by 1.3 kg per cow per day. It is very essential
to approach clean milk by looking at the Mastitis Triangle. To look at the total picture
which includes the cows and their environment, the man and his milking procedures,
and the milking equipment and its function. Good milking practices include having the
teat clean, dry and properly stimulated before milking. Forestripping is critical to the
production of clean milk and fast milking times. Recent research shows that stripping
the teats can yield 5 to 7 per cent more milk. This not only increase milk yield, but
makes milking faster also. After forestripping teat surface must be sanitized properly.
This can be done by washing with water and a udder wash or predipping. Predipping is
superior to any other approach. Approximately, 85 per cent of the dairy farms in the
U.S.A. are following predipping at this time. The predip should cover 75 per cent of the
teat surface and the predip must stay on the teat for a minimum of 20 to 30 seconds.
Nitrite milking gloves is also very popular practice in U.S.A. Many researchers found a
significant decrease in bacteria numbers when gloves are used. Drying the teats with
individual paper or cloth towels is the most important step. It lowers SCC and reduce
9
clinical mastitis. Clipping udders is probably one of the most important operation in
clean milk production. The problem is no one likes clipping udders. It takes a great deal
of time and the cows usually object to the procedure. So, now, flaming the hair from
udders is beneficial. This new approach takes 75 per cent less time and the cows do not
object. The farmer now flames the udder three to four times a year (Johnson, ).

Milk and milk products can also be hygienically disputable when they contain
ecological polluters such as pesticides, heavy metals and non-metals etc., especially
when in quantities exceeding the allowed level as stated in the Table 2.2 They are also
disputable when containing residue of veterinary drugs (Marinsek, 2002).

Table 2.2 Tolerances for the bio-residues

Analyte Raw milk
DDT 0.5 mg/kg as to the content of the fat
HCH 0.05 mg/kg as the content of the fat
Lindan 0.1 mg/kg as the content of the fat
PCB 1.0 mg/kg as the content of the fat
Pb 0.1 mg/kg
Cd 0.01 mg/kg
Hg 0.03 mg/kg
Antibiotics Zero tolerance*

* Following the use of the prescribed or acknowledged methods

Classification of raw milk

Raw milk quality basically depends on the bacterial load. Type and number of
bacteria present in milk will be responsible for acidity development, flavour changes and
sourage of the milk. Based on bacterial load, raw milk is graded in three major classes
as per international standards (Ranada, 1988).

Class Bacteria (lakh/ml)

Class I <1
Class II > 1 to 3
Class III >3

10
 The raw milk is further classified on the basis of methylene blue production time
(MBRT) test as per Indian standard (Grover et al., 1989):

Class MBRT (h)

Very good 5.0 and more
Good 3 4
Fair 12
Poor 0.5 and below

The MBRT of raw milk indicates the number of microorganisms and their
activities as more the number less would be required time to reduce the methylene blue
dye and vice versa. According to IDF (1974), standard plate count (SPC) of <
10,000/ml for raw milk reflects good hygienic practices.

Marinsek (2000) reported that milk and milk products are considered to be
hygienically irrevocable when free agents of zoonoses and gastrointestinal diseases,
when containing environmental pollutants and veterinary drugs in quantities lower than
the prescribed tolerances, when not radiologically contaminated above the permitted
level of contamination, and when their sensory properties have not become unacceptable
for human consumption. This level of hygiene may be guaranteed by through veterinary
sanitary inspection, and by observation of strict hygiene measures by breeders and milk
producers, but also by well informed consumers.

Sinha and Sinha (1997) have observed that in order to meet the microbiological
standards, adoption of hygienic concept by the farmers by giving them incentives to
produce clean and safe milk is of utmost necessity. This should be followed by chilling
of milk within the reasonable period after procurement.

Shah (2000-2001) concluded in their studies that the microbiological quality of

milk and dairy products is relatively poor in India. Even after 50 years of independence,
we have made relatively no progress in improving the same. Looking to the consumer

11
awareness and our potential for internal trade, we must herculean efforts to improve the
microbiological quality.

Chawla (1999) reported that consumers are increasingly demanding higher food
safety standards and this has resulted in recognition of food safety as a very quality
attribute.

Ganguli (1999) observed that India produces half of Asias milk output. But
sadly, it also bears a whopping annual loss of Rs.5500 crores due to sub-standard quality
and proper processing of milk, and infrastructure deficiencies. Considering this, it is the
time that the Indian dairyman learnt how to respect the divine drop of milk.

A new method was developed for washing and disinfection of milking equipment
based on the use of an experimental detergent produced from a mixture including
sodium chloride, sodium sulphate, sodium carbonate and sodium silicate, in combination
with the chlordes sourt disinfectant. Its use enabled the temperature of the washing
regime to be reduced by 20C and to obtain milk with a total bacterial count of
1,23,000/ml which falls into the first class category for Belarus milk classification
(Baranovski et al., 1997).

Dankow et al. (2000) obtained data from 159 suppliers of milk in milk churns.
For the three types of suppliers, milk temperature averaged 5.6C , 3.1C and 4.2C in
January-March, 6C, 3.5C, 4.3C in April-June, 7.1C, 3.5C, 4.2C in July-September
and 5.7C, 3.1C, 4.1C in October-December, respectively. The average total bacterial
count was lowest (1,90,000) for the second group and highest (4,67,000) for the first
group. Somatic cell count was highest (4,67,000) for the first group, and lowest
(4,20,000) for the third group .

Ogale (1999) reported that important aspect is a need for creating social
awareness about milk quality. This would work as an incentive to dairymen as demand
for better quality milk would automatically ensure better gains and a place in the global
market.
12
 Hogeveen et al. (1999) during their studies revealed that the price for milk paid by
Dutch Dairy factories is influenced by milk quality. Poor milk quality is highly affected
due to high somatic cell counts, and presence of antibiotic residues. A survey was
carried out among 337 dairy farms to investigate the causes of residues of antibiotics in
milk. The main causes were insufficient cleaning of milking machine, insufficient
waiting period before the start of milking after drug treatment and presence of residues
for a longer period than expected.

(Sharma, 1997).In India, we are highly dependent on laboratory panels and are not
involving consumers at large in product development. This is true for the dairy industry
in particular and food industry in general. This may be due to non-competitive
food/dairy market

(Benz, 1991).German Agricultural Association conducts consumer studies on

different dairy products like cheese, butter, UHT milk of different trends (available in
the market) every year to select most liked samples. The manufacturer of liked
samples were rewarded with gold, silver and bronze medals (Heiss, 1990). Europe
countries have successfully used these techniques of involving consumer to know
his/her expectation and preferences and then matching it with the sensory characteristics
and attributes a given product for the target market

2.2 VARIABLES RELATED TO IMPROVED DAIRY FARMING PRACTICES

2.2.1 SOCIO-PERSONAL VARIABLES

2.2.1.1 Age

Srivastava (1982), Singh (1984), Verma (1988) and Choubey (1991) reported that
majority of respondents were in the old age group.

Maity (1999) observed that age was negatively and significantly related with the
knowledge and adoption of CMP practices.

13
 Anita et al. (1991) and Kadian and Jagtap (1991) found negative relationship
between age and adoption of improved dairy farming practices.

Kumar (1987), Kher (1991) and Nagpal and Yadav (1991) revealed positive
relationship between age and adoption of dairy farming practices.

According to Dakhare et al. (1993) age was not having any relationship with
adoption of veterinary care, clean milk production.

2.2.1.2 Education

Pawar (1979) reported that education of the farmers was significantly and
positively related with knowledge and adoption of dairy husbandry practices.

According to Singh (1987), education level of respondents was found to have

positive and significant relationship with level of knowledge about milk producers co-
operative societies and adoption of scientific dairy farming practices. Sinha (1997)
found positive and significant correlation between education and adoption of IDFPs.

George (1998) revealed that farmers who were having high level of education had
adopted more recommended practices.

Maity (1999) observed that education was found to be positively and significantly
correlated with the knowledge and adoption of clean milk production practices. Lalitha
(2001) revealed positive and significant relationship with knowledge.

Reddy and Reddy (1972), Singh (1980), Singh et al. (1985), Hanchinal et al.
(1991), Kher (1991) and Verma (1993) pointed out positive relationship between
education and adoption of improved dairy farming practices, whereas Sayeedi (1983)
reported negative relationship between education and adoption of improved dairy
farming practices.

14
2.2.1.3 Family education status

Jha (1974), Minhow (1976) and Singh (1977) reported that family education
status had influenced the total level of knowledge of respondents positively and
significantly.

Sayeedi (1983) revealed that knowledge had a positive but non-significant

relationship with family education status of dairy farmers.

2.2.1.4 Family size

Sinha (1963) stated that large family size was significantly superior to small and
medium size in awareness stage of adoption.

Capse (1976) indicated a definite and positive relationship between family size
and adoption of dairy farming practices.

Patel (1978) observed positive relationship between family size and level of
adoption.

Ram (1994) found family size has no relation with knowledge and level of
adoption.

Maity (1999) found family size negatively and significantly correlated with the
knowledge and adoption of CMP practices.

Hazarika (1983) observed that more members in the family, higher was the
adoption of dairy innovation.

2.2.1.5 Social participation

Social participation means participation of farmers in formal and informal social

institutions as office bearer or member.

Gupta (1976), Malik (1978), Pawar (1979), Kakate (1980), Ram Chand (1980),
Patil (1981), Srivastava (1982) and Sheoram (1987) revealed that majority of the

15
respondents were in low level of social participation, whereas subramanian and Kokate
(1989) found that majority of the respondents had high level of social participation.

Hazarika (1983) observed that social participation had highly significant

relationship with adoption behaviour of dairy farmers. Fulzele et al. (1995) found that
there was positive relationship between social participation and adoption of IDFPs.

Sinha (1997) stated that social participation had positive but non-significant
correlation with adoption of IDFPs.

In his study, George (1998) observed a positive and significant relationship

between social participation and adoption of SDFPs.

Ram (1994) found that there is relationship between social participation and
adoption of improved dairy farming practices. He also found that there is an association
between social participation and knowledge of member dairy farmers.

Maity (1999) stated social participation was positively and significantly correlated
with the level of knowledge and adoption of clean milk production practices.

Lalitha (2001) also reported a positive and significant association between

knowledge and social participation.

2.2.1.6 Institutional infrastructure utilisation

Dube (1973) reported that programmes of tribal development are likely to run into
a dead end without institutional infrastructure support. This has been supported by Singh
(1972), Tripathi (1974), Hassen (1975), Pratap (1975) and Gopalan and Kulandaoswami
(1976). Similarly, Sharma (1976) indicated that the institutional infrastructure is an
integral part of the development efforts in virgin areas. But the utility of an institutional
system depends on the understanding of the user or the idealism and sense of service of
those operating the system. Mitra (1977) reported that rural banks and co-operative
societies certainly helped tribal farmers in some tribal pockets but the impact was
negligible.
16
 Kokate (1984) reported that existing institutional infrastructure network in the
study area was not enough to create desired impact, and wherever it was present the
utilisation of these facilities was very low.

2.2.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC VARIABLES

2.2.2.1 Herd size

Tyagi (1975), Banerjee (1976), Gupta (1976), Kokate (1984), Kumar (1987),
Verma (1988) and Nagpal and Yadav (1991) reported that her size had positive relation
with adoption of improved dairy farming practices. Whereas, Saini et al. (1977), Singh
and Dubey (1978) and Patil (1981) reported negative and significant correlation between
herd size and adoption of improved dairy farming practices.

Sheoron (1987) reported that herd size was found to have non-significant
relationship with adoption of health care practices.

Pawar (1983) reported that 62 per cent respondents were having 1 to 5 animals
followed by 25 per cent respondents having medium and big herd size, respectively.

Sinha (1977) revealed that herd size was positively and non-significantly
correlated with adoption of IDFPs.

Ram (1994) found that there is no relationship of herd size with knowledge of
member dairy farmers of milk production co-operative society (MPCS).

Maity (1999) observed that herd size was positively and significantly correlated
with the level of knowledge and adoption of clean milk production practices.

2.2.2.2 Land holding

Kokate (1984) found that size of land holding had positive and significant
correlation with adoption of dairy innovations.

According to Sheoran (1987), farm size had positive and significant correlation
with the level of adoption in dairy farming.
17
 Chaudhary (1988) viewed that land holding was significantly associated with
adoption level.

Singh (1989) concluded that operational land holding was found to be positively
and significantly correlated with overall adoption of dairy innovations of medium dairy
farmers. Whereas it was positively but non-significantly correlated with adoption of
dairy innovations of small and large farmers.

Kumar (1995) found that large chunk of respondents were marginal farmers
followed by small, medium, large and landless farmers.

Kapse (1976) found that land size of cattle owners were found to have negative
correlation with the level of knowledge of dairy husbandry practices.

Mikkileneni (1976) found a positive and significant correlation between

knowledge of improved practices and farm size.

Maity (1999) found that land holding was positively and significantly correlated
with the level of knowledge and adoption of clean milk production practices

2.2.2.3 Income of the respondents

Kokate (1984) reported that majority of the respondents (84%) were earning less
than Rs.2000 per year which reflects the percentage of respondents below poverty line.

2.2.2.4 Milk production

Most of the studies attempted to find out the milk production of household by
ascertaining from the respondents milk yield of the day prior to the data collection. The
level of milk production varies depending upon the area, type of respondents and
time/season of data collection.

Subramaniam (1982), Singh (1983) and Singh (1986) reported high level of milk
production among large percentage of respondents. Whereas, medium level of milk
prodution among the majority of respondents was observed by Hazarika (1983), Sayeedi

18
(1983), Yadav (1986), Sheoran (1987), Verma (1988), Chaubey (1991), Verma (1993),
Kumar (1995) and Maity (1999).

Patil (1981), Pawar (1983), Kokate (1984), Kaushik (1988) and Sah (1996) in
their studies reported low level of milk production with majority of respondents.

Sah (1996) reported that there was positive and significant relationship between
milk production and adoption.

Sidhu (1980) in his investigation found that milk production had positive
association with total knowledge level and adoption of clean milk production practices.

2.2.2.5 Milk consumption

Patel (1977), Sharma et al. (1977) and Sharma and Singh (1986) reported high
level of milk consumption among majority of respondents.

In contradiction to the above findings, Patil (1981), Singh (1983), Kokate (1984),
Biradar (1986), Kaushik (1988) and George (1998) in their studies reported low level of
milk consumption among most of the respondents.

Kumar (1995), Sah (1996) and Maity (1999) found medium level of milk
consumption with majority of the milk producer farmers.

2.2.2.6 Milk sale

Hazarika (1983), Singh (1983), Biradar (1986), Sharma and Singh (1986), and
Maity (1999) found medium quantity of milk sold by the majority of the respondents,
whereas John (1974), Kokate (1984), Kaushik (1988), Sah (1996) and George (1998)
reported cow milk sale by the respondents.

Kainth (1988) reported that during winter season milk producers sold more
quantity of milk than during summer.

19
 Singh (1993) reported that majority of respondents in landless category sold milk
only when there was surplus. Whereas in other categories, viz., small, medium and
large farmers sold milk regularly.

2.2.3 COMMUNICATION VARIABLES

2.2.3.1 Personal localite /informal sources

Sawant et al. (1979) found that opinion leaders were the most important sources
of information as about one-third of the respondents reported to have received
information from them. Next comes neighbours who were contacted by 14 per cent of
the dairy farmers. They further reported that relatives (4.00 per cent) and friends (7.1 per
cent) were found to be the source of information for still few number of the farmers.

Subramanian (1982) observed that personal localie source use had a strong
association with the level of adoption in case of big farmers of the more successful
societies group. However, he did not observe any significant association of personal
locality sources use with the overall adoption of dairy innovations.

Mahipal (1988) in his study reported that utilisation of informal source was found
to be positive and significantly correlated with the adoption of dairy innovativions of
landless, marginal and small farmers and total sample under study. However, he further
reported that the utilisation of information sources was found to be positive but non-
significantly correlated with overall adoption of dairy innovations of medium and large
farmers.

Kumar (1987) revealed that informal sources were found to be positive and
significantly correlated with the overall adoption of beneficiaries of the LLP.
Information sources maintained positive and highly significant relationship with overall
adoption of dairy innovations in case of non-beneficiaries of LLP.

Mahipal and Kherde (1988) reported that informal sources utilisation had positive
and significant correlation with overall adoption of dairy innovations.
20
 Singh (1989) reported that informal sources had positive and significant
correlation with overall knowledge of dairy innovations of large dairy farmers, whereas
it has positive but non-significant correlation with overall knowledge of dairy
innovations of landless, small and medium dairy farmers.

2.2.3.2 Extension contact

It was reported by many researchers that majority of the respondents had medium
level of extension contact (Patil, 1981; Mahipal, 1983; Gautam, 1989; Chaubey, 1991).
Whereas Ram Chand (1980), Saini (1980) and Maity (1999) concluded that majority of
the respondents had low level of extension contact, and a higher level of extension
contact among majority of the respondents was also observed by Singh (1983) and
Singh (1994).

Kokate (1984), Kologi and Anand (1985), Kumar (1987), Verma (1988), Kherde
(1991) and Verma (1993) in their study found a positive and significant correlation
between extension contact and adoption of IDFPs.

Prasad (1992), Chugh (1995) and Fulzele et al. (1995) stated that extension
contact and adoption of IDFP had positive association.

Sinha et al. (1974) and Gupta (1976) reported negative and significant correlation
between extension contact and adoption of IDFPs.

Maity (1999) observed that extension contact was positively and significantly
correlated with the level of knowledge and adoption of clean milk production practices.

Lalitha (2001) revealed that extension contact was found to influence the
knowledge level of respondents positively and significantly.

2.2.3.3 Mass media exposure

Saini (1980), Kaur (1981), Sayeedi (1983), Sheoran (1987) and Kaushik (1988)
reported that majority of the respondents had low level of mass media exposure, whereas
Ram Chand (1980), Mahipal (1983), Yadav (1986), Chaubey (1991), Verma (1993) and
21
Maity (1999) found that the maximum percentage of the respondents had medium level
of mass media exposure.

Kumar (1987), Verma (1993) and Sinha (1997) reported that there is positive and
significant correlation between mass media exposure and adoption of IDFPs.

Sayeedi (1983) and Singh (1984) reported negative correlation between mass
media exposure and adoption of IDFPs.

Maity (1999) revealed that mass media exposure was positively and significantly
correlated with the level of knowledge and adoption of clean milk production practices.

Verma (1993) and Lalitha (2001) found negative relationship in case of exposure
to mass media towards dairy farming practices.

2.2.4 LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE REGARDING CLEAN MILK PRODUCTION PRACTICES

Adoption of dairy innovation implies better and rational decision made by dairy
farmers. This would become reality only when the farmers possess sufficient scientific
dairy farming knowledge. Hence, profitable dairy farming does pre-suppose sufficient
knowledge and necessary skill too. Thus, knowledge of dairy innovations forms an
important component of adoption behaviour. According to Rogers and Shoemaker
(1971), knowledge of innovations creates motivation for their adoption.

Many workers have attempted to analyse knowledge of dairy farmers pertaining

to dairy farming practices in different parts of country. The studies revealed that
majority of the respondents were in medium level of knowledge as reported by Mahipal
(1983), Singh (1986), Verma (1988), Gautam (1989), Chaubey (1991) and Maity (1999).
Whereas, Saini (1980) and Singh (1984) observed low level of knowledge among the
majority of respondents.

Gill and Singh (1977) reported the professional knowledge of dairy farmers in
Ludhiana district. They found that knowledge of dairy farmers in housing and animal

22
health was low. Their knowledge in management and marketing of milk were at
medium level.

Sohal and Tyagi (1978) reported that knowledge of veterinary aspects was higher
in case of urban areas than in rural areas.

Hazarika (1983) reported that most of the respondents had very poor overall
knowledge of dairy husbandry practices. The variables such as family size, education,
herd size etc. were found to be positively correlated with knowledge of dairy farmers.

Tyagi and Sohal (1984) reported that knowledge was found to be positively and
significantly related with adoption of dairy innovations of both rural and urban
respondents.

Kaushik (1988) and Hanuman Ram (1994) studied that knowledge of dairy
farmers of both milk producers co-operative societies (MPCS) area and non-MPCS area
had low level of knowledge in respect of health care practices.

Verma (1993) reported that majority of member dairy farmers were having
medium level of knowledge about scientific dairy farming practices, whereas, majority
of non-members dairy farmers were having low level of knowledge about scientific
dairy farming practices.

Rath (1977), Mahipal (1983), Mahipal and Kherede (1988), Singh (1990), Anita
et al. (1991), Verma (1993) and Hanuman Ram (1994) reported positive and significant
relationship among knowledge and adoption of scientific dairy farming practices.

Maity (1999) revealed that the variables such as education, land holding, herd
size, milk production, milk consumption, milk sale, social participation, extension
contact, mass media exposure were positively and significantly correlated with the level
of knowledge of clean milk production practices.

23
 Singh (2001) stated that majority (53.33%) of the small dairy farmers had low
level of knowledge, whereas majority (50%) of large dairy farmers had reported to
possess higher level of knowledge.

Manjunath et al. (1996) revealed that majority of respondents did not have
awareness and knowledge about clean milk production.

2.2.5 ADOPTION LEVEL OF RESPONDENTS REGARDING CLEAN MILK PRODUCTION

PRACTICES

According to Rogers (1971), adoption can be defined as a decision to make full

use of a new idea as the best course of action available. In the present study, adoption of
clean milk production practices is referred to the actual use of the practices by the dairy
farmers of the selected districts of West Bengal. Hence, the attention has been made
here on the different studies related to adoption of dairy innovation which are given
below :

Hussain (1968) while studying the adoption of selected practices of animal

husbandry, revealed that most of the farmers were found to be non-adopters of improved
practices.

Mahipal (1983) reported that a large number of dairy farmers were medium
adopters with regard to health care practices.

Mahipal and Kherde (1988) reported that large farmers had high adoption of dairy
innovations as compared to other categories of farmers.

Prasad (1992) reported that overall extent of adoption was 52.72. He further
observed that extent of adoption in health care was 48.87 per cent.

Hanuman Ram (1994) revealed that in case of member of MPCS adoption of

health care innovations was higher than non-member.

24
 Sah (1996) reported that for health care innovations, extent of adoption was 25.75
per cent. He also found no such effective measures were being followed by respondents
for clean milk production.

Maity (1999) observed in her study that maximum number of respondents, i.e., 78
per cent had medium level of adoption. Medium adoptes were followed by members
falling under low adoption category, who constituted 24.17 per cent of respondents.
Only 10.84 per cent of respondents were falling under high category. She also reported
that extent of adoption was more in case of clean milk production practices (46.20) than
health care practices (42.91).

2.2.6 CONSUMER PERCEPTION REGARDING QUALITY OF MILK

In the last couple of years, people in the business have realised that quality is not
something to be discussed. It should be there. Thats is all.

Reddy (2000) revealed that quality is expressed as satisfying the stated and
implied needs of consumers.

Meer and Misner (2000) reported that consumer education is one of the focus
points to reduce food-borne illness within the food safety continuum "from farm to
table"

Katre and Prasad (2000) stated that consumers feed dejected (unsatisfied) if the
quality of milk supplied to them does not have the original taste, wholesomeness and
freshness.

Roeckseisen (1978) in the XXth International Dairy Congress reported that the
various aspects of product quality, commercial importance of variety, influence
consumer behaviour to a great extent.

Sharma (2001) revealed in his study that a consumer usually accepts or rejects the
food on the basis of its organoleptic attributes or his/her sensory perception. The

25
sensory quality (flavour, body & texture, colour and appearance) is one of the most
important characteristics for selling any food producti with consumer point of view.

2.2.7 CONSTRAINTS IN ADOPTION OF CLEAN MILK PRODUCTION

Constraints means all those factors which hinder the process of adoption. Jha (1978)
stated that a number of research recommendations do not find acceptance with the
farmers. He listed three following basic reasons for it :

1. Research recommendations were often over-dosed with technical criteria as a

result they were not economically viable to the farmers.

2. The relative superiority of the innovations (as compared to local practices) can not
often be gauged on the farmers field, though on research stations the evidence
was quite apparent and convincing.

3. Resource and other constraints at the farmers level do not permit the adoption of
many proposed recommendations.

Sohal (1985) indicated low level of educational programmes on dairy innovations

as the constraints on the part of trainees.

Rao et al. (1992) found some of reasons for partial or non-adoption of clean milk
for partial or non-adoption of clean milk production practices are ignorance of the
farmers, difficulty in changing habits (kunckle method to full hand method of milking)
inability to clean the sheds due to lack of enough space and congestion etc.

Singh and Gill (1993) found that certain technical, non-technical, socio-cultural
beliefs, habits and traditions under the adoption of improved practices.

Maity (1999) reported the constraints on the basis of degree of seriousness in

clean milk production practices. According to her observation, the very serious
constraints were lack of willingness of farmers towards clean milk production, lack of
knowledge about milking method and cleanliness of cows and milker.

26
 III. METHODOLOGY

This Chapter is devoted to the various steps that were adopted by the researcher in
studying the research problem. The methodological plan of work used in the
present investigation has been discussed under the following sub-heads :

3.1 Selection of the study locale

3.2 Sampling plan

3.3 Variables and their measurement

3.4 Instrument for data collection

3.5 Statistical analysis

3.1 SELECTION OF THE STUDY LOCALE

The study was conducted in the state of West Bengal. Out of 19 districts from the
state, two districts, i.e., Uttar Dinajpur and Birbhum were selected purposively
due to the following reasons :

1. The researcher is well acquainted with the geographical, economical and

sociological aspects of the area. It made possible for the researcher to collect the
information within limited time.

2. Since local language is well known to the investigator which is essential to

collect accurate information by developing rapport with the respondents.

27
3.2 SAMPLING PLAN

The sampling plan followed in the study is given in the figure-1 below :

Sampling Plan

State West Bengal

(Purposive)

District Uttar Dinajpur Birbhum

(Purposive)

Block Kaliyaganj Bolpur

(Randomly)

Village V1 V2 V1 V2
(Randomly)

Respondents P=20 P=20 P=20 P=20

(Randomly) C=10 C=10 C=10 C=10

Producers (P) = 40 + 40 = 80 Consumer (C) = 20 + 20 = 40

Figure-1: Sampling Plan

3.2.1 SELECTION OF BLOCKS

There are 9 blocks in Uttar Dinajpur district, out of which one block, namely
Kaliyaganj was selected randomly. Similarly, out of 19 blocks in Birbhum, one
block, namely Bolpur was selected randomly.

3.2.2 SELECTION OF VILLAGES

From each selected block, 2 villages were selected by random sampling, thus
making a total of 4 villages.

3.2.3 SELECTION OF RESPONDENTS

Selected respondents were those dairy farmers having at least one milch animal
and consumer who purchase milk directly from the farmers. Selection of
respondents was done on the basis of random sampling. From each village, 20
28
dairy farmers and 10 consumers were selected. Thus, the study has covered a
total of 80 dairy farmers and 40 consumers, i.e., 120 respondents from 4 villages.

3.3 VARIABLES AND THEIR MEASUREMENTS

In this study, almost all the variables which were essential for the study for
investigating the objectives within the time frame were incorporated :

3.3.1 FOR DAIRY FARMERS

Sr. No. Variable Measurement

3.3.1.1 Independent variables
3.3.1.1.1 Socio-personal variables
3.3.1.1.1.1 Age Direct questioning
3.3.1.1.1.2 Education Schedule was developed
3.3.1.1.1.3 Family education status Schedule was developed
3.3.1.1.1.4 Experience in dairying Direct questioning
3.3.1.1.1.5 Family size Direct questioning
3.3.1.1.1.6 Social participation Schedule was developed
3.3.1.1.1.7 Institutional infrastructure Schedule was developed
utilization
3.3.1.1.2 Socio-economic variables
3.3.1.1.2.1 Land holding Direct questioning
3.3.1.1.2.2 Herd size Schedule was developed
3.3.1.1.2.3 Monthly income Schedule was developed
3.3.1.1.2.4 Milk production Direct questioning
3.3.1.1.2.5 Milk consumption Direct questioning
3.3.1.1.2.6 Milk sale Direct questioning
3.3.1.1.3 Communication variables
3.3.1.1.3.1 Personal localite Schedule was developed
3.3.1.1.3.2 Extension contact Schedule was developed
3.3.1.1.3.3 Mass media exposure Schedule was developed
3.3.1.2 Dependent variables
3.3.1.2.1 Knowledge Test was developed
3.3.1.2.2 Adoption Schedule was developed
3.3.1.3 Constraints perceived by the Schedule was developed
dairy farmers

29
3.3.2 FOR CONSUMERS

Sr. No. Variable Measurement

3.3.2.1 Independent variables
3.3.2.1.1 Age Direct questioning
3.3.2.1.2 Education Schedule was developed
3.3.2.1.3 Family type Direct questioning
3.3.2.1.4 Family size Direct questioning
3.3.2.1.5 Monthly income Schedule was developed
3.3.2.1.6 Milk consumption Direct questioning
3.3.2.1.7 Dietary habit Direct questioning
3.3.2.1.8 Social participation Schedule was developed
3.3.2.1.9 Information use efficiency Schedule was developed
3.3.2.2 Dependent variables
3.3.2.2.1 Perception Schedule was developed
3.3.2.1 Independent variables

Sixteen variables were selected for dairy farmers as well as nine variables were
selected for consumer under the independent variables.

3.3.2.1.1 Socio-personal variables

3.3.2.1.1.1 Age : Age refers to the chronological age of the respondent at the
time of interview and was recorded by directly asking the respondents at the time
of interview. The respondents were categorised into following categories :

(a) Young : Upto 30 years

(b) Middle : 31 to 50 years

(c) Old : Above 50 years

3.3.2.1.1.2 Education: It was operationalized as the academic achievement

obtained by respondents. It is the ability to read and write in accordance with the
formal education received by the way of the number of years spent in schools and

30
colleges. The schedule was developed and respondents were categorised on the
basis of education as follows:

Illiterate : 0

Up to Primary : 15

Up to Matric : 510

Above Matric : Above 10

3.3.2.1.1.3 Family education status : It refers to the educational status of all the
members of the family eligible for formal education. It was estimated by an index
developed for the study.

Total education score of the family member

eligible for formal education
Family education status = ---------------------------------------------- x 100
Number of family members eligible
for formal education

The scoring was done as follows :

Illiterate 0

Read and Write 1

Primary 2

Middle 3

High School 4

Intermediate 5

Graduate and above 6

Then after total scoring, the respondents were categorised into four catgorisation
with the help of quartile method.

31
Category No. of individuals

Low Up to Q1

Lower medium (more than Q1) up to Q2

Upper medium (more than Q2) up to Q3

High (more than Q3)

3.3.2.1.1.4 Experience in dairying

It refers to the total number of years the dairy farmers involved in dairy farming at
the time of interview and was listed by directly asking the respondents. Then the
respondents were categorised into four categories according to their experience in
dairying by quartile method.

3.3.2.1.1.5 Family size

Family size refers to the number of individual living together and sharing the
kitchen in a household. The categorisation of the family was done with the help
of quartile method.

Category No. of individuals

Small Up to Q1

Lower medium (more than Q1) up to Q2

Upper medium (more than Q2) up to Q3

Large (more than Q3) 3

3.3.2.1.1.6 Social participation

It refers to the participation of the respondents in social institution as a member or

as an office bearer. The score assigned for member and office bearer was one and
two per organisation / institution, respectively. The respondents are divided into
different categories which are given below:
32
Category No. of individuals

Low social participation Up to Q1

Lower medium social participation (more than Q1) up to Q2

Upper medium social participation (more than Q2) up to Q3

High social participation (more than Q3)

3.3.2.1.1.7 Institutional infrastructure utilisation

This refers to the various government and other agencies or institutions like
banks, co-operatives, veterinary dispensaries, schools etc. provided for farmer
development. The utilisation of these facilities by farmers is of utmost
importance. In the present study, it was, therefore, thought appropriate to study
the infrastructure utilisation and behaviour of dairy farmers. The respondents were
asked to indicate utilization of different institutions. According to Khatik (1994)
that score for each utilised institution was computed by multiplying judge's weight
with the location score of the institutions. The scores for all the utilised
institutions were added to arrive at the total score of institutional infrastructure
utilisation of the respondents. The total score of the respondents was varied
according to situations of the villages under study area.

3.3.2.1.2 Socio-economic variables

3.3.2.1.2.1 Land holding

It refers to the cultivated land owned by the respondnets. It was measured by

direct questioning. The respondents were categorised into following categories.

(a) Landless No land

(b) Marginal 1.00 to 2.5 acres

(c) Small 2.6 to 5.1 acres

(d) Medium 5.2 to 10.0 acres

33
(e) Large Above 10 acres

3.3.2.1.1.6 Herd size

It refers to the total number of bovines including small ones possessed by the
respondents. This was measured by a schedule developed for the same. These
data were used to categorise the respondents into small, lower medium, upper
medium and large on the basis of quartile method.

3.3.2.1.1.7 Monthly income

The composite sample of 80 randomly selected dairy farmers were classified in

four groups according to their income as reported by them. It is as shown below :

Income group Score

Up to Rs.2500 1

Rs.2001Rs.5000 2

Rs.5001Rs.7500 3

More than Rs.7500 4

3.3.2.1.1.8 Milk production

Milk production was considered as the average quantity of milk in litres produced
in the household at the time of inquiry. This was measured by direct questioning
to the respondents, and further they were categorised into low, lower medium,
upper medium and high producers with the help of quartile method.

3.3.2.1.1.9 Milk consumption

Milk consumption was operationalised as the quantity of milk in litres consumed

by the family members per day. Measurement and categorisation of respondents
into low, lower, medium, upper medium and high done on the basis of quartile
method.

34
3.3.2.1.1.10 Milk sale

It was considered as the quantity of milk sold by the respondents out of total milk
produced. Milk sale was measured by direct questioning and further respondents
were categorised into low, lower medium, upper medium and high sellers done on
the basis of quartile method.

Category No. of individuals

Low Up to Q1

Lower medium (more than Q1) up to Q2

Upper medium (more than Q2) up to Q3

Large (more than Q3)

3.3.2.1.2 Communication variables

3.3.2.1.2.4 Personal localite

Personal localite refers to both acquaintance and contact of respondents with local
leaders and local people who belong to the respondents own social system. To
measure the extent of personal localite, a schedule was developed. The 3, 2, 1, 0
score were assigned as four continuum, viz., most often, often, sometime and
never, respectively. On the basis of obtained score, respondents were classified
under the following categories with the help of quartile method

Category No. of individuals

Low Up to Q1

Lower medium (more than Q1) up to Q2

Upper medium (more than Q2) up to Q3

Large (more than Q3)

35
3.3.2.1.2.5 Extension contact

Extension contact refers to both acquaintance and frequency of respondents

contact with veterinary surgeon, B.L.D.O., stockman, village extension officer,
bank officials etc. To measure the extension contact, a schedule was developed.
The 3, 2, 1, 0 score were assigned to four continuum, viz., most often, often,
sometime and never, respectively. On the basis of obtained score respondents
were classified under the following categories with the help of quartile method.

Category No. of individuals

Low Up to Q1

Lower medium (more than Q1) up to Q2

Upper medium (more than Q2) up to Q3

High (more than Q3).

3.3.2.1.2.6 Mass media exposure

Mass media exposure is the degree of utilization of mass media by the

respondents. To measure this, an interview schedule was developed. According
to the obtained score, the respondents were categorised into following categories :

Category No. of individuals

Low Up to Q1

Lower medium (more than Q1) up to Q2

Upper medium (more than Q2) up to Q3

High (more than Q3)

3.3.1.2.2 Adoption of clean milk production practices

Rogers and Shoemaker (1983) defined adoption as a decision to make full use of
an innovation as the best course of action available. In the present study,
36
adoption means actual use of practices regarding clean milk production by the
dairy farmers. The adoption index was used to ascertain the adoption level of all
the recommended technological aspects of clean milk production practices.
Adoption level was measured by using the adoption index. A score one was
awarded for adopting the practice (on the basis of schedule) and zero for non-
adopting it. On the basis of overall adoption score, the respondents were
classified into following categories :

Category No. of individuals

Low Up to Q1

Lower medium (more than Q1) up to Q2

Upper medium (more than Q2) up to Q3

High (more than Q3)

After words the adoption index was calculated with the help of formula
as given below :
Score obtained
Adoption index = -------------------------------------- x 100
Maximum obtainable score

3.3.2.2 Dependent variables

3.3.1.2.1 Knowledge about clean milk production practices

Bloom et al. (1956) defined knowledge as those behaviour and test situation
which emphasized the remembering either by recognition or recall of ideas,
materials and phenomenon. English and English (1961) defined knowledge as
the body of understood information possessed by an individual or by a culture.
They further explained knowledge is that part of a persons information which is
in accord with established fact. According to Rogers and Shoemaker (1971), it

37
was a function or a stage of the decision process when the individual was exposed
to an innovations existence and gains some understanding of how it functions.
Singh and Singh (1976) construed knowledge as the totality of understood
information possessed by person. In the present study, knowledge refers to the
amount of information and understanding of the respondent about selected
scientific dairy farming practices. This was measured through a test developed on
the lines enunciated by Lindquivst (1951). A comprehensive list of the clean
milk production practices was prepared by consulting relevant literature and the
experts of National Dairy Research Institute (NDRI), Karnal. The procedure
adopted for constructing knowledge test consisted of the following steps :

(a) Collection of items

The content of knowledge test is composed of questions called items. A

comprehensive list of the clean milk production practices was prepared by
consulting relevant literature and the experts of NDRI, Karnal. The selection of
the items was done on the basis of the following criteria :

It should promote thinking

It should have a certain difficulty

It should differentiate the well informed from the less knowledgeable

Forty-six items representing clean milk production practices were selected to form
the initial test battery to carry out items analysis for the development of a
standardised knowledge test.

(b) Form of questions

All the forty-six items collected as per procedure described above were used for
the construction of the knowledge test. The questions were objective type and
dichotomous. This was done to facilitate scoring more easily and objectively.

38
(c) Pre-testing and item analysis

The preliminary test consisting of 46 items was administered to 40 non-sample

respondents of the study area. Their responses were then quantified by assigning
a score of 1 to correct answer and 0 to incorrect answer. A respondents total
score was obtained by summation of his score for all the questions. These
responses were subjected to difficulty index, discrimination index and point-bi-
serial correlation. The procedure followed was given as below :

Difficulty index: Simple index of items difficulty is the percentage of

respondents answering an item correctly. The difficulty of an item varied from
individual to individual. When a respondent answers an item correctly, it was
assumed that the item was less difficult than his ability to cope with it. The
assumption in this item statistic of difficulty was that the difficulty was linearly
related to the level of respondents knowledge about clean milk production
practices.

The difficulty index for each of the 46 items was calculated by dividing the total
correct responses for a particular item by total number of respondents as under :

NC
DI = ----------
n
where, DI = difficulty index,

NC = number of respondents answering correctly, and

N = total number of respondents

Discrimination index: If a statement is answered by some respondents correctly

and not by others, such a statement has greater power to discriminate more
knowledgeable from the less one than another statement which is either answered
correctly by everyone or none in the sample. If a statement is so simple that it is

39
correctly answerable by everyone or is too difficult to be correctly answerable by
none, it does not have the power to discriminate the respondents with varying
level of knowledge. Thus, the items carrying higher discrimination power
logically explains that such items are difficult to answer, as they discriminate the
ones who answer it correctly than those who are unable to do so. The
discrimination indices of all the 46 raw items were worked out by the following
method.

The respondents were arranged in descending order on the basis of their

performance in the whole test. Out of this list, top 25 per cent and bottom 25 per
cent of the respondents were treated as high and low groups. For each question,
the number of top 25 per cent (NH) and bottom 25 per cent (NL) who answered it
correctly, were counted. The discrimination index was calculated as under :

NH NL
DI = ---------------------
N
where, DI =discrimination index,

NH = number of respondents in 25 per cent high group who answered correctly,

NL = number of respondents in 25 per cent low group who answered correctly,

and

N = total number of respondents

Point bi-serial correlation: The main aim of calculating point biserial correlation
was to work out the internal consistency of the items, i.e., the relationship of the
total score to a dichotomized answer to any given item. In the way, the validity
power of the item was computed by the correlation of the individual item of the
whole test. The point bi-serial correlation for each of the item of preliminary
knowledge test was calculated by using the formula suggested by Garrett (1966) :

40
 MP Mq .
rpbis = ----------------- x Pq

where, rpbis = point bi-serial correlation,

Mp = mean of the total score of the respondents who answered the item correctly,

Mq = mean of the total score of the respondents who answered the item
incorrectly,

= standard deviation of the entire sample,

P = proportion of the respondents giving correct answer to the item, and

Q = proportion of the respondents giving incorrect answers to the item.

The calculated point bi-serial correlations were tested with the help of the
table for (N2) degrees of freedom.

(d) Final selection of item

All the items having difficulty index between 0.25 to 0.75, discrimination index
above 0.20 and significant point bi-serial correlations were finally selected for the
final knowledge test which contained 23 items.

(e) Reliability of knowledge test

The reliability of the test was assessed by using the method of split half technique.
The test consisting of twenty three items were administered to twenty respondents
selected randomly in non-sample areas. The responses to all the twenty three
items were scored as 1 if correct and 0 if incorrect. The total scores obtained by
each of the respondent on odd and even numbered items in respect of two halves
of the test were calculated separately. The Pearson Product Moment Correlation
Coeffcient between the two sets of scores was calculated. The r value thus
calculated as 0.85 and was found significant at 1 per cent level of probability,
thereby, including that this test had high internal consistency.
41
(f) Validity of knowledge test

The validity of this test was established through content validity. All possible care
was taken in recording the statements covering all aspects of clean milk
production practices and the same were subjected to item difficulty,
discrimination index and point bi-serial correlation, to select the final statements.
Hence, it was logical to assume that the test satisfies representation as well as
sensible method of test construction, the criteria for content validity.

3.3.1.3 Constraints perceived by the dairy farmers in adoption of clean

milk production practices

A simple literary meaning of constraints in Websters dictionary is the

quality and state of being checked, restricted or compelled to avoid or perform
some action. The constraints in the present study refers to all those factors or
forces which may be social, psychological or infrastructural that singly or in
conjugation with each other hinder or restrict the adoption of clean milk
production practices. For that an interview schedule was developed. There were
sixteen statements in the schedule which were determined by consulting the
expert. These statements were assigned 0, 1, 2 score as not serious, serious or
very serious respectively. The total score for each constraint was calculated with
the help of the responses received from all 80 respondents. The mean score for a
particular constraint was worked out by dividing with the weighted score of the
constraints with the total number of respondents. Afterwards, the ranking of
constraints was done according to mean score of each statement.

42
3.3.3 Consumer

3.3.3.1 Independent variables

3.3.3.1.1.4 Age: It refers to the chronological age of the respondent rounded to

the nearest whole number at the time of investigation and was ascertained by
direct questioning. Three segments of the population, both among male and
female respondents were categorised as :

Young : Up to 30 years

Middle : 31 to 50 years

Old : Above 50 years

3.3.3.1.2 Education: It was operationalized as the academic achievement

attained by respondents. It is the ability to read and write in accordance with the
formal education received by the way of the number of years spent in schools and
colleges.

3.3.3.1.3 Family type: It indicates nature of family. There are usually two
types of family:

(a) Nuclear family: The term is applied to the family units comprising
primarily the husband, wife and their children.

(b) Joint family: It is the family where not only parents and children, brothers
and step brothers live in the common property but it may sometimes include
ascendants and collaterals upto many generations.. It was ascertained by direct
questioning and scores were given as follows :

Nuclear 1; Joint 2

3.3.3.1.4 Family size: Family size refers to the number of individual living
together and sharing the kitchen in a household. It was ascertained by direct

43
questioning and the respondents were categorised in the following three
categories with the help of standard deviation and mean.

Category No. of individual

Small Less than (Mean S.D.)

Medium (Mean S.D.) to (Mean + S.D.)

Large More than (Mean + S.D.)

3.3.2.1.5 Monthly income: The composite sample of 40 randomly selected

consumers were classified into four groups according to their income as reported
by them. It is as shown below :

Income Group Score

Low Upto Rs.10,000

Medium Rs.10,000 Rs.15,000

High Above Rs.15,000

3.3.2.1.6 Milk consumption: Milk consumption was operationalised as the

quantity of milk in litres consumed by the family members per day. Measurement
and categorisation of the respondents was done into low, medium and high on the
basis of mean and standard deviation.

3.3.2.1.7 Dietary habit: Dietary habit refers to the food preferences of the
consumers. They were categorized into two groups vegetarian and non-
vegetarian. It was ascertained by direct questioning.

3.3.2.1.8 Social participation: It refers to the participation of the respondents in

social institution as a member or as an office bearer. The score assigned for
member and office bearer was one and two per organisation/ institution,
respectively. The respondents are divided into different categories which are
given below :
44
Category Number of individual

(a) Low social participation Less than (Mean SD)

(b) Medium social participation (Mean SD) to (Mean SD)

(c) High social participation More than (Mean + SD)

3.3.2.1.9 Information seeking behaviour: The source from whom the consumers
seek information, was ascertained. According to the obtained score, the
respondents were categorized into following categories :

Category Number of individual

(a) Low Less than (Mean SD)

(b) Medium (Mean SD) to (Mean SD)

(c) High More than (Mean + SD)

3.3.3.2 Dependent variable

3.3.2.2.1 Perception: The various attributes of raw milk, i.e., freshness,

colour, appearance, nutritive value, wholesomeness, composition characteristics,
human safety are prepared in line with Katre and Prasad (2000). The perception
of the consumers regarding these attributes were ascertained with the help of a
schedule that was developed for the purpose. The percentage of each attribute was
done as

Score of attribute
------------------------------- X 100
Total obtainable score
Then rank of attribute was done on the basis of percentage. According to the
obtained score, the respondents were categorised into following categories.

45
Category Number of individual

(a) Poor perception Below (Mean SD)

(b) Average perception (Mean SD) to (Mean SD)

(c) Good perception Above (Mean + SD)

3.4 INSTRUMENT FOR DATA COLLECTION

Data for the study were collected from the study area with a pre-tested and
structured interview schedule developed in the light of objective of the study. The
respondents were interviewed individually at their home. The data included
information about socio-personal, socio-economical traits, knowledge, adoption
of the dairy farmers and perception of consumers regarding milk quality.

3.5 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The collected data were scored, tabulated and subjected to statistical analyses.
The statistical tools used in the analyses are :

i) Mean/average

ii) Percentage

iii) Standard deviation

iv) Quartile method

v) Correlation coefficient

46
 IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In the light of set forth objectives, the collected data were analysed in respect of
various aspects. The present Chapter embodies the result of the study under the
following subheads:

4.1 DAIRY FARMER

4.1.1 Profile of the dairy farmers
4.1.2 Knowledge level of the dairy farmers regarding clean milk production practices.
4.1.3 Knowledge of clean milk production practices and traits of dairy farmers.
4.1.4 Relationship between knowledge and traits of the dairy farmers.
4.1.5 The level of adoption of dairy farmers regarding clean milk production practices.
4.1.6 Adoption index
4.1.7 Adoption of clean milk production practices and traits of dairy farmers
4.1.8 Relationship between adoption and traits of the dairy farmers
4.1.9 The constraints in adoption as perceived by the respondents.
4.2 CONSUMER
4.2.1 Profile of the consumers
4.2.2 Distribution of consumers in different categories according to their perception
regarding quality of milk
4.2.3 Relationship between background variables and perception of the consumer
4.2.4 The attitude of respondents (consumers) towards incentives for good quality of
milk
4.2.5 Relationship between background variable and incentive offering by the
consumers
4.2.6 Perception of consumer regarding different attributes of milk

4.1.1 PROFILE OF THE DAIRY FARMERS

The profile of the dairy farmers in the present study highlights the salient
characteristics of the respondents as these characteristics were assumed to influence the
knowledge, adoption and perceived constraints regarding clean milk production
practices. The variables coming under the profile of the respondents are as under :

47
 (a) Socio-personal variables

(b) Socio-economic variables

(c) Communication variables

4.1.1.1 Socio-personal variables

The distribution of respondents on the basis of their personal variables has been
given in Table 4.1.1 and discussed below :

4.1.1.1.1 Age : The age of the respondents ranged from 18 to 60 years with mean age
of about 39 years. It is evident from the table that most of the respondents (56.25%)
were in the middle age group, that is about 31 to 50 years. Young aged (up to 30 years)
dairy farmers constituted 31.25 per cent of the total respondents followed by 12.5 per
cent in old group.

4.1.1.1.2 Education : It is evident from the table that the literacy level of the
respondents is very high, i.e., 83.75 per cent. Majority of the respondents had education
up to primary level (36.25%). In terms of percentage, 31.25 per cent of dairy farmers
are falling in the matric level. Only 16.25 per cent of respondents had received
education above matric level.

4.1.1.1.3 Family education status : It can be visualised from the Table 4.1.1 that a
maximum of 27.50 per cent dairy farmers were of low family education status followed
by lower medium and high both were of 25 per cemt family educational status. 22.50 per
cent dairy farmers were of upper medium level of family educational status.

4.1.1.1.4 Family size : Distribution of respondents according to their family size in

Table 4.1.1 shows that large percentage of the respondents (37.50%) were having large
family size, i.e., more than 8 members. The respondents were having lower medium
family size of 5 to 6 members who were contributing 32.50 per cent, followed by 22.5
per cent were in upper medium category, i.e., 6 to 8 family members. The respondents

48
having small family size, i.e., less than 4 members contributing only 7.5 per cent. This
shows that in the study area, large and medium size of families are predominant.

4.1.1.1.5 Social participation : The results in Table 4.1.1 indicated that majority of the
respondents (50%) were having no social participation, followed by 32.50 per cent
respondents having upper medium level of social participation and only 17.50 per cent
respondents having high social participation. Half of the respondents had no social
participation. The results indicate the need of involvement of the farmers in social
process. For this purpose, youth club, farmers association may be built to have more
interaction among them which might increase co-operation among the farmers.

4.1.1.1.6 Institutional infrastructure utilisation

The data presented in Table 4.1.1. revealed that 30 per cent of the respondents had
availed high level of facility regarding institutional infrastructure utilisation followed by
lower medium (27.5%), low (22.5%) and upper medium (20.0%). In the study area, the
institutions like School, Bank, KVK, Govt. Primary Health Centre were frequently used
by the farmers but the institution like milk co-operative society was not in the study
area.

4.1.1.2 Socio-economic variables

4.1.1.2.1 Land holding : It is evident from the Table 4.1.1 that majority of the
respondents (47.5%) were marginal farmers, small farmers consisting 20 per cent,
followed by landless (15.0%) and medium farmer (12.5%). Only five per cent farmers
were in large farmers category. It may be concluded from the results that most of the
farmers (82.5%) in the study area had either very less or no land holding.

49
 Table 4.1.1 Background profile of the dairy farmers
Sl.No Variables Category Frequency Percentage
Young (up to 30 yrs) 25 31.25
1. Age Middle (31-50 yrs) 45 56.25
Old (above 50 yrs.) 10 12.5
Illiterate 13 16.25
2. Education Primary 29 36.25
Matric 25 31.25
Above matric 13 16.25
Low (upto 1.75) 22 27.50
3. Family Lower medium 20 25.00
Education (above 1.75 to 2.25)
Status Upper medium 18 22.50
(above 2.25 to 3.23)
High (above 3.23) 20 25.00
Low (upto 10) 24 30.00
4. Experience in Lower medium 20 25.00
dairying (above 10 to 15)
Dairying Upper medium 18 22.00
(above 15 to 23)
High (above 23) 18 22.50
Small (upto 4) 6 7.50
5. Family size Lower medium (5 to 6) 26 32.5
Upper medium (7 to 8) 18 22.5
Large (above 8) 30 37.5
Low (0) 40 50.00
6. Social Lower medium 0 0.00
partcipation (0 to 0.5)
Upper medium 26 32.50
(above 0.5 to 2)
High (above 2) 14 17.50
Low (upto 21.6) 18 22.5
7. Institutional Lower medium 22 27.5
Infrastructure (above 21.6 to 24.6)
Utilizatio Upper medium 16 20.0
utilization (above 24.6 to 33.6)
High (above 33.6) 24 30.0
Landless 12 15.0
Marginal (upto 2.50 acres) 38 47.5
8. Land holding Small (2.51-5.00 acres) 16 20.0
Medium (5.01 to 10s) 10 12.5
Large (above 10 acres) 4 5.0
Contd

50
 contd. table 4.1.1
Sl.No Variables Category Frequency Percentage
Small (upto 3) 22 27.50
9. Herd Size Lower medium(4 to 6) 22 27.50
Upper medium (7 to 9) 16 20.00
Large (above 9) 20 25.00
Less (upto 2500) 6 7.50
Lower medium (2501-5000) 26 32.50
10. Monthly Upper medium (5001-7500) 28 35.00
income High (above 7500) 20 25.50
Low (upto 3) 28 35.50
Lower medium (above 3 to 5) 14 17.50
11. Milk Upper medium 18 22.50
production (above 5 to 9.25)
High (above 9.25) 20 25.00
Low (upto 0.5) 40 50.00
Lower medium 0 00.00
12. Milk (above 5 to 0.75)
consumption Upper medium 20 25.00
(above 0.75 to 1.25)
High (above 1.25) 20 25.00
Low (upto 2.375) 20 25.00
Lower medium 20 25.00
13. Milk sale (above 2.375 to 4.25)
Upper medium 22 27.50
(above 4.25 to 8)
High (above 8) 18 22.50
Low (upto 2) 22 27.50
14. Personal Lower medium (above 2 to 3) 30 37.50
localite Upper medium (above 3 to 4 ) 18 22.50
High ( above 4) 10 12.50
Low (upto 1) 19 31.66
15. Extension Lower medium(above 1 to 2) 29 48.33
contact Upper medium (above 2 to 3) 7 11.67
High (above 3) 5 8.33
Low (upto 4) 24 30.00
16. Mass media Lower medium (above 4 to 6) 22 27.50
Exposure Upper medium (above 6 to8 ) 20 25.00
High (above 8) 14 17.50
4.1.1.2.2 Herd size : The mean herd size was 5 in the study area. The Tabel 4.1.1
indicates that herd size of the respondents were distributed nearly equally in the four
categories, i.e., 27.5 per cent each had small (up to) and lower medium group herd
51
size (4-6), while 20 per cent had upper medium herd size (6-9) followed by 25 per cent
in large (above 9).

4.1.1.2.3 Monthly income: To have an idea about the economic status of the
respondents, income from various sources, viz., agriculture, labour, service, cattle,
business, etc. as reported by the respondents were considered to calculate the monthly
income. The figure presented in Table 4.1.1 revealed that majority of dairy farmers
(35%) had earned upper medium level of monthly income (Rs.5001-7000), followed by
lower medium 32.50 per cent, high 25 per cent and low 7.50 per cent level of monthly
income of the respondents.

4.1.1.2.4 Milk production : Regarding milk production, it was observed that most of
the respondents (35%) had low level of milk production (up to 3 litres), followed by 25
per cent respondents belonged to high milk production category producing milk more
than 9 litres, upper medium (more than 5 to upto 9 litres) consisting 22.5 per cent and
lower medium (more than 3 to upto 5 litres) were consisting of 17.50 per cent.

4.1.1.2.5 Milk consumption : As far as milk consumption was concerned, half of the
respondents (50.0%) were in low milk consumption category, followed by upper
medium and high (25%) levels of milk consumption.

4.1.1.2.6 Milk sale : Majority of the respondents (27.5%) were in upper medium level
of milk sale ( > 4.25 upto 8 litres /day) followed by lower medium and low categories
(25% each) while only 22.5 per cent of the respondents were selling more than 8
litres/day.

4.1.1.3 Communication variable

4.1.1.3.1 Personal localite : The results in Table 4.1.1. indicates that majority of the
respondents (37.50%) were having lower medium level of contact and discussion with
neighbours, friends, opinion leaders in relation to dairy farming, followed by 27.50 per
cent respondents having low contact and 22.50 per cent respondents having upper

52
medium level of personal contact. Only 12.50 per cent respondents having more
frequent discussion with neighbour, friends, opinion leader etc. It has seen that in study
are the opinion leaders were confined to limited numbers of farmers.

4.1.1.3.2 Extension contact : The figures in Table 4.1.1 indicate that most of the
respondents (48.33%) had lower medium level of extension contact, whereas 31.66 per
cent respondents had low extension contact. Upper medium level of extension contact
with 11.67 per cent of respondents. Only 8.33 per cent had high level of extension
contact. One significant observation is that near about 25 per cent respondents had no
extension contact, which suggest that extension system still did not reach the farmers.

4.1.1.3.1 Mass media exposure : Table 4.1.1 pointed out that majority of the
respondents had low exposure to mass media, i.e., 30 per cent, whereas 27.50 per cent of
respondents had lower medium and 25 per cent respondents had upper medium extent of
mass media exposure. Only 17.50 per cent had high mass media exposure. It was
observed that most of the respondents used to hear radio and sometimes watch T.V.

4.1.2 KNOWLEDGE LEVEL OF THE DAIRY FARMERS REGARDING CLEAN MILK

PRODUCTION PRACTICES

Forty-six items representing clean milk production practices were selected to form
the initial test battery to carry out item analysis for the development of a standardized
knowledge test. 46 items were administered to 40 non-sample respondents of the study
area. Their responses were then quantified by assigning a score of 1 to correct answer
and 0 to wrong answer. A respondents total score was obtained by summation of his
score for all the items. These responses were subjected to difficulty index,
discrimination index and point-bi-serial correlation. All the items having difficulty index
between 0.25 to 0.75, discrimination index above 0.20 and significant point bi-serial
correlations at 5 per cent were then selected for the knowledge test. Finally 23 items
constitute the knowledge test and shown in table-4.1.2.

53
Table 4.1.2: Knowledge test about clean milk production practices (Item analysis)
Sl. Items Difficulty Discrimi Point
No index nation bi-serial
index correlation
Housing
1. Do you know that proper 0.575 0.4 0.570
location of barns and holding
pens are essential?
2. Is it important of adequate 0.65 0.2 0.377
elevation for avoiding stagnation
of water?
3. Is it essential to keep free the 0.65 0.2 0.322
cattle shed from ants, flies,
cockroaches and other pests?
4. Do you know that proper water 0.725 0.4 0.325
supply in the vicinity is
essential?
5. Is it necessary to wash the shed 0.5 0.4 0.376
every day?
6. Do you allow the left over of 0.4 0.2 0.325
feed and fodder not to remain
lying on the floor?
Healthy Herd
7. Do you know that taking milk 0.525 0.40 0.324
from animals which are on drugs
is harmful for health
Feeding
8. Do you know that feed 0.675 0.3 0.314
ingredients be stored in moisture
condition is harmful?
Cleaning of utensils
9. Do you know that milking 0.75 0.2 0.346
utensils should be cleaned with
clean water, detergents and
sanitizer?
10. Do you know that drying of 0.3 0.6 0.439
utensils after cleaning and
before milking is essential?
11. Is it important to keep the 0.7 0.4 0.433
cleaned and sanitized vessel in
inverted condition?
54
 Sl. Items Difficulty Discrimi Point
No index nation bi-serial
index correlation
Cleaning of animal and udder
12. Do you know that cleaning of 0.25 0.2 0.314
udder with lukewarm water is
essential?
13. Do you know that regular 0.35 0 0.140
grooming is important?
14. Do you know that drying of 0.35 0.4 0.339
washed udder before milking is
essential?
Milking
15. Is it important to wash and the 0.475 0.2 0.315
dry the hands with a neat
towel?
16. Is it important to nails of the 0.625 0.2 0.323
milker should be trimmed?
17. Is it necessary that all people 0.375 0.3 0.354
working with the milk should
be disease free?
18. Is it harmful to use oil or any 0.25 0.2 0.341
lubricants during milking?
19. Is it essential to do the milking 0.65 0.3 0.384
in hygienic place?
20. Is it necessary to follow full 0.35 0.3 0.337
hand milking?
Cooling
21. Do you know that prompt 0.475 0.2 0.401
cooling below 50 C keeps milk
in a bacteriological stable state?
22. Do you know that cooling to 0.525 0.2 0.313
storage temperature should be
done within two hours?
Transportation
23. Is it harmful if rain and dust 0.575 0.2 0.325
enters the can?
Table 4.1.2.1 below shows the mean knowledge score of the respondents. The
mean knowledge score of the respondents was 11, which is 47.89 per cent of the total
attainable score. Table shows that 60 per cent respondents were either in low or lower
55
medium knowledge category which is not a healthy sign as far as state department of
animal husbandry is concerned. It is also evident from the table that 22.5 per cent of the
respondents were in upper medium category while only 17.5 per cent of them had good
knowledge of clean milk production. Knowledge of the farmers regarding cooling of
milk just after milking was very low. They sometimes kept the milk in hot place in a
milk can without cover. They generally washed the bucket with water before milking
but the drying practices of the utensils wee almost negligible. Most of the farmers did
not know the bad effect of the milk taken from ill animals, which are on drugs. They
generally washed the cow shed more or less regularly but their knowledge regarding use
of phenyl, bleaching powder were little bit low. Most of the respondents did not know
the bad effect of using of oil on teat as lubricants and suckling milking method.

Table 4.1.2.1 Knowledge level of the respondents regarding clean milk

production practices

Sl. Category Frequency Percentage

No.
1. Low (up to 12) 24 30.0

2. Lower medium (above 12-15) 24 30.0

3. Upper medium (above 15-17) 14 17.5

4. High (above 17) 18 22.5

4.1.3 KNOWLEDGE OF CLEAN MILK PRODUCTION PRACTICES AND TRAITS OF DAIRY

FARMERS

This section deals with description about knowledge on the basis of various traits
of the dairy farmers. It is evident from the Table 4.1.3 that knowledge level is
comparatively high (28.6%) in case of young farmers and among middle farmers only
22.22 per cent of them had high level of knowledge. On the other hand, it is also seen
from the table that only 10 per cent of old farmers were having high level of knowledge.

56
Therefore, the result clearly suggest that younger respondents had better knowledge
about clean milk production than the elder ones.

In case of education, those who had above matric qualification, 53.84 per cent of
them had high level of knowledge, whereas this percentage was much lower among
those who had matric (28.0%) and primary education (24.13%). It is also observed that
among the illiterate farmers, 84.61 per cent of them had very low knowledge while no
one among the above matric qualified farmers were in this category. Thus, it is apparent
from this study that dairy farmers who were having high level of education had more
knowledge about clean milk production practices. These results are in conformity with
the findings of Meena (1993), George (1998), Maity (1999). In case of family education
status, the result show the same trend as it was in case of education.

It is observed that the respondents who were having low experience in dairying,
41.67% of them had low level of knowledge, whereas only 5.56 per cent respondents
who had high experience in dairying were in the same category of knowledge. On the
other hand, 10 out of 18 high experienced respondents had good level of knowledge
while there were only two respondents out of 24 in this category who had started
dairying recently. It was also found that as family size increased, the proportion of dairy
farmers in low knowledge category increased from 25.00 to 50.00 per cent. This might
be due to the fact that large families are less change oriented and their family education
status was low. The farmers who were utilising the available local institutional
infrastructure most effectively, 25 per cent of them had better knowledge about clean
milk production practices. It was also found that most of the farmers (44.44%) who
were unable to utilise the infrastructure in their favour had low knowledge level.
Poonawalla (1995) observed that rural India still does not have basic amenities such as
adequate supply of potable water and uninterrupted power supply. Lack of adequate
animal health care and veterinary services results in high incidence of disease in
animals, which have the danger of being transmitted through milk to the consumers.

57
Table 4.1.3Knowledge of clean milk production practices and traits of dairy farmers

Knowledge
Lower Upper
Sl. Frequ Low High
Variables Category medium medium
No ency (upto (above
(above 12- (above
12) 17)
15) 15-17)
25 5 (20.0) 9 (36.0) 4 7
Young
(16.0) (28.6)
45 16 13 (28.89) 6 (13.33) 10
1. Age Middle
(35.55) (22.22)
10 3 (30.0) 2 4 1
Old
(20.0) (40.0) (10.0)
13 11 2 0 0
Illiterate
(84.61) (15.38) (--) (--)
29 8 10 (34.48) 4 7
Primary
(27.59) (13.79) (24.13)
2. Education 25 1 3 (12.0) 14 (56.0) 7
Matric
(4.0) (28.0)
Above 13 0 2 (15.38) 4 (30.77) 7
Matric (--) (53.84)
22 14 6 (27.27) 2 0
Low
(63.63) (9.09) (--)
Lower 20 8 (40.0) 4 4 4
Family
medium (20.0) (20.0) (20.0)
3. education
Upper 18 2 6 6 (33.33) 4
Status
medium (11.11) (33.33) (22.22)
20 0 (- 8 2 10
High
-) (40.0) (10.0) (50.0)
24 10 6 6 2
Low
(41.67) (25.0) (25.0) (8.33)
Lower 20 4 8 (40.00) 6 2
Experience in medium (20.00) (30.0) (10.0)
4.
dairying Upper 18 6 10 (55.56) 2 (11.11) 0
medium (33.33) (--)
18 1 (5.56) 3 (16.66) 4 (22.22) 10
High
(55.56)
32 8 (25.0) 14 (43.75) 4 (12.5) 6
Small
(18.75)
Lower 22 4 8 (36.36) 6 (27.28) 4
medium (18.19) (18.19)
5. Family Size Upper 18 8 2 (11.11) 4 (22.22) 4
medium (44.44) (22.22)
8 4 (50.0) 0 (- 0 4
Large -) (--) (50.0)

58
 Knowledge
Lower Upper
Sl. Frequ Low High
Variables Category medium medium
No ency (upto (above
(above 12- (above
12) 17)
15) 15-17)
40 18 12 (30.0) 2 (5.0) 8
Low
(45.0) (20.0)
Lower 0 0 0 (- 0 0
Social medium (--) -) (--) (--)
6.
Participation Upper 26 6 10 (38.46) 6 (23.07) 4
medium (23.07) (15.38)
14 0 2 (14.28) 6 6
High
(--) (42.86) (42.86)
18 8 4 (22.22) 4 2
Low
(44.4) (22.22) (11.11)
Lower 22 8 6 (27.27) 2 6
Institutional
medium (36.36) (9.09) (27.27)
7. infrastructure
Upper 16 4 4 (25.0) 4 4
utilization
medium (25.0) (25.0) (25.0)
24 4 10 (41.66) 4 6
High
(16.67) (16.67) (27.27)
12 6 4 (33.33) 2 (16.67) 0
Landless
(50.0) (--)
38 12 12 (31.57) 8 6
Marginal
(31.57) (21.05) (15.79)
Land 16 4 6 (37.5) 2 (12.5) 4
8. Small
Holding (25.0) (25.0)
10 2 2 (20.0) 2 (20.0) 4
Medium
(20.0) (40.0)
4 0 0 0 4
Large () () () (100.0)
22 2 12 4 4
Small (9.09) (54.55) (18.18) (18.18)

Herd Lower 22 8 8 2 4
9. size medium (36.36) (36.36) (9.09) (18.18)
Upper 16 8 0 6 2
medium (50.0) () (37.50) (12.50)
20 6 4 2 8
Large
(30.0) (20.0) (10.0) (40.0)
Contd..

59
Contd.. table 4.1.3

Sl. Knowledge
No Variables Frequ Low Lower Upper High
Category (upto medium medium (above
ency
12) (above 12- (above 17)
15) 15-17)
6 2 1 2 0
Less
(33.33) (16.67) (33.33) ()
Lower 26 4 6 14 2
10. Monthly medium (15.38) (23.07) (53.85) (7.69)
income Upper 28 1 4 15 8
medium (3.57) (14.28) (53.77) (28.57)
20 0 0 11 9
High
() () (55.0) (45.0)
28 12 10 4 2
Low
(42.86) (35.71) (14.28) (7.14)
Milk Lower 14 4 2 2 6
11. production medium (28.57) (14.29) (14.29) (42.86)
Upper 18 6 4 6 2
medium (33.33) (22.22) (33.33) (11.11)
20 2 8 2 8
High
(10.0) (40.0) (10.0) (40.0)
40 16 14 6 4
Low
(40.0) (35.0) (15.0) (10.0)
Lower 0 0 0 0 0
12. Milk medium () () () ()
Consumption Upper 20 8 6 6 0
medium (40.0) (30.0) (30.0) ()
20 0 4 2 14
High () (20.0) (10.0) (70.0)
20 10 6 2 2
Very low
(50.00) (30.0) (10.0) (10.0)
20 6 4 4 2
Low
13. Milk sale (30.0) (20.0) (20.0) (10.0)
22 6 6 6 4
Medium
(27.28) (27.28) (27.28) (18.18)
18 2 8 2 6
High
(11.11) (44.44) (11.11) (33.33)
Contd..

60
 Contd.. table 4.1.3

Sl. Knowledge
No Variables Frequ Low (upto Lower Upper High
Category 12) medium medium (above
ency
(above 12- (above 17)
15) 15-17)
22 4 10 4 4
Very low
(18.18) (45.45) (18.18) (18.18)
30 12 12 6 0
Low
14. Personal (40.0) (40.0) (20.0) ()
localite 18 6 2 0 10
Medium
(33.33) (11.11) () (55.55)
10 2 0 4 4
High
(20.0) () (40.0) (40.0)
19 9 5 2 3
Low
(47.37) (26.31) (10.52) (15.79)
Lower 29 8 8 8 5
15. Extension medium (27.59) (27.59) (27.59) (17.24)
contact Upper 7 3 3 0 1
medium (42.86) (42.86) () (19.28)
5 0 1 2 2
High
() (20.0) (40.0) (40.0)
24 12 6 2 4
Low
(50.0) (25.0) (8.33) (16.67)
16. Mass Lower 22 8 8 4 2
media medium (36.36) (36.36) (18.18) (9.09)
exposure Upper 20 2 8 2 8
medium (10.0) (40.0) (10.0) (40.0)
14 2 2 6 4
High
(14.29) (14.29) (42.86) (28.57)
In case of land holding, the farmers were categorised into five categories, viz.,
landless, marginal, small, medium and large. The figure shows that all the large farmers
were in high knowledge level category. There were 40 per cent of medium farmers, 25
per cent small and 15.79 per cent were marginal farmers, had high level of knowledge
about clean milk production practices.

In the study area, 25 per cent of the respondents had high monthly income.
Among those, 45 per cent were in high knowledge category. Whereas there were no in
this category who were having upto Rs.2500 monthly income. In other side, 7.5 per cent
61
of the respondents had low monthly income. Among them, 33.33 per cent had low level
of knowledge and 16.67 per cent were in lower medium category of knowledge.

Table 4.1.3 shows that there were 25 per cent farmer who were under high milk
production category, 40 per cent of them had high knowledge and 10 per cent had low
level of knowledge. On the other hand, the producers under low milk production
category, 42.86 per cent of them were having low knowledge and 7.14 per cent had high
knowledge level, those who were producing more milk had better knowledge.

Table 4.1.3 shows that proportion of the respondents in high knowledge category
of clean milk production increased as the milk consumption increased. This might be
due to the fact that those families which consumed more milk were well in economic
condition and educational status were also high.

Table 4.1.3 further indicated that 50 per cent respondents of low milk sale
category were having low level of knowledge. On the other hand, 11.11 per cent
respondents under high milk sale category were having low level of knowledge.

The data in the Table 4.1.3 reveals that those who were having good rapport with
opinion leaders, neighbours, friends 40 per cent among them high level of knowledge.
On the other hand, the respondents who were having less interaction with personal
localite channel, 18.18 per cent of them had high level of knowledge. So, it can be
inferred that those discuss with their relatives, progressive farmers, neighbours about
improved dairy farming practices had relatively more knowledge.

From the Table 4.1.3, it is indicated that 33.33 per cent of the respondents had no
extension contact. Within the rest, among the dairy farmers who had low extension
contact, 43.37 per cent were having low level of knowledge. In case of respondents with
high extension contact, 40 per cent were in upper medium and high knowledge category,
and no one under low knowledge category. As the level of extension contact increased,
the proportion of high knowledge regarding clean milk production practices also
increased from 15.79 to 40 per cent.
62
 Those who were in the low category of mass media exposure, there were 50, 25,
16.67 and 8.33 per cent farmers in the low, lower medium, high and upper medium level
of knowledge, respectively. Among the respondents with high mass media exposure,
42.86 and 28.57 per cent farmers were reported in upper medium and high knowledge
level, whereas only 14.29 per cent respondents had low level of knowledge. This means
those who received information more from the mass media sources had more knowledge
regarding clean milk production practices.

4.1.4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN KNOWLEDGE AND TRAIT OF DAIRY FARMERS

To get a more precise result of the study, data were reanalysed and simple
correlation coefficient was worked out for various traits, i.e., age, education, etc. with
knowledge of respondents regarding clean milk production. The correlation coefficients
for different variables have been presented in the Table 4.1.4.

Table 4.1.4 Relationship between knowledge and background variables of the

dairy farmers
Sl. Variables Correlation Coefficient ( r )
No.
1. Age 0.093
2. Education 0.543**
3. Family education status 0.512**
4. Experience in dairying 0.239*
5. Family size 0.006
6. Social participation 0.195
7. Institutional infrastructure 0.237*
utilization
8. Land holding 0.297*
9. Herd size 0.024
10. Monthly income 0.485**
11. Milk production 0.240*
12. Milk consumption 0.404**
13. Milk sale 0.208
14. Personal localite 0.217
15. Extension contact 0.294*
16. Mass media exposure 0.343**
** Significant at 1 per cent level * Significant at 5 per cent level
63
4.1.4.1 Correlation with socio-personal variable

The table indicates that education, family education status, experience in dairying,
institutional infrastructure utilisation had positive and significant association with the
knowledge regarding clean milk production practices. Only family size had negative but
significant relationship with the knowledge level of respondents regarding clean milk
production practices. Inadequate education of farmers on clean milk production and
lack of training in proper cattle herd management and milking practices are the main
cause of poor farm management practices (Poonawalla, 1995).

From the Table 4.1.4, it can be observed that age and social participation was
found positive but non-significantly correlated with knowledge of clean milk production
practices.

4.1.4.2 Correlation with socio-economic variables

The table clearly shows that socio-economic variables, viz., land holding, monthly
income, milk production, milk consumption had positive and significant association with
knowledge of clean milk production practices. On the other hand, herd size and milk
sale were found non-significantly correlated with knowledge.

4.1.4.3 Correlation with communication variables

From the table it is clear that among the selected communication variables, two
variables, namely extension contact and mass media exposure had positive and
significant relationship with knowledge of clean milk production practices. In case of
personal localite, the calculated r value was found to be non-significant with
knowledge of clean milk production practices.

4.1.5 LEVEL OF ADOPTION OF THE RESPONDENTS REGARDING CLEAN MILK

PRODUCTION PRACTICES

Table 4.1.5 shows that more than one-third of the respondents (37.50%) had upper
medium level of adoption, followed by 28.75 per cent in low, 23.75 per cent in lower
64
medium category. Only 10 per cent respondents were falling under high adopters
category. It has seen that adoption of cooling practices, drying of utensils before using,
udder washing with suitable sanitizer and strip-cup method was very low. Hence,
concerted efforts are needed to bring awareness and educate the milk producers the
importance of clean milk production at farm level. It is time that the Indian Dairyman
learnt how to respect the drop of milk (Ganguli, 1999).

Table 4.1.5 Adoption level of the respondents regarding clean milk

production practices

Sl. No. Category Frequency Percentage

1. Low (up to 17) 23 28.75

2. Lower medium (above 17-20) 19 23.75

3. Upper medium (above 20-22) 30 37.50

4. High (above 22) 8 10.00

4.1.6 ADOPTION INDEX

In this part, the extent of adoption in clean milk production practices has been
computed and expressed as index. It was found from Table 4.1.6 that adoption index of
the entire sample was 47.27. This is considered to be a bit low. This may be one of the
reasons for poor microbiological quality of milk and milk products in India as reported
by many recent studies.

Table 4.1.6 Extent of adoption in clean milk production practices

___________________________________________________________
Sl. Area Adoption index
No.
___________________________________________________________

1. Clean milk production practices 47.27

65
 The farmers were incurring losses due to spoilage of milk. Milk gets spoiled
when it comes in contact with foreign materials such as dust, feed, dirt, hair, unclean
hands and utensils. The average farmers in the study area washed their utensils and
hands with ash. A few farmers were using surf or soap. The using of phenyl and
bleaching powder around the cattle shed was very low. Majority of the respondents did
not have the arrangement of properly designed concrete floor for drainage. Sometimes
manure pit was attached with milking byre. Good majority of the farmers are adopting
knuckle method while milking their cattle as against the recommended method of full
hand milking. While good milking practices include having the teat clean, dry and
properly stimulated before milking, the farmers were using the `malpractices like oil on
teat as lubricants and drying the teat with clean towel was not followed by the farmers.
No one in the study area was practising predipping to sanitize the teat, while 85 per cent
of the dairy farmers in the U.S.A. are following predipping at this time. Although
economic condition also a main factor which hinder the adoption of hooded milk pail,
cooling practice, use of detergent sanitizer etc. Very interestingly, it has seen in the
study area that some aged as well as middle aged farmers were followed some practices
associated with clean milk production traditionally and superstitiously without knowing
its rationale basis. Such practices were :

1. They devoted first drops of milk to the God.

2. They worshipped the cattle of spreading fumigants by coconut fibre and sulphur and
agarbati.

3. Some but a few number of farmers took bath before milking.

India bears a whopping annual loss of Rs.5500 crores due to sub-standard quality
and proper processing of milk, and infrastructure deficineices (Ganguli, 1999). In this
context, the extent of adoption related to clean milk production practices and its relation
to various traits of dairy farmers gains added importance.

66
Strategy for improvement in knowledge level

The main reason for low level of knowledge regarding clean milk production practices is
low level of education while their unwillingness to adopt clean milk production practices due to
poor economic condition. The farmers were facing many constraints in rearing their animals
such as lack of credit facilities from formal credit institutions, inadequate extension services,
poor marketing facilities, and no incentive for quality milk production etc., which intern
affecting adversely in their milk production. So they could not utilize the dairy farming as a
business activity. Therefore, it is an urgent need for social awareness in clean milk production,
extending credit facilities and development of suitable marketing environment as the scenario
is changing from substantial level to commercial competitive level.

Training programmes to be conducted so that the farmers become familiar with the
quality parameters to which they have to adhere to and the scientific practices by which such
quality standards can be attainted. There is a need for sufficient incentive for the farmers to
adopt clean milk production norms. The Dairy Industry in India is, therefore, required to wake
up and take immediate steps to meet the challenge of quality milk production and to stay in
global market. Unless we are vigilant about the trends and basic requirements of quality and
safety of dairy products, we will not be able to achieve the market leadership position, which
we are aiming at.

4.1.7 ADOPTION OF CLEAN MILK PRODUCTION PRACTICES AND BACKGROUND

VARIABLE OF DAIRY FARMERS

To get a more precise picture, the data were re-analysed and results are given in
the Table 4.1.7. Here, dairy farmers were categorised into four distinct categories on the
basis of their independent variable and at the same time they were revised in different
categories of adoption. The following paragraphs will give more clear picture about the
farmers distribution in different categories.

Table 4.1.7 shows that out of 9 high adopters, majority of them (5) middle and
two each were young and old. Table further indicates that majority of young farmers
(40%) had upper medium level of adoption.
67
 In the study area, those who had above matric qualification, 30.77 per cent of
them had high level of adoption, whereas their percentage is much lower among those
who had matric (24.0%), primary (10.34%) and almost nil in case of illiterate. In case of
illiterate farmers, 69.23 per cent of them were low adopter.

The data in Table 4.1.7 reveals that as education level increased, the level of
adoption had also increased from 0.00 to 30.77 per cent in high adoption category.
Thus, it becomes apparent from this study that dairy farmers who were having high level
of education had adopted more recommended practices of clean milk production.

Table reveals that the respondents who belonged to low family education status,
59.09 per cent of them were under low adopter category, whereas the respondents from
high family education status, only 20 per cent of them were under low adopter category.
On the other hand, all the high adopters had high family education status.

It can be concluded from the table that the respondents who adopted more clean
milk production practices also had high experience in dairying. In case of family size,
the respondents, who belonged to small family, 31.25 per cent of them were low adopter
and 12.5 per cent of them were high adopter category, whereas, the dairy farmers were
under large family size, 37.50 per cent of them had low adoption and no one was in high
adoption category.

68
Table 4.1.7 Adoption of clean milk production practices and traits of dairy farmers
Adoption
Lower Upper
Sl. Frequ High
Variables Category Low medium medium
No. ency (above
(upto 17) (above above
22)
17-20) 20-22)
25 7 6 10 2 (8.0)
Young
(28.0) (24.0) (40.0)
45 14 11 15 5
1. Age Middle
(31.11) (24.44) (33.33) (11.11)
10 1 2 5 2 (20.0)
Old
(10.0) (20.0) (50.0)
13 9 5 0 0
Illiterate
(69.23) (38.46) () ()
29 12 8 6 3
Primary
(41.38) (27.59) (20.69) (13.34)
2. Education 25 3 4 12 (48.0) 6
Matric
(12.0) (16.0) (24.0)
Above 13 0 ( 3 6 (46.15) 4
Matric ) (23.07) (30.77)
22 13 3 6 0
Low
(59.09) (13.63) (27.27) ()
Lower 20 4 (20.0) 8 8 0
Family
medium (40.0) (40.0) ()
3. education
Upper 18 2 (11.11) 2 14 0
Status
medium (11.11) (77.77) ()
20 4 6 2 8
High
(20.0) (30.0) (10.0) (40.0)
24 10 0 12 2
Low
(41.67) () (50.0) (8.33)
Lower 20 4 (20.00) 8 8 0
Experience medium (40.00) (40.0) ()
4.
in dairying Upper 18 6 (33.33) 8 4 (22.22) 0
medium (44.44) ()
18 3 (16.66) 3 6 (33.33) 6
High
(16.66) (33.33)
32 10 8 10 4 (12.5)
Small
(31.25) (25.00) (312.5)
Lower 22 4 (18.19) 6 10 2 (9.10)
Family medium (27.27) (45.44)
5.
Size Upper 18 6 (33.33) 2 8 (44.44) 2
medium (11.11) (11.11)
8 3 (37.50) 3 2 0
Large
(37.50) (25.00) (-)

Contd.
69
ContdTable 4.1.7
Adoption
Lower Upper
Sl. Frequ Low High
Variables Category medium medium
No. ency (upto (above
(above (above
17) 22)
17-20) 20-22)
40 15 9 14 2
Low
(37.5) (22.5) (35.0) (5.0)
Lower 0 0 0 0 0
Social medium (-) (-) (-) (-)
6.
Participation Upper 26 6 6 10 4
medium (23.07) (23.08) (38.96) (15.38)
14 0 4 6 4
High
(-) (28.57) (42.85) (28.57)
Lower 18 6 6 4 2
medium (33.33) (33.33) (22.22) (11.11)
Lower 22 7 5 8 2
Institutional medium (31.81) (22.72) (36.36) (9.09)
7. infrastructur Upper 16 4 2 9 1
e utilization medium (25.0) (12.5) (56.25) (12.5)
24 6 6 8 4
High
(25.0) (25.0) (33.33) (16.16)
12 4 4 4 (33.33) 0
Landless
(33.33) (33.33) (-)
38 16 2 17 3
Marginal
(42.10) (5.26) (44.73) (7.89)
Land 16 2 8 4 (25.0) 2
8. Small
Holding (12.5) (50.0) (12.5)
Upper 10 4 4 2 (20.0) 2
medium (40.0) (40.0) (20.0)
18 0 0 2 2
Large
() () (50.0) (50.0)
22 4 6 12 0
Small
(18.18) (27.27) (54.54) (-)
Lower 22 8 2 8 4
Herd medium (36.36) (9.09) (36.36) (18.18)
9. Size Upper 16 6 6 2 2
medium (37.50) (37.50) (12.50) (12.50)
20 5 5 8 2
Large
(25.00) (25.00) (40.0) (10.00)

contd..

70
ContdTable 4.1.7

Sr. Adoption
No. Variables Frequ Low Lower Upper High
Category (upto 17) medium medium (above
ency
(above (above 22)
17-20) 20-22)
10. Monthly 6 2 1 3 0
Low
income (33.33) (16.67) (50.0) ()
Lower 26 8 6 11 1
medium (30.78) (23.07) (42.30) (4.84)
Upper 28 8 4 13 3
medium (28.57) (14.28) (46.42) (10.71)
20 5 2 9 4
High
(25.0) (10.0) (45.0) (20.0)
28 8 8 10 2
Low
(28.57) (28.57) (35.71) (7.14)
Milk Lower 14 6 2 4 4
11. production medium (42.86) (14.29) (28.57) (28.57)
Upper 18 8 0 8 2
medium (44.44) (-) (44.44) (11.11)
20 1 9 8 2
High
(5.00) (45.00) (40.00) (10.00)
40 13 4 14 2
Low
(32.50) (10.00) (35.00) (5.00)
Lower 0 0 0 0 0
12. Milk medium () () () ()
Consumpti Upper 20 10 2 8 0
on medium (50.00) (10.00) (40.00) ()
20 0 6 8 6
High () (30.0) (40.0) (30.00)
20 8 6 4 2
Low
(40.00) (30.00) (20.00) (15.00)
Lower 20 4 2 10 4
13. Milk sale medium (20.00) (10.00) (50.0) (20.00)
Upper 22 10 2 10 0
medium (45.45) (9.09) (45.45) (-)
18 1 9 6 2
High
(5.55) (50.00) (33.33) (11.11)

contd..

71
 ContdTable 4.1.7

Sl. Adoption
No. Variables Frequ Low Lower Upper High
Category (upto 17) medium medium (above
ency
(above (above 22)
17-20) 20-22)
22 4 6 12 0
Low
(18.18) (27.27) (54.54) (-)
Lower 30 14 6 10 0
14. Personal medium (46.67) (20.0) (33.33) ()
localite Upper 18 4 6 2 6
medium (22.22) (33.33) (11.11) (33.33)
10 1 1 6 2
High
(10.00) (10.00) (60.00) (20.0)
19 6 7 5 1
Low
(31.57) (36.89) (26.31) (5.26)
Lower 29 8 7 12 2
15. Extension medium (27.59) (24.14) (41.37) (6.89)
contact Upper 7 3 1 3 0
medium (42.85) (14.28) (42.85) (-)
5 0 0 3 2
High
() (-) (60.0) (40.0)
24 11 7 4 2
Low
(45.83) (29.17) (16.67) (8.33)
16. Mass Lower 22 8 6 8 0
media medium (36.36) (27.27) (36.36) (-)
exposure Upper 20 2 4 10 4
medium (10.0) (20.0) (50.0) (20.0)
14 2 2 8 2
High
(14.29) (14.29) (57.14) (14.29)
From Table 4.1.7, it is found that as family size increased, the proportion of dairy
farmers in low adoption category increased from 31.25 to 37.50 per cent. On the other
hand, high adoption category decreased from 12.50 to 0.00 per cent. Table shows that
proportion of respondents in high adoption category increases with the increase of social
participation.

It is evident from Table 4.1.7 that majority of the members of low category of
institutional infrastructure utilisation group (33.33%) were equally distributed in low
and lower medium category of adoption. Whereas, respondents among high category of
72
institutional infrastructure utilisation, 33.33 per cent members were under upper medium
level of adopters category.

The table reveals that large farmers were equally distributed to high (50%) and
medium (50%) adopter category. Whereas, 20 per cent from medium farmer, 15.5 per
cent from small farmers, 7.89 per cent among marginal farmers and no landless farmers
had high adoption regarding clean milk production practice. This clearly shows that the
dairy farmers with large land holdings tend to adopt more clean milk production
practices.

Among the respondents who had low monthly income, 33 per cent of them adopt
the clean milk production practices in low level whereas in case of respondents were
having high monthly income, 25 per cent of them were falling in low adoption category.
Table also shows that as monthly income increased, the proportion of respondents in
high level of adoption category also increased.

It is evident from Table 4.1.7 that as milk production increases, the number of
respondnets in low adoption category decreases from 28.57 to 5 per cent, whereas that of
respondents of high adoption category increases from 7.14 to 15.0 per cent.

In case of milk consumption, among high adopters, 25 per cent were under low
milk consumption category and 75 per cent were under high milk consumption category.
On the other side, the dairy farmers who were consuming low amount of milk, 32.5 per
cent of them were falling under low adopter category and the respondents were
consuming high amount of milk, only five per cent among them were low adopters. It
might be due to the fact that the respondents under high amount of milk consumption
were in good economic conditions and high educational status.

The results in Table 4.1.7 indicated that as the milk sale increased from low to
high, the low adoption category decreased from 40.00 to 5.55 per cent and high adoption
category increased from 5.00 to 16.66 per cent.

73
 The data in the Table 4.1.7 reveal that those who were in the high degree and
most frequent discussion with opinion leader, friends, etc. appeared more in the upper
medium 60 per cent and 20 per cent in the high adoption group in comparison to low
contact with personal localite channel. From them there were no respondents in the high
adoption category. This means that personal localite channel had influenced the
adoption of clean milk production practices.

It is evident from the Table 4.1.7 that 25 per cent of the respondents had no
extension contact. The table also shows that as extension contact increased from low to
high the high adoption category increased from 5.26 to 40.00 per cent

In case of mass media exposure, majority of the respondents (45.83) of the low
mass media exposure category had low level of adoption, whereas, majority of the
population (57.14) of high mass media exposure category had upper medium level of
adoption. As the mass media exposure decreased from low to high the proportion of low
adoption category also decreased from 45.83 to 14.29 per cent.

4.1.8 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ADOPTION AND TRAITS OF DAIRY FARMERS

4.1.8.1 Correlation with socio-personal variables

From the Table 4.1.8, it is quite evident that age, education, family education
status, experience in dairying, social participation had positive and significant
relationship with the adoption of clean milk production practices.

On the other hand, institution infrastructure utilization and family size had non-
significant relationship with adoption behaviour of the dairy farmers.

4.1.8.2 Correlation with socio-economic variables

From the Table 4.1.9, it was found that land holding, monthly income, milk
production, milk consumption, milk sale had positive and significant correlation with the
adoption of clean milk production practices, whereas herd size was non-sigificantly
associated with adoption of clean milk production practices.
74
4.1.8.3 Correlation with communication variables

Mass media exposure had positive and highly significant relationship with extent
of adoption. Side by side, extension contact was also positive and significantly
correlated while personal localite had non-significant correlation with the adoption of
clean milk production practices.

Table 4.1.8 Relationship between adoption and background variables of the dairy
farmers
Sl. Variables Correlation
No. Coefficient
(r)
1. Age 0.255*
2. Education 0.624**
3. Family Education Status 0.646**
4. Experience in Dairying 0.242*
5. Family size 0.097
6. Social Participation 0.342**
7. Institutional Infrastructure Utilization 0.183
8. Land Holding 0.246*
9. Herd Size 0.051
10. Monthly Income 0.543**
11. Milk Production 0.453**
12. Milk Cnsumption 0.527**
13. Milk sale 0.423**
14. Personal Localite 0.188
15. Extension Contact 0.278*
16. Mass media Exposure 0.337**
** Significant at 1 per cent level
* Significant at 5 per cent level

75
4.1.9 THE CONSTRAINTS IN ADOPTION OF CLEAN MILK PRODUCTION PRACTICES AS

PERCEIVED BY THE RESPONDENTS

A study of this nature would be incomplete, if the constraints impeding the

adoption of clean milk production were not identified. So, the constraints hindering the
respondents to adopt the recommended practices in clean milk production practices were
analysed and discussed as under.

Data in Table 4.1.9 shows that the constraints i.e; lack of willingness for clean
milk production as monetary return is not associated with it got the maximum score as
assigned by the farmers. That is it was the most serious constraints perceived by the
majority of the respondents. This finding is in conformity with the findings of Rao et al.
(1992) and Maity (1999). This means an incentive of extra payment by the consumers
must be necessary which will help the dairy farmers to adopt the practices associated
with clean milk production. The other constraints such as lack of help from formal
sources, lack of finance, non-availability of space for proper housing, lack of knowledge
about cooling, cleanliness of cows and milkman, milking methods were also very severe
constraints.

Knowledge about improved technologies is essential for adoption of technologies. To increase

the level of adoption of improved technologies knowledge and awareness about the new
technology has to be improved by undertaking various nonformal educational approaches so
that farmers become familiar with the quality parameters to which they have to adhere to and
the scientific practices by which such quality standards can be attainted. Extension contact
along with mass media exposure of farmers has positive effect on adoption level. Therefore
efforts should be made to increase the extension contacts of the farmers with extension
workers/veterinarians to increase their level of adoption. Mass media can be efficiently utilized
to increase the awareness programme. Lack of finance is one of the major constraints in clean
milk production practices therefore, financial institute like Bank should provide credits to the
farmers at soft rate so that they can afford it. This will encourage the farmers to do commercial

76
farming by introducing appropriate quality measures for clean milk production. There is a need
for sufficient incentive for the farmers to adopt clean milk production norms.
Table 4.1.9 Constraints in adoption of clean milk production practices as perceived
by the respondents
Sl. Constraints Mean Rank
No score

1. Lack of willingness for clean milk production as 1.56 I

monetary return is not associated with it
2. Lack of help from formal sources 1.53 II
3. Lack of finance 1.16 III
4. Lack of knowledge about cooling 0.85 IV
5. Non-availability of space for proper housing 0.77 V
6. Lack of knowledge about cleanliness of cows and milk 0.75 VI
7. Lack of knowledge about fast disposal of milk 0.70 VII
8. Lack of knowledge about milking methods 0.63 VIII
9. High cost of proper utensils 0.55 IX
10. Non-availability of electricity 0.48 X
11. Lack of knowledge about housing 0.47 XI
12. Consumer never demand specifically for clean milk 0.41 XII
13. Lack of labour 0.40 XIII
14. High wages of labour 0.38 XIV
15. Time associated with C.M.P. production 0.33 XV
16. Facility for immediate transport of milk to consumers 0.32 XVI
17. Non-availability of clean water 0.28 XVII
18. Cost of disinfectant 0.25 XVIII
19. Lack of knowledge about feeding 0.10 XIX
20. Superstitious beliefs in time of milking 0.05 XX

The Dairy Industry in India is, therefore, required to wake up and take immediate steps to meet
the challenge of quality milk production and to stay in global market. Unless we are vigilant

77
about the trends and basic requirements of quality and safety of dairy products, we will not be
able to achieve the market leadership position, which we are aiming at.

4.2 CONSUMER

4.2.1 BACKGROUND PROFILE OF THE CONSUMERS

The profile of the respondents in the present study highlights their salient
characteristics as under:

The age of the respondents ranged from 21 to 54 years. It is evident from the
table that majority of the respondents (52.5%) were in the young age group, i.e., up to 30
years. Education level of the consumers was more or less high. Majority of respondents
(37.50%) were of intermediate level and 25 per cent of them were graduate

In the study area, 62.50% respondents belonged to nuclear family. It can also be
inferred that most of the respondents were of the nuclear family type (62.50%).

Distribution of respondents according to their family size in Table 4.2.1 shows

that most of the respondents (72.50%) were having medium size of family of 4 to 7
members. The monthly income for a majority of the respondnets was quite high as it
can be seen from Table 4.2.1 that 45 per cent of the respondents had a monthly income
of Rs.10,000-15,000.

Table 4.2.1 clearly indicated that majority of the respondents (72.50%) were
under medium level of milk consumption followed by 22.50 per cent who consumed
high quantity of milk, i.e., more than 1.88 litres. Among respondents of the study area,
67.50 per cent were non-vegetarian.

Table 4.2.1 shows that 37.50 per cent respondents had no social participation.
The respondents who had social participation among them, 80 per cent were in medium
level of social participation, followed by 20 per cent were under high level of social
participation. Half of the respondents had medium level of social participation, while

78
12.5 per cent had high social participation. There is an important observation that 37.50
per cent of the respondents had no social participation.

Table 4.2.1 Profile of the consumers

Sl. Variables Category Frequency Percentage
No.
Young 21 52.50
(upto 30 yrs)
1. Age Middle 7 17.50
(31-50 yrs)
Old 12 30.00
(above 50 yrs)
Illiterate 2 5.00
2. Education Intermediate 15 37.50
Graduate 10 25.00
Post-Graduate 5 12.50
3. Family type Nuclear 25 62.50
Joint 15 37.50
4. Family size Small ( < 4) 6 15.00
Medium (47) 29 72.50
Large ( > 7) 9 22.50
Low 15 37.50
(< 10000)
5. Monthly Medium 18 45.00
income (10000-15000)
High 7 17.50
(> 15,000)

contd

79
Contd table 4.2.1

Sl. Variables Category Frequency Percentage

No.
Low 2 5.00
(< 0.92)
6. Milk Medium 29 72.50
consumption (0.92-1.88)
High 9 22.50
(> 1.88)
7. Dietary habit Non-vegetarian 27 67.50

Vegetarian 13 32.50

No 15 32.50
Low 0 0.00
8. Social (< 0.16)
participation Medium 20 50.00
(0.16-2.22)
High (>22) 5 12.50
Low 2 5.00
Information (< 4.85)
9. seeking Medium 34 85.00
behaviour
(4.85-8.45)
High 4 10.00
( > 8.45)

80
 Table 4.2.1 indicated that 85 per cent of the respondents were medium level of
information seeking behaviour, followed by 10 per cent were high level of information
seeking behaviour. Almost all the houses had T.V. as well as radio, 52 per cent
respondents were reading newspaper everyday. But pamphlets, bulletins and extension
contact was almost nil. The most effective information comes from informal sources.
Commercial information normally performs an informing function, and
informal/personal sources performs a legitimizing and/or evaluation function.

4.2.2 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS (CONSUMERS) IN DIFFERENT CATEGORIES

ACCORDING TO THEIR PERCEPTION REGARDING QUALITY OF MILK

Table 4.2.2 shows that maximum number of respondents (67.50%) had average
perception regarding milk quality. They were followed hy members falling under poor
perception category, who constituted 25 per cent of members only 17.50 per cent
respondents had good opinion regarding the different attributes of good quality milk.

Table 4.2.2 Perception of the consumers regarding quality of milk

Sl. Category Frequency Percentage

No.
1. Poor (< 56.33) 10 25.00

2. Average (56.3370.12) 23 67.50

3. Goods (> 70.12) 7 17.50

Mean = 63.225
S.D. = 6.89

81
4.2.3 CORRELATION BETWEEN BACKGROUND VARIABLES AND PERCEPTION OF THE

CONSUMER

In this section, the correlation coefficient (r) have been worked out for various
traits, i.e., age, education, family size etc. with perception of consumers regarding
quality of milk. From the Table 4.2.3, it can be observed that age, education, monthly
income, milk consumption, dietary habit, information seeking behaviour of the
respondents positively and significantly correlated with perception. It should be also
emphasised that monthly income and milk consumption were highly significant with
perception in 1 per cent level of significance.

On the other hand, the variables like family type, family size, social participation
were positively but non-significantly correlated with perception.

Table 4.2.3 Relationship between background variables and perception of the

consumer
Sl. Variables Correlation coefficients
No. (r)
1. Age 0.357*
2. Education 0.337*
3. Family type 0.207
4. Family size 0.239
5. Monthly income 0.525**
6. Milk consumption 0.543**
7. Dietary habit 0.317*
8. Social participation 0.031
9. Information use efficiency 0.365*
** Significant at 1 per cent level
* Significant at 5 per cent level

82
4.2.4 THE ATTITUDE OF RESPONDENTS (CONSUMER) TOWARDS INCENTIVE PAYMENT

FOR GOOD QUALITY OF MILK

Incentive payment for good quality milk is utmost importance for the dairy
farmers to adopt the scientific practices for clean milk production. The study
emphasised this side also. According to the Table 4.2.4, majority of the respondents
(55%) of the study area were willing to pay Re.1/- extra price per litre followed by 20
per cent of the respondents who had agreed to pay Re.0.50 paise. But more
interestingly, it has seen that 5 per cent of the respondents were willing to pay Rs.2 extra
per litre.

Table 4.2.4 Attitude of respondents towards incentive payment for good quality
milk
Amount (extra Frequency Percentage (%)
Rs. Per litre)
Rs.2 2 5
Re.1 22 55
50 paise 8 20
No 8 20
It was also found that the consumers who agreed to pay more for good quality milk
wanted quality assurance standard to be decided by the formal institution. It was very
interesting side of the study. It was also observed that 20 per cent of the respondents did
not agree to pay extra price for good quality milk. Sinha and Sinha (1997) have
observed that in order to meet the microbiological standards, adoption of hygienic
concept by the farmers by giving them incentives to produce clean and safe milk is of
utmost necessity.

4.2.5 CORRELATION BETWEEN BACKGROUND VARIABLE AND INCENTIVE OFFERING BY

THE CONSUMERS

Table 4.2.5 indicates that monthly income, information seeking behaviour and
perception positively and significantly correlated with incentive payment. Therefore, it

83
can be concluded that the consumers of high class in the society wanted to pay more for
the good quality milk.

Table 4.2.5 Relationship between background variables and incentive offering by

the consumer
Sl. No. Variables Correlation coefficients (r)
1. Age 0.104
2. Education 0.022
3. Family type 0.058
4. Family size 0.059
5. Monthly income 0.315*
6. Milk consumption 0.153
7. Dietary habit 0.228
8. Social participation 0.297
9. Information use efficiency 0.400**
10. Perception 0.313*
** Significant at 1 per cent level * Significant at 5 per cent level

4.2.6 PERCEPTION OF CONSUMER REGARDING DIFFERENT ATTRIBUTES OF MILK

The Figure-2 confirms that the attribute of nutritive value received the highest
overall score (94.58%), followed by wholesomeness (88.33%), appearance (82.77%),
colour (79.17%), freshness (74%), human safety (73%) and composition characteristics
(72.5%) of milk quality as perceived by the consumers.

Nutritive value : A close perusal of table revealed that nutritive value is one of the
utmost important factor (94.58%) for quality of milk. Almost all consumers perceived
that milk should act as health tonic particularly during recovery after illness. According
to most of the consumers specially educated consumers adjustment of protein and
fortification of vitamin was the important characteristics of milk quality.

84
Wholesomeness : Wholesomeness is the second important attribute of quality milk
(88.33%) as informed by the consumers. Generally, the consumers judge the whole
someness on the basis of cream layer they get after boiling the milk. It is the physical
view which consumer judge the milk quality on this basis.

Appearance : Consumer generally synomy the purity with milk as a liquid without any
contamination. Most of the consumer perceived that milk of good quality must be free
from any foreign matter and have the characteristics such as good looking, natural. .

Colour of milk : Colour is one of the important attribute of milk quality as perceived
by the respondents. The yellowish white colour of milk in case of cow got the highest
perception of the consumers (2.6 average score) followed by the colour milky white
(mean score 2.5). According to the consumers, dullness or any other unnatural colour
makes the milk very poor qality (mean score 2.45). The perception about the colour of
buffalo milk was very low (mean score 1.15). It might be due to the fact that the buffalo
population in the study area is very less. The maximum number of consumer generally
takes cow milk.

Freshness : Most of the consumers dislike the milk having off smell and slate flavour.
They informed that the good quality milk always contain the typical sweet taste. A few
consumers reported that some time they found milk with the off smell of feed
ingredients and rancid smell. According to them, this type of milk was very poor in
quality.

Human safety: There were nine statements in the schedule related to human safety
attribute of milk quality. Average respondents reported that milk having high bacterial
count with extraneous water and adulterated milk as poor in quality. The maximum
respondents of the study area did know about the possibility of contamination of milk by
pesticides and fertilizers, heavy metals, aflatoxins etc.

Composition characteristics: Most of the consumers perceived that good quality milk
must have high fat content. It was also observed that the consumers who were highly
85
educated and health conscious perceived that good quality milk should contain more
protein than fat because high fat contain may be responsible for high blood pressure,
diabetes and heart problems.

These findings support the study by Katre and Prasad (2000).

Fig-2 .Perceived weightage of different attributes

Perception of Consumers Regarding Different

Attributes of Good Quality Milk

100.00% Nutritive Value

94.58%
90.00% 88.33%
82.77% Wholesomeness
79.17%
80.00% 74% 73% 72.50%
70.00% Appearance
60.00%
50.00% Colour
40.00%
Freshness
30.00%

20.00% Human Safety

10.00%
Composition
0.00%
Characteristics
1
Relative score of different attributes of good quality milk

The quality consciousness and willingness of people to pay for good quality products

would definitely encourage the producers to adopt clean milk production practices. Milk

produced as per the well management processes offer hope for the quality conscious

consumers. These management processes are stringent and many producers and extension

personnel are ignorant about them, hence, efforts should be made to educate and train the

concerned people so that clean milk especially milk produced in scientific healthy ways could

get a boost. This will help clean milk production mainly to meet the rising demand in

developed countries besides, improving supply of clean milk to domestic consumers, willing to

86
pay incentive price for such production. We hope the quality consciousness and willingness of

the people to pay for good quality milk would definitely go up in coming years.

Conclusion:
From the above findings it can be concluded that:
In order to fulfill the high expectations of Indian consumers and stiff challenge
from the international market due to globalization and prevailing tropical humid
conditions, the main task of Indian dairy industry now is to provide clean milk
and milk products without compromising with quality standard so that they do not
pose any health risk and have a reasonable shelf life.
Knowledge about improved technologies is essential for adoption of technologies.
To increase the level of adoption of improved technologies knowledge and
awareness about the new technology has to be improved by undertaking various
nonformal educational approaches so that farmers become familiar with the
quality parameters to which they have to adhere to and the scientific practices by
which such quality standards can be attainted.
Extension contact along with mass media exposure of farmers has positive effect
on adoption level. Therefore efforts should be made to increase the extension
contacts of the farmers with extension workers/veterinarians to increase their level
of adoption. Mass media can be efficiently utilized to increase the awareness
programme.
To increase the level of adoption of clean milk production technologies in dairy
farming, farmers are required to be exposed to as many as cosmopolite sources of
information as possible, to make them aware of these technologies.
Social participation showed a positive and significant association with adoption
level. Extension Worker/Veterinarians should form some informal groups or
forum of the farmers and should encourage the group members to discuss the farm
problem amongst themselves at their convenience.
87
 Lack of finance is one of the major constraints in clean milk production practices
therefore, financial institute like Bank should provide credits to the farmers at soft
rate so that they can afford it. This will encourage the farmers to do commercial
farming by introducing appropriate quality measures for clean milk production.
There is a need for sufficient incentive for the farmers to adopt clean milk
production norms.
The Dairy Industry in India is, therefore, required to wake up and take immediate
steps to meet the challenge of quality milk production and to stay in global
market. Unless we are vigilant about the trends and basic requirements of quality
and safety of dairy products, we will not be able to achieve the market leadership
position, which we are aiming at.

88
 V. REFERENCES

Anita, S., Kude, V.R. and Kalantri, R.B. (1991). Knowledge of farm women about
agricultural practices and their participation in agricultural operations. Maha.
J. Extn. Edn., 10(2): 185-190.
Banerjee, K.S. (1976). A critical evaluation of the intensive cattle development of
Vijawada, A.P. Unpubl. M.Sc. Thesis, B.N.C. Univ., Kurukshetra.
Baranovski, m.V., Kurak, A.S., Pereselyak, L.G. and Tsytik, L.N. (1997). A new
method of washing and disinfection of milking equipment. Zootekhnicheskaya
Nauka Belarusi, 33: 219-224.
Benz, II (1991). Increasing product quality by consumer sensory evaluation. Deutsche
Milchwirt, 42: 1044-1045.
Biradar, R.D. (1986). Changing village through dairy development A case study.
Dairy Guide, 8(3): 21-24.
Bloom, B.S., Enoathadt, M., Frust, S., Hill, W. and Brankwhal, A.R. (1956). Taxonomy
of Educational Objectives. The Cognitive Domine. Logmans, Green & Co.,
New York.
Bloom, B.S., Enoathadt, M., Frust, S., Hill, W. and Brankwhal, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy
of educational objectives. The congnitive domine. Longmans, Green & Co.,
New York.
Chaudhary, S.D. (1988). Adoption behaviour of trained farmers. Maha J. Extn. Edn.,
8 : 119-200.
Chaugh, M. (1995). An exploratory study of dairy farms owned by ex-service men
Karnal district (Haryana). Unpubl. M.Sc. Thesis, NDRI, Karnal.
Chawla, N.K. (1999). NACCP system should it be made mandatory ? Emerging
global dairy product safety scenario. Indian Dairyman, 51(6): 99.

89
Choubey, K.N. (1991). A study on the differential rationality in decision making
among dairy farmers in relation to dairy innovations in Allahabad district
(U.P.). Unpubl. Ph.D. Thesis, NDRI, Karnal.
Choubey, K.N. (1991). A study on the differential rationality in decision making dairy
farmers in relation to dairy innovations in Allahabad district (U.P.). Unpubl.
Ph.D. Thesis, NDRI, Karnal.
Dakhore, K.M., Skirsal, R.D. and Wattermwaur, V.T. (1993). Factors affecting
adoption of improved dairy management practices by cattle owners. Maha. J.
Extn. Edn., 12:
Dankow, R., Pikul, J. and Matylla, P. (2000). Influence of cooling system on the
hygienic quality of milk. Roczniki Naukowe Zootechniki, Suppl. Z. 6, pp.34-
37.
Dube, S.C. (1973). Contemporary India and its Modernisation. Vikas Publishing
House. P. 22.
English, H.B. and English, A.C. (1961). A comparative dictionary of psychological and
socio-analytical terms. Longman, Green & Co., New York.
English, H.B. and English, A.C. (1961). A comparative dictionary of psychological and
socio-analytical terms. Longmans, Green & Co., New York.
Fulzele, R.M., Ram Chand, Malik, B.S. and Chauhan, J.P.S. (1995). A study of
differential impact of KVK training programme of dairy farmers of different
states. Staff Research Council Project Report, NDRI, Karnal.
Ganguli, N.C. (1999). Sustainable milk quality A pre-requisite to go global. Indian
Dairyman, 51(6): 99.
Gautam, U.S. (1989) Role of aspiration motivation in decision-making with respect to
adoption of dairy practices by IRDP beneficiaries of Varanasi district (U.P.).

90
George, S. (1998). A study on dairy farming practices and training needs as perceived
by members of primary co-operative milk producers society (MILMA) in
Ernakulam district of Kerala. Unpubl. M.Sc. Thesis, NDRi, Karnal.
Gill, S.S. and Singh, P. (1977). Professional knowledge of dairy farmers of Ludhiana
district. Indian J. Extn. Edn., 32 (3&4) : 771-79.
Gopalan, M. and Kulandaiswami, V. (1976). Current trends in rural indebtedness.
Eastern Economist, 67(1): 826.
Grover, S., Yadav, J.B. and Batish, V.K. (1989). Microbiological quality control of
dairy products. Part II. A compendium on microbiological specifications.
Indian Dairyman, 41(5): 259-266.
Gupta, C.L. (1976). Differential motives of dairy farmers of milk co-operative societies
of ICDP, Karnal towards dairy innovations. Unpubl. Ph.D. Thesis, Panjab
University, Chandigarh.
Gupta, C.L. (1976). Differential motives of dairy farmers of milk co-operatives of
ICDP, Karnal towards dairy innovations. Unpubl. Ph.D. Thesis, Punjab Agril.
Univ., Ludhiana.
Hanchinal, S.N., Manjunath, L. and Chandargi, D.M. (1991). Adoption pattern of
recommended cultivation practices of potatoes crop. Maha. J. Extn. Edn.,
10(1): 53-60.
Hanuman Ram (1994). A study of knowledge and adoption of improved dairy farming
practices among the members and non-members of milk producers co-
operative societies (MPCSs) in Sri Ganganagar District, Rajasthan.
Hassen, A. (1975). Indebtedness among Buxas of Nainital. Kurukshetra, 25(10): 14.
Hazarika, P. (1983). A study of correlates of knowledge and adoption behaviour of the
dairy farmers under ICDP, Kanapara (Assam). Unpubl. M.Sc. Thesis, NDRI,
Karnal.

91
Heisse, E. (1990). Result of the 1990 DLG quality test of butter in consumer packs.
Deutsche Milchwirt, 41: 1353-1355.
Hogeveen, H. and Wolters, G. (1999). Responsible milking for a healthy future.
Praktijkonderzoek Rundree, Schapen en Paarden, 12(5): 8-10.
Hussain, A. (1968). Adoption of improved animal husbandry practices in Hyderabad
district. Unpubl. M.Sc. Thesis, A.P.A.U., Hyderabad.
Jha, C.K. (1974). Training needs of farmers in relation to high yielding varieties of
paddy. Unpubl. M.Sc. Thesis, Rajendra Agril. Univ., Bihar.
Jha, D.N. (1978). Economic constraints in transfer of new farm technology : hypothesis.
Proc. Workshop cum Training Course in Methodology of Constraitn Analysis
held at I.A.R.I., New Delhi, Nov., 1978, pp. 6-11.
John, A.J. (1974). The relationship of cattle owners with milk production in ICDP
scheme, Chalakudy, Kerala. Unpubl. M.Sc. Thesis, Panjab Univ., Chandigarh.
Kadian, K.R. and Jagtap, S.S. (1991). Adoption behaviour of potato growers. Maha. J.
Extn. Edn., 10(2): 258-260.
Kainth, G.S. (1988). Efficiency of milk marketing channels in Amritsar district of
Punjab. Asian J. Dairy Res., 7(1): 39-44.
Kalra, B.C. and Prasad, S. (2000). Up-keeping quality of raw milk : milk production
and procurement. Indian Dairyman, 52(7): 200.
Kapse, S.S. (1976). Adoption of selected dairy husbandry practices of cattle owners in
the ICDP area, Dhulia (Maharashtra). Unpubl. M.Sc. Thesis., NDRI, Karnal.
Kapse, S.S. 91976). Adoption of selected dairy husbandry.
Kaur, Jaswant (1981). A study of differential dairying knowledge and role performance
of trained and untrained milk producers and their wives. Unpubl. M.Sc.
Thesis, Kurukshetra Univ., Kurukshetra.

92
Kaushik, S.K. (1988). A study of impact of MPCS on the knowledge and adoption of
scientific dairy husbandry practices in Hisar district (Haryana). Unpubl. M.Sc.
Thesis, NDRI, Karnal.
Khatik, G.L. (1994). A study of training needs of tribal dairy farmers in Rajasthan,
Ph.D. Thesis (Unpubl.), NDRI, Karnal.
Kher, S.K. (1991). Adoption behaviour of rainfed maize growers. Maha. J. Extn. Edn.,
10(2): 271-273.
Kherde, P.N. (1995). Consumption and disposal of milk in Churu district (Rajasthan),
Indian Dairyman, 47(6): 42-95.
Knox, S. and Chernatony-L-de (1991). The retailing of continental cheeses : an
assortment of the marketing mix at store level. Brit. Food J., 93(2): 8-12.
Kokate, K.D. (1980). A study of training needs as perceived by farmers of K.V.K.
villages (Karnal). Unpubl. M.Sc. Thesis, NDRI, Karnal.
Kokate, K.D. (1984). A study of dairy farming systems and technological gap in tribal
setting. Unpubl. Ph.D. Thesis, Kurukshetra Univ., Kurukshetra.
Kokate, K.D. (1984). A study of dairy farming systems and technological gap in tribal
setting. Unpubl. Ph.D. Thesis, Kurukshetra Univ., Kurukshetra.
Kologi, S.D. and Anand, Usha (1985). Adoption of dairy innovations among selected
Tibetian refugees of Karnataka. Dairy Guide 7(6): 34-41.
Kumar, A. (1987). A study of adoption of dairy husbandry innovations of beneficiaries
and non-beneficiaries of lab to land programme. Unpubl. M.Sc. Thesis,
Kurukshetra Univ., Kurukshetra.
Kumar, A. (1987). A study of adoption of dairy innovations of beneficiaries and non-
beneficiaries of LLP. Unpubl. M.Sc. Thesis, NDRI, Karnal.
Kumar, Shantanu (1995). A study of delivery system of the animal husbandry inputs in
Banka district (Bihar). Unpubl. M.Sc. Thesis, NDRI, Karnal.

93
Lalitha, A. (2001). A study of perceived training needs of farm women regarding
improved dairy farming practices in Krishna district (A.P.). Unpubl. M.Sc.
Thesis, NDRI, Karnal.
Lindquist, E.F. (1951). Educational measurement. Part II. American Council of
Education, Washington..
Lindqvist, E.F. (1951). Educational measurement. Part II. American Council of
Education, Washington.
Mahipal (1983). A study of socio-economic and psychological correlates in adoption of
dairy innovations in the ORP areas of NDRI, Karnal. Unpubl. Ph.D. Thesis,
NDRI, Karnal.
Mahipal and Kherde, (1988). Adoption of scientific dairy farming practices by landless
cattle keepers. Indian Dairyman, 11(9): 473-478.
Maity, M. (1999). Study of adoption of clean milk production and health care practices
among dairy farm women in South 24-Parganas district of Wet Bengal.
Unpubl.
Malik, B.S. (1978). A study of differential knowledge and adoption of animal
husbandry innovations among cattle owners of ORP area under NDRI, Karnal.
Unpubl. M.Sc. Thesis, Kurukshetra Univ., Kurukshetra.
Manjunath, B.N., Lakshminarayan, M.T., Pillegowda, S.M. (1996). Knowledge of
farmers on dry farming practices. J. Extn. Edn., 7(1):
Marinsek, J. (2002). Hygienic irrevocability of milk and milk products. Guarantee of
Safety. IDF Bull., 351.
Meer, R.R. and Misner, S.L. (2000). Food safety knowledge and behaviour of expanded
Food and Nutrition Education Program Participants in Arizona. J. Food Prot.,
63(12): 1725-1731.

94
Mikkilineni, V.K. (1976). A study of adoption of few selected dairy practices in Upland
and delta area of Vijaywada Taluka (A.P.). Unpubl. M.Sc. Thesis, NDRI,
Karnal.
Minhas, P.S. (1976). Training needs of dairy farmers. Unpubl. M.Sc. Thesis, P.A.U.,
Ludhiana.
Mitra, S. (1977). Development problems of tribal agriculture in India. Geographical
Review of India, Geographical Society of India, Calcutta, 39(2): 107-115.

95
Munjilal, M. (1998). Quality of globally exportable dairy products. Indian Dairyman,
50(12): 108-111.
Nagpal, A. and Yadav, L. (1991). Impact of biogas on rural women. Maha J. Extn.
Edn., 1092): 343-348.
Nagpal, A. and Yadav, L. (1991). Impact of biogas on rural women. Maha. J. Extn.
Edn., 10(2): 343-348.
Ogale, Hemant (1999). Clean milk production The key to quality management in
dairy industry. Indian Dairyman, 51(6); 99.
Ogale, Hemant (1999). Clean milk production The key to quality management in
dairy industry. Indian Dairyman, 51(6): 41-43.
Patel, R.K. (1978). Constraints in transfer and adoption of new technology. ORP
Progress Report, NDRI, Karnal. pp. 117-119.
Patel, S.M. (1977). Impact of milk co-operative in Gujarat. United Publishers,
Allahabad.
Patil, B.P. (1981). Impact of ICDP on dairy development in the milk shed area of Miraj
(Maharashtra). Unpub. M.Sc. Thesis, Kurukshetra Univ., Kurukshetra.
Patil, B.P. (1981). Impact of ICDP on dairy development in the milk shed area of Miraj
(Maharashtra). Unpubl. M.Sc. Thesis, Kurukshetra Univ., Kurukshetra.
Pawar, S.G. (1979). A study of training needs of members of primary milk producers
societies in Satara District (Maharashtra), M.Sc. Thesis (Unpubl.), NDRI,
Karnal.
Pawar, S.G. (1983). A study of differential dairy development in selected states of
India. Unpubl. Ph.D. Thesis, Kurukshetra Univ., Kurukshetra.
Prasad, K. (1992). Training needs of the farmers in scientific dairy farming practices in
Hamirpur district (U.P.). Unpubl. M.Sc. Thesis, NDRI, Karnal.
Pratap, D.K. (1975). Functional approach on tribal development. Kurukshetra, 23(2): 8.

96
Ram Chand (1980). Measurement of aspiration of dairy farmers of ICDP, Karnal with
projective and non-projective techniques. Unpubl. Ph.D. Thesis, Kurukshetra
Univ., Kurukshetra.
Ram, H. (1994). A study of knowledge and adoption of improved dairy farming
practices among the members and non-members of milk producers co-
operative societies (MPCs) in Sri Ganganagar district, Rajasthan. Unpubl.
M.Sc. Thesis, NDRI, Karnal.
Ranada, K. (1998). Retailing Quality. Indian Dairyman, 50(1): 5-8.
Rao, S.V.N., Kherde, R.L. and Tyagi, K.. (1992). Why delay in farmers adoption of
dairy technology. Indian Dairyman, 44(6) : 1992.
Rath, B.B. (1977). A critical analysis of an ICDP progress, problems and prospectus.
Unpubl. Ph.D. Thesis, HAU, Hisar.
Reddy, J.K. and Reddy, B.G. (1972). Adoption of improved agricultural practices in
A.P. Indian J. Extn. Edn., 8(1&2): 14-24.
Reddy, P.N. (2000). Systems for improving quality of products and services. Indian
Dairyman, 52(7): 2000.
Roeckseisen, A. (1978). Role of the retails trade vis a vis the consumer in the
distributions of dairy products. XX International Dairy Congress, 57 EC:
pp.24.
Rogers, E.M. and Shoemaker, F. Floyd (1971). Communication of Innovation. New
York, The Free Press.
Rogers, E.M. and Shoemaker, F.F. (1971). Communication of Innovation. The Free
Press, New York.
Rogers, E.M. and Shoemaker, F.F. (1971). Communication of innovation. The Free
Press, New York.

97
Sah, A. (1996). A descriptive study of existing dairy farming practices and constraints
in adoption of improved dairy practices among dairy farmers in Banka district
(Bihar). Unpubl. M.Sc. Thesis, NDRI, Karnal.
Saini, S.P.S. (1980). Correlates of dairy modernisation of small and marginal dairy
farmers of ICDP, Ludhiana. Unpubl. Ph.D. Thesis, Kurukshetra Univ.,
Kurukshetra.
Saini, S.P.S., Shukla, A.N. and Khurana, S.S. (1977). Attitudes of potential adopters of
recommended dairy practices. Indian J. Extn. Edn., 13(3&4): 36-59.
Sawant, G.K., Thorat, S.S. and Phadke, D.K. (1979). Information sources of the
adopters of crossbreeding in cattle in Pune district of Maharashtra. Indian J.
Extn. Edn., 15 (1&2) : 75-76.
Sayeedi, A.G. (1983). A study of knowledge of attitude and adoption of dairy farmers
towards dairy scientific activities in Jammu district (J&K state). Unpubl.
M.Sc. Thesis, Kurukshetra Univ., Kurukshetra.
Sayeedi, A.G. (1983). A study of knowledge, attitude and adoption of dairy farmers
towards dairy scientific activities in Jammu district (J & K state). Unpubl.
M.Sc. Thesis, Kurukshetra Univ., Kurukshetra.
Sayeedi, A.G. (1983). A study of knowledge, attitude and adoption of dairy farmers
towards dairy scientific activities in Jammu district (J & K state). Unpubl.
M.Sc. Thesis, Kurukshetra Univ., Kurukshetra.
Shah, R.K. (2000-2001). Guidelines for improvement of microbiological quality of milk
and dairy products at the Indian dairy plants. Dairy Year Book, pp.104-111.
Sharma, B.D. (1976). Occasional papers on tribal development. Ministry of Home
Affairs, New Delhi.
Sharma, D.K. (1997). Consumer acceptance studies. Indian Dairyman, 49(1): 97.

98
Sharma, D.K. (2001). Training of sensory panel for quality assurance of food products.
Souvenir, IDA, National Seminar on Quality Assurance in Dairy Industry,
PAU, Ludhiana, 2001.
Sharma, K.N.S., Aggarwal, S.B. and Patel, R.K. (1977). Milk production and its
utilization in relation to farm size around Karnal. Indian J. Anim. Sci., 47(8):
445-449.
Sharma, P.K. and Singh, C.B. (1986). Milk production, consumption and marketed
surplus in rural Karnal. Dairy Guide, 8(8): 22-25.
Sharma, S.K. and Sharma, R.K. (2001). Clean milk production. Souvenir: IDA
National Seminar on Quality Assurance in Dairy Industry, PAU, Ludhiana.
Sept. 2001.
Sheoran, V.K. (1987). A study of adoption level of dairy innovations in relation to milk
yield among beneficiaries of IRDP in ______ district. Unpubl. M.Sc. Thesis,
NDRI, Karnal.
Sidhu, K.S. (1980). A study of dimensional variation in the knowledge of dairy farmers
of ICDP and non-ICDP areas of Punjab. Unpubl. M.Sc. Thesis, Kurukshetra
Univ., Kurukshetra
Singh, A. (1993). A study on role performance and decision-making of farm women in
dairy farming practices. Unpubl. M.Sc. Thesis, NDRI, Karnal.
Singh, A. and Gill, S.S. (1993). Review of adoption of research studies in Indian
Journal of Extension Education from 1980 to 1987. Indian J. Extn. Edn.,,
29(182):
Singh, B.K. (1983). A study of socio-psychological dynamics in dairy progressive and a
dairy non-progressive villages. Unpubl. M.Sc. Thesis, NDRI, Karnal.
Singh, B.K., Mahipal and Tyagi, K.C. (1985). Some related socio-personal economic
characteristics of the farmers of progressive and non-progressive dairy
villages. Indian J. Extn. Edn., 21(3&4): 101-103
99
Singh, B.P. (1994). A study of constraints in milk production as perceived by milk
producers in Meerut district (U.P.). Unpubl. M.Sc. Thesis, NDRI, Karnal.
Singh, B.R. (1986). A study of effectieness of institutional finance on adoption of dairy
innovations. Unpubl. M.Sc. Thesis, Kurukshetra Univ., Kurukshetra.
Singh, K.N. and Haque, S.M.S. (1972). Information needs of farmers as perceived by
them and extension personnel. Source: Agricultural Situation in India, New
Delhi.
Singh, K.N. and Singh, S.M. (1976). Effective Communication.
Singh, K.N. and Singh, S.N. (1976). Effective communication media for rural audiences
An experimental study. The Dharnsi Morarji Chemical Co. Ltd., Erospect
Chamber, Bombay.
Singh, K.N. and Singh, S.N. 91976). Effective communication media for rural
audiences An experimental study. The Dharnsi Morarji Chemical Co. Ltd.,
Erospect Chamber, Bombay.
Singh, N. (1977). A study of knowledge and adoption of selected recommended dairy
innovations by the dairy farmers. Unpubl. M.Sc. Thesis, PAU, Ludhiana.
Singh, R. (1987). A study of attitude and knowledge about milk producers co-operative
societies and adoption of scientific dairy farming practices by the members and
executives of milk producers co-operative societies, Karnal. Unpubl. M.Sc.
Thesis, NDRI, Karnal.
Singh, Randhir (1989). A study of communication behaviour of dairy farmers regarding
scientific dairy farming practices in ORP area of NDRI, Karnal. Unpubl.
Singh, S. (1989). A study of differential level of knowledge and adoption of dairy
innvations by farmers in the adopted villages of Dairy Extension Division,
NDRI, Karnal. Unpubl. M.Sc. Thesis, NDRI, Karnal.
Singh, S.P. (1980). Correlates of dairy modernisation of small and marginal farmers of
ICDP, Ludhiana. Unpubl. Ph.D. Thesis, Kurukshetra Univ., Kurukshetra.
100
Singh, S.S. and Dubey, V.K. (1978). Adoption of scientific feeding practices by cattle
owners of ICDP, Karnal. Indian J. Extn. Edn., 15(1): 70-72.
Singh, V. (1984). Impact of mini dairy scheme of district Karnal (Haryana). Unpubl.
M.Sc. Thesis, Kurukshetra Univ., Kurukshetra.
Singh, V. (1984). Impact of mini dairy scheme of district Karnal (Haryana). Unpubl.
M.Sc. Thesis, Kurukshetra Univ., Kurukshetra.
Sinha, M.N., Sinha, R.R.P. and Sohal, T.S. (1974). Attributes of potential adopters of
cattle feed mixture. Indian J. Extn. Edn., 10(3&4): 46-47.
Sinha, R.N. and Sinha, P.R. (1997). Microbiological quality of dairy products A 24
hour monitoring. Indian Dairyman, 49(5): 97.
Sinha, V.K. (1997). A study on decision-making pattern and adoption of improved
dairy farming practices in rural areas of Rohtaj district (Bihar). Unpubl. M.Sc.
Thesis, NDRI, Karnal.
Sohal, T.S. (1985). Constraints in transfer of technologies. Transferable technologies
for enhancing milk production. NDRI, Karnal Publication No.217.
Sohal, T.S. and Tyagi, K.C. (1978). Role of knowledge in adoption of dairy
innovations. Indian J. Extn. Edn., 14(3&4): 16-25.
Srivastava, R.M. (1982). Cattle culture and economy of tribal Mundas of Bihar.
Unpubl. Ph.D. Thesis, Kurukshetra Univ., Kurukshetra.
Srivastava, R.M. (1982). Cattle culture and economy of tribal Mundas of Bihar.
Unpubl. Ph.D. Thesis, Kurukshetra Univ., Kurukshetra.
Subramanian, R. and Knight, J.A. (1982). Bottlenecks in modern dairy. Indian J. Extn.
Edn., 18(1&2): 102-105.
Tripathi, R.M. (1974). Agricultural problems in Tribal areas. Perspective on Tribal
Development and Administration, National Institute of Rural Development,
Hyderabad, pp. 183-192.

101
Tyagi, K.C. (1975). Factors influencing the adoption of dairy innovations by farmers of
ICDP, Karnal. Paper presented at Summer Institute in Dairy Business
Management held at NDRI, Karnal. June 1-30, 1975.
Tyagi, K.C. and Sohal, T.S. (1984). Factors associated with adoption of dairy
innovations. Indian J. Extn. Educ., 22 (3&4): 1-8.
Varshney, N.M. (2000). Compatibility of Indian dairy industry with global market.
Indian Dairyman, 52(12):
Verma, O.P. (1988). A study on impact of technical inputs and services on the milk
production enhancement in Barabanki District Co-operative Milk Union Ltd.
Unpubl. M.Sc. Thesis, Kurukshetra Univ., Kurukshetra.
Verma, O.P. (1988). A study on impact of technical inputs and services on the milk
production enhancement in Barabanki District Co-operative Milk Union Ltd.
Unpubl. M.Sc. Thesis, NDRI, Karnal.
Verma, O.P. (1993). A study of differential impact of MPCS in upper gangetic plains.
Unpubl. Ph.D. Thesis, NDRI, Karnal.
Wright (1989). Dairy products and the consumer. British Food J., 91(1): Suppl. 12-15.
Yadav, S.S. (1986). A study of training needs of rural youth in Haryana. Unpubl. M.Sc.
Thesis, Kurukshetra Univ., Kurukshetra.
Yadav, S.S. (1986). A study of training needs of rural youth in Haryana. Unpubl. M.Sc.
Thesis, Kurukshetra Univ., Kurukshetra.

102
Buy your books fast and straightforward online - at one of worlds
fastest growing online book stores! Environmentally sound due to
Print-on-Demand technologies.

Buy your books online at

www.get-morebooks.com
Kaufen Sie Ihre Bcher schnell und unkompliziert online auf einer
der am schnellsten wachsenden Buchhandelsplattformen weltweit!
Dank Print-On-Demand umwelt- und ressourcenschonend produzi-
ert.

Bcher schneller online kaufen

www.morebooks.de
VDM Verlagsservicegesellschaft mbH
Heinrich-Bcking-Str. 6-8 Telefon: +49 681 3720 174 info@vdm-vsg.de
D - 66121 Saarbrcken Telefax: +49 681 3720 1749 www.vdm-vsg.de