ven finrepo
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
1/78
1
A STUDY ON IMPROVEMENT IN RURAL
LIVELIHOODS THROUGH DAIRY FARMING
I. IntroductionThe sustenance of rural livelihoods is currently at stake than ever before, in the face
of economic liberalization. Livelihoods options are shrinking in rural areas in general
and more so in eco-fragile regions, such as drought, desert prone, hilly areas and
other under developed /backward districts. Rapidly growing markets for livestock
products in general, and dairy products in particular (owing to rise in per capita
incomes) are opening new avenues for enhancing rural incomes. Dairy farming plays
significant role in sustaining the rural livelihoods, although the phenomenon of
farmers suicides, migration, malnutrition/ill health are widely prevalent in rural India.
However, some of the dairy based drought prone districts made rapid strides in
ameliorating poverty by substantially contributing to the District/State agriculture
economy.
The importance of dairying in our country hardly needs emphasizing. The vast
resources (more than 50 percent of the world's buffalos and 20 percent of its cattle) of
livestock in the country play an important role in the national economy as well as in
the socio-economic development of millions of rural households. Although the
contribution of agriculture and allied sectors to the national GDP has declined during
the past few decades, the contribution of the livestock sector has increased from less
than 5 percent in the early 1980s to over 6 percent in the late 1990s. The operation
flood programme, which was launched during 1970, organizing dairy farmers'
cooperatives in rural areas and linking them with urban consumers created a strong
network for procurement, processing, and distribution of milk over a lakh villages in
rural India. During the past three decades, milk production in the country has
increased from about 21.2 million tons in 1969 to 91 million tons in 2004-05
(Department of animal Husbandry and Dairying (DAHD), GOI, 2005). The per capita
availability of milk increased from 112 grams in 1969 to 232 grams in 2004-05 and
also kept pace with the growing population (DAHD, GoI).
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
2/78
2
Livestock sector provides employment to 18 million people and nearly 70 per cent
of them are women. Further, dairy sector is the major source of income for an
estimated 27.6 million people (Subbarama Naidu, 2004). Among these, 65 to 70 per
cent are small, marginal farmers and land-less labor. The dairy sector supports
around 10 million members / farmers through one lakh cooperative societies existing
in the country. Apart from employment generated by rearing of animals, the
procurement of milk and its processing also provides substantial employment. For
example in Punjab, MILKFED, with its network of over 5,000 village Milk Producers
Cooperative Societies, supports over 3 lakh Milk Producers. Further, MILKFED and
its units have a work force of about 5,000 employees and gives employment to
another 10,000 workers who engaged in milk procurement and technical input
supply, etc. (website of Milkfed). Similar number of workforce is employed in almost
all the milk federations. Further, under SGSY, the only self-employment programme
for rural areas, about 35 per cent swarojgaries opted for dairy farming as income
generating activity. The incremental employment generated was 11 man-days per
month and the incremental net income generated was Rs. 865 per month per person
(Nationwide Study on SGSY, NIRD, 2005).
Recognizing the importance of dairy farming in its substantial contribution to the
agriculture economy and to the livelihoods of resource poor farmers/rural population,
high priority is attached in several locations strengthening the milk marketing
infrastructure, veterinary services for breed improvement and health care, extension
support for capacity building of farmers, developing entrepreneurship, technical skills
and knowledge on scientific dairy farming practices, etc. several programmes have
been launched from time to time by State/Central Governments for promoting the
sector, although the impact of such programmes varied widely. It may be noted that
the importance of livestock rearing is highlighted of late in the development world due
to its potentiality in ensuring sustainable livelihoods that addressed the development
issues of food security, equity and decentralized governance through peoples
participation. Livestock rearing is a means for sustainable livelihoods in rural India,
more so in eco-fragile regions. As per Indian Meteorological Department (IMD), 15
drought years were registered during the past 5 decades registering one out of every
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
3/78
3
third year as drought year. It may be noted that they are 182 DPAP and 40 DDP
districts and 150 are backward districts as of now India. It may also be noticed that
60 districts are identified both as DPAP/DDP and backward districts. In all, around
312 districts, out of the 602 Indian districts are either DPAP/DDP or Backward wherelivelihoods are under constant stress. Some of the districts in these drought prone
areas made spectacular progress in dairying in terms of contribution to the share of
agriculture economy and in ensuring sustainability of the rural livelihoods of the
resource poor farmers. Dryland agriculture accounts for 68 per cent of the total
cultivated area contributing only 44 per cent of the countrys food requirement and
supporting 40 per cent of human and 60 per cent of the livestock population (National
Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning, 2001). Therefore, to explore andexamine the development pattern in such drought prone districts, the present study is
designed with the following objectives.
Objectives:
1. To examine the role of dairy farming in rural economy in drought prone areas.
2. To study the factors affecting the performance of dairy farming and to examine
their potential role in further enhancement /sustenance of rural livelihoods.
3. To identify and study the feasibility of community action in brining out
efficiency in dairy output and, thereby, improvements in rural l ivelihoods
4. To study the impact of sustainable dairy farming on the social development
aspects of rural livelihoods.
5. To suggest measures to improve rural livelihoods through dairy farming.
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
4/78
4
II. Methodology
Data Collection : The present study was taken up in two drought prone districts
leading in milk production ,namely Chittoor and Prakasam district of Andhra Pradesh
.The criteria of district selection was their progress in dairy performance, existence of
contrasting milk production systems and geographic similarity. Two mandals each,
namely Santhanuthanapadu and Jarugumalli in Prakasam district and Penumuru and
Yadamari mandals in Chittoor district were selected. Study villages namely
Mungamooru, Indluru, Pernimitta, Mynampadu, Challappalem, Jarugumalli,
Chintalapalem, K.Bitragunta, Cherrikurapalem and Davagudur from Prakasam district
and Atlavaripalli, Balijapalli, Pedarajulapalli, Jattigundlapalli, Maniyanampalli,
Sanyasipalli, Yadamuru, Bondaluru, Varadarajulapalli, Bandivandavallavuru from
Chittoor were selected in consultation with the department of animal husbandry and
dairy development.
The primary data were collected through the structured schedule (AnnexureIII),
which was developed and administered for this purpose. From each district 200
respondents were selected randomly from dairy farmers of above villages and thus,
the total sample size was 400. The variables of the study included the livestock
holding, land holding, dairy type/category, herd size and composition, family labour
utilization, annual family income, family milk consumption pattern, inter caving period,
proportion of crossbred animals, breed up gradation efforts, cost of milk production,
cropping pattern, feeding practices, extension support and service delivery,
technology adoption, productivity, access to market, price realization, market
channels, effect of processing units/dairies, income and employment generation,
Social development aspects like migration, school dropouts, infant mortality rates,
malnutrition, incidence of farmers suicides, etc.,
Data were also collected from secondary sources of information such as official
documents, records, registers and reports of Department of Animal Husbandry, Milk
Unions / Private dairies and DRDA. Discussions were held with officials of these
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
5/78
5
departments, experts, executives, programme implementers, elites, non-dairy farmer
groups, progressive farmers, etc to elicit their views, ideas and opinion on the
important issues pertaining to dairy farming. Few success cases relating to
community organisation in service delivery, value addition and innovative practiceswere studied.
Analytical Frame: Primary data were analyzed using simple statistical tools such as
average, frequency, percentages. Secondary data regarding the cattle census (herd
composition), the district milk production and productivity, animals inseminated,
calves born, vaccinations, mini kits distributed, etc. for the reference period from
1990-1991 to 2004-2005 were analyzed. In addition data on social developmentaspects like litreacy, school dropouts, infant mortality rate, malnutrition, migration,
farmers suicides were also analyzed for the reference period.
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
6/78
6
III. Dairy Development perspective3.1 Dairy Development in India :
Livestock in general and dairying in particular play a vital role in the Indian economy.
The contribution of the livestock sector to total national gross domestic product (GDP)
was 5.9 percent in 2000-01, with the milk group making the highest contribution to
the total value of the agriculture and allied sector (Rs. 1,44,088 crores). As indicated
above in introduction, millions of people are employed in the livestock sector and
women constitute about 70 percent of the labor force. Milk production in India
increased from 17 million tons in 1950-51 to 31.60 million tons in 1980-81. In the
subsequent years it further increased to 91.00 million tons in 2004-05 (Table.2).
From being a recipient of massive material support from the World Food Program and
European Community in the 1960s, India has rapidly positioned itself as the world's
largest producer of milk due to the policy initiatives of Government Of India (GOI) and
contributions by national institutions, ICAR Institutions, agricultural Universities, dairy
cooperative unions, line departments and other agencies.
During the late 1960s, the GoI initiated major policy changes in the dairy sector to
achieve self-sufficiency in milk production. Producing milk in rural areas through
producer cooperatives and moving processed milk to urban demand centres became
the cornerstone of government dairy development policy. This policy initiative i.e.
Operation flood, gave a boost to dairy development and initiated the process of
establishing the much-needed linkages between rural producers and urban
consumers. The performance of the Indian dairy sector during the past three decades
has been very impressive. Milk production grew at an average annual rate of 4.57
percent during the 1970s, 5.68 percent during the 1980s, and 4.21 percent duringthe 1990s (Table 1). The per-capita availability of milk was 128 gms in 1980-81
gradually increased to 232 gms in 2004-05 (Table.2). Despite, its being the largest
milk producer in the world, India's per capita availability of milk is still lower than the
recommendations (minimum nutritional requirement of 280 gm per day) of ICMR.
Several factors have contributed to the increased milk production in the country. First,
milk and milk products have cultural significance in the Indian diet and have become
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
7/78
7
an important source of protein in the diet. The socioeconomic and demographic
changes, rising income levels, urbanization and changing food habits and lifestyles,
have also reinforced growth in demand for dairy products. Further, on the supply side,
technological progress in the production and processing sectors, institutional factors,and infrastructure played an important role.
Table.1 Annual Growth Rates of Major Livestock Products
( All India)
Year Annual Growth Rate (%)
Milk Egg Wool
1950-51 to 1960-61 1.64 4.63 0.38
1960-61 to 1973-74 1.15 7.91 0.34
1973-74 to 1980-81 4.51 3.79 0.77
1980-81 to 1990-91 5.48 7.69 2.32
1990-91 to 2000-01 4.11 5.67 1.62
Source: DAHD, GoI, 2006
Table.2 : Recent trends in Milk production and percapita availability
Year Milk Production Per Capita Availability
All
India*
AP Chittoor Prakasam All
India*
AP Chittoor Prakasam
Miil.tons (thousand tons) (gm./day)
2000-01 80.6 5521
533 339 220 194 389 304
2001-02 84.4 581
4
466 310 225 209 336 274
2002-03 86.2 658
3
508 305 230 231 361 265
2003-04 88.1 695
9
539 349 231 238 377 299
2004-05* 91.0 725 646 537 232 263 445 453
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
8/78
8
* 7
**-Provisional
*Source : DAHD, GoI, 2006
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
9/78
9
3.2 Dairy Development in Andhra Pradesh and Study Districts
3.2.1 The state ranks seventh in milk production in the country and it is the home
tract of Ongole, Punganur and Deoni breeds of cattle. Prakasam district is a
home tract of world famous Ongole breed while Chittoor, for punganur breed of cattle .
Dairy accounted for 11% of agricultural GDP in the state. According to 17th
Quiquennial livestock census 2003, the total population of cattle and buffalos in the
state was 106.3 lakhs and 93 lakhs respectively. Milk production in the state in
1980-81 was 2.01 million tons and increased to 7.257 million tons in 2004-05
(table.1) registering a growth rate of 3.74% per annum raising the per capita
availability of 263 gms. According to the sample survey report of Department of
Animal Husbandry, AP 2006-07, the average milk yield per animal in milk was only
1.888 Kgs, 2.84 Kgs, 7.147 Kgs and 6.541 Kgs per day for non-descript cows,
non-descript buffalos, crossbred cows and graded murrah buffalos, respectively.
3.2.2 The district-wise milk production data for last 6 years is furnished below in
Table.3. Chittoor and Krishna districts top the list with 9% of total milk production of
the State followed by Guntur and Prakasam districts with 8% and 7%, respectively. In
the study districts, there was a decline in the milk production during 2001-02 and later
increased gradually with a growth rate of 9.7% in Chittoor and 18% in Prakasam. In
Prakasam district the milk production almost got doubled during 2004-05. According
to the sample survey report (2004-05) of Department of Animal husbandry, 16.30% of
milk produced by farmers was consumed by them, 11.31% was kept for conversion
and 72.39% was sold either to organized dairy or to private vendors.
Table . 3 District-wise Estimated Milk Production during the years 1996-97 to
2004-05 in Andhra Pradesh ( '000 tons)
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
10/78
10
S.No. District 1999-20
00
% 2000-01 % 2001-02 % 2002-03 % 2003-04 % 2004-0
5
%
1 Krishna 375.375 7 357.981 6 426.900 7 485.995 7 533.786 8 658.93
7
9
2 Chittoor 397.944 8 533.031 10 465.910 8 508.000 8 539.906 8 646.24 9
3 Guntur 478.818 9 568.255 10 538.900 9 528.738 8 599.354 9 592.774
8
4 Prakasam 302.675 6 338.954 6 309.980 5 305.001 5 348.649 5 536.713
7
5 West Godavari 515.528 10 438.044 8 396.768 7 444.995 7 549.685 8 522.642
7
6 East Godavari 352.627 7 374.139 7 426.000 7 482.995 7 535.924 8 459.711
6
7 Visakhapatnam 217.969 4 240.045 4 227.001 4 314.000 5 320.983 5 365.508
5
8 Nellore 207.981 4 273.004 5 209.900 4 224.999 3 233.802 3 338.741 5
9 Kurnool 191.284 4 210.704 4 287.100 5 358.997 5 365.125 5 291.775
4
10 Ananthapur 152.399 3 202.682 4 181.972 3 194.520 3 185.004 3 276.797
4
11 Nalgonda 238.063 5 254.496 5 225.200 4 265.699 4 267.927 4 276.65 4
12 Srikakulam 122.716 2 185.204 3 168.924 3 187.996 3 187.131 3 276.299
4
13 Khammam 201.196 4 169.872 3 240.913 4 310.008 5 329.652 5 276.055
4
14 Vizianagaram 149.837 3 183.021 3 156.786 3 181.502 3 178.401 3 240.18
3
3
15 Mahabubnagar 203.124 4 183.620 3 354.100 6 439.002 7 354.141 5 212.645
3
16 Karimnagar 191.169 4 213.070 4 287.100 5 329.004 5 333.690 5 208.017
3
17 Ranga Reddy 145.116 3 85.170 2 130.000 2 156.003 2 186.723 3 200.799
3
18 Adilabad 121.116 2 127.113 2 157.200 3 171.007 3 159.934 2 187.403
3
19 Medak 150.235 3 158.643 3 181.100 3 207.999 3 204.022 3 172.118
2
20 Warangal 137.822 3 156.610 3 124.990 2 158.698 2 161.914 2 165.968
2
21 Cuddapah 128.443 2 131.335 2 141.900 2 136.002 2 149.321 2 152.025
2
22 Nizamabad 108.630 2 122.532 2 129.100 2 137.006 2 141.087 2 146.416
2
23 Hyderabad 31.576 1 13.693 0 46.000 1 54.999 1 92.647 1 53.363 1
Total 5151.643 100
5521.476 100
5813.74
4
100
6583.16
5
100
6958.81
0
100
7256.8
3
100
Source: Sample Survey reports of Department of Animal Husbandry , AP
3.2.3 The Department of Animal Husbandry (DAH) is providing veterinary health
cover through 4976 veterinary institutions (Table.4) in the State, 197 in Prakasam
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
11/78
11
and 302 in Chittoor district. The number of adult cattle units covered by each
veterinary graduate institution is 9733 and by including rural livestock units the
coverage will be 4100. Similar pattern was observed in study districts also. The state
has 3 veterinary colleges, one each at Hyderabad, Tirupati and Gannavaram. Thereis one Veterinary Biological Research Institute in the state which produces 11 different
types of bacterial / viral livestock vaccines and supplies to veterinary institutions.
Overall, in the State AI services are being provided through 4792 AI centres of DAH
and also through 1791 Gopalmitras, 150 centres of JK Trust {100 in Chittoor and 50
in Anantapur), 49 BAIF centres {Mahabubnagar, Anantapur, Karimnagar,
Hyderabad-Nalgonda and Warangal districts} and 224 Dairy Coop. Centres. During
2004-05, 11 lakh calves were born in the state, 1.5 lakh calves in Chittoor dominatedby Crossbreds and 0.5 lakh in Prakasam district dominated by buffalos (Table.5). The
success rate of AI is 37% in the state, and 34.5% in the study districts.
Table.4. Coverage and no. of veterinary institutions in Andhra Pradesh
and study districts (As on 31.3. 2004)
Districts
No. of Veterinary Institutions
Catering to Veterinary Aid
No. of Technical
Persons Employed in
Veterinary InstitutionsVeterinary
Poly
Clinics
Veterinary
Hospitals
Veterinary
Dispensaries
Rural
Livestock
Units Total
Deputy
Directors
Assistant
Directors
Veterinary
Assistant
Surgeons
Prakasam 1 9 90 97 197 1 17 96
Chittoor 1 15 99 187 302 3 24 107
Andhra
Pradesh 22 282 1793 2879 4976 30 390 1626Source: Sample Survey reports of Department of Animal Husbandry , AP
Table.5 Livestock Development Services Provided in Andhra Pradeshand study districts ( as on 31st March, 2004)
Districts No. of
Castra-
tionsDone
No. of
Vaccina-
tionsDone
Artificial Inseminations Done
(No.)
Calves Born (No.)
Exotic Indige-
Nous
Murrah Total Exotic Indige
-
nous
Murrah Total
No. of
Artificial
Insemin-
ation
Centres
Area
Brought
UnderFodder
Develop
-ment
(In
Acres)
Prakasam 44148 2421443 987 2449 1 31554 134990 266 784 45264 46314 192 84982
Chittoor 79455 3922311 382046 2 29250 411298 133360 - 10320 143680 301 54501
AndhraPradesh
1358133
70247518
846257
163439
1951846
2961542
304715 52360
661854
1118929 4792
1313073
Source: Sample Survey reports of Department of Animal Husbandry , AP
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
12/78
12
3.2.4 Fodder shortage is a major impediment for dairy development in the state. Only
3% of the geographical area (7.79 lakh hectares) is under permanent pasture and
grazing land against recommended 8%. The dry matter requirement, availability and
gap has been estimated by the department of animal husbandry as 50.32 million
tons, 40.31 million tons and 10.01 million tons respectively. Similar trend exists in the
study districts also.
3.2.5 Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Co-operative Federation ltd.(APDDCF) is
providing milk marketing support to dairy farmers in the state through 9 milk unions
and direct federation units. The federation and district unions procure 37.24 crore
litres of milk per annum through a network of 456 milk routes, 9154 milk collection
centres covering 10249 villages. Total milk processing capacity created in the state is
29 LLPD under co-operative sector and 14 LLPD under private sector (Table. 6).
About 19% of the milk produced in the state is procured by the organized sector.
Among the private dairies, majority of them are working in Chittoor and Prakasam
districts collecting nearly 70% of procurement of organized sector. The major private
dairies existing in Prakasam district are Jersey, creamline, Ravileela, Tirumala, Dodla,
etc. and in Chittoor district are Heritage and Jersey.
Table.6 Dairy Plants Registered under MMPO in Andhra Pradesh
(Capacity ' 000 litres per Day)
Registering Authority
Cooperative Private Others Total
No.CapacityNo.CapacityNo.CapacityNo.Capacity
Central Authority 13 2905 6 855 1 200 20 3960
State Authorities 0 0 9 588 0 0 9 588
Total 13 2905 15 1443 1 200 29 4548Source: DAHD, GoI, 2006
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
13/78
13
IV General Profile of Study districtsThe demographic profile and land use pattern of the study districts is furnished in the
table.7 (Census 2001). The population density is less in Prakasam district (173) than
Chittoor. In many developmental fronts, i.e.in respect of litreacy, urbanization, net
irrigated area, net sown area, rain fall, cropping intensity, etc., Performance of Chittoor
district is better than Prakasam district. Both the districts are predominantly
dependent on agriculture for livelihoods. Of the total households, 61% in Chittoor
and 70% in Prakasam district are dependent on farming. About 44% of total area is
under cultivation and 74 % of farmers in Prakasam are having less than 2 ha of land
holding. Similar pattern (42% of area and 71 % of farmers) was observed in Chittoor
also (PLPs, NABARD). How ever, the area under irrigation specifically under canal
irrigation was more in Prakasam than in Chittoor (Table 7). The major crops grown in
Chittoor district are Paddy, groundnut, sugarcane, mango, Banana, Citrus fruits and
in Prakasam district are Tobacco, Paddy, Bajra, Maize, Ragi, Bengalgram, Redgram,
Blackgram, Greengram, subabul, Cotton, Chillies, Mango, Guava, Sapota, Cashew
and other forestry species.
Table. 7 Profile of the study districts
Item Units Chittoor PrakasamArea Sq.km. 15152 17626
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
14/78
14
Population In Thousands 3735.2 3054.94
Male In Thousands 1883.45 1549.89
Female In Thousands 1851.75 1505.05
Urban In Thousands 810.01 466.7
Rural In Thousands 2925.18 2588.23Population Growth (decadal) % 14.54 10.72
Population Density (Persons/Sq.Km) 247 173
Litreacy % 67.46 57.86
Male % 78.29 69.78
Female % 56.48 45.6
Urbanisation % 19.8 16.45
Agro-climatic Region & Zone Zone XI - EastCoast Plainsand Hills Region
, SouthernScarce RainfallZone.
Rain fall Normal (mm)Actual (mm)-during 2004-05
908699
872586
Geographical area Lakh ha. 15.15 17.14
Net Sown area and its % to totalgeographical area Lakh ha. 3.51(23%) 5.38 (31%)
Forest area coverage Lakh ha. 4.51(29%) 4.43 (22%)
Fallow land Lakh ha. 2.88 3.11
Land not available for cultivation Lakh ha. 4.24 4.49
Cropping Intensity % 113 106
Net Irrigated area and its % to Netsown area Lakh ha. 1.31(37%) 1.22(22%)
By canals (in ha): Ha 677 44000
% to Net irrigated area % 1 33
By wells/Filter Points etc (in ha): Ha 115,146 68000
% to Net irrigated area % 88 52
By Tanks and lift irrigation (inha): Ha 15570 20000
% to Net irrigated area % 12 15Source: Aponline.gov.in
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
15/78
15
V. Socio-economic profile of sample respondents
The data were collected from 200 farmers each from Prakasam and Chittoor from the
villages and mandals as mentioned in Table 8. The selection was done using simple
systematic random sampling technique.
Table.8 Details of mandals and villages
S.No. Name of the
district
Name of the
Mandal
Name of Village
1 Chittoor Penumuru
Yadamari
Atlavaripalli, Balijapalli,Pedarajulapalli, Jattigundlapalli,Maniyanampalli, Sanyasipalli
Yadamuru, Bondaluru,V a r a d a r a j u l a p a l l i ,Bandivandavallavuru
2 Prakasam Santhanuthanapadu
Jarugumalli
Mungamooru, Indluru,Pernimitta, Mynampadu andChallappalem
Jarugumalli, Chintalaplaem,K.Bitragunta, Cherrikurapalem andDavagudur
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
16/78
16
5.1 Age-wise and category-wise classification of sample :
Among the respondents, 34% belonged to the age group of 41-50 years in Prakasam
followed by age group 51-60, 31-40, above 61 and 21-30 (Table.9). In Chittoor also
the maximum number of farmers were in the age group of 41-50 years. Table.10
shows that 5% of sample farmers were women farmers in Prakasam district and only
2% of sample farmers were women farmers in Chittoor district. These female farmers
are mostly heading the families when the male counterpart is not existing or not in a
position to take care of family. Further, in very few families (1%) the women being
SHG members, assets like land, house and livestock are on their name. Three and
half & 6.0% of the sample dairy farmers belonged to Agricultural Labour (AL) category
in Chittoor and Prakasam districts respectively: Similarly 28.0 & 17.5% to Marginal
Farmer (MF), 35.5 & 26.0% to Small Farmer(SF), 28.0 & 31.5% to Medium Farmer
(Med.F), and 5.0 & 19.0% to Big Farmer(BF) categories in Chittoor & Prakasam
respectively. Thus chittoor district has higher concentration of Agricultural Labour
(AL), Marginal Farmer (MF) and Small Farmer (SF) category accounting for 67.0% of
the sample dairy farmers while the corresponding figure for prakasam district is only50.0%
Table.9 Age-wise and Category-wise classification of the sample respondents
Category of farmers (no.)
District Age Marginal
Farmer
Small
farmer
Medium
Farmer
Big
farmer
Agriculture
labourer
Total
Prakasam21-30 0 4 4 3 2 13
31-40 3 10 18 9 3 43
41-50 17 20 19 10 2 6851-60 14 13 13 6 5 51
Above 61 1 5 9 10 0 25
Total 35 52 63 38 12 200
% to total 18 26 32 19 7 100
Chittoor 21-30 2 7 1 1 1 12
31-40 18 19 15 0 0 52
41-50 25 15 21 3 2 66
51-60 7 18 9 3 4 41
Above 61 4 12 10 3 0 29
Total 56 71 56 10 7 200
% to total 28 36 28 5 4 100
Source: Data collected from Study districts
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
17/78
17
Table .10. Gender classification of sample
N-400
Category of farmers (%)
District Sex Marginal
Farmer
Small
farmer
Medium
Farmer
Big
farmer
Agriculture
labourer
Total
PrakasamMale 10 25 30 25 5 95
Female 1 1 2 1 5
Chittoor Male 28 33 28 5 4 98
Female 0 2 0 0 0 2
Source: Data collected from Study districts
5.2 Educational status of sample dairy farmers:
The percentage of farmers who can read and write were 54% in Prakasam and 69%
in Chittoor district and the trend was similar to educational status shown in census
(Table.7). The big and medium farmers were more educated than the other category
of dairy farmers in both the districts.
Table. 11. Educational status of sample farmers
N=200 eachCategory of farmers (%)
District Litreacy level Marginal
Farmer
Small
farmer
Medium
Farmer
Big
farmer
Agriculture
labourer
Total
Prakasam Illitreate 5 13 13 8 5 43
Read and Write 4 13 18 17 2 54
Graduate & Above 1 3 3
Chittoor Illitreate 12 8 5 2 27
Read and Write 15 26 21 4 2 69
Graduate & Above 1 1 1 1 4
Source : Data collected from Study districts
5.3 Occupational status of sample dairy farmers:The primary occupation of 91% and 83% of all categories of farmers in Prakasam and
Chittoor respectively was agriculture and practicing dairying as secondary
occupation. However, the primary occupation in respect of majority of marginal (23
and 34% of marginal farmers in Prakasam and Chittoor) and small farmers (around
8% in both the districts) was not agriculture and they were working as labourers in
neighbours fields or in industries. The trend was on higher side in Chittoor than in the
Prakasam district. Whenever they are working as field labour the landlord allowed
them taking fodder grass for their cattle.Table.12 Occupational status of sample dairy farmers
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
18/78
18
Category of farmers (%)
District Primary
Occupation
Marginal
Farmer
Small
farmer
Medium
Farmer
Big
farmer
Agriculture
labourer
Total
Prakasam Farming 7 23 32 27 1 91
Non-Farming 1 1Labour 2 2 4 8
Chittoor Farming 19 33 27 5 83
Labour 10 3 1 4 17
Source: Data collected from Study districts
5.3 Land holding pattern
The average landholding of individual farmer in the study area was 0.60 and 4.37
acres under irrigated and Rainfed areas in Prakasam district and corresponding
figures for Chittoor were 1.27 and 0.86 acres, respectively. The average land holding
per farmer under rainfed conditions was higher in Prakasam than in Chittoor district in
respect of all categories of the farmers (Table.13).
Table.13 Landholding pattern of sample dairy farmers
Prakasam District Chittoor District Total
category/land in acres IrrigatedRainfed Total IrrigatedRainfed Total IrrigatedRainfed Total
Marginal Farmer 0.00 0.95 0.95 0.29 0.48 0.77 0.21 0.61 0.82
Small farmer 0.10 2.30 2.40 1.20 0.58 1.78 0.74 1.30 2.04
Medium Farmer 0.20 3.81 4.02 2.03 1.42 3.45 1.06 2.69 3.75
Big farmer 1.93 9.2511.1
8 3.86 2.36 6.21 2.24 8.1310.3
7
Agri .labourer 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.33 1.33
Total 0.60 4.37 4.97 1.27 0.86 2.13 0.94 2.62 3.55Source : Data collected from Study districts
5.4 Cropping pattern in the study area
The farmers of Prakasam district mainly grow Bengal gram (25%), Tobacco (18%),
Subabul (12%), Paddy (12%), Jowar (5%), social forestry species, vegetables and
fruits (Table.14) and in Chittoor they grow Groundnut, (48%) Sugarcane (25%),
Jowar (13%) and Paddy (3%). Further, 66% of the farmers in Prakasam and 45% of
the farmers in Chittoor are following multiple cropping patterns i.e. growing more than
one crop in a season. The average yield per acre and acreage per farmer for major
crops grown (as primary crop) is furnished below in the table.14. Thus the cropping
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
19/78
19
pattern is more livestock friendly in Prakasam (paddy, jowar, pulses, Subabul) district
as well as in Chittoor district (paddy, jowar, groundnut). The production system is
highly dependent on home grown feeds, fodders and crop residues. Farmers in the
study area are cultivating many green fodder varieties like fodder Jowar, NB21,pillipesara and Paragrass. However, the percentage of the farmers who are growing
green fodder is 6.0% & 4.5% in Prakasam and Chittoor districts respectively.
Table.14 Cropping pattern in the study districts
District Name of the crop
Kharif Rabi
Average
Acereage
/farmer
Yield per
acre
(quintals)
Average
Acereage/
farmer
Yield per
acre
(quintals)
% of total of
farmers
PrakasamPaddy/Rice 1.39 21.00 0.25 2.81 12.0
Jowar 0.76 12.13 0.60 10.43 5.0
Subabul ( Perrennial) 2.41 187.94 12.0
Tobacco 2.65 56.67 2.13 31.94 18.0
Bengal Gram 1.22 7.80 1.36 9.00 25.0
Jute 2.25 3.50 0.00 0.00 1.5
N.B.21 4.00 300.00 0.00 0.00 0.5
Paragrass 0.25 40.00 0.20 0.00 0.5
Fodder Jowar 0.28 42.00 0.15 0.00 12.00
Orange 2.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 1.5
Vegetables 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.5
Eucalyptus Trees 2.50 132.50 0.00 0.00 2.0
Sapota 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.5
Chittoor Paddy/Rice 1.25 46.25 0.13 3.75 3.0
Jowar 0.76 9.12 0.00 0.00 11.0
Red Gram 0.30 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.5Ground Nut 1.25 3.96 0.00 0.00 48.0
N.B.21 0.50 150.00 0.00 0.00 0.5
F.Jowar 0.35 45.00 0.25 39 2.0
APBN 1.33 117.33 0.00 0.00 2.0
Sugar Cane 1.54 215.07 0.00 0.00 25.0
Malbari 0.00 0.00 2.00 1500.00 0.5Source : Data collected from Study districts
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
20/78
20
VI. Management Practices and Profitability of Dairy
Farming in Study Districts
6.1 Livestock holding pattern and Yield:
In general, the Prakasam district has buffalo based dairy farming system and Chittoor
has crossbred (CB) cow based dairy system. Table.15 shows that about 39% of
farmers in Chittoor were rearing 2 CB cows on an average followed by 3-5 CB cows
(36%). Only 8% of the farmers were rearing more 5 animals. The majority of farmers
(57%) holding of CB cows yielding in the range of 5-6 litres per day and only 10% of
the farmers were holding the CB cows yielding more than 10lit. In Prakasam also 44%
of the farmers were holding 2 graded buffalos, 12% farmers have more than 3
buffalos and 19% were having single graded buffalos. The majority of the farmers
(63%) were getting a yield of 5-6 lit / day/animal. Only 6% of the farmers possessed
the graded buffalos yielding 10-12 lit / day. The average productivity of milk for AL,
MF, SF, Med.F, and BF is 3 & 4, 5 & 4, 5 & 6, 7 & 8, and 5 & 10 litres per day for
buffalo in prakasam and CB cows in chittoor district respectively. Thus in both the
districts the germ plasm was of good quality resulting from either cross breeding or
up-gradation. Culling is a precondition for milk productivity enhancement and it is
practiced in Chittoor. Dairy farmers are ingenious, progressive and enterprising in the
district that no sooner the animal productivity decreased, than they would replace with
other quality animal.
Usually farmers were retaining young female animals (70% of farmers) and only 33%
of the farmers were rearing young male animals. The male young ones were usually
disposed off within a year age. Field study reveals that none of the farmers were
maintaining bullocks or bulls in both the districts and hiring tractors for ploughing.
Though the Prakasam district is a home tract of world famous Ongole breed, very few
of the sample farmers were holding these Ongole cattle, either cows or bulls or
bullocks. Apart from dairy animals, 7% of farmers in Chittoor and 3% of farmers in
Prakasam were rearing other livestock like sheep, goat and poultry. The details of
livestock holding pattern is furnished below in the table.15. The category wise
livestock holding was provided in table 16, where the frequency of holding a pair of
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
21/78
21
milch animals is more in prakasam with 62% of the farmers and 32% of the farmers in
chittoor obtaining two animal dairy unit.
Table.15 Livestock holding pattern
Particulars Prakasam Chittoor
No. of
animals
Yield in lit/
animal/day
No. of
animals
Yield in lit/
animal/day
Indigenous cows - - 1 (3%) 3 4 (3%)Crossbred cows - - 1 (10%)
2 (39%)3-5 (36%)>5 (8%)
5-6 lit (57%)7-8 lit (26%)>10 lit (10%)
Buffalos local 1 (14%)2 (4 %)3 (3%)
1-2 lit (12%)3-4 lit (8%)
- -
Graded buffalos 1 (19%)2 (44%)3-5 (12%)
5-6 lit (63%)7-8 lit (9%)9-12lit (6%)
2 (2%) 8 (2%)
Young stock
Local buffalos
male1(14%)2 (6%)
- - -
Local buffalos
female
1 (26%)
2 (11%)
- - -
Graded buffalos
male1 (13)2 (1%)
- - -
Graded buffalos
female1 (28%)2 (13%)
- 2 (1%) -
Sheep > 20 (0.7%) - 20 (0.7%)
-
Goat >10 (2%) - >10 (2%) -Poultry - - B ackya rd
(2%)
-
Figures in parenthesis indicate the percentage farmers responded under that category
Source : Data collected from Study districts
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
22/78
22
Table.16 Category-wise large animal holding pattern
Percentage of farmers responded
No. of animals Marginal farmers Small farmers Medium farmers Big farmers AL Total
Chittoor1 14 6 1 21
2 10 11 8 1 2 32
3 1 9 6 16
4 2 4 6 1 1 14
5 & more 1 6 6 3 1 17
Prakasam
1 4 6 2 4 1 17
2 10 15 24 9 4 62
3 4 3 4 3 1 15
4 & more 2 2 3 1 8
6.2 Management practices followed by dairy farmers instudy districts
6.2.1 Breeding efficiency
The age at first calving (AFC) and intercalving period is considered to be a good
indicator/ parameter among the management practices adopted by farmers. Majority
of the farmers (53%) responded that the dairy animals calved first time at the age of 3years (53%) followed by 2 years (41%) and 4 years (2%) in Chittoor (Table.17), While
in Prakasam, majority of the farmers reported that the age of first calving was 4 years
in respect of local buffalos (13%) as well as graded buffalos (43%). Further, 10% of
the farmers faced reproductive problems and AFC increased to 5 years. In respect of
intercalving period 69% of farmers in Chittoor reported that the calving interval was up
to 1.5 years (table.17). Similar trend was observed in Prakasam also (60%). AFC as
well as calving interval indicated that medium and big farmers were taking care of theanimals well in Prakasam, while in Chittoor it was by small and marginal farmers.
Table.17 Age at First Calving (AFC) of dairy animals Response of farmers
District Category Response of farmers (%) in
Chittoor
Response of farmers (%) in
PrakasamCrossbred cows Indigenous Local buffalos Graded buffalos
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
23/78
23
cows
Age at first
calving in years2years
3years
4years 3 years
3years
4years
5years
3years
4years
5years
PrakasamMarginal Farmer 2 4 1 4 6 3
Small farmer 3 4 1 6 11 2
Medium Farmer 2 4 1 8 14 3Big farmer 7 11 2
Agrilabourer 1 3 3 1
6 13 2 27 43 10
Chittoor Marginal Farmer 11 16 1 1
Small farmer 15 19 2
Medium Farmer 12 13 2 2
Big farmer 2 3
Agrilabourer 1 2
41 53 2 2 2
Source : Data collected from Study districts
Table.18 Calving Interval of dairy animals Response of farmers
Chittoor district Prakasam district
CB cows Local buff. Graded buff
Up to
1.5
year
1.5 to
2.5
years
Above 2.5
and up to
3.5
Up to
1.5
year
1.5 to
2.5
years
above
2.5
Up to
1.5
year
1.5 to
2.5
years
above
2.5
% of farmers
gave response 69 25 6 15 3 2 46 30 4
Category wise response
Marginal Farmer 21 7 2 2 1 6 5 2
Small farmer 26 5 2 3 1 12 8
Medium Farmer 16 9 4 6 1 16 8 1
Big farmer 4 1 2 1 10 6
Agrilabourer 2 3 1 2 3 1
69 25 6 14 4 2 46 30 4
Source : Data collected from Study districts
Further, 52% of sample respondents in Chittoor indicated that CB cows wereconceived with 1 service. Around 21% farmers reported to have faced reproductive
problems with CB cows i.e. the number of services per conception were more than 3.
The corresponding figures for Prakasam district were 44 and 7% in respect of graded
buffalos and 11 & 9% in respect of local buffalos. The reason for higher number of
services per conception in Prakasam district are : i) buffalos are seasonal breeders
compared to cows ii) Silent heat in buffalos -detection of heat is difficult resulting in
delayed AI leading to failure iii) Moreover, in the district, farmers are feeding their
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
24/78
24
animals entirely on Subabul which also causes reproductive problems iv) feeding
mainly with Paddy straw with out vitamin and mineral supplements also cause
reproductive failure.
6.2.2 Feeding practices
Usually dairy animals whether crossbred cow or graded buffaloe, they are fed with 20
kg of green fodder, 5 kg. of dry fodder and 1 2 kgs of concentrate feed for sustaining
the milk yield of 7 10 litres of milk. There can be variations and adjustments in the
quantity of feed among the types namely dry, green and grain residues / concentrate
feed ingredients. However, a thumb rule in dairy farming with regard to feeding is that
feeding green fodder at lib can sustain an average milk yield of 6-7 litres per day
without inclusion of either dry fodder or concentrate feed. Such a feeding has greater
benefits including the health of the animal, in addition to easy conception. The
metabolism of the animal is such that it adjusts the nutrients from the feed and fodder
resources accessed to the animal depending upon the availability and the
conveniences of the dairy farmers. Thus, in place of concentrates the farmers in
Prakasam and Chittoor fed with farm grown Bengal gram / rice bran and deoiled
groundnut cake and kuduthi which is a semi-liquid stored in either a big pot or a stony
structure. The kitchen waste, the food waste, vegetable cut waste, washings of the
food plates, the left over foods including the buttermilk, form a semi-liquid, nutritious,
delicious food cherished by the buffaloes inserting their jaws deep inside sucking and
enjoing the kudithi. Usually, rice bran of 200 400 grms. and little of salts is added
just before it is offered to the buffaloes. In lean season, the stalks and the dried stems
of these crops are fed to the animals duly adopting hay making practices.
6.2.2.1 Grazing practice: Grazing is a common practice i.e. 79% of farmers in
Prakasam and 70% of farmers in Chittoor send their animals for grazing. However it
is restricted to dry animals in Chittoor district. Generally animals in milk are not sent
for grazing in the first 4-5 months. The grazing hours varied from 4 to 10 hours i.e. 62
% of farmers in Chittoor sent the animals for grazing for 4-6 hours and 27% for 8-10
hours. While in Prakasam the reverse trend was observed. Further, grazing is a
common practice on individual basis. The grazing opportunity is more in Chittoor than
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
25/78
25
in Prakasam due to the presence of green cover round the year on arable,
uncultivated lands and orchards due to the activity of both the south west and north
east monsoons, although the total quantity of rain fall is less. Thus even less time on
grazing in Chittoor gives enough grass to the animal. Seventy percent of the farmersof Chittoor indicated that the fodder banks run by Department of Animal Husbandry
during drought period were very much useful (supply feed and fodder & checkup for
diseases) and 11% expressed that fodder banks were not useful because of long
distance. In Prakasam the fodder banks were not established and farmers purchased
paddy straw @ Rs. 50 per bundle (apx. 25 kg) from neighbouring Nellore district
during drought period.
6.2.2.2 Fodder: The common green fodder fed to dairy animals were Jowar, wild
green grass in Chittoor and Jowar (10%) and Subabul (22% of farmers) in Prakasam
district. Only 4 - 6% of the farmers were growing fodder species like NB21,
Pillipesara, etc. in the study area. About 40% of Chittoor farmers were feeding green
fodder @ 10 kg per day per animal. Where as in Prakasam, majority of farmers (53%)
were feeding only 10 kg green fodder per day. In both the districts the common dry
fodder is paddy straw, which was stored out of paddy crop after harvesting and usedthrough out the year. As mentioned in previous para Prakasam district was reeling
under drought for last 3 years and farmers were purchasing paddy straw to feed the
animals. The majority of farmers were feeding their dairy animals with 5 kg of dry
fodder per day in addition to the green grass either collected or grazed along with
concentrate ingredients.
6.2.2.3 Concentrates : The common concentrate ingredients used were ground nut
cake and rice bran and usage of ingredients was mostly coinciding with cropping
pattern. As could be seen from table 14, majority of the farmers in chittoor district were
growing groundnut, the de-oiled cake of which is used as rich source of protein for
sustaining high productivity levels. Similarly Bengal gram, Rice bran and subabul are
used in prakasam district. The quantity of primary concentrate (Table 18) ingredient
fed was on lower side (37% of farmers in Chittoor and 30% of farmers in Prakasam
fed less than 1 kg of concentrate). Apart from this, 25% of the farmers in Prakasam
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
26/78
26
and 35% of farmers in Chittoor are feeding more than one concentrate item which
include rice bran (around 200 grams), seed coat (300-400 gms). About 7% of farmers
in Chittoor and 43% of farmers in Prakasam district were not feeding any concentrate
(Table 19). The reason for feeding of no or lower amount of concentrates in Prakasamby majority of the farmers could be i). Prakasam district dominated by buffalos based
dairy farming, which are efficient converters of crop residues ii). The milk yield was
lower than 4 lit per day in respect of 30% of the farmers iii) Green and dry fodder
without concentrate can support easily an animal yielding up to 4-5 li t of milk per day.
Over all Buffalo dominant farming systems are found to be efficient converters of crop
waste of inferior quality of these straws (crop residues) in supporting the livelihoods of
the dairy farmers compared to the cow dominant farming system.
The feeding practice followed in a household was a combination of ingredients in
ration, in general, feeding pattern per animal in milk is as follows:.
Chittoor Prakasam
Quantity Quantity
Groundnut(deoiled) Cake 2-3 kgs/day 1 3Kgs
Bran 1-3 kgs/day 100 gms 200 gms.
Black/Bengal/Greengram seed coat 0.5 1.5 kg/day 200 gms 300 gmsGreen Fodder 10-20 kgs/day 10-25 kgs/day
Paddy/Jowar straw 5 kgs/day 5-10 kgs/day
In both the dairy dominant farming systems, the value addition of the crop wastes
(crop residue, grain residue, stalks and hovers), kitchen wastes, and labour wastes
(infirm, aged, and women members etc) are adding to the income and food security in
normal years. Majority of the farmers are growing bengal gram and ground nut in the
study area. The stalks, seed coat of bengal gram and stalks, kernels of ground nut
and deoiled cake are excellent sources of Total Digestible Nutrients (TDN) and
Digestible Crude Protein (DCP).
6.2.2.4 : Feeding vitamin and mineral mixture :About 8% of Prakasam and 11% of
Chittoor farmers were always feeding vitamin and mineral mixture while 43% and
65% of farmers respectively were not yet all feeding vitamin and mineral mixture. The
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
27/78
27
main sources of purchase of vitamin and mineral mixture was Shop (for 33% of
respondents in both the districts) followed by dairy cooperative society (DCS) (for
12% of Prakasam farmers and 1% of Chittoor farmers) and private dairy (for 2 % of
Prakasam farmers and 12% of Chittoor farmers). Occasionally when the animals wassick, farmers get the vitamin and mineral mixture from veterinary dispensary at free of
cost. The cost of 500 gm pack was Rs. 25 at DCS and Rs. 42 at veterinary medical
shop.
Overall Quantitative and qualitative insufficiency of feeds and green fodder at
small/marginal farmer level had been the biggest impediment in exploiting genetic
potential of the dairy animals in existing farming system in both the districts. Farmers
are not aware of benefit of growing and feeding of Azolla rather feeding beer extract /
residue. The production cost of Azolla is only half rupee per kg. which is cost
effective and brings down the production costs drastically. It is rich in the critical
amino acids that are absent in normal feeds.
Table.19 Feeding pattern by dairy farmers in study districts
% of farmers responded
Chittoor Prakasam
Concentrate feeding (kg/day/animal) 0
0.
5 1 2 3
4 &
above Total 0
0.
5 1 2 3
4 &
above Total
None 7 713 13
Rice Bran 1 1 1 3 6 6 810 2 4 30
Groundnut Cake 722
13
22 15 60 6 7 8
21 10 52
Bengal Gram 3 1 1 5
Sead Coat 1 1 1 3 1 1 2
D.Oil Cake 3
1
0 4 1 18Maize Powder 1 1 1
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
28/78
28
Sesame cake 1 1
Coconut cake 2 2
Beer pottu1
1 11
Total 7 11
3
6
2
1
2
4 21
1
3 15
1
5
1
9
2
3 15Green fodder feeding (kg/day/animal)
10
1
5
2
0
2
5 30 Total 10 15
2
0
2
5 30 Total
No response14 14
10 10
Green Grass 9 416 1 1 32 21 3 4 44
Jowar 10 111 22 10 12
10 1 17
Paragrass 1 1 1 1 2
N.B.21 1 7 5 1 1 15 1 1
APBN 6 2 7 15 0Cowpea(Pillipesara) 1 1 1 1
Subabul 22 2 1 25
Total14 26
13
40 4 3 100
10 53 18
16 0 3 100
Dry fodder feeding (kg/day/animal)
5
1
0
1
5 20 Total 5 10
1
5
2
0 Total
No response 36 3618 18
Paddy Straw40
15 6 3 64 37 31 7 6 81
Jowar straw 1 1
Total 3640
15 6 3 100
18 37 31 8 6 100
Source : Data collected from Study districts
6.2.3. Housing for dairy animals
Study data reveals that 64% and 75% of farmers of Prakasam and Chittoor,
respectively have shed for dairy animals. Of this, 80% of the farmers had
thatched shed and 19% have the shed with asbestos roof irrespective of
category of farmers (marginal, small, medium or big farmer). The average cost
for thatched shed for 2 animals was Rs. 3800 in Chittoor and Rs.4200 in
Prakasam district and it would double, if it was of asbestos roof. Farmers
constructed the sheds 2 years back in Prakasam (28%) and Chittoor (37%).
Specially, for thatched shed, the roof was repaired or put a new roof every 3-4
years depending on the condition of roof and also weather conditions. The
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
29/78
29
animal shed is near by the residence of the majority of the farmers (84% in
Prakasam and 88% in Chittoor) and only 5% of farmers constructed shed at
the place of agriculture fields. In both the districts 48% of farmers indicated that
the cleanliness of the shed is important and were cleaning the shed daily.
6.2.4 Animal Health management
6.2.4.1 Veterinary Services: Veterinary dispensary (either Rural Livestock
Unit or veterinary institution headed by a veterinarian) is available to 70% of
farmers in Prakasam and 79% of Farmers in Chittoor district with in 2 km.
range. Another 28% and 20% of farmers of Prakasam and Chittoor respectivelyindicated that the veterinary facilities are available in the range of 3 to 5 kms.
Rest 2-3% of farmers have to travel more than 5 km to visit a veterinary centre.
As mentioned in the para 3.2.3, each Rural Livestock Unit (RLU not headed by
a veterinarian) in Prakasam and Chittoor district covered around 5400 and 5300
animal units, respectively. There is a urgent need to upgrade the RLUs in to
veterinary dispensary (hospital with a veterinarian) to provide efficient services
and also to improve productivity. Usually the RLUs vaccinate the livestock and
treat the animals and all major cases will be referred to Vet.
Dispensary/Vet.polyclinic. It was reported (Table.19)that the frequency of
vaccination was more in Chittoor compared to Prakasam and the same
reflected in frequency of treatment for dairy animals by the farmers. The
animals were commonly vaccinated with Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD)and
Haemorrhagic Septicaemia (HS). Compared to Prakasam, very few farmers got
their animals treated more than 3 times in Chittoor. However, the farmers of
Prakasam incurred more expenditure (Rs.397) on animal health management
than the Chittoor farmers (Rs. 227) (Table 21&22). The cost incurred for
treatment varied from Rs. 100 to Rs. 2000 with high frequency falling between
Rs. 200 to Rs. 600. The medium (Rs. 296 and Rs.430 in Chittoor & Prakasam)
and big farmers (Rs.450 and Rs.588 in Chittoor & Prakasam) incurred more
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
30/78
30
expenditure than the other categories of farmers (Table.21& 22). Farmers
reported to have encountered the common diseases in dairy animals like
Anorexia, Pyrexia, Mastitis, Food and Mouth Diseases (FMD), Constipation,
Diarrohea, etc.,
Table 20. Frequency of vaccination and treatment
Percentage of farmersresponded forfrequency of
Vaccinations in a year
Percentage of farmersresponded for
frequency of Treatmentin a year
No. of times Prakasam Chittoor Prakasam Chittoor
0 1 6 2 37
1 71 1 1 6
2 28 60 30 24
3 0 29 35 154 0 4 15 7
5 13 6
6 4 5
Source: Data collected from Study districts
Table.21 Cost of treatment for dairy animals
Treatment cost
Percentage of
farmers incurred the
expenditure
Rs./animal/year Prakasam Chittoor
0 7 38100 4 4
200 11 20
300 21 17
400 16 8
500 23 7
600 11 2
700 2 1
800 3 1
1000 1 1
1500 1 1Source : Data collected from Study districts
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
31/78
31
Table.22 Category-wise average cost of treatment for dairy animals
Avg. Cost in Rs./animal
District/ Category Chittoor Prakasam
Marginal Farmer 184 315
Small Farmer 262 332Medium Farmer 296 430
Big farmer 450 588
Agri. labourer 136 390
Total 227 397
Source: Data collected from Study districts
6.2.4.2 Breeding services: Regarding breeding services, most of the dairy farmers
in Chittoor preferred Artificial insemination (AI) to natural service for their dairy
animals. Where as in Prakasam, 33% of farmers took their dairy animals for natural
service due to a strong belief on it and rest 66% farmers preferred AI for their animals.
All the animals were inseminated with Murrah breed in Prakasam district and 91% of
animals in Chittoor inseminated with Jersey and rest with Holstein Friesian ( HF). The
Department of animal husbandry in both the districts charged Rs. 20 per AI, DCS
charged Rs. 25 per AI, private person charged Rs. 50 per calf born and for natural
service, the cost was Rs. 50 per service. In Chittoor all most all the farmers reported
satisfied with the breeding services available in their area, but in Prakasam 41% of
farmers were not satisfied. The reasons for dissatisfaction were infertility problems,
repeat breeding, irregular attendance by veterinary hospital staff, lack proximity to
veterinary hospital and, not posting veterinary doctor. The reasons for satisfaction
were breed improvement, proximity of hospital to village and good cooperation &
availability of veterinary staff.
6.2.4.3 Farmers perceptions about choice of veterinary services: In
Chittoor district 99% of the farmers preferred AI for their animals reason
mentioned was breed upgradation for better yield (46%), faith on AI (25%) and
nearness (20%). Where as in Prakasam 74% of the farmers preference was
AI to Natural Service (NS), reason mentioned was breed up-gradation for
higher yield (26%) and nearness (24%). Further, 26% of the farmers
preference was for NS (49%) and the reason mentioned was the belief on it.
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
32/78
32
6.2.5 Mortality
As per the study, 20% of farmers in Prakasam and 24% of farmers in Chittoor
reported average mortality of an animal in a year. FromTable 22 it can be interpreted
that the loss in value up to Rs.1000 indicated the mortality in young animals below 6
months, Rs. 1001 to 5000 indicated the mortality of young animals more than 6
months but less than 2 years, and Rs. 5000 above indicated the mortality of adult
animals. Thus mortality among adults is more than the young animals. The disease
pattern and other reasons indicated in Table 23 also revealed the same.
Table.23 Average loss in value (Rs.) due to mortality per annum per farmer
No. of farmers responding
Margi
nal
Farm
er
Small
farmer
Medium
Farmer
Big
farmer
Agri
labourer
Total
Prakasam Up to 1000 2 3 5
1001 to 5000 1 2 2 1 6
5001 to 10000 1 1 3 5
10001 to 15000 3 4 4 11
Total 27Chittoor Up to 1000 3 2 3 1 9
1001 to 5000 2 1 3 1 7
5001 to 10000 2 3 1 6
10001 to 15000 1 5 2 2 1 11
Total 33
Source: Field data ; N= 200 in Prakasam and N=200 in Chittoor
Table.24 Reasons for mortality
Reasons for mortality
No. of farmers
respondedPrakasam Chittoor
High Fever 2 1
Ascariasis 7 3
Protozoan diseases 1 2
Due to Injury 2 1
Died due to Snake Bite 1 3
Haemorrhagic Septiceamia. 8 7
Died due to viral Fever 1 7
Calf Dead in Rainy Season 1
Fallen in the Mud Canal and died 1
Suffered with Nervous Weakness 2Jaundice 1
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
33/78
33
Died due to Mad Dog Bite 1
Bloat 1 2
Worms 1 1
Died due to Brain Fever 1
Tetanus to Calf 1
Died due to eating of Poisonous fodder 1
Total 27 33
% to total no. of farmers 20% 24%Source : Field data ; N= 200 in Prakasam and N=200 in Chittoor
6.2.6 Level of adoption of technology and awareness:
The level of adoption varied from district to district. The awareness levels were
higher among the farmers of Chittoor than the farmers of Prakasam (Table.24).
In all aspects, practicing of technology to the advantage of farmers was more in
Chittoor compared to Prakasam i.e, usage of chaff cutter, milking machine,
BMCU, cream separator, teat dip, washing of udder before milking and
cleaning of shed and vaccination. Though the awareness levels were high, the
usage in practice was less in both the districts especially in respect of usage of
chaff cutter, milking machine, BMCU, cream separator and teat dip those are
cost intensive. The other reasons were given below:
Around 20 % of farmers opined that not useful for lesser number ofanimals and also for low yielders
Due to financial problems, 15% and 20% of farmers of Prakasam andChittoor were not inclined for these
15% of Chittoor farmers and 10% of Prakasam farmers indicated thatthey adopt these technologies if some incentive provided by governmentto purchase the instruments.
8% of Chittoor farmers felt that, these technologies can not be adoptedon a group basis due to management problems, lack of coordinationamong the farmers.
In respect of washing of udder before milking and cleaning of shed and vaccination,
more than 80% of farmers in both the districts were aware of the importance of these
parameters and majority of these were practicing because of higher milk yield,
hygiene & cleanliness and disease prevention. Further, 50% of the small & medium
farmers and 72% of big farmers were adopting these practices.
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
34/78
34
Table. 25. Level of adoption of technology
Technology Prakasam
% of farmers responded
(N=200)
Chittoor
% of farmers responded (N=200)
Aware Not
aware
Using Not
using
Aware Not
aware
Using Not
using
Chaff cutter 38 56 4 88 41 56 7 91
M i l k i n gmachine
29 76 0 90 27 69 1 96
BMCU 12 81 0 92 46 51 8 85
C r e a mseparator
7 86 0 93 26 57 2 80
Teat dip 10 81 1 89 35 42 10 66W a s h i n gudder
99 1 84 10 97 3 97 1
Cleaning ofshed*
75 7 46 10 100 0 100 0
B a l a n c eFeeding
79 13 29 56 94 3 94 3
Vaccination 98 2 80 12 99 1 99 1
Note: Total-(aware+notaware) and total-(using+notusing) gives the figure of
percentage of farmers did not respond
* 36 % of farmers in Prakasam do not have shedSource : Field Data collected from Study districts
6.3 Extension and veterinary services:
6.3.1 Generally Department of Animal Husbandry (DAH) or District Milk producers
Union provides the veterinary services including treatment of diseased animals,
infertility cases, castrations, AI Work and extension support. Apart from these, in
Chittoor, district private agencies like JK trust and BAIF also are providing these
services but the network is very thin. Free vaccination is provided by DAH and Milk
Unions in case of diseases like FMD and HS. As indicated in Table 4 the network of
veterinary hospitals was more in Chittoor than in Prakasam (97 RLUs, 90 veterinary
dispensaries, 9 veterinary hospitals and 1 veterinary polyclinic in Prakasam district
and 187 RLUs, 99 veterinary dispensaries, 15 veterinary hospitals and 1 veterinary
polyclinic in Chittoor district). Similarly the AI centres are also more in Chittoor (301)
than in Prakasam (192) district. As part of extension services, the DAH was
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
35/78
35
conducting fertility camps, supplying fodder seeds and slips, providing training in
livestock rearing at their farms and disseminating the information related to livestock
rearing in villages. Milk union provided similar facilities also through its functional
DCS. During last year DAH conducted 186 training programmes & 395 fertility capsin Prakasam district and milk union conducted more fertility camps (1033) and
demonstration(303) than DAH. Evan a private dairy conducted 120 fertility camps
and 80 exposure visits. Although multiple service providers are operating with their
vested interests, the problems of the farming community are not fully met. For
instance, the information on raising Azolla in the ponds is absent / inadequate. This
would reduce utilization of concentrated feeds. Perhaps, that might be the reason
why such useful messages are not passed on to the farming community. Raising ofAzolla doesnt require land: a pond size of 3m x 2m x 1m would suffice, which even
agricultural labourers could do.
6.3.2 The field data reveals that 99% of farmers of Chittoor and 77% of farmers of
Prakasam got the information related to dairy farming from various agencies like DCS,
DAH, private dairies, Gram Panchayat and neighboring farmers (table 26). In
Prakasam district, majority of the farmers (40%) got the required information from
DCS followed by DAH (26%), private dairy (4%), neighboring farmers (4%) and gram
panchayat (2%) while in Chittoor majority of the farmers (38%) got the required
information from DAH followed by private dairy (37%) and DCS (24%). In Chittoor
district, the information related to dairy was quite frequently passed on to the farmers
compared to Prakasam (Table.27). Regarding training, field data indicates that 95%
of farmers did not get any type of training in dairy farming and rest were taken to
exposure visits of 3 days duration by DCS (4%) and DAH & a private dairy (each 1%)
in Prakasam district and DAH (4%), Private dairy(2%) and DCS (1%) in Chittoor
district. About 63% of Prakasam farmers and 35% of Chittoor farmers were desired of
training in future in dairy farming.
Table.26. Extension service & Information provider
Information provider Percentage of farmers responded
Name of the agency Prakasam Chittoor Total
No response 24 24
DCS 40 24 63
DAH 26 38 18
Private Dairy 4 37 87
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
36/78
36
NeighbouringFarmers 4 1 5
Gram Panchayat 2 2
N = 200 200
Source : Field Data collected from Study districts
Table. 27 Frequency of information provision
Frequency of
informationPercentage of farmers responded
Prakasam Chittoor Total
No response 23 1 24
Quarterly 1 8 10
Monthly 47 24 71
Fortnightly 22 26 48
Weekly 7 41 48
N= 200 200 400
Source : Field Data collected from Study districts
6.4 Credit support to dairy farmers
The 11th Five Year Plan is poised with the concept of Financial Inclusion (FI). FI is a
strategy to include the underprivileged who are hitherto deprived of the banking
services. SHG banker linkage is also a programme in one way similar to FI which is
claimed to be a big success. As on 30-1-2006, 22 million SHG groups had been
formed with bank finance of Rs.10,631 crores under the programme.
The various credit sources in the districts for various purposes like crop production,
purchase of animals, children education, health and house hold purpose and working
capital are cooperative banks (Coop), commercial banks (CBs), regional rural banks
(RRBs), self-help groups (SHGs), moneylenders, relatives and private dairies. In total
35.5% of farmers of Prakasam and 38% of farmers of Chittoor availed credit (table
28). Cooperative bank provided credit to majority of farmers (26 nos.) in Prakasam
district followed by SHGs (22 nos.), Commercial banks (20 no.s) and private dairies
(13 nos.) while in Chittoor private dairies provided credit to majority of the farmers (28
no.s) followed by cooperative banks (20 no.), CBs (16 no.s) and RRBs (10 nos.).
Major purpose for which credit availed was for crop production and purchase of
animals. Farmers utilized the credit for other purposes like children education, health,
household expenditure, etc. Out of 71 farmers in Prakasam who availed credit, 68%
of them availed credit less than Rs. 20,000 (Table. 29) and the interest rate is 8
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
37/78
37
percent. In Chittoor also similar trend was observed. Only 16% and 18% of farmers
of Prakasam and Chittoor, respectively utilized the loan for purchase of animals.
Further, 11% more farmers availed loan for livestock along with crop loans in
Prakasam district.
The repayment period fixed by various banks for crop loans was 1 year and for other
investment loans, it was even 5 to 6 years. The defaulters percentage was more in
Prakasam (24%) than in Chittoor (2%). Field data showed that the loans were
rescheduled for an amount of Rs. 5000 for 3 years incase of 3 farmers in Prakasam
due to the draught and an average of Rs. 30000 was rescheduled in Chittoor for a
period of 5 years in respect of 13 farmers. The SHGs were collecting the loan from
members within 3 years period. In Prakasam district private dairies offered a loan of
Rs.10000 to dairy farmers with a repayment period of 6 months without any interest. If
the farmer pays back after 6 months, the interest changed on the loan was 16% per
annum. Dairy farmers in study area have suggested few of the measures (Table.30)
to remove indebtedness in rural areas and important among them are marketing
arrangements to get remunerative prices of milk as well as crop produce,
improvement in irrigation facilities and low cost or subsidized loans. About 7 and 3%of farmers of Prakasam and Chittoor also opined that social pressure through SHGs
would help in better recovery. Further, they (11%) opined that integrated or mixed
farming would help in removal of debt burden.
At macro level, as per the NSSO 59th Round, it is revealed that, out of 89.35 million
farm households, 43.42 million accounting for 48.6% were reported indebted.
Table. 28 Purpose-wise sources of credit
District Purpose and sources of credit Number of farmers availed credit facilities
Cooperativ
e banks
Commercia
l banks
Regiona
l rural
banks
SHG
sMoney
lenders
Relative
s
Privat
e
dairies
Total
No. of
farmers
availed
credit
Prakasam
Crops 19 13 3 5 3 6 49For Purchase of Animals 3 1 6 13 23
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
38/78
38
For Children Education 1 2 3
For Crops & Animals Purchase 3 4 8 15
For Medical &Health Purpose 1 0 1 2
Working Capital 1 1
26 20 3 22 3 6 13 71 (35.
ChittoorCrops 10 13 5 3 2 33
For Purchase of Animals 1 5 2 28 36
For household Expenditure 1 1
Working Capital 10 1 11
20 16 10 2 28 76 (38.
Source : Field Data collected from Study districts figures in the parenthesis indicate percentage
Table .29 Bank-wise and purpose-wise credit by dairy farmers
From cooperative banks
From CBs FromRRBs
From SHGs From
Moneylenders
RelativesFrom
Fro
mPrivatedairies
Up to Rs.10000
Up toRs.
20000
Rs.30000 to
50000
Up toRs.
100000
Up toRs.2000
00
Up toRs.
10000
Up toRs.
20000
Up toRs.
100000
Up toRs.
20000
Rs.30000 to
50000
Up toRs.
20000
Rs.30000
to50000
UptoRs.20000
UptoRs.10000
UptoRs.10000
Prakasam ( total 71 farmers availed credit from various sources
Crops 4 3 8 3 1 5 8 3 5 3 6
For Purchase ofAnimals 1 2 1 6 13
For ChildrenEducation 1 2
For Crops & AnimalsPurchase 3 4 8
For Medical &HealthPurpose 1 1
For householdExpenditure
Working Capital 1
Total 4 5 13 3 1 1 11 8 3 14 8 3 3 13% to farmers availedcredit (71 farmers) 5 7 18 4 1 1 15 11 4 20 11 4 4 18
Chittoor
Crops 4 1 4 1 1 5 7 2 3 3 2
For Purchase ofAnimals 1 5 2
For householdExpenditure 1
Working Capital 2 4 4 1
T total 6 5 8 1 2 7 7 7 3 2 3 2 28
% to farmers availed
credit (76 farmers) 8 7 11 1 3 9 9 9 4 3 4 3 37
Source : Field Data collected from Study districts
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
39/78
39
Table. 30 Suggestion for removal of rural indebtedness by farmers in study
districts
Measures for removal of indebtedness Percentage of
farmers respondedPrakasam
N=200
Chittoor
N=200
No response 89 80
Getting Good Crops and good income through bettermarketing 4 4
Improvement in irrigation Facilities 2 2
Remunerative prices to milk 2 2
Subsidised/loe interest Loans 6 15
Due to social pressure no indebtedness 7 3
Farming with more than one crop and integrated farming 11 11
Source : Field Data collected from Study districts
6.5 Insurance
Livestock insurance was not so much popular as life or motor insurance. Only 11 and
18% of farmers of Prakasam and Chittoor insured their animals with New India
Insurance company. The premium ranged between Rs. 300 to 450 in Prakasam
district and Rs. 450 to Rs. 800 in Chittoor. Premium amount varied with the yield of
the animals, usually not exceeding 2.5% per annum for long term policy. Generally,all the loany animals were insured at least for 3 years but non-loany animals were
never insured. Farmers opined that the claim settlement was satisfactory in both the
districts. Government of Andhra Pradesh introduced a new subsidized (80% of
premium) insurance scheme for milch animals and sheep which is boosting the
livestock insurance to some extent.
6.6 Milk Marketing
6.6.1 Marketing system in the study districts : In both the Districts, as in
many parts of the State, the public sector milk procurement system became defunct
and often either closed down or running in low capacity consequent upon economic
reforms. Private dairies are dominating the milk market. On an average 14 lakh litres
of milk is being produced in Chittoor per day. On marketing side, around 10 lakh
litres is procured by private dairies and 1.5 lakh litres by Balaji (Govt /NDDB) dairy,
and the rest by milk vendors. Recently, DRDA established 19 BMCUs of 3000 litres
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
40/78
40
per day capacity units . Farmers reported that BMCUs are paying comparatively good
price than private dairies. All BMCUs are maintained by SHGs only. All BMCUs are
functioning effectively with full capacity. General average price paid by private dairies
is around Rs.8/litre, where as BMCUs paid Rs. 9.40/ litre , which is again based onthe quality of milk (fat content). This pattern of BMCUs establishment by DRDA in
Prakasam is non-existent. As against the handling capacity of 5 lakh litres per day,
the Prakasam District Milk Producers Union is handling a mere quantity of 0 .65 lakh
litres per day. The Prakasam District Milk Producers Union was taken up by Mother
dairy of NDDB recently and therefore farmers were expecting few positive changes in
milk marketing in the district. In the district, 42 Private dairies like Indiana, Ravileela,
Jersey, Creamline, Heritage, etc.. are procuring considerable quantities of milk(around 4 LLPD) from the district.
Usually, wherever there is a dairy cooperative society (DCS) operating for milk
procurement, private dairies are not operating in such villages. However in faction
ridden villages, both DCS and private dairies are operating. It is interesting to notice
that private dairies are getting a substantial quantity of milk despite of non-extension
of veterinary/input services. Private dairies are attracting farmers by adopting simplestrategies like spot payment, loan facility, direct (transparency) on spot reading basis
in milk testing and acceptance of all types of milk including watered one (which in
many cases is only fraction/ occasional).
6.6.2 Marketing by individual farmers: Usually farmers keep some milk for
household consumption and rest is sold / marketed. As per the study, 3% and 7% of
farmers of Prakasam and Chittoor were not retaining any milk for household
consumption; 58 and 49%, respectively, retained a litre of milk (average family size is
5 in both the districts and just meets the requirement i.e 280ml per day per head as
per ICMR recommendations) and about 11% in both the districts retained 1.5 litres of
milk. Only 9% of farmers were consuming more than the recommended quantity of
milk. The financial or economic problems were the main reason for low consumption
of milk in both the districts. One more reason was lack of awareness about the
nutritional value of the milk.
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
41/78
41
Table 31 & 32 provides information on the average quantity of milk produced per
animal and marked in the study area by the farming community. The average
productivity of milk for AL, MF, SF, Med.F, and BF is 3 & 4, 5 & 4, 5 & 6, 7 & 8, and 5& 10 for buffalo in prakasam and CB cows in chittoor district respectively. It is
interesting to note that 51 and 68% farmers in Prakasam and Chittoor districts sold 7
litres to 14 litres of milk daily; much amazing is that 32% of the farmers in Prakasam
sold 10 liters per day while 33% farmers in chittoor districts sold 12 to 14 litres of milk
daily. Thus, the overall average milk marketed is 7 litres / day. However, this level of
marketable surplus was not uniform through out the year specially, for agri labourers
and marginal farmers due to shortage of feed and fodder. In both the districts, 14percent of farmers were selling more than 10 litres of millk per day. In both the
districts, 95% of farmers were selling their milk at near by place i.e. less than 1km
distance. Only 5% were traveling up to 5km to sell the milk.
Table 33 shows that DCS was a better marketing place for milk in Prakasam district
followed by private dairy. DCS was attracting more number farmers because of
payment of higher price per litre than the private dairies or middlemen coupled with
veterinary / extension services /loan. The average procurement prices by DCS in the
Prakasam district are Rs. 10 per litre with 5% fat and Rs. 14 per litre with 7% fat. The
private dairies are also procuring the milk at the same price. The payment to farmers
is once in fortnight by DCS and daily or weekly by private dairies. The fat testing is
done manually by DCS and electronically by private dairies. The concept of electronic
milk testing, smart card using digital technology, bulk milk cooling system has not
penetrated in the Prakasam district in the cooperative system. At the time of study
there was no milk holiday. Further, the milk was not rejected based on quality.
Table.31 Marketable milk by dairy farmers
Productivity Prakasam (%) Chittoor (%)
1-2 lit 10 10
3-4 lit 30 38
5-6 lit 35 217-9 lit 8 12
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
42/78
42
10-12 lit 18 20Source: Field data
Table.32 Category-wise marketable milk by dairy farmers
Farmer Category
Prakasam Chittoor
ProductivityMilk
MarketedProductivity Milk
Marketed
Agri. Labourer 3 5 4 5
Marginal Farmer 5 6 4 6
Small Farmer 5 7 6 8
Medium Farmer 7 10 8 12
Big Farmer 5 8 10 14
Total 6 7 7 8
Source: Field data
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
43/78
43
Table.33 Agency-wise marketing channel and sale price of milk
Frequency
of Price in
Rs.
% of farmers responded Total
Prakasam Chittoor
N=200 N=200
DCS Private dairy Others DCS Private dairy Others
7 1 5 6 12
8 15 28 10 52
9 19 8 27
10 2 6 2 10
12 2 8 2 13
14 31 15 46
16 22 9 1 32
18 3 1 4
Total58 35 5 40 43 15
Source: Field data
6.6.3 Marketing Infrastructure at Village level: Usually at DCS level
equipment for fat testing (AMCU or Physical fat testing equipment) and farmer-wise
milk records are present. But, of late, DCS are using milking machine and BMCUs
also for efficient milk procurement. About 68% of Prakasam farmers and 10% of
Chittoor farmers indicated that milk was tested electronically by AMCU and 9 and
26% of farmers, respectively indicated that the milk is tested through Physical fat
testing equipment. In Chittoor, 26% of farmers are pouring milk in to BMCUs and
none in Prakasam district.
6.6.4 Farmers perceptions on milk marketing channel:
Farmers of Prakasam preferred DCS (56%) as a very good marketing channel to
private dairy (36%). Very few farmers inclined towards marketing of milk by self (3%)
or through vendor (4%). But in Chittoor the preferred marketing channel was private
dairy (62%) followed by DCS (24%) and vendor (15%). The various reasons for
choice of milk marketing channel were given below in Table 33. The main reason for
preferring DCS as a marketing channel in Prakasam district is nearness followed by
prompt payment and other services. Whereas in Chittoor the main reason for
preferring private dairy is prompt payment.
Table.34 Farmers perception : Milk marketing channel
Reasons Farmers Perception (% of farmers)
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
44/78
44
Milk unionPrivate
DairyVendor
Directly by
SelfTotal
Prakasam
Near by 45 11 56
Prompt Payment 7 5 1 13
Financial Assistance by the Pvt. Sector 10 10Higher Rate for milk sold 3 2 1 1 7
Good Facilities 1 1 3
Vendor purchase milk at door step 3 3
Receiving amount directly 1 1
Supply Milk to Hotel and get moneydaily/weekly 1 1
Dairy cooperative not available 6 6
Belief on him/them 1 1
Total 57 36 4 3 100
Chittoor
Near by 1 3 1 5
Prompt Payment 7 18 5 30Financial Assistance by the Private Sector 4 1 4
Higher Rate for milk sold 12 20 32
Good Facilities 1 1 1
Vendor purchase milk at door step 3 3
Dairy cooperative not available 5 3 8
By the advice of Indirakranthipatham (Velugu)Officers 1 1
Belief on him/them 2 3 1 7
Higher payment for good quality of milk 1 2 3
Used to sell milk to dairy cooperative 2 2
Dairy closed, So selling the Private Dairy 1 1
Total 24 62 15 100
Source ; Field data
6.7 Income and Employment generation from Dairy Farming:
The income and employment generation is good indicator of, as to what extent the
ultimate goal of any development programme is realized. Dairy farming has a proven
record in amelioration of rural poverty by way of providing assured, constant income
on the day one it self, in the habitat providing nutritional security to the family
members. Its importance of late, more often than not, as an instrument to fight against
poverty in rural India has come to limelight.
6.7.1 Source wise average annual income (from livestock): The sources of
income from dairy farming are through selling of milk, dung, stock, milk products. Table 35
provides source-wise income from agriculture, dairying and wages which varied among
farmer categories. Table 34 shows that except big farmers and agricultural laborers, all
other types of farmers were getting nearly 50% of the income from dairying and livestock
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
45/78
45
sources in both the districts. The percentage of income from dairy for agri labourer was
47% and 52% respectively in Prakasam and Chittoor districts. In respect of agrilabourers,
since the amount of marketable milk was not constant (Para 6.7.2) their income was on
lower side. Of the total income, the income levels from dairying were more than that of the
crop or other sources in Prakasam district compared to Chittoor district. The reasons could
be the price paid for buffalo milk was more than the cow milk, the level of milk yield in
Chittoor district could not give advantage over price of buffalo milk. Further, the
maintenance cost for crossbred cows was more than that for buffalos. Table 35 indicates
that the average annual income from dairy ranges between Rs. 19940 to Rs. 34920 in
Prakasam and Rs. 5880 to 23799 in Chittoor district. The major source of income in a dairy
enterprise is milk (80 to 98% of total livestock income) followed by stock sales (11 to 24 %
in Prakasam district and 2-17% in Chittoor). Dung is used as farm yard manure in theircrop production. Usually farmers dont prefer to sell the dung.
Table. 35 Category-wise average annual income from different sources
(Rs. Per annum)District Category Income
from dairy
& livestock
Income from
crop
production
Income
from wages
Other
Income
Total
Annual
Family
Income
Prakasam
Marginal Farmer 21621 (54%) 10357 (26%) 4071(10%) 3929 (10%) 39978
Small farmer 19974 (51%) 15726 (40%) 3000 (8%) 571 (1%) 39271
Medium Farmer 34348 (50%) 33823 (50%) 0 0 68172
Big farmer 25071 (29%) 60906 (71%) 0 0 85977
Agri labourer/ 17500 (47%) 0 19940 (54%) 0 36940
Tenant Farmer(2) 34920 (69%) 16000 (31%) 0 0 50920
Chittoor Marginal Farmer 9477 (47%) 7658 (38%) 2668 (13%) 513 (3%) 20316
Small farmer 17084 (44%) 13521 (35%) 5089 (13%) 3375 (9%) 39068
Medium Farmer 23799 (52%) 18684 (41%) 1737 (4%) 1868 (4%) 46089
Big farmer 19235 (35%) 34286 (63%) 1200 (2%) 0 54721
Agri labourer / 14728 (52%) 0 13250 (47%) 500 (2%) 28478
Tenant Farmer (1) 5880 (37%) 10000 (63%) 0 0 15880Source: Field data
Figures in parenthesis indicates the 5 to total family income
-
7/29/2019 Ven Finrepo
46/78
46
Table.36 Average annual income from various components of livestock
Category Income source within livestock
Milk Dung other livestockYoung and adult