A Study on the Problems of Low Milk Production

Volume-1, Issue-2, September-2014 ISSN: 2349-7637 (Online)

RESEARCH HUB – International Multidisciplinary Research Journal (RHIMRJ)

Research Paper Available online at: www.rhimrj.com

2014, RHIMRJ, All Rights Reserved Page 1 of 12 ISSN: 2349-7637 (Online)

A Study on the Problems of Low Milk Production (Special Reference to Surendranagar District of Gujarat State)

Dr. S. G. Purohit Principal,

Shree A.R.S.Sakhida Arts, Shree C.C.Gediwala Commerce and Shree C.C Home Science College

Limbdi, Gujarat (India)

Abstract: Milk production resource rising is a significant economic activity of Rural & Some urban people in the Surendranagar district of Gujarat on account of scanty and uneven distribution of rainfall over space and time and frequent occurrence of drought famines, uncertainty prevails for crop & fodder raising. Due to this scanty, uneven and uncertain rainfall couple with lack of underground water, the agriculture activities are restricted, but last five year situations are change, Surendrangar district has Narmada Yojana water irrigation will be availability. So changing of less milk production problems and solution of problems due to water availability. Milk production increasing system is the easily available activity for farmers and all animal owners for employment and hence for more income generate. Surendranagar district is all type backward, Infrastructure of all type developing are last ten years. Natural Resources are negligible in the district. But well established of Sursagar Co-operative district diary, it is indicator of problems and solution of Less Milk Production in Surendrangar district. Second indicator is Narmada Canal and other indicators etc Keywords: Milk, Production, Narmada Yojana, Water, Irrigation.

I. INTRODUCTION

India is an, agriculture oriented country. Agriculture and Animal Husbandry are two sides of a coin. The role of animal husbandry in social and economical development of our country is very important. The growth rate of animal husbandry in relation with agriculture is very high. In India, Gujarat has made a special identity for its varied and hybrid species of Animals. The contribution of State Animal Products has been notable. The main field work of state government at rural level is to set up new co-operative assembly to speed up the animal husbandry. Easy money lending schemes of co-operative banks. Controlling of animal diseases and vaccinisation, distribution of health defensive kit for animals and services of extension of animal husbandry etc. It is also very important that cowherds do. Animal husbandry in scientific way to increase animal products, production capacity, animal health defence, grass, availability of animal food etc.

Surendranagar district has been the first to do professionalization of the profession of animal husbandry by co-operation. As a

result, in Surendranagar, Sursagar Dairy has collected 105712523 liter milk in the year 2010-11 in collaboration with 663 milk co-operative society of 10 talukas. Moreover, 123581 cowherds has got employment. And as a result Amul pattern has been a role model for the rest of the world and today our country with 10850 million ton milk production per year has been placed along the most milk producing countries. The Surendranagar district has 7.23 percent share in milk production. In total home production of district's agriculture and related services. 22.89% contribution has been of animal husbandry which shows more opportunity of the development of animal husbandry rather than any other agricultural profession.

Amongst 663 milk co-operative society 16% of the milk collection co-operative societies. Run by women in Surendranagar

district . More than 20% are women members. A new direction of women empowerment can be seen by animal husbandry. During the natural calamities when agriculture and other businesses are effected, at that time at rural level, in very short time livelihood can be created by animal husbandry. The main source of protein in our food is milk & its products. It is easily available by milk animals. It is necessary that cowherds of the state adopt new scientific methods of animal breeding, animal care and defence than and than milk production will increase. For that in Surendranagar district in the year 2008-09 by 42 Animal Health institutes. In 2009-10 by 87 Animal Health institutes 375354 animals were given treatment by Animal Health Centre. It has proved Surendranagar district a unique district in the state.

II. OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH STUDY

The identification of the Less milk problems, collection of the relevant data, the formulation of the hypothesis and testing and modification of the hypothesis to provide an adequate explanation are four stages for any investigation in Animal Husbandry situation. These four stages suggested by I. T. Coppock are followed in this study. The aforesaid major objectives are being mentioned as under

� To check the forage problem for animals in Surendranagar District. � To study the problems of cowherds and milk producers of Surendranagar District. � To check the economical condition of dairy industry of Surendranagar District.

RESEARCH HUB – International Multidisciplinary Research Journal Volume-1, Issue-2, September-2014


� To find out numbers of various types of animals in Surendranagar District. � To study economical condition of milk producers and cowherds. � To study various schemes of government for the development of cowherds and milk producers in Surendranagar

District. � To study animal food production in Surendranagar District. � To study availability of health facilities for animals in Surendranagar District.

III. REVIEW OF L ITERATURE

Rajan Y.S. (2003 He said “ Challenges with Indian Agriculture." Growing demand for food, vegetables, fruits, milk and other crops are challengabe for agriculture. we should not forget that our grain safe irritated agriculture and more productive crops has been successful. The stability is because of wheat which is a winter crop. Even though 70% of rainy agrarian areas did. not get any benefit of modern development of agriculture. 30% from this 70% part of this area is under dry land which where annual rainfall is 400ml. (y.s. rajan with A.P. J. Kalam, Navbharat Sahitya Mandir, Ahd„ lst edition~ 2003 pg. 70 to 72.

Solanki & Bhatt (1974) Development of animal breeding in India. The first comprehensive study of animal production and its

remedial methodology was done in 1928 by royal Commission of agriculture in India. This commission in this period checked the reports of animal breeding and reported that it is most important to improve the structure and production capacity of Indian animals. After this report in 1929. Breeding of buffalo and cow was done in scientific way. In the beginning, in 1938 colonel oliver determined the method for breeding for the cows of whole country. In Surendranagar there are ten Talukas. They are Dhrangadhra, Halvad, Vadhvan, Sayla, Multi, Chuda, Dashada, Chotila, Lakhtar, Limbdi. In which total numbers of Cowherds are 123581.

George and Srivastava (1975)5 have studied the impact of institutional finance on dairy development in Baroda district. The

State Bank of India initiated a scheme for financing the purchase of dairy cattle in Baroda district in 1972. This scheme integrated the finance with production enhancement and marketing activities. This bank advanced loan to individual farmers belonging to the milk societies affiliated to the Baroda dairy. The bank also provided technical help in locating quality cattle and veterinary help through doctors from the dairy. The scheme was introduced in 82 villages through the cooperative societies. In 17 of these village societies, the scheme had been in operation for more than one year. From these, four villages from four different talukas were selected for this study. The data on the economics of 101 buffaloes purchased by 60 farmers from these four villages were used. The study indicated that the receipts from milk were more than sufficient to meet the loan obligation and the out-of pocket expenses for maintaining buffaloes. The study revealed that all the societies experienced a rapid growth in the share capital, reserve fund, number of share holders and gross profit. The study indicated that the loans made an impact on those farmers who were not in a position to acquire cattle with their own resources. The scheme assured a continuous source of income through self-preparation of the cattle loan. The study concluded that dairying could be used as an effective means for increasing the income position of the rural poor if adequate finances linked with extension and marketing facilities are provided. The creation of infrastructure facilities for production enhancement, procurement, processing and marketing was found to be sufficient.

Singh and Jha (1975)6 have attempted to study input-output relationship in milk production, marginal value productivities of

different inputs used in milk production and find out extent of increase in milk yield by reallocation of resources optimally, in Etah district of Uttar Pradesh. Three-stage sampling technique was used to select milk collection centres, villages and farmers. Two milk collection centres on the basis of the highest milk collection and the distribution of buffaloes by the Hindustan Lever. Two villages having the highest number of Murrah buffaloes were selected. In all, 60 cultivators covered by the two milk centres were finally selected. The study refers to the period June, 1967 to May 1968. Linear, Cobb-Douglas, Quadratic and square-root forms of production function were used. The multiple regression analysis showed high association between the inputs considered and milk output The importance of better care and management of the animals was thrown in sharp focus by the very higher marginal value product of labour input. The study revealed a significant scope for raising milk production by readjustment of the feed inputs in the summer and rainy seasons.

Kahlon, Dhawan and Gill (1975)7 have examined the extent to which the dairy enterprise can be profitably incorporated in the

production patterns of the various farm size-groups at different levels of technology in Ludhiana district where Punjab Dairy Development Corporation was actively engaged. Two villages were selected at random. Four representative farm situations were selected. Linear programming technique was used. The study revealed that the overall analysis of different sized holdings showed that the total income could be raised by reorganising the production plan, by adopting recommended packages of practices. The hypothesis that there was a great scope for increasing farm income by developing optimal plans, which used improved varieties of crops and full package of recommended practices, was accepted. The farmers could expand milk production on commercial lines to be able to diverting their production patterns and also raise their incomes.

IV. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The Primary data source: To gain information for prevailing research study, both the sources of gaining information, primary and secondary will be used.

The primary information source in prevailing information source in prevailing research study in necessary for which researcher will go through personal visit of the Animal owners of Different villages of Surendranagar district unit and questionnaire method will be applied to gain necessary information. For collection of primary data a separate pretested questionnaire with objectives.



Related questions were canvassed among 200 randomly selected sample milk producers from 10 Talukas of Surendranagar district, in Gujarat.

The secondary information source:

It is necessary for researcher in prevailing research study to collect primary as well as secondary sources of information. Necessary information for this will be collected from Sursagar dairy and from the department of animal husbandry of Surendranagar district. Moreover, articles related to this study, magazines, news paper and websites will be also studied.

Data Analysis:

Various statistical techniques will be applied to analyze the collected primary and secondary sources o data during research study. Data will be shown by making tabelization and interpretation through different types Tables, Min, Mode, Average etc.

V. L IMITATIONS OF RESEARCH STUDY

Limitations of prevailing research study are as under. 1. All the cowherds and animals of the country have not been covered by this study. 2. Prevailing study is limited only for Surendranagar district. 3. All the cooperative activities have not been covered. Total animal owners are not covered.

Table-1 Number of animals in talukas of Surendranagar District

Sr. No. Taluka Cow Buffalo Ox Sheep-Goats Camel Donkeys Horses Others 1 Halvad 26508 37526 9805 49767 66 50 139 1 2 Dhrangadhra 36407 38716 8337 56684 28 381 174 46 3 Dashada 29565 28439 5097 28080 76 100 242 19 4 Lakhtar 13122 10455 3822 5411 10 13 63 0 5 Vadhwan 19750 25688 3443 13056 10 251 109 1 6 Muli 15727 25771 6655 28458 2 79 79 59 7 Sayala 50219 61242 26383 40181 65 230 157 20 8 Chotila 31676 31931 16735 78472 0 186 148 15 9 Chuda 14619 12112 4800 14366 8 55 40 6 10 Limbdi 18849 18230 5342 9539 6 106 48 2

Total No. of Animals in Surendranagar District

256442 290113 90419 324015 271 1451 1199 169

(Note: Animals of Surendranagar District only depending on forage are included)

The above table-1 shows the statistics of animals in ten Talukas of Surendranagar District. From the above data we can observe

that there are 256442 cows, 290113 Buffalo, 90419 Ox, and Sheep-goats are 324015.

Table-2 Number of Milky cows and buffaloes in the talukas of Surendranagar district. Sr. Name of Taluka Buffaloes Cows 1 Halvad 11165 8260 2 Dhrangadhra 12271 11215 3 Dashada 8774 10220 4 Lakhtar 3322 4770 5 Vadhvan 9974 8320 6 Muli 7968 5366 7 Chotila 21935 20107 8 Sayala 9906 10440 9 Chuda 3656 4934 10 Limbdi 5891 6248

Total 94872 89880 From the above table-2 it can be observed that Chotila Taluka of Surendranagar district having most number of Milky Cows

and Buffaloes and followed by other Talukas like Dhrangadhra, Halvad etc.

Table-3 Total Production of Cow and Buffalo Milk of last 5 years in Surendranagar District Year APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR

2004-05 28058 24241 21492 29356 38677 53390 57404 63865 72211 72993 72893 70781 2005-26 62878 52832 42284 42715 58018 67379 77722 84451 93363 100371 103960 109754 2006-07 101923 81189 69411 70548 81058 92441 111194 134184 156830 171i83 176486 172363 2007-08 157473 135905 118330 130500 149978 172331 190922 227428 278870 294345 279136 259969 2008-09 230569 200562 171063 168004 195321 215269 254663 300965 327395 349345 339262 311373 2009-10 259758 206301 165459 164857 200750 233800 260277 307983 357144 370881 368827 344207 2011-12 319700 270012 235216 238674 254553 274134 285660 296461 318933 340980 331472 314280



If We look at the last five years milk production in Surendranagar District, year 2004-05 to 2011-12, Total 467.14%, milk production increased, per year develop growth 66.73%, showed. The situation is very good per year average milk production 48711.43 its increased possibility of Fast & more and more development for Surendranagar District.

Table-4 Table showing Talukawise Milk Co-operative Societies alongwith No. of members and quantity of collected Milk.

No. of Annual Sr

No. Name of Taluka

Year Milk Co- operative

No. of Members

collection of Milk

Societies Liters

Halvad

2008-09 68 16580 14485500 1 2009-10 73 7304 14216542

2 Dhrangadhra

2008-09 72 1,9635 16541361

2009-10 73 9832 15034075

3 Dashada

2008-09 78 10631 9513894

2009-10 78 9359 10554573

4 Lakhtar

2008-09 39 3783 3737113

2009-10 41 3757 4870086

5 Vadhvan

2008-09 54 7566 8239498

2009-10 55 4266 8906771

6 Muli

2008-09 56 9223 9150028

2009-10 60 4809 8704228

7 Chotila

2008-09 108 8779 13028380

2009-10 111 7794 1390042

8 Sayala 2008-09 72 10994 10723885 2009-10 74 5664 11383214

9 Chuda 2008-09 26 3455 3319345

2009-10 34 2609 4639406

10 Limbdi 2008-09 47 4125 4300085 2009-10 52 3876 6117466

Total 2008-09 620 94771 178856492 2009-10 651 59270 85816403

The above table-4 shows Talukawise Milk Co-operative Societies alongwith No. of members and quantity of collected

Milk.Chotila taluka of S’Nagar District has most 111 and 108 Milk Co-operative Societies in 2009-10 and 2008-09 respectively.

Table-5 Milk rate of last 5 year in Surendranagar Year Rate

2004-05 10.54 2005-06 11.83 2006-07 14.94 2007-08/ 18.17 2008-09 19.09 2009-10 22.46 2010-11 26.75

Milk rates in the year 2010-11 to the farmers has been paid Rs. 317.07 + 34.80-1111.87. Which in comparison to last year

317+25=347 has been paid 204% more. In 2010-11 milk producers have been paid Rs. 26.75 per Kg which is 19.10% more than last leer’s 22.46 .



Table-6 Production of varied forage for animals in the talukas of Surendranagar (Per Hectare) Name of Taluka

Wheat Mi l let Maize Grams Sorghum (Jowar)

Sugar Cane

Grass Groundnut

Halvad 6150 245 1100 1500 60 450 2580 7650 Dhrangadhra 4798 75 230 211 1950 11 6549 3231 Dashada 233 310 8 200 11146 5 Lakhtar 360 700 270 6447 Vadhvan 135 150 800 10 5490 Mul i 1210 126 110 100 640 50 3445 3190 Choti la 1470 250 432 150 23 5743 6602 Sayala 854 44 1000 17 150 16 5760 2763 Chuda 178 174 150 2540 77 Limbdi 105 1100 150 1100 6982 4 TOTAL 16493 490 11324 16989 5430 560 56682 23532

From the above table-6 we can observe that in 2009-10 in Halvad of Surendranagar production of wheat is 6150 hectre, bajra

245, gram 1500, Jowar 62, Sugercane 450, grass 2580 and groundnut 7650 hectare. In the same year Dhrangadhra of Surendranagar the production of wheat is 11748 hectare, bajra 75. grain 211, Maze 230, jowar 1650, sugarcane 11, grass 6549, groundnut 3231.

Table-7 Study of Animal Health of Surendranagar District

Taluka Name

No. of Sheep & Wool

Distribution Centers

No. of Artificial Womb

Center

No. of lien Treatment

Centers

No. of Villag

e Units

No. of Animal Clinics

No. of Animal

Hospitals

Stock and Animal

Treatment Centers

Sheep Goat

Promotion Centers

Other Typewise

Halvad 1 1 0 2 13 0 1 0 2 1 2 0 2 3 0 1 1 2 Dhrangadhra 1 1 1 0 3 0 2 1 0 1 3 1 0 2 0 3 l 0 Dashada 1 1 0 2 2 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 2 3 0 3 0 0 Lakhtar 0 0 1 1 4 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 Vadhvan 1 1 0 0 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 0 Muli 1 1 0 O 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 3 0 1 1 1 Chotila 1 1 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 Sayla 1 1 0 1 3 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 Chuda 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Limbdi 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 2

To keep them fit and productive,. it is necessary to pay attention to their halts. Health is real Wealth, During the epidemics it

affects the productivity and procreation capacity. It is most important to keep awareness for the health of Milchy and other useful animals because they are backbone of rural life. Its growth, procreation, production and work capacity is very good in healthy period. The above table-7 represents the details of Talukawise Health Centers according to the categories of animals.

Table-8 Animals treated in animal hospitals (Surendranagar)

Year No. of Institutes

With Two Hoofs

With One Hoof Others Total

2008-09 42 445 20 118 583

2009-10 87 542 0 3 545

In 2008-09 in Surendranagar number of animals treated and admitted to hospital by the institute is 445 with two hoof and 20

with one hoof and 118 in others and total is 583. When in 2009 -10 by 87 institutes 542 with two hoofs. 3 in others and total is 545.

Table-9 No. of Animals Fallen Sick during 2008-09 and 2009-10 in S’Nagar District

Sr. No. Name of Taluka Year No. of Sick

Animals 1

HALVAD 2008-09 5526

2009-10 4987



2 DI-IRANGADHRA 2008-09 5102 2009-10 4967 3 DASHADA 2008-09 8772 2009-10 10029 4 LAKHTAR 2008-09 2685 2009-10 3630 5 VADHVAN 2008-09 3630 2009-10 1039 6 MULI 2008-09 2534 2009-10 2287 7 CHOTILA 2008-09 2192 2009-10 3160 8 SAYLA 2008-09 1442 2009-10 1442 9 CHUDA

2008-09 1271

2009-10 2030

10 LIMBDI 2008-09 4635 2009-10 3924

Animal health is the most important matter for pure and more milk. So when animals are diseased, the milk production will be

lesser. When in Surendranagar in 2008-09 sick animals were 35919 and in 2009-10 38079.

Table-10 No. of Institutes who treated Animals during 2008-09 and 2009-10 in S’Nagar District Sr. No. Name of Taluka Year No. of Sick Animals 1 HALVAD 2008-09 06

2009-10 12 2 DHRANGADHRA 2008-09 04

2009-10 11 3 DASHADA 2008-09 06

2009-10 11 4 LAKHTAR 2008-09 03

2009-10 06 5 VADHVAN 2008-09 04

2009-10 10 6 MULI 2008-09 04

2009-10 08 7 CHOTILA 2008-09 05

2009-10 07 8 SAYLA 2008-09 04

2009-10 08 9 CHUDA 2008-09 01

2009-10 06 10 LIMBDI 2008-09 05

2009-10 08 The contribution of various institutes in providing health oriented facilities in the talukas of Surendranagar is important which is

as under. In 2008-09 in Halvad of Surendranagar the treatment was given by 6 institutes when in 2009-10 the number grew up to 12. Comparatively 6 institutes are additional. In 2008-09 in Dhrangadhra, for animal health, 4 institutes came when in 2009-10 this was 11. Comparatively 7 institutes are additional.

Table-11 Actual Land Cultivation out of total Culti vable Land in S’nagar District

Sr.No. Taluka Name

Total Cultivable Land (irrigated Hactares)

% of Cultivated irrigated Land

1 Halvad 33910 42.19% 2 Dhrangadhra 24693 25.17% 3 Dashada 3106 30.6% 4 Lakhtar 1868 3.26% 5 Vadhvan 11617 18.57%

6 Muli 18707 29.95%

7 Chotila 20047 30.80%

8 Sayla 14886 25.29%

9 Chuda 2476 5.94% 10 Limbdi 4597 6.03%



Table-12 Sawing Area in Hectare Used More Than One Time In The Year 2010-11 In The Talukas Of Surendranagar

Sr. No. Taluka Name

One-time Cultivated

Land (Hacters)

Land Cultivated more than one time Hacters)

1 Halvad 35549 1800

2 Dhrangadhra 32133 7550

3 Dashada 3106 0

4 Lakhtar 1918 0

5 Vadhvan 11399 582

6 Muli 23155 4288 7 Chotila 21963 1700 8 Sayla 15947 761 9 Chuda 2609 88 10 Limbdi 5013 116

In Surendranagar, total sowing is done in total sowing area 135907 hactare. From that area in 2010-11 for sowing 132792

hectare area is used for one time and 16885 hectare area used for more than one time.

Table-13 Water Sources within talukas of S’nagar District

Sr.No. Taluka Name

No. of Wells Distance covered by

Canals KMs. 1 Halvad 33049 124 2 Dhrangadhra 31143 16 3 Dashada 3106 N.A. 4 Lakhtar 1768 N.A. 5 Vadhvan 10949 23 6 Muli 22465 22 7 Chotila 21422 10 8 Sayala 13007 15 9 Chuda 2309 6 10 Limbdi 4203 27

In Talukas of Surendranagar District 143421 Wells are used for irrigation for 135907 hectare when 243 km long canals are also

used. In 2010-11 in Halvad taluka of Surendranagar the number of wells used for irrigation is 22049 when 123 K.M. long canals are also used. In 2010-11, in Dhrangadhra number of wells used for irrigation is 31143 when 16 km long canals are also there.

Table-14 Persons of average family size sample households

No.

Category Milk Producer group Non Milk Producer group Male Fema

le Children Total Male Fema

le Children

Total

1 Landless 2.10 2.00 3.78 7.88 1.40 1.45 1.92 4.77 2 Marginal 1.83 1.98 2.90 6.71 3.17 2.08 2.75 8.00 3 Small 1.97 1.93 2.30 6.20 3.00 2.98 3.00 8.98 4 Big 2.62 2.45 2.01 7.08 2.55 3.00 2.80 8.35 Total Average 2.13 2.09 2.75 6.97 2.53 2.38 2.62 7.53

Source: - Field Primary survey

The category wise data reveals that the average family size was the largest category of Landless and next to this in the category of Big farmers in the experience group. In the case of control group the average family size in the category of non-members land less milk producers was the smallest. The average family size of the landless milk producers was the smallest. The average family size of the landless and marginal milk producers was higher than the family size of their counterparts in the non-members group. Large in control group than that in the experimental group. From the above it can be said that the non-milk producers are well placed with respect of family size, than their counterparts of the non-milk producers group.

The data about educational status of the milk producers and non-milk producers households shown in Table No. 4.20 revels that

the percentage of literacy was higher (82.22%) in case of milk producers than that in the non-milk producers (79.41%) in the group of members, the percentage of literacy ranged between 70% in case of Landless and 77.15% in case of Big Milk producers. In the non-milk producers group the percentage of literacy persons was the highest 79.41% in the category of Marginal farmers and the lowest of 56 % in the category of landless milk producers.

Table-15 Educational status of Sample households

No

Category Milk Producer group Non-Milk Producer group Literate illiterate Total Literate illiterate Total

1 Landless 35 (70.00%)

15 (30.00%)

50 (100%)

14 (56.00%)

11 (44.00%)

25 (100%)



2 Marginal 52 (74.29%)

18 (25.71%)

70 (100%)

27 (79.41%)

07 (20.59%)

34 (100%)

3 Small 37 (82.22%)

08 (17.88%)

45 (100%)

19 (79.17%)

05 (20.83%)

24 (100%)

4 Large (Big) 27 (77.15%)

08 (22.85%)

35 (100%)

13 (76.47%)

04 (23.53%)

17 (100%)

Total Average 151 (75.50%)

49 (24.50%)

200 (100%)

73 (73.00%)

27 (27.00%)

100 (100%)

Source: Field Primary survey

Experience of Milk production farming:

It is very important collected data presented in Table No. 15. That both the sample animal owners households have been in milk production business since last 50 years. But, different type milk producers have different experience of the milk production business and it is almost the same in case of both milk producers and non-milk producers.

Table No. 15 Experience of Milk producers and non milk producers

No. Category Milk producer group Experience in the year Non-Milk producer group Experience in the year 1 Landless 50 48 2 Marginal 35 32 3 Small 30 38 4 Large (Big) 34 35

Source : Field Primary survey

Surendranagar district has landless and marginal milk producers of were highest more experienced that their counterparts of the non-animal owner group. But, landless and marginal milk producers have Traditional system of milk production. They are not mindset changed today, so it is less milk production of one cause. Small and Big (large) milk producers have some year scientific experience of the Business.

Ownership of milchy Animals:

The Table No. 16 shows the data about number of milch animals owned by sample households in Surendranagar district of Gujarat State during the year of 2010-11. It could be seen from the table that milk producers of the sample group mainly possess cows and buffalos. The proportion of local cows in total milch animals was a high percentage in the case of landless milk producers followed by big farmers ( milk producers ) and a s low as small farmers. All sample household have negligible hybreed cows but they have some buffalos. All type milk producers have First priority of Local Gir milch cow and second buffalos. Sample households have some knowledge and infrastructure of cross breed cow, slow increasing of the milk Business mind.

Landless and marginal sample house holds are Bharvad (shepherd) community, they have negligible land and it land is not

irrigated. But they have lot of Desi cows. Its less milchy, because it has feeding, breeding, managemental etc. problems.

Table-16 Number of milch animals owned by sample Sr. Category Local cows Hybrid

Cows Buffalos Total

1 Landless 91 (72.22%)

05 (3.97%)

30 (23.81%)

126 (100%)

2 Marginal 82 (57.75%)

15 (10.56%)

45 (31.69%)

142 (100%)

3 Small 80 (44.94%)

23 (12.92%)

75 (42.14%)

178 (100%)

4 Large (Big) 44 (35.48%)

20 (16.13%)

60 (48.39%)

124 (100%)


63 (11.05%)

210 (36.84%)

570 (100%)

Source: Field Primary survey Capital for milk production business:

The milk production farming requires capital for purchase of milch animals, feed and fodder, veterinary services, maintenance

of milch animals, etc. The milk production farmer can invest their owned capital or borrow for the purchase of milch animals. The table No. 17 shows the number of milk production farmer (producers) who used their owned capital and borrowed capital for the business. It is seen from the table that 81 percent or the sample farmers have used their owned caital, whereas only 19 percent farmers have borrowed loan for other resource for this business.



Table No. 17 Source of capital for milk production farming for sample Households Sr. Category Local cows Hybrid Cows Total 1 Landless 35

(70.00%) 15

(30.00%) 50

(100%) 2 Marginal 56

(80.00%) 14

(20.00%) 70

(100%) 3 Small 39

(86.67%) 06

(13.33%) 45

(100%) 4 Large (Big) 32

(91.43%) 03

(8.57%) 35

(100%) Total Average 162

(81.00%) 38

(19.00%) 200

(100%) Source: Field Primary survey

Insurance of Milchy Animal:

Milk production business is very risky e.g. milk storage rist, risk to milky animals, risk involved in sale of output and death of

animals. Thre price & sale of output risks are minimized by the Dairy societies and insurance limited company through assurance of fixed price to milk producers and the assurance of purchase milk offered for sale by the milk producers. The risk arising from the death of milch animals can be minimized through making insurance of cows and buffalos. It is evident from the table that the sample household milk producers belonging to have not paid any attention towards avoiding risk arising from death of milch animals. Out of 200 sample households in the study, only 15 sample households milk producers (7.5%) had taken insurance of milch animals owned by them. There was not much difference in the percentage of sample household milk producers, who have taken insurance of high milchy cows and buffalos. Across the categories of sample animal owners. However, there is a slight indication that loan holder and customer of the co-operative milk societies were relatively more risk avoiders than the milk producers, who is loan holder. Less milk production due to negligible insured of milch animals, so effect of death to milk animals for buying poor condition of milk producers and not buying without money, no buying milch animals without insurance. So developing of less milk production in Surendranagar district. Sample of 92.5% milk producers have economical problem, documentary problem, traditional milk information problem etc.

Table: 18 Insurance of milchy animals by the sample households Sr. Category Taken insurance Not taken insurance 1 Landless 02

(07.41%) 25

(92.59%) 2 Marginal 03

(03.61%) 80

(96.39%) 3 Small 05

(10.42%) 43

(89.58%) 4 Large (Big) 05

(11.90%) 37

(88.10%) Total Average 15

(07.50%) 185

(92.50%) Source: Field Primary survey

Facing of Loan related problems for sample households about milk production:

The milk producers generally face several problems at different levels while raising capital for milk production enterprise in the form of loans. Majority sample households borrowers have reported to have faced the problems of different kinds while taking loans for milk production business more and more problems faced for landless and marginal farmer (milk producers). Loan system its rules is effected and other factors affected.

Table No: 19 Number of Borrowers sample households facing problems in securing loans Sr. Category No. of sample households

facing problems No. of sample households not

facing problems 1 Landless 12

(80.00%) 03

(20.00%) 2 Marginal 11

(78.57%) 03

(21.43%) 3 Small 04

(66.67%) 02

(33.33%) 4 Large (Big) 02

(66.67%) 01

(33.33%) Total Average 29

(76.32%) 09

(23.68%) Source: Field Primary survey



Majority borrowers sample households milk producers, who faced the problem in obtaining loan, reported to have faced the problem at “Talati” level, farmers have faced the difficulties in collection of documents, problems of giving security, problem of delay by the bank for sanction of loan etc. So, doing borrowing milk producers and less milk production.

Loans repayment:

The sample households were also asked the purpose of loans and way of its repayment. Majority borrowers sample household

had taken loans mainly for purchased of milch animals, very few borrow for purchase of cattle feed. Regarding the mode of repayment of loans taken, it is found that 90% (percent) of the borrower milk producers repaid their

loans from income from sale of milk, landless and big farmers (milk producers) of both the repaid their loan from milk proceeds only. 10% milk producers have repaid their loan from the proceeds from farm goods.

Sample household, who have repaid loan in time and also the reasons for delay in repayment of loans. Regarding the reasons

for delay in repayment of loans taken it is found that some milk producers, who could not repay their loan in time, they have not repay loan in time due to low milk production, natural problems and economic poor condition etc.

Sample households loans taken for purchase of milch animals by the some sample households in Surendranagar district in

Gujarat. Sample households have borrowed from Co-operative credit societies, nationalized and commercial banks and from private money lenders relatives and friends.

Environmental Protection of milchy animals:

Milch animals save due to summer light, air waves of hot and cold, waves of summer and winter and heavy monsoon. The

requirement of animal sheds (shelter) Surendranagar district has not planted areas, so lot of environmental problems of milch animals. The Table shows the data available of sheds for milch animals. It is seen from this table that most of the sample milk producers farmer have not constructed sheds for their milch animals. Only 20 percent of the milk producers farmers have constructed the scientific sheds for milch animals. Low as 12.86 percent in the case of marginal farmers milk producers and landless milk producers. Less milk production due to without sheds milk production.

Use of farm grown and purchased feed & fodder:

The data about number of sample household milk producers farmers, who have met the requirements of feed and fodder for

their milch animals through purchasing and from farm grown stock are shown in Table no 4.26 It is seen from the table that 34.00 percent of the milk producers belonging to study sample households have met the requirement of cattle feed partly from their farm grown stock of feed and 13.50 percent farmers (Milk producers) have purchased the feed wholly from the market.

In the sample households milk producers the percentage of farmers, who meet their feed requirement fully from market was the

highest (17.14%) in the category of marginal milk producers, second landless. While all the landless & marginal milk producers, who are responded to sample households of the study to Surendranagar disctict, use to meet their requirement wholly from the Taluka level feed and green fodder market.

Table 20- Response of Sample households about use of Farm grown and purchased feed and fodder for milch animals

Sr. No

Category Farm grown

Open market feed purchased

Fodder purchased

Feed purchased by Sursagar Dairy

Total

1 Landless 05 (10.00%)

07 (14.00%)

08 (16.00%)

30 (60.00%)

50 (100%)

2 Marginal 10 (14.29%)

12 (17.14%)

10 (14.29%)

38 (54.28%)

70 (100%)

3 Small 28 (62.22%)

05 (11.11%)

05 (11.11%)

07 (15.56%)

45 (100%)

4 Large (Big) 25 (71.43%)

03 (08.57%)

02 (05.71%)

05 (14.29%)

35 (100%)


27 (13.05%)

25 (12.50%)

80 (40.00%)

200 (100%)


Table 21 Source of Training

Sr. Category No. of sample household No. of sample household Source of training training Co-operative undergone No. of training Self Government Other etc.

1 Landless 02 (04.00%)

39 (78.00%)

03 (06.00%)

04 (08.00%)

02 (04.00%)

2 Marginal 04 (05.71%)

48 (68.57%)

05 (07.14%)

08 (11.43%)

05 (07.14%)

3 Small 07 (15.56%)

25 (55.56%)

04 (08.87%)

04 (08.87%)

05 (11.11%)



4 Large (Big)

10 (28.57%)

18 (51.43%)

02 (05.71%)

01 (02.86%)

04 (11.43%)


130 (65.00%)

14 (07.00%)

17 (08.50%)

16 (08.00%)


Negligible sample household farmers, who have attended seminars related to milk production business and the number of farmers reporting different benefits gained to them from such seminars. The education of farmers is essentials for improving the efficiently of their milk production business, such education can be obtained through specific training, seminars and even through making available literature about the milk production business. Majority sample house holds not interested of the milk production related seminars etc. They have not full time to seminars and traditional minded.

In the study of maximum numbers of sample milk producers have reported that milk production business is supportive to crop

production, 1/3 milk producers have said the milk production is beneficial as it gives continuous flow of income to them, 1/4 milk producers have reported employment to family labor work as the benefit of the milk production business.

VI. FINDINGS

1. The study revealed that the sample households milk producers were well placed with respect to family size, and to literacy and average size of Landholding. The sample household milk producers were rearing both cows & buffalos, negligible crossbred cows. Landless milk producers had more and more traditionally cows.

2. Surendrangar District had majority milk producers are traditional orthodox and they had negligible landholding less milk production by the landless traditional milk producers, and more milk production by the trained some small milk producers due to scientific approach.

3. It is found that sample households had to borrow for purchase of milch animals. They do not borrow for construction of cattle sheds, but landless and others (some landholding) borrow for purchase of cattle feed and green fodder. Green and dry fodder shortage in summer time, so dong less milk production creating problems.

4. The study of less milk production indicated that percent of borrower sample milk producers have repaid their loans from milk proceeds. The tendency of repaying loans from milk proceeds is found to be relatively stronger among the sample milk producers. Further, the landless milk producers relied more and big milk producers less on borrowed capital for their business of milk production. Some study households were more careful about repayment of loans in time of the study area.

5. In this study found that percent of the sample milk producers use to meet their cattle feed requirement from the farm grown stock of feed. But the landless milk producers are found to have relied on the market for both feed and green fodder and dry fodder. Green fodder market are in Taluka place Surendranagar, Wadhwan, Limbdi, Chuda, Chotila, Halvad, Dhrangadhra etc. but dry fodder market is not particular place, so less milk production increased.

6. The study indicated that the majority sample milk producers had more risk avoiders, per sample households was relatively lower in the case of the study. Most of the sample milk producers of both the group have not taken insurance of their milch animals one sample landless milk producers.

7. The study found that the percentage of sample milk producers who have taken training about the business of milk production was higher 35 percent in the category of sample milk producers.

VII. CONCLUSION

The discussion made in the study allows us t draw the following conclusions. The study revealed hat the sample households milk producers were well placed with respect to family size, because the average family is found to be 6.97 person. But with respect to literacy the 75.50% sample house holds of the study. Regarding their experience in milk production business. The average size 1.80 hectors of Land holding is found to be sample milk producers. Sample milk producer having highest number of in milk cows and buffalos in the flush period as compared to that in loan period.

The study reveals that majority milk producers had borrowed for purchase of milk animals. They do not borrow for

construction of cattle sheds, and very few borrow for purchase of other purpose. The study indicated that 68% of the sample milk producers belonging to own farm. Use to meet their cattle feed requirement

from market and other sources. 40% of the sample households are from Sursagar Milk Dairy were relatively more customer of the Dairy. In the study it is found that the Sursagar Dairy Surendranagar provide assurance to its members regarding the sale of milk and also reduce the risk involved in sale of milk, but the second belief regarding the assurance of remunerative price through membership of a Sursagar Dairy is found to be incorrect. The main reason for refusing the purchase of milk by the Sursagar Dairy Society was its low grade. The study indicated that crop production was the main income generating activity and milk production was of secondary import to the sample households milk producers whereas milk production was the main source of income to sample study.

The study revealed that the per household total employment in business of milk production was slightly higher in the case of

sample milk producers. The per sample household employment of male, female and child in Business of milk production was also relatively higher in the study households. The study revealed that the member of Sursagar Dairy Surendranagar, its get more employment in business of milk production.



The percentage of sample milk producers who have taken training about the related to milk production business, is found to be higher 35% in the Surendranagar district. The maximum numbers of milk producers had taken training through Sursagar Dairy and Second State Government of Gujarat. The Sursagar Dairy Surendranagar is found to be providing veterinary services and cattle feed to their member of Sursagar Dairy Surendrangar.

The literature about business of milk production in Surendranagar district indicated that milk production infrastructure provides

incentives for the milk production business development enterprises and production of milk which enhances the income of different categories of milk producers. It also imports stability and certain to income due to diversification of source of income. The study, also indicated that character of less milk production in Surendranagar district in Gujarat. Infrastructure of milk production low develop in Surendranagar district, low irrigation, low areas of fodder farm. Sample households are low literacy, traditional milk production system, traditional cows & buffalos, traditional management, low ratio of treatment for sick animals, low availability of road and transportation for milk production areas, feeding systems are not healthy, need of capital for the milk production business, negligible percentage of insured milchy animals, low milk price, not good and milk market for milk and its good etc. highly characters in Surendranagar district for milk production business. So less milk production in the study area of Surendranagar district.

REFERENCES

1. Ambhore V. B. & Bhise V.B. (2009) “Economics impact of Dairy Co-operative on Indian Farmer” 2. Animal Health Science, Uni. Growth Nirmal Board, Gujarat, Ahmedabad. 3. Arth Sankalan 4. Benarjee G.C. (1984) “Animal breed” A text book of Animal Husbandry 5. Bhasin N.R., A Grand Opportunity in Dairy India, Priyadarshani Vihar, New Delhi, 1997 6. Bhattacharya (1991) “Genetic Improvement in cattle and buffaloes Research in Milk production P. 1–39 7. Chacko C “The white Revolution in Kerala” Indian Dairyman (1990-93) P.21-24. 8. Chauhan, A and A.K.Sharma (1990) Milk production, consumption and marketable surplus in two villages of Bareli district (UP)

Indian Dairy man 42 (7) P.322-325 9. Department of Animal Husbandary, Gujarat, Krushi Bhavan, Sector 10A., Gandhinagar 10. Gavaly S.R. (1998) “Fodder farming for commercial Vanture” Indian Dairyman January 1998 P.15-21. 11. Gill G.S. (1981) “ A study an Economic potentials of milk production in the mixed farming economy of the Punjab – Ph.D. thesis

Kurukshetra University. 12. Jagdish Chandra and Mishra A. M. (1989) Determinants of Milk Production” Agricultural situation in India 44 (3) P.201-203 13. Khandelwal M. K. Yadav Mukesh (2007) “Potentialities and prospects of Live Stock Development” 14. Madaliya V. K. (1982) Economic of Milk production of Junagadh District of Gujarat”. The Guj. Ass. For Agriculture. 15. Mishra A. K. (1998) “Genetic Development of Buffaloes” Indian Dairyman P. 7-13. 16. Patel R.K. Economics of Livestock Enterprise with Special Reference to Employment Potential, Indian Journal of Agricultural

Economics, Vol. XXXL, No. 4, 1981. 17. Raju, V.T and Bhatt B.D. (1982) “Cost production of milk in cattle breeding farm of Gujarat Agriculture University, Junagadh”. The

Gujarat Association for Agri. Science, 12th Seminar P. 52-54 18. Samanya Krushi Vigyan, C. J. Patel, UGNB, Gujarat, Ahd. 19. Santi George, A matter of People Co-operative Dairying in India and Zimbabwe, Oxford University Press, London, 1989. 20. Sharma V.P. and Vashist G.D., Trends in Milk Production in Himachal Pradesh, Agriculture Situation in India, Vol. XLVI, No. 11,

1992. 21. Sharma, H.S. and Sharma, M.L(2001) Geography of Rajasthan, Panchsheed Prakashan, Jaipur. 22. Singh B. and Gill S.S., Milk Production Trends in India, Dairy Guide, December, 1986 23. Singh Daroga, Bovine Milk Production and Its Per Capita Availability in Various Tracts of India, Agricultural Situation in India, Vol.

XXII, No. 9, 1967. 24. Singh S. P. Employment Through Rural Work and Dairy Development: Amul Strategy, National Labour Institute Bulletin, Vol. VI. No.

2, 1980. 25. Singh, S.P. and Parnatma Singh, Indian Livestock Population and Production Dynamics, Agricultural Situation in India, Vol.XXXIX,

No. 5 1984. 26. Somjee, A.H. and Somjee Geeta (1978) Co-operative Dairying and the profile of social change in India, Economic Development and

Cultural Change, Vol.26, No. 3 April. 27. Sursagar dairy and Surendranagar Jilla Sahkari Dudh Utpadak Sangh, Sursagar dairy, Vadhvan, Annual report and account. 28. Various figures, Surendranagar Jilla Panchayat, Aankda Shakha. 29. Y. S. Rajan, Wiking India 2020, Navi Sahatrabdinu Swapna, Nav Bharat Sahitya Mandir, 1 st Ed., 2003.

Documents

A Study on the Problems of Low Milk Production