A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ON THE VENDOR, CO-OPERATIVE AND
INTEGRATED SYSTEMS ON DAIRY FARMERS
Thesis submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements for the
Degree of
MASTER OF VETERINARY SCIENCEin
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY EXTENSIONto the
TAMIL NADU VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, CHENNAI -
600 051.
by
D.THIRUNAVUKKARASU, B.V.Sc., & A.H.I.D. No. MVM 00012
(AHE)
DEPARTMENT OF EXTENSIONMADRAS VETERINARY COLLEGE TAMIL NADU
VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY CHENNAI - 600 007
2002
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ON THE VENDOR, CO-OPERATIVE AND
INTEGRATED SYSTEMS ON DAIRY FARMERS
D.THIRUNAVUKKARASU, B.V.Sc & A.HI.D.No.MVM 00012 (AHE)
DEPARTMENT OF EXTENSIONMADRAS VETERINARY COLLEGE TAMIL NADU
VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY CHENNAI - 600 007
2002
CERTIFICATEThis is to certify that the thesis entitled
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ON VENDOR, CO-OPERATIVE AND INTEGRATED SYSTEMS
ON DAIRY FARMERS submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements
for the degree of MASTER OF VETERINARY SCIENCE in ANIMAL HUSBANDRY
EXTENSION, to the Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences
University, Chennai, is a record of bonafide research work carried
out by Thiru.D.THIRUNAVUKKARASU, under my supervision and guidance
and that no part of this thesis has been submitted for the award of
any other degree, diploma, fellowship or other similar titles or
prizes and that the work has not been published in part or full in
any scientific or popular journal or magazine.
Place : Chennai Date : (N.K.SUDEEPKUMAR) Chairman
APPROVED BYCHAIRMAN MEMBERS : :
: (N.K. SUDEEPKUMAR)
(R.KRISHNARAJ)
(S.ARUNACHALAM)
Date :
EXTERNAL EXAMINER
CURRICULUM VITAE
Name of the candidate
:
D.THIRUNAVUKKARASU, B.V.Sc & A.H
Date of birth
:
23.05.1976
Place of birth
:
Rasipuram, Tamilnadu
Major field of specialisation :
Animal Husbandry Extension
Educational Qualification
:
Obtained B.V.Sc & A.H in the year 2000 from Rajiv Gandhi
College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Pondicherry - 605
009.
Professional experience
:
Served as part time consultant at Chezian Veterinary Clinic,
Chennai- 600 041, from September 2000 to July 2002.
Marital status
:
Unmarried
Permanent address
:
Elanthamarathu Kadu, Orambu Village T.G. Palayam Post, Rasipuram
Taluk, Namakkal Dist.
Publications made
:
Nil
Membership in professional societies
:
Life member in Tamil Nadu Veterinary Council.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTI wish to record my boundless pleasure and
sincere expression of my heartfelt thanks to the CHAIRMAN of the
Advisory Committee, Dr.N.K.Sudeepkumar,Ph.D., Assistant Professor,
Department of Extension, Madras Veterinary College, Chennai, for
his tireless efforts, laudable counselling, valuable guidance and
untiring attention rendered during the entire course of the
study.
Equally I express my indebtedness to the members of my Advisory
Committee, Dr.R.Krishnaraj, Ph.D., Professor and Head of Department
of Extension, and Dr.P.Arunachalam, Ph.D., Associate Professor of
Livestock Production and Management, Madras Veterinary College,
Chennai for their guidance at every stage of the investigation and
enrich it with suggestions and critical comments.
I am much thankful to Dr.S.V.N. Rao, Ph.D., Professor and Head
Department of Animal Husbandry Extension, RAGACOVAS, Pondicherry
for his valuable practical suggestions and help rendered at the
appropriate time.
I am indebted to Dr.N..Akila Assistant Professor, Department of
Extension, Madras Veterinary College and Dr.K.Natchimuthu,
Assistant Professor, RAGACOVAS for facilitating secondary data
collection and giving me the valuable suggestions.
I wish to add my special thanks to Mr.S. Ayyavu, Commissioner of
Namagiripet block, Mr.S.Kandasamy, Block Development Officer, Mr.K.
Ramaswamy, Chairman and Mr.P.Subramani, Vice Chairman of
Namagiripet Block, Mr.C.Pathmanaban, of Block Development Office
employee and officials of Registrar office of dairy co-operatives,
Namakkal for their valuable assistance in secondary data
collection.
I also express my gratitude to Mr. N. Jothilingam, President and
Mr.N.Raja employee of Mangalapuram Grama Panchayat for providing
the secondary data on the Panchayat.
My special thanks are due to, Mr. S. Palaniyappan, Ex.President
MPCS, K.K.Patty, Mr.S.Subramani, Mr.C. Annamalai, Mr.S.Kasi,
Mr.R.Murugan and Mr.M. Egambaram, secretaries of various MPCS in
the study area. Also I place in record my sincere thanks to Mr.P.
Murugan, Mr.G. Rangasamy and Mr.K. Raja secretaries of Hatsun
collection centres and Mr.K. Periyasamy, Member of Hatsun, all
of whom facilitated me for data collection. Sincere thanks are
due to Dr.A. Serma Saravana Pandian, Research Associate, Department
of Animal Husbandry Economics, MVC who assisted me in the analysing
of the data.
I wish to add special thanks to Dr. T.Thirumavalavan and
Dr.P.Thilakar for their valuable help and assistance throughout the
course of the study.
I am thankful to Dr.N.Anbuchezian, Chezian Veterinary Clinic and
Dr.G.Guruprabakar, Dr.V.Prabakar, Dr.R.Parimala,
Dr.K.Saravanakumar, and Dr.D.Muruganatham, my friends and well
wishers for their valuable help, encouragement and monitory support
rendered throughout the period of my study.
I wish to thank the employees of Students Xerox, Purasawalkkam
for the neat and excellent execution of typing of the thesis.
My thanks are also due to Mrs. and Mr.A.Ganesan my Uncle and
Aunt and also my grandparents Mrs. and Mr.S.Arumugam for their
encouragement and material support provided during the period of
this study.
Last but not the least emotions bound me to express my heartiest
thanks to my Parents Mrs. and Mr.R.Duraisamy and my brother
Mr.D.Prasad as for their duty forbearance and encouragement
throughout my career.
(D.THIRUNAVUKKARASU)
ABSTRACTA COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ON THE VENDOR, CO-OPERATIVE AND
INTEGRATED SYSTEMS ON DAIRY FARMERS Name and degree Degree for
which submitted Name of the Chairman : : : D.THIRUNAVUKKARASU,
B.V.Sc & A.H M.V.Sc., in Animal Husbandry Extension
Dr.N.K.Sudeepkumar, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of
Extension, Madras Veterinary College, Chennai - 600 007. 2002 Tamil
Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chennai - 600
051.
Year University
: :
With implementation of new economic policy namely
liberalisation, privatisation and globlisation under the guidelines
of the World Bank the conventional/middleman/ vendor system and
Anand pattern dairy co-operatives in Tamil Nadu started to face
hectic competition from the organised private dairies at the level
of procurement of milk among dairy farmers. Organised private
dairies procured milk on contract agreement with dairy farmers.
They coordinated various activities ranging from providing input
supply upto the marketing as an integrated system. While vendor
system continues to exist from time immemorial, the co-operative
also exists providing certain benefits to its members. The
existence of the three systems necessitated to understand the
nature of its members, benefits, level of satisfaction and
disadvantages of these procurement systems. This study was thus
taken up, keeping in view the above facts. Namakkal district which
falls under the Salem-Namakkal milk producers union was selected
since it is procuring the highest quantity of milk in the State and
it has the three systems of procurement in operation. Of the 15
blocks in Namakkal district Namagiripet block was selected based on
the highest milk procurement by cooperatives. Among the 18 Village
Panchayats of Namagiripet block Mangalapuram village panchayat was
selected which had relatively better distribution of the three
procurement systems. 50 dairy farmers in each of the procurement
systems were selected randomly to make the total sample size of
150. The design for the study was ex-post facto. The profile of the
dairy farmers, benefits, level of satisfaction and
disadvantages
of the three milk procurement systems were assessed by
personally interviewing the dairy farmers of the three systems. The
data so collected were analysed and interpreted. Majority (57.33
per cent) of dairy farmers had made a shift from one procurement
system to another. The major change over was shift from vendor to
integrated (39.53 per cent) and also to co-operative system(24.42
per cent). This was due to irregularity in payment for milk in the
vendor system. The shift of dairy farmers from co-operative to
integrated system was also remarkable. The prime reasons as
perceived by dairy farmers for the above shift were irregularity of
payment and distant location of collection centres. The members of
co-operative and integrated system had better land holding, herd
size, dairy income, credit behaviour, investment, extension agency
contact and economic motivation than the members of vendor system.
Between the members of integrated and co-operative system the
members of integrated system had better land holdings, herd size
and extension agency contact, while co-operative members had better
investment, dairy income and credit behaviour. Considering all the
three systems members of integrated system had better educational
status. Similarly members of cooperative system had better mass
media exposure. In case of dairy farming experience the members of
vendor and integrated system had higher experience in dairying.
There is no marked difference on the level of aspiration among the
members of three systems and majority (94.67 per cent) of the dairy
farmers had dairying as a subsidiary occupation in the three
procurement systems. The results exhibited highly significant
difference in case of dairy income, credit behaviour and extension
agency contact among the members of vendor and cooperative.
Similarly highly significant difference in case of dairy income and
extension agency contact among the members of vendor and integrated
system exists. The economic motivation showed a highly significant
difference between members of cooperative and integrated
system.
All (100 per cent) the respondents of the vendor system
considered milking and collection of milk at farm as benefits. In
case of co-operative system, artificial insemination and treatment
of animals were considered as benefits by majority while in
integrated system treatment of animals, artificial
insemination,supply of feed and regular payment were considered as
benefits. Credibility of the system, low risk, stable income,
mutual welfare gains, location of collection centre and credit
repayment facilities were considered as the reasons for
satisfaction by majority members of the three procurement systems.
Provision of milk for home needs in dry seasons for its members,
existing payment pattern for the milk poured and quantity of milk
procured was stated as the reason for satisfaction by majority of
members in vendor system. In case of co-operative system
non-compulsion on accepting service / product, milk for home
consumption during needs, quality of veterinary services, quality
feeds and less cost of inputs were stated as reasons for
satisfaction by majority of members. While in case of integrated
system the existing payment pattern for the milk poured,
non-compulsion on acceptance of service / product, quality
veterinary services and satisfactory measurements of SNF and fat
were the reasons for satisfaction. Majority members of the three
procurement systems considered price paid for milk as disadvantage.
This was 100 per cent in case of vendor system. The majority
members of vendor system considered non-provision of cash advances
as disadvantages of the system. In case of co-operative system
majority considered non-provision of cash advances, bonus,
restriction on quantity of milk procured, existing payment pattern,
non satisfactory measurement of SNF and fat as disadvantages. But
in case of integrated system majority considered non-provision of
cash advances, restriction on quantity of milk procured, cost of
inputs and the non-availability of milk for home consumption as
disadvantages of the system.
CONTENTS
Chapter No. LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES I. INTRODUCTION 1.1.
1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 1.5. 1.6. 1.7. II.
Title
Page No.
1-8 2-3 3-4 5-7 7 7 8 8 9-19 9-15 15-17 17-18 18-19 20-33 20-22
23 23 23 24-33 33 33 34-62
Pre-independent era of milk procurement Post-independence era of
milk procurement Present situation of dairy sector Objectives of
the study Scope of the study Limitations of the study Organisation
of the thesis
REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4. Socio-economic
characteristics of dairy farmers Socio-psychological
characteristics of dairy farmers Constraint / disadvantages in the
three procurement systems Satisfaction of the dairy farmers in the
three procurement system
III.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. 3.5. 3.6. 3.7. Locale
of research Selection of respondents Design of study Selection of
variables for the study Operationalisation of variables and their
measurements Method of data collection Statistical techniques
used
IV.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Chapter No. 4.1.
Title Genesis development and functioning of vendor,
co-operative and integrated milk procurement systems Change over of
the procurement system among the respondents Profile of milk
producers in the three procurement systems Benefits obtained by the
diary farmers in three systems The satisfaction/disadvantages as
perceived by the dairy farmers in the three systems Strategy for
the respondents
Page No. 34-37
4.2.
37-41
4.3. 4.4. 4.5. 4.6. V.
41-54 54-57 57-61 61-62 63-70 64-69 69-70 70 71-73
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. Salient findings
Implications of the study Future area of research
REFERENCES
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. 1.1. to 1.3. 1.4. to 1.6. 3.1. 4.1. to 4.3. 4.4. 4.5.
4.6.
Title
Between Pages 5-6
Picture showing collection of milk and marketing by un-organised
dairy sector - vendor system
Picture showing milk collection and testing by organised dairy
sector - cooperative and integrated ystem Map showing the study
area Picture showing milk market, details on gate fees for market
and the consumers
5-6
20-21 35-36
Mode of operation of Traditional marketing system Mode of
operation of vendor system Mode of operation of Salem - Namakkal
District co-operative union Mode of operation of integrated system
(Hatsun Agro Limited) Picture showing milking and collection of
milk at farm by vendor
35-36 35-36 36-37
4.7.
37-38
4.8. to 4.9.
57-58
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. 3.1. 4.1.
Title
Page No. 25 37
Variables and their measurements Distribution of respondents
based on shift from one system to other systems Distribution of
dairy farmers, shifted from one system of procurement to other
system Reasons for shifting to vendor system from other systems
Reasons for shifting to co-operative system from vendor system
Reasons for shifting to integrated system from other systems
Frequency distribution of dairy farmers according to their
educational status Frequency distribution of dairy farmers
according to their occupational status Frequency distribution of
dairy farmers according to their level of dairy farming experience
Frequency distribution of dairy farmers according to their level of
land holdings
4.2.
38
4.3. 4.4. 4.5. 4.6.
39 40 41 42
4.7.
43
4.8.
44
4.9.
44
4.10. Frequency distribution of dairy farmers according to their
level of herd size 4.11. Frequency distribution of dairy farmers
according to their level of dairy income 4.12. Frequency
distribution of dairy farmers according to their level of credit
behavior
45
46
47
Table No.
Title
Page No. 48
4.13. Frequency distribution of dairy farmers according to their
level of investment on dairy husbandry 4.14. Frequency distribution
of dairy farmers according to their level of extension agency
contact 4.15. Frequency distribution of dairy farmers according to
their level of mass media exposure 4.16. Frequency distribution of
dairy farmers according to their level of economic motivation 4.17.
Frequency distribution of dairy farmers according to their level of
aspiration 4.18 Comparison of profile of dairy farmers in three
procurement systems based on Analysis of variance 4.19. Critical
differences for the variables having significant difference. 4.20.
Distribution of respondents availing input services under the three
procurement systems 4.21. Distribution of respondents as per their
perceived benefits in different procurement systems 4.22.
Distribution of respondents as per satisfaction in different
procurement systems 4.23. Distribution of respondents as per
dissatisfaction in different procurement systems.
49
50
51
52
53
54 55
56
58
60
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTIONAll living creatures on this earth need
food for its growth, supply of energy, maintenance, recovery from
diseases and for reproduction. Apart from the above vital
functions, food in case of human beings also serve to titillate the
sense of taste and appetite to a remarkable degree. These
requirements are met from varied sources, all of which contribute
to the diet depending on nutritive value. Milk is one such source
which plays an indispensable role in the nutrition of human beings.
After weaning, throughout the growth phase and into the adult stage
milk continues to hold its place in human diet either as fluid milk
or in the form of products. In the period of sickness or
convalescence when most other forms of food are unacceptable, dairy
products are depended upon to provide the needed nutrition. Milk
has carbohydrates and milk fat which serves as a ready source of
energy. Milk protein compares very well with the standard reference
protein proposed by FAO / WHO and even surpasses it to great extent
(Mathur et al., 1999). On the other hand milk is a good source of
minerals, particularly of calcium and phosphorous which are
important in the formation of teeth and bone in an ideal ratio for
optimum utilization. It also contains most of the vitamins required
by the body in various quantities. So the milk and milk products
become vital for human beings because of its nutritional character.
This wholesome nutritious food should be ensured to all. Today,
India is the largest producer of milk and its output is projected
at 78 million tonnes for the year 1998. Even in this situation the
per capita availability is placed at around 220 gm / day and
further per capta daily intake ranges widely across the country
from 20 gm in eastern region to 400 gm in northern region,
indicating a tremendous gap between the availability and demand for
milk (Reddy and Rao, 2000-01). Still milk continues to top all farm
commodities in terms of its contribution to the national economy
amounting to rupees 29,269 crores in 1990-91 which is higher than
that of paddy and wheat (Kolli and Kulshreshtha, 1997). Indian
agriculture is characterized by an economic symbiosis of crop and
cattle production. Milk production has been the single major
activity to provide supplementary employment and income. Majority
of the dairy farmers are landless, small and marginal farmers. The
milk before it reaches the consumers involves production,
procurement, processing and marketing. Since pre-independence the
production, procurement and marketing has undergone a tremendous
change. The changes in the production, procurement and marketing
during the course of time is very many and draws the attention of
researchers for analysis.
1.1.
Pre-independance era of milk procurement
Dairy is a good old profession in India. During the early 20th
century the dairy farmer has marketed milk and milk products
directly to consumers in the rural and semiurban areas. The direct
marketing system continues to exist in certain pockets of our
country. The increasing population and industrialization in the
late phases of 20th century headed towards increased consumerism
and direct marketing was unable to meet their needs. This lead to
the emergence of vendor system. The allocation and distribution of
milk in vendor system had many defects and the quality of milk was
poor and unhygienic. The milk sold to consumers was adulterated. In
1914, Government of India examined 1400 samples of milk in
different cities. Most of them were adulterated with water and
contaminated with dust (Ghuge and Netaji Powar, 1992).
In 1913, Bombay government passed an anti-adulteration act and
milk producers were required to obtain permits from the government.
These facts show that the consumers were exploited. On the other
hand conventional milk traders (middleman / vendor) carried out the
business by exploiting the producers by procuring milk at low
prices (Ghuge and Netaji Powar, 1992). In the same year
co-operatives and government entered dairy sector with the
objectives of supplying milk to the consumer at reasonable prices
and buying milk from the producer at fairly remunerative prices.
The Bombay government milk scheme was started in 1946 for catering
the demand for milk on co-operative lines. Similar trends were
noticed in Tamil Nadu too. Milk co-operative societies were
organized in Tamil Nadu by the State co-operative department as
early as 1920 and the first co-operative dairy with processing and
marketing facilities was established at Ayanavaram in Madras city
in 1927 (Ramanujam and Saroja, 1990). Even though co-operative mode
of operation was initiated earlier, their degree of operation was
very less when compared to conventional / vendor system, until the
initiation of "operation flood" in 1970. 1.2. Post-independence era
of milk procurement
Co-operative milk schemes were established by the government in
1951 at Arey and 1961 at Worli. These dairies were developed and
managed by the Dairy Development and Animal Husbandry Department of
Maharastra government. In Tamil Nadu, Dairy Development Department
was established in 1958 by government with aid from New Zealand.
Under the Colombo plan, a cattle colony at Madhavaram, Chennai and
a dairy processing unit with a capacity of processing 50,000 litres
of milk per day was established in 1963. In 1967, a similar
processing plant was established at Madurai, with the funds from
UNICEF (Ramanujam and Saroja, 1990). The governments' experience in
this field was not encouraging as the managements were inefficient
and the amount lost increased over a period of time. So as a part
of operation flood phase I the government decided to hand over milk
distribution to the milk producers themselves (Ghuge and Netajii,
1992).
Under the operation flood programmes Anand pattern dairy
co-operatives were established. Based on the fruits of Anand
pattern, the government expanded similar societies throughout the
nation. To go ahead with the above work, government established
National Diary Development Board in 1965 and Indian Dairy
Corporation in 1970 to implement a well known programe "operation
flood". This resulted in Anand pattern dairy co-operatives all over
the nation linking rural milk producers with urban milk consumers,
so as to balance the milk production and marketing. This ultimately
reduced the harassment of middlemen at the level of producers as
well as the consumers.
The Anand pattern resulted in white revolution, ultimately
placing India as the world's largest producer of milk in the global
map of dairying. It has improved the overall socio-economic status
of rural Indian (Dilip, 1980) and also made the milk available in
urban centres regularly, with a better quality at a better price to
the consumers (Jain, 1987).
In the year 1994 - 95 the Anand pattern dairy co-operatives had
69,600 Milk Producers Co-operative Societies (MPCS) with 90 lakh
members procuring about 3,72,3000 tonnes of milk per year (Dairy
India, 1997). Tamilnadu Co-operative Milk Producers Federation
(TCMPF) had 10,554 Primary Milk Producers Co-operative Societies
(MPCS) and 27.73 lakh members pouring 16.65 lakh litre per day
(www.tn.gov.in). 1.3. Present situation of dairy sector
With the great success of Anand Pattern dairy co-operatives, the
government of India announced new economic policies under the
guidelines of the World Bank in 1991. The new economic policy
namely liberalization, privatization and globlisation was
implemented by the Government of India. Dairy industry is no
exception to this. The essential element of the new economic policy
related to dairy industry is that of procurement and production of
milk and milk products which had been largely reserved to
co-operatives and is now open to all (Sood, 1992-93). After the
implementation of new economic policy, the Anand pattern dairy
cooperatives started to face stiff competition from the private
dairies at procurement to the marketing level. At the national
level food giants like Nestle, Smithline, Hindustan Lever, Heritage
etc., are operating at a large scale. In this sector 5500 lakh
rupees of equity has been invested by private dairy companies
namely Anmol Dairy Ltd., Thapar Milk Products Ltd., Vadilal Dairy
International Ltd. and JK dairy Foods Ltd., in the year 1994
(Deshpande, 1994). Even with this remarkable change in the Indian
dairy scenario the conventional / middle man / vendor procurement
system continues to survive on its own without any support from
government over decades. The traditional sector supplied 82 million
litres per day (82 per cent of urban milk supply) for the year
1995, and projected to supply 110 million litres per day (78 per
cent urban milk supply) for the year 2000 (Dairy India, 1997). This
data on dairy sector reveals the importance of vendor system
(Figure 1.1 to 1.3). While the organized sector (co-operative /
government department and private sector) supplied 18 million
litres per day (18 per cent urban milk supply) for the year 1995 to
meet the urban demand and it was projected to supply 30 million
litres per day (22 per cent of urban milk supply) in the year 2000
(Figure 1.4 to 1.6).
Many private dairies on contract agreement with dairy farmers
started to operate, in the form of integrator. These integrators
supply various inputs to diary farmers and the dairy farmer inturn
sells his milk to the integrator. The integrator finally processes
the procured milk from dairy farmers and sells it on his own to the
consumers. This type of integration from production to marketing is
referred to as vertical integration (Narahari., et al, 2000). The
degree of integration varies from one private dairy to another. The
TCMPF started facing hectic competition from the private dairies.
Hatsun Agro limited at Salem, Namakkal and Kancheepuram, Kwality
milk foods limited at Kancheepuram, Vijay dairy at Trichy,
Nagapatinam and Kumbakonam, Winner dairy at Pondicherry and
Villupuram, Akshaya dairy at Salem and Erode are the private
dairies operating on contract agreement with the dairy farmers as
an integrator. Other than these, many private dairies also operate
with the support of vendors. Namakkal district of Tamil Nadu is
unique in relation to dairy industry. It falls under Salem-Namakkal
district co-operative milk producers union which is the highest
procuring (2.87 lakh litres per day) District Milk Producers Union
for TCMPF. The largest private dairy "Hatsun" owing to sixty per
cent of private dairy market in Tamil Nadu is operating as
integrator in this locality (Financial Express, 15 Feb 2002). The
vendor system also operates in this area. The above situation
necessitates to understand the procurement pattern among the
vendor, co-operative and integrated system. Also the advantages,
benefits and level of satisfaction among dairy farmers in the three
procurement systems need to be analysed to understand the nature of
procurement agencies and its members in a systematic manner. Most
studies done earlier were on impact of dairy co-operatives. It was
hence attempted to compare the impact of the three procurement
systems in Namakkal district. With this in view the present
pioneering research entitled "Comparative analysis on vendor, co-
operative and integrated systems on dairy farmers" was proposed
with the following specific objectives. 1.4. Objectives of the
study The following are the specific objectives for the study. 1.
2. 3. To study the profile of the dairy farmers in all the three
systems. To analyse the benefits obtained by the dairy farmers in
the three systems. To ascertain the disadvantages / satisfaction as
perceived by the respondents in the three systems.
4. 1.5.
To propose a strategy for the respondents. Scope of the
study
The present investigation is the first of its kind in the State
of Tamil Nadu. This is a pioneering effort aimed at investigating
the nature of vendor, co-operative and integrated systems at the
procurement level. This study will bring to lime light the social,
psychological and economical characters of dairy farmers in the
three procurement systems. The outcome of the study will be useful
to procurement agencies in dairy sector and help the policy makers
and administrators to modify the strategies if necessary and to
procure milk in an efficient manner. The study would also focus
various benefits of the three systems. The constraints in the
existing pattern of procurement could well be understood and would
help to suggest means to choose a better system. 1.6. Limitations
of the study
The study suffered from the usual limitations inherent with the
limitations of time, physical facilities and conveyance as any
scientific investigation undertaken by a student researcher in
social science. Since the study was confined to a district,
generalization of the results has only limited applications.
1.7.
Organisation of the thesis The study has been divided into the
following chapters.
Chapter I
:
General introduction, objectives, scope and limitations of the
study are explained.
Chapter II
:
Review of the related studies are discussed.
Chapter III
:
Methodology and tools of analysis used are explained.
Chapter IV
:
Results and findings are discussed and a strategy proposed.
Chapter V
:
Summary and conclusions are presented with policy
implications
Having these ideas in mind, relevant literatures related
directly and indirectly to the present investigation was reviewed
and presented in the succeeding chapter.
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATUREA comprehensive review of
literature is a part and parcel of almost all scientific
researches. It is a continuous process. Perusal of the available
literature is of great importance in gaining an insight into the
research problem under the study. It further helps in the
interpretation of the findings. The literature pertaining to the
integrated and vendor system are scanty. Literatures specific to
the study of dairy integration in India was not came across by the
investigator. Hence the literature that are related are reviewed
and presented in the following sub heads :
2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4.
Socio-economic characteristics of dairy farmers
Socio-psychological characteristics of dairy farmers Constraints /
disadvantages in the three procurement systems Satisfaction of the
dairy farmers in the three procurement systems
2.1. 2.1.1.
Socio economic characteristics of dairy farmers Education
Chakravarthy and Reddy (1982) found that about half (46.4 per
cent) of the members of Primary Milk Producers Co-operative Society
(PMPCS) were illiterate. On the other hand almost the same
percentage had studies in schools. A negligible number had college
level of education (three per cent). About seven per cent reported
that they were literate, although they did not have any formal
education in Ananthapur district of Andhra Pradesh.
Gopalakrishnaiah (1984) found that among members of MPCS 50 per
cent of the respondents studied upto middle school, followed by
illiterates (46 per cent) and rest of them studied upto high school
and college.
Rani (1990) observed that the 54.55 per cent of members of MPCS
were illiterates and 45.47 per cent had education between
elementary and middle school.
Subramanian (1992) observed that 86 per cent of the members of
MPCS were educated upto middle school level. On the other hand 84
per cent were educated between primary and middle school level in
non-MPCS village.
Rao (1992) observed that 45 per cent of the members of MPCS were
illiterates followed by primary (20 per cent) school level
education.
Nisha (1996) found that majority (41 per cent) of the members in
dairy cooperatives were illiterates. More or less equal
distribution was found in primary and high school educated
category. Very few had higher secondary and collegiate
education.
Rao (1997) found that 41.33 per cent milk producers of MPCS area
had primary level of education, while 31.33 per cent were
illiterate followed by high school level (24.67 per cent) and
collegiate level of education (2.67 per cent). He also observed
that 36 per cent were illiterate, followed by 34 per cent with
primary level, 27 per cent with high school level and three per
cent with college education in non-MPCS area.
FAO (2001) observed that educated farmers seemed to prefer
growing broilers under partnership with integrator as contract
farmers. Around 93.64 per cent poultry farmers were educated upto a
minimum level of primary education in integrated system and in
non-partnership only 86.67 per cent were educated similarly. In
case of layer farming both integrator and non-partnership farmers
were educated upto secondary level or collegiate level. 2.1.2.
Occupation
Patel et al. (1975) reported that majority (76.67 per cent) of
the members of dairy co-operatives had dairying as subsidiary
occupation. Chakravarthy and Reddy (1982) revealed that the primary
occupation reported by two-thirds of the members of dairy
co-operatives was cultivation, followed by 13 per cent as
agricultural labour and two per cent dairying. The remaining 17 per
cent was involved in various occupations such as business
contracts, and teaching. Rao (1992) reported that the majority
(52.5 per cent) of the members of dairy co-operatives were engaged
in cultivation followed by labour (34.17 per cent), caste
occupation (10.83 per cent) and services (2.5 per cent). Nisha
(1996) revealed that majority (81 per cent) of the members of dairy
cooperatives were practicing dairying as a subsidiary occupation to
agriculture and home management. Less than one fourth of the
respondents (19 per cent) were practicing
dairying as their primary occupation next to home management.
FAO (2001) concluded that in broiler farming nearly two-thirds
(62.02 per cent) of the farmers under integrator had agriculture as
primary occupation whereas 78.48 per cent had poultry as secondary
occupation. Among non-partnership or independent farmers 76.67 per
cent of the farmers had poultry as primary occupation while 23.33
per cent had other than poultry (agriculture and dairy) as
secondary occupation. 2.1.3. Dairy farming experience
FAO (2001) study found that the broiler farmer under integrated
system on an average had 6.8 years of experience in poultry whereas
independent poultry farmers on an average had 11.19 years of
experience. Layer farmers under integrated system on an average had
9.91 years of experience in poultry whereas independent poultry
farmers on an average had 14.42 years of experience. 2.1.4. Land
holding
Chakravarthy and Reddy (1982) reported that 17 per cent of the
members of MPCS were landless, 29 per cent marginal, 32 per cent
small and 22 per cent big farmers. Gopalakrishnaiah (1984)
concluded that majority of the members in milk producers
co-operative (51.12 per cent) belonged to the category of marginal
farmers followed by small (28.88 per cent) and big farmers (20 per
cent). Subramanian (1992) reported that 60 per cent members of MPCS
were landless, 36 per cent marginal and two per cent small farmers.
On the other hand 60 per cent were landless, 32 per cent marginal,
and eight per cent small farmers in non MPCS area. Rao (1992)
confirmed that majority (97.5 per cent) of the members of MPCS were
landless agricultural labourers. Nisha (1996) observed that over
one-third (39 per cent) of the members of dairy co-operatives were
landless. Marginal and small farmers were more or less evenly
distributed while eight per cent had land holding of more than five
acres.
Rao (1997) found that 38 per cent of milk producers were medium
size farmers having between five and ten acres of land followed by
26 per cent small farmers possessing upto five acres of land, 26
per cent large farmers with above 10 acres of land and 10 per cent
landless in MPCS area. In non-MPCS area, 50 per cent milk producers
were small farmers followed by 18 per cent each large and landless
and 14 per cent medium farmers.
FAO (2001) study revealed that the broiler farmers under
integrated system owned more land holdings on an average than the
farmers who grew broilers independently. A similar trend was
noticed in both these systems among layer farmers.
2.1.5.
Herd size
Gopalakrishnaiah (1984) opined that majority of the members of
dairy cooperatives (46.66 per cent) fell in the medium category
followed by large (33.34 per cent) and small herd size (20 per
cent).
Rao (1992) observed that the majority (77.5 per cent) of the
respondents fell under the category of medium herd size followed by
small (12.5 per cent) and large (10 per cent) herd size
categories.
Rao (1997) opined that 70.67 per cent of respondents possessed
medium herd size followed by 20 per cent high and 9.33 per cent low
in MPCS area. In non-MPCS area 66 per cent of respondents had
medium herd size followed by 24 per cent low and 10 per cent
high.
FAO (2001) observed that majority (41 per cent) of the broiler
farmers under integrated system owned medium size farms, and 21 per
cent large farms whereas among non-partnership or independent
farmers majority (43.33 per cent) owned small farms and 30 per cent
owned medium farms. Among layer farmers under integrated system
over one-half (53.33 per cent) owned medium size farms, while 26.67
per cent owned large farms whereas in case of independent farmers
38.89 per cent owned medium size farms and 31.94 per cent owned
small farms. 2.1.6. Dairy income
Patel et al. (1975) observed that gross income per milch animal
was significantly higher in case of the milk-producers in MPCS
villages than that in the control villages. The average gross
income from dairying in co-operative area was 2178 rupees per annum
but in non co-operative area it was 1385 rupees per annum.
Naidu et al. (1992) concluded that all the farmers had
significantly been benefited by way of increased income through
dairying after joining the society. He further noticed a 25.5 per
cent increase in dairy income for marginal farmers and 22.5 per
cent increase for the small farmers. Subramanian (1992) revealed
that the landless, landed and pooled category of milk producers in
the society village earned significantly more gross income than
their counterparts in the control village. Dayakar et al. (1995)
found that there is an increase in gross dairy income in comparison
with the non-beneficiaries of operation flood programme. The
average gross income for beneficiaries was 7709.28 rupees per annum
but in case of non-beneficiaries it was only 4173.82 rupees. Rao
and Singh (1995) stated that the net income obtained by the
beneficiary household of dairy co-operatives was positive and
higher than that of the non beneficiary households due to various
facilities and services provided by the dairy co-operatives in the
study area. Gross income in case of members of co-operatives was
rupees 4553.21 per annum and 2637.66 rupees in case of
non-beneficiaries of cooperative system. 2.1.7. Credit
behaviour
Subramanian (1992) found that milk producers of the society and
nonmembers of the society were found to utilise credit more or less
equally. FAO (2001) revealed that the broiler farmers under
integrated system were less dependant on financing organisations.
Only 46.83 per cent had the tendency to borrow money. On the other
hand 70 per cent of the independent farmers had the tendency to
borrow money. Among layer farmers under integrated system 89.66 per
cent had availed credit facility while 97.22 per cent of
independent farmers availed credit. 2.1.8. Investment
Subramanian (1992) stated that the average investment on dairy
enterprise by different category of milk producers ranged from
rupees 4,533 to 10,450. The landless, landed as well as the pooled
category of MPCS village were found to have invested significantly
on the dairy enterprise than that of the same category of milk
producers of the non-MPCS village.
2.2. 2.2.1.
Socio-psychological characteristics of dairy farmers Extension
agency contact
Gopalakrishnaiah (1984) observed that majority of the members of
MPCS fell in the medium category in terms of their contact with
extension agency. Rao (1992) found that majority (82.5 per cent) of
the members of milk producers co-operative society had medium level
of extension agency contact followed by low (10 per cent) and high
(7.5 per cent) levels.
Rao (1997) concluded that majority (70.67 per cent) of the
respondents had medium level of extension contact and the rest had
high level of extension contact in MPCS area. In non - MPCS area 86
per cent had medium level of extension contact and the rest had low
level of extension contact.
2.2.2.
Mass media exposure
Rao (1982) opined that majority of the beneficiaries of MPCS and
nonbeneficiary of MPCS had uniform level of media
participation.
Gopalakrishnaiah (1984) observed that majority (46.66 per cent)
of cooperative members fell in the medium category followed by high
and low in terms of their mass-media exposure.
Subramanian (1992) revealed that the members of MPCS had high
level of mass media exposure when compared to control village and
the dairy farmers of non cooperatives had low level of mass media
exposure.
Nisha (1996) observed that over one-half (53 per cent) of the
members of dairy co-operatives had low level of mass media
exposure.
Rao (1997) concluded that medium level of mass media exposure
was exhibited by majority (85.33 per cent) of the respondents while
the rest had high mass media exposure in MPCS area. In non-MPCS
area, 95 percent had medium level of mass media exposure and the
rest had high level of mass media exposure. 2.2.3. Economic
motivation
Gopalakrishnaiah (1984) concluded that majority of the members
of PMPCS fell in the medium category in terms of economic
motivation.
2.2.4.
Level of aspiration
Subramanian (1982) revealed that the members of MPCS had medium
level of aspiration. Rao (1992) revealed that majority of the
members of MPCS had medium level of aspirations. Only 11.67 per
cent of the respondents had high aspiration. 2.3. Constraint /
disadvantages in the three procurement systems
Chakravarthy and Reddy (1982) observed that 26.6 per cent of
members of MPCS felt that lack of fodder / cattle feed, and
consequently their inability to feed the cattle properly was the
reason for loss of interest in the society. Also founded that high
cost of inputs mainly feeds and defective milk testing as
constraints / problems of members in MPCS. More than one fourth
(26.0 per cent) of members of PMPCS mentioned low price for milk
offered by the society as one of the reasons for loss of interest
in the society. Rao (1982) observed that 53.84 per cent of members
of MPCS found inadequate supply of feed and fodder as a problem.
And 15.38 per cent of the members of MPCS perceived inadequate
provision of loans for the purchase of milch cattle as a problem.
And 7.69 per cent members of the MPCS felt that there is
malpractice in measurement of SNF and fat. And 7.69 per cent of
members of MPCS perceived delay in payment as a problem. And 100
per cent of the members of milk producers cooperative society found
low price for milk per litre as a problem. Gopalakrishnaiah and
Pochaiah (1989) reported that 55.50 percent of members of MPCS felt
inadequate supply of feed and fodder as a problem. And 13.30 per
cent of the members MPCS perceived delay in payment of cost of milk
as a problem. Also 10 per cent of the members of MPCS perceived non
- provision of loans for purchase of milk animals as a problem.
Also found that 73 per cent of the members of PMPCS perceived `low
price' for milk as a main problem. Thirunavukkarasu et al. (1992)
found that inadequate veterinary service and financial assistance
to the farmers in the milk producers co-operative society as the
chief constraint. Among the members of MPCS low procurement prices
for the milk and poor quality of feeds supplied by the federation
as constraints. Rao (1997) found that non-availability of balanced
concentrate mixture and feed / fodder shortage as a constraint by
12 per cent and 6.6 per cent of members of MPCS respectively. Also
observed that 41.3 per cent of members of MPCS perceived lack of
financial assistance for purchase of high milk producing dairy
animals as a problem. Also observed that non-remunerative price for
milk was the major constraint perceived by 84 per cent of the milk
producers in MPCS area.
2.4.
Satisfaction of the dairy farmers in the three procurement
systems
Patel et al. (1975) reported that 30.67 per cent of members of
MPCS favoured milk-co-operatives because of the reason that it
offers higher price for milk. He also found that 19 per cent of
members of MPCS favoured milk-co-operatives because of regular and
prompt payment and 52 per cent of respondents felt that society was
helpful in generating stable income. Rani (1990) revealed that
large producers availed more input facilities at maximum quantity
compared to medium and small producers. Rao (1992) observed that
majority (69.17 per cent) of the members of MPCS availed inputs and
services facilitated to a medium extent followed by low (27.3 per
cent) and high (13.35 per cent) categories. FAO (2001) observed
that the reasons for being comfortable with the integrator was
extending technical know-how. Among layer farmers the reason for
being comfortable with the integrator was cheaper and timely credit
in addition to extending technical know-how. Also observed that
broiler farmers opinion for being comfortable with the integrator
was less risk, less recurring expenses, timely supply of quality
inputs and renumerative price. The layer farmers opinion on reasons
for being comfortable with the integrator was timely supply of
quality inputs and remunerative price. It could be derived from the
literature that most research studies done earlier was in relation
to dairy co-operative and non-cooperative areas. The researcher has
not came across any specific reference to vendor system. However
one study related to poultry was made in integrated system. These
studies revealed that most members of dairy co-operatives were
illiterates having dairy as subsidiary occupation with 6 to 8 years
of farming experience. Majority were landless or marginal land
holders possessing medium herd size, having a significant level of
dairy income, with low credit behaviour and medium level of
extension agency contact, mass media exposure and level of
aspiration. Lack of fodder/cattle feed, high cost of inputs,
defective milk testing, low price for milk, inadequate provision of
loan and veterinary services were the constraints recorded. However
higher price for milk, regular and prompt payment and generating
stable income were the areas of satisfaction perceived by members
of co-operative. In case of integrator extending technical
know-how, cheaper and timely credit facilities were the perceived
benefits. The review of literature helped the investigator to
comprehend the results of the earlier studies related to the
present field of research. The concepts were operationalised and
the methodology so evolved has been presented in the next
chapter.
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGYThis chapter deals with the
research methods, procedures, tools and statistical tests used in
the study under the following sub heads: 3.1. Locale of research
3.2. Selection of the respondents 3.3. Design of the study 3.4.
Selection of variables for the study 3.5. Operationalisation of
variables and their measurements 3.6. Method of data collection
3.7. Statistical techniques used 3.1. 3.1.1. Locale of research
Selection of the study area
Namakkal district of Tamil Nadu (Figure 3.1) was selected for
the study, because of the following reasons. i. Namakkal district
falls under the Salem-Namakkal district co-operative milk producers
union, which is procuring the highest amount of milk (2.87 lakh
litres) per day in Tamil Nadu. One of the major private dairies
having 60 per cent of private dairy sector market in Tamil Nadu
namely Hatsun Agro Limited is operating on contract agreement with
the farmers as dairy integrators in this district (Financial
Express, 15 Feb 2002). All the three systems of milk procurement
namely vendor, co-operative and integrated systems are operating in
this area.
ii.
iii.
3.1.2.
Description of study area
Namakkal district is situated 11' and 12'.55" of the northern
latitude and 77'.28" and 78'.50" of the eastern longitude. The
altitude of the district is 300 meters above mean sea level. It is
situated between the dividing portion of two watersheds Cauvery and
the Vellar. The Kolli hills, few isolated hills and ridges
scattered over Namakkal district along with valleys and rolling
topography contributes to the characteristic physiography of the
district. The total area of the district is 3363 sq.km., having a
population of 13.22 lakhs with a population density of 393 persons
per sq.km.. Among this 48.4 per cent are literates. 3.1.2.1. Soil
type Five major types of soil namely calcareous, red
non-calcareous, black calcareous, alluvial and hill soils exist. Of
the above soils the red and black calcareous occupies more than 35
per cent of the total area of this district. 3.1.2.2. Rainfall The
mean annual rainfall is about 749.3 mm. The maximum precipitation
is contributed by the south-west monsoon (45 per cent) followed by
north-east monsoon (33 per cent). 3.1.2.3. Climate The hottest
months are between April and August. With the setting of monsoon,
the temperature drops steadily and the weather becomes pleasant.
The maximum temperature is 37.0C and minimum is 18.0C. 3.1.2.4.
Irrigation Ordinary wells and canals are the main source of
irrigation for this district, besides numerous minor irrigation
sources. Of the total area under irrigation, about 70.66 per cent
is irrigated by ordinary wells, 23.74 per cent by canals, 4.24 per
cent by tanks, 0.14 per cent by tube wells and 1.22 per cent by
other sources. 3.1.2.5. Land use pattern The total geographical
area of the district is 3.36 lakh hectares. Of this net area sown
is 1.95 lakh hectares. 0.439 lakh hectares of area is under forest
cover and 0.247 lakh hectares barren and uncultivable land. Land
put to non-agricultural use is 0.326
lakh hectares. Permanent pastures and grazing lands account to
only 6969 hectares of land. 3.1.2.6. Cropping pattern Groundnut and
millets are grown as the main crops. The other important crops are
paddy, pulses, tubers, sugarcane etc. The gross and net area sown
were 27.32 lakh hectares and 19.50 lakhs hectares. 3.1.2.7. Cattle
population and their production The selected district, Namakkal had
2,08,757 white cattle and 2,81,727 black cattle according to 1994
livestock and poultry census. The milk production in this district
was 14.38 million litres in the year 2000 - 2001 which is valued at
1674.44 lakh rupees (District statistical handbook, 2000 - 2001).
3.1.2.8. Rural institutions This district has seven Primary Land
Development Banks, 163 Primary Agricultural Credit Societies other
than the nationalised banks, 421 Milk Producers Cooperative
Societies, and one Veterinary College and Research Institute. 3.2.
Selection of respondents
Out of the 15 blocks in Nammakkal district one block namely
Namagiripet was selected since it had the highest milk procurement
by co-operatives for the year 1999 (Source : Registrar office of
dairy co-operatives, Namakkal district). One village Panchayat
namely Mangalapuram village Panchayat was selected in Namagiripet
block based on better distribution of the three procurement systems
in comparison with other village panchayats. A total of 150
respondents constituting 50 respondents each from vendor,
co-operative and integrated systems of milk procurement were
selected randomly within the five wards of Mangalapuram village
panchayat.
3.3.
Design of the study
The research design employed for the present study was ex-post
facto design. This research design was used for conducting the
study since the variables chosen have already occurred. The vendor
and co-operative systems of procurement are operating in the study
area since many decades. The integrated system on contract
agreement with dairy farmers is comparatively new and is in
existence for the last eight years in the study area. 3.4 Selection
of variables for the study
After a detailed search from literature and discussion with the
experts, 21 variables were listed to study the profile of the
respondents. The variables listed were further subjected to
experts' opinion on a five point continuum scale ranging from most
relevant to non relevant. From the opinions expressed by experts,
12 variables based on mean and co-variance were selected for the
study.
3.5.
Operationalisation of variables and their measurements
The operationalisation and procedure followed for the
measurement of each variable are presented in this section. The
variables along with the instruments used for measurement are
abstracted in Table 3.1.
3.5.1.
Definitions
3.5.1.1. Respondent
The respondent for the study is one who is involved in dairy
farming which includes management of animals, health care and
marketing. The dairy farmer should also be associated with any one
of the three milk procurement systems namely vendor, co-operative
and the integrated.
3.5.1.2. Vendor system
It refers to the system of organisation where an individual
middle man purchases milk from dairy farmers and sells to the
consumers.
3.5.1.3. Co-operative system In this study it is the form of
organisation wherein the dairy farmers voluntarily associate
themselves as members on the basis of equality for the promotion of
their socio-economic well being, i e. Primary Milk Producers
Co-operative Society.
3.5.1.4. Integrated system
Integration is the association, co-ordination and amalgamation
of companies engaged in various stages of production of a
particular product or related products, so that there will be a
smooth flow of inputs and outputs, from one unit to other, leading
to an overall reduction in the cost of production of the final
product (Narahari et al., 2000).
In this study integrated system means the association of
resources, coordination of dairy related activities, amalgamation
of dairy production at varying levels in various stages of the
production upto marketing by a private firm. This system is also
referred to as " contract farming" and the farmer is referred to as
"contract farmer". Table 3.1. Variables and their measurements Sl.
No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Education Occupation
Dairy farming experience Land holding Herd size Dairy income Credit
behaviour Investment Socio-psychological variables Extension agency
contact Mass media exposure Economic motivation Level of aspiration
Scale developed by Balasubramanian (1980) with modification
Schedule developed Scale developed by Ray (1969) with modification
Schedule developed Variables Socio-economic variables Procedure
followed by Sudeepkumar (1992) Schedule developed Procedure
followed by Sudeepkumar (1992) Procedure followed by Maheswaran
(1993) Animal units developed by Ensminger (1980) Procedure
followed by Subramanian (1982) Schedule developed Scale developed
by Subramanian(1982) Measurements
3.5.2.
Socio-economic variables
3.5.2.1. Education
Refers to the ability to read and write and the number of years
of formal education put in by the respondent at the time of
enquiry. It would be measured by giving `one' score for read only
and `two' score for read and write and an additional
score for completion of each year of formal education. It would
be classified as illiterate, read only, read and write, primary,
secondary, higher secondary and collegiate for the purpose of
interpretation of the results, as followed by Sudeepkumar
(1992).
3.5.2.2. Occupation
It refers to the regular engagement of a person in an activity.
Considering the variation in the main and subsidiary occupations of
the respondents, the occupational status was measured and scored as
below :
Description Dairying as main occupation Dairying as subsidiary
occupation
Score 2 1
3.5.2.3. Dairy farming experience
Refers to the total number of years of direct experience the
respondent had in rearing the dairy animals. The actual number of
completed years of experience in dairy farming would be taken into
account for analysis and it was ascertained from the respondents
through direct questioning as followed by Sudeepkumar (1992).
3.5.2.4. Land holding
It refers to the area of wet / dry areas of land in acres owned
and cultivated by the respondent at the time of enquiry. The total
extent of land would be arrived at by using a conversion procedure
of equating two acres of dry land to one acre of irrigated land and
one score would be assigned to every one acre of irrigated land as
followed by Maheswaran (1993). The respondents were classified
based on the extent of holdings as follows.
Land size 0 0.01 upto 2.5 acres 2.51 to 5.00 acres 5.01 acres
and above Landless
Category
Marginal farmers Small farmers Big farmers
3.5.2.5. Herd size
In this study herd size is operationalised as the total number
of milch animals both white and black cattle possessed by the
respondents at the time of enquiry. In the present study herd size
was arrived at by taking the number of milch animal per household
at the time of investigation and each milch animal would be given
score as suggested by Ensminger (1980).
Type of livestock Cow, with or without calf at foot Young cattle
one to two years Weaned calves to yearlings
Animal unit 1 0.8 0.6
3.5.2.6. Dairy income
Dairy income refers to the gross income of the respondent
through dairying alone. The gross income was worked out based on
the value of milk produced, sale of livestock and farm yard manure
from milch animal as followed by Subramanian (1982). For every one
thousand rupees of annual income through dairying a score of `one'
would be assigned.
3.5.2.7. Credit behaviour
In this study it refers to the source from which a farmer
obtained credit for the purpose of dairying. The rate of interest
charged for the loan obtained was taken as the main criteria in
deciding the score. The more the interest charged, lesser was the
score and vice-versa. A suitable schedule was developed and the
scoring procedure and categorisation followed is given below.
Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4.
Credit Source Professional money lender Private finance
institutions National banks Co-operative banks
Score 1 2 3 4
3.5.2.8. Investment
It refers to the amount invested on the dairy animals, building
equipment and their related aspects of the dairying. Every one
thousand rupees of investment would be given a unit score as
followed by Subramanian (1982). The socio-economic variables namely
dairy farming experience, herd size, dairy income and investment
were categorised into low, medium and high categories of intervals
based on mean and standard deviation.
3.5.3.
Socio - psychological variables
3.5.3.1. Extension agency contact
Refers to the degree to which the respondent contacted the
extension agency in order to get information on dairy husbandry,
non-dairy animal husbandry activities, agriculture and personal
needs. Extension agency means Veterinary Surgeon, Extension Officer
of animal husbandry, Agricultural Officer, Assistant Agricultural
Officer, Block Development Officer, and specialists from research
stations/University. The scoring procedure adopted by Balasubramian
(1980) was used with slight modification in respect of the purpose
of contact. The scoring procedure followed is given below.
Frequency of contact Once a year Once in 6 months Once in 3
months Monthly once Fortnighlty once Weekly more than once
Score 1 2 3 4 5 6
Purpose of contact Dairy farming alone Non-dairy animal
husbandry Agricultural Personal
Score 3 2 1 0
The frequency and purpose scores were multiplied to arrive at
individual score of extension agency contact.
3.5.3.2. Mass media exposure Refers to the degree to which an
individual is exposed to mass media viz., radio, television,
newspapers, magazines, leaflets, bulletins, films and exhibitions
with respect to information on dairying. A suitable schedule was
developed and the following scoring procedure was adopted. Watching
animal husbandry related programmes in television Frequency Twice a
week Once a week Twice a fortnight Once a fortnight Rarely Never
Score 5 4 3 2 1 0 Hearing animal husbandry related programmes in
radio Frequency Every day Twice a week Once a week Once a fortnight
Rarely Never Score 5 4 3 2 1 0
Reading farm magazines,leaflets, bulletins, etc. or hearing
others reading them Frequency Score Regularly 2 Occassionally 1
Never 0
Attending mass contact programmes and exhibitions Frequency Nil
Once a year Twice a year Three or more times Score 0 1 2 3
3.5.3.3. Economic motivation Economic motivation is
operationalised in terms of profit maximization and relative value
placed by an individual on economic ends. In this study six
positive statements constructed related to economic motivation
would be judged by the respondent on a five point continuum scale
as followed by Ray (1969) with slight modification. The strongly
agree was given a score of four, agree was given a score of three
and undecided was given a score of two. On the other hand disagree
was given a score of one and strongly disagree was given a score of
zero.
3.5.3.4. Level of aspiration
In this study it is operationalised as the respondents
conception of prospects and expectations of the future performance.
The level of aspiration would be measured as the degree to which
the dairy farmer aspired to increase the herd size, dairy income,
animal housing and milk production in the next three years.
Level of aspiration to increase herd size, milk production and
dairy income in the next three years
Description No aspiration Increasing upto 25 per cent Increasing
25 to 50 per cent Increasing 50 to 75 per cent Increasing 75 to 100
per cent More than 100 per cent
Score 0 1 2 3 4 5
Level of aspiration to improve cattle shed in the next three
years
Description None Thatched shed Mud walled and thatched Full mud
walled and tiled Brick wall, tiled with doors Scientific housing
with cement flooring, doors etc
Score 0 1 2 3 4 5
The psychological variables namely extension agency contact,
mass media exposure, economic motivation and level of aspiration
were categorised as below based on mean and standard deviation.
Scores Sl.No 1. 2. 3. 4. Variables Low Extension agency contact
Mass media exposure Economic motivation Level of aspiration 1-5 0
12 2 Medium 6-12 1-5 13-19 3-12 High 13 6 20 13
3.5.4.
Benefits of the procurement system
This was operationalised as various input services and other
factors considered as perceived benefits by the respondents in
three procurement systems. In consultation with experts,
procurement agencies and literature, 14 input services were listed
and included for the study. The respondents were asked whether each
of the 14 input services were made available by the concerned
procurement system. A score of "one" was given for each of the
service made available by the procurement system and "zero" for
non-availability. Accordingly percentage of availability of each of
the services was worked out and presented. Among the services made
available by the procuring agency, the type of input service
availed by the respondents was presented in percentage. The nature
of service in terms of payment was also ascertained and presented.
The perceived benefits among the respondents were ascertained by
using open-ended questions. The benefits perceived by them other
than the inputs were listed by interviewing each of them. The data
collected was tabulated and percentage worked out for
interpretation. 3.5.5. Level of satisfication / disadvantages of
the procurement system
To understand the level of satisfication and disadvantage of the
procurement systems, respondents were asked to give their opinion
to a list of 16 statements related to the level of satisfication
with regard to avilablity of collection centre at short distance,
credibility, facilities, quality of veterinary services and other
inputs, risk, stable income and mutual welfare gains. Accordingly
the level of satisfication and disadvantage was worked out as
percentage. 3.6. Method of data collection
An interview schedule was prepared in English and was translated
in Tamil for easy administration. Necessary precautions were taken
to ensure that the questions in the schedule were unambiguous,
clear, complete and comprehensive. The interview schedule was
pre-tested among the three categories of respondents, who would not
form the sample for the present investigation and suitable changes
were carried out before it was finalised. The data were collected
by personal interview of the respondent by the researcher. The data
so collected were coded and tabulated for statistical analysis.
3.7. Statistical techniques used The following statistical tools
were used in the analysis. 1. 2. 3. Percentage Mean Co-variance 4.
5. 6. Standard deviation Range Analysis of variance
Having adopted the above methodology relevant data were gathered
and subjected to analysis and the outcome has been reported and
discussed in the succeeding chapter.
CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONThe findings of the present
study along with discussion in light of the objectives set forth
are presented under the following sub-heads. 4.1. Genesis,
development and functioning of vendor, co-operative and integrated
milk procurement systems Change over of the procurement system
among the respondents Profile of the milk producers in the three
procurement systems Benefits obtained by the dairy farmers in the
three procurement systems The satisfaction/disadvantages as
perceived by the respondents in the three systems Strategy for the
respondents Genesis, development and functioning of vendor,
co-operative and integrated milk procurement systems
4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5.
4.6. 4.1.
Tamil Nadu is endowed with vendor, co-operative and integrated
systems of milk procurement. A brief discussion on the origin of
these procurement systems, its progress and functioning based on
the researcher observation, discussion with farmers and consumers
are presented below. Before the early urbanisation and to some
extent even now, the dairy farmers had directly marketed milk and
its products in the rural, semiurban and urban areas. It was
generally done by the women folk. In particular to the study area,
Namakkal, weaving provides occupation to a large section of the
people. The weaving community and other sections of people who are
engaged in non-agricultural activities formed the rural market for
the dairy farmers. In this market, milk, curd, buttermilk, butter
and ghee were sold to the rural consumers at their door step. With
the increase in urbanisation, the traditional marketing system
changed its
way of marketing. In urban areas milk markets were developed
(Figure 4.1 to 4.3). Here the dairy farmers bring milk from the
farm and sell it to the consumers directly. This can be well
understood from the Figure 4.4. Traditional marketing system was
unable to face the emerging challenges due to the increased
urbanisation and increase in demand for milk. Even in this
situation a low degree of traditional marketing system exists in
Namakkal district. 4.1.1. Vendor system As a result of urbanisation
and increased demand for milk, the traditional marketing system
(selling of milk and milk products directly by the dairy farmers)
posed certain difficulties. The vendor system relieved the farmer
from the job of marketing milk and milk products. In Namakkal
district, after the decline of the traditional marketing system,
the vendors tapped the rural markets, neighbouring urban markets
and demand of dairy and dairy based industries. The vendor collects
the milk at the dairy farm. Milking is (100 per cent) done by the
vendor. The milk collected from dairy farmers either as liquid milk
or as products are sold to the consumers / private dairies. This
can be understood well from the Figure 4.5. Emergence of the
organised sector such as co-operative and integrated system forced
the vendor system to provide some type of input services to dairy
farmers. These input services and perceived disadvantages of the
organised sector made the vendor system to survive till today.
4.1.2. Co-operative system As government felt need for hygienic,
cheaper and unadulterated milk and to relieve the dairy farming
community from the harassment of vendors, "operation-flood"
programme was implemented. This resulted in improvement of
socio-economic conditions of the farmers and also facilitated
availability of better products at a cheaper price to the
consumers. The Salem-Namakkal Milk Producers Union was started on
July 10, 1978. Namakkal district falls under Salem - Namakkal
district which is procuring the highest amount of milk in Tamil
Nadu. There exists 421 MPCS in this district. Of these 21 were
dormant, and 115 were under liquidation. The co-operatives provide
various input services such as veterinary health services, supply
of feeds, extension services, artificial insemination and fodder
cuttings
to the dairy farmers who are members. In turn the dairy farmers
sell their milk to the cooperatives. The milk collected by
co-operatives is sold as liquid milk or milk products to rural and
urban markets. This can be understood well from the Figure 4.6.
4.1.3. Integrated System Implementation of new economic policy
namely liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation lead to the
participation of private sector in dairying. These policy changes
saw many private dairies at procurement, processing as well as at
marketing levels in Tamil Nadu. In Namakkal district of Tamil Nadu
a private company namely "Hatsun agro limited" started to operate
in the year 1994. It has above 60 per cent of the total private
sector market. It is procuring milk from large and small scale milk
producers of organised and unorganised dairy farms through supply
of various inputs to them through its collection centres. It also
collects milk from vendors. Hatsun agro limited has a network of
operations in about 600 villages and 450 mini dairy farms
(Thinathandhi, March 2002). It is procuring 2.90 lakh litres of
milk per day. This is exhibited in Figure 4.7.
4.2.
Change over of the procurement system among the respondents
The composition of respondents in the three procurement systems
and their reasons for shifting over if any are presented in this
section.
It could be observed from Table 4.1 that more than one-half
(57.33 per cent) had made a shift from one procurement agency to
another. This can be attributed to the fact that the respondents
considered shifting from one system to another due to personal and
economic convenience aimed at better service and profit.
Table 4.1.
Distribution of respondents based on shift from one system to
other systems n = 150
Sl. No. 1. 2.
Description Not shifted Shifted Total
No. of dairy farmers 64 86 150
Percentage 42.67 57.33 100
The rest 42.67 per cent of dairy farmers remained in the same
system of procurement from the day they began commercial milk
production. It may be due to their satisfaction over the
procurement system.
Table 4.2.
Distribution of dairy farmers, shifted from one system of
procurment to other system n = 86
Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Change over of the procurement system Vendor to integrated
system Vendor to co-operative system Co-operative to vendor system
Co-operative to integrated system Integrated to vendor system
Traditional marketing system to co-operative system Integrated to
co-operative system Total
No of dairy farmers 34 21 17 7 4 3 0 86
Percentage 39.53 24.42 19.77 8.14 4.65 3.49 0 100
Table 4.2 indicates that the major change over was the shift
from vendor to integrated system (39.53 per cent) as well as to
co-operative system (24.42 per cent). This shift is attributed to
the initial periods of formation of the above two systems and the
provision of services like artifical insemination, veterinary
services, feed supply, price based on quality of milk and assurance
of regular payment, bonus, credit facilitation and technical
inputs. These made them view integrator and co-operative systems as
better alternatives to vendor system.
It is interesting to note that a remarkable shift is noticed
from the co-operative to vendor system (19.77 per cent) and
integrated system (8.14 per cent). This shift is due to the
irregularity in payment for milk, less price for milk and reduction
in various input services to the members of co-operative system.
The rest of shift over the procurement system was meagre due to
various attributes which the respondents considered as personal and
profit oriented. Also there is no shift from integrator to
co-operative system. In case of farmers under traditional marketing
the shift was due to establishment of formation of MPCS in the
villages, which facilitated easier marketing.
4.2.1. Change over in the procurement system from co-operative
and integrated to vendor system
The Table 4.3 revealed the reasons for shifting of dairy farmers
from cooperative to vendor system.
Table 4.3.
Reasons for shifting to vendor system from other systems
Sl. No.
Reasons
No. shifted from Co-operative n = 17 9 4 3 3 1
No. shifted from Integrated n =4 2 1 1 1 -
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 5.
Irregularity of payment Distant location of collection centre
Inability to milk the animal Closure of collection centre
Restriction on milk quantity Non-availability of loan
Multiple responses not to total
Irregularity of payment for milk was the main reason for change
over from cooperative to vendor, the other reasons being distant
location of collection centres, closure of MPCS and unable to milk
the animal in that order.
Irregularity of payment for the milk, less rate for the milk,
unable to milk the animal and distant location of collection
centres were the prime reasons in the descending order for shifting
from integrated to vendor system.
4.2.2. Change over in the procurement system from vendor to
Co-operative system
The following Table 4.4 reveals the reasons for dairy farmers
shifting from vendor to co-operative system.
Table 4.4.
Reasons for shifting to co-operative system from vendor system n
= 21
Sl. NO. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Reasons Irregularity of payment Vendor discontinued Co-operative
system established Low price for milk Inappropriate measurement
No. of dairy farmers 11 4 4 1 1
Multiple responses not to total
Irregularity of payment, stoppage of procurement and initiation
of MPCS were the primary reasons for shifting from vendor system to
co-operative system.
4.2.3. Change over in the system of procurement from vendor and
co-operative to integrated system
Table 4.5 clearly indicates the reasons for shifting over to
integrated from vendor and co-operative.
The irregularity of payment, stoppage of procurement, and
unsatisfactory milk procurement price were the prime reasons in the
order stated for shifting from vendor to integrated system. The
reasons for shifting to integrated system was primarily due to
irregularity in payment by the co-operative system.
Table 4.5
Reasons for shifting to integrated system from other systems
Sl. No.
Reasons
No. shifted from Vendor (n = 34) 22 13 7 -
No. shifted from Co-operative (n = 7) 7 1
1. 2. 3. 4.
Irregularity of payment Vendor discontinued Low price paid for
milk Dissatisfaction over SNF and fat measurement
Multiple responses not to total
4.3.
Profile of milk producers in the three procurement systems
The profile of the dairy farmers in the three procurement
systems are presented in this section.
4.3.1. Education
The educational status of milk producers of vendor, co-operative
and integrated systems are presented in the Table 4.6.
The table revealed that over one half of the respondents in
vendor and cooperative systems were educated between primary and
higher secondary level of education, while in the integrated system
a similar educational level was noticed among two - thirds (64 per
cent) of the respondents, the rest of the farmers in all the
systems were illiterates. The results obtained on co-operative
system in the present study concurred with the findings of
Chakravarthy and Reddy (1982). It is interesting to note that none
possessed collegiate level of education. Comparision of the three
systems showed that members of integrated system had better
educational status than the other two systems.
Table 4.6.
Frequency distribution of dairy farmers according to their
educational status n = 150
Description Illiterate Read only Primary Secondary Higher
secondary Total
Vendor system 23 (46) 0 (0) 9 (18) 16 (32) 2 (4) 50 (100)
Co-operative system 22 (44) 0 (0) 18 (36) 10 (20) 0 (0) 50
(100)
Integrated system 17 (34) 1 (2) 16 (32) 13 (26) 3 (6) 50
(100)
Total 62 (41.33) 1 (0.67) 43 (28.67) 39 (26.00) 5 (3.33) 150
(100)
The figures in the parentheses indicate percentages to the
total.
The results show that educated people are involved in dairy
enterprise as means for livelihood. It may be due to the fact that
dairying has proved to be a profitable enteprise among the educated
farmers.
4.3.2. Occupation
The frequency distribution of the respondents with respect to
their status of occupation is presented in the Table 4.7.
It could be inferred that an overwhelming majority (94.67 per
cent) of the dairy farmers in all the three procurement systems had
dairying as subsidiary occupation, only a meagre (5.33 per cent)
had dairy as their main occupation. It could be concluded that
majority of dairy farmers were rearing dairy animals in addition to
their crop husbandry, since dairy provided them regular substantial
income for their living.
Table 4.7.
Frequency distribution of dairy farmers according to their
occupation status n = 150 Vendor system 3 (6) 47 (94) Co-operative
system 5 (10) 45 (90) Integrated system 0 (0) 50 (100) Total 8
(5.33) 142 (94.67) 150 (100)
Description Dairying as main occupation Dairying as subsidiary
occupation Total
50 (100)
50 (100)
50 (100)
The figures in the parentheses indicate percentage to the
total
4.3.3. Dairy farming experience
The level of dairy farming experience among the vendor,
co-operative and integrated systems are presented in Table 4.8. In
vendor system over three - fourth (76 per cent) had experience from
14 to 43 years. In co-operative systems 80 per cent of the
respondents had their experience ranging from medium to high
level.
In integrated system more than two-thirds majority (68 per cent)
had dairy farming experience from 14 to 43 years (medium level).
Comparison of the three procurement systems revealed that the
members of vendor and integrated systems had better dairy farming
experience. This is due to the fact that the more experienced dairy
farmers are seeking better systems in terms of regular payment and
input services.
Table 4.8.
Frequency distribution of dairy farmers according to their level
of dairy farming experience
System of procurement
Distribution of dairy farmers according to years of
experience
Total
Less than 14 (Low) Vendor Co-operative Integrated Total Mean =
28.91 6 (12) 10 (20) 7 (14) 23 (15.33)
14 to 43 (Medium) 38 (76) 25 (50) 34 (68) 97 (64.67)
Above 43 (High) 6 (12) 15 (30) 9 (18) 30 (20) 50 (100) 50 (100)
50 (100) 150 (100) SD = 15.08
The figures in the parentheses indicate percentage to the
total
Range = 3 to 65 years
4.3.4. Land holding
The pattern of distribution of milk producers according to their
land holdings in the vendor, co-operative and integrated systems
are presented in Table 4.9.
Table 4.9.
Frequency distribution of dairy farmers according to their level
of land holdings n = 150 Description Vendor Co-operative Integrated
Total system system system 9 (18) 34 (68) 7 (14) 50 (100) 3 (6) 42
(82) 5 (10) 50 (100) 0 (0) 43 (86) 5 (10) 2 (4) 50 (100) 12 (8.00)
119 (79.33) 17 (11.33) 2 (1.34) 150 (100)
Landless Marginal farmers Small farmers Big farmers Total
The figures in the parentheses indicate percentages to the
total
Considering all the three procurement systems over three-fourth
(79.33 per cent) of the dairy farmers were marginal, while 11.33
per cent of them were small farmers. Similar findings were recorded
in co-operative system by Gopalakrishnaiah (1984). It is
interesting to note that there existed no landless farmers in the
integrated system, while four per cent of the farmers under
integrated system were big farmers having over five acres of wet
land. Comparison of three procurement systems showed that the
members of co-operative and integrated systems had more land
holdings than vendor system. Comparison of co-operative and
integrated systems revealed that the members of integrated system
had more land holdings. It is due to the substantially large herd
size and better investment made by these two groups of farmers.
4.3.5. Herd size
Table 4.10 revealed that more than three-fourth respondents (76
per cent) in vendor system had a medium herd size ranging from
above one and upto six. While 88 and 84 per cent possessed a
similar herd size in co-operative and integrated systems
respectively. The findings on co-operative were in agreement with
Rao (1992) and Rao (1997). Table 4.10. Frequency distribution of
dairy farmers according to the herd size
Distribution of dairy farmers based on scores System of
procurement 1 (Low) Vendor Co-operative Integrated Total Mean =
3.64 6 (12) 3 (6) 1 (2) 10 (6.66) above 1 and upto 6 (Medium) 38
(76) 44 (88) 42 (84) 124 (82.67) Range = 1 to 18 Above 6 (High) 6
(12) 3 (6) 7 (14) 16 (10.67) 50 (100) 50 (100) 50 (100) 150 (100)
SD = 2.47 Total
The figures in the parentheses indicate percentage to the
total
It may be concluded that in general the herd size of the farmers
belonging to cooperative and integrated was higher than vendor. On
comparing co-operative and integrated systems, integrated system
members possessed better herd size. Higher land holdings and better
input services have motivated them to own a sizeable herd of dairy
animals than others. 4.3.6. Dairy income From the overall trends as
exhibited in Table 4.11 it could be observed that majority 82, 84
and 78 per cent in vendor, co-operative and integrated systems
respectively had annual gross dairy income ranging from rupees 9830
to 39050 . The members of co-operative (16 per cent) and integrated
system (18 per cent) had gross annual dairy income above rupees
39050. In case of co-operative system no members had gross annual
dairy income less than rupees 9830. The integrated and cooperative
members had better gross annual dairy income when compared to the
vendor category.
Table 4.11.
Frequency distribution of dairy farmers according to their level
of dairy income. n = 150
System of procurement
Distribution of dairy farmers (rupees in thousand) < 9.83
(Low) 9.83 to 39.05 (Medium) 41 (82) 42 (84) 39 (78) 122 (81.33)
Range = 4.70 to 55.95 > 39.05 (High) 2 (4) 8 (16) 9 (18) 19
(12.67)
Total
Vendor Co-operative Integrated Total Mean = 24.44
7 (14) 0 (0) 2 (4) 9 (6)
50 (100) 50 (100) 50 (100) 150 (100) SD = 14.61
The figures in the parentheses indicate percentage to the
total
This is attributed to provision of relatively better price for
milk and supply of various inputs by the agency.
4.3.7. Credit behaviour
The frequency distribution of the respondents with respect to
their level of credit behaviour is presented in the Table 4.12.
Table 4.12.
Frequency distribution of dairy farmers according to their level
of credit behaviour
System of procurement Vendor Co-operative Integrated Total
Distribution of dairy farmers according to credit behaviour
score 0 20 (40) 10 (20) 11 (22) 41 (27.33) 1 11 (22) 1 (2) 7 (14)
19 (12.66) 2 0 (0) 2 (4) 0 (0) 2 (1.33) 3 0 (0) 6 (12) 5 (10) 11
(7.33) 4 19 (38) 31 (62) 27 (54) 77 (51.33)
Total
50 (100) 50 (100) 50 (100) 150 (100)
The figures in the parentheses indicate percentage to the
total
The results show that almost two-thirds (62 per cent) and more
than one-half (54 per cent) of dairy farmers in co-operative and
integrated systems respectively had favourable credit behaviour
with co-operative banks. On the other hand most (40 per cent) dairy
farmers in vendor system had no credit behaviour. Overall
comparison of the three systems show that co-operative dairy
farmers had better credit behaviour than other two systems.
Comparison of vendor and integrated systems showed that the dairy
farmers in integrated system had better credit behaviour. This may
be attributed to the reasons that co-operative and integrated
systems facilitate credit to dairy farmers through co-operative and
nationalised banks.
4.3.8. Investment
The Table 4.13 reveals various levels of investment by the dairy
farmers in the three procurement systems.
Considering the overall trend almost three-fourth (74.66 per
cent) of the dairy farmers had invested fixed capital ranging from
rupees 20,860 to 84,840 for dairying. Nearly two-thirds (62 per
cent) in vendor system exhibited similar investment.
Table 4.13.
Frequency distribution of dairy farmers according to their level
of investment on dairy husbandry n = 150 Distribution of dairy
farmers (rupees in thousand) < 20.86 (Low) 20.86 to 84.84
(Medium) 31 (62) 39 (78) 42 (84) 112 (74.66) > 84.84 (High) 8
(16) 11 (22) 6 (12) 25 (16.67) 50 (100) 50 (100) 50 (100) 150 (100)
SD = 31.99 Total
System of Procurement
Vendor Co-operative Integrated Total
11 (22) 0 (0) 2 (4) 13 (8.67)
The figures in the parentheses indicate percentages to the
total
Mean = 52.85
Range = 15.73 to 160.42
On the other hand over two-thirds majority of co-operative (78
per cent) and integrated system (84 per cent) invested rupees 20860
to 84840 as fixed capital. No members in co-operative invested less
than rupees 20860 as fixed capital.
The above facts indicate a higher investment by members of
co-operative and integrated systems in comparison to farmers of
vendor system. On comparing members of co-operative and integrated
systems, a better investment pattern is noticed among cooperative
members. The possible reason for such higher investment could be
due to regular ensured returns provided by the co-operative and
integrated systems.
4.3.9. Extension agency contact
It is noticed from Table 4.14 that an overwhelming 90 per cent
had medium level of extension agency contact in vendor system,
while co-operative (92 per cent) and integrated system (98 per
cent) exhibited medium to high level of extension agency
contact.
Table 4.14.
Frequency distribution of dairy farmers according to their level
of extension agency contact n = 150
System of Procurement
Distribution of dairy farmers based on scores Total 1 to 5 (Low)
6 to 12 (Medium) 45 (90) 40 (80) 44 (88) 129 (86.00) 13 and above
(High) 0 (0) 6 (12) 5 (10) 11 (7.33) 50 (100) 50 (10