Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies 2020; 8(5): 2210-2214

E-ISSN: 2320-7078 P-ISSN: 2349-6800 Personal Antecedents of dairy entrepreneurs in www.entomoljournal.com JEZS 2020; 8(5): 2210-2214 district of © 2020 JEZS Received: 08-06-2020 Accepted: 25-08-2020 Vinay Kumar, Tikam C Goyal and Rohitash Kumar Vinay Kumar Teaching Associate, VUTRC, Abstract Churu, Rajasthan, The study was conducted in of Rajasthan state selected purposely keeping in view the Tikam C Goyal fact that the district has highest population of livestock in southern Rajasthan. It can be concluded from Assistant Professor, Dept. of above findings that majority of the respondents were having middle age group, Middle level of Vety. & A.H. Extension education, medium family size and medium dairy experience. It can also be observed that majority of the Education, CVAS, Navania, respondents had not attended any training related to dairy management practices. Majority of the Vallabhnagar, Udaipur, respondent were having medium level of economic motivation, extension contact and mass media Rajasthan, India exposure. Based on the study results it suggested that there is a need for conducting need based training programmes by the extension agencies in the study area. Rohitash Kumar Teaching Associate, Dept. of Keywords: Socio economic status, Livestock Owners Vety. & A.H. Extension Education, CVAS, Navania, Vallabhnagar, Udaipur, Introduction Rajasthan, India India is predominantly an agrarian society where animal husbandry plays an important role in the socio economic development of India. India’s livestock sector is one of the largest sectors in the world. India’s livestock sector is one of the largest in the world with a holding of 11.6% of world livestock population which consist buffaloes (57.83%), cattle (15.06%), sheep [3] th (7.14%) and goats 17.93 per cent (Anonymous, 2014) . As per 19 livestock census, Rajasthan state has 6.98, 11.94, 16.03 and 13.95 per cent of cattle, buffalos, goats and sheep populations respectively. Rajasthan has about 11.27 per cent of the livestock of the country (Anonymous, 2012) [3]. Livestock farming requires less capital and the management and production expenses are low compared to agriculture. Hence livestock sector would be more

inclusive. Service sector majorly drives but agriculture and allied activities continues to be chief source of livelihood in rural India. Other than providing source of live hood, livestock also provides food security and insurance against poverty. Development of livestock sector has a significant beneficial impact in generating employment and reducing poverty in rural India. A clear understanding of the personal socio economic profile of the

dairy farmers is of paramount importance in designing need based and farmer centered extension programmes. Dairying in India plays a crucial role in the rural economy, which has the highest potential of generating income and employment through augmenting productivity of milch animals. Planners and policy makers have viewed dairying as an effective instrument of social and economic change. However, sustainability of dairy enterprise largely depends on [16] efficient management of the resources (Manivannan and Tripathi, 2007) . Entrepreneurship stands as a vehicle to improve the quality of life for individuals, families and communities and to sustain a healthy economy and environment (Parihar et al., 2008) [19]. The entrepreneurs are key persons of any country for promoting economic growth and technological change. India is the largest milk producer in the world; therefore role of dairy farmers is very important in the [7] socio-economic development of the society (Chaudhari et al., 2007) . With this background the present study was conducted to know the personal antecedent characteristics of dairy farmers of Udaipur district of Rajasthan.

Corresponding Author: Material and Methods Rohitash Kumar Teaching Associate, Dept. of The study was conducted in Udaipur district of Rajasthan state selected purposely keeping in Vety. & A.H. Extension view the fact that the district has highest population of livestock in southern Rajasthan. Education, CVAS, Navania, Udaipur district has about 15.25 lacs livestock population (19th livestock census Rajasthan- Vallabhnagar, Udaipur, 2012) [1]. Udaipur district comprises of 11 tehsils namely Girwa, Vallabhnagar, Mavli, , Rajasthan, India Kherwara, , , Lasadiya, Gogunda, Sarada and Kotra. ~ 2210 ~ Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies http://www.entomoljournal.com

Out of 11 tehsils four tehsils namely Girwa, Salumbar, Kotra 4. Dairy farming experience and Vallabhnagar were selected purposely for the present On the overall analysis, majority of the farmers (66.67%) study on the basis of highest dairy animals’ population in were having medium level of experience i.e. 22-42 years, these four tehsils of the Udaipur district. Six villages were while 22.5 per cent of them were found to have high and rest selected purposely from the each selected tehsil. Thus, a total of them were having low experience (10.83%) that indicates of twenty four villages were selected in all. Twelve farmers the venturing of dairy farming by average experienced who possess at least 5 milch (dairy) animals either cattle or farmers is encouraging. The findings are in line with the buffalo and both practicing dairy farming were selected results of Raina et al. (2016) [21-22] and Rathod et al. (2011) [24- randomly from each village as respondents for the study. 25] who found that majority of the respondents were having Therefore, the total sample size for this study was 120 dairy medium experience of dairy farming. farmers. The data were collected with the help of pre- tested structured interview schedule by holding personal interview 5. Training’s attended with dairy farmers by the researcher. It is evident from the data accommodated in table 1 that on overall basis 87.5 per cent respondents had not attended any Results and Discussion training while 12.5 per cent respondents had attended The results of personal antecedents of dairy farmers are different types of training related to dairy practices.The depicted in the Table 1 showing the socio-economic profile of probable reason might be that the training organizations in the the dairy farmers. area are not conducting training programs on regular basis or the training programs conducted occasionally might not be in 1. Age of respondents line with the training needs of dairy farmers. Further Overall, the average age of the dairy farmers was 46.35 years unawareness about the training institutions and the training and range from 19 to 75 years. Majority of farmers were in schedules among the respondents might have led to poor the middle age group (65.83%), followed by old (21.67%) and results related to number of training attended. The findings young age (12.5%) group. The distribution of respondents in are in line with the results of Godara (2017) [11], Jeelani et al. small, medium and large categories has been given in table 1. (2014) [13] and Baindha (2011) [4] who found that majority of It may be due to the fact that middle age dairy farmers are the respondents never attended any type of training related to more experienced and more inclined towards productive dairy farming. activities thereby they may be more interested in taking dairying as main subsidiary occupation. The findings are in 6. Social participation line with the reports of Chandrasekar et al. (2017) [6], Raina et In the present study, it was found that on overall basis al. (2016) [21-22], Sarita et al. (2016) [29], Bhosale et al. (2014) majority (60%) of respondents had no membership in any [5], Tekale et al. (2013) [30] and Rathod et al. (2012) [24-25] who social organization while 31.67 and 8.33 per cent farmers found that majority of the respondents belongs to medium age were members in informal and formal organization, group. respectively. None of the respondent was found to hold an office in the study sample.The findings are partly in line with 2. Educational qualification the results of Sarita et al. (2016) [29] and Ahuja (2015) [29] who Education is one of the important components of behaviour found that majority of the respondents belongs to medium of and plays an important role in influencing entrepreneurial social participation. behaviour of dairy farmers. It is evident from Table 1 that overall, majority of the respondents in the study area were 7. Land holding illiterate (25.83%) followed by middle (22.5%), primary The data presented in Table 1 indicate that on overall basis, (19.17%), secondary (17.5%), high secondary (10.83%) and majority (53.33%) of the respondents belonged to small graduate and above (4.17%) level of education. From the category of land holding i.e. less than one hectare, followed above findings, it may be concluded that a majority of by 41.67 per cent respondents who had medium sized land i.e. respondents (about three-fourth) were quite educated. The 1-2 hectare in possession while similar number of respondents findings are in line with the results of Chaurasiya (2015) [9], i.e. 2.5 per cent fell in landless and large category of land Mali et al. (2014) [15] Ram et al. (2013) [23], Rathod et al. holding, respectively. The reason for possession of small land (2011) [24-25] and Lawrence (2010) [14] who found that majority holding by majority of respondents could be due to of the respondents belongs to medium group of educational subdivision and fragmentation of land because of breaking qualification. down of joint families in to nuclear ones. The findings are in line with the reports of Meena (2016) [17], Chaurasiya (2015) 3. Family size [9] and Kumar R. (2017) [18] who found that majority of the The data given in Table 1 reveal that majority of farmers on respondents belongs to medium size of land holding. overall basis (70%) have medium family size i.e. 5-8 members, while 17.5 and 12.5 per cent respondents belonged 8. Occupation to small (up to 4 members) and large (more than 8 members) The data given in Table 1 reveal that on overall basis, a fair family size, respectively. majority of respondents (76.67%) had major occupation of This may be due to the impact of family planning and welfare dairy farming along with agriculture while 21.67 per cent of programs run by the government that might have motivated the respondents had agriculture and other enterprises along dairy entrepreneurs to maintain medium size of families. The with dairy farming and only 1.67 per cent respondents had findings are in line with the studies of Raina et al. (2016) [21- dairy farming alone as their livelihood enterprise. This may be 22], Bhosale et al. (2014) [5], Tekale et al. (2013) [30] and due to the continuation of ancestral traditional occupation of Rathod et al. (2011) [24-25] who found that majority of the agriculture along with livestock rearing by majority of respondents belongs to medium size families. farmers in the study area. The findings are in line with the

~ 2211 ~ Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies http://www.entomoljournal.com studiess of Raina et al. (2016) [21-22], Bhosale et al. (2014) [5] economic motivation group.The findings are in line with the and Tekale et al. (2013) [30], who found that majority of the studiess of Chandrasekar et al. (2017) [6], Raina et al. (2016) respondents, belongs to dairy and agriculture category of [21-22], Chaurasiya (2015) [9], Ahuja (2015) [29] and Tekale et al. occupation. (2013) [30] who found that majority of the respondents belongs to medium category of economic motivation. 9. Herd size The data presented in Table 1 indicate that on overall basis, 13. Scientific orientation the majority of dairy farmers (74.17%) possessed medium In the present study, it can be observed in Table 1 that on herd size i.e. 7-18 dairy animals, while 14.17 and 11.67 per overall basis, majority (58.33%) of the farmers were hailed to cent of the respondents had large and small herd size, medium level of scientific orientation followed by low and respectively. It has observed that the dairy farmers possessed high (i.e 40 and 1.67%) level, respectively. The findings are mostly local breeds of the animals with low production in line with the reports of Ahuja (2015) [29], Porchezhiyan potential. The farmers then have little scope to sale the milk in (2013), and Patel (2008) who found that majority of the the market. It is therefore suggested that they should own respondents were having medium level of scientific improved breeds of dairy animals for more profitable and orientation. productive dairy units. The findings are in line with the reports of Sarita et al. (2016) [29], Bhosale et al. (2014) [5], 14. Market orientation Tekale et al. (2013) [30] and Kumar R. (2017) [18] who found The data presented in Table 1 indicate that on the overall that majority of the respondents, belongs to medium category basis, two-third of the dairy farmers (66.67%) possessed of herd size. medium level of market orientation followed by high and low (26.67 and 6.67%) level of market orientation, respectively. 10. Milk production The findings are in line with the results of Chaurasiya (2015) The data presented in Table 1 indicate that on overall basis, a [9] and Rathod et al. (2012) [24-25], Chauhan and Patel (2003) fair majority (80.83%) of dairy farmers had medium level of who found that majority of the respondents, belongs to milk production i.e. 32-93 litre milk/day, while 10.00 and medium category of market orientation. 9.17 per cent of the dairy farmers had high and low level of milk production, respectively. The findings are in line with 15. Extension contact the results of Yadav (2014) [31] and Nishi et al. (2011) [18] who It can be noticed from the Table 1 that on overall basis, the found that majority of the respondents belongs to medium majority of the respondents (64.17%) had medium level of level of milk production. extension contacts, followed by high (27.5%) and low (8.33%) level of extension contacts. The average score of the 11. Annual income extension contact among the dairy farmers was 6.83. The Analysis of data in Table 1 indicate that on overall basis, two- distribution of the respondents in the study area on the third of the respondents (66.67%) were falling in medium possession of this particular trait can said to be skewed. The level of annual income group (i.e. 3 to 9 lacs) while 20 and findings are in line with the studies of Chaurasiya (2015) [9], 13.33 per cent of total dairy farmers were having high and Ahuja (2015) [29], Porchezhiyan (2013), and Gaikwad (2010) low annual income, respectively. The findings are in line with who found that majority of the respondents, belongs to the studies of Meena (2016) [17], Ahuja (2015) [29], Kayesuza medium category of extension contact. (2012) and Kumar R. (2017) [18] who found that majority of the respondents, belongs to medium category of annual 16. Mass media exposure income. It refers to the exposure and use of different mass media for getting information by the respondents. It can be seen from 12. Economic motivation Table 1 that on overall basis, majority of the respondents were The data in Table 1 depicts that more than half of the found in the medium level of mass media exposure category respondents (61.67%) were found to have medium level of with 67.5 per cent while 17.5 and 15 per cent of them were economic motivation followed by high (33.33%) and low hailed to high and low level of mass media exposure category, (5%) level of economic motivation, respectively in the study respectively. The findings are in line with the findings of sample. This may be due to recession of dairy industry Chaurasiya (2015) [9], Gaikwad (2010), and Sah (2005) who because of mastitis, high feed cost, exploitation by middleman found that majority of the respondents belongs to medium etc. that have restricted dairy farmers to move in high category of mass media exposure.

Table 1: Distribution of respondents according to various antecedent characteristics (n=120)

SDF (14) MDF (89) LDF (17) Overall(120) S. No. Antecedent characteristics Mean & SD Category F P F P F P F P Young (below 35 years) 3 21.43 11 12.36 1 5.88 15 12.5 Mean=46.35 1. Age Middle (35-58 years) 6 42.86 61 68.54 12 70.59 79 65.83 SD=11.83 Old (above 58 years) 5 35.71 17 19.10 4 23.53 26 21.67 Illiterate 3 21.43 26 29.21 2 11.76 31 25.83 Primary 3 21.43 16 17.98 5 29.41 23 19.17 Middle 3 21.43 21 23.60 2 11.76 27 22.5 2. Education Secondary 2 14.29 15 16.85 4 23.53 21 17.5 Higher secondary 2 14.29 8 8.99 3 17.65 13 10.83 Graduate & above 1 7.14 3 3.37 1 5.88 5 4.17 Small (up to 4 members) 3 21.43 17 19.10 1 5.88 21 17.5 3. Family Size Medium (5-8members) 8 57.14 65 73.03 11 64.71 84 70 ~ 2212 ~ Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies http://www.entomoljournal.com

Large (>8 members) 3 21.43 7 7.87 5 29.41 15 12.5 Low (below 22 years) 1 7.14 22 24.72 4 23.53 27 22.5 Mean=31.24 4. Experience in dairying Medium (22-42 years) 12 85.71 58 65.17 12 70.59 80 66.67 SD=10.38 High (above 42 years) 1 7.14 9 10.11 1 5.88 13 10.83 Yes 2 14.29 11 12.36 2 11.76 15 12.5 5. Training’s attended No 12 85.71 78 87.64 15 88.24 105 87.5 No membership 10 71.43 49 55.06 14 82.35 72 60 Member of informal organization 3 21.43 33 37.08 2 11.76 38 31.67 6. Social participation Member of formal organization 1 7.14 7 7.87 1 5.88 10 8.33 Office bearer ------Landless 0 0 3 3.37 0 0 3 2.5 Small (up to one hectare) 8 57.14 48 53.93 8 47.06 64 53.33 7. Land holding Medium (1-2 hectare) 6 42.86 35 39.33 9 52.94 50 41.67 Large (more than 2 hectare) 0 0 3 3.37 0 0 3 2.5 Dairy farming 0 0 2 2.25 0 0 2 1.66 8. Occupation Dairy farming + Agriculture 12 85.71 68 76.40 12 70.59 92 76.67 Dairy farming + Agriculture + Others 2 14.29 19 21.35 5 29.41 26 21.67 Small (up to 6 animals) 14 100 - - - - 14 11.66 Mean=12.44 9. Herd size Medium (7-18 animals) - - 89 100 - - 89 74.17 SD=6.40 Large (>18 animals) - - - - 17 100 17 14.17 Low (up to 31 liters) 10 71.43 0 0 1 5.88 11 9.17 Mean=62.29 10. Milk production Medium(32-93 liters) 4 28.57 89 100 4 23.53 97 80.83 SD=31.09 High(>93 liters) 0 0 0 0 12 70.59 12 10 Low (below Rs. 3 lakh) 7 50.00 9 10.11 0 0 16 13.33 Mean=6.03 11. Annual income Medium(Rs. 3-9 lakh) 7 50.00 71 79.78 2 11.76 80 66.67 SD=3.03 High (above Rs. 9 lakh) 0 0 9 10.11 15 88.24 24 20 Low (below8) 7 50.00 28 31.46 5 29.41 40 33.33 Mean=7.73 12. Economic motivation Medium(8-9) 5 35.71 58 65.17 11 64.71 74 61.67 SD=1.14 High (above 9) 2 14.29 3 3.37 1 5.88 6 5 Low (below 8) 4 28.57 36 40.45 8 47.06 48 40 Mean=7.64 13. Scientific orientation Medium (8-9) 10 71.43 52 58.43 8 47.06 70 58.33 SD=1.01 High (above 9) 0 0 1 1.12 1 5.88 2 1.67 Low (below 9) 1 7.14 4 4.49 3 17.65 8 6.66 Mean=9.90 14. Market orientation Medium (9-10) 12 85.71 62 69.66 6 35.29 80 66.67 SD=1.12 High (above 10) 1 7.14 23 25.84 8 47.06 32 26.67 Low (below 6) 1 7.14 9 10.11 0 0 10 8.34 Mean=6.83 15. Extension contact Medium(6-7) 11 78.57 54 60.67 12 70.59 77 64.16 SD=1.11 High (above 7) 2 14.29 26 29.21 5 29.41 33 27.50 Low (below 8) 2 14.29 13 14.61 3 17.65 18 15 Mean=9.20 16. Mass media exposure Medium (8-10) 12 85.71 60 67.42 9 52.94 81 67.5 SD=1.34 High (above10) 0 0 16 17.98 5 29.41 21 17.5 *SDF – Small dairy farmer who possessed dairy animals in between 5 to 6 in the present study. *MDF – Medium dairy farmer who possessed dairy animals in between 7 to 18 in the present study. *LDF – Large dairy farmer who possessed more than 18 dairy animals in the present study.

Conclusion Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, Ministry of It can be concluded from above findings that majority of the Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi 2014. respondents were having middle age group, Middle level of 3. Anonymous. Department of animal husbandry, education, medium family size and medium dairy experience. 2012. It can also observed that majority of the respondents had not 4. Baindha A. Entrepreneurial behaviour of milk processors attended any training related to dairy management practices. in Karnal district of Haryana. M.V.Sc.Thesis (Unpub.), Majority of the respondent were having medium level of NDRI (Deemed University), Karnal 2011. economic motivation, extension contact and mass media 5. Bhosale SR, Deshmukh AN, Godse SK, Shelake PS. exposure. Based on the study results it suggested that there is Entrepreneurial behaviour of dairy farmers. Advance a need for conducting need based training programmes by the Research Journal of Social Science 2014:5(2):171-174. extension agencies in the study area. Latest information 6. Chandrasekar GK, Satyanarayan K, Jagadeeswary V, related to dairy management practices should be disseminated Shree JS. Relationship between Socio-Economic and through radio and T.V. Farm literature like leaflets, pamphlets Psychological factors of dairy farmers with days open – and folders etc. may be prepared having impact points of A study in Rural Karnataka. Indian Journal of Pure and dairy management practices in simple and local language and Applied Bioscience 2017:5(1):171-177. distributed free of cost to the farmers. 7. Chaudhari RR, Hirevenkanagoudar LV, Hanchinal SN, Mokashi AN. A scale for measurement of entrepreneurial References behavior of dairy farmers. Karnataka Journal of 1. 19thlivestock census Rajasthan-2012. Agricultural Science 2007;20(4):792-796. http://animalhusbandry.rajasthan.gov.in/livestock_census 8. Chauhan NB, Patel RC. Entrepreneurial uniqueness of .aspx poultry entrepreneurs. Rural India 2003;66(12):236-239. 2. Anonymous. 19th Livestock Census 2012. Department of 9. Chaurasiya KK. A study on entrepreneurial behaviour of ~ 2213 ~ Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies http://www.entomoljournal.com

dairy farmers in Gwalior district of Madhya Pradesh. 26. Raval, Chandawat MS. Extent of knowledge of improved Ph.D. Thesis submitted to Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindia animal husbandry practices and socio-economical Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Gwalior (M.P.) 2015. characteristics of dairy farmers of district Kheda, Gujarat. 10. Gaikwad. Dairy animal productivity enhancement International Journal of Farm Sciences 2011;1(2):129- programme” in Ahmednagar district of Maharashtra: An 137. exploratory study. M.Sc. Thesis submitted to NDRI 27. Roy ML, Nirmal Chandra, Kharbikar HL, Joshi P, Jethi (Deemed University), Karnal, Haryana 2008. R. Socio-economic Status of Hill Farmers: An 11. Godara PK. A study on entrepreneurial behaviour of Exploration from Almora District in Uttarakhand. dairy livestock owners in District of Rajasthan. International Journal of Agriculture and Food Science M.V.Sc. Thesis submitted to RAJUVAS Bikaner 2017. Technology 2013;4(4):353-358. 12. Jaiswal A, Patel MM, Dubey R. An analysis of Socio- 28. Sah AK. A descriptive study of existing dairy farming economic and Psychological attributes of rural women practices and constraints in adoption of dairy farming entrepreneur in Indore block of Indore district Madhya practices in Banka district (Bihar). M.Sc.Thesis, NDRI Pradesh, India. International Journal of Current (Deemed University), Karnal (Haryana) 2005. Microbiology Applied Sciences 2013;3(1):582-585. 29. Sarita Singh SP, Malik A, Sharma M, Ahuja R. Socio- 13. Jeelani R, Khandi SA, Kumar P, Bhadwal MS, Beig MY. Economic and Psychological characteristics of dairy Constraints perceived by the gujjars regarding adoption farmers of Hisar district. International journal of science, of improved animal husbandry practices. Journal of environment and technology 2016;5(5):3466-3472. Animal Research 2015;5(2):269-275. 30. Tekale VS, Bhalekar DN, Shaikh JI. Entrepreneurial 14. Lawrence C, Ganguli D, Suresh C, Sujatha V. behaviour of dariy farmers. Inter. J Ext. Edu 2013;9:32- Contribution of socio-economic profile of dairy farmers 36. towards their entrepreneurial behavior. International 31. Yadav DS, Chahal VP, kumar A, Singh U. Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 2016: Entrepreneurial behaviour and constraints encountered by 5(4):1999-2001. farm women in dairy enterprise. Indian Journal of Animal 15. Mali KN, Belli RB, Kitturmath MG. Study of the socio- Science 2014;84(10):1127-1132. economic characteristics of dairy and non- dairy farmers. Agricutural Update 2014;9(1):54-58. 16. Manivannan C, Tripathi H. Management efficiency of dairy entrepreneurs. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education 2007;7(2-3):44-51. 17. Meena O. Impact analysis of dairy co-operative in zila dugdh utpadak sahakari sangh Ltd.-A comparative study.M.V.Sc. Thesis submitted to RAJUVAS, Bikaner 2016. 18. Nishi AK, Kumar R. Dairy farmers satisfaction with dairy cooperative societies: A case study. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education 2011;11(1):18- 75. 19. Parihar P, Singh DK, Sharma VK, Singh RP. Impact of Motivational Factors and Role Stress on Women Entrepreneurs in Jammu. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education 2008;8(2-3):73-74. 20. Patel NB, Saiyed H, Rao TKS, Rana RS, Modi RJ, Sabapara GP. Status and constraints of dairying in the tribal households of Narmada Valley of Gujarat – India. Animal Science Reporter 2008;4:52-53. 21. Raina, V., Bhushan, B., Bakshi, P. and Khajuria, S. Entrepreneurial behaviour of dairy farmers. Journal of Animal Research, 2016: 6(5):947-953. 22. Raina V, Bhushan B, Bakshi P, Khajuria S. Entrepreneurial Behaviour of Dairy Farmers. Journal of Animal Research 2016;6(5):947-953. 23. Ram D, Singh MK, Chaudhary KP, Jayarani L. Entrepreneurship behaviour of women entrepreneurs in Imphal of Manipur. Indian Research Journal Extension Education 2013;13(2):31-35. 24. Rathod PK, Landge S, Nikam TR, Vajreshwari S. Socio personal profile and constraints of dairy farmers. Karnataka Journal Agricultural Science 2011;24(4):619- 621. 25. Rathod PK, Landge S, Nikam TR, Vajreshwari S. Socio personal profile and constraints of dairy farmers. Karnataka Journal Agricultural Science 2011;24(4):619- 621.

~ 2214 ~