Technological Problems and Training Needs of Dairy Farmers

Transcription

1 Technological Problems and Training Needs of Dairy Farmers Manoj Sharma*, Gurdeep Singh # and Madhu Shelly ## Krishi Vigyan Kendra Kapurthala (Punjab) ABSTRACT A survey was conducted to assess the present status of dairying in Kapurthala district. For this, 3 blocks namely Kapurthala, Sultanpur and Dhilwan were selected. From each block, a cluster of 10 villages (10 dairy farmers from each Village) was selected. It was evident that majority of dairy farmers were either land less or small and medium. On the other hand only 8 per cent farmers who were possessing land more than 10 ha. kept dairy animals which show that large farmers gave more attention to crop production than the dairy farming. Similarly, it was observed that 44.5 and 48.8 per cent of population was keeping up to 5 and 15 animals, respectively. Only 4.3 per cent farmers possessed between 16 to 25 animals and a very small population (2.4%) was possessing more than 25 animals. This showed that very few farmers were practicing dairy business on comm scale (2.4%) and majority of farmers (93.3%) were having up to 15 animals. Further, it was also noticed that dairy farmers (74.9%) were possessing cows with daily milk yield varying from 4 to 10 l./d and 85.8 per cent of farmers were keeping buffaloes with daily milk yield ranging between 2 to 8 l./d. Major problems of the small dairy farmers were cow dung management while for semi comm and comm farmers mastitis was the major problem. Training in the area of feed management was the top priority for domestic and semi comm farmers. Key Words: Technological Problems, Training, Needs, Dairy farmers, INTRODUCTION In India, the extension efforts have been largely taken up by the state departments of agriculture and allied departments, state agricultural universities. Till date, 635 KVKs have been set up at district head quarters all over India for providing different services to the farmers, farm women and rural youth. Dairying is a secure path and future of our rural development and it can contribute substantially to farmer s income (Gangasagare and Karanjkar, 2009) but in order to improve the economic condition of dairy farmers, it is of utmost importance to know their prevailing status which will help in identifying the major technological problems being faced by them in dairy farming. High milk production can be achieved by providing good health and comfortable environment. Similarly, balanced feed is also prerequisite for improved milk production (NRC, 1989). It has been noted that few dairy farmers are supplementing mineral mixture in compounded feed leading to mineral deficiency and thus low productivity and reproduction in dairy animals (Garg et al, 2000). Thus, it was imperative to know the current scenario of dairy farming in the district. In this context, a survey was conducted to assess the present status of dairy farmers with regard to land holding, type of animals kept, total milk produced and to understand major bottlenecks in expanding the dairy entrepreneurship. MATERIALS AND METHODS For assessing the current scenario of dairy farming in district Kapurthala three blocks namely Sultanpur, Kapurthala and Dhilwan were selected. #Assistant Professor (Ext. Education), KVK, Mansa; ##Assistant Professor (Animal Science), KVK, Mukatsar *Corresponding Author s drmanojsh1@gmail.com 59

2 From each block, a cluster of 10 villages were selected. Thus, a random sample of 300 dairy farmers was selected (10 dairy farmers from each village). The data were collected with the help of questionnaire through personnel interview. The data thus collected had been analysed by frequencies, percentages and ranking. Preparation of questionnaire A questionnaire was prepared to know the different levels of dairy farming, land holding of dairy farmers, milk production of cows and buffaloes, problems and training needs of dairy farmers. Based on the scale of dairy occupation farmers were classified into three categories. Categories of dairy farmers: Dairy farmers were categorized into three categories viz: domestic, semi comm and comm based on the number of kept by them and milk produced. Domestic : Farmers having dairy unit size of 5 animals or less to meet the milk need of family. Semi comm : Having 6 to 25 number of dairy animals and selling surplus quantity of milk to supplement their farm income. Comm : Farmers having more than 25 animals and dairying was main occupation were classified under this category. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Number of animals kept by dairy farmers In order to know technical problems in the dairy herd, it was necessary to know number of animals kept. It was found that 44.5 and 48.8 per cent farmers were keeping up to 5 and 15 animals, respectively. Only 4.3 per cent farmers possessed between 16 to 25 animals and a very small population (2.4%) was possessing more than 25 animals. The data showed that very few farmers were practicing dairy business on comm scale and majority of farmers (93.3%) were having up to 15 animals. Since these farmers were keeping milch animals for meeting out their daily home consumption and not for comm purpose. This may be one of the reasons that they Sharma et al were not making proper use of scientific information available with the research institutes. Further, it was found that 29.2 per cent had dairy for domestic purpose only. Almost seventy per cent (68.40 %) of farmers had semi comm dairy farms and only 2.4 per cent of farmers had fully comm dairy farms (Table 1). Table 1. Classification of dairy farmers according to number of animals kept and scale of marketing. Sr. No. Different categories Per cent of of Farmers Dairy farmers 1. Domestic Semi comm Comm Milk yield The data (Table 2) showed that 26.2, 25.2 and 23.5 per cent of dairy farmers were keeping cows yielding milk between 4 to 6 l./d, 6 to 8 l./d and 8 to 10 l./d, respectively. In addition to this, only 0.8% farmers were possessing cows yielding milk between 14 to18 l./d and 13.9 per cent farmers were with cows with a daily milk yield of 2 to 4 l./ d.it was thus evident that majority of dairy farmers (74.9%) were possessing cows with daily milk yield varying from 4 to 10 lt./d. Hence, there is a great scope in enhancing the milk yield in cross bred cows kept by 74.9 per cent farmers by educating them in scientific rearing of livestock. Regarding buffaloes, it was observed that 28.1, 33.3 and 24.4 per cent of farmers were keeping buffaloes yielding milk between 2 to 4 l., 4 to 6 l. and 6 to 8 l./d, respectively. Only about 9.0 per cent farmers were with buffaloes yielding milk between 8 to 10 l./d. Therefore, it can be seen that 85.8 per cent of farmers keeping buffaloes with daily milk yield ranging between 2 to 8 l/d (Table 3). Further, in spite of low milk yield obtained from buffaloes than cross bred cows, farmers of the area were keen to possess buffaloes. The main reasons for keeping buffaloes were higher milk fat content (>7.0%), comparative more hardiness, can thrive well on low grade roughages and easy to maintain than a cross bred cow. Hence, farmers were required to learn more about feed and feeding practices of the dairy animals besides disease prevention and housing management. 60

3 Technological problems of dairy farmers Table 2. Frequency of farmers keeping cows based on milk yield and number of animals. Milk Yield (Lt) Number of cows Per cent farmers Up to Above 25 Upto Table 3. Frequency of farmers keeping buffaloes based on milk yield and number of animals Milk Yield (Lt) Number of buffaloes Per cent farmers Up to Above 25 Upto Land holding of dairy farmers The data collected through questionnaire were used to classify dairy farmers into landless, marginal (<1 ha), small (1-2 ha), small (1-2 ha), semi medium (2-4 ha), medium (4-10 ha) and large (10 ha or more). It was observed that only 8.5 per cent farmers possessed more than 10 ha land whereas 18.3 per cent were landless, 6.1per cent marginal, 20.1 per cent small, 22.0 per cent semimedium, and 25.0 per cent medium (Table 4). From this observation it was evident that majority of dairy farmers were either land less or small and medium. On the other hand only 8 per cent farmers who were possessing land more than 10 ha kept dairy animals which show that large farmers gave more weightage to crop production than the dairy. The main reason could be labour intensive entrepreneur. Moreover, throughout the year, owner will have be there in the dairy unit otherwise there may be mortality among animals or reduced production. On the other hand, small and medium farmers can pay more attention to get more profit from animals as they possess small holdings. The very interesting feature of this study was that 18.3per cent farmers were landless and still they were keeping animals. The probable reason is that they can produce and sell milk in order to earn their livelihood. Table 4. Land holding of dairy farmers. Land holding Dairy farmers(per cent) Landless 18.3 Marginal (less than 1 ha) 06.1 Small (1-2 ha) 20.1 Semi medium (2-4 ha) 22.0 Medium (4-10 ha) 25.0 Large (10 ha and above) 08.5 Technological problems Total numbers of dairy farms were classified on the basis of selling of milk in the open market. It was observed that 29.2 per cent farmers having domestic dairy only, whereas, 68.4 per cent population was running dairy business on semi comm basis, i.e. they were selling surplus milk after meeting out their daily requirements. However, very small percentages (2.4 %) were running on comm basis. Hence, there is a 61

4 need to put maximum efforts to make these domestic and semi comm into full fledged comm dairy units. Table 5. Analysis of problems of different category of dairy farmers. S. No.Problem Ranking of problem by dairy farmers Domestic Semi Commcomm- 1. Anoestrus Cow dung management Feed availability Green fodder availability Indigestion Marketing problems Mastitis Repeat breeders Wheat straw availability The problems being faced by these three categories of dairy farmers were also different. The landless laborers who were keeping animals reported that the disposal of the fresh cow dung was the major problem as they were not possessing land, whereas, this was not a problem for those who were running business on semi comm or comm basis. The major technical problems in cross bred cows reported were of mastitis followed by anestrous and repeat breeding. Since, these farmers were having large number of cows and thus due to deficiency in proper management and feeding of cross bred cows problems persisted under both the conditions (Table 5). The farmers who were keeping small number of animals (domestic dairy) were not facing such problems because they were taking care of each animals individually to the maximum possible extent but availability of green fodder and concentrate was on the top list probably due to poor financial conditions. Availability of green fodder was a major concern under comm dairy farming and not in semi comm conditions. It is thus suggested that in order to meet out green fodder requirements of milch animals, farmers must opt for silage making. This practice will reduce cost of milk production on one hand and prevent nutritional diseases on the other. From the table 5, it was concluded that all these three categories of dairy farming were facing Sharma et al different types of problems, hence their training needs were also found to be different. Assessment of training needs Training needs were assessed based on the ranking from 1 to 10. Score 1 was given to the activity adjudged on the top priority and consequently least important at no. 9. The data (Table 6) indicated that in order to run dairy on comm scale, farmers gave top priority on housing management whereas under domestic and semi comm purposes, priority was on feed management. Since, feed alone cost about 70 per cent of total expenditure involved in milk production. Table 6. Training needs of dairy farmers. Area Ranking of training needs by dairy farmers Domestic Semi Comm- Comm- Calf management Care of dry and pregnant animals Feed management Health management Housing management Marketing and processing Milk production Reproductive management Likewise, marketing and processing of milk was ranked at no. 2 after feed management under semi comm conditions whereas reproduction management was found to be at no. 2 under domestic purpose. This was probably due to poor feeding and management condition followed by this category of farmers. Under comm dairy, there was no problem in the marketing of milk as the score 9 was given. However, for small and medium farmers this was placed on priority at serial number 4 and 2 probably in order to increase their margin of profit. Higher milk production was ranked at no. 3 by all the categories of farmers which indicated that to get more income was sole criterion, however, calf management and care dry and pregnant of animals was not given due consideration by all the farmers. Thus, training in this aspect is required at all the levels. Conclusively, it can be said that in order to make 62

5 the training and demonstrations more effective in technology transfer, assessment of training need of each category is of utmost importance. Otherwise, total exercise made by extension staff engaged in the dairy sector will go futile. CONCLUSION In the current situation of Punjab agriculture where soil health is deteriorating due to intensive farming and water table is going down due to over exploitation, dairy farming has been suggested as the most suitable alternative. Although Punjab is leading in total milk production but productivity is low. To improve the status of dairy farming and to make dairy a comm venture it is necessary Technological problems of dairy farmers to remove the bottle necks and to develop trained dairy farmers. Now, more number of farmers are opting dairy on large scale still gap is there. Identification of problems and training needs of dairy farmers can lead to overall socio- economic development of the farming community. REFERENCES Gangasagare P T and Karanjkar L M (2009). Status of milk Production and economic profile of dairy farmers in the marathwada region of Maharashtra. Vety World 2(8): Garg M R, Arora, S P, Bhandari B M, Sherasia P L and Singh D K ( 2000). Mineral status of feeds and fodders in Kaira district of Gujarat. Indian J Dairy Sci 53: NRC (1989). Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle. 6 th revised edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Received on Accepted on