Ven Finrepo

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).


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


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.


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


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.


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


7/78

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


8/78

8

* 7

**-Provisional

*Source : DAHD, GoI, 2006


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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



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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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



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


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


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.


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


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


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)


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


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


46/78

46

Table.36 Average annual income from various components of livestock

Category Income source within livestock

Milk Dung other livestockYoung and adult

Ven Finrepo

Documents

Transcript of Ven Finrepo