Study No. 145 Publication No. 194

Assessment of the Status of Dairying and Potential to Improve Socio Economic Status of the Milk Producers in Eastern

Prof. R. S. Singh Suresh N. Shukla

2017

Study Sponsored by Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Government of , New Delhi

Agro-Economic Research Centre University of Allahabad-211002

[1]

Preface

In India where mixed farming system prevails, livestocks reduce the risk through diversification of production and income sources and there is therefore, a much greater ability to livestocks to represent liquid assets which can be realized any time, adding further stability to the production system. The importance of livestocks as a source of income at the farm level vary across ecological zones and production systems, which in turn determines the species raised and the products and services generated. Thus, dairy product is the most regular income generator and as a result dairy development has increased income, employment and repayment capacity of farmers in India. Dairying in India is practised largely by small and unorganized farmers who rear one or two milch animals on crop residues and by-products with the help of under employed and unemployed family workers especially the women work-force. Also dairying has now become an important secondary source of income for millions of rural families and has assumed the most important role in providing employment and income generating opportunities particularly for marginal and women farmers. The role of dairying has also assumed momentous dimensions in the context of decreasing operational land holding due to subdivision and fragmentation and ever increasing population, because rural economy of our country is mainly characterized by subsistence agriculture and gross unemployment.

In view of the above facts the Govt. of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfares, entrusted this study to AERCs for assessing the status of dairying in 7 states of Eastern India, allotting Eastern Uttar Pradesh to AERC, University of Allahabad to assess the status of dairying in Eastern Uttar Pradesh.

This study reveals that in whole of the Eastern Uttar Pradesh A.H. and Dairying has emerged as the prominent subsidiary occupation alongwith the cultivation of crops as principal occupation among almost all the milk producers. The majority of milk producers were under APL income groups and were rearing medium size herds of milk animals generally having 6 family members on an average. Among breeds they were rearing Deshi, Sahiwal and Hariyana local cows, Jershy and Frizian crossbred cows and Murra buffaloes. The average milk yield per day per animal was 4 to 4.5 litres in local cows, 11.5 to 12.5 litres in crossbred cows and 8 to 8.5 litres in buffaloes in

[2] eastern U.P. The peak milk yield was highest among crossbred cows during the last and present lactation period. The main work-force among all the milk producers were only family members and hired labourers were engaged rarely. The dairying infrastructure was found deplorably poor with all sorts of severe constraints in eastern Uttar Pradesh.

This study has been conducted by Dr. Rajendra Singh Ex. R.O., AERC, Allahabad who supervised and finalized the sampling design, investigation after testing schedules and there after supervised the analysis of data after modifying the analytical tables prepared by coordinating AER Centre and drafted the report and executive summary. Sri S.N. Shukla conducted field survey, posting of data on M.S. Excel, tabulation and analysis of data. Sri Hasib Ahmad conducted field survey. Dr. H.C. malviya also conducted field survey. Sri Ovesh Ahmad posted data on M.S. Excel, assisted in tabulation and analysis of data and typed the total draft report and executive summary. Sri Ovesh Ahmad also typed all the correspondence letters. Our thanks are due to the Principal Secretary Govt. of U.P. who assisted in finalizing the selection of districts. Our thanks are also due to Chairman PCDF and Director Animal Husbandry and Dairying who assisted and provided valuable secondary information to complete this study. Many thanks to all others who cooperated and assisted in completing this study.

Any comments or suggestions for improvement in the report of this study will be acknowledged thankfully.

Agro-Economic Research Centre University of Allahabad Allahabad (R. S. Singh) Prof. & Hony. Director

Dated:12/07/2017

[3]

Credit

Prof. R. S. Singh Overall Supervision of the Study

Dr. Rajendra Singh Planning and finalization of study in individual state of East U.P., Supervision of Collection of Secondary Information, Investigation and analysis of data, modification of analytical tables and Drafting of the Report and Executive Summary

Sri S. N. Shukla Field Survey, Tabulation & Analysis of Data

Dr. H.C. Malviya Field Survey

Sri Hasib Ahmad Field Survey

Sri Ovesh Ahmad Posting of data on M.S. Excel, assistance in tabulation and Typing of Report

Sri S.D. Singh Secretarial Services

Sri H.C. Upadhyay Photocopying of the Report

Sri. Raju Kumar Support Service

[4]

Contents

Preface 2 – 3 Credit 4 Contents 5 List of Tables 6 - 9

Chapters Page No. Executive Summary 10 – 16 Chapter – I Introduction 17 – 31 Chapter – II Dairy Development is Selected State of Eastern U.P. 32 – 43 Chapter – III Description of the Selected Milk Cooperatives in Eastern Uttar 44 – 73 Pradesh

Chapter – IV Government Programmes / Schemes for Dairy Development in 74 – 82 Selected State of Uttar Pradesh

Chapter – V Socio-Economic Profile of Selected Area and Sample Milk 83 – 99 Producers

Chapter – VI Issues Related to Milk Production 100 – 124 Chapter – VII Issues Related to Marketing of Milk 125 – 132 Chapter – VIII Constraints Faced in Production and Marketing of Milk and 133 – 146 Suggestions

Chapter – IX Summary of Main Findings, Conclusions and Policy Prescriptions 147 – 153 References 15 4 Appendix – I 155 – 156 Appendices Appendix – II 157

[5]

LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Title of Tables Page No.

Chapter -I

Table-I-1 Sampling Design 26

Chapter -II

Table-II-1 Year-wise milk production in Eastern Uttar Pradesh during (2001- 34 02to 2015-16) Table-II-2 District-wise Milk Production in the eastern Uttar Pradesh (2001-02 35 to 2015-16) Table-II-3 District-wise Bovine Population in Eastern U.P. during 2012 36 livestock census Table-II-4 Plan-wise outlay and Expenditure under Dairy Development Efforts 38 in Uttar Pradesh (1 st Five Year Plan to 12 th Plan) Table-II-5 District-wise Primary Dairy Cooperative Societies in Eastern U.P. 39 (2014-15) Table-II-6 District-wise Veterinary Facilities available in eastern Uttar Pradesh 41 (2014-15) Table-II-7 District-wise Area under Fodder Crops in eastern U.P. during 2013-14 42

Chapter -III

Table-III-1 Basic Information of selected Unions 45

Table-III-2 Details on Milk collection/procurement 2015-16 46

Table-III-3 Milk Union-wise Different Programs/ Schemes (attach separate 47 sheet if required) Table-III-4 Item -wise Average Cost of Processing of Milk (Rs/litre) in Dairy Plant by 48 selected Milk Cooperatives - 2015

Table-III-5(1) Production and Marketing of Different Processed Products by Plant of 49 selected Milk Cooperative Allahabad During 2014/2015

Table-III-5(2) Production and Marketing of Different Processed Products by Plant of 52 selected Milk Cooperative During 2014-2015

[6]

Table-III-5(3) Production and Marketing of Different Processed Products by Plant of 53 selected Milk Cooperative During 2014-2015

Table-III-5(4) Production and Marketing of Different Processed Product by Plant of 54 selected Milk Cooperative During 2014-2015

Table-III-6 Details of Constraints Faced by Selected Milk Cooperatives of 56 Eastern U.P. Table-III-7 Identification and General Information of Selected Primary dairy 57 cooperative Societies (PDCS) of Eastern Uttar Pradesh Table-III-8 Details of Facilities in Selected PDCS of Eastern Uttar Pradesh 59

Table-III-9 Details of Milk Collection and Disposal during April 2015 to March 60 2016 by the selected PDCS of Eastern Uttar Pradesh Table-III-10 Details of concentrates supplied by the Selected PDCS / Firm during 62 2015-16 Table-III-11 Details of Veterinary and Breeding Services Provided by the 63 Selected PDCS / Firm during 2015-16 Table-III-12 Details of Diseases in Livestock Reported in Selected PDCS during 65 2015-16 Table-III-13 Details of Training Provided to members by the Selected PDCS 66 during 2015-16 Table-III-14 Details of Development Programmes / Support Provided to 67 Members by PDCS during 2015-16 Table-III-15 Effect of Programmes on Key Variables by the Selected PDCS 68

Table-III-16 General Opinion, Constraints and Suggestions after Implementation 69 of programmes Table-III-17A Milk Supply and Producers related 70

Table-III-17B Infrastructure related 71

Table-III-17C Market related 72

Table-III-17D Targets/Achievements 72

Chapter -IV

Table-IV-1 Scheme-wise Financial Sanction and Expenditures under Central 75 Sector Dairy Development in Uttar Pradesh (2009-10 to 2015-16) Table-IV-2 Scheme-wise Financial Sanction and Expenditures under State Sector 77 Dairy Development in Uttar Pradesh (2009-10 to 2015-16) Table-IV-3 Scheme-wise Financial Sanctions and Expenditures under District 79 Sector Dairy Development in Uttar Pradesh (2009-10 to 2015-16) Table-IV-4 Details of Various Dairy Schemes and suggested Convergence in 80 Uttar Pradesh

[7]

Chapter -V

Table-V-1 Agro-Climatic zones-wise Distribution of Districts in East U.P. 83

Table-V-2 Districts selected for this Dairy study in Eastern U.P. 84

Table-V-3 Identified Districts of East U.P. by NDDB, Anand, Gujrat 84

Table-V-4 Production and Productivity of Livestocks in 85

Table-V-5 Production and Productivity of Livestocks in 86

Table-V-6 Production and Productivity of Livestocks in 87

Table-V-7 Production and Productivity of Livestocks in 89

Table-V-8 Socio-Economic Characteristics of Selected Milk Producers 92

Table-V-9 Family Profile of Selected Milk Producers 96

Table-V-10 Cropping pattern of sample Milk Producers (2015-16) 97

Table-V-11 Details on Herd Strength & Cattle Shed 99

Chapter -VI

Table-VI-1 Details of Animals Breeds 100

Table-VI-2 Details of Breedable animals in DCS category on survey date 103

Table-VI-3 Details of Breedable animals in NDCS Category on survey date 104

Table-VI-4 Availability of Water for Dairy in DCS Category of Milk Producers 105

Table-VI-5 Availability of Water for Dairy in NDCS Category of Milk Producers 106

Table-VI-6 Labour Use Pattern in Involvement of Family Men and women 108 workers in Dairy Activities Table-VI-7 Labour Use Pattern in Involvement of Hired Men labourers in Dairy 110 Activities Table-VI-8 Details about family members who handle Income received from 112 dairying and its use under DCS and NDCS categories of Milk Producers Table-VI-9 Feed and Fodder Fed per animal at the time of survey (Kg./Ani./day) 114 under DCS category of Milk Producers Table-VI-10 Feed and Fodder Fed per animal at the time of survey (Kg./Ani./day) 116 under NDCS category of Milk Producers

[8]

Table-VI-11 Veterinary and Breeding Expenditure during Last year (2015-16) 117 under DCS Category of Milk Producers Table-VI-12 Veterinary and Breeding Expenditure during Last year (2015-16) 119 under NDCS Category of Milk Producers Table-VI-13 Cost details of feed and fodder per animal at the Time of Survey 120 under DCS and NDCS Categories of Milk Producers Table-VI-14 Season -wise Milk Yield (Per day) of Selected M.P. (2015 -16) in DCS 122 Category of Milk Producers

Table-VI-15 Season -wise M ilk Yield (Per day) of Selected M.P. (2015 -16) in NDCS 122 Category of Milk Producers

Table-VI-16 Awareness about various schemes among Milk Producers of DCS 123 and NDCS Categories Chapter -VII

Table-VII-1 Use of Milk at home and Processing and Sale (Yesterday) in DCS 126 Category of Milk Producers Table-VII-2 Use of Milk at home and Processing and Sale (Yesterday) in NDCS 129 Category of Milk Producers Table-VII-3 Marketing Constraints (MC) Reported by sample Milk producers 132

Chapter -VIII

Table-VIII-1 Service delivery System in DCS category of Milk Producers 134

Table-VIII-1(A) Service delivery System in NDCS category of Milk Producers 136

Table-VIII-2 Infrastructural constraints (IC) under DCS and NDCS categories of 139 Milk Producer Table-VIII-3 Economic Constraints (EC) under DCS and NDCS categories of 140 Milk Producer Table-VIII-4 Technical Constraints (TC) under DCS and NDCS categories of 142 Milk Producer Table-VIII-5 Socio-Psychological Constraints (SC) under DCS and NDCS 143 categories of Milk Producer Table-VIII-6 Other Constraints (OC) under DCS and NDCS categories of Milk 144 Producer Table-VIII-7 Suggestions for Improvement in Adoption of Dairy Schemes by 146 Milk Producers under DCS and NDCS Categories

[9]

Executive Summary

Dairying as an economic activity is significant particularly from the view point of rural women. This provides them an opportunity to be economically empowered. The creation of additional employment opportunities through progress in dairying will be significant for a large number of rural women to be gainfully employed. Many cooperatives have established cattle feed manufacturing plant to meet the demands of the dairy owners for well formulated feed nutrients and to provide information on the health of the animals. The directorates of animal husbandry in the states have also grown in order to provide the required information and health care services. Also there are large variations in milk production as well as per capita availability in India. The largest producer of milk in India is the state of Uttar Pradesh which produces 17.6 percent of the total milk production in the country followed by Rajasthan (10.5%) and Andhra Pradesh (9.6%). More than 71 percent of the national milk production comes from the eight major milk producing states such as Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, Gujrat, Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Haryana. Only 11 states are having per capita availability more than the national average of 299 gms per day in the year 2012-13. While eastern state are lagging far behind in respects of dairy development beyond various dairy development programmes initiated especially in eastern and hilly regions. The animal productivity and per capita availability are very low in eastern states which can be increased through the scientific management, upgradation of genetic resources and development of marketing and processing facilities. Also there is a large gap between the demand and supply of milk in the country. The current milk production is estimated to 146 million tonnes in the year 2014-15. While it was only 17 million tonnes in 1950-51. The per capita availability of milk in the country has also increased from 130 gms per day in 1950-51 to 302gms per day in 2013-14 against the world average of 294 gms per day in 2013 ( http://dahd.nic.in )

Therefore, a comprehensive assessment of the status of dairy development in the regions of eastern states of India such as Assam, Bihar, Chhatisgarh, Jharkhand, Orisha, West Bengal and Eastern Uttar Pradesh was needed to be done for the required dairy development.

[10]

In view of the above at the instance of Govt. of India, Ministry of agriculture & Farmers Welfare. This study was conducted in eastern U.P. with the following main objectives: • To prepare an outline of socio-economic status of the region with respect to standard economic, social and infrastructural parameters. • To assess present status of dairying with reference to typology of milch animal distribution yield milk production, consumption and marketable surplus. • To identify the constraints in dairy development from supply side institutional deficiency and processing infrastructure. • To highlight facilitating factors that could help promoting dairy development to improve socio-economic status of milk producers. • To suggest broad areas for focused interventions for promoting dairy development in the region and the way forward. • To identify different central and state government schemes related to dairy development at the district level and document technical as well as operational details of the schemes component-wise and guidelines to implement them and ascertain controlling department, implementing department and monitoring department and understand how convergence is ensured and • To suggest possible measures to ensure compliance of effective convergence of various schemes by the central and state governments for the benefits of dairy farmers.

This study was confined to the whole Eastern Uttar Pradesh included as a separate state among the 7 eastern states of India such as (1) Assam, (2) Bihar, (3) Chhatisgarh, (4) Jharkhand, (5) Orisha, (6) West Bengal and (7) Eastern Uttar Pradesh. From eastern U.P. thus, undertaken, four districts of various categories namely (1) Allahabad (High), (2) Gorakhpur (Moderate), (3) Varanasi (Low) and (4) Faizabad (Not covered zone) were undertaken on the basis of the list of districts prepared by NDDB, Anand (Gujrat). The empirical data were collected from the selected milk producers, primary dairy cooperative societies and district milk unions through the direct personal interviews with the help of specially structured schedules and questionnaires. Secondary information were collected from the available records of the district milk producer cooperative societies and from the regional and state level concerned offices and other sources. Personal observations and general discussions were also done with the officials and experienced

[11] milk producers on dairy development programmes in the area under study. The primary data were collected for the agricultural year 2015-16. The analysis of data was done by simple mathematical and statistical methods with help of analytical (write-up) tables prepared from the data posted on M.S. Excels.

Main Findings

• Cultivation was the principal occupation in both the DCS and NDCS categories of larger milk producers and A.H. and Dairying had emerged as the prominent subsidiary occupation among the sample milk producers. • Regarding income groups the majority i.e. 97% in DCS category and 93% in NDCS category were reported as APLs and were large and medium milk producers. • The average household size was 6 members per milk producer. The larger milk producers had comparatively larger members in their families. • Regarding cattle sheds it was found that the Pucca cattle sheds were lesser in number than the Kuchcha sheds in both DCS and NDCS categories of milk producers. • Generally milk producers rear local cows of Deshi, Sahiwal and Hariyana breeds. Among crossbred cows they rear Jershy and Frizian breeds and in buffalo only Murra bred was reared by all milk producers in East U.P. • About average milk yield per day per animal it was 4 to 4.5 litres in local cows, 11.5 to 12.5 litres in crossbred cows and 8 to 8.5 litres in buffaloes on an average in East U.P. • The main source of water for dairy purpose with almost all the milk producers was hand- pump. The supply of water was adequate and quality was normal. The alternative sources were open wells and tube-wells in DCS and NDCS categories. • Regarding labour use it was found that for fodder management one male and one female family workers were engaged per day at the rate of 1.51 hours and 1.06 hours respectively for gross collection under DCS category of milk producers. • Some family workers were engaged for animal feeding at the rate 0.34 hour, shed management at the rate of 0.35 hour, washing animal at the rate of 0.26 hour collection of dwong at the rate of 1.08 hour, milking at the rate of 1.24 hour and for animal health at the rate of 0.39 hour in DCS category of milk producers.

[12]

• Under NDCS category too one male and one female family workers were engaged for gross collection at the rate of 1.40 hour, animal feeding at the rate of 0.36 hour, shed management at the rate of 1.23 hour, washing animals at the rate of 1.00 hour, dung collection at the rate of 1.00 hour and animal health and breeding at the rate of 0.36 hour. • The income received from dairying in both the categories of milk producers was handled similarly by maximum of male members in large groups of milk producers. • Approximately 60% of the income was spent on cattle feeds and animals helth and 40% on family expenditures by both males and female members jointly under both the categories of milk producers in East U.P. • The stall feeding to milch animals among all the milk producers was done in a similar pattern in DCS and NDCS both the categories. • The expenditures on A.Is. were also done maximum in buffaloes and crossbred cows and minimum in local cows reared by milk producers of all the three size-groups in DCS category. • Medicines and visits of veterinary doctors were costly affaires among the milk producers of NDCS category too wherein they told that the fee of Rs. 200 per visit by veterinary doctor was very high in the area under study. • Cost on fodders and concentrates was quite similar under DCS as well as NDCS categories of milk producers of all size-groups in East U.P. No grazing was reported under any category. • Wages for dairy activities were common for men and women as Rs. 150 per day in all the categories of milk producers. Permanent labourers were paid 80% in cash and 20% in kind. • Milk yield per animal per day under NDCS category during summer was slightly lower than that in rainy and winter seasons in 2015-16 in all size groups of milk producers. • Majority of milk producers were not aware about vaccination scheme. About sources of information on schemes majority of milk producers told fellow farmers as main source and they also told not to be benefited at all from schemes on dairying. • Milk drawn yesterday was much higher by milk producers of large size group in case of crossbred cows against local cows and buffaloes under DCS category.

[13]

• Large milk producers rearing crossbred cows had sold maximum quantity of milk cooperative society beyond higher milk consumption in their families in DCS category. • The average price for local cow milk was Rs. 23 per litre, for crossbred cows Rs. 22 per litre and for buffaloes it was Rs. 31 per litre in the area under study in DCS category. • The average price of milk estimated as Rs. 25.33 per litre which was varying from Rs. 22 per litre for crossbred cows milk, Rs. 23 per litre for local cow milk to Rs. 31 per litre for buffalo milk under NDCS category too. • Regarding marketing constraints, it was found that the majority of milk producers were suffering with the problem of irregular sale of milk in both DCS and NDC categories. • Majority of milk producers of DCS and NDCS categories also told that they either do not get advance or less advance payment for milk by societies and ventors. • Majority i.e. 98.33% of milk producers responded that cost of cattle feed and mineral mixtures was very high. Also 60% of milk producers told that EVS (Emergency Veterinary Services) were not available at all. • The delivery of inputs was inadequate and costly under the category of DCS milk producers members. • About output delivery 100% of milk producers had told it be low and payment of milk to be done with in 15 days with no incentive or bonus. • 100% of the milk producers under NDCS category too had told that charges for EVS i.e. Rs. 200 per visit as fee by the veterinary doctor was very high. • About the output delivery under NDCS category of milk producers 100% had responded that price of milk was low and payment was done within 15 days and as a result it was deplorably poor. • As regards the infrastructural constraints, there was lack of improved equipments under both DCS and NDCS categories of milk producers. • On an overall there were severe infrastructural constraints in both the DCS and NDCS categories of milk producers in the whole of Eastern U.P. • About economic constraints almost all the milk producers responded that there were always high cost of medicines, cattle feed and mineral mixtures high charges of EVS and low, provision of loans, incentives and bonus.

[14]

• Majority of milk producers told that there was always lack of technical guidance and lack of high genetic merit bulls resulting poor conception rate through artificial insemination. • There were exorbitant socio-psychological constraints in the potential milk production by the milk producers under both DCS and NDCS categories in Eastern U.P. • Also majority of milk producers complained that there were numerous other constraints which hampered dairying in the eastern region of U.P. • 100% of the sample milk producers had suggested to provide outlets of milk and milk products in the villages particularly in the remote villages. • 100% of milk producers had also suggested for subsidy on veterinary medicines and fodder seeds etc. • The majority i.e. 95% of the milk producers had viewed for increasing the milk prices of all the milch animals. • About 45% of the milk producers had suggested to make the easy loan procedures and increase the amount of loans. • 100% of milk producers had suggested to provide A.I. facilities at village levels, reduce cost of veterinary services and to provide veterinary literatures in villages. • The majority i.e. 90% of milk producers had suggested to encourage small scale dairy industry at the village level. • On an overall almost all the sample milk producers had suggested the above stated valuable views for the improvement in adoption of dairy schemes in Eastern U.P.

IX.2. Policy Prescriptions

Based on the main findings of the present study the following policy prescriptions are being imparted to DAC, Ministry of Agriculture & farmers Welfare, Govt. of India as well as NDDB, Anand (Gujrat).

• Efforts must be made by both Central and State Governments to convert Dairying from subsidiary to Main occupation of marginal and small farmers. • The larger milk producers must be encouraged to adopt dairying as a Small Scale Dairy Industry in their Areas.

[15]

• The average milk yield rate was extremely low among all the milch animals in east U.P. Hence, state department of animal Husbandry and dairying must play some crucial roles to raise the milk yield rates of all milch animals in eastern U.P. • The cost of veterinary services and medicines was told to be very high by almost all the milk producers. Therefore, government as well others concerned must pay attention to reduce these costs. • Extension services on dairying must be strengthened on war footing as majority of milk producers were not at all aware about the schemes of dairying in east U.P. • The quantity of milk drawn yesterday was much lesser by milk producers rearing local cows and buffaloes due to which they had sold minimum quantity of milk to cooperative societies. Therefore, the milk producers of DCS category must be encouraged by all means to increase the quantity of milk to be drawn and sold to cooperative societies. • The average prices for milk sold in cases of all the milch animals were found to be lower than the cost incurred. Therefore, the prices milk of local cows crossbred cows and buffaloes must be enhanced in proportion of the cost increased. • To remove the irregular sales of milk under both DCS and NDCS categories, the marketing facilities must be provided at village level for the outlets of milk and milk producers. • For difficulties in getting loans, the procedures for sanctioning the loans must be made easy and the amount of loans for the purchase of dairy animals must be increased in proportion of the prices of dairy animals. • To meet the demands of milk producers for advances and or bonus from the cooperative societies and vendors, the societies and vendors must advance properly and regularly to keep the milk producers continuing milk production. • The delivery systems for both inputs and output must be improved in accordance of the needs of the milk producers with some incentives or bonus by the societies. • Concentrates and supplements must be made available in remote villages timely and at affordable and cheaper rates. • Proper A.Is. facilities at village level and affordable EVS (Emergency Veterinary Services) at door step must be provided to all the milk producers for boosting milk production in east U.P. • On an overall almost all the milk producers had suggested for the development of dairy infrastructure for attracting more and more cultivators towards the adoption of dairy schemes in eastern U.P.

[16]

CHAPTER – I

I.1. Introduction

Dairying practised in India by and large is still a small land holder’s enterprise in a mixed farming system. About seventy percent of the milk animals are reared by the marginal and small farmers as well as landless agricultural labourers. Though India has the best breed of buffalo in the world yet the productivity of buffalo is much less as compared to some other Asian countries. This is merely due to the fact that milk animal holders are widely dispersed in the areas with poor infrastructure having limited access to services and markets. Also livestocks are the living bank for many farmers and have a critical role in the agriculture intensification process through draught power, manure fertilizer and fuel. Livestocks are also closely linked to the social and cultural lives of millions particularly resource poor farmers for whom animal ownership ensures varying degree of sustainable farming and economic stability.

Livestocks give increased economic stability to farm households acting as a cash buffer, a capital reserve and as a hedge against inflation. In India where mixed farming system prevails, livestocks reduce the risk through diversification of production and income sources and there is therefore, a much greater ability to livestocks to represent liquid assets which can be realized at any time, adding further stability to the production system. The importance of livestocks as a source of income at the farm level vary across ecological zones and production systems, which in turn determines the species raised and the products and services generated. Dairy product is the most regular income generator. Dairy development thus, has increased income employment and repayment capacity in India.

Dairying in India is practised largely by small and unorganized farmers who rear one or two milch animals on crop residues and by-products with the help of under employed and unemployed family labourers, especially the women work-force. Also dairying has now become an important secondary source of income for millions of rural families and has assumed the most important role in providing employment and income generating opportunities particularly for marginal and women farmers. The role of dairying has also assumed momentous dimensions in the context of decreasing operational land holding due to sub-division and fragmentation and

[17] ever increasing population, because the rural economy of our country is mainly characterized by subsistence agriculture and gross unemployment.

The up-surge in milk production in India has thrown up unprecedented challenges in milk marketing. The country is blessed with an enormous domestic market which is the market attracting multinationals to India. The three groups of dairy products offering exciting marketing opportunities are (1) Liquid Milk, (2) Milk Powder, Ghee and Butter and (3) Cheese, Paneer, Khoa and Milk Based Sweets. About 35% of the milk produced is consumed in urban areas, of this cooperatives supply 20%, private dairies 2%, Government managed dairies 2% and the highly significant share by private traders. The technology of butter making and packaging is advanced in the country. The small surplus of milk production in the immediate future can be profitably disposed off as exports to neighbouring countries in Asia and Africa.

As per world focus, Indian dairying is emerging as a surprise industry. India represents one of the world’s largest and fastest growing market for milk and milk products due to the increasing disposable incomes among the 250 million strong middle class (Dairy India, 1997). Dairy farming once only a means of bare subsistence, has with high milk yielding cattle and buffaloes become an important agro-business. This alongwith processing of milk into dairy products, can be taken up as a commercial venture in rural areas. It will however, be necessary to develop suitable forward and backward linkages, forward with the processing and marketing sector and backward with the agro-processing industries for feed stock. Establishing consultancy services will also be needed to prepare bankable schemes and facilities to train young entrepreneurs.

Indian dairy has achieved phenomenal growth during the last 40 years for carving itself on the world dairy map. As is evident from the available statistics 54% of the world’s best buffalo breed population and 15 percent of the total cattle population are in India producing 51.40 millian tonnes of milk per annum in 1990. Milk output in 1950-51 was bare 17 million tonnes (Hindu Survey 1991).

Dairying as an economic activity is particularly significant from the view point of rural women. This provides them an opportunity to be economically empowered. The creation of additional employment opportunities through progress in dairying will be significant for a large number of

[18] rural women to be gainfully employed. Many cooperatives have established cattle feed manufacturing plant to meet the demands of the dairy owners for well formulated feed nutrients and to provide information on the health of the animals. The directorates of animal husbandry in the states have also grown in order to provide the required information and health care services. The share of livestock sector in the contribution of agriculture and related sectors to the G.D.P. has increased from about 16 percent in 1970-71 to 26 percent in the year 1993-94 (Hindu Survey 1995).

Indian dairy market is multilayered, shaped like a pyramid with the base made up of vast market for low cost milk. The bulk of the demand for milk is however, among the poor in urban areas whose individual requirement is small may be a glassful for use as whitener for their tea and coffee. There are large variations in milk production as well as per capita availability in India. The largest producers of milk in India is the state of Uttar Pradesh which produces 17.6 percent of the total milk production in the country followed by Rajasthan (10.5%) and Andhra Pradesh (9.6%). More than 71 percent of the national milk production comes from the eight major milk producing states such as Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, Gujrat, Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Haryana. Only 11 states are having per capita availability more than the national average of 299 gms per day in the year 2012-13. While eastern states are lagging far behind in respects of dairy development beyond, various dairy development programmes initiated especially in eastern and hilly regions. The animals productivity and per capita availability are very low in eastern states which can be increased through the scientific management, up-gradation of genetic resources and development of marketing and processing facilities. Also there is a large gap between the demand and supply of milk in the country. The current milk production is estimated to 146 million tonnes in 2014-15. While it was only 17 million tonnes in 1950-51. The per capita availability of milk in the country has also increased from 130gms per day in 1950-51 to 302gms per day in 2013-14 against the world average of 294gms per day in 2013 (http:// daha.nic.in).

We all know that farming is the single largest private sector economic activity in India. The growth potential in this key sector is immense in view of the changes taking place in food consumption and there is growing demand for high value processed products. Successes in such endeavors will require innovations and partnerships. Private agri-business provides first market

[19] for the farm sector and growth depends mainly on private initiatives. A significant portion of agri-business activity is the result of small and medium enterprises. Such enterprises are necessarily wide spread in location to capture opportunities that arise all along the farm to table supply chain, key constraints that impede development of new agri-business projects are access to information and access to credit. Agri-business entrepreneurs are generally first generation who have business skills but their financial resources are limited for setting up units at the farm gate with the backward linkages. For facilitating agri-business development in the country SFAC (Small Farmers Agribusiness Consortium) venture capital sub-scheme will assist agripreneures to make investments in setting up agri-business projects through financial participation and provide financial support for preparation of bankable detailed project reports (DPRs) through Projects Development Facility (PDF).

Apart from the state and central government programmes, the state milk federations and milk unions have also evolved variety of schemes which provide incentives to the milk producers. The district level milk unions have also drawn up the schemes to promote dairy development in many districts. Convergence of various state and central government programmes provide forward and backward linkages for enhancing efficiency in implementation. It also enhances sustainability. The convergence of state and central government schemes will certainly ensure the social and economic improvements among the dairy farmers. In case if the state and the central government programmes are implemented in isolation, the impact may not be sustainable and it may be uneconomic to dairy farmers.

I.2: Need and Scope of the Study

Much emphasis on dairy development and livestock is still important not only in terms of products but also in terms of by-products and waste products, the latter for integrated nutrients management for the health of the soils. However, the productivity of milk per unit of animal in India is still much lower than in many other countries. There is thus, a need for even more intensive efforts to improve productivity of animals as part of integrated farming systems. The country has comparative advantages in dairy development and livestock sector and it must exploit the opportunities now presented under the new world trade agreement for quantum leaps in the dairy development. This is urgently necessary as a part of our efforts at accelerating

[20] economic activities as well as creating employment opportunities in rural areas of the country. For sustainable dairy development concerted efforts are required to ensure the sustainability of the advances in animal production, productivity and milk processing technologies. Special consideration must be given on the major issues such as (1) large animal population in relation to the limited availability: of feeds and fodders of good quality and the poor transfer of technology services are hampering the growth of dairy development, (2) Technologies developed so far to enrich crop residues and bagasee and to treat non conventional feed resources. Mainly agricultural by products have still not reached the take-of stage. The machinery for transfer of such technologies will have to be geared-up and (3) There is an immediate need to enhance milk procurement, processing, storage and marketing facilities to eliminate non acceptance of producer,s milk in flush season.

In India, the western, southern and northern regions have made significant progress in dairy development but the eastern region of the country has lagged far behind in dairy development. Quantum jump in milk production can be made possible through increase in productivity and linking small dairy holders to dairy cooperatives, Self help groups (SHGs) and milk producers groups with forward linkages and milk processing units. Hence, a comprehensive assessment of the status of dairy development in the regions of eastern states of India such as Assam, Bihar, Chhatisgarh Jharkhand, Orisa, west Bengal and eastern Uttar Pradesh (28 districts) needs to be done for the required dairy development.

The requirement for the convergence of state and central government programmes at district level arises owing to the reasons such as (1) Lack of documentation on schemes of state and central government on dairy development, (2) Lack of the knowledge of mutual relationships of such schemes and (3) Lack of systems and process of the convergence of such schemes at local levels. These needs are to be studied in all the 7 states of eastern India with the following main objectives:-

I.3: Objectives of the study

The main objectives of the present study were as follows:-

[21]

1. To prepare an outline of socio-economic status of the region with respect to standard economic, social and infrastructural parameters. 2. To assess present status of dairying with reference to typology of milch animal distribution yield milk production, consumption and marketable surplus. 3. To identify the constraints in dairy development from supply side institutional deficiency and processing infrastructure. 4. To highlight facilitating factors that could help promoting dairy development to improve socio-economic status of milk producers. 5. To suggest broad areas for focussed interventions for promoting dairy development in the region and the way forward. 6. To identify different central and state government schemes related to dairy development at the district level and document technical as well as operational details of the schemes component-wise and guidelines to implement them and ascertain controlling department, implementing department and monitoring department and understand how convergence is ensured and 7. To suggest possible measures to ensure compliance of effective convergence of various schemes by the central and state governments for the benefits of dairy farmers.

I.4: Data and Methodology

I.4.1. Data Collection

The present study was based on both primary as well as secondary data which were collected from different levels of the chosen state (eastern region of U.P. state) comprising 28 districts only out of the 75 districts falling under the state of Uttar Pradesh.

I.4.1.(a). Primary Data Collection

The required primary data for the present study were collected through specially structured and pretested schedules and questionnaires on all aspects relating to the status of dairying and potential to improve socio-economic status of the milk producers, primary dairy cooperative societies and milk unions chosen from the list of districts falling in high, moderate, low and not covered zones of the eastern region of U.P. prepared by NDDB, Anand (Gujrat). The four chosen districts were (1) Allahabad (High) from central plain and vindhya zone of east U.P., (2)

[22]

Gorakhpur (Moderate) from north eastern plain zone of east U.P., (3) Varanasi (Low) from eastern plain zone of east U.P. and (4) Faizabad (Not covered zone) from border of eastern plain zone of U.P.

I.4.1.(b). Secondary Data Collection

The required secondary data pertaining to all sorts of dairy development efforts, livestocks, milch animals, milk production, growth and compositional changes in livestock and bovine population (latest livestock censuses), cooperative societies in east U.P., district-wise veterinary facilities, area under fodder crops, land utilization cropping pattern etc. for the years 2001-2015 were collected from the offices of the state department of Animal Husbandry of Uttar Pradesh, statistical abstract of U.P. state as well as government publications related to dairying and animal husbandry.

I.4.2. Methodology

I.4.2.1. Method of Study

This study was confined to the whole Eastern Uttar Pradesh included as a separate state among the 7 eastern states of India such as (1) Assam, (2) Bihar, (3) Chhatisgarh, (4) Jharkhand, (5) Orisha, (6) West Bengal and (7) Eastern Uttar Pradesh. From eastern U.P. thus, undertaken, four districts of various categories namely (1) Allahabad (High), (2) Gorakhpur (Moderate), (3) Varanasi (Low) and (4) Faizabad (Not covered zone) were undertaken on the basis of the list of districts prepared by NDDB, Anand (Gujrat). The empirical data were collected from the selected milk producers, primary dairy cooperative societies and milk unions through the direct personal interviews with the help of specially structured schedules and questionnaires. Secondary information were collected from the available records of the district milk producer cooperative societies and from the regional and state level concerned offices and other sources. Personal observations and general discussions were also done with the officials and experienced milk producers on dairy development programmes in the area of study. The data were collected for the agricultural year 2015-16. The analysis of data was done by simple mathematical and statistical methods with the help of analytical (write-up) tables from the data put on M.S. Excels.

[23]

I.4.2.2. Sampling Framework

The sampling technique used in this study was a multistage stratified random sampling. At the first stage of sampling one district / milk union each from the four zones i.e. (1) High, (2) Moderate, (3) Low and (4) not covered zones of eastern Uttar Pradesh making a total of four districts were selected randomly from the list of 100 potential districts prepared by NDDB, Anand (Gujrat) to represent the holistic picture of eastern U.P. as a state of eastern India. At the 2nd stage two P.D.C.S. (Primary Dairy Cooperative Societies) one far and the other nearer each from the four district milk unions thus, selected making a total of 8 P.D.C.S. were chosen randomly. Thereafter, at the 3 rd stage of sampling one village each from these 8 P.D.C.S. and one village each from the adjacent non P.D.C.S. area making a total of 16 villages were undertaken randomly. The near villages were adjascent to district milk union and far villages were, situated at more than 25 kms away from district M.Us. At the 4 th and ultimate stage of sampling from each of the 16 villages thus, selected lists of milk producers rearing cows & buffalos were collected. These lists were further categorized into three main categories of milk producers i.e. (1) Small milk producers (1-2 milch animals), (2) Medium milk producers (3 to 5 milch animals) and (3) Large milk producers (above 5 milch animals). Thereafter, 5 sample milk producers from each of the 3 main categories making a total of 15 sample milk producers from each of the 16 villages thus, selected were selected making a total of 240 sample milk producers on an aggregate. The primary data on cost of milk production were collected from the one sample milk producer of each main category from each of the 16 selected villages making a total of 48 milk producers for indepth study.

I.4.2.2(a). Selection of District / Milk Union

At the first stage of sampling one district / milk union each from the four categorized zones i.e. (1) High, (2) Moderate, (3) Low and (4) not covered zones of eastern Uttar Pradesh making a total of four districts / milk unions were selected randomly from the list of 100 potential districts prepared by NDDB. Anand (Gujrat). Such districts of east U.P. were namely (1) Allahabad (High) from central plain and vindhya region, (2) Gorakhpur (Moderate) from North Eastern Plain region, (3) Varanasi (Low) from Eastern Plain Region and (4) Faizabad (Not covered zone) from border of eastern plain region.

[24]

I.4.2.2(b). Selection of Primary Dairy Cooperative Societies (P.D.C.S.)

At the second stage of sampling two P.D.C.S. (Primary dairy Cooperative Societies) from each selected milk unions of which one from far areas (25 kms away from milk union) and the other from nearer areas (adjascent to milk union) making a total of 8 P.D.C.S. were selected randomly. Such P.D.C.S. were namely (1) , (2) Ratansenpur from Allahabad, (3) Bhaisanath, (4) Narayanpur from Gorakhpur, (5) Katwarpur, (6) Mariyan from Varanasi, (7) Kadipur and (8) Pachhiyana from Faizabad district / milk union.

I.4.2.2(c). Selection of Villages

At the 3rd stage of sampling one village each from the 8 selected P.D.C.S. and one village each from the adjascent non P.D.C.S. areas making a total of 16 villages were undertaken randomly from the 8 P.D.C.S. and non P.D.C.S. areas. Such villages were namely (1) Bhadri, (2) Gaura (near villages), (3) Ratansenpur and (4) Sakaramau (far villages) from Allahabad, (5) Bhaisanath and (6) Ganera (near villages), (7) Narayanpur and (8) Barahabuj (far villages) from Gorakhpur, (9) Katwarpur and (10) Rasulaha (near village), (11) Mariyan and (12) Puranadarpur (far villages) from Varanasi and (13) Kadipur and (14) Jogapur (near villages) and (15) Pachhiyana and (16) Katauna (far villages) from Faizabad district from not covered zone.

I.4.2.2(d). Selection of Milk Producers

At the 4th and ultimate stage of sampling from each of 16 villages thus, selected lists of milk producers rearing cows and buffaloes were collected. These lists were further categorized into 3 main categories of milk producers i.e. (1) Small milk producers (1 – 2 milch animals), (2) Medium milk producers (3 to 5 milch animals) and (3) Large milk producers (above 5 milch animals). Thereafter, 5 sample milk producers from each of the 3 main categories making a total of 15 milk producers from each of the 16 selected villages were selected randomly making a total of 240 sample milk producers on an aggregate for in-depth study. The sampling design is given in Table-I-1.

[25]

Table-I-1 Sampling Design

Sl. Selected district M.Us and Category wise sample milk Producers No. Villages Small Medium Large Total Sample (1 – 2) (3 – 5) milch (Above 5) milch animals milch animals animals 1. Allahabad (High) Near Villages Bhadri (DCS) 5 5 5 15 Gaura (NDCS) 5 5 5 15 Far Villages Ratansenpur (DCS) 5 5 5 15 Sakaramau (NDCS) 5 5 5 15 Sub-Total (High) 20 20 20 60 2. Gorakhpur (Moderate) Near Villages Bhaisanath (DCS) 5 5 5 15 Ganera (NDCS) 5 5 5 15 Far Villages Narayanpur (DCS) 5 5 5 15 Barahabujurg (NDCS) 5 5 5 15 Sub-Total (Moderate) 20 20 20 60 3. Varanasi (Low) Near Villages Katwarpur (DCS) 5 5 5 15 Rasulaha (NDCS) 5 5 5 15 Far Villages Mariyana (DCS) 5 5 5 15 Purandarpur (NDCS) 5 5 5 15 Sub-Total (Low) 20 20 20 60 4. Faizabad (Not Covered Zone) Near Villages Kadipur (DCS) 5 5 5 15 Jogapur (NDCS) 5 5 5 15 Far villages Pachhiyana (DCS) 5 5 5 15 Katauna (NDCS) 5 5 5 15 Sub-Total (Not Covered Zone) 20 20 20 60 Total 80 80 80 240 Source:- Field Survey

[26]

I.5. Limitation of the Study

It is very much disappointing to note that virtually no organized animal husbandry extension service exists still in the country unlike in agriculture. No qualified person is available to reach the farmer to advise him on various aspects of animal production, health, nutrition and milk handling as well as marketing. There is an urgent need either to establish an extension system particularly in the eastern states for dairying and milk handling or to incorporate this element in the existing agricultural extension system as a vital component. The milk processing and marketing facilities must keep pace with milk production. The productivity levels of milch animals in eastern U.P. are quite low and further there is sharp increase in low yielding milch animal population and thus, constraining limited resources like feeds fodders, water and land. These observations indicate that status of dairying in eastern U.P. is extremely low in comparison of other states in the country despite having relatively superior resource endorsement. Dairy cooperative structure in east U.P. is also quite weak than elsewhere in the country. Therefore, the growth in milk production is quite low in eastern U.P.

As regards the problems in conducting present research study in the eastern region of U.P., it has been faced that all the required information are either in the form of district-wise or division- wise or region-wise or at state level but not east U.P. wise. Although, the state of U.P. is divided into four economic regions i.e. (1) Western U.P., (2) Eastern U.P., (3) Central U.P. and (4) Bundelkhand region wherein east U.P. covers 28 districts, but almost all the information are available at aggregate level of the state of Uttar Pradesh. Hence, detection of any information about east U.P. requires lot of toils which becomes a difficult tasks in procuring required secondary data on east U.P. Also at the time of workshop in February, 2016 at Vallabh Vidyanagar, Anand both the officials of NDDB as well as coordinating AERC had assured all the participating AERCs to make all the required secondary information available for respective states of participating AERCs. But till date nothing could be made available under such circumstances the report is getting delayed un-necessarily and inordinately.

I.6. Organization of Report

Executive Summary

[27]

Chapter-I. Introduction

I.1. Introduction I.2. Need and Scope of the Study I.3. Objectives of the study I.4. Data and Methodology I.5. Limitation of the Study I.6. Organization of Report.

Chapter-II. Dairy Development in Selected State of Eastern U.P.

II.1. Role of dairy Sector in the Economy of Eastern U.P. II.1.1. Milk Production in East U.P. During (2001-02 to 2015-16) II.1.2. District-wise Milk Production in Eastern U.P. (2001-02 to 2015-16) II.1.3. District-wise Bovine Population in Eastern U.P. during Livestock Census, 2012 II.2. Plan-wise Outlay and Expenditures under Dairy Development Efforts in U.P. II.3. District-wise Primary Dairy Cooperative Societies in Eastern Uttar Pradesh (2014-15) II.4. District-wise Veterinary Facilities Available in Eastern Uttar Pradesh (2014-15) II.5. District-wise Area under Fodder Crops in Eastern Uttar Pradesh during 2013-14

Chapter-III. Description of the Selected Milk Cooperatives in Eastern Uttar Pradesh

III.1. Details on District Milk Cooperatives III.1.1. Basic Information on selected District Milk Cooperatives III.1.2. Details on Milk Collection / Procurement during 2015-16 III.1.3. District Milk Cooperative-wise Scheme/Programmes III.1.4. Average Cost of Processing of Milk in Dairy Plants of Selected Milk Cooperatives III.1.5.(1). Production and Marketing of Different processed Products by Plant of Selected Milk Cooperative Allahabad During 2014-15. III.1.5.(2). Production and Marketing of Processed Products by Plant of Selected Milk Cooperative Gorakhpur during 2014-15. III.1.5.(3). Production and Marketing of Processed Products by Plant of Selected Milk Cooperative Varanasi during 2014-15. III.1.5.(4). Production and Marketing of Different Processed Products by Faizabad Dairy Plant during 2014-15.

[28]

III.1.6. Constraints Faced by Selected Milk Cooperatives of East U.P. III.2. Details on Primary Dairy Cooperative Societies III.2.1. Identification and General Information of Selected Primary Dairy Cooperative Societies (PDCS) of Eastern Uttar Pradesh III.2.2. Details of Facilities Available in Selected PDCS of Eastern Uttar Pradesh III.2.3. Milk collection and Disposal during April, 2015 to March, 2016 by selected PDCS of Eastern Uttar Pradesh III.2.4. Concentrates Supplied by the selected PDCS / Firms of East U.P. during 2015-16 III.2.5. Veterinary and Breeding services Provided by the Selected PDCS and firms of Eastern U.P. during 2015-16. III.2.6. Diseases in Livestock Reported in selected PDCS of East U.P. during 2015-16. III.2.7. Training Provided to Members by selected PDCS of Eastern U.P. during 2015-16 III.2.8. Details of Development programmes and Supports Provided to members by PDCS during 2015-16

Chapter-IV. Government Programmes / Schemes for Dairy Development in Selected State of Uttar Pradesh

IV.1. Scheme-wise Financial Sanction and Expenditures under Central Sector Dairy Development in U.P. (2009-10 to 2015-16) IV.2. Scheme-wise Financial Sanction and Expenditures under the State Sector Dairy Development in Uttar Pradesh during 2009-10 to 2015-16 IV.3. Scheme-wise Financial Sanctions and Expenditures Under District Sector Dairy Development in Uttar Pradesh during 2009-10 to 2015-16. IV.4. Details of Various dairy Schemes and Suggested Convergence in Uttar Pradesh

Chapter-V. Socio-Economic Profile of Selected Area and Sample Milk Producers

V.1. Introduction V.2. About the Selected Area of East. U.P. V.3. About the Selected District Milk Cooperatives V.3.(1). Allahabad (High Districts) V.3.(2). Gorakhpur (Moderate District) V.3.(3). Varanasi (Low District)

[29]

V.3.(4). Faizabad (Not Covered Zone District) V.4. About Selected Primary Dairy Cooperative Societies (PDCS) V.5. Socio-Economic Characteristics of Selected Milk Producers V.5.(1). Socio-Economic Characteristics of Selected Milk Producers V.5.(2). Family Profile of Selected Milk Producers V.5.(3). Cropping Pattern of sample Milk Producers (2015-16) V.5.(4). Details on Herd Strength and Cattle Shed

Chapter-VI. Issues Related to Milk Production

VI.1. Details of Animals Breeds VI.2. Details of Breedable Animals in DCS category of East U.P. survey Date VI.3. Details of Breedable Animals in NDCS category on survey Date VI.4. Availability of water for Dairy in DCS category of Milk Producers VI.5. Availability of water for Dairy in NDCS category of Milk Producers VI.6. Labour use Pattern in Involvement of Family Men and Women in Dairy Activities under DCS and NDCS categories Milk Producers VI.7. Labour use Pattern in Involvement of Hired Men labourers in Dairy Activities under DCS / NDCS categories Milk Producers VI.8. Details about Family Members who Handle Income Received from Dairying and its use under DCS and NDCS categories Milk Producers VI.9. Feed and Fodder Fed Per Animal at the time of Survey in Kg./Animal/Day under DCS category of Milk Producers VI.10. Feed and Fodder Fed Per Animal at the time of Survey in Kg./Animal/Day under NDCS category of Milk Producers VI.11. Veterinary and Breeding Expenditures during Last Year (2015-16) under DCS category of Milk Producers VI.12. Veterinary and Breeding Expenditures during Last Year (2015-16) under NDCS category of Milk Producers VI.13. Cost Details of Feed and Fodder per Animal at the Time of Survey under DCS and NDCS categories of Milk Producers

[30]

VI.14. Season-wise Milk Yield (Per Day) of selected Milk Producers (2015-16) in DCS Category. VI.15. Season-wise Milk Yield (Per Day) of selected Milk Producers (2015-16) in NDCS Category. VI.16. Awareness About Various Schemes Among Milk Producers of DCS and NDCS Categories.

Chapter-VII. Issues Related to Marketing of Milk

VII.1. Use of Produced Milk at Home and Processing and sale (Yesterday) in DCS category of Milk producers VII.2. Use of Produced Milk at Home and Processing and sale (Yesterday) in NDCS category of Milk producers VII.3. Marketing Constraints Reported by Sample Milk Producers

Chapter-VIII. Constraints Faced in Production and Marketing of Milk and Suggestions

VIII.1. Service Delivery System in DCS Category of Milk Producers VIII.1(A). Service Delivery System in NDCS Category of Milk Producers VIII.2. Infrastructural Constraints under DCS and NDCS categories of Milk Producers VIII.3. Economic Constraints under DCS and NDCS categories of Milk Producers. VIII.4. Technical Constraints under DCS and NDCS categories of milk producers VIII.5. Socio-Psychological Constraints under DCS and NDCS categories of milk producers VIII.6. Other Constraints under DCS and NDCS Categories of Milk Producers VIII.7. Suggestions for Improvements in Adoption of Dairy Schemes by Milk Producers under DCS and NDCS Categories

Chapter-IX. Summary of Main Findings, Conclusions and Policy Prescriptions

IX.1. Summary of Main Findings and Conclusions IX.2. Policy Prescriptions References Appendices

[31]

CHAPTER – II

Dairy Development in Selected State of Eastern U.P.

II.1. Role of dairy Sector in the Economy of Eastern U.P.

Dairy farming once a subsidiary occupation and a means of bare subsistence in rural areas is now an important agri-business. The Bombay Pinzrapole established in 1834 and the Military dairy

Farm at Allahabad in 1889, as organized dairying has traversed quite a distance on its way to its present position. The remarks of the secretary of the milk marketing Board of England at a press meet in 1944. “The milk sold in Bombay had a bacterial count higher than the Sewage of

London”, had not moved Indian leaders and planners, the Bombay Milk Scheme in 1945 and the private company ‘Polson’ at Anand in Gujrat would not have been conceived to mark the real beginning of the organized dairy industry in India. A major breakthrough came in 1965 when the

National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) was established at Anand, to promote, plan and organize dairy development programmes through cooperatives and to provide consultancy and to install dairy plant on turn and key basis.

The major organization for implementing dairy development programmes were created under the key village scheme (K.V.S.) and later under the Intensive Cattle Development Project (I.C.D.P.).

In 1970, operation flood based on the Amul Model of dairy development was initiated through the organization of milk producers co-operative. It comprises three tiers milk producers co- operative societies at the village level, the union of societies at the district level and the federation of the unions at the state level.

Among the states of India, the state of Uttar Pradesh is the largest milk producing state of India contributing 17 percent of the total milk production of India. A milk cooperative society in a

[32] village of Allahabad district of eastern Uttar Pradesh set up in 1918 marked the beginning of milk cooperatives in the state of Uttar Pradesh. In the year 1938, the country’s first milk union

“Lucknow Milk Producers Cooperative Union Ltd.”, was set-up in Lucknow, the capital of Uttar

Pradesh. To accelerate the progress of dairy development in the state, the Pradeshik Cooperative

Dairy Fereration Ltd. was setup as a technical consultancy firm in 1962. The state of Uttar

Pradesh is a main milk producing state in India, where, the average milk production has been reported as 34,000 thousand litres per day during 1995. The major pockets of milk production in

U.P. are (1402 thousand litre per day), (1083 thousand litre per day),

(954 thousand litre per day), Allahabad (760 thousand litre per day), (687 thousand litre per day), (659 thousand litre per day), Varanasi (637 thousand litre per day), (598 thousand litre per day), (492 thousand litre per day), Fatehpur (458 thousand litre per day), Gorakhpur (365 thousand litre per day) and Lucknow (277 thousand litre per day). (Dairy

India, 1991, pp. 161).

II.1.1. Milk Production in East U.P. During (2001-02 to 2015-16)

The year-wise milk production in eastern Uttar Pradesh during 2001-02 to 2015-16 worked-out in Table-II-1 shows that the total milk production in eastern region of U.P. increased from

4180.99 thousand M. tonnes in the year 2001-02 to 5671.59 thousand M. tonnes till the year

2008-09 continuously. But, in the year 2009-10 suddenly decreased to 5468.86 thousand M. tonnes. Thereafter, the milk production is east U.P. continuously increased from 6110.27 thousand M. tonnes in the year 2010-11 to 8205.01 thousand M. tonnes till the year 2015-16.

Thus, milk production in eastern U.P. continuously increased during the span of 2001 to 2015 with a sudden decrease in 2009-10. Table-II-1

[33]

Table-II-1 Year-wise milk production in Eastern Uttar Pradesh during (2001-02to 2015-16) (in 000 M.Tonnes) Years Production 2001-2002 4180.994 2002-2003 4526.514 2003-2004 4633.993 2004-2005 4772.665 2005-2006 5031.766 2006-2007 5267.618 2007-2008 5489.333 2008-2009 5671.59 2009-2010 5468.862 2010-2011 6110.27 2011-2012 6936.167 2012-2013 7187.874 2013-2014 7453.942 2014-2015 7767.632 2015-2016 8205.013 Source: Dte. of A.H. & Dairying, U.P., Lucknow

II.1.2. District-wise Milk Production in Eastern U.P. (2001-02 to 2015-16)

The district-wise total milk production in eastern U.P. during the span of 2001-02 to 2015-16 worked-out in Table-II-2 indicates that the total milk production in the eastern region of U.P. has continuously increased from 4180.99 thousand M. tonnes in the year 2001-02 to 8205.01 thousand M. tonnes till the year 2015-16 with a sudden decrease in the year 2009-10. Thus, it is obviously clear that total milk production in eastern Uttar Pradesh has continuously increased during the span of 2001-02 to 2015-16. The district-wise distribution of milk production in eastern region of U.P. shows that the production of milk in Allahabad district was highest which increased from 351.81 thousand M. tonnes in the year 2001-02 to 526.17 thousand M. tonnes till the year 2015-16. While the milk production in district of eastern Uttar Pradesh from 304.85 thousand M. tonnes in the year 2001-02 to 607.69 thousand M. tonnes till the year 2015- 16. Thus, in the total milk production increased at higher rate after 2010-11 and continued to increase till the year 2015-16. In Srawasti district the total milk production was reported to be only 122.47 thousand M. tonnes in the year 2015-16. Thus, in Srawasti district of east U.P. the production of total milk was lowest among all the 28 districts of eastern U.P. The other potential districts were Sultanpur, Jaunpur and Gonda in East U.P. Table-II-2

[34]

Table-II-2 District-wise Milk Production in the eastern Uttar Pradesh (2001-02 to 2015-16) (In thousand M. Tonnes) Sl. Name of the 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 No. District 1. Allahabad 351.814 362.720 379.517 395.292 456.219 480.442 500.228 420.686 436.655 468.423 448.280 467.343 486.786 506.681 526.173 2. Kaushambi ------100.141 103.620 110.302 133.880 139.663 145.582 151.498 158.680 3. Pratapgarh 158.179 165.996 175.113 184.278 187.847 198.133 208.053 215.709 224.315 239.887 248.264 259.018 269.932 280.924 355.863 4. Faizabad 125.384 131.728 136.498 141.628 169.316 177.852 184.793 189.979 195.781 203.816 219.763 228.969 237.476 245.337 280.557 5. Sultanpur 201.219 211.197 219.507 227.187 285.706 298.995 310.598 320.197 329.604 340.582 384.571 399.408 412.909 428.146 503.568 6. Amethi ------7. Ambedkar Nagar 127.524 141.473 135.797 146.700 158.907 166.544 173.267 178.484 184.465 192.892 204.424 213.370 221.674 228.554 209.629 8. Gonda 279.518 379.517 362.720 315.031 302.053 309.951 321.625 329.310 232.598 247.171 348.219 363.616 374.951 389.443 444.319 9. Baharaich 208.729 220.273 230.300 239.311 233.868 244.428 255.795 260.897 182.719 188.797 291.375 303.281 313.519 324.591 414.053 10. Srawasti ------82.059 85.199 93.462 97.412 102.606 106.574 122.467 11. ------107.133 111.697 139.329 145.039 150.101 155.758 182.938 12. Basti 242.769 253.134 263.851 275.777 286.355 301.792 204.738 211.565 218.672 226.942 245.178 252.596 262.540 273.605 340.764 13. Sant Kabir Nagar ------111.509 118.089 121.758 126.192 133.223 138.412 143.211 148.504 147.655 14. Sidharth Ngar 138.211 144.085 150.294 156.880 163.204 168.916 176.017 180.757 186.502 192.216 292.125 301.587 311.315 323.490 273.398 15. Gorakhpur 210.280 218.490 227.424 238.373 247.826 241.563 251.989 262.359 270.531 281.260 342.419 352.690 365.373 380.368 347.034 16. Maharajganj 135.571 141.244 146.926 153.710 159.231 155.913 163.029 168.436 173.890 179.544 238.581 245.775 254.409 264.474 170.393 17. Deoaria 134.804 140.819 146.951 154.589 160.883 189.413 196.637 202.646 210.245 217.933 237.931 245.537 254.664 265.161 301.250 18. 149.838 156.200 162.621 170.963 178.20 198.685 206.922 212.707 219.536 227.610 279.141 287.477 298.820 310.646 278.178 19. Varanasi 155.829 173.958 181.682 188.403 159.210 167.231 174.555 180.972 197.450 188.034 169.644 176.696 182.916 194.062 371.610 20. Chandauli 138.528 153.332 161.032 167.631 135.168 142.849 149.202 154.749 160.798 169.122 178.811 185.559 192.539 203.991 220.246 21. Gazipur 235.042 249.260 260.587 270.404 290.073 300.353 313.075 324.521 337.069 361.421 382.867 395.809 410.497 429.376 408.039 22. Jaunpur 256.426 269.794 282.429 292.779 339.931 349.547 364.563 378.050 396.920 392.473 477.807 493.341 511.637 534.762 450.807 23. Azamgarh 304.845 317.340 330.237 344.726 359.175 403.627 419.926 431.839 436.889 460.860 462.833 477.293 494.342 513.639 607.687 24. Mau 174.435 181.453 188.725 196.896 204.964 163.311 170.006 176.033 181.629 187.541 195.880 203.130 211.135 219.567 168.277 25. 157.415 159.016 164.019 171.483 178.400 217.223 227.538 233.443 241.757 251.237 243.642 251.742 260.957 271.290 265.460 26. Mirzapur 144.043 194.737 155.587 161.358 164.116 170.391 176.636 183.127 189.975 202.502 236.825 244.969 254.104 268.071 255.243 27. Sonbhadra 89.121 94.698 98.590 102.627 135.570 140.720 145.906 151.128 156.905 163.277 218.817 226.256 234.392 247.349 210.103 28. Sant Ravidas Nagar 61.470 66.050 73.586 76.639 75.544 79.739 82.726 85.766 89.387 93.340 88.876 91.886 95.555 101.771 190.622 Eastern U.P. 4180.994 4526.514 4633.993 4772.665 5031.766 5267.618 5489.333 5671.59 5468.862 6110.27 6936.167 7187.874 7453.942 7767.632 8205.013 Source: Dte. Of A.H. & dairying U.P., Lucknow

[35]

II.1.3. District-wise Bovine Population in Eastern U.P. during Livestock Census, 2012

The district-wise bovine population in eastern U.P. during 2012 livestock census worked-out in Table-II-3 shows that the total number of bovine population in eastern U.P. was 2,29,29,230 during the 2012 livestock census. While the total number of bovine population in the state of Uttar Pradesh was 6,57,68,016 during the 2012 livestock census. Thus, more than one third bovine population were there in Eastern Uttar Pradesh. Out of the total bovine animals the maximum i.e. 86,99,173 were cows wherein the maximum i.e. 70,37,392 were only local cows and 16,61,781 cross breed cows in the eastern region of U.P. The number of buffaloes in eastern U.P. were 78,44,761 and goats were 61,85,296 in all. Thus, the number of bovine animals in eastern region of Uttar Pradesh was considerably higher than the other three regions of Uttar Pradesh. Among the 28 districts falling in eastern region the maximum number of bovine animals i.e. 15,88,946 were reported in Allahabad district against the minimum i.e. 4,70,763 only in Srawasti district. The other districts having higher bovine animals were Baharaich, azamgarh, Sultanpur and Jaunpur. Buffaloes and Cows were maximum in Allahabad. The data given in Table-II-3. Table-II-3 District-wise Bovine Population in Eastern U.P. during 2012 livestock census (In Numbers) Sl. Bovine Population (2012) Census No. Name of Districts Cross Local Total Buffaloes Goats Total Breed Cows cows Bovine cows Animals 1. Allahabad 148778 550639 699417 584550 299979 1583946 2. Kaushambi 12338 151048 163386 220933 211425 595744 3. Pratapgarh 90765 287362 378127 356180 263750 998057 4. Faizabad 28438 351668 380106 290427 186152 856685 5. Sultanpur 43808 345215 389023 271965 178041 839029 6. Amethi 43808 298104 341912 270424 264080 876416 7. Ambedkar Nagar 53743 174135 227878 288813 142560 659251 8. Gonda 53338 417166 470504 395253 253326 1119083 9. Baharaich 10995 525183 536178 365963 502321 1404462 10. Srawasti 2231 198123 200354 130956 139453 470763 11. Balrampur 4092 269475 273567 165971 173832 613370 12. Basti 55216 98681 153897 334153 174247 662297 13. Sant Kabir Nagar 30265 63305 93570 132123 103349 329042 14. Sidharth Ngar 6159 265615 271774 167061 228818 667653 15. Gorakhpur 102605 186160 288765 279122 196224 764111

[36]

16. Maharajganj 33627 52034 85661 181832 260170 527663 17. Deoaria 110169 89928 200097 211271 263799 675167 18. Kushinagar 84394 74000 158394 269441 332745 760580 19. Varanasi 53050 187661 240711 295072 162090 697873 20. Chandauli 42284 162592 204876 221726 98838 525440 21. Gazipur 56124 325767 381891 478776 307656 1168323 22. Jaunpur 141816 330428 472244 464499 267452 1204195 23. Azamgarh 142876 396897 539773 438385 311608 1289766 24. Mau 28096 132398 160494 174986 175568 511048 25. Ballia 84296 189552 273848 233907 154580 662335 26. Mirzapur 91273 335641 426914 251180 167168 845262 27. Sonbhadra 15113 460780 475893 225214 291942 993049 28. Sant Ravidas Nagar 92084 117835 209919 144578 74123 428620 Eastern U.P. 1661781 7037392 8699173 7844761 6185296 22729230 Uttar Pradesh 3579015 15978052 19557067 30625334 15585615 65768016 Source: Dte. of A.H. & dairying U.P., Lucknow

II.2. Plan-wise Outlay and Expenditures under Dairy Development Efforts in U.P.

The plan-wise outlay and expenditures under dairy development efforts in the state of Uttar Pradesh worked-out in Table-II-4 indicates that in the first five year plan (1951-56) the total outlay was Rs. 19.000 lakh. The expenditures during 1 st five year plan was reported as 19.000 lakhs. Thus, the total outlay allotted during the first five year plan was utilized. The total outlays allotted for the 2 nd five year plan (1956-61) i.e. Rs. 21.000 lakhs were also utilized fully. In 3 rd five year plan (1961-66) too the total outlay i.e. Rs. 385.000 lakhs was fully utilized till the end of the plan. Thereafter, under the three consecutive annual plans (1966-1969), the total outlays were Rs. 162.000 lakhs and the total were utilized within the plans period. During 4 th and 5 th five year plans the outlays were increased but the total outlays were fully utilized. Again two consecutive annual plans (1978-1980) were run and the outlay of Rs. 286.760 lakhs were utilized fully within plan period. During 6 th and 7 th five year plans the outlays were increased as Rs. 2821.507 lakhs and Rs. 3179.440 lakhs respectively and the total was utilized within the plan period. Thereafter again two annual plans i.e. 1990-91 and 1991-92 were run and the total outlays were fully utilized. Thereafter, the 8 th five year plan (1992-97) started with the outlay of Rs. 12040.880 and the total was utilized. Again during 9 th and 10 th plans the outlays of Rs. 2054.460 lakhs and Rs. 5596.320 lakhs were utilized fully within the plan period. Hence, in the

[37]

11 th plan (2007-12) the outlay was increased to Rs. 25834.446 lakhs but the total was utilized within plan period. During 12 th plan (2012-17) an outlay of Rs. 33440.400 lakhs were allotted and the plan will end on 31/03/2017. The total expenditure was not available in the records. Therefore, the outlays allotted in all the five year plans were fully utilized during the plan periods. The related data are given in Table-II-4. Table-II-4 Plan-wise outlay and Expenditure under Dairy Development Efforts in Uttar Pradesh (1 st Five Year Plan to 12 th Plan)

Sl. Five Year Plans Years Outlay Expenditures No. (*Rs. in lakh) (Rs. in lakh) 1. 1st Five Year Plan 1951-1956 19.000 19.000 2. 2nd Five Year Plan 1956-1961 21.000 21.000 3. 3rd Five Year Plan 1961-1966 385.000 385.000 4. Three Annual Plans 1966-1969 162.000 162.000 5. 4th Five Year Plan 1969-1974 509.000 509.000 6. 5th Five Year Plan 1974-1978 436.000 436.000 7. Two Annual Plans 1978-1980 286.760 286.760 8. 6th Five Year Plan 1980-1985 2821.507 2821.507 9. 7th Five Year Plan 1985-1990 3179.440 3179.440 10. Annual Plans 1990-1991 1398.900 1398.900 11. Annual Plans 1991-1992 1185.190 1185.190 12. 8th Five Year Plan 1992-1997 12040.880 12040.880 13. 9th Five Year Plan 1997-2002 2054.460 2054.460 14. 10 th Five Year Plan 2002-2007 5596.320 5596.320 15. 11 th Five Year Plan 2007-2012 25834.446 25834.446 16. 12 th Five Year Plan 2012-2017 33440.400 33440.400 Source: Annual Progress Report 2015-16 Dairy Development Department, Lucknow, U.P. *Total outlay has been utilized (total utilized)

II.3. District-wise Primary Dairy Cooperative Societies in Eastern Uttar Pradesh (2014-15)

The district-wise number of primary dairy cooperative societies (P.D.C.S.) existing during the year 2014-15 worked-out in table-II-5 shows that in the eastern region of Uttar Pradesh there were 4049 primary dairy cooperative societies (PDCS) during the year 2014-15. The reason behind the scanty numbers of PDCS in this densely populated as well as having the higher number of cows and buffaloes is that 6 districts out of 28 districts falling in eastern region are newly created districts. Such districts are (1) kaushambi, (2) Amethi, (3) Sant Kabir Nagar, (4) Chandauli, (5) Sonbhadra and Sant Ravidas Nagar. In these districts the records were still not

[38] maintained and main of the important information were not at all available. The data worked-out in Table-II-5 shows that number of PDCS in these 6 districts is 0 (nil). Table-II-5 also highlights that there were 5 such districts wherein the number of PDCS were larger. Such districts were (1) Varanasi (528 PDCS), (2) Sultanpur (406 PDCS), (3) Gonda (369 PDCS), (4) Ambedkar Nagar (361 PDCS) and (5) Faizabad (274 PDCS). In rest of the districts the No. of PDCS varies from 30 in to 270 in of eastern region. The related data are given in Table-II-5. Table-II-5 District-wise Primary Dairy Cooperative Societies in Eastern U.P. (2014-15)

Sl. No. Name of the Districts Primary Dairy Cooperative Societies P.D.C.S. (2014-15) 1. Allahabad 238 2. Kaushambi 0 3. Pratapgarh 32 4. Faizabad 274 5. Sultanpur 406 6. Amethi 0 7. Ambedkar Nagar 361 8. Gonda 369 9. Baharaich 100 10. Srawasti 70 11. Balrampur 55 12. Basti 256 13. Sant Kabir Nagar 0 14. Sidharth Ngar 83 15. Gorakhpur 207 16. Maharajganj 30 17. Deoaria 142 18. Kushinagar 69 19. Varanasi 528 20. Chandauli 0 21. Gazipur 226 22. Jaunpur 115 23. Azamgarh 40 24. Mau 80 25. Ballia 270 26. Mirzapur 98 27. Sonbhadra 0 28. Sant Ravidas Nagar 0 Eastern U.P. 4049 Source: Dairy development Department Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, U.P.

[39]

II.4. District-wise Veterinary Facilities Available in Eastern Uttar Pradesh (2014-15)

The district-wise veterinary facilities available in Eastern Uttar Pradesh during the year 2014-15

analysed in Table-II-6 shows that in eastern U.P. as a whole the total numbers of artificial

insemination centres established till the year 2014-15 were 1821 of which the maximum i.e. 150

AICs were in Allahabad district against the minimum number i.e. on 16 in Srawasti district. In

Varanasi district also there were only 34 AICs till the year 2014-15. In Sant Ravidas Nagar also

there were only 21 AICs. Thus, facilities of AICs were deplorably poor in eastern U.P.

Indigenous insemination centres were only 7 and all were in of east U.P. There

was only one Livestock Farm in Varanasi district. The no. of veterinary hospital was 854 in the

whole of east U.P. the higher no. of veterinary hospitals were in Azamgarh, Ballia, and

Gorakhpur districts. The veterinary hospitals of ‘D’ category were 66 only in the whole eastern

region till 2014-15. The number of livestock service centres in east U.P. were 896 in all. Sheeps

Assistance Centres in eastern region of U.P. were only 7 scattered remotely in the whole east

U.P. There was only one sheep farm in Chandauli district of east U.P. There were 120 sheeps

and wool extension farms in eastern region of U.P. of which the maximum i.e. 32 were in

Allahabad district 15 in Varanasi district and 14 in . Thus, Allahabad, Varanasi

and Mirzapur were the centres of sheep wools in eastern region of U.P. There was a Goat Farm

in Allahabad district of east U.P. There were two Pig Insemination Centres one each in Varanasi

and Chandauli districts of east U.P. Thus, in whole of the eastern region of U.P. the conditions of

animal husbandry as well as veterinary hospitals were deplorably poor. The related data are

given in the Table-II-6.

[40]

Table-II-6 District-wise Veterinary Facilities available in eastern Uttar Pradesh (2014-15) (Figures in numbers) Sl. Name of Districts Artificial Indigeno Livestoc Veterinar (D) Livestoc Sheep Sheep’s Sheep & Goat Pig No. of East U.P. Insemina us ks Farms y Category k service assistanc farms wool ext. farms insemina tion Insemina hospital Vet. centre e centres farms tion Centre tion Hospital farms Centre 1. Allahabad 150 -- -- 49 7 94 -- -- 32 1 -- 2. Kaushambi 39 -- -- 15 2 22 -- -- 11 -- -- 3. Pratapgarh 101 -- -- 50 5 46 1 -- 4 -- -- 4. Faizabad 44 -- -- 25 1 18 -- -- 1 -- -- 5. Sultanpur 79 -- -- 32 1 48 -- -- 7 -- -- 6. Amethi 82 -- -- 28 -- 41 ------7. Ambedkar Nagar 41 -- -- 18 2 21 ------8. Gonda 68 -- -- 35 2 31 -- -- 2 -- -- 9. Baharaich 65 -- -- 35 1 29 2 -- 1 -- -- 10. Srawasti 16 -- -- 13 -- 3 1 ------11. Balrampur 38 -- -- 19 -- 19 -- -- 1 -- -- 12. Basti 64 -- -- 31 2 31 ------13. Sant Kabir Nagar 37 -- -- 18 -- 19 ------14. Sidharth Ngar 61 -- -- 25 1 35 ------15. Gorakhpur 105 -- -- 52 7 46 -- -- 3 -- -- 16. Maharajganj 57 -- -- 31 2 24 ------17. Deoaria 64 -- -- 26 3 35 -- -- 2 -- -- 18. Kushinagar 64 -- -- 24 1 39 -- -- 1 -- -- 19. Varanasi 34 -- 1 16 3 15 -- -- 15 -- 1 20. Chandauli 39 7 -- 18 -- 21 -- 1 5 -- 1 21. Gazipur 102 -- -- 52 4 46 2 -- 2 -- -- 22. Jaunpur 81 -- -- 36 3 42 -- -- 3 -- -- 23. Azamgarh 112 -- -- 58 7 47 -- -- 4 -- -- 24. Mau 59 -- -- 31 1 27 1 -- 2 -- -- 25. Ballia 102 -- -- 56 6 40 -- -- 1 -- -- 26. Mirzapur 56 -- -- 27 2 27 -- -- 14 -- -- 27. Sonbhadra 40 -- -- 23 2 15 -- -- 1 -- -- 28. Sant Ravidas Nagar 21 -- -- 11 1 9 -- -- 8 -- -- Eastern U.P. 1821 7 1 854 66 890 7 1 120 1 2 Source: Directorate of A.H., Uttar Pradesh. Lucknow, (U.P.) Progress Report, 2014-15

[41]

II.5. District-wise Area under Fodder Crops in Eastern Uttar Pradesh during 2013-14

The district-wise area under fodder crops in eastern Uttar Pradesh during 2013-14 worked-out in Table-II-7 indicates that in the whole eastern region of Uttar Pradesh the total area under fodder crops was estimated as 80901 hectares during the year 2013-14. Out of total area under fodder crops, the maximum i.e. 43948 hectares were covered under kharif fodders against the minimum i.e. 12510 hectares covered under zaid fodders. While under rabi fodders a considerable area of 24443 hectares was covered during the agricultural year 2013-14 in eastern region of Uttar Pradesh. Thus, in the whole eastern region of Uttar Pradesh the scanty area under fodder crops was not adequate to meet out the requirement of fodders by the teaming livestocks and bovine animals in the eastern region. The district-wise distribution of area under fodder crops indicates that the maximum area under total fodder crops i.e. 7472 hectares were reported in against the minimum i.e. 252 hectares only in Kushi Nagar district. The area under fodders varied from 332 hectares in Deoria to 6467 hectares in Faizabad district of east U.P. Thus, except in 4 districts the area under fodder was meagre to meet the requirement. Table-II-7.

Table-II-7 District-wise Area under Fodder Crops in eastern U.P. during 2013-14 (Area in hectares) Sl. Name of Districts Area under fodder crops (2013-14) No. Kharif Rabi Zaid Total 1. Allahabad 2782 390 1583 4755 2. Kaushambi 1227 264 180 1779 3. Pratapgarh 1353 709 791 2853 4. Faizabad 3322 1584 1561 6467 5. Sultanpur 4425 1660 1387 7472 6. Amethi 2394 1901 886 5181 7. Ambedkar Nagar 1383 1167 943 3493 8. Gonda 1424 1564 365 3353 9. Baharaich 980 1186 52 2218 10. Srawasti 315 441 40 769 11. Balrampur 336 790 23 1149 12. Basti 959 1523 285 2767 13. Sant Kabir Nagar 575 392 121 1088 14. Sidharth Ngar 333 629 0 962 15. Gorakhpur 979 1059 309 2347

[42]

16. Maharajganj 151 259 167 577 17. Deoaria 55 198 79 332 18. Kushinagar 131 72 49 252 19. Varanasi 2559 862 371 3792 20. Chandauli 1325 660 70 2055 21. Gazipur 9318 2394 1504 13216 22. Jaunpur 2003 971 617 3591 23. Azamgarh 2771 1642 546 4959 24. Mau 444 628 169 1241 25. Ballia 434 419 286 1139 26. Mirzapur 1036 640 47 1723 27. Sonbhadra 44 314 0 358 28. Sant Ravidas Nagar 790 125 71 986 Eastern U.P. 43948 24443 12510 80901 Source: Dte. of A.H. & dairying U.P., Lucknow, fodder crops section, 2013-14

[43]

CHAPTER – III

Description of the Selected Milk Cooperatives in Eastern Uttar Pradesh

This chapter mainly deals with the details about selected district milk cooperatives as well as selected primary dairy cooperative societies of Eastern Uttar Pradesh. In cases of district milk cooperatives it has included the basic information, details on milk collection and procurement, different schemes and programmes, average cost of milk processing by dairy plant, production and marketing of different processed products by plant, constraints faced, potential, suggestions by officials and personal observations of the investigators. While in cases of selected primary dairy cooperative societies it has included their identification and general information, availability of facilities, milk collection and disposal, concentrates supplied by the societies, veterinary and breeding services provided by the societies, diseases of livestock, training provided by the societies, details about development programmes and support, effects of programmes on key variables, general opinion, perception constraints and suggestions on programmes, constraints faced by PDCS and personal observation of investigator on PDCS in the following paragraphs:

III.1. Details on District Milk Cooperatives III.1.1. Basic Information on selected District Milk Cooperatives

Basic information on selected district milk cooperatives of Eastern Uttar Pradesh detailed in Table-III-1 shows that the four district cooperatives were namely (1) Allahabad (high), (2) Gorakhpur (moderate), (3) Varanasi (low) and Faizabad (not covered zone). Gorakhpur cooperative had covered only one district. While Allahabad, Varanasi and Faizabad cooperatives had covered two districts each. The maximum i.e. 1410 villages were covered by Allahabad against minimum i.e. 412 villages by Varanasi and Gorakhpur had covered 779 villages. While Faizabad cooperative had covered a considerable number i.e. 1235 villages. While the number of PDCS covered was highest i.e. 1410 by Allahabad cooperative, 381 PDCS by Gorakhpur, 398 PDCS by Varanasi and 534 PDCS by Faizabad cooperative respectively. Thus, Allahabad was highest, Gorakhpur moderate, Varanasi low and Faizabad was considerable under not covered zone of Eastern U.P. Information are contained in Table-III-1.

[44]

Table-III-1 Basic Information of selected Unions

Sl. Particulars Allahabad Gorakhpur Varanasi Faizabad No. (High) (Moderate) (Low) (Not Covered Zone) 1. Milk Union (Name) Allahabad Gorakhpur Varanasi Faizabad 2. Districts Covered (No.) 2 1 2 2 3. Villages Covered (No.) 1410 779 412 1235 4. PDCS* (No.) Covered 1410 381 398 534 5. Districts Covered 2 1 2 2 *PDCS- District Dairy co-operative society

III.1.2. Details on Milk Collection / Procurement during 2015-16

Details on milk collection / procurement during 2015-16 worked-out in Table-III-2 indicate that the highest i.e. 1731504 litres of milk was procured in Allahabad cooperatives during 2015-16 against the lowest i.e. 43707 litres in Gorakhpur cooperative union. While in varnasi cooperative the total milk procured as 278071 litres and in Faizabad it was reported as 106762 litres during 2015-16. Thus, in Allahabad union the collection of milk was highest among the selected four district milk cooperatives during 2015-16. Accordingly the number of DCS members was also reported to be the highest i.e. 53758 in Allahabad milk cooperative against the lowest i.e. 3720 only in Gorakhpur milk cooperative. While in Varanasi the number of DCS members was 15671 and in Faizabad milk cooperative it was 9168. Thus, in the other three milk cooperatives the number of DCS members was found varying from 3720 in Gorakhpur to 15671 in Varanasi milk cooperative during 2015-16. The number milk pourers was also highest i.e. 5682 in Allahabad against lowest i.e. 3465 in Gorakhpur milk cooperative. The average milk fat percentage was also highest i.e. 4.89% in Allahabad against the lowest i.e. 3.82% in Gorakhpur. The daily milk yield was highest i.e. 6540 litres in Allahabad against the lowest i.e. 270 litres only in Gorakhpur district. The cattle feed sale in Allahabad was N.A. While in Gorakhpur it was highest i.e. 1,20,000 kgs against the lowest i.e. 29,350 kgs in Varanasi milk cooperative. The De warmer doses were reported to be maximum i.e. 53,949 in Varanasi milk cooperative against 24,069 in Gorakhpur milk cooperative during 2015-16. Thus, Allahabad was the high milk cooperative in almost all the respects during 2015-16 in the whole Eastern Uttar Pradesh. The data are contained in Table-III-2.

[45]

Table-III-2

Details on Milk collection/procurement 2015-16

Sl. Particulars Milk 2015-16 (April 2015 to March 2016) No. Allahabad Gorakhpur Varanasi Faizabad (High) (Moderate) (Low) (Not Covered Zone) 1. Milk Procurement (lit) 1731504 43707 278071 106762 2. DCS Members (no) 53758 3720 15671 9168 3. Pourer Members (no) 5682 3465 5131 4981 4. Av. Milk fat (%) 4.89 3.82 4.30 4.82 5. Daily Milk yield (lit) 6540 270 1002 271 6. Mineral mixture sale (kg) N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 7. Cattle feed sale (kg) N.A. 120000 29350 42400 8. Bypass Fat Sale (kg) N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 9. De-wormer (doses) 33406 24069 53949 27545 10. Veterinary Visits N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. Source: Dte. of A.H. & Dairying U.P., Lucknow

III.1.3. District Milk Cooperative-wise Scheme/Programmes

The information worked-out in Table-III-3 shows that in Allahabad as well as Gorakhpur milk cooperatives mainly technical inputs programmes/schemes were implemented for dewaring ticks and mastitis among the milch animals. These two milk cooperatives had covered districts Allahabad, Kaushambi and Gorakhpur of Eastern U.P. The target was to fulfill all the functions of the programmes in milk cooperatives which was achieved fully as reported. While in Varanasi milk cooperative. The programme of strengthening cooperatives and increasing milk production was implemented wherein the collection of milk by automatic machines was introduced to be done in Varanasi and Chandauli districts of Eastern U.P. The target was to collect total milk by automatic machines and was achieved fully. In Faizabad milk cooperative NDDB – NDP-1 Training Programme was organized in the whole Faizabad district. The target of 70 DCS was put to be organized of which organizing 57 DCS was achieved as reported by the milk cooperative Faizabad. The related information are contained in Table-III-3.

[46]

Table-III-3

Milk Union-wise Different Programs/ Schemes (attach separate sheet if required)

Union Name of Function Coverage Target Achievement Programmes / area Schemes Milk Union 1 Technical Dewaring to Allahabad All functions All functions Allahabad Inputs control tick and milk of PDCS Programmes and mastitis Kaushambi cooperative society Milk Union 2 Technical Tick and Gorakhpur All functions All functions Gorakhpur Inputs mastit milk of PDCS Programmes confird cooperative society Milk Union 3 Strength of Automatic Varanasi Total Total Varanasi milk milk and collection of achieved cooperatives collection Chandauli milk boosting automatically production of milk Milk Union 4 NDDB, Traning Faizabad Organization 70 DCs Faizabad NDP-1 of 70 DCS organized Source: Det. Of A.H. & Dairying U.P., lucknow

III.1.4. Average Cost of Processing of Milk in Dairy Plants of Selected Milk Cooperatives

Table-III-4 indicates the item-wise break-up of cost of processing of milk in Rs. per litre in dairy plants of the selected district milk cooperatives of Eastern U.P. during 2015. The total cost of processing of milk was reported to be maximum i.e. Rs. 3.37 per litre in Allahabad, Rs. 3.02 in Gorakhpur, Rs. 2.80 in Varanasi and Rs. 3.31 per litre in Faizabad district. Thus, processing cost of milk was maximum in Allahabad and minimum in Varanasi milk cooperative of Eastern U.P. The major item of cost was water and power in chilling the milk which was found varying from Rs. 2.72 per litre in Allahabad plant to Re. 0.77 per litre in Faizabad plant. The next important item of cost was labour charges which was found varying from Re. 0.32 per litre in Allahabad to Rs. 1.01 litre in Faizabad plant of East U.P. The data are given in Table-III-4.

[47]

Table-III-4 Item-wise Average Cost of Processing of Milk (Rs/litre) in Dairy Plant by selected Milk Cooperatives - 2015

Items of cost of processing Milk (Rs./Litre) Milk Union 1 Milk Union 2 Milk Union 3 Milk Union 4 Allahabad Gorakhpur Varanasi Faizabad Water, electricity, generator and chilling charges 2.72 1.29 1.20 0.77 Furnace oil and coal -- -- 0.45 0.78 Chemicals, detergent and laboratory expenses 0.04 0.11 0.08 0.13 Labour charges 0.32 0.97 0.34 1.01 Repairs and maintenance 0.12 0.24 0.17 0.06 Depreciation charges 0.17 0.41 0.06 0.44 Interest on capital -- -- 0.50 0.12 Total processing cost 3.37 3.02 2.80 3.31 Source: P.D.C.F. Ltd., U.P., Lucknow

III.1.5.(1). Production and Marketing of Different processed Products by Plant of Selected Milk Cooperative Allahabad During 2014-15.

Table-III-5(1) shows that Allahabad plant had processed maximum i.e. 64.347 thousand kgs of Paneer against minimum i.e. 12.549 thousand kgs of Chhachh (whey). Also processed a considerable quantity i.e. 35.878 thousand kgs of Ghee and 26.163 thousand kgs of Dahi during the year 2014-15. The price-spread of processed products indicates that the total cost of production of Ghee was estimated as Rs. 347.535 thousand, in Paneer Rs. 31.976 thousand, in Dahi (curd) Rs. 650.165 thousand and in Chhachh (whey) Rs. 12.458 thousand respectively. Among the total cost of production, the major cost incurred was manufacturing cost in cases of all the processed products being estimated as maximum i.e. 349.289 thousand in case of Dahi (curd) against the minimum i.e. Rs. 17.179 thousand in case of Paneer. The next main item of cost was transportation cost in cases of almost all the processed products by Allahabad plant. Thus, the milk cooperative Allahabad had received maximum i.e. Rs. 11983.252 thousand from distributors for Ghee, Rs. 1479.820 thousand for paneer, Rs. 1752.961thousand for Dahi (curd) and Rs. 250.990 thousand for Chhachh (whey) from the distributors. Therefore, the margins earned by milk cooperative Allahabad were Rs. 251.146 thousand for Ghee, Rs. 147.982 thousand for Paneer, rs. 405.535 thousand for Curd and Rs. 62.747 thousand for whey. The data are given in Table-III-5(1)

[48]

Table-III-5(1) Production and Marketing of Different Processed Products by Plant of selected Milk Cooperative Allahabad During 2014/2015

Particulars Processed Dairy Products in (000 kgs) Mawa/ Ice Any Price-spread Ghee Cheese Butter Paneer SMP Dahi Shrikhand Lassi Chhach Khoya Cream other Production (‘000 kg) 35.878 -- -- 64.347 -- 26.163 -- -- 12.549 ------Manufacturing Cost 186.704 -- -- 17.179 -- 3492.284 -- -- 67.014 ------(Rs’ 000) Transportation cost (Rs’ 160.831 -- -- 14.798 -- 300.881 -- -- 57.567 ------000) Advertisement cost (Rs’ NA -- -- NA -- NA -- -- NA ------000) Total production cost 347.535 -- -- 31.976 -- 650.165 -- -- 12.458 ------(Rs’ 000) Dairy from 11983.252 -- -- 1479.820 -- 1752.961 -- -- 250.990 ------Sale Distributors Proceeds Distributors NA -- -- NA -- NA -- -- NA ------Received from In Retailers Rs’ 000 Retailer ------By from Consumers Margins Dairy 251.146 -- -- 147.982 -- 405.535 -- -- 62.747 ------Received Distributors ------In Rs’ 000 By Retailers ------Total Margins 251.146 -- -- 147.982 -- 405.535 -- -- 62.747 ------Source: Office of District Milk Cooperative Union Allahabad

[49]

III.1.5.(2). Production and Marketing of Processed Products by Plant of Selected Milk Cooperative Gorakhpur during 2014-15.

The analysis on processed products and price-spread particulars worked-out in Table-III-5(2) shows that the cost of production of Ghee was reported to be maximum i.e. Rs. 7787.417 thousand against the minimum i.e. Rs. 15.768 thousand for whey (Chhachh), Rs. 68.5541 thousand for cheese kheer, Rs. 469.993 thousand for paneer, Rs. 202.37 thousand for curd (dahi), Rs. 209.433 thousand for Peda, Rs. 21.953 thousand for khoya and Rs. 61.923 thousand for Rasgulla. While the prices received from the distributors for the different dairy products by the dairy of milk cooperative Gorakhpur were Rs. 9285.400 thousand for Ghee, Rs. 326.726 thousand for cheese kheer, Rs. 550.380 thousand for Paneer, Rs. 236.726 thousand for curd (dahi), Rs. 254.450 thousand for Pada, Rs. 17.580 thousand for whey (Matha), Rs. 75.58 thousand for Khoya and Rs. 72.372 thousand for Rasgulla. Thus, the margins received by the dairy of milk cooperative Gorakhpur for different dairy products were Rs. 1497.783 thousand from Ghee, Rs. 2580.172 thousand from cheese kheer, Rs. 80.387 thousand from Paneer Rs. 33.798 thousand from curd, Rs. 45.017 thousand from Peda, Rs. 1.182 thousand from whey, Rs. 53.898 thousand from khoya and Rs. 10.449 thousand from Rasgulla respectively and as such the same were the total margins earned by the milk cooperative Gorakhpur. The information on prices received from retailers by distributors and on prices received from consumers by the retailers were not available. The data are given in Table-III-5(2).

III.1.5.(3). Production and Marketing of Processed Products by Plant of Selected Milk Cooperative Varanasi during 2014-15.

The information on processed dairy products and their price-spread analysed in table-III-5(3) show that the production of Ghee was reported to be maximum i.e. 97.438 thousand kgs against the minimum i.e. 14.886 thousand kgs of cheese kheer during 2014-15. While the production of paneer was 16.808 thousand kgs, curd 39.597 thousand kgs, lassi 32.908 thousand kgs, whey 95.835 thousand kgs and others 19.108 thousand kgs. Accordingly the total cost of production estimated for Ghee was Rs. 34459.21 thousand, chees kheer Rs. 2048.735 thousand, paneer Rs. 3710.366 thousand, curd Rs. 2200.176 thousand, Lassi Rs. 1292.195 thousand, whey Rs. 2107.136 thousand and other Rs. 3668.493 thousand respectively. While the prices received from

[50] distributors by the dairy were Rs. 35078.00 thousand for Ghee, Rs. 2381.76 thousand for chees kheer, Rs. 4033.92 thousand for Paneer, Rs. 3167.76 thousand for curd, Rs. 1645.40 thousand for lassi Rs. 3114.687 thousand for whey and Rs. 4050.896 thousand for other products. The prices received by distributors from retailers and by retailers from the customers were not available at the time of survey. Hence, the total margins received by dairy were estimated as Rs. 618.79 thousand from Ghee, Rs. 333.02 thousand from cheese kheer, Rs. 323.554 thousand from Paneer, Rs. 967.584 thousand from curd, Rs. 353.205 thousand from Lassi, Rs. 1007.501 thousand whey and Rs. 382.403 thousand from other products. Therefore, it was found that margins were maximum from whey and curd to milk cooperative Varanasi during 2014-15. The related data are given in Table-III-5(3).

III.1.5.(4). Production and Marketing of Different Processed Products by Faizabad Dairy Plant during 2014-15.

Table-III-5(4) indicates that in Faizabad dairy plant the production of Whey (chhachh) was maximum i.e. 101.90 thousand kgs followed by 66.54 thousand kgs of curd, 35.69 thousand kgs of Ghee, 33.94 thousand kgs cheese kheer, 3.43 thousand kgs butter, 18.25 thousand kgs paneer, 13.45 thousand kgs shrikhand, 4.95 thousand kgs khoya and 6.85 thousand kgs peda. The cost of production of curd was estimated maximum as Rs. 3765.38 thousand against the minimum as Rs. 296.97 thousand for butter, Rs. 3082.248 thousand for Ghee, Rs. 2938.524 thousand for cheese kheer, Rs. 1580.83 thousand for Paneer, Rs. 1154.51 thousand shrikhand, Rs. 779.21 thousand for whey, Rs. 428.58 thousand for khoya and Rs. 593.08 thousand for peda. While the prices received by dairy from the distributors were highest i.e. Rs. 12355.56 thousand from Ghee, Rs. 5995.42 thousand from cheese kheer, Rs. 1075.06 thousand butter, Rs. 2300.96 thousand from paneer, Rs. 4517.92 thousand from curd, Rs. 2856.69 thousand from shrikhand, Rs. 3518.74 thousand from whey, Rs. 1226.85 thousand from khoya and Rs. 1675.27 thousand from peda. The information on prices received by distributors from retailers as well as by retailers from customers were not available at the time of survey. Thus, the total margins received by the dairy were estimated as Rs.9273.30 thousand for Ghee, Rs. 3056.89 thousand for cheese kheer, Rs. 778.09 thousand for butter, Rs. 720.869 thousand for paneer, Rs. 752.54 thousand for curd, Rs. 1692.18 thousand for shrikhand, Rs. 2739.53 thousand for whey, Rs. 798.29 thousand for khoya and Rs. 1082.10 thousand for peda.

[51]

Table-III-5(2) Production and Marketing of Different Processed Products by Plant of selected Milk Cooperative Gorakhpur During 2014-2015

Particulars Processed Dairy Products in (000 kgs) Mawa/ Any Price-spread Ghee Cheese Butter Paneer SMP Dahi Shrikhand Peda Chhach Ice Cream Khoya other Production (‘000 kg) 2.931 2.431 -- 2.439 -- 3.280 -- 1.090 0.654 0.099 0.407 -- Manufacturing Cost 7737.54 27.227 -- 458.53 -- 196.80 -- 207.58 14.650 20.270 60.310 -- (Rs’ 000) Transportation cost (Rs’ 49.827 41.327 -- 41.463 -- 5.576 -- 1.853 1.118 1.683 6.919 -- 000) Advertisement cost (Rs’ ------000) Total production cost 7787.417 68.554 -- 469.993 -- 202.376 -- 209.433 15.768 21.953 61.993 -- (Rs’ 000) Dairy from 9285.40 326.726 -- 550.380 -- 236.174 -- 254.450 17.580 75.851 72.372 -- Sale Distributors Proceeds Distributors NA NA -- NA -- NA -- NA NA NA NA -- Received from In Retailers Rs’ 000 Retailer NA NA -- NA -- NA -- NA NA NA NA -- By from Consumers Margins Dairy 1497.783 258.172 -- 80.387 -- 33.798 -- 45.017 1.812 53.898 10.449 -- Received Distributors NA NA -- NA -- NA -- NA NA NA NA -- In Rs’ 000 By Retailers NA NA -- NA -- NA -- NA NA NA NA -- Total Margins 1497.783 258.172 -- 80.387 -- 33.798 -- 45.017 1.812 53.898 10.449 -- Source: District Milk Cooperative Union, Gorakhpur

[52]

Table-III-5(3) Production and Marketing of Different Processed Products by Plant of selected Milk Cooperative Varanasi During 2014-2015

Particulars of Processed Dairy Products in (000 kgs) Mawa/ Ice Price-spread Ghee Cheese Butter Paneer SMP Dahi Shrikhand Lassi Chhach Any other Khoya Cream Production (‘000 kg) 97.438 14.886 -- 16.808 -- 39.597 -- 32.908 95.835 -- -- 19.108 Manufacturing Cost 34312.53 2033.785 -- 3690.94 -- 2196.98 -- 1289.55 2099.501 -- -- 3668.493 (Rs’ 000) Transportation cost (Rs’ 118.319 14.954 -- 19.426 -- 3.196 -- 2.645 7.635 ------000) Advertisement cost (Rs’ 28.369 ------000) Total production cost 34459.21 2048.739 -- 3710.366 -- 2200.176 -- 1292.105 2107.136 -- -- 3668.493 (Rs’ 000) Dairy from 35078.20 2381.76 -- 4033.92 -- 3167.76 -- 1645.40 3114.637 -- -- 4050.896 Sale Distributors Proceeds Distributors NA NA -- NA -- NA -- NA NA -- -- NA Received from In Retailers Rs’ 000 Retailer NA NA -- NA -- NA -- NA NA -- -- NA By from Consumers Margins Dairy 618.79 333.02 -- 323.554 -- 967.584 -- 353.205 1007.501 -- -- 382.403 Received Distributors ------In Rs’ 000 By Retailers NA NA -- NA -- NA -- NA NA -- -- NA Total Margins 618.79 333.02 -- 323.554 -- 967.584 -- 353.205 1007.501 -- -- 382.403 Source: District Milk Cooperative Union, Varanasi

[53]

Table-III-5(4) Production and Marketing of Different Processed Product by Plant of selected Milk Cooperative Faizabad During 2014-2015

Particulars Processed Dairy Products in (000 kgs) Mawa/ Any Price-spread Ghee Cheese Butter Paneer SMP Dahi Shrikhand Lassi Chhach Peda Khoya other Production (‘000 kg) 35.69 33.94 3.43 18.25 -- 66.59 13.45 -- 101.90 4.95 6.85 -- Manufacturing Cost 3008.20 2867.93 289.84 1542.13 -- 5626.86 1136.53 -- 568.30 418.28 578.83 -- (Rs’ 000) Transportation cost (Rs’ 68.708 65.504 6.62 35.223 -- 128.52 25.96 -- 195.70 9.55 13.22 -- 000) Advertisement cost (Rs’ 5.34 5.09 0.51 2.74 -- 10.00 2.02 -- 15.21 0.75 1.03 -- 000) Total production cost 3082.248 2938.524 296.97 1580.093 -- 3765.38 1164.51 -- 779.21 428.58 593.08 -- (Rs’ 000) Dairy from 12355.36 5995.42 1075.06 2300.96 -- 4517.92 2856.69 -- 3518.74 1226.85 1675.27 -- Sale Distributors Proceeds Distributors NA NA NA NA -- NA NA -- NA NA NA -- Received from In Retailers Rs’ 000 Retailer NA NA NA NA -- NA NA -- NA NA NA -- By from Consumers Margins Dairy 9273.32 3056.896 778.09 720.862 -- 752.54 1692.18 -- 2739.53 798.27 1082.10 -- Received Distributors NA NA NA NA -- NA NA -- NA NA NA -- In Rs’ NA NA NA NA -- NA NA -- NA NA NA -- 000 By Retailers Total Margins 9273.32 3056.896 778.09 720.867 -- 752.54 1692.18 -- 2739.53 798.27 1082.10 -- Source: District Milk Cooperative Union, Faizabad

[54]

III.1.6. Constraints Faced by Selected Milk Cooperatives of East U.P.

The details of main constraints faced by the selected milk cooperatives of eastern U.P. worked- out in Table-III-6 shows that in all the sample milk cooperatives there was high pressure of excess staff in every section of the dairy plant beyond the VRS given to lower the huge rush of staff. About technical constraints it was reported that old models of machine parts were not available in the markets. Also works were affected due to break down as well as the maintenance cost was very high. Regarding governance of the dairy it was found that there was government interference in fixation of producer and consumer prices, hindrance in recruitment and transfer of staff. There was political interference in facilitating staff as well as in implementing state policies. Also due to poor financial position the payment of milk price was lingered and dues of staff was pending and the functions of dairy were affected. Processing of many dairy products was affected. Due to irregular management the working atmosphere of plant was disrupted. The future prospects of dairying in eastern U.P. was reported to be bright as there were immense opportunities of employment for men and women both in eastern U.P. The information are contained in Table-III-6.

III.2. Details on Primary Dairy Cooperative Societies

III.2.1. Identification and General Information of Selected Primary Dairy Cooperative Societies (PDCS) of Eastern Uttar Pradesh

Table-III-7 contains the identification and general information about the sample primary dairy cooperative societies from the four selected district milk cooperatives of eastern region of Uttar Pradesh. The numbers of dairy farmers were higher in Faizabad milk cooperative followed by Allahabad milk cooperative. Accordingly the members of cooperatives were also higher in Faizabad and Allahabad milk cooperatives of Eastern Uttar Pradesh. The details are given in Table-III-7.

[55]

Table-III-6 Details of Constraints Faced by Selected Milk Cooperatives of Eastern U.P.

Sl. Selected Milk Main Constraints Faced by Milk Cooperatives No. Cooperatives Man power Technical Governance Financial Other Future prospects of Dairying constraints constraints Constraints Constraints Constraints Bright future More employment opportunity 1. Allahabad Huge rush of Machines of Govt. Financial Processing of Prospect of Opportunity (High) staff in union plant were of interference in position was many dairy is of old model fixing poor products was bright employment producer and much affected is maximum consumer prices 2. Gorakhpur VRS has been Machine Hindrance in Due to lack Timely Prospect of Opportunity (Moderate) given to lower parts were not recruitment of fund the function was dairy is of rush available in and transfer of price affected bright employment markets staff payment of is maximum milk was lingered 3. Varanasi High manpower Works were Political Due to Management Prospect of Opportunity (Low) in every section affected due interference in shortage of had become dairy is of to break facilitation finance dues irregular bright employment down staff of staff was is maximum pending 4. Faizabad High pressure Maintenance Hindrance in Due to lack Working Prospect of Opportunity (Not covered zone) of excess staff cost was very implementing of money atmosphere in dairy is of high state policies function of plant was bright employment dairy and disrupted is maximum collection of milk was affected Source: P.D.C.F., Ltd. U.P. Lucknow

[56]

Table-III-7 Identification and General Information of Selected Primary dairy cooperative Societies (PDCS) of Eastern Uttar Pradesh

Sl. Particulars Milk Union -1 Milk Union – 2 Milk Union – 3 Milk union – 4 No. Allahabad (High) Gorakhpur (Moderate) Varanasi (Low) Faizabad (Not covered) Near Far Near Far Near Far Near Far PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS A Identification 1. Name of PDCS Bhadri Ratansenpur Bhaisanath Narayanpur Katwarpur Maraiyan Kadipur Pachiyana 2. Tehsil / Block Sorao Mauaima Khajri Gagha Sewapuri Sewapuri Mayabazar Tarun () 3. Villages Bhadri Ratanpur Bhaisanath Narayanpur Katwarpur Maraiyan Kadipur Pachiyana 4. Name of Respondent I.P. Patel R.N. Patel Ram Sagar P.S. Tripathi A.J. Verma V. Prajapati S.P. Yadav Smt. Sheela Devi 5. Designations Secretary Secretary Secretary Secretary Secretary Secretary Secretary Secretary B Gen. Information 1. No. of household in 360 137 250 250 160 150 200 1000 village 2. No. of dairy farmers 177 176 140 134 120 100 150 900 3. No. of members 177 62 40 34 30 42 38 180 (a) Male 176 55 30 33 22 34 164 (b) Female 1 7 10 1 8 42 4 16 Total members of 177 62 40 34 30 42 38 180 Cooperative Societies Source: P.D.C.F., Ltd. U.P., Lucknow

[57]

III.2.2. Details of Facilities Available in Selected PDCS of Eastern Uttar Pradesh

Table-III-8 contains the details of all the facilities available in selected primary dairy cooperative societies of the four selected district milk cooperatives of the eastern region of Uttar Pradesh which are self explanatory as given in Table-III-8.

III.2.3. Milk collection and Disposal during April, 2015 to March, 2016 by selected PDCS of Eastern Uttar Pradesh

Table-III-9 indicates that maximum milk collection i.e. 4,55,172 litres were recorded in far

PDCS of Varanasi milk cooperative which has covered Chandauli district also against the minimum i.e. 2772 litres of milk collected by nearer PDCS of the milk cooperative Varanasi.

The next PDCS was far Faizabad milk cooperative which collected 1,47,541 litres of milk during the spam of 2015-16. In Allahabad near PDCS it was recorded as 98,862.7 litres against 57,579 litres in far PDCS. In Gorakhpur near PDCS it was 65,081 litres against 15,430 litres in far

PDCS. Allahabad near PDCS had collected comparatively larger quantity of milk among the 8

PDCS as Faizabad far PDCS had covered part of Sultanpur district too. The fat percentage varied from 4.15% in far PDCS of Gorakhpur to 5.90% in near PDCS of Varanasi milk cooperative.

The number of milk producers was comparatively higher in milk cooperatives Faizabad and

Varanasi. Milk sent to milk cooperatives was higher in Varanasi and Faizabad. But the milk sold by dairy was higher in Allahabad near PDCS. The rate of milk varied between Rs. 25 to Rs. 27 in all the four milk cooperatives. The rate of milk during the three seasons at the different rates of fat percentages are given in the details in this table for all the 8 selected PDCS wherein the rates of milk had been found varying from Rs. 22 per litre at 4.00% of fat to Rs. 34.00 per litre at

6.00% of fat during rainy and winter season respectively. The related data are given in

Table-III-9.

[58]

Table-III-8 Details of Facilities in Selected PDCS of Eastern Uttar Pradesh

Sl. Facilities Available Milk Union -1 Milk Union – 2 Milk Union – 3 Milk union – 4 No. Allahabad (High) Gorakhpur (Moderate) Varanasi (Low) Faizabad (Not covered) Near Far Near Far Near Far Near Far PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS 1. Road connectivity 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2. Name of nearest town & Allahabad Mauaima Gorakhpur Gola Varanasi Varanasi Mayabazar Bikapur distances 3. Milk collection centre Bhadri Ratensenpur Bhaisanath Narayanpur Katwarpur Maraiyan Kadipur Pachiyana 4. Cooperatives name Bhadri Ratensenpur Bhaisanath Narayanpur Katwarpur Maraiyan Kadipur Pachiyana 5. Chilling centre / bulk milk * * * * * 2000 * * cooler (capacity liters) 6. Electricity supply (in hrs./day) 21 14 8 8 10 10 12 10 7. Alternative source of power ------Battries -- Generator -- -- 8. KVK/Extension Institution KVK KVK KVK KVK KVK KVK KVK KVK 9. Artificial Insemination centre 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10. Semen collection centre ------11. Panchayati Breeding Bull 2 2 ------12. Veterinary Hospital 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13. Cattle feed markets Bhadri Mauaima Bhaisanath Gola Katwarpur Maraiyan Kadipur Pachiyana 14. Markets for livestock Bhadri Mauaima Bhaisanath Gola Katwarpur Maraiyan Kadipur Pachiyana products 15. No. of animal health camp Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil held during 2015-16 16. No. of Gen. body meeting No No Yes No No No No Yes held during 2015-16 17. Last election held in 2011 2011 2003 2010 2009 2013 2012 2012 18. Any other Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil * To milk union to for chilling Source: P.D.C.F., Ltd., U.P., Lucknow

[59]

Table-III-9 Details of Milk Collection and Disposal during April 2015 to March 2016 by the selected PDCS of Eastern Uttar Pradesh

Sl. Details of Milk Collection Milk Union -1 Milk Union – 2 Milk Union – 3 Milk union – 4 No. and Disposal Allahabad (High) Gorakhpur (Moderate) Varanasi (Low) Faizabad (Not covered) Near Far Near Far Near Far Near Far PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS 1. Total milk collection in 988627 57579 65081 15430 2772 455172 44963 147541 liters 2. Average Fat % 5.14 4.87 4.16 4.15 5.9 4.47 5.29 5.51 3. Total No. of milk producers 105 50 39 33 70 140 41 150 4. Milk sent to milk union in 88980 51732 67199 14180 2758 477326 44292 136327 liters 5. Milk sold by dairy (a) Quantity in liters 9883 5742 ------880 854 (b) Rate in Rs./liters (Av) 27 27 25 25 27 27 25 25 6. Milk rate during the seasons in Rs./liters A. Rainy Season (Rate Rs.) i. At Fat % 4.00 22 22 22 22 24.07 24.07 23.07 22.29 ii. At Fat % 5.00 28 28 23 23 27.12 27.12 25.51 25.37 iii. At Fat % 6.00 30 38 29 29 29.20 29.20 27.95 27.95 B. Winter Season (Rate Rs.) i. At Fat % 4.00 22 22 22 22 22.10 22.10 22.29 22.29 ii. At Fat % 5.00 28 28 23 23 24.89 24.89 25.51 25.51 iii. At Fat % 6.00 34 34 29 29 26.81 26.81 27.95 27.95 C. Summer Season (Rate Rs.) i. At Fat % 4.00 24 24 22 22 25.65 25.65 23.07 23.07 ii. At Fat % 5.00 30 30 24 24 28.89 28.89 25.51 25.51 iii. At Fat % 6.00 36 36 32 32 31.11 31.11 27.95 27.95 Source: P.D.C.F., Ltd., U.P., Lucknow

[60]

III.2.4. Concentrates Supplied by the selected PDCS / Firms of East U.P. during 2015-16

Table-III-10 shows that Mayur brand by private firm and PCDF brand of prepared cattle feeds were supplied in the selected PDCS. The quantity sold was found varying from 500 kgs in far PDCS of Allahabad milk cooperative to 18000 kgs in far PDCS of Varanasi milk cooperative. The number of members who purchased the prepared cattle feed was found to be higher in Varanasi as well as Faizabad milk cooperatives. The rate of prepared cattle feed was Rs. 18 per kg in almost all the 8 PDCS selected from the four sample milk cooperatives of eastern U.P. The mode of purchase of cattle feed was both cash as well as credit in all the PDCS. The market rate was slightly higher. The brand of mineral mixture was local made. The quantity sold varied from 100 to 200 kgs in all the selected PDCS. The numbers of the members was small which varied from 20 to 40 in 8 selected PDCS. The rate of mineral mixtures was found varying from Rs. 40 per kg in Allahabad PDCS to Rs. 100 per kg in Faizabad milk cooperative and the market rates were the same. The modes of purchases were both cash and credit. The related data are given in Table-III-10.

III.2.5. Veterinary and Breeding Services Provided by the Selected PDCS and firms of Eastern U.P. during 2015-16.

Table-III-11 contains the no of vaccinations, charges of medicines and doctor’s fees and the number of visits by veterinary doctors during 2015-16. The no. A.I. services PDCS-wise were as 10 & 19 in Allahabad, 13 & 14 in Gorakhpur, 4 & 9 in Varanasi and 8 & 11 in Faizabad. Natural survices were not recorded by any of the selected PDCS of four selected milk cooperatives. The numbers of A.Is. per conception were found varying from 8 in Allahabad milk cooperative to 11 in Gorakhpur and Faizabad milk cooperatives of eastern U.P. The number of OPD (indoor) and OPD (outdoor) were nominal which varied from 1 in Gorakhpur to 7 in Varanasi milk cooperative. Thus, on an overall the veterinary and breeding services were extremely poor in all the PDCS of eastern U.P. The related data are given in Table-III-11.

[61]

Table-III-10 Details of concentrates supplied by the Selected PDCS / Firm during 2015-16

Sl. Concentrates and Milk Union -1 Milk Union – 2 Milk Union – 3 Milk union – 4 No. Supplements Allahabad (High) Gorakhpur (Moderate) Varanasi (Low) Faizabad (Not covered) Near Far Near Far Near Far Near Far PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS 1. Concentrates (Brand) (a) Prepared Cattle Feed Pvt. Mayur Pvt. Mayur PCDF PCDF PCDF PCDF Gordrej Gordrej Unit (Code) Kg. Kg. Kg. Kg. Kg. Kg. Kg. Kg. Total Quantity Sold 600 500 2500 1500 3000 18000 18000 1500 No. of Members who Purchased 15 10 34 30 40 30 30 25 Rate / Price (Rs./Kg.) 18 18 17.50 18 18 18 18 18 On-credit/Cash Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Market rate (Rs./Kg.) 18.50 18.50 18 18.50 18.50 18.50 18.50 18.50 2. Supplements 2.1 Mineral Mixture (Brand) Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Khali Khali Khali Khali Khali Khali Khali Khali Unit (Code) Kg. Kg. Kg. Kg. Kg. Kg. Kg. Kg. Total Quantity Sold 100 150 200 150 100 150 80 100 No. of Members who 20 25 50 30 30 30 30 40 Purchased Rate / Price (Rs./Kg.) 40 40 58 58 56 56 100 58 On-credit/Cash Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Market rate (Rs./Kg.) 39 40 57 57 55 55 110 57 Source: P.D.C.F., Ltd., U.P., Lucknow

[62]

Table-III-11 Details of Veterinary and Breeding Services Provided by the Selected PDCS / Firm during 2015-16

Sl. Services (Expenses in Rs.) Milk Union -1 Milk Union – 2 Milk Union – 3 Milk union – 4 No. Allahabad (High) Gorakhpur (Moderate) Varanasi (Low) Faizabad (Not covered) Near Far Near Far Near Far Near Far PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS 1. Vaccinations 9 12 11 7 12 10 8 6 2. Medicines + Doctor (cost in 4100 2180 2050 2250 4320 2400 2620 2200 Rs.) 3. Average No. of visit by Vet. 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 in the year 2015-16 4. Service (A.I.) 10 19 13 14 4 9 8 11 5. Natural Services (Amount) 1330 2180 2050 2250 4320 2400 2620 2200 6. No. of A.I. per conception 10 19 13 14 4 10 8 11 7. OPD (Indoor) 8 15 12 13 -- 9 8 10 8. OPD (Outdoor) 2 4 1 1 4 1 -- 1 Source: P.D.C.F., Ltd., U.P., Lucknow

[63]

III.2.6. Diseases in Livestock Reported in selected PDCS of East U.P. during 2015-16.

Table-III-12 shows that maximum animals particularly buffaloes and crossbred cows were affected by diseases in the selected PDCS of Varanasi and Allahabad district milk cooperatives. Accordingly the maximum number of vaccinations of BQ as well as HS were given in the PDCS of Varanasi and Allahabad district milk cooperatives of eastern U.P. wherein the maximum number of crossbreed cows and buffaloes were affected by diseases. Hence, the number of animals died were reported among the buffaloes and crossbred cows in Varanasi and Allahabad districts of eastern U.P. The related data are contained in Table-III-12.

III.2.7. Training Provided to Members by selected PDCS of Eastern U.P. during 2015-16

Table-III-13 shows that no training was provided in any of the selected PDCS of any selected district milk cooperatives to any of the selected milk producer member of the cooperatives in eastern U.P. except a few visits of two members each in PDCS of Varanasi milk cooperative for 3 days each to Pantnagar and Barauni as reported by the selected milk producers during the field survey of this study. This is mentioned in Table-III-13.

III.2.8. Details of Development programmes and Supports Provided to members by PDCS during 2015-16

Table-III-14 indicates that only the productivity enhancing programme on animals health was implemented wherein only awareness supports were provided to the selected member milk producers of all the 8 PDCS of the selected 4 district milk cooperatives of eastern U.P. in the year 2015-16 as was reported by the sample milk producers of the selected PDCS of east U.P. This is mentioned in table-III-14.

[64]

Table-III-12 Details of Diseases in Livestock Reported in Selected PDCS during 2015-16

Sl. Services (Expenses in Rs.) Milk Union -1 Milk Union – 2 Milk Union – 3 Milk union – 4 No. Allahabad (High) Gorakhpur (Moderate) Varanasi (Low) Faizabad (Not covered) Near Far Near Far Near Far Near Far PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS 1. Disease & Animals Affected Disease Animals Cows (Local) 1 ------Crossbred 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 -- Buffalo 3 4 -- -- 4 7 3 1 Goat ------Sheep ------2. No. of Vaccination for • FMD 4 ------• BQ 6 5 10 8 4 10 4 -- • HS 6 10 ------• Others ------Animals Cows (Local) 4 3 ------Crossbred 6 3 8 7 2 6 2 -- Buffalo 3 8 ------Goat ------Sheep ------3. Animals Died of Disease Animals Local 1 ------Crossbred -- -- 1 1 -- -- 1 -- Buffalo -- 1 -- -- 1 2 1 -- Goat ------Sheep ------Source: P.D.C.F., Ltd., U.P., Lucknow

[65]

Table-III-13 Details of Training Provided to members by the Selected PDCS during 2015-16

Sl. Services (Expenses in Rs.) Milk Union -1 Milk Union – 2 Milk Union – 3 Milk union – 4 No. Allahabad (High) Gorakhpur (Moderate) Varanasi (Low) Faizabad (Not covered) Near Far Near Far Near Far Near Far PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS 1. Training on (Visits) Nil Nil Nil Nil Visit Visit Nil Nil (a) Period (from – to ) ------3 3 -- -- (b) No. of Members who ------2 2 -- -- participated (c) Any cost charges Nil Nil Nil Nil Yes Yes Nil Nil i. Fees ------Free Free -- -- ii. Free ------Remarks ------Barauni Panth -- -- Nagar Source: P.D.C.F., Ltd., U.P., Lucknow

[66]

Table-III-14 Details of Development Programmes / Support Provided to Members by PDCS during 2015-16

Sl. Services (Expenses in Rs.) Milk Union -1 Milk Union – 2 Milk Union – 3 Milk union – 4 No. Allahabad (High) Gorakhpur (Moderate) Varanasi (Low) Faizabad (Not covered) Near Far Near Far Near Far Near Far PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS 1. Productivity Enhancing NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Programme • RBP-1 Year NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA • Fodder Cultivation-2 Year NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA • Animal Breeding-3 Year NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA • Animal Health Year 2015-16 2015-16 2015-16 2015-16 2015-16 2015-16 2015-16 2015-16 2. Support Provided by PDCS 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3. N.P.BBDD Yes / No No No No No No No No No 4. Feed & Fodder Development No No No No No No No No 5. Special Livestock Breeding No No No No No No No No Project Yes / No 6. Any other development No No No No No No No No programme Yes/No Source: P.D.C.F., Ltd., U.P., Lucknow

[67]

III.3. Effects of Programmes on key Variables is Self Explanatory

Table-III-15

Effect of Programmes on Key Variables by the Selected PDCS

Sl. Key Variables / Programme Milk Union -1 Milk Union – 2 Milk Union – 3 Milk union – 4 No. Allahabad Gorakhpur Varanasi Faizabad (High) (Moderate) (Low) (Not covered) Near Far Near Far Near Far Near Far PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS Name of Programme 1. DCS Membership Increase Constant √ √ √ √ √ √ Decrease √ 2. Pourer Membership Increase Constant √ √ √ √ √ Decrease √ 3. Average daily milk Procurement Increase Constant √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Decrease √ 4. Average Milk Fat% Increase Constant √ Decrease √ √ √ √ 5. Average SNF% Increase Constant √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Decrease √ 6. Av Monthly Mineral Mixture Sale Increase √ √ Constant √ √ √ Decrease √ √ √ 7. Average Monthly Cattle Sale Increase Constant √ Decrease √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Source: Field Survey

[68]

III.4. General Opinions and Suggestions After Implementation of Programmes is Self Explanatory Table-III-16 General Opinion, Constraints and Suggestions after Implementation of programmes

Sl. Particulars Milk Union -1 Milk Union – 2 Milk Union – 3 Milk union – 4 No. Allahabad (High) Gorakhpur Varanasi Faizabad (Moderate) (Low) (Not covered) Near Far Near Far Near Far Near Far PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS 1. Change in Financial Status No Improved √ √ √ √ √ Can’t say √ √ √ 2. General Opinion Beneficial √ √ √ √ √ Not beneficial Can’t say √ √ √ 3. Any Change (a) Improvement in fertility of animals No Yes √ √ √ Can’t say √ √ √ √ √ (b) Reduction in disease of Milch Animals No √ √ √ √ √ Yes Can’t say √ √ √ (c) Increase in Income No Yes √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Can’t say √ (d) Decrease in vet. Visit No Yes √ √ Can’t say √ √ √ √ √ √ 4. Constraints in Programme Yes √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ No

Sl. Suggestions for Improvement Milk Union -1 Milk Union – 2 Milk Union – 3 Milk union – 4 No. Allahabad (High) Gorakhpur Varanasi Faizabad (Moderate) (Low) (Not covered) Near Far Near Far Near Far Near Far PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS 5. Suggestions for Improvement 1. Marketing Facilities √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 2. Provide Technical Knowledge √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 3. Regular Supply of Vaccines √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 4. Subsidies given √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 5. Enhanced Milk price √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 6. Increased in Loan Amount √ √ √ 7. Cheap Concentrates √ √ √ √ √ √ 8. Provide A.I. facility √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 9. Reduce Cost vet. Service √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 10. Provide Vet. Literature √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 11. Encouraging small dairy Indust. √ √ √ √ √ √ Source: Field Survey

[69]

III.5. Constraints Faced by PDCS from (A to D) is Self Explanatory Table-III-17A Constraints faced by PDCS (A) Milk Supply and Producers related Sl. Constraints Milk Union -1 Milk Union – 2 Milk Union – 3 Milk union – 4 No. Allahabad Gorakhpur Varanasi Faizabad (High) (Moderate) (Low) (Not covered) Near Far Near Far Near Far Near Far PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS Rank 1. High number of small producers Never Sometime √ √ Always √ √ √ √ √ √ 2. No or less provision for advance payment Never √ √ √ √ √ √ Sometime √ Always √ 3. Unable to provide cattle feed & fodder seed on credit to member Never Sometime √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Always 4. Poor quality milk Never Sometime √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Always 5. Irregular & inadequate supply of milk Never Sometime √ √ √ √ √ √ Always √ √ 6. Late delivery Never Sometime √ √ √ √ √ Always √ √ √ 7. Unavailability of emergency veterinary services Never √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Sometime Always 8. Infrequent visit of vet. Staff Never √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Sometime Always 9. Unavailability of Vaccines Never √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Sometime Always 10. Occasional availability of semen at the AI centre Never Sometime √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Always

[70]

11. Unsuitability of the time of delivery of milk during winters due to bitter cold in early hours of the day Never Sometime √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Always 12. Unavailability of green/dry fodder Never Sometime √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Always 13. Low Av milk yield of the milk animals in area Never √ Sometime Always √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 14. Lack of cooperation & coordination among member Never Sometime √ √ √ Always √ √ √ √ √ Source: Field Survey Table-III-17B (B) Infrastructure related Sl. Constraints Milk Union -1 Milk Union – 2 Milk Union – 3 Milk union – 4 No. Allahabad Gorakhpur Varanasi Faizabad (High) (Moderate) (Low) (Not covered) Near Far Near Far Near Far Near Far PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS Rank 1. Unavailability of Chilling facility at village level for milk preservation Never Sometime √ Always √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 2. Lack of improved equipments Never √ Sometime √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Always 3. Lack of necessary space required for dairy operation Never Sometime √ √ √ √ √ Always √ √ √ 4. Lack of training facilities Never √ √ √ √ √ Sometime √ √ √ Always Source: Field Survey

[71]

Table-III-17C

(C) Market related

Sl. Constraints Milk Union -1 Milk Union – 2 Milk Union – 3 Milk union – 4 No. Allahabad Gorakhpur Varanasi Faizabad (High) (Moderate) (Low) (Not covered) Near Far Near Far Near Far Near Far PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS Rank 1. Inability to market for value- added products Never Sometime √ √ √ Always √ √ √ √ √ 2. Competition from private dairy Never √ Sometime √ √ √ Always √ √ √ √ 3. Poor road Never √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Sometime √ Always 4. Unstable prices of milk Never Sometime √ √ Always √ √ √ √ √ √ 5. Completion from imported dairy product Never √ √ √ √ √ Sometime √ √ √ Always Source; Field Survey Table-III-17D

(D) Targets/Achievements Sl. Constraints Milk Union -1 Milk Union – 2 Milk Union – 3 Milk union – 4 No. Allahabad Gorakhpur Varanasi Faizabad (High) (Moderate) (Low) (Not covered) Near Far Near Far Near Far Near Far PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS PDCS Quantity/Nos 1. Sale of feed Mixture High Medium Low √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 2. Daily milk collection High Medium √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Low

[72]

3. Fat% High Medium √ √ √ √ √ √ Low √ √ 4. Financial Performance High Medium √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Low √ 5. No. of Members High Medium √ √ √ √ √ Low √ √ √ Source: Field Survey

[73]

CHAPTER – IV

Government Programmes / Schemes for Dairy Development in Selected State of Uttar Pradesh (2009-10 to 2015-16)

IV.1. Scheme-wise Financial Sanction and Expenditures under Central Sector Dairy Development in U.P. (2009-10 to 2015-16)

The scheme-wise financial sanction and expenditures under central sector dairy development in U.P. during 2009-10 to 2015-16 worked-out in Table-IV-1 show that under central sector schemes the total sanctioned amount was fully spent which varied from Rs. 31.62 lakh during 2009-10 to Rs. 200.95 lakh till the year 2012-13 and thereafter it decreased gradually to Rs. 213.190 lakh till the year 2015-16 on an overall in the state of U.P. Therefore, it was obviously clear that under central sector schemes of dairy development a scanty amount was sanctioned which was fully spent. The scheme-wise analysis shows that under IDDP scheme Rs. 24.590 lakh were sanctioned during 2009-10 which increased to Rs. 100.00 lakh till the year 2012-13 and were spent fully and thereafter no amount was sanctioned under this scheme till 2015-16. While under CMP scheme only Rs. 7.30 lakh were sanctioned during 2009-10 which was increased to Rs. 26.66 lakh till 2011-12 and thereafter no amount was sanctioned under this scheme. Under fodder development scheme Rs. 108.24 lakh were sanctioned during 2010-11, Rs. 54.00 lakh in 2011-12 and Rs. 100.95 lakh in 2012-12 which increased to Rs. 232.275 lakh till the year 2014-15. While under the National Scheme for dairy development Rs. 213.190 lakh were sanctioned in the year 2015-16 and total amount were fully spent in all the four schemes under central sector in U.P. so far during the span of 2009-10 to 2015-16. Hence, it is concluded that a scanty amount was sanctioned and spent under the central sector schemes on dairy development. The related data are contained in table-IV-1.

[74]

Table-IV-1 Scheme-wise Financial Sanction and Expenditures under Central Sector Dairy Development in Uttar Pradesh (2009-10 to 2015-16) (In lakh Rs.) Sl. Name of the Years No. Central Sector 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Schemes in Sanct Expe Sanct Expe Sanct Expe Sanct Expe Sanct Expe Sanct Expe Sanct Expe U.P. ioned nditu ioned nditu ioned nditu ioned nditu ioned nditu ioned nditu ioned nditu Amt. re Amt. re Amt. re Amt. re Amt. re Amt. re Amt. re 1. I.D.D.P. 24.590 24.590 0.00 0.00 42.00 42.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- --

2. C.M.P. 7.030 7.030 0.00 0.00 26.66 26.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- --

3. Fodder -- -- 108.24 108.24 54.00 54.00 100.95 100.95 0.00 0.00 -- -- 232.275 232.275 Development Schem 4. National ------0.00 0.00 213.190 213.190 Scheme for Dairy Development 5. National Agri. ------Development Scheme Total Schemes 31.620 31.620 108.24 108.24 122.66 122.66 200.95 200.95 0.00 0.00 232.275 232.275 213.190 213.190

Source: Dairy Development Department Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh

[75]

IV.2. Scheme-wise Financial Sanction and Expenditures under the State Sector Dairy Development in Uttar Pradesh during 2009-10 to 2015-16

Table-IV-2 shows that under the state sector total 5 schemes were implemented during the span of 2009-10 to 2015-16 on dairy development in the state of Uttar Pradesh so far wherein the sanctioned amount from Rs. 524.725 lakh in the year 2009-10 was found decreasing in the every succeeding year to Rs. 350.40 lakh till the year 2013-14. But thereafter, the sanctioned amount increased from Rs. 5561.594 in 2014.15 to Rs. 31349.25 lakh till the year 2015-16 and the total amount sanctioned was fully spent in each year. Thus, the financial sanctions during the starting years of the schemes on dairy development from 2009-10 to 2013-14 were very much discouraging as well as decreasing every year. But gained importance from 2014-15 onward on an overall in the state of Uttar Pradesh. While the scheme-wise analysis shows that under the Assistance to Milk Cooperative Scheme the financial sanction varied from Rs. 11.10 lakh in the year 2011-12 to Rs. 190.24 lakh in the year 2012-13 which decreased to Rs. 27.250 lakh till the year 2015-16. Under Encouraging the Member Milk Producers ( Puraskar) Scheme, the financial sanctions of Rs. 10.80 lakh were given from the year 2009-10 to 2012-13 and thereafter, it increased to Rs. 27.250 lakh till the year 2014-15 and the total sanctioned amounts were spent fully every year. While under the Information Technology and Computerization Scheme Rs. 25.00 lakh were sanctioned in the initial year 2009-10. Thereafter, it again started with Rs. 50.00 lakh in the year 2013-14 and continued till the year 2015-16 wherein the total sanctioned amounts were fully spent every year. Under the scheme of Establishing Facilities for Dairy Development for Bulk Milk Coolers Rs. 48.00 lakh were sanctioned in the year 2013-14 which increased to Rs. 140.00 lakh till the year 2015-16. Also for Automatic Milk Collection unit Rs. 99.840 lakh were sanctioned in the year 2009-10 which gradually increased to Rs. 380.00 lakh till the year 2015-16 with decreased amounts during 2013-14 and 2014-15 and the total amounts were fully spent. Under the scheme of strengthening of Feed Plants Rs. 300.00 lakh were sanctioned in the initial year 2009-10 and thereafter it had stopped which again started with the sanction of Rs. 5225.00 lakh in 2014-15 and increased to Rs. 30752.00 lakh till 2015-16 and total amounts were spent. Thus, under the state sector the schemes on dairy development were implemented considerably in the state of Uttar Pradesh. The related data are given in Table- IV-2.

[76]

Table-IV-2 Scheme-wise Financial Sanction and Expenditures under State Sector Dairy Development in Uttar Pradesh (2009-10 to 2015-16) (In lakh Rs.) Sl. Name of the Years No. State Sector 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Schemes in Sancti Expen Sancti Expen Sancti Expen Sancti Expen Sancti Expen Sanctio Expendi Sanctio Expend diture diture diture diture U.P. oned diture oned oned oned oned ned ture ned iture Amt. Amt. Amt. Amt. Amt. Amt. Amt. 1. Assistance to 89.085 89.085 91.76 91.76 11.10 11.10 190.24 190.24 45.00 45.00 100.00 100.00 27.250 27.250 Milk Cooperatives 2. Encouraging 10.800 10.800 10.80 10.80 10.80 10.80 10.00 10.00 25.00 25.00 27.250 27.250 -- -- Member Milk Producers (Gokul Pruskar) 3. Milk Houses 0.00 0.00 ------4. Information 25.000 25.000 ------50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 Technology and Computerization 5. Establishing ------Facilities for Dairy Development in Rural Areas (a) Bulk Milk Cooler 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 48.00 48.00 49.344 49.344 140.00 140.00 (b) Automatic Milk 99.840 99.840 300.00 300.00 359.91 359.91 220.10 220.10 182.40 182.40 110.00 110.00 380.00 380.00 Collection unit 6. Strengthening 300.00 300.00 ------5225.00 5225.00 30752.00 30752.00 of Feed Plants Total Schemes 524.725 524.725 402.50 402.50 381.84 381.84 420.34 420.34 350.40 350.40 5561.594 5561.594 31349.25 31349.25 Source: Dairy Development Department Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh

[77]

IV.3. Scheme-wise Financial Sanctions and Expenditures Under District Sector Dairy Development in Uttar Pradesh during 2009-10 to 2015-16.

Table-IV-3 indicates that in District Sector Schemes on dairy development in U.P. the financial sanctions were reported to increase rapidly from Rs. 520.00 lakh in the year 2009-10 to Rs. 7757.57 lakh till the year 2013-14 and thereafter it was suddenly decreased to Rs. 5535.816 lakh in the year 2014-15 and Rs. 5902.525 lakh till the year 2015-16 on an overall. Thus, under district sector the schemes on dairy development in U.P. had been envisaged to be important onward 2012-13 and as such the amount of financial sanctions had been increased considerably. Accordingly under the scheme of strengthening and reorganization of dairies the financial sanction was increased from Rs. 220.00 lakh in 2009-10 to Rs. 4280.00 lakh till the year 2014- 15. While the sanction for subsidy and assistance was increased from Rs. 2650.00 lakh in 2012- 13 to Rs. 3650.00 lakh till 2015-16, for establishing dairy in Azamgarh district from Rs. 240.00 lakh in 2013-14 to Rs. 412.00 lakh in 2015-16 for establishing dairy in Kannauz district from Rs. 150.00 lakh in 2012-13 to Rs. 275.00 lakh till the year 2013-14. Also under the Technical Investment Scheme for increasing milk production the financial sanction was increased from Rs. 100.00 lakh in 2009-10 to Rs. 600.00 lakh till the year 2015-16. Under the Farmers Training Scheme the financial sanction of Rs. 200.00 lakh started in 2009-10 was continued to be sanctioned in more or less amount to Rs. 199.815 lakh till 2015-16 in U.P. and the total amount was fully spent every year. The related data are contained in Table-IV-3.

IV.4. Details of Various dairy Schemes and Suggested Convergence in Uttar Pradesh

Table-IV-4 is quite self explanatory and needs not any separate narration.

[78]

Table-IV-3 Scheme-wise Financial Sanctions and Expenditures under District Sector Dairy Development in Uttar Pradesh (2009-10 to 2015-16) (In lakh Rs.) Sl. Name of the Years No. District Sector 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Schemes in Sancti Expen Sancti Expen Sancti Expen Sancti Expen Sancti Expen Sancti Expen Sancti Expen U.P. oned diture oned diture oned diture oned diture oned diture oned diture oned diture Amt. Amt. Amt. Amt. Amt. Amt. Amt. 1. Strengthening, re- 220.00 219.500 1089.60 1087.60 2135.20 2130.20 2386.190 2385.190 2900.00 2900.00 4280.00 4280.00 1040.00 1040.00 organization and Extension of Scheme (a) Subsidy and ------2650.00 2650.00 3800.00 3800.00 500.00 500.00 3650.00 3650.00 Assistance (b) Establishing Dairy ------240.24 240.24 100.00 100.00 412.710 412.710 in Azamgarh District (c) Establishing Dairy ------150.000 150.000 275.00 275.00 55.850 55.850 -- -- in Kannaug District (d) Kayamganj, ------86.34 86.34 40.00 40.00 -- -- Farukhabad and district 2. Technical 100.00 97.234 333.58 333.33 190.27 184.69 237.940 237.940 -- 300.00 409.996 409.996 600.00 600.00 Investment Scheme to Milk Producers and Cooperatives for Increasing Milk Production 3. Farmers Training 200.00 197.937 134.89 134.89 93.89 88.80 105.168 105.168 149.99 149.99 149.970 149.970 199.815 199.815 Scheme Total Schemes 520.00 514.671 1558.07 1555.83 2419.36 2403.68 5529.30 5528.30 7751.57 7751.57 5535.816 5535.816 5902.525 5902.525 Source: Dairy Development Department, Lucknow, U.P.

[79]

Table-IV-4 is self explanatory

Details of Various Dairy Schemes and suggested Convergence in Uttar Pradesh

Sr. Name of the Schemes on Starting Aim and Funding Area of Target/ Component Implement No. Dairying Year objectives of pattern Operation Beneficiaries funded ing Remarks Scheme under Agency scheme

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (I) Centrally sponsored A Schemes for Cattle and 2002 Animal Phase wise 5043 AI 1365 straws Semen Animal -- Buffalo Development Breeding AI, centres in for 2013-14 production Husbandry Self U.P. hiring of department Employment bulls for U.P. through AH A.I. B Fodder Development Before Seed Through U.P. 47661 qtls. 75% Central, Animal Suggested Schemes 2010- production, state, seed, not 25% State Husbandry convergen special department ce in 11 development districts achieved district of grazing and central fully component U.P. land for G.F. Development of grazing land C Veterinary Services Before Animal Centre and U.P. 301.650 lakh Vaccination, Animal Suggested 2003- medicine and State animals medicine, Husbandry convergen Schemes ce in 04 health feeding castration department U.P. district D Other dairy Development 2011- Clean milk GOI 15 districts 15 district Central & PCDF Schemes 12 production of U.P. upto 2013-14 state 2009- Self GOI 41 districts Phase 20, 21 Central & PCDF 10 employment of U.P. state 2015- Nutritional GOI 20 districts Central & PCDF 16 Development of U.P. state

[80]

(II) State sponsored A Schemes for Cattle and 2002 Animal Phase wise 5043 AI 1365 straws Semen Animal Buffalo Development Breeding AI, centres in for 2013-14 production Husbandry Self U.P. hiring of department Employment bulls for U.P. through AH A.I. B Fodder Development Before Seed Through All Target not 25% State Animal Suggested Schemes 2010- production, districts districts of achieved Husbandry convergen department ce in 11 development U.P. fully district of grazing U.P. land C Veterinary Services Before Animal State All Achieved Vaccination Animal Suggested 2003- medicine and districts fully medicine Husbandry convergen Schemes ce in 04 health castration department U.P. district D Other dairy Development Schemes Assistance to milk Before Strengthen of State All Achieved 50% state PCDF cooperative 2006- Milk districts fully 07 Production Encouraging member milk 2006- Milk State All district Achieved Gokul PCDF 07 production fully Puraskar Information Technology on Before New State All milk Under ERP PCDF computerization 2007- technology union progress software 08 tally system Establishing Dairy Before Automatic State 5 to 10 Under BMC PCDF Development 2007- milk milk union progress establishme 08 collection nt (III) Milk Union sponsored A Schemes for Cattle and 2002 Animal Phase wise AI Centre Under Semen All district Buffalo Development Breeding AI, progress distribution of U.P. Self Employment through AH

[81]

B Fodder Development 2010- Seed Through Veterinary Under Special Animal Suggested Schemes 11 production state, hospital Progress component Husbandry convergen department ce in district district plan U.P. C Veterinary Services 2003- Animal Through Districts Under Vaccination Animal Suggested Schemes 04 medicine and state, Plan Progress medicine Husbandry convergen department ce in health district castration district plan U.P. D Other dairy Development Schemes Strengthening Before Financial Through Districts Under Financial PCDF reorganization 2006- support state, Plan Progress Assistance 07 district plan Technical investment 2007- Technical Through Districts Under Dewaring PCDF scheme 08 information state, Plan Progress district plan Farmers training scheme 2007- AI, producers Through Districts Under Training AH, 08 and state, Plan Progress Deptt. marketing district PCDF staff plan Source: Dairy Development Department, Lucknow, U.P.

[82]

CHAPTER – V

Socio-Economic Profile of Selected Area and Sample Milk Producers

V.1. Introduction

This chapter mainly deals with the situation of selected area in Eastern Uttar Pradesh, details about selected milk unions (District Milk Cooperatives), about selected primary dairy cooperative societies, socio-economic characteristics of the selected milk producers on the main aspects such as the gender of decision makers, area of operational land holdings experience in dairying, family profile, cropping pattern on the farms of sample milk producers, details of herd strength and cattle shed, details of animals breed and details of breedable animals on survey data in the following paragraphs:-

V.2. About the Selected Area of East. U.P.

Eastern U.P. is most commonly known with the name of . Purvanchal is a geographic region of northen India which comprises the eastern end of Uttar Pradesh state and western end of Bihar state. Purvanchal is bounded in the east by Bihar and Jharkhand state, in the west it is bounded by the proposed Pradesh, in the north it is bounded by Nepal and in the south it is bounded by Madhya Pradesh and proposed Bundelkhand. Purvanchal covers the , , Mirzapurdivision, Basti division and of Uttar Pradesh state and 28 districts out of total 75 districts falling in Uttar Pradesh. East U.P. covers three agro-climatic zones scattered in the whole state of Uttar Pradesh. The agro-climatic zones- wise distribution of districts in Eastern U.P. are contained in table-V-1.

Table-V-1 Agro-Climatic zones-wise Distribution of Districts in East U.P.

Sl. North Eastern Plain Eastern Plain Zone Vindhyan Zone Total No. Zone East U.P. 1. Gorakhpur Pratapgarh Allahabad 3 2. Maharaj Ganj Sultanpur Mirzapur 3 3. Deoaria Amethi Varanasi 3 4. Kushinagar Faizabad Chandauli 3 5. Basti Ambedkar Nagar Kaushambi 3

[83]

6. Sidharth Ngar Jaunpur Sonbhadra 3 7. Sant Kabir Nagar Gazipur Sant Ravidas Nagar 3 8. Gonda Azamgarh 2 9. Balrampur Mau 2 10. Baharaich Ballia 2 11. Srawasti 1 11 10 7 28 Source: P.D.C.F. Ltd., U.P., lucknow V.3. About the Selected District Milk Cooperatives

Four districts/district milk unions were undertaken as per the criteria fixed by the coordinating centre and on the basis of the list of the districts identified by NDDB, Anand, Gujrat which are being presented in Table-V-2 as follows:-

Table-V-2 Districts selected for this Dairy study in Eastern U.P.

Sl. Name of districts selected Category of districts Zones of Eastern U.P. No. 1. Allahabad High (D-1) Vindhya Zone 2. Gorakhpur Moderate (D-2) North Eastern Plain Zone 3. Varanasi Low (D-3) Eastern Plain Zone 4. Faizabad Not Covered zone Border of Eastern Plain Zone Source: Field Survey The list of identified districts of Eastern U.P. for this study by NDDB, Anand, Gujrat are as follows:- Table-V-3 Identified Districts of East U.P. by NDDB, Anand, Gujrat 1. Allahabad 10. Gonad 2. Ambedkar Nagar 11. Gorakhpur 3. Azamgarh 12. Jaunpur 4. Baharaich 13. Kushi Nagar 5. Ballia 14. Mau 6. Basti 15. Sant Ravidas Nagar () 7. Deoria 16. Sidharth Nagar 8. Faizabad 17. Sultanpur 9. Ghazipur 18. Varanasi Source: Field survey

[84]

Separate Details about four selected districts of this study:- V.3.(1). Allahabad (High District) Situation District Allahabad is situated in the south eastern part of the state of Uttar Pradesh. It lies between the parallels of 24 0 77 0 and 25 0 47 0 north latitudes and 81 0 19 0 and 82 0 21 0 east longitudes. It is bounded on the east by district Sant Ravi Das Nagar, on the north by district Jaunpur and Pratapgarh, on the west by district Kaushambi and Chitrakut and on the south by district Rewa of Madhya Pradesh state. It’s length from east to west is 117 kms and the breadth from north to south is 109 kms. The total geographical area of district Allahabad is 54,372 kms.

Climate and Rainfall Allahabad has a humid subtropical climate. The annual mean temperature is 26.1 0C & 79 0F. The average rainfall of the district is 960mm.

Animal Husbandry In Allahabad district, both medium and large farmers prefer to rear one or two livestocks. On an overall buffaloes are preferred over the cows. Some scheduled caste families prefer to rear pigs. Some backward castes prefer to rear Goats and sheeps too. Table-V-4 Production and Productivity of Livestocks in Allahabad District Sl. Category of Cattle Total population Production Productivity (Kg) No. (Thousand) (Thousand ton) 1. Crossbreed Cows 41.865 89.699 7.325 2. Indigenous Cows 221.984 123.884 2.185 3. Buffaloes 270.144 251.250 3.593 4. Goats 104.174 21.953 0.703 Source: Survey Report of A.H. & Dairy Deptt. of U.P., 2013-14

Major Farming Systems / Enterprises in Allahabad District 1. Crop Production + Dairying 2. Crop Production + Poultry 3. Crop Production + Vegetables Production 4. Crop Production + Fisheries

[85]

V.3.(2). Gorakhpur (Moderate District) Situation District Gorakhpur is situated in the north eastern part of the state of Uttar Pradesh. It lies between the coordinates of 26.7588 0N 83.3697 0E. It is bounded on the east by districts Deoria and Kushinagar, on the west by Sant Kabir Nagar and Ambedkar Nagar, on the north by district Maharajganj and on the south by districts Mau and Azamgarh. It’s total geographical area is 5484 sq.kms. The national highway (NH) 28 and 29 pass through the Gorakhpur town.

Climate and Rainfall District Gorakhpur has a humid subtropical climate. The average annual temperature of the district is 26 0C and 79 0F. The average annual rainfall of the district is 1274mm.

Priority Thrust Areas 1. Low milk production area. 2. Low yield and net return rice and wheat cropping system. 3. Low production of pulses due to attack of pod borers. 4. Low production of oil seeds area. 5. Quality vegetable production area.

Animal Husbandry In Gorakhpur district generally medium and small farmers are involved to rear 4 or more milch animals preferably cows and buffaloes. Also generally backward caste farmers prefer to rear livestocks. Sheeps are also preferred to be reared in this district.

Table-V-5 Production and Productivity of Livestocks in Gorakhpur District (2013-14) Sl. Category of Cattle Total population Production Productivity (Kg) No. (Thousand) (Thousand ton) Per animal/day 1. Crossbreed Cows 44.743 95.953 7.484 2. Indigenous Cows 29110.031 65.590 3.044 3. Buffaloes 137.380 188.193 5.060 4. Goats 79.627 15.637 1.064 Source: Survey report 2013-14, Animal Husbandry Department, U.P.

[86]

Major Farming Systems / Enterprises in Gorakhpur District 1. Crop Production + Quality Vegetable Production 2. Crop Production + Fisheries 3. Crop Production + Dairying 4. Crop Production + Poultry / Sheep Rearing

V.3.(3). Varanasi (Low District) Situation District Varanasi is situated in the eastern part of the state of Uttar Pradesh. Varanasi is sprawled along the left bank of the river Ganga with its array of shrines and temples. It is one of the most picturesque cities of the east. The Grand Trunk Road, National Highway 29 and 30 pass through the Varanasi town. It is bounded on the east by district Chandauli on the west by districts Jaunpur and sant Ravidas Nagar, on the north by district Ghazipur and on the south by district Mirzapur. The total geographical area of Varanasi district is 1535 sq. kms.

Climate and Rainfall District Varanasi has a humid subtropical climate. The mean temperature ranges from 45 0C in summer to 4 0C in winter. The average annual rainfall is 1067mm.

Animal Husbandry In Varanasi district the holding size is generally small. Hence, on an overall small, medium and large farmers prefer to rear cows over the buffaloes. Goats and sheeps are reared by shepherds and pigs are reared rarely by scheduled tribes only. Table-V-6 Production and Productivity of Livestocks in Varanasi District Sl. Category of Cattle Total population Production Productivity (Kg) No. (Thousand) (Thousand ton) 1. Crossbreed Cows 21.978 57.706 8.218 2. Indigenous Cows 50.696 32.457 2.324 3. Buffaloes 86.500 86.790 3.747 4. Goats 49.791 8.963 0.681 Source: Survey report 2013-14, Animal Husbandry Department, U.P.

[87]

Major Farming Systems / Enterprises in Varanasi District

1. Resource Rich Farmers = Farmers with medium and Large holdings assured irrigation and good credit support adopted:- Millets + Vegetables, Paddy, Wheat + Vegetables & Dairying 2. Resource Poor Farmers = Farmers with small and marginal holdings rare assured irrigation and low credit support adopt:- Millets + Vegetables, Paddy, Wheat + Vegetables & Dairying 3. Landless = Landless or without land or share croppers or tenants adopt:- Daily wages + Landless or share cropping & Dairying

V.3.(4). Faizabad (Not Covered Zone District) Situation District Faizabad is situated in the north eastern part of the state of Uttar Pradesh. It lies between the coordinates of 26.773 0N and 82.146 0E. it is situated on the banks of river Ghaghra (Local name Sarju). It was the first capital of the Nawabs of Awadh. District Faizabad is bounded on the east by district Sant Kabir Nagar, on the west by district Barabanki, on the north by districts Gonda and Basti and on the south it is bounded by districts Sultanpur and Ambedkar Nagar. The total geographical area of Faizabad district is 27799 sq. kms. It has the total population of 24,68,371 roughly as per , Faizabad is the old British colonial name.

Climate and Rainfall

District Faizabad has a humid subtropical climate. The average temperature ranges from 44 0C in summer to 4 0C in winter. The average annual rainfall is 1254 mm.

Animal Husbandry In Faizabad district generally small and medium farmers prefer to rear one or two milch animals. On an overall rearing buffaloes is preferred over the cows. Goats and sheeps are reared by poor and backward castes.

[88]

Table-V-7 Production and Productivity of Livestocks in Faizabad District Sl. Category of Cattle Total population Production Productivity (Kg) No. (Thousand) (Thousand ton) 1. Crossbreed Cows 8.703 4.407 13.099 2. Indigenous Cows 142.161 82.122 2.175 3. Buffaloes 153.297 123.809 3.865 4. Goats 153.965 18.449 0.771 Source: Survey report 2013-14, Animal Husbandry Department, U.P.

Major Farming Systems / Enterprises in Faizabad District

Area Farming Systems

1. Productive Land under Specific farming of Rice, Wheat, Potato, Sugarcane canal and Tube-well supported by – Dairying Irrigation 2. Productive Land under Diversified farming of Rice, Arhar, Sugarcane, Moong / Urd, Tube-well Irrigation Pea, Gram and Fodder crops supported by – Dairying 3. Eroded Cultivable Land Farming of Rice, Arhar + Jowar + Til + Moong, Fodders, wheat, Barley, Vegetable & Horticultural crops + with local cows, buffaloes, sheeps and goats. 4. Rainfed, Eroded Land and Arhar, Jowar, Urd, Maize, Charis Fodder, Pea, Lentil, Ravines Mustard, Forest Trees with – Cows, Buffaloes, Goats.

V.4. About Selected Primary Dairy Cooperative Societies (PDCS)

About all the 8 selected primary dairy cooperative societies undertaken from the four selected district milk cooperatives for the present study, the details are already described in chapter-III. However, the 8 PDCS are namely (1) Bhadri, (2) Ratensenpur from Allahabad, (3) Bhaisanath, (4) Narayanpur Khurd from Gorakhpur, (5) Katwarpur, (6) Mariyan from Varanasi, (7) Kadipur and (8) Pachhiyana from Faizabad district milk cooperative of eastern U.P. The number of villages covered were 3 under Bhadri, 2 under Ratansenpur, 1 under Bhaisanath, 2 under Narayanpur Khurd, 1 under Katwarpur, 1 under Maraiyan, 1 under Kadipur and 5 under Pachhiyan. The number of households in the villages of each PDCS were 360 in Bhadri, 137 Ratansenpur, 250 in Bhaisanath, 250 in Narayanpur 160 in Katwarpur, 150 in Maraiyan, 200 in Kadipur and 1000 in Pachhiyan PDCS. While the number of dairy farmers was 177 in Bhadri,

[89]

176 in Ratansenpur, 140 in Bhaisanath, 134 in Narayanpur, 120 in Katwarpur, 100 in Maraiyan, 150 in Kadipur and 900 in Pachhiyan. All the dairy farmers were the members of PDCS in all the selected villages. For all other concerned details please see Table-III-7 to III-14 of chapter-III.

V.5. Socio-Economic Characteristics of Selected Milk Producers

V.5.(1). Socio-Economic Characteristics of Selected Milk Producers

The socio-economic characteristics of selected milk producers worked-out in Table-V-8 shows that among the sample milk producers of DCS the maximum decision makers i.e. 85% were male members in the category of small as well large milk producers. While in the category of medium milk producers the male decision makers were 72.5%. The female decision makers were comparatively higher i.e. 27.5% in medium category of milk producers against 15% in small and large category of milk producers. Thus, on the whole maximum males were the decision makers among sample milk producers in DCS category. Similarly among the milk producers of NDCS in large category 100% decision makers were males and in small and medium milk producers 97% were male decision makers. Thus, among milk producers of NDCS almost all the decision makers were male members. About religion of sample milk producers it was found that total samples were Hindu in both the DCS as well as NDCS categories of milk producers.

Regarding distribution of social groups of the milk producers among DCS the majority 75% were OBCs, 15.03% were general castes and only 9.17% were scheduled caste. Thus, among the milk producers of DCS category there was preponderance of OBCs. While the size group-wise distribution shows that among the OBCs as well as generals the larger milk producers were in majority i.e. 80% and 17% respectively against the medium (75%) and small (70%) in case of OBCs. Thus, in the size-groups the larger milk producers were the predominant groups in the category of DCS. Similarly in the NDCS category 88.33% were OBCs, 5.00% Generals and only 6.67% were Scheduled castes. Among size-groups the large milk producers were 100% against 85% medium and 80% small milk producers. Hence, in NDCS category too the OBCs were the dominating milk producers.

[90]

The occupational distribution shows that among DCS category the majority i.e. 72.5% were cultivators, 11.71% dairy owners, 4.17% were agricultural labourers 5.81% were non-farm establishers and 3.33% were in service. Among NDCS category too the majority i.e. 60% were cultivators, 17.5% were dairy owners, 8.35% were agri labours, 5.00% were non-farm establishers and only 0.83% were in service. Thus, cultivation was the principal occupation in both the DCS as well as NDCS categories of larger milk producers. While in case of subsidiary occupations, the majority i.e. 88.33% among DCS category and 79.13% among NDCS category were in Animal Husbandry and Dairying. Thus, Animal Husbandry and dairying had emerged as the prominent subsidiary occupation among all the sample milk producers in the area under study and this fact approves that Animal Husbandry and Dairying has potential among farmers in East U.P.

The average operational area in the DCS category was estimated as 1.18 ha per milk producer against 0.91 ha per milk producers in the NDCS category. The area in case of large milk producers in DCS category was estimated as 1.64 ha against 1.14 ha per milk producers in the NDCS category. Thus, the operational land area per milk producer was comparatively higher among large milk producers in DCS category than that in NDCS category of milk producers.

As regards the income groups the majority i.e. 96.67% in DCS category and 93.33% in NDCS category were reported as APLs against only 3.33% in DCS and 6.67% in NDCS as BPLs. Accordingly the APLs were higher in large and medium size groups in the category of DCS as well as NDCS milk producers.

In cases of house structure the majority i.e. 64.17% in DCS and 61.67% in NDCS category had pucca houses. About 33.33% in DCS and 32.5% in NDCS had semi-pucca houses and only 2.5% in DCS and 5.83% in NDCS had kuchcha houses. The larger milk producers had comparatively pucca houses against the semi-pucca and kuchcha houses in cases of small and medium milk producers in the area of study. The related data are contained in Table-V-8.

[91]

Table-V-8

Socio-Economic Characteristics of Selected Milk Producers

Sr. Particulars East Uttar Pradesh State No. DCS (n=120) NDCS (n=120) Small Medium Large Total Small Medium Large Total 1. Gender of Decision Maker (%) (% to total) Male 34 (35.05) 29 (29.90) 34 (35.05) 97 (100.00) 39 (33.05) 39 (33.05) 40 (33.90) 118 (100.00) (85.00) (72.50) (85.00) (80.83) (97.50) (97.50) (100.00) (98.00) Female 6 (26.09) 11 (47.82) 6 (26.09) 23 (100.00) 1 (50.00) 1 (50.00) -- 2 (100.00) (15.00) (27.50) (15.00) (18.17) (2.50) (2.50) (1.67) Total 40 (100.00) 40 (100.00) 40 (100.00) 120 (100.00) 40 (100.00) 40 (100.00) 40 (100.00) 120 (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) 2. Religion (%to total) Hindu 40 (33.34) 40 (33.33) 40 (33.33) 120 (100.00) 40 (33.34) 40 (33.33) 40 (33.33) 120 (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) Muslim ------Christian ------Sikh ------Other ------Total 40 (33.34) 40 (33.33) 40 (33.33) 120 (100.00) 40 (33.34) 40 (33.33) 40 (33.33) 120 (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) 3. Social Group (% to total) Scheduled Tribe ------

6 (54.55) 4 (36.36) 1 (9.09) 11 (100.00) 5 (62.50) 3 (37.50) -- 8 (100.00) Scheduled Caste (15.00) (10.00) (2.50) (9.17) (12.50) (7.50) (6.67) 28 (31.11) 30 (33.33) 32 (35.56) 90 (100.00) 32 (30.19) 34 (32.07) 40 (37.74) 106 (100.00) Other Backward Class (70.00) (75.00) (80.00) (75.00) (80.00) (85.00) (100.00) (88.33) 6 (31.58) 6 (31.58) 7 (36.84) 19 (100.00) 3 (50.00) 3 (50.00) -- 6 (100.00) General/Open (15.00) (15.00) (17.50) (15.83) (7.50) (7.50) (5.00) 40 (100.00) 40 (100.00) 40 (100.00) 120 (100.00) 40 (100.00) 40 (100.00) 40 (100.00) 120 (100.00) Total (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00)

[92]

4. Occupation (%) Principal 28 (32.19) 29 (33.33) 30 (34.48) 87 (100.00) 24 (33.33) 28 (38.89) 20 (27.78) 72 (100.00) Cultivator (70.00) (72.50) (75.00) (72.50) (60.00) (70.00) (50.00) (60.00) 1 (7.14) 8 (37.14) 5 (35.72) 14 (100.00) 6 (20.69) 5 (17.24) 18 (62.07) 29 (100.00) AH & Dairying (2.50) (37.14) (12.50) (11.67) (15.00) (12.50) (45.00) (17.50) 4 (80.00) 1 (20.00) -- 5 (100.00) 7 (70.00) 3 (30.00) -- 10 (100.00) Agri. Labour (10.00) (2.50) (4.17) (17.50) (7.50) (8.33) 5 (71.42) 1 (14.29) 1 (14.29) 7 (100.00) 2 (33.33) 4 (66.67) -- 6 (100.00) Own non farm establishment (12.50) (2.50) (2.50) (5.83) (5.00) (10.00) (5.00) Trade ------Employee in service % 1 (25.00) -- 3 (75.00) 4 (100.00) -- -- 2 (100.00) 2 (100.00) (2.50) (7.50) (3.33) (5.00) (1.67) Others 1 (33.33) 1 (33.33) 1 (33.34) 3 (100.00) 1 (100.00) -- -- 1 (100.00) (2.50) (2.50) (2.50) (2.50) (2.50) (0.83) Total 40 (100.00) 40 (100.00) 40 (100.00) 120 (100.00) 40 (100.00) 40 (100.00) 40 (100.00) 120 (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) Subsidiary 1 (7.14) 8 (57.14) 5 (35.72) 14 (100.00) 1 (4.55) 5 (22.73) 16 (72.72) 22 (100.00) Cultivator (2.50) (20.00) (12.50) (11.67) (2.50) (12.50) (41.03) (19.13) 39 (35.00) 32 (30.19) 35 (33.02) 106 (100.00) 34 (37.36) 35 (38.46) 22 (24.18) 91 (100.00) AH & Dairying (97.50) (80.00) (87.50) (88.33) (85.00) (87.50) (56.41) (79.13) ------1 (50.00) -- 1 (50.00) 2 (100.00) Agri. Labour (2.50) (2.50) (1.74) Own non farm establishment ------Trade ------Employee in service ------Others ------Total 40 (100.00) 40 (100.00) 40 (100.00) 120 (100.00) 36 (100.00) 40 (100.00) 39 (100.00) 115 (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) 5. Av. Operational land holding (area in ha) Irrigated 1.011 0.888 1.642 1.180 0.593 1.00 1.141 0.911 Un irrigated ------Total 1.011 0.888 1.642 1.180 0.593 1.00 1.141 0.911 6. Av. Experience in Dairy 16 17.45 18.525 17.32 14 16.75 19.85 16.86 (years)

[93]

7. Income Group (%) 3 (75.00) -- 1 (25.00) 4 (100.00) 6 (75.00) 2 (25.00) -- 8 (100.00) BPL (7.50) (2.50) (3.33) (15.00) (5.00) (6.67) 37 (31.90) 40 (34.48) 39 (33.66) 116 (100.00) 34 (30.36) 38 (33.93) 40 (35.71) 112 (100.00) APL (92.50) (100.00) (97.50) (96.67) (85.00) (95.00) (100.00) (93.33) 40 (100.00) 40 (100.00) 40 (100.00) 120 (100.00) 40 (100.00) 40 (100.00) 40 (100.00) 120 (100.00) Total (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) 8. House Structure (%) 25 (32.46) 26 (33.77) 26 (33.77) 77 (100.00) 16 (21.62) 25 (33.78) 33 (44.60) 77 (100.00) Pucca (62.50) (65.00) (65.00) (64.17) (40.00) (62.50) (82.50) (61.67) 14 (35.00) 12 (30.00) 14 (35.00) 40 (100.00) 19 (48.72) 14 (35.90) 6 (15.38) 39 (100.00) Semi-Pucca (35.00) (30.00) (30.00) (33.33) (47.50) (35.00) (15.00) (32.50) 1 (33.33) 2 (66.67) -- 3 (100.00) 5 (71.42) 1 (14.29) 1 (14.29) 7 (100.00) Kuccha (2.50) (5.00) (2.50) (12.50) (2.50) (2.50) (5.83) 40 (100.00) 40 (100.00) 40 (100.00) 120 (100.00) 40 (100.00) 40 (100.00) 40 (100.00) 120 (100.00) Total (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) Source: Field Survey

[94]

V.5.(2). Family Profile of Selected Milk Producers

The family profile of selected milk producers analyzed in Table-V-9 shows that in the category of DCS the household size was 6.25 per milk producer against 6.15 per milk producer in NDCS category. The number of males was 2.62 per family in DCS against 2.32 per family in NDCS. Females were in equal numbers in both the categories. The large milk producers had comparatively larger numbers. The percentages of respondents were also equal among the males and females in both DCS and NDCS categories. The average age of males in DCS was 51.42 years against 47.67 years in NDCS. While the average age of females in DCS was 46.4 years against 39.33 years in NDCS category. The average education in DCS was of 8.32 years against 8.00 years in NDCS. While the number of family members working in dairy in DCS category was 3.04 against 3.30 in NDCS and the numbers were slightly larger among large milk producers. The data are given in Table-V-9.

V.5.(3). Cropping Pattern of sample Milk Producers (2015-16)

The cropping pattern of sample milk producers worked-out in Table-V-10 indicates that on an overall average the gross cropped area during the year 2015-16 was estimated as 2.538 ha per milk producer in the category of DCS against 2.121 ha per milk producer in the category of NDCS. Thus, the gross cropped area per milk producer was comparatively much less in cases of NDCS milk producers. The size group-wise distribution shows that the total coverage varied from 1.916 ha in medium milk producers to 3.417 ha in large milk producers of DCS category. While in the NDCS category it varied from 1.246 ha in small milk producers to 2.940 ha in large milk producers. Thus, coverage was comparatively higher in cases of larger milk producers. Among seasons the coverage was higher in kharif than in Rabi and Summer season. The data are given in Table-V-10.

[95]

Table-V-9

Family Profile of Selected Milk Producers

Sr. Particulars Eastern Uttar Pradesh State No. DCS (n=120) NDCS (n=120) Small Medium Large Total Small Medium Large Total 1. Household Size (Nos) per M.P. Male 2.42 2.37 3.05 2.62 1.95 2.30 2.70 2.32 Female 1.85 1.90 2.70 2.15 1.60 2.07 2.30 1.99 Children (below 15 year) 1.40 1.47 1.57 1.48 2.07 1.90 1.55 1.84 Total 5.67 5.75 7.32 6.25 5.62 6.27 6.55 6.15 2. Gender of Respondent /HH (%) Male 34.00 31.00 35.00 100.00 33.33 33.33 33.34 100.00 Female 30.00 45.00 25.00 100.00 33.34 33.33 33.33 100.00 3. Av. Age of respondent/HH (Years) Male 50.20 50.35 53.71 51.42 43 50 50 47.67 Female 44.00 43.88 46.40 44.76 27 36 55 39.33 4. Av. Age of family (Years) 30 30 33 31 27 30 31 29.33 5. Av. Education of 8.91 7.8 8.25 8.32 8.85 7.9 7.27 8.00 respondent/HH (years) 6. No. of Family members 2.8 3.025 3.3 3.041 2.675 3.25 3.975 3.3 works in dairy Source: Field Survey

[96]

Table-V-10 Cropping pattern of sample Milk Producers (2015-16)

Sr. Season Cropping Pattern Area in ha No. (2015-16) DCS (n=120) NDCS (n=120) Small Medium Large Total Small Medium Large Total 40 40 40 120 40 40 40 120 1. Kharif Foodgrain Crops Paddy 0.741 0.705 1.146 0.864 0.441 0.791 0.786 0.673 Bajra 0.008 -- 0.017 0.008 0.016 0.020 0.006 0.014 Cash Crops Sugarcane 0.048 0.051 0.146 0.082 0.022 -- -- 0.007 Vegetable 0.022 0.021 0.053 0.032 0.046 0.045 0.060 0.050 Fodder Crops Charri 0.040 0.081 0.190 0.103 0.037 0.091 0.123 0.084 Sudan 0.030 0.028 0.063 0.041 0.021 0.042 0.070 0.044 Other Crops Total Kharif 0.891 0.887 1.617 1.132 0.585 0.990 1.046 0.874 2. Rabi Foodgrain Crops Wheat 0.690 0.583 0.926 0.733 0.379 0.698 0.725 0.601 Cash Crops Vegetable 0.560 0.141 0.332 0.204 0.095 0.161 0.146 0.134 Mustard 0.487 0.010 0.030 0.022 0.025 0.025 0.082 0.044 Fodder Crops 0.070 0.096 0.182 0.116 0.047 0.092 0.167 0.101 Other Crops Total Rabi 0.949 0.831 1.473 1.084 0.547 0.978 1.121 0.882 3. Summer Foodgrain Crops Cash Crops Urd 0.011 0.006 0.050 0.022 0.006 0.011 0.012 0.010 Moong 0.287 0.029 0.026 0.114 0.076 0.031 0.027 0.025 Menthe 0.006 0.006 -- 0.004 0.005 -- -- 0.001 Vegetable 0.027 0.018 -- 0.015 -- -- 0.006 0.002 Fodder Crops 0.110 0.137 0.251 0.166 0.087 0.168 0.726 0.327 Other Crops Total Summer 0.443 0.198 0.328 0.323 0.115 0.211 0.773 0.366 4. All 2.282 1.916 3.417 2.538 1.246 2.178 2.940 2.121 Source: Field Survey

[97]

V.5.(4). Details on Herd Strength and Cattle Shed

The details on herd strength and cattle shed worked-out in table-V-11 shows that on an overall the number of milch animals reared per milk producer was recorded as 3.691 of which the maximum i.e. 2.058 were buffaloes, 1.258 were crossbred cows and 0.575 was local cattle in DCS category of milk producers. The size-group-wise number of milch animals varied from 1.525 in small group to 6.350 in large group of milk producers in DCS category. Thus, the number of buffaloes was higher in large category and it was comparatively much higher in DCS category. While in NDCS category the number of total milch animals was 3.575 where in 2.175 were buffaloes, 1.075 were crossbred cows and only 0.325 was local cattle. Among the size- groups the number of milch animals varied from 1.375 in small group to 6.250 in large group. Thus, in NDCS category too the number of buffaloes was higher than cows. Accordingly the pucca cattle sheds were lesser in number than the kuchcha sheds in both DCS and NDCS categories. The data are given in Table-V-11.

[98]

Table-V-11 Details on Herd Strength & Cattle Shed

Sr. Particulars Selected State, Eastern Uttar Pradesh No. DCS (n=120) NDCS (n=120) Milch Animal (No.) Per M.P. Milch Animal (No.) Per M.P. Small Medium Large Total Small Medium Large Total 1. Local cattle 0.10 0.25 0.775 0.575 0.225 0.15 0.60 0.325

2. Cross Bread 0.35 0.975 2.45 1.258 0.25 0.90 2.075 1.075

3. Buffalo 1.075 1.975 3.125 2.058 0.90 2.05 3.575 2.175

Total 1.525 3.200 6.350 3.091 1.375 3.10 6.250 3.575

4. Cattle Shed (Nos.)

Pucca 0.025 0.025 0.075 0.042 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025

Semi-Pucca 0.275 0.50 0.625 0.466 0.250 0.400 1.00 0.525

Kuccha 1.125 0.925 0.950 1.00 1.00 0.700 0.525 0.741

Source: Field Survey

[99]

CHAPTER – VI

Issues Related to Milk Production

VI.1. Details of Animals Breeds

Table-VI-1 shows that in eastern U.P. the milk producers of all size-groups i.e. small (1-2 animals), medium (3 to 5 animals) and large (above 5 animals) generally rear local cows of Deshi, Sahiwal and Hariyana breeds. Among those milk producers who rear crossbred cows, the small as well as medium milk producers rear only Jershy breed and large milk producers rear Jershy and Frizion breeds. In case of rearing buffaloes, all size-groups of milk producers rear only Murra breed of buffalo in Eastern U.P. About average yield per day per animal it was reported that in case of local cows the yield varied varied from 4 litres to 4.5 litres per day per animal. In case of cross breed cows the yield varied from 11.5 litres to 12.5 litres per day per animal. While in case of buffaloes the yield varied from 8 litres to 8.5 litres per day per animal in east U.P. generally. The information are given in Table-VI-1.

Table-VI-1 Details of Animals Breeds

Sr. Av. Yield (lit/day)/ Range Particulars Name of breeds No. Per Animal 1 Local Cow

Small Deshi, Sahiwal, Haryana 4.5 Medium Deshi, Sahiwal 4.5 Large Deshi, Sahiwal 4 2 Crossbred Cow Small Jerssy 11.5 Medium Jerssy 12.5 Large Jerssy, Sahiwal 11.5 3 Buffalo Small Murra 8.5 Medium Murra 8.5 Large Murra 8 4 Others Small -- -- Medium -- -- Large -- -- Source: Field Survey

[100]

VI.2. Details of Breedable Animals in DCS category of East U.P. on survey Date

The details of breedable animals in DCS category of east U.P. worked-out in Table-VI-2 shows that the average age of all animals was estimated as 4.92 years on an overall. While the average age of all animals in case of small milk producers was 4.75 years in case of medium milk producers 4.91 years and in large milk producers it was estimated as 5.11 years. Thus, the average age of breedable animals was comparatively higher in case of animals reared by large farmers. While in case of different animals, the average age was higher i.e. 5.80 years in case of buffalo, against 4.76 years in case of local cows and 4.21 years in case of crossbred cows. Thus, the average age of buffaloes was comparatively larger than local cows and crossbred cows. The age at first calving was accordingly higher i.e. 44 months in case of buffaloes against 34 months in local cows and 32 months in crossbred cows. While the average age at first calving among milch animals was 37 months. The average lactation order among the breedable animals was 1.99. While the average lactation order among local cows was 2.56 and among crossbred cows it was 1.62. The average length of lactation was 271 days in breedable animals with maximum i.e. 278 days in buffaloes against 273 days in crossbred cows and 263 days in local cows. The average peak yield during last lactation was 8.19 litres per day against 8.63 litres per day during present lactation. Among crossbred cows it was higher i.e. 12 litres per day and 11 litres per day during last and present lactation respectively. Thus, in yield there was a marginal difference during last and present lactation of breedable animals. The related data are given in Table-VI-2.

VI.3. Details of Breedable Animals in NDCS category on survey Date

Details of breedable animals in NDCS category on survey date of east U.P. worked-out in Table- VI-3 shows that the average age of all animals was estimated as 5.11 years on an overall wherein the average age in large size group was higher i.e. 5.40 years against 4.88 years in small size- group of animals of sample milk producers. Thus, in NDCS category too the average age was found to be higher among the animals of large milk producers. The age of buffaloes was higher i.e. 5.75 years against 5.00 years in case of local cows and 4.46 in case of crossbred cows wherein the age of animals in large size group was higher in buffalo and local cow. The age at first calving in all the animals was estimated as 37 months on an overall and it was the same in cases of the breedable animals of all size-groups of animals of milk producers. While the age at

[101] first calving in buffaloes was higher i.e. 44 months against 34 months in local cows and 33 months in crossbred cows. Thus, the first calving age was higher in buffaloes than that in local as well as crossbred cows. The lactation order among all the sample animals was 2.02 with a slight variation in local cows where it was 2.60. The overall average length of lactation period was 282 days among all the animals which was slightly higher i.e. 287 days in crossbred cows against 280 days in local cows. The peak yield of all animals during the last lactation was estimated as 7.13 litres per day against 8.02 litres per day during the present lactation on an overall average which was found to be highest i.e. 11.30 litres per day in crossbred cows during the present lactation. Thus, it was clarified that the peak yield was highest in case of crossbred cows during both the lactation period. The related data are given in Table-VI-3.

VI.4. Availability of water for Dairy in DCS category of Milk Producers

Table-VI-4 indicates that the main source of water available for dairy purpose with almost all the sample milk producers of DCS category was hand-pump wherein each sample milk producer had atleast one hand-pump for dairy purpose at the average distance of 26 metres from the dairy. The supply of water was adequate as all the milk producers said yes and they also said yes for the quality of water to be normal. The alternative sources of water were open wells and tube-wells at the distances of 100 to 250 metres as they had told during the survey time. The related information are contained in Table-VI-4.

VI.5. Availability of water for Dairy in NDCS category of Milk Producers

Table-VI-5 shows that in NDCS category of milk producers too the main source of water for dairy purpose was found to be hand-pump with each of the sample milk producers atleast one hand-pump at the distance of 39 meters. In this category also almost all the sample milk producers had reported in favour of the adequate supply of water for dairy purpose. The quality of water was also found to be normal in the villages of almost all the sample milk producers. The alternative sources of water supply in shortage of water from the hand-pumps were open wells and tube-wells at the distances of 250 to 300 meters in their villages. The related data are given in Table-VI-5.

[102]

Table-VI-2 Details of Breedable animals in DCS category on survey date

Sr. Particulars Breeadable Animal (DCS) No. Local Cow Crossbred Cow Buffalo All Animals S M L T S M L T S M L T S M L T 1. Age (year) 4.67 4.50 5.12 4.76 4.51 3.88 4.23 4.21 5.66 5.75 5.99 5.80 4.75 4.91 5.11 4.92 2. Age at First 31 37 34 34 34 32 31 32 43 44 45 44 36 38 37 37 Calving (Month) 3. Lactation 2.67 2.5 2.51 2.56 1.43 1.79 1.64 1.62 1.88 1.93 1.63 1.81 1.99 2.07 1.93 1.99 Order@ 4. Length of 237 273 280 263 272 280 267 273 282 282 270 278 264 278 277 271 Lactation on Period (Days) 5. Peak Yield- Last Lactation 5.66 5 4 4.89 9 13 14 12 8 7 8 7.67 7.56 8.33 8.67 8.19 litre/day Present 6.66 5 4.8 5.22 9 9 15 11 8 13 8 9.67 7.89 9 9 8.63 Lactation litre/day 6. Covered N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Under Insurance (Y/N) If yes, ------premium paid (RS/animal) Government ------Self ------Source: Field Survey

[103]

Table-VI-3 Details of Breedable animals in NDCS Category on survey date

Sr. Particulars Animal (NDCS) No. Local Cow Crossbred Cow Buffalo All Animals S M L T S M L T S M L T S M L T 1. Age (year) 4.96 4.41 5.73 5.03 4.42 4.61 4.35 4.46 5.27 6.14 5.85 5.75 4.88 5.05 5.40 5.11 2. Age at First 34 33 34 34 33 33 34 33 44 45 43 44 37 37 37 37 Calving (Month) 3. Lactation 2.68 2.55 2.58 2.60 1.45 1.80 1.65 1.63 1.88 1.93 1.65 1.82 2.00 2.09 1.96 2.02 Order@ 4. Length of 278 274 280 277 281 299 280 287 281 291 275 282 280 288 278 282 Lactation Period (Days) 5. Peak Yield- Last Lactation 3.56 5 4.38 4.31 8.14 10.64 11.40 10.06 5.67 7.83 7.61 7.02 7.03 5.79 7.82 7.13 litre/day Present 5.56 5.20 5.00 5.25 10.29 11.60 12.00 11.30 8.10 8.90 8.55 8.52 7.98 8.57 8.52 8.02 Lactation litre/day 6. Covered N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Under Insurance (Y/N) If yes, ------premium paid (RS/animal) Government ------Self ------Source: Field Survey

[104]

Table-VI-4 Availability of Water for Dairy in DCS Category of Milk Producers

SL. Particulars DCS No. Rainy Winter Summer Small Med. Large Total Small Med. Large Total Small Med. Large Total A Source of Water Available for Dairy Purpose (Per M.P.) 1 Hand Pump 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Tubewell ------3 River ------4 Canal ------5 Village Talawadi ------6 Farm Pond ------7 Tanker ------Av. Distance 19 31 27 26 19 31 27 26 19 31 27 26

(Meters) B Supply of Water is adequate all M.P. said yes 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2 No ------C Water Quality (Village talawadi/Tanker) 1 Normal Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2 Poor ------3 Very Poor ------D Alternative source of Water supply in shortage 1 Open Well ------1 1 -- 2 2 TubeWell ------3 3 4 10 3 River ------4 Canal ------5 Village Talawadi ------6 Farm Pond ------7 Tanker ------Av. Distance ------100 225 250 192

(Meters) Payment Made for ------E Water, If any (Rs) Source: Field Survey

[105]

Table-VI-5 Availability of Water for Dairy in NDCS Category of Milk Producers SL. Particulars NDCS No. Rainy Winter Summer Small Med. Large Total Small Med. Large Total Small Med. Large Total A Source of Water Available for Dairy Purpose 1 Hand Pump 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Tubewell ------3 River ------4 Canal ------5 Village Talawadi ------6 Farm Pond ------7 Tanker ------Av. Distance (Meters) 44 37 36 39 44 37 36 39 44 37 36 39 B Supply of Water is adequate all M.P. said yes 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2 No ------C Water Quality (Village talawadi/Tanker) No. of M.P. 1 Normal Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2 Poor ------3 Very Poor ------D Alternative source of Water supply in shortage No. of M.P. 1 Open Well ------2 1 -- 3 2 TubeWell ------2 2 1 5 3 River ------4 Canal ------5 Village Talawadi ------6 Farm Pond ------7 Tanker ------Av. Distance (Meters) ------300 300 250 283 Payment Made for E ------Water, If any (Rs) Source: Field Survey

[106]

VI.6. Labour use Pattern in Involvement of Family Men and Women in Dairy Activities under DCS and NDCS categories Milk Producers

Table-VI-6 shows that under fodder management one male and one female family workers were engaged per day at the rate of 1.51 hours and 1.06 hours respectively for gross collection under DCS category of the milk producers. For animal feeding also the same family workers were engaged at the rate of 0.37 hour and 0.34 respectively on an average per day. Under shed management too the same family workers were engaged wherein male worked 0.33 hour in cleaning of shed, 0.35 hour in washing animals 0.32 hour in watering and 0.26 hour in dung collection per day. While female worked 0.59 hour in cleaning of shed, 1.14 hour in washing of animals, 1.16 hour in watering and 1.08 hour in dung collection per day. Under milking the same family workers engaged wherein male at the rate of 1.34 hour and female at the rate of 1.02 hour per day. Under animal health too male in breeding at the rate of 0.39 hour and female 0.35 hour and under veterinary health care to for the same period.

While under NDCS category in case of fodder management also one male and one female family workers were engaged wherein in gross collection male for 1.46 hour and female for 1.06 hour, in animal feeding male 0.36 hour and female 0.20 hour. Under shed management in cleaning shed male 1.23 hour, female 0.22 hour, in washing animals male 1.00 hour, female 0.26 hour, in watering male 1.24, female 0.22 hour and in dung collection male 1.07 hour and female 0.18 hour. In milking male 1.14 hour and female 0.54 hour, under animal health in breeding male 0.39 hour, female 0.36 hour and in veterinary health care too for the same period. The related data are given in Table-VI-6.

VI.7. Labour use Pattern in Involvement of Hired Men labourers in Dairy Activities under DCS / NDCS categories Milk Producers

Table-VI-7 shows that under DCS category one male labourer by only medium and large milk producers were hired who worked in grass collection for 1.00 hour and 0.40 hour for animal feeding under fodder management. While under shed management in cleaning of shed 0.40 hour and in dung collection 0.50 hour. Under NDCS category only one male labourer was hired for working in grass collection at the rate of 1.30 hour and for animal feeding at the rate of 0.50 hour by large milk producer on an average. Thus, it is obviously clear that under DCS as well as NDCS category the hired labourers were engaged rarely in whole of the eastern U.P. The related data are given in Table-VI-7.

[107]

Table-VI-6

Labour Use Pattern in Involvement of Family Men and women workers in Dairy Activities

Sr. Dairy Activities under Family workers No. DCS/NDCS Categories No. of Workers / Day / M.P. Total Hours Worked / Person / Day Male Female Male Female S M L All S M L All S M L All S M L All DCS-Category Fodder Management A (Per day) Grazing ------Grass Collection 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.06 1.47 1.80 1.51 0.87 0.88 1.41 1.06 Animal Feeding 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.26 0.33 0.50 0.37 0.24 0.34 0.43 0.34 Shed Management B (Per day) Cleaning the shed 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.26 0.23 0.44 0.33 0.15 0.44 1.22 0.59

/house Washing of animal 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.36 0.27 0.40 0.35 0.25 0.54 1.49 1.14 Watering 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.27 0.25 0.42 0.32 0.22 0.54 1.59 1.16 Dung Collection 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.17 0.20 0.35 0.26 0.21 0.54 1.35 1.55 C Milking (Per day) Milking 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.57 0.81 1.27 1.34 0.50 0.51 0.85 1.02 Milk/Milk preparation ------Animal Health D (Annual) Breeding 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.28 0.40 0.50 0.39 0.20 0.35 0.52 0.35 Veterinary Health Care 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.28 0.40 0.50 0.39 0.20 0.35 0.52 0.35

[108]

NDCS-Category Fodder Management A (Per day) Grazing ------Grass Collection 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.03 1.43 1.91 1.46 0.72 0.66 1.63 1.06 Animal Feeding 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.25 0.36 0.48 0.36 0.18 0.16 0.25 0.20 Shed Management B (Per day) Cleaning the shed 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.55 0.78 1.15 1.23 0.14 0.21 0.31 0.22

/house Washing of animal 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.66 0.93 1.38 1.00 0.16 0.27 0.35 0.26 Watering 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.55 0.78 1.15 1.24 0.14 0.22 0.31 0.22 Dung Collection 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.44 0.62 0.92 1.07 0.11 0.18 0.24 0.18 C Milking (Per day) Milking 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.37 0.71 1.13 1.14 0.30 0.49 0.82 0.54 Milk/Milk preparation ------Animal Health D (Annual) Breeding 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.27 0.39 0.50 0.39 0.20 0.37 0.50 0.36 Veterinary Health Care 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.27 0.39 0.50 0.39 0.20 0.37 0.50 0.36 Note: If needed, mention labour use in group of activities (A,B,C,D). Source: Field Survey

[109]

Table-VI-7

Labour Use Pattern in Involvement of Hired Men labourers in Dairy Activities

Sr. Dairy Activities under Hired Labours No. DCS/NDCS Categories No. of Workers / Day Total Hours Worked / Person / Day Male Female Male Female S M L All S M L All S M L All S M L All DCS-Category Fodder Management A (Per day) Grazing ------Grass Collection -- 1 1 1 ------1.84 1.75 1.00 ------Animal Feeding -- 1 1 1 ------0.30 0.50 0.40 ------Shed Management B (Per day) Cleaning the shed -- 1 1 1 ------0.30 0.50 0.40 ------

/house Washing of animal ------Watering ------Dung Collection -- -- 1 1 ------0.50 0.50 ------C Milking (Per day) Milking ------Milk/Milk preparation ------Animal Health D (Annual) Breeding ------Veterinary Health Care ------

[110]

NDCS- Category Fodder Management A (Per day) Grazing ------Grass Collection -- -- 1 1 ------1.30 1.30 ------Animal Feeding -- -- 1 1 ------0.50 0.50 ------Shed Management B (Per day) Cleaning the shed ------

/house Washing of animal ------Watering ------Dung Collection ------C Milking (Per day) Milking ------Milk/Milk preparation ------Animal Health D (Annual) Breeding ------Veterinary Health Care ------Note: If needed, mention labour use in group of activities (A,B,C,D). Source: Field Survey

[111]

VI.8. Details about Family Members who Handle Income Received from Dairying and its use under DCS and NDCS categories Milk Producers

Table-VI-8 shows that under DCS category of milk producers the maximum males i.e. 23 members were handling the income received from dairying in large group of milk producers. While in small as well as medium groups of milk producers it was handled more or less equally by males and females under DCS category. Regarding income being spent, it was estimated that approximately 60% of the income was spent on feeds and animals health and 40% on family expenditures by males, females and both the members jointly under DCS category of milk producers. Under NDCS category too similar pattern of handling income received from the dairying was prevalent as is evident from the data worked out in Table-VI-8.

Table-VI-8

Details about family members who handle Income received from dairying and its use under DCS and NDCS categories of Milk Producers (In No. of Members) Sl. Income spent on Income from Income from Income sale No. (share in approx) (%) Particulars dairy (sale sale of of dung Family Exp Feed/and of milk ) products /FYM Health A DCS-Category Small Male 16 -- -- 39.06 60.94 Female 9 -- -- 36.56 63.44 Both 15 -- -- 39.60 60.40 Medium Male 17 -- -- 37.65 62.35 Female 5 -- -- 40.00 60.00 Both 18 -- -- 39.44 60.56 Large Male 23 -- -- 39.57 60.43 Female 2 -- -- 50.00 50.00 Both 15 -- -- 35.67 64.33 All M.P. Male 56 -- -- 38.76 61.24 Female 16 -- -- 42.19 57.81 Both 48 -- -- 38.24 61.76

[112]

B NDCS- Category Small Male 17 -- -- 39.11 60.89 Female 8 -- -- 45.00 55.00 Both 15 -- -- 36.67 64.33 Medium Male 21 -- -- 40.19 59.81 Female 1 -- -- 50.00 50.00 Both 18 -- -- 37.89 62.11 Large Male 19 -- -- 35.00 65.00 Female ------Both 21 -- -- 35.47 64.53 All M.P. Male 57 -- -- 38.10 61.90 Female 9 -- -- 47.50 52.50 Both 54 -- -- 36.34 63.66 Source: Field Survey

VI.9. Feed and Fodder Fed Per Animal at the time of Survey in Kg./Animal/Day under DCS category of Milk Producers

Table-VI-9 shows that under stall feeding self cultivated dry fodder was fed at the rate of 4.93 kgs/animal/day to local cows, 5.55 kgs/animal/day to crossbred cows and 7.28 kgs/animal/day to buffaloes on an average and the rate was similar among small, medium and large milk producers. In addition the self cultivated green fodder was also fed at the rate of 5.38 kgs/animal/day to local cows, 6.73 kgs/animal/day to crossbred cows and 7.62 kgs/animal/day to the buffaloes on an average by the small, medium and large milk producers almost similarly. Home produced concentrates were fed at the rate of 1.80 kg/animal/day to local cows, 2.43 kg/animal/day to crossbred cows and 2.34 kg/animal/day to buffaloes. As supplement gur was fed at the rate of 0.04 kg/animal/day to local cows, 0.05 kg/animal/day to crossbred cows and 0.09 kg/animal/day to buffaloes. Thus, salt feeding to animals among all the milk producers was done in a similar pattern under DCS category in the area under study. Data are given in Table-VI-9.

[113]

Table-VI-9 Feed and Fodder Fed per animal at the time of survey (Kg./Ani./day) under DCS category of Milk Producers

Sl. Stall-Feeding DCS Category No. Quantity Fed (Kg) Animal Type LC CB B Small Medium Large All Small Medium Large All Small Medium Large All A Dry Fodder ------Self-Cultivated 6.00 6.35 4.34 4.93 5.11 5.18 5.76 5.55 7.28 7.39 7.20 7.28 Purchased ------B Green Fodder ------Self-Cultivated 5.75 4.50 5.61 5.38 7.04 6.67 6.71 6.73 8.07 7.86 7.32 7.62 Purchased ------Collected ( Grass, ------Tree Leaves,) C Concentrates ------Home Prepared 2.37 2.05 1.64 1.80 2.43 2.02 2.60 2.43 2.98 2.80 2.66 2.34 prepared Cattle Feed ------D Supplements ------Mineral Mixture ------Salt ------Molasses ------Mustard Oil ------Any Other ( Gur ) 0.05 0.065 0.039 0.045 0.06 0.02 0.50 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.09 E Out feeding Grazing ------(No of Hours/day) Source: Field Survey

[114]

VI.10. Feed and Fodder Fed Per Animal at the time of Survey in Kg./Animal/Day under NDCS category of Milk Producers

Table-VI-10 shows that under the stall feeding self cultivated dry fodder was fed at the rate of 5.11 kg/animal/day to local cows, 5.40 kg/animal/day to crossbred cows and 7.53 kg/animal/day too buffaloes quite similarly by all groups of milk producers under NDCS category. Along with dry fodder the self cultivated green fodder was also fed at the rate of 6.95 kg/animal/day to local cows, 6.82 kg/animal/day to crossbred cows and at the rate of 7.52 kg/animal/day to buffaloes. Home prepared concentrates was also fed at the rate of 2.26 kg/animal/day to local cows, 2.56 kg/animal/day to crossbred cows and at the rate of 3.09 kg/animal/day to buffaloes slightly higher quantity by all the milk producers of NDCS category. As the supplement salt was also fed at the rate of 0.06 kg/animal/day to all types of animals under NDCS category of milk producers. Thus, stall feeding NDCS category was the same as it was in DCS category. The data are given in Table-VI-10.

VI.11. Veterinary and Breeding Expenditures during Last Year (2015-16) under DCS category of Milk Producers

Table-VI-11 shows that maximum vaccination i.e. HS-30, BQ-14 and FMD-91 were recorded in case of buffaloes against minimum i.e. FMD-15 only in case of local cows. While in case of crossbred cows HS-13, BQ-17 and FMD-80 were recorded. Thus, vaccinations were done in maximum numbers to buffaloes and crossbred cows under DCS category of animals. Accordingly the expenditures were estimated maximum i.e. Rs. 46960 (2015-16) in case of buffaloes against minimum i.e. Rs. 1500 (2015-16) in case of local cows. While in case of crossbred cows it was Rs. 4252 (2015-16). Thus, maximum expenditures were done on buffaloes and crossbred cows among milk producers. Visits by vet. doctors were rare on an average. Artificial Insemination was done in maximum number i.e. 91 among crossbred cows and 90 among buffaloes. While natural services of insemination were done maximum i.e. 157 among buffaloes against only 11 among local cows. Accordingly the expenditures on A.Is. was incurred maximum i.e. Rs. 24720 (2015-16) among buffaloes against only Rs. 4750 among local cows. In case of crossbred cows it was Rs. 21590 (2015-16). Thus, expenditures on A.Is. were done maximum on buffaloes and crossbred cows and minimum on local cows reared by milk producers of all the three size-groups. The number of A.Is. per conception was reported to be one in almost all the categories of milk producers. Also the per visit fee paid to vet. doctor was reported to be Rs. 200 per visit. Thus, it was obviously clear that medicines and vet. doctors were costly affairs. The related data are given in Table-VI-11.

[115]

Table-VI-10 Feed and Fodder Fed per animal at the time of survey (Kg./Ani./day) under NDCS category of Milk Producers

Sl. Stall-Feeding NDCS Category No. Quantity Fed (Kg) Animal Type LC CB B Small Medium Large All Small Medium Large All Small Medium Large All A Dry Fodder ------Self-Cultivated 5.25 5.00 5.81 5.11 5.80 5.19 5.53 5.46 7.75 7.51 7.45 7.53 Purchased ------B Green Fodder ------Self-Cultivated 7.05 7.33 7.62 6.95 5.30 6.81 7.02 6.82 7.65 7.27 7.57 7.52 Purchased ------Collected ( Grass, ------Tree Leaves,) C Concentrates ------Home Prepared 2.22 2.17 2.62 2.26 2.40 2.37 2.66 2.56 3.03 3.44 2.90 3.09 prepared Cattle Feed ------D Supplements ------Mineral Mixture ------Salt 0.85 0.10 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 Molasses ------Mustard Oil ------Any Other ( Specify ) ------E Out feeding Grazing ------(No of Hours/day) Source: Field Survey

[116]

Table-VI-11 Veterinary and Breeding Expenditure during Last year (2015-16) under DCS Category of Milk Producers

Sl. DCS Category No. Expenditure (Rs.) Animal Type LC CB B Small Medium Large All Small Medium Large All Small Medium Large All A Vaccination HS ------13 13 17 -- 13 30 BQ ------4 10 3 17 -- 10 4 14 FMD -- 2 13 15 3 11 66 80 5 10 76 91 B Medicines + Doctor -- 1200 1300 2500 810 6450 35261 42521 1000 6450 33510 46950 (Rs.) C Av. No. of visit by -- 2 1 5 2 1 2 1.67 2 2 2 2 Vet./Year D Service Artificial 4 8 21 33 14 39 98 91 20 30 40 90 Insemination Al Natural service -- 1 10 11 ------23 49 85 157 Amount 600 1270 2880 4750 2050 5540 14000 21590 5320 5500 13900 24720 E No. of Al Per 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 conception F Per visit rate paid to -- 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 vet. Doctor (Rs./visit) Source: Field Survey

[117]

VI.12. Veterinary and Breeding Expenditures during Last Year (2015-16) under NDCS category of Milk Producers

Table-VI-12 shows that maximum vaccinations were done maximum i.e. 116 among buffaloes, 78 among crossbred cows and minimum 7 among local cows in NDCS category of milk producers. Accordingly maximum expenditures on medicines and doctors was incurred on buffaloes and crossbred cows. While the number of visit of vet. doctors was maximum among the crossbred cows. The number of A.Is. were done maximum i.e. 129 among C.B. cows against minimum in local cows. Among buffaloes it was reported to be 106 (2015-16). The expenditures were done maximum on crossbred cows and buffaloes. While the A.I. per conception was only one in almost all the categories. The vet. doctors fee of Rs. 200 per visit was told highly almost all the sample milk producers. The related data are given in Table-VI-12.

VI.13. Cost Details of Feed and Fodder per Animal at the Time of Survey under DCS and NDCS categories of Milk Producers

Table-VI-13 shows that under DCS category on an average Rs. 54.67 was incurred per animal on dry fodder, Rs. 18.03 per animal on green fodder, Rs. 49.93 per animal on concentrates and Rs. 3.84 per animal on supplements was invested under DCS category by small, medium and large sample milk producers. Similarly under DCS category of milk producers on an average the cost on dry fodder was estimated as Rs. 57.76 per animal, Rs. 18.24 per animal on green fodder, Rs. 52.05 per animal on concentrates and Rs. 2.73 per animal on supplements. Thus, it is evidently clear that cost on the fodders and concentrates was quite similar under DCS as well as NDCS categories of milk producers of all size-groups. No grazing was reported by any milk producer in any category. Labour wages for dairy activities were reported to be common for men as well as women as Rs. 150 per day in all the categories of milk producers. Permanent labours in DCS category were reported to be paid as 80% in cash and 20% in kind. Rental value of land and water charges were not reported to be paid.

[118]

Table-VI-12 Veterinary and Breeding Expenditure during Last year (2015-16) under NDCS Category of Milk Producers

Sl. NDCS No. Expenditure (Rs.) Animal Type LC CB B Small Medium Large All Small Medium Large All Small Medium Large All A Vaccination HS ------1 2 4 7 8 32 44 84 BQ 1 -- 1 1 -- 4 9 13 -- -- 6 6 FMD -- 2 5 7 2 18 30 58 3 8 5 16 B Medicines + Doctor ------1600 5100 12100 18800 3200 22500 19480 45180 (Rs.) C Av. No. of visit by ------1 2 2 5 2 2 2 2 Vet./Year D Service Artificial 8 5 23 38 10 36 83 129 20 34 52 106 Insemination Al Natural service 1 1 1 1 ------16 48 91 155 Amount 1300 750 850 2900 1400 5650 12500 19550 6000 14405 23375 43780 E No. of Al Per 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 conception F Per visit rate paid to ------200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 vet. Doctor (Rs./visit) Source: Field Survey

[119]

As regards the present value of adult animals on an average. The value of crossbred cow was reported as Rs. 39000 in DCS category and Rs. 37333 in NDCS category. The value of local cow was Rs. 12000 in DCS category and Rs. 11000 in NDCS category. While the value of buffalo was reported as Rs. 63833 in DCS category and Rs. 61333 in NDCS category of milk producers. Thus, the value of adult animals was comparatively higher in DCS category than that in NDCS category. About the use of dung it was reported that in DCS category 76.50% of dung was used as manure and remaining 23.50% of dung was used to prepare dung cakes. While in NDCS category 70.83% of dung was used as manure and 29.17% was used as dung cakes. Regarding up-keeps of equipments it was reported that in the DCS category Rs. 4106 was spent on chaff cutter, Rs. 597 on bucket Rs. 183 on hoe Rs. 764 on milk cane and Rs. 219 on measurement. While in NDCS category Rs. 3890 was spent on chaff cutter Rs. 599 on bucket, Rs. 157 on hoe, Rs. 314 on milk cane and Rs. 151 on measurement. Thus expenses were higher in DCS category. The related data are given in Table-VI-13. Table-VI-13 Cost details of feed and fodder per animal at the Time of Survey under DCS and NDCS Categories of Milk Producers (Rs./Livestock) Sl. DCS NDCS Particulars Units No. Small Med. Large All Small Med. Large All A Fodder (Rs./Animals) 1. Dry Fodder 54.60 54.86 54.60 54.67 54.11 52.57 54.60 57.76 2.Green Fodder 16.14 19.65 18.30 18.03 18.13 18.17 17.92 18.24 3.Concentrate 52.20 50.40 47.00 49.83 52.50 52.50 51.24 52.05 4.Supplements 3.36 3.84 4.32 3.84 2.43 2.91 2.85 2.73 B Grazing Contract Daily basis ------Monthly basis ------Yearly basis ------B Labour Wages (for Rs./day Dairy activities) Men 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 Women 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 C Permanent Labour In% (for Dairy activities) Cash -- 80 80 80 ------Kind -- 20 20 20 ------D Rental Value of Land (Rs./ha) ------E Water Charges paid if ------

any F Present Value of Rs./Animal Adult Animals Crossbred Cow 35000 37000 45000 39000 10000 43000 29000 37333 Local Cow 15000 14000 12000 12000 1000 15000 9000 11000

[120]

Buffalo 64167 62333 65000 63833 58500 63000 62500 61333 G Dung* In% % Of Dung used as - 74.5 76.88 78.13 76.50 68.33 73.33 70.83 70.83

Manure Dung Cakes 25.62 23.22 21.87 23.50 31.67 26.67 29.17 29.17 H Equipments Rs./Equipment Chaff Cutter 4012 4206 4100 4106 3430 3831 4408 3890 Bucket 537 582 673 597 535 675 766 599 Hoe 180 174 196 183 112 200 158 157 Milk Cane 635 702 954 764 300 318 331 314 Measurement 200 204 254 219 125 138 191 151 Any Other ------Source: Field Survey

VI.14. Season-wise Milk Yield (Per Day) of selected Milk Producers (2015-16) in DCS Category.

Table-VI-14 shows that in DCS category the average yield of milk was found to be maximum i.e. 11.50 litres per day crossbred cow against the minimum i.e. 4.33 lires per day per local cow in rainy season of 2015-16. While it was estimated as 8.33 litres per day per buffalo in the rainy season of 2015-16. In winter season milk yield of crossbred cow was 11.75 litres per day, in case of local cow it was 4.67 litres per day and in case buffalo it was 8.83 litres per day. Thus, in winter season the yield in cases of all the animals was found to be higher. While in summer season milk yield in case of crossbred cows was 11.00 litres per day, in local cows it was 5 litres per day and it buffaloes it was 7.83 litres per day. Thus, in summer season the milk yield of buffaloes and crossbred cows was decreased but in case of local cows it was slightly increased. The related data are given in Table-VI-14.

VI.15. Season-wise Milk Yield (Per Day) of selected Milk Producers (2015-16) in NDCS Category.

Table-VI-15 shows that under NDCS category during rainy season the maximum milk yield i.e. 10.33 litres per animal per day was estimated in case of crossbred cows against minimum milk yield i.e. 4.5 litres per day per animal in case of local cows. In case of buffaloes it was 7.83 litres per animal per day during rainy season. While during winter season it was 10.57 litres per day per animal in case of crossbred cows, 4.68 litres in case of local cows and 8.33 litres per day per buffalo. In summer season it was 10.00 litres per day per crossbred cow, 5.00 litres per day per local cow and 7.33 litres per day per buffalo during 2015-16 in all the size-groups of milk producers. Thus, milk yield per animal per day during summer season was slightly lower than that in rainy and winter seasons during 2015-16 in all the size-groups of milk producers. The related data are given in Table-VI-15.

[121]

Table-VI-14 Season-wise Milk Yield (Per day) of Selected M.P. (2015-16) in DCS Category of Milk Producers

SL. Av. Yield Animal (DCS) n=120 No. (Lit/animal) Local cow Crossbred cow Buffalo Small Med. Large All Small Med. Large All Small Med. Large All 1. Rainy Season 4.50 4.00 4.50 4.33 10.50 12.50 11.50 11.50 8.50 8.50 8.00 8.33

2. Winter Season 4.75 4.50 4.75 4.67 10.75 12.75 11.75 11.75 9 9 8.50 8.83

3. Summer Season 5 5 5 5 10 11 12 11 8 8 7.50 7.83

Source: Field Survey

Table-VI-15 Season-wise Milk Yield (Per day) of Selected M.P. (2015-16) in NDCS Category of Milk Producers

SL. Av. Yield Animal (NDCS) n=120 No. (Lit/animal) Local cow Crossbred cow Buffalo Small Med. Large All Small Med. Large All Small Med. Large All 1. Rainy Season 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 9.50 10.50 11.00 10.33 7.50 8 8 7.83

2. Winter Season 4.60 4.70 4.75 4.68 9.75 10.70 11.25 10.57 8 8.50 8.50 8.33

3. Summer Season 5 5 5 5 9.00 10 11.00 10.00 7 7.50 7.50 7.33

Source: Field Survey

[122]

VI.16. Awareness about Various Schemes among Milk Producers of DCS and NDCS Categories.

Table-VI-16 indicates that about the awareness of vaccination schemes only 25% of sample milk producers had told yes on an average and 75% had told no in DCS category. In NDCS category only 19.17% of milk producers had told yes and 88.83% had to no. thus, majority of milk producers were not aware about vaccination scheme. About Artificial Insemination only 30% milk producers in DCS category and 26.67 in NDCS category were aware and told yes and majority i.e. 70% in DCS category and 73.33% in NDCS category were not aware about A.Is. programmes. About Dairy Development Schemes 33% in DCS category and 30% in NDCS category were aware and 67% in DCS category and 76% in NDCS category were not aware. About sources of information on schemes 100% milk producers in DCS category told yes to dairy cooperative milk unions as main source of information and 90% of milk producers in DCS category and 85% in NDCS told fellow farmers as main source of information. About the benefits majority milk producers i.e. 100% told not at all benefited from the schemes. The related data are given in Table-VI-16.

Table-VI-16

Awareness about various schemes among Milk Producers of DCS and NDCS Categories

Particulars DCS NDCS Response Response Small Med. Large All Small Med. Large All 1. Awareness about different Vaccinations schemes/programmes in (%) to total M.P. Yes 20.00 25.00 30.00 25.00 15.00 20.00 22.50 19.17 No 80.00 75.00 70.00 75.00 85.00 80.00 77.50 88.83 2. Awareness about Artificial Insemination (AI) programmes (%) Yes 25.00 30.00 35.00 30.00 20.00 27.50 32.50 26.67 No 75.00 70.00 65.00 70.00 80.00 72.50 67.50 73.33 3. Awareness about any dairy development scheme/programmes (%) Yes 25.00 35.00 40.00 33.00 20.00 32.00 38.00 30.00 No 75.00 65.00 60.00 67.00 80.00 78.00 62.00 70.00 4. Sources of information about these scheme (%)

[123] a) Govt. Animal Husbandry ------Department b) Dairy Cooperative/Milk Union 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 ------c) Media (Press/TV) ------d) Fellow farmer/dairy 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 owner/neighbour e) other ------15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 5. Have you benefited with any dairy development scheme/programmes (%) Yes -- -- 2.50 2.50 ------No -- -- 97.50 97.50 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 If benefited, please provide following i. Av. No. of visits to concern -- -- 2 2 ------office ii. Wage days lost, if any (Rs.) -- -- 150 150 ------iii. Total Expenditure to avail ------50 ------scheme (doc/travel/etc) iv. Bribe paid to any one ------v. Quality of material received Good -- -- 1 1 ------Bad ------vi. Satisfied with benefit received (%) Yes -- -- 60.00 60.00 ------No ------If no, give reason ------Source: Field Survey

[124]

CHAPTER – VII

Issues Related to Marketing of Milk

VII.1. Use of Produced Milk at Home and Processing and sale (Yesterday) in DCS category of Milk producers

Table-VII-1 shows that in DCS category of sample milk producers the average milk drawn per day from all animals was estimated as 14.82 litres. While in small size-group it was estimated as 8.12 litres per day, in medium group 13.43 litres and in large group it was 19.75 litres per day per milk producers in DCS category. Thus, it is obviously clear that milk drawn yesterday was much higher in large size-group of milk producer in DCS category. Further analysis shows that among local cows the milk drawn per milk producer was 4.96 litres per day, among crossbred cows it was 22.00 litres per day and among buffaloes it was 13.43 litres per day. Thus, milk drawn per milk producer was comparatively much higher in case of crossbred cows against the local cows and buffaloes on an average. The average use of milk at home in direct consumption in all size-groups was estimated as 2.58 litres per day which varied from 1.96 litres in small group, 2.46 in medium group to 3.02 litres in large size-group of milk producers in DCS category. Thus, home consumption was higher in large size-group and the milk of crossbred cows was consumed in higher quantity. The liquid milk sold to cooperative society was estimated as 12.25 litres in case of all animals on an average which varied from 6.19 litres in small group to 16.73 litres in large size group. The maximum quantity of milk i.e. 19.04 litres per day was sold in case of crossbred cows wherein. The maximum i.e. 24.88 litres was sold by a large milk producer against 14.66 litres in case of large buffalo milk producer and 4.92 litres in case of large local cow milk producer. Thus, large milk producer of crossbred cow milk had sold larger quantity of milk to the cooperative society as compared to that of the large milk producers of buffalo as well as local cow milk. But the price per litre was highest i.e. Rs. 31 for buffalo milk being maximum i.e. Rs. 32 per litre in large group against lowest i.e. Rs. 22 per litre for crossbred cow milk being Rs. 22 per litre in large group of milk producers. Accordingly the payment for milk sold was estimated as Rs. 308.94 per milk producer on an average which was highest i.e. Rs. 418.88 in case of crossbred cows against Rs. 330.15 in case of buffalo milk and Rs. 81.88 in case of local cows. The payment was made weekly in cases of almost all the milk producers. The distance of cooperative society was told to be one km from their villages. The WAP (Weighted Average Price) on an overall average was Rs. 25.22 per litre for all animals. While for local cow milk it was Rs. 23 per litre, for crossbred cow milk Rs. 22 per litre and for buffalo milk it was Rs. 31 per litre. The related data are contained in Table-VII-1. [125]

Table-VII-1 Use of Milk at home and Processing and Sale (Yesterday) in DCS Category of Milk Producers

Sl. Particulars DCS No. LC CB B O S M L T S M L T S M L T S M L T 1 Milk Drawn per M.P. (Lit/Day) 5 3.75 5.75 4.96 7.8 20.23 28.42 22.00 8.73 12.57 18.06 13.43 8.15 13.43 19.75 14.82 Use of Milk at Home 2 (lit) For Direct 2.25 1.81 0.83 1.40 1.10 2.53 3.53 2.96 2.23 2.6 2.51 2.78 1.96 2.46 3.02 2.58

Consumption For Processing ------Raw/Liquid Milk ------3 sold (Lit) Agency (may be ------4 multiple) i) Cooperative Society Total Quantity (Lit) 2.75 1.94 4.92 3.56 6.7 17.8 24.88 19.04 6.5 9.97 14.66 10.65 6.19 10.97 16.73 12.25 Price (Rs./Lit) 25 22 22 23 22 22 22 22 30 31 32 31 25.67 25 25 25.22 Payment 68.75 42.68 108.24 81.88 147.45 391.60 247.36 418.88 195.00 309.07 469.12 330.15 158.90 274.25 418.25 308.94 Daily ------Weekly W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W Monthly ------Distance (Kms) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Transport Charges (Rs.) ------ii) Consumer Total Quantity (Lit) ------Price (Rs./Lit) ------Payment ------Daily ------Weekly ------Monthly ------Distance (Kms) ------Transport Charges (Rs.) ------

[126]

Private Vendor/ iii) Middlemen/Shop Total Quantity (Lit) ------Price (Rs./Lit) ------Payment ------Daily ------Weekly ------Monthly ------Distance (Kms) ------Transport Charges ------(Rs.) Sweet Shop/ Creameries/ Catering iv) Services/others Total Quantity (Lit) ------Price (Rs./Lit) ------Payment ------Daily ------Weekly ------Monthly ------Distance (Kms) ------Transport Charges ------(Rs.) Weighted average price 25 22 22 23 22 22 22 22 30 31 32 31 25.67 25 25 25.22 5 WAP (Rs./litre) How many cooperative dairy members did not ------sale milk to dairy.. 6 Why-specify reasons). 1… 2… 3…. Note: WAP= Total amount received through milk sale using all channels /total quantity sold. Source: Field Survey

[127]

VII.2. Use of Produced Milk at Home and Processing and sale (Yesterday) in NDCS category of Milk producers

Table-VII-2 indicates that in case of the milk producers of NDCS category on an average 15.73 litres of milk was produced by all animals per day varying from 7.45 litres in small group 14.06 litres in medium group to 22.44 litres in large size-group of milk producers. The milk production in NDCS category was highest i.e. 25.52 litres per day among crossbred cows against the lowest i.e. 5.07 litres among local cows and 14.52 litres per day among buffaloes. Thus, milk production was higher among the crossbred cows in the NDCS category. The use of milk at home for direct consumption was estimated as 2.15 litres per milk producer per day on an overall average being highest i.e. 2.41 litres among buffalo milk producers against the lowest i.e. 1.58 litres among local cow milk producers. Thus, in the NDCS category of milk producers the home consumption was higher among the buffalo milk producers in comparison of the local cows and crossbred cows milk producers in the area under study.

In NDCS category the total marketable milk i.e. 13.59 litres per milk producer was sold to middlemen being highest i.e. 20.23 litres by the large milk producer, 11.73 litres by medium milk producer and 5.64 litres by the small milk producers on an overall average. While the maximum quantity i.e. 23.65 litres was sold by a crossbred cow milk producer against the minimum i.e. 3.51 litres sold by local cow milk producer and 12.11 litres sold by a buffalo milk producer of NDCS category. Thus, the maximum quantity of milk was sold by crossbred cow milk producers in the NDCS category. The average price was recorded as Rs. 25.33 on an overall average varying from Rs. 22 per litre in crossbred cow milk Rs. 23 per litre in local cow milk to Rs. 31 per litre for buffalo milk. The payment of Rs. 344.23 to a milk producer was done weekly on an average which was found varying from Rs. 80.73 in case of low cow milk, Rs. 520 in case of crossbred cow to Rs. 375.41 in case of buffalo. Thus, the maximum payment was done in case of crossbred cow milk in NDCS category. The distance of middlemen / shop was approximately 1 km in almost all the cases of sample milk producers. The weighted average price was Rs. 25.33 per litre on an overall wherein for local cow milk it was Rs. 23 per litre, for crossbred cow milk Rs. 22 per litre and for buffalo milk it was Rs. 31 per litre in NDCS category of milk producer. The related data are given in Table-VII-2.

[128]

Table-VII-2 Use of Milk at home and Processing and Sale (Yesterday) in NDCS Category of Milk Producers

Sl. Particulars NDCS No. LC CB B O S M L All S M L All S M L All S M L All 1 Milk Drawn per M.P. (Lit/Day) 4.44 4.2 5.95 5.07 10.83 19.57 34.11 25.52 7.70 13.21 21.40 14.52 7.45 14.06 22.44 15.73 Use of Milk at Home 2 (lit) For Direct 1.16 2.4 1.54 1.58 2.33 2.00 1.66 1.80 1.91 2.45 2.78 2.41 1.81 2.33 2.22 2.15

Consumption For Processing ------Raw/Liquid Milk sold ------3 (Lit) Agency (may be ------4 multiple) i) Cooperative Society Total Quantity (Lit) ------Price (Rs./Lit) ------Payment ------Daily ------Weekly ------Monthly ------Distance (Kms) ------Transport Charges (Rs.) ------ii) Consumer Total Quantity (Lit) ------Price (Rs./Lit) ------Payment ------Daily ------Weekly ------Monthly ------Distance (Kms) ------Transport Charges (Rs.) ------

[129]

Private Vendor/ iii) Middlemen/Shop Total Quantity (Lit) 3.28 1.80 4.42 3.51 8.5 17.57 32.45 23.65 5.79 10.76 18.62 12.11 5.64 11.73 20.23 13.59 Price (Rs./Lit) 25 22 22 23 22 22 22 22 30 31 32 31 25.67 25 25.33 25.33 Payment 82 39.60 97.24 80.73 187 386.54 713.90 520.30 173.70 333.56 595.84 375.41 144.78 293.25 512.43 344.23 Daily ------Weekly W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W Monthly ------Distance (Kms) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Transport Charges (Rs.) ------Sweet Shop/ Creameries/ Catering iv) Services/others Total Quantity (Lit) ------Price (Rs./Lit) ------Payment ------Daily ------Weekly ------Monthly ------Distance (Kms) ------Transport Charges (Rs.) ------Weighted average 25 22 22 23 22 22 22 22 30 31 32 31 25.67 25 25.33 25.33 5 price WAP (Rs./litre) How many ------cooperative dairy members did not sale milk to dairy.. 6 Why-specify reasons). 1… 2… 3…. Note: WAP= Total amount received through milk sale using all channels /total quantity sold. Source: Field Survey

[130]

VII.3. Marketing Constraints Reported by Sample Milk Producers

Table-VII-3 indicates that in DCS category maximum i.e. 93 sample milk producers had reported about the problems of irregular sale of milk sometimes and 11 sample milk producers had told it to be always in their cases. While 16 sample milk producers had told it never to be in their cases.

Thus, majority of milk producers were suffering with the problem of irregular sale of milk.

Similarly in NDCS category too 102 out of 120 milk producers were suffering with the problem of irregular sale of milk. About their problem of lack of time for marketing the majority i.e. 79 milk producers in DCS and 80 in NDCS category had told that they never faced this problem.

Only 40 milk producers in DCS and 36 in NDCS category had told to face it sometime. The majority i.e. 91 in DCS and 84 in NDCS had told to face always with the problem of less knowledge about marketing strategies. Also 28 milk producers in DCS and 36 in NDCS had told to face this problem sometime. From the problem of low risk taking behavior 44 in DCS and 42 in NDCS had told that they never faced this problem. But 48 in DCS and 43 in NDCS had told to face this problem some times. Almost all the milk producers i.e. 118 in DCS and 117 in NDCS had told to face the problem of either no or less advance payment for milk by society / venders.

Also the majority i.e. 109 milk producers in DCS and 106 milk producers in NDCS had reported to face sometimes the problem of inability to market for value added products. Few of the milk producers told to face this problem always. The related data are given in Table-VII-3.

[131]

Table-VII-3 Marketing Constraints (MC) Reported by sample Milk producers (In No. of sample M.Ps.) Sl. DCS NDCS Constraints No. Small Med. Large All Small Med. Large All 1 Irregular sale of milk Never -- 6 10 16 -- 5 8 13 Sometime 35 30 28 93 40 30 32 102 Always 5 4 2 11 - 5 - 5 2 Lack of time for marketing Never 25 26 8 79 24 27 29 80 Sometime 15 13 12 40 14 12 10 36 Always -- 1 -- 1 2 1 1 4 Less knowledge about marketing 3 strategies Never -- 1 -- 1 ------Sometime 8 10 10 28 9 12 15 36 Always 32 29 30 91 31 28 25 84 4 Low risk taking behaviour Never 10 16 18 44 11 17 14 42 Sometime 18 14 16 48 11 15 17 43 Always 12 10 6 28 18 8 9 35 No or less advance payment for milk by 5 society/venders Never ------Sometime 1 -- 1 2 1 1 1 3 Always 39 40 39 118 39 39 39 117 Inability to market for value added 6 products Never ------Sometime 35 30 38 109 33 36 37 106 Always 5 4 2 11 7 4 3 14 Source: Field Survey

[132]

CHAPTER – VIII

Constraints Faced in Production and Marketing of Milk and Suggestions

VIII.1. Service Delivery System in DCS Category of Milk Producers

Table-VIII-1 shows that in DCS category of sample milk producers 100% of the milk producers responded that supply of cattle feed under input delivery systems was inadequate. Like-wise 92.50% responded that cattle feed and fodder seed on credit was not available and only 7.50% told to be available. 98.33% of milk producers told that the cost of cattle feed and mineral mixture was high. Also 59.17% of milk producers responded that EVS (Emergency Veterinary Service) were not available and 40.83% told it available. Almost all i.e. 100% of milk producers had told that charges of EVS to be high and all (100%) had told to pay Rs. 200 as fee per visit. 61.67% had told that vaccines were available and 48.33% told it not to be available. 55% had told yes for quality and requisite quantity and 45% told no for it. 55.83% had told that semen at A.I. centre was inadequate and 44.17% told it to be adequate. Also 98.83% of milk producers told that provision of loan was not available. 80.83% had told that insurance charges was very high and 19.17 had told it high. Thus, it was obviously clear that inputs delivery was inadequate and costly under DCS category of milk producers.

Regarding output delivery 100% of milk producers had told it to be low and the payment of milk to be done within 15 days. 87.50% had told that there was not any incentive or bonus for supplying milk and 12.50% had told it to be low where it was available 77.50% had that crossbred cow milk was acceptable in their family and 22.50% had told it to be poor. Also almost all i.e. 100% of milk producers had told that advance payment for milk by the society and the milk vendors was not available. Thus, it was quite clear that output delivery was extremely poor in cases of the milk producers under DCS category. The related data are given in Table- VIII-1.

[133]

Table-VIII-1 Service delivery System in DCS category of Milk Producers

Sl. Particulars DCS Category No. Service Provide % of Responses Small Med. Large All Small Med. Large All A INPUT DELIVERY (%) 1 Supply of Cattle Feed Adequate ------Inadequate 40 40 40 120 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Not Available ------2 Cattle feed and fodder seed on Credit Available 2 3 4 9 5 7.5 10 7.5 Not Available 38 37 36 111 95 92.50 90 92.50 3 Cost of cattle feed and mineral mixture High 40 39 39 118 100 97.50 97.50 98.33 ok -- 1 1 2 -- 2.50 2.50 1.67 Not Available ------4 Emergency Veterinary Services (EVS) Available 10 19 20 49 25.00 47.50 50.00 40.83 Not Available 30 21 20 71 75.00 52.50 50.00 59.17 Charges for EVS High 40 40 40 120 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Medium ------Low ------Rs/Visit 200 200 200 200 100 100 100 100 5 Vaccines Adequate 17 20 25 62 42.50 50.00 62.50 51.67 Inadequate 23 20 15 58 57.50 50.00 37.50 48.33 Not Available ------6 Delivery and applications of quality and requisite quantity of vaccines (%) Yes 18 22 26 66 45 55 65 55 No 22 18 14 54 55 45 35 45 7 Semen at the AI centre (%) Adequate 15 18 20 53 37.50 45.00 50.00 44.17 Inadequate 25 22 20 67 62.50 55.00 50.00 55.83 Not Available ------8 Provision of loan in society or govt. for Purchasing cattle Adequate ------Inadequate -- 1 1 2 -- 2.5 2.5 1.67 Not Available 40 39 39 118 100.00 97.50 97.50 98.83

[134]

9 Charges for insurancw ( Rs. /animal ) Very high 30 32 35 97 75.00 80.00 87.50 80.83 High 10 8 5 23 25.00 20.00 12.50 19.17 Medium ------10 Technical Guidance ------B OUTPUT DELIVERY 1 Milk Price( Rs./lit ) Adequate ------Low 40 40 40 120 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 2 Payment of Milk Immediate ------Within 2 days ------Within 15 days 40 40 40 120 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 3 incentives or bonus for supplying milk (Bonus) Adequate 35 35 35 105 87.50 87.50 87.50 87.50 Low 5 5 5 15 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 4 Acceptability cross-bred cow milk in family Poor 10 8 9 27 25.00 20.00 22.50 22.50 Acceptable 30 32 31 93 75.00 80.00 77.50 77.50 Not acceptable ------5 Advance payment for milk by society/vendors Available ------Not available 40 40 40 120 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Source: Field Survey

VIII.1(A). Service Delivery System in NDCS Category of Milk Producers

Table-VIII-1(A) shows that in NDCS category of milk producers, the supply of cattle feed under input delivery system was reported to be inadequate and on an average almost all milk producers i.e. 100% had responded that it was inadequate under NDCS category. 95% of milk producers of NDCS category had told that cattle feed and fodder seed on credit was not available and only 5% had told that it was available. On the other hand 100% of milk producers had responded that the cost of cattle feed and mineral mixture was high. 70.83% had told that EVS (Emergency Veterinary Service) were not available and 29.17% had told it to be available. But 100% of milk producers had told the charges for EVS were high as Rs. 200 per visit were charged as doctor’s fee from the milk producers. 55% of the milk producers had responded that the supply of vaccines was inadequate and 45% had told it to be adequate. 50% had told yes and 50% no for the supply of quality and requisite quantity of vaccines. Also 65% had told that semen at the A.I.

[135]

centre was inadequate and 35% had told that it was adequate. Also 100% of the milk producers had told that provision of loan to milk producers was inadequate under NDCS category. 86.67% of milk producers had responded that charges for insurance of animals was very high and 13.33% had told it to be high. Thus, under the NDCS category of milk producers also the input delivery was quite inadequate as well as costly too.

About delivery of output 100% of milk producers had responded that the price of milk was low in NDCS category too. 100% of milk producers had told that the payment of milk was done within 15 days. Also 76.67% of milk producers had told that crossbred cow milk was acceptable to their family and 23.33% had told that it was poor. Also 100% of milk producers had responded that advance payment for milk by the society and vendors was not available to milk producers. Thus, it was evidently clear that output delivery was also deplorably poor under NDCS category of milk producers. The related data are contained in Table-VIII-1(A). Table-VIII-1(A) Service delivery System in NDCS category of Milk Producers

Sl. Particulars NDCS Category No. Service Provide % of Responses Small Med. Large All Small Med. Large All A INPUT DELIVERY (%) 1 Supply of Cattle Feed Adequate ------Inadequate 40 40 40 120 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Not Available ------2 Cattle feed and fodder seed on Credit Available 1 2 3 6 2.50 5.00 7.50 5.00 Not Available 39 38 37 114 97.50 95.00 92.50 95.00 3 Cost of cattle feed and mineral mixture High 40 40 40 120 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 ok ------Not Available ------4 Emergency Veterinary Services (EVS) Available 1 16 18 35 2.50 40.00 45.00 29.17 Not Available 39 24 22 85 97.50 60.00 55.00 70.83 Charges for EVS High 40 40 40 120 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Medium ------Low Rs/Visit 200 200 200 200 100 100 100 100

[136]

5 Vaccines Adequate 16 18 20 54 40.00 45.00 50.00 45.00 Inadequate 24 22 20 66 60.00 55.00 50.00 55.00 Not Available ------6 Delivery and applications of quality and requisite quantity of vaccines Yes 20 21 19 60 50.00 52.50 47.50 50.00 No 20 19 21 60 50.00 47.50 52.50 50.00 7 Semen at the AI centre Adequate 10 15 17 42 25.00 37.50 42.50 35.00 Inadequate 30 25 23 78 75.00 62.50 57.50 65.00 Not Available ------8 Provision of loan in society or govt. for Purchasing cattle Adequate ------Inadequate 40 40 40 120 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Not Available ------9 Charges for insurancw ( Rs. /animal ) Very high 35 37 36 104 87.50 82.50 90.00 86.67 High 5 7 4 16 12.50 17.50 10.00 13.33 Medium ------10 Technical Guidance ------B OUTPUT DELIVERY (%) 1 Milk Price( Rs./lit ) Adequate ------Low 40 40 40 120 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 2 Payment of Milk Immediate ------Within 2 days ------Within 15 days 40 40 40 120 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 3 incentives or bonus for supplying milk (No Bonus) Adequate ------Low ------4 Acceptability cross-bred cow milk in family Poor 9 9 10 28 22.50 22.50 25.00 23.33 Acceptable 31 31 30 92 77.50 77.50 75.00 76.67 Not acceptable ------5 Advance payment for milk by society/vendors Available ------Not available 40 40 40 120 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Source: Field Survey

[137]

VIII.2. Infrastructural Constraints under DCS and NDCS categories of Milk Producers

Table-VIII-2 shows that 43.34% of the milk producers under DCS category had responded that there was lack of improved equipments always, 40.83% told it to be sometime and 15.83% told it to be never. Similarly under NDCS category too 45% told that lack of improved equipments was always there, 38.33% told it to be sometime and 16.67% it to be never. Thus, there was lack of improved equipments under both the categories. About 50% of milk producers under DCS as well as NDCS both the categories told that there was irregular and inadequate supply of cattle feed sometime and 50% told it to be never. On the other hand 85.87% under DCS and NDCS both had told that there was always an availability of EVS and 14.17% had told it to be sometimes. Also 90% and 91.67% in DCS and NDCS categories respectively had told that there was always infrequent visit of veterinary staff and only 8.33% told it to be sometime. 86.67% in NDCS and 90% in DCS had told that there was never any unavailability of vaccines. Thus, vaccines were there in plenty as reported by the milk producers of both the categories. About 91% in DCS and NDCS both had told that sometime there was occasional availability of semen at A.I. centres. 97.50% in DCS and 100% in NDCS category had told that there was always lack of training facilities. 100% of the milk producers had responded under both DCS and NDCS categories that sometime there was difficulty in delivery of milk due to severe cold in early morning. While 82.50% in NDCS and 81.67% in DCS category had told that there was always unavailability of green and dry fodder throughout the year and 19.33% in DCS and 17.50% in NDCS had told that sometime there was unavailability of green and dry fodder. 89.17% in DCS and 86.67% in NDCS category had responded that there was always unavailability of cattle feed and fodder seed on credit and 10.83% in DCS and 13.33% in NDCS had told it to be sometime. Also 67.50% in DCS and 57.50% in NDCS had responded that there was always low average milk yield among the milch animals and 33.50% in DCS and 42.50% in NDCS category had told that there was sometime low average milk yield among the milch animals reared by the milk producers. Thus, on an overall there were severe infrastructural constraints in both the categories of milk producers in eastern U.P. The related data are contained in Table-VIII-2.

[138]

Table-VIII-2 Infrastructural constraints (IC) under DCS and NDCS categories of Milk Producer % to total responses Sl. DCS NDCS Particulars No. Small Med. Large All Small Med. Large All 1 Lack of improved equipments Never 20.00 15.00 12.50 15.83 17.50 17.50 15.00 16.67 Sometime 40.00 45.00 37.50 40.83 37.50 40.00 37.50 38.33 Always 40.00 40.00 50.00 43.34 45.00 42.50 47.50 45.00 2 Irregular & inadequate supply of cattle feed Never 50.00 52.50 50.00 50.83 47.50 50.00 52.50 50.00 Sometime 50.00 47.50 50.00 49.17 52.50 50.00 47.50 50.00 Always ------3 Unavailability of emergency veterinary services Never ------Sometime 15.00 12.50 15.00 14.17 12.50 15.00 15.00 14.17 Always 85.00 87.50 85.00 85.87 87.50 85.00 85.00 85.87 4 Infrequent visit of veterinary staff Never ------Sometime 10.00 7.50 12.50 10.00 10.00 5.00 10.00 8.33 Always 90.00 92.50 87.50 90.00 90.00 95.00 90.00 91.67 5 Unavailability of vaccines Never 75.00 87.50 90.00 84.17 80.00 90.00 90.00 86.67 Sometime 25.00 12.50 10.00 15.83 20.00 10.00 10.00 13.33 Always ------Occasional Availability of semen at the AI 6 centre Never ------Sometime 87.50 95.00 90.00 90.83 90.00 92.50 92.50 91.69 Always 12.50 5.00 10.00 9.17 10.00 7.50 7.50 8.33 7 Lack of training facilities Never ------Sometime -- 2.50 5.00 2.50 ------Always -- 97.50 95.00 97.50 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Unsuitability of the time of delivery of milk during 8 winters due to sever cold in early hours of the day Never ------Sometime 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Always ------Unavailability of green/dry fodder throughout 9 the year Never ------Sometime 12.50 17.50 25.00 19.33 12.50 15.00 25.00 17.50 Always 87.50 82.50 75.00 81.67 87.50 85.00 75.00 82.50 Unavailability of cattle feed and fodder seed on 10 credit Never ------Sometime 12.50 10.00 10.00 10.83 2.50 10.00 10.00 13.33 Always 87.50 90.00 90.00 89.17 97.50 90.00 90.00 86.67 11 Low average milk yield of the milk animals Never ------Sometime 20.00 37.50 40.00 32.50 42.50 42.50 42.50 42.50 Always 80.00 62.50 60.00 67.50 57.50 57.50 57.50 57.50 Source: Field Survey

[139]

VIII.3. Economic Constraints under DCS and NDCS categories of Milk Producers.

Table-VIII-3 shows that under both DCS and NDCS categories of milk producers about 73% had responded that there was always high cost of fodder seed and about 27% of milk producers had told it to be sometime high cost of fodder seed in both the categories of milk producers. Also 100% of milk producers under both DCS and NDCS categories had told that delay in payment of milk price and offering low prices of milk were always there. Also about 79.17% in DCS and 69.17% in NDCS category had told that there was high cost for crossbred cow milk and about 20.83% in DCS and 30.83% in NDCS had told that there was always high cost for crossbred cow milk. On the other hand almost all the milk producers under DCS and NDCS categories had responded that there were always high cost of veterinary medicines, cattle feed and mineral mixtures, low provision of loans, low incentives or bonus for supplying milk, high charges of EVS and high charges for insurance of animals in East U.P. Thus, there were severe and acute economic constraints among majority of milk producers in East U.P. The related data are contained in Table-VIII-3. Table-VIII-3

Economic Constraints (EC) under DCS and NDCS categories of Milk Producer

Sl. DCS NDCS Particulars No. Small Med. Large Total Small Med. Large Total 1 High Cost of fodder seed Never ------Sometime 25.00 30.00 27.50 27.50 22.50 32.50 25.00 26.67 Always 75.00 70.00 72.50 72.50 77.50 67.50 75.00 73.33 2 Delay in payment of milk Never ------Sometime ------Always 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 3 Low price of milk offered Never ------Sometime ------Always 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 4 High cost of cross bred cow Never ------Sometime 87.50 75.00 75.00 79.17 60.00 75.00 72.50 69.17 Always 12.50 25.00 25.00 20.83 40.00 25.00 27.50 30.83 5 High cost of veterinary medicines Never ------Sometime ------Always 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

[140]

6 High cost of cattle feed and mineral mixture Never ------Sometime ------Always 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Low provision of loan in society or govt. 7 for purchasing cattle Never ------Sometime ------Always 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 8 Low incentives or bonus for supplying milk Never ------Sometime ------Always 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 9 High charges of emergency veterinary services Never ------Sometime ------Always 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 10 High charges for insurance Never ------Sometime ------Always ------Source: Field Survey

VIII.4. Technical Constraints under DCS and NDCS categories of milk producers

Table-VIII-4 shows that on an average 83.33% of milk producers in DCS category and 86.67% in NDCS had responded that there was always lack of technical guidance and 16.67% in DCS and 13.33% in NDCS told that there was some times lack of technical guidance. Also 91.67% in DCS and 93.33% in NDCS told that there was always unavailability of high genetic merit bull and 8.33% in DCS and 6.67% in NDCS told to be sometimes. About 62% of milk producers in both DCS and NDCS category told that there was always poor conception rate through artificial insemination and 38% told it to be sometime. Also about 40% total milk producers told that there was always poor knowledge about feeding and health care and 37% told it to be never and 23% told it to be sometime. 95.83% in DCS and 96.67% in NDCS told that there was always lack of knowledge about cheap and scientific housing of animals and 3.33% told it to be sometime. Thus, there was total hindrance due to severe lack of technical knowledge and guidances in the dairy development in East U.P. The related data are contained in Table-VIII-4.

[141]

Table-VIII-4 Technical Constraints (TC) under DCS and NDCS categories of Milk Producer

Sl. DCS NDCS Constraints (%) No. Small Med. Large All Small Med. Large All 1 Lack of technical guidance Never ------Sometime 7.50 20.00 22.50 16.67 10.00 17.50 12.50 13.33 Always 92.50 80.00 77.50 83.33 90.00 82.50 87.50 86.67 Unavailability of high genetic merit 2 bull Never ------Sometime 12.50 5.00 7.50 8.33 10.00 5.00 5.00 6.67 Always 87.50 95.00 92.50 91.67 90.00 95.00 95.00 93.33 Poor conception rate through artificial 3 insemination Never ------Sometime 37.50 50.00 25.00 37.50 35.00 52.50 27.50 38.33 Always 62.50 50.00 75.00 62.50 65.00 47.50 72.50 61.67 Poor knowledge about feeding and 4 health care Never 30.00 35.00 45.00 36.67 30.00 37.50 45.00 37.50 Sometime 25.00 22.50 22.50 23.33 27.50 20.00 20.00 22.50 Always 45.00 42.50 32.50 40.00 42.50 42.50 35.00 40.00 Lack of knowledge about cheap & 5 scientific housing of animal Never -- -- 2.50 0.83 ------Sometime 5.00 2.50 2.50 3.33 2.50 2.50 5.00 3.33 Always 95.00 97.50 95.00 95.83 97.50 97.50 95.00 96.67 Source: Field Survey

VIII.5. Socio-Psychological Constraints under DCS and NDCS categories of milk producers

Table-VIII-5 indicates that 84% in DCS and 83% in NDCS category told that there was lower socio-economic conditions sometimes and 16% in DCs and 18% in NDCS told it to be never. 100% of total milk producers told that there was lack of purchasing power sometime. About 52% told that there was sometimes lack of time due to domestic and agricultural works and 48% told it to be never. 100% of milk producers had told that there was lack of cooperation and coordination among the members of society. About 90% of milk producers had told that there was pressure of influential people on milk producers sometimes and 10% told it to be never. Also about 48% had told that there was poor acceptability of crossbred cow milk sometimes among family members and 52% had told it to be never. Thus, it is evidently clear that there

[142]

were exorbitant socio-psychological constraints in the potential milk production under DCS and NDCS categories in East U.P. The related data are contained in Table-VIII-5.

Table-VIII-5 Socio-Psychological Constraints (SC) under DCS and NDCS categories of Milk Producer

Sl. DCS NDCS Constraints (%) No. Small Med. Large Total Small Med. Large Total 1 Lower socio- economic conditions Never 12.50 15.00 20.00 15.83 15.00 17.50 20.00 17.50 Sometime 87.50 85.00 80.00 84.17 85.00 82.50 80.00 82.50 Always ------2 Lack of purchasing power Never ------Sometime 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Always ------Lack of time due to busy in domestic/ 3 agricultural work Never 50.00 52.50 45.00 49.17 47.50 50.00 45.00 47.50 Sometime 50.00 47.50 55.00 50.83 52.50 50.00 55.00 52.50 Always ------Lack of cooperation and coordination 4 among members Never ------Sometime 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Always ------Milk producer are meant for influential 5 people Never ------Sometime 92.50 87.50 85.00 88.33 95.00 90.00 85.00 90.00 Always 7.50 12.50 15.00 11.67 5.00 10.00 15.00 10.00 Milk of cross-bred cow has poor 6 acceptability (family members ) Never 50.00 52.50 55.00 52.50 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 Sometime 50.00 47.50 45.00 47.50 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 Always ------Source: Field Survey

VIII.6. Other Constraints under DCS and NDCS Categories of Milk Producers

Table-VIII-6 highlights all other constraints such as 87.50% in DCS and 95% in NDCS had told that there was unavailability of chilling facilities for preservation of milk in the villages. About 66% of milk producers responded that total grazing land was either degraded or encroached. 27% of milk producers told poor access to markets to be main reason for low milk price.

[143]

Majority milk producers complained against irregular electric supply. Inadequate irrigation was main hindrance in growing fodder crops. 91% had complained about poor livestock extension services. 92% had told about lack of knowledge about scientific dairying. Majority i.e. 77 to 80% had told about lack of knowledge of mastitis in animals. 85% had told about lack of awareness of quality milk production. Majority had complained for poor housing to milch animals. Unavailability of medicines and equipment and milk testing was also there. Lack of veterinary services and nutritive feed was main reason for production of quality milk. Also lack of the finance, necessary space, marketing facility, lack of water supply and labour, storage access to A.Is., disease control and bad policies for cooperatives were complained by majority of milk producers. Thus, there were numerous other constraints which hampered dairying in East U.P.

Table-VIII-6

Other Constraints (OC) under DCS and NDCS categories of Milk Producers

Sl. DCS NDCS Constraints (%) No. Small Med. Large All Small Med. Large All Unavailability of chilling facilities at 87.50 87.50 87.50 87.50 95.00 95.00 95.00 95.00 1 village level for milk preservation Diversion of feed and fodder ingredients for ------2 industrial use Majority of grazing lands are either 70.00 62.50 62.50 65.00 67.50 65.00 65.00 65.83 3 degraded or encroached Poor access to organized markets deprive 17.50 25.00 37.50 26.67 20.00 25.00 37.50 27.50 4 farmers in getting proper milk price 5 Irregular quality electricity supply 75.00 70.00 72.50 72.50 95.00 87.50 90.00 90.83 6 Poor irrigation facility to grow fodder crops 25.00 5.00 7.50 5.00 2.50 5.00 7.50 5.00 7 Non availability of improved fodder seed ------8 Poor livestock extension services 97.50 90.00 90.00 91.67 92.50 90.00 90.00 90.00 Poor knowledge about scientific animal 95.00 90.00 90.00 91.67 95.00 90.00 90.00 91.67 9 husbandry practices and dairy farming Poor knowledge of mastitis (mastitis in 80.00 75.00 75.00 76.67 82.50 77.50 80.00 80.00 10 dairy animal ) in dairy animals Lack of awareness about quality milk 87.50 82.50 80.00 83.33 90.00 85.00 82.50 85.93 11 production 12 Poor housing to milch animals 75.00 65.00 60.00 66.67 80.00 90.00 75.00 81.67 Unavailability of medicine and equipment 90.00 77.50 80.00 82.50 90.00 80.00 87.50 85.83 13 required for quality milk production Lack of milk testing and animal 92.50 90.00 92.50 91.67 100.00 97.50 97.50 98.33 14 screening facilities Lack of veterinary services in village 92.50 85.00 87.50 88.33 80.00 87.50 87.50 85.00 15 for quality milk production Lack of nutrition’s feed for quality milk 65.00 62.50 87.50 88.33 87.50 87.50 85.00 86.67 16 production

[144]

17 Lack of ecto parasites control programmes ------Lack of finance to invest in dairy business for 18 50.00 55.00 52.50 52.50 55.00 57.50 55.00 55.83 quality milk production/ Inadequate finance Lack of necessary space required for tying 75.00 62.50 65.00 67.50 77.50 65.00 67.50 70.00 19 the milking animals Lack of marketing facility for dairy 75.00 80.00 82.50 79.17 77.50 82.50 85.00 81.67 20 business Uneconomical capital investment on quality 45.00 47.50 42.50 45.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 21 milk production 22 Lack of water supply 5.00 5.00 7.50 5.83 2.50 2.50 5.00 3.33 23 Inadequate labour supply 2.50 7.50 10.00 6.67 ------Ecological factors- High heat/temperature, 75.00 90.00 92.50 84.83 97.50 90.00 90.00 89.17 24 High cold, etc 25 Competition from established and large units 75.00 85.00 92.50 84.17 80.00 97.50 92.50 86.67 26 Difficulty to store milk in summer 75.00 65.00 75.00 78.37 87.50 90.00 95.00 90.83 27 low acceptability of AI in buffalo 75.00 70.00 67.50 70.83 80.00 72.50 72.50 75.00 28 Disease outbreak: mortality and morbidity 62.50 65.00 60.00 62.50 15.00 67.50 62.50 65.00 29 Politics in Cooperative is not good 75.00 60.00 70.00 68.33 40.00 55.00 57.50 54.17 Source: Field Survey

VIII.7. Suggestions for Improvements in Adoption of Dairy Schemes by Milk Producers under DCS and NDCS Categories

Table-VIII-7 shows that 72% of milk producers in DCS and 100% of NDCS had suggested to provide outlets of milk and milk products in villages. Majority i.e. 88% had suggested to provide technical knowledge for managing dairy enterprises. About 97% had suggested for regular and planned supply of vaccines. 100% of milk producers had suggested for subsidy on veterinary medicines and fodder seeds etc. 95% of milk producers viewed for increasing milk prices. About 45% had suggested to make the easy loan procedures and increase the amount of loans. Cheaper and timely supply of concentrates should be made was suggested by 100% of milk producers. Also 100% of milk producers had suggested to provide A.Is. facilities at village level, reduce cost of veterinary services and provide veterinary literature in villages. 90% had suggested to encourage small scale dairy industry at village level. About 83% of milk producers had suggested and needed to improve service delivery in dairying. Thus, on an overall the small milk producers had valuable suggestions for improvement in adoption of dairy schemes in East U.P.

[145]

Table-VIII-7 Suggestions for Improvement in Adoption of Dairy Schemes by Milk Producers under DCS and NDCS Categories

Sl. DCS NDCS Suggestion for Improvement (%) No. Small Med. Large All Small Med. Large All Marketing facilities be provided at 70.00 72.50 72.50 71.67 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 1 village level for the outlet of milk and milk products Providing technical knowledge to 95.00 82.50 87.50 88.33 95.00 82.50 85.00 86.67 2 manage the dairy Enterprise There should be regular and planned 95.00 97.50 100.00 97.50 92.50 97.50 97.50 95.80 3 supply of vaccines (100%) Subsidies should be given on certain 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 4 inputs like veterinary medicines, fodder seeds, etc. 5 Enhanced milk price for the producers 92.50 95.00 97.50 95.00 95.00 97.50 97.50 95.82 Loan sanction procedure should be 25.00 45.00 55.00 41.67 30.00 50.00 55.00 45.00 6 made easy The loan amount for the purchase dairy 25.00 45.00 55.00 41.67 27.50 45.00 57.50 43.33 7 animals need to be increased Concentrates should be made available 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 8 at cheaper rate and in time Providing proper A.I. facility at village 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 9 level /door step Cost of veterinary services need to be 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 10 reduced 11 Provide veterinary literature in village 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Small scale dairy industries be 75.00 97.50 97.50 90.00 80.00 95.00 97.50 90.83 12 encouraged at village level 13 Need to improve service delivery 62.50 90.00 97.50 83.30 60.00 87.50 95.00 80.83 Source: Field Survey

[146]

CHAPTER – IX

Summary of Main Findings, Conclusions and Policy Prescriptions

IX.1. Summary of Main Findings and Conclusions

• This study reveals that Eastern U.P. covers three agro-climatic zones of the ten agro- climatic zones scattered in the whole state of Uttar Pradesh. These zones are (1) Vindhya Zone, (2) North Eastern Plain Zone and (3) Eastern Plain zone. • Among the milk producers of both DCS and NDCS categories the majority of male members were the decision makers in the matters of dairying. Also all the dairy owners were Hindu by religion. • As regards the social groups the majority of sample milk producers were OBCs and larger milk producers dominating in milk production. • Cultivation was the principal occupation in both the DCS and NDCS categories of larger milk producers and A.H. and Dairying had emerged as the prominent subsidiary occupation among the sample milk producers. • The operational land area per milk producer was comparatively higher among the large milk producers in DCS category than that in NDCS category of milk producers. • Regarding income groups the majority i.e. 97% in DCS category and 93% in NDCS category were reported as APLs and were large and medium milk producers. • The majority i.e. 64% in DCS and 62% in NDCS category had Pucca Houses in their dairies. The larger milk producers had comparatively more Pucca Houses. • The average household size was 6 members per milk producer. The larger milk producers had comparatively larger members in their families. • The gross cropped area per milk producer was comparatively much less in the category of NDCS milk producers than that in DCS milk producers. • The coverage of area under crops was comparatively higher in cases of larger milk producers and during kharif season it was estimated to be higher. • The number of buffaloes was higher in large categories and it was comparatively much higher in DCS category of milk producers.

[147]

• Regarding cattle sheds it was found that the Pucca cattle sheds were lesser in number than the Kuchcha sheds in both DCS and NDCS categories of milk producers. • Generally milk producers rear local cows of Deshi, Sahiwal and Hariyana breeds. Among crossbred cows they rear Jershy and Frizian breeds and in buffalo only Murra bred was reared by all milk producers in East U.P. • About average milk yield per day per animal it was 4 to 4.5 litres in local cows, 11.5 to 12.5 litres in crossbred cows and 8 to 8.5 litres in buffaloes on an average in East U.P. • The peak yield was highest in case of crossbred cows during last and present both the lactation periods in East U.P. • The main source of water for dairy purpose with almost all the milk producers was hand- pump. The supply of water was adequate and quality was normal. The alternative sources were open wells and tube-wells in DCS and NDCS categories. • Regarding labour use it was found that for fodder management one male and one female family workers were engaged per day at the rate of 1.51 hours and 1.06 hours respectively for gross collection under DCS category of milk producers. • Some family workers were engaged for animal feeding at the rate 0.34 hour, shed management at the rate of 0.35 hour, washing animal at the rate of 0.26 hour collection of dwong at the rate of 1.08 hour, milking at the rate of 1.24 hour and for animal health at the rate of 0.39 hour in DCS category of milk producers. • Under NDCS category too one male and one female family workers were engaged for gross collection at the rate of 1.40 hour, animal feeding at the rate of 0.36 hour, shed management at the rate of 1.23 hour, washing animals at the rate of 1.00 hour, dung collection at the rate of 1.00 hour and animal health and breeding at the rate of 0.36 hour. • Under both DCS and NDCS category of milk producers, hired labourers were engaged rarely only by larger milk producers in whole of Eastern U.P. • The income received from dairying in both the categories of milk producers was handled similarly by maximum of male members in large groups of milk producers. • Approximately 60% of the income was spent on cattle feeds and animals health and 40% on family expenditures by both males and female members jointly under both the categories of milk producers in East U.P.

[148]

• The stall feeding to milch animals among all the milk producers was done in a similar pattern in DCS and NDCS both the categories. • Vaccinations were done in maximum numbers to buffaloes and cross bred cows under DCS category and as a result maximum expenditures were done on buffaloes and crossbred cows among the milk producers. • The expenditures on A.Is. were also done maximum in buffaloes and crossbred cows and minimum in local cows reared by milk producers of all the three size-groups in DCS category. • The veterinary medicines and visits of veterinary doctors were costly affairs for all the milk producers of DCS category. • Medicines and visits of veterinary doctors were costly affaires among the milk producers of NDCS category too wherein they told that the fee of Rs. 200 per visit by veterinary doctor was very high in the area under study. • Cost on fodders and concentrates was quite similar under DCS as well as NDCS categories of milk producers of all size-groups in East U.P. No grazing was reported under any category. • Wages for dairy activities were common for men and women as Rs. 150 per day in all the categories of milk producers. Permanent labourers were paid 80% in cash and 20% in kind. • The value of adult animals was comparatively higher in DCS category than that in the NDCS category in whole East U.P. • During winter season milk yield of all the animals was higher. But in summer the milk yield of buffaloes and crossbred cows was decreased. While milk yield of local cows was slightly increased in DCS category. • Milk yield per animal per day under NDCS category during summer was slightly lower than that in rainy and winter seasons in 2015-16 in all size groups of milk producers. • Majority of milk producers were not aware about vaccination scheme. About sources of information on schemes majority of milk producers told fellow farmers as main source and they also told not to be benefited at all from schemes on dairying. • Milk drawn yesterday was much higher by milk producers of large size group in case of crossbred cows against local cows and buffaloes under DCS category.

[149]

• Large milk producers rearing crossbred cows had sold maximum quantity of milk to cooperative society beyond higher milk consumption in their families in DCS category. • The payment of milk price was made weekly in cases of almost all the milk producers. The WAP (Weighted Average Price) on an average was Rs. 25.22 per litre for all animals. • The average price for local cow milk was Rs. 23 per litre, for crossbred cows Rs. 22 per litre and for buffaloes it was Rs. 31 per litre in the area under study in DCS category. • Milk production and home consumption was higher among milk producers rearing crossbred cows under NDCS category. • The maximum quantity of milk was sold by the milk producers rearing crossbred cows in NDCS category. • The average price of milk estimated as Rs. 25.33 per litre which was varying from Rs. 22 per litre for crossbred cows milk, Rs. 23 per litre for local cow milk to Rs. 31 per litre for buffalo milk under NDCS category too. • Regarding marketing constraints, it was found that the majority of milk producers were suffering with the problem of irregular sale of milk in both DCS and NDC categories. • The majority of milk producers of both the DCS and NDCS categories had told to face always with the problem of less knowledge about marketing strategies. • Majority of milk producers of DCS and NDCS categories also told that they either do not get advance or less advance payment for milk by societies and ventors. • Majority i.e. 98.33% of milk producers responded that cost of cattle feed and mineral mixtures was very high. Also 60% of milk producers told that EVS (Emergency Veterinary Services) were not available at all. • The delivery of inputs was inadequate and costly under the category of DCS milk producers members. • About output delivery 100% of milk producers had told it be low and payment of milk to be done with in 15 days with no incentive or bonus. • The output delivery was extremely poor in case of the milk producers under DCS category. • Under NDCS category also 100% of the milk producers had told that input delivery was inadequate on an average and costly.

[150]

• 100% of the milk producers under NDCS category too had told that charges for EVS i.e. Rs. 200 per visit as fee by the veterinary doctor was very high. • About the output delivery under NDCS category of milk producers 100% had responded that price of milk was low and payment was done within 15 days and as a result it was deplorably poor. • As regards the infrastructural constraints, there was lack of improved equipments under both DCS and NDCS categories of milk producers. • Vaccines were there in plenty as reported by the milk producers of both the DCS and NDCS categories. But majority had told that sometimes there was occasional availability of semen at A.I. centres. • On an overall there were severe infrastructural constraints in both the DCS and NDCS categories of milk producers in the whole of Eastern U.P. • About economic constraints almost all the milk producers responded that there were always high cost of medicines, cattle feed and mineral mixtures high charges of EVS and low, provision of loans, incentives and bonus. • There were acute and severe economic constraints among the majority of milk producers in East U.P. • Majority of milk producers total that there was always lack of technical guidance and lack of high genetic merit bulls resulting poor conception rate through artificial insemination. • Majority of milk producers told that there was told hindrance in improved dairying due to lack of technical knowledge and guidance in the dairy development in East U.P. • There were exorbitant socio-psychological constraints in the potential milk production by the milk producers under both DCS and NDCS categories in Eastern U.P. • Also majority of milk producers complained that there were numerous other constraints which hampered dairying in the eastern region of U.P. • 100% of the sample milk producers had suggested to provide outlets of milk and milk products in the villages particularly in the remote villages. • 100% of milk producers had also suggested for subsidy on veterinary medicines and fodder seeds etc.

[151]

• The majority i.e. 95% of the milk producers had viewed for increasing the milk prices of all the milch animals. • About 45% of the milk producers had suggested to make the easy loan procedures and increase the amount of loans. • 100% of milk producers had suggested to provide A.I. facilities at village levels, reduce cost of veterinary services and to provide veterinary literatures in villages. • The majority i.e. 90% of milk producers had suggested to encourage small scale dairy industry at the village level. • On an overall almost all the sample milk producers had suggested the above stated valuable views for the improvement in adoption of dairy schemes in Eastern U.P.

IX.2. Policy Prescriptions

Based on the main findings of the present study the following policy prescriptions are being imparted to DAC, Ministry of Agriculture & farmers Welfare, Govt. of India as well as NDDB, Anand (Gujrat).

• Efforts must be made by both Central and State Governments to convert Dairying from subsidiary to Main occupation of marginal and small farmers. • The larger milk producers must be encouraged to adopt dairying as a Small Scale Dairy Industry in their Areas. • The average milk yield rate was extremely low among all the milch animals in east U.P. Hence, state department of animal Husbandry and dairying must play some crucial roles to raise the milk yield rates of all milch animals in eastern U.P. • The cost of veterinary services and medicines was told to be very high by almost all the milk producers. Therefore, government as well others concerned must pay attention to reduce these costs. • Extension services on dairying must be strengthened on war footing as majority of milk producers were not at all aware about the schemes of dairying in east U.P. • The quantity of milk drawn yesterday was much lesser by milk producers rearing local cows and buffaloes due to which they had sold minimum quantity of milk to cooperative

[152]

societies. Therefore, the milk producers of DCS category must be encouraged by all means to increase the quantity of milk to be drawn and sold to cooperative societies. • The average prices for milk sold in cases of all the milch animals were found to be lower than the cost incurred. Therefore, the prices of milk of local cows crossbred cows and buffaloes must be enhanced in proportion of the cost increased. • To remove the irregular sales of milk under both DCS and NDCS categories, the marketing facilities must be provided at village level for the outlets of milk and milk products. • For difficulties in getting loans, the procedures for sanctioning the loans must be made easy and the amount of loans for the purchase of dairy animals must be increased in proportion of the prices of dairy animals. • To meet the demands of milk producers for adances and or bonus from the cooperative societies and vendors, the societies and vendors must advance properly and regularly to keep the milk producers continuing milk production. • The delivery systems for both inputs and output must be improved in accordance of the needs of the milk producers with some incentives or bonus by the societies. • Concentrates and supplements must be made available in remote villages timely and at affordable and cheaper rates. • Proper A.Is. facilities at village level and affordable EVS (Emergency Veterinary Services) at door step must be provided to all the milk producers for boosting milk production in east U.P. • On an overall almost all the milk producers had suggested for the development of dairy infrastructure for attracting more and more cultivators towards the adoption of dairy schemes in eastern U.P.

[153]

References

“Hindu Survey of Indian Agriculture, 1991 – 1995, National Press, Kasturi Building, Madras- 600002.

Economic Survey, 1994, published by Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi

Dhondyal S.P. and J.E. Wills, (1967) “A Guide to Research Methodology in Agricultural Economics and other Social Sciences”, Lion Publications, Civil Lines, Kanpur, 1967.

Hand Books of Agriculture (1980, 1995, 1997) Published by ICAR, New Delhi.

Singh, Katar (1987), “Operation Flood: An Appraisal of current Indian Dairy Policy,” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol.XL-11, No.1, Jan. – March, 1987.

“Indian Dairy Industry Profile, 1997”, Appendices, Table, published in Dairy India, 1997.

Peter Bramby (1980), “The Dairy Situation in India”, Indian Dairy Man, Vol-XXXL, No.5, May 1980, pp. 357 – 364.

Jayaraman, D. (1985), “Milk Production”, Indian Dairy Man, Vol.XIX, No. 12, pp. 399-400.

Huria V.K. and Acharya T.K. (1980) “Dairy Development in India”, Economic and Political Weekly, 15(45-46), Page 50-54.

Chauhan A.K. 91992) “Marketed Surplus Function of Milk in (U.P.)”, Indian Journal of Dairy Science, 45(2): Page 76-79, 1992.

Statistical Abstract of U.P., 2014-15. Published by, Krishi Bhawan, U.P., Lucknow 2015.

Progress (Pragati) – 2014 & 2015, Department of Animal Husbandry, Uttar Pradesh

Annual progress report of Dairy Development Programmes for the years 2004-05 to 2014-15, Published by Dairy Development Department, U.P., Annual Publications.

[154]

Appendices:

Appendix – I

Coordinators Comments on draft report

Assessment of the status of Dairying and Potential to improve Socio- Economic Status of the Milk Producers and Convergence of all Central & State Schemes at District Level in Uttar Pradesh

Comments received from the Coordinating Centre Agro-Economic Research Centre For the states of Gujarat and Rajasthan (Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Govt. of India) Sardar Patel University, Vallabh Vidyanagar, Dist. Anand, Gujarat

1. Title of report Assessment of the status of Dairying and Potential to improve Socio-Economic Status of the Milk Producers in Eastern Uttar Pradesh

2. Date of receipt of the 03/04/2017 Draft report

3. Date of dispatch of 26/06/2017 the comments

4. Comments on the Objectives of the study have been satisfied. Objectives of the study 5. Comments on the Proper sampling and methodology have methodology been used.

6. Comments on Detailed analysis is undertaken and analysis, organized as suggested. Following organization, suggestion are made: presentation etc. • Executive Summary should put before first chapter. • Source of data below table is not quoted. • Revise the policy implication (e.g. policy prescription No. 1 & 2)

[155]

• Revise the reports as per revised structure discussed at the national workshop/seminar.

7. References: References list is missing. Source of data under each table is not given.

8. General remarks: The study is a comprehensive study on dairy sector in UP, however, appropriate and feasible policy measures need to be suggested . Revise the policy suggestions.

9. Overall view on acceptability of report: The report is acceptable after incorporation of the comments/suggestions as mentioned above.

*****

[156]

Appendix – II

Point-wise Action Taken on Coordinator’s comments on Draft Report.

1. Since, there is not any comment on the Title of the Report, hence the title is finally written as commented.

2. The date of receipt of the draft report is rightly mentioned with ne comment. Therefore, it is envisaged that the draft report from our centre was dispatched at right time for the valuable comments from the coordinating centre.

3. The date of dispatch of the valuable comments on the draft report has also been mentioned correctly with no comments / mentions on such an inordinate delay of long three months duration after the receipt of draft report.

4. All the seven objectives as proposed by the coordinating centre were undertaken and covered in the draft report and since, the coordinating centre is satisfied, we finally put all the seven objectives in the finalized report as such.

5. The methodology written to be used in the draft report is being finalized as such as commented to be properly used.

6. The analysis, organization and presentation etc. in the draft report have been done as suggested by the coordinating centre. However, the suggestions No.1, 2 and 3 have been incorporated in the finalysed report as suggested by the coordinating centre. But about suggestion No.4 we hereby writ that it was discussed that East U.P. being not a state in Eastern India, whatever was possible has been done compensating by using the data available from U.P. state as whole. Limitations of the study is included in the finalysed report as was included in the draft report.

7. List of references is incorporated in the finalysed report. Sources of data under each table are given.

8. As per the general remarks of coordinating centre the policy prescriptions have been revised wherever possible in the context of whole U.P. as suggested.

9. Almost all the Nine Valuable Suggestions given by coordinating centre have been incorporated in the finalysed report.

[157]