Leadership & Management

The effect of farm size and locality on production performance in small and medium dairy farmers in Gujranwala, Pakistan

Sixty dairy farmers were interviewed from different rural areas of Gujranwala district Punjab Pakistan. The farmers were divided in two groups (small having 1-10 and medium having 11-50 dairy animals. Each group was further subdivided location wise
of 12
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  The effect of farm size and locality on production performance in small andmedium dairy farmers in Gujranwala, Pakistan  S.H.Raza 1  ,M.Riaz, M. Sarwar and H.M.Zakria 1   1- Dept. Livestock Management, Univ. of Agriculture, Faisalabad, PA!"#A$  %orresponding aut&or' "(ed )assan *a+a, "&ra+a/0gmail.com ABSTRACT Sixty dairy farmers were interviewed from different rural areas of Gujranwala district PunjabPakistan. The farmers were divided in two groups (small having !" and medium having !#"dairy animals. $ach group was further subdivided location wise (living near or away the roadlink% &n small farmer group (S'G% the average age at first calving calving interval service period and lactation length were )#!#" **!*) +!+. and *!+ months, respectively. &n mediumfarmer group (-'G% these parameters were )#!#" !/ *.#!+." and "! months,respectively. The per liter cost of milk was 0 ".)1 ".#" ".+) and ".+2 in small near road smallaway road medium near road and medium away road, respectively. The profit3loss obtainedfrom milk in small near road small away road medium near road and medium away road farmerswere 0.!"."+ !".") ".) and ".13liter, respectively.  e(ords' cost of production, small farmers ,production constraints. !TR"#$CT"! The growth rate of milk production is +.+4 while animal population is increasing by+.14 per annum ($conomic Survey of Pakistan *"! *"*%. This rate of increase in milk  production is faster in cow than buffalo (increased )*4 from 22 to *"" versus milk  production from buffaloes during this period increased by ++4 ($conomic Survey of Pakistan*""! *""1%.The small (!" animals% to middle ( 5 #" animals% farmers make #" and +14 of totalcountry cattle herd, respectively while the number is #* and +24 for buffalo herds (6ivestock 7ensus *""%. -ost of the factors affecting the production performance of animals and dairysector are not in control of these farmers therefore directly hinder their farm productivity(Tauer *""%. 8eali9ing the importance of animal sector in national economy Government of Pakistan has paid special attention to this sector by facilitating the farmers not only to enhancethe production and farmers: income but also to achieve the food security for growing population($conomic Survey of Pakistan *"")! *""#%. ;ith increased investment and commercial  approach the production housing feeding and marketing systems are changing ($conomicSurvey of Pakistan *""!*"%. The small and scattered dairy holders are one of the mainconstraints in improving the milk production and collection. The constraints affecting farm productivity remain varying with time locality herd si9e animal species production andmarketing systems etc. and their impact also remains changing with time social and economicfactors. So it is desirable that periodically such studies should be carried out and data analy9ed toassess the situation. Therefore the present study was designed to investigate the prevalent dairy productionconstraints in Gujranwala district its impact on farm productivity and farmers: response to newtechnologies. R%&%' of (T%R%T$R% 6ivestock production plays an important role in agriculture income in any farmingsystem. The crop based and 6ivestock integrated farming system were compared (8aman and<ain (22*% in small medium and large farming systems and it was revealed that there was /"* and +4 boost in milk production for small medium and large farms, respectively. 8a9a et. al.,  (222 a,b % pointed out that small medium and large farmers were having ./ ".* and".*+ animals per acer, respectively. The cost of production per liter of milk was found to be from8s. #./ to .)2 in different groups and this cost was negatively associated with farm si9e (8a9a et. el., *"""%. 'eeding cost was about " !1"4 of the total cost of the farm. -ajor constraints of small farmers were higher prices of inputs animal productivity and allied problems. -onetaryconstraints were inefficient marketing facilities poor health cover high input costs poor incentives for farmers distressed extension services and uneasy credit facilities (8a9a and Peter*"")%. 8ajendran et al. (*"")% reviewed the current position of selling the milk and dairy co!operatives in &ndia. The results indicated that most of the milk produced by small farmers in&ndia (/"4% is controlled by scattered persons without any organi9ation while very less amount(*"4% is controlled by organi9ations. &t is noticed that life style is improved in rural areas byenhancing production and marketing of milk by the facilities given by different societies to thefarmers. The main problems were middle man simplicity of dairy farmers and in proper facilitiesfor collection storage transportation and processing. =ddin et al. 2  *""% conducted a study and recommended strategies to minimi9e cost of dairy farms in >angladesh. 'or this purpose * typical farms of average and large si9e from each production systems were selected in + regions. The maximum milk production observed in the  large dairy farming systems that was about "" kg energy corrected milk3year and was positively associated with farm si9e and negatively with milk production cost. Small farmers:dairying on traditional lines could not fulfil even their cost of production from dairy business andmostly had a negative trend in terms of profit gain. The main factors affecting productivity wereinfrastructural and personal factors as land family labour amount of investment and provision of services like ?.&. treatment and extension. 8ecommendations for government to facilitatefarmers by developing basic infrastructure official help and free access to markets and permanent extension services. Shivakumar et al  . (*"% conducted a study of /" farmers in&ndia to understand awareness of dairy farmers about clean milk production. The study parameters were family and personnel involvement in dairying milking practices income cleanmilk yield price of sale effect of hygiene methods on production and price of milk wererecorded. -ost of the dairy farmers showed their enthusiasm to adapt ethics of clean milk yieldeven without extra milk price. -ost of the dairy farmers did not know the effect of hygienic practices on animal health and contamination of milk. -ore than /" 4 milking was done byfemales. @airy farming gave less income to the farmers because of low milk price. The studysuggested to facilitate and guide the farmers about the measures for clean milk production and itsimportance for animal health marketing and production. The women should be preferred for training. &t is also suggested that to get clean and optimum milk production farmers should begiven reasonable price of milk.The cost of production was  ) Tauer*""% compared in small holder with large herds.There was concept that small dairy farms were not profitable due to the high cost for milk  production as compare to the large farms. >ut this study revealed that most of the high costsfaced by the small farmers were due to unorgani9ed dairy farming. These small farms competedwith large farms in terms of per unit milk production cost when efficiently managed.The milk  production cost per kg was 0".*/1 at farm having five hundred cows while this cost was 0".*22at a fifty cow farm only )4 more than earlier (large% farm. The inference is that the well!organi9ed small dairy farm can be as much profitable as the large farms. *AT%RA( A!# *%T+"#S The study was conducted in Gujranwala district that is one of the most irrigated and milk  production areas of Pakistan (Tables  and *%.  TAB(% - A!*A( P"P$(AT"! )*(("! !$*B%RS. ! G$/RA!'A(A0Population Pakistan Punja1 )2.Gujranwala )2.Buffaloes *1.++1.1) ().2%".* (+.)2% Cattle *2.#).) ()/.1)%".** (.#*% Cross 1red +.#2*.#) (1".1#%"." (*.+%6ivestock censes *"". Statistic @ivision Government of Pakistan. TAB(% 3- *(4 PR"#$CT"! )*(("! (T05#A6.0Pakistan ).)) Punja1 1).1* (#*./*4% Gujranwala *.)* (+.*+4% 6ivestock censes *"" Government of Pakistan.The randomly selected sixty respondents were interviewed using a Auestionnaire basedon different parameters regarding production status as milk production breeding calving intervaland age at first calving length of dry period feeding management marketing trendsmanagemental practices health facilities and different constraints related to these parameters.The respondents were divided in two groups vi9. small farmer group (S'G!" animals% andmedium farmers group (-'G !#" animals%.$ach group was further sub divided in two groupsless than # B- (Cear road C8% away from road and up to # Bm away from road ?way fromroad (?'8%. The data were statistically analy9ed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences(SPSS% program using D  *  techniAue to determine the interaction of different parameters asdescribed by Steel  et al. 22. R%S$(TS and #SC$SS"! The farmers were not having any type of records of their herd due to illiteracy andunawareness. The production performance parameters included average values of (% age at stcalving (*% calving interval (+% dry period ()% service Period (#% services per conception (% andlactation length   of small and medium dairy farms. 7CA(&!G !T%R&A( )C. The data showed that the highest percentage ()"4% of S'G was having the 7& between**!*) months and out of it *+4 was living away from the road. The second highest 4 (++.++4%  of farmers with longer 7& was having 2!* months 7& but here farmers in ?'8 group wereinvolved. Enly .4 farmers were having 7& between *!# months. &n case of -'G #.4(+.4 ?'8% farmers were having 7& of !/ months showing better results. Enly .4farmers were having 7& between **!*) months. &n both the groups (S'G -'G% "4 farmerswere having calving interval more than *) months. The 7& plays very important role in dairy production and affects economic value and productivity of dairy animal. &n order to reduce the unproductive period and to increase the calf crop for maximum milk production reduction in calving interval is very essential (>hatti 2//%.@as et al  . (*""#% reported 1 months of calving interval in buffalo in ?ssam. They further noticed that most of the variation in calving interval was due to service period and this factor wasrelated to feeding management and climate position etc. The breeding just after )"!#" days of calving with efficient heat detection and insemination practices can significantly reduce thecalving interval. These findings are in line with our results of -'G where #.4 farmersobserved the similar 7& values but in contrast with S'G where only +.++4 farmers were having7& in this range.&n cattle most of the ()"4% respondents of S'G were facing the 7& between +!#months. The second highest 4 of (++.++4% of respondents with longer 7& was having !/months 7& and out of it *+4 was living ?'8. Enly +.++4 respondents were having 7& between"!* months. &n case of -'G #.4 (+.4 ?'8% respondents were having 7& of +!#months and .4 were found 2!* months. Enly "4 respondents of both the groups (S'G-'G% were having 7& more than * months. The study conducted by Fafar (*"""% reported #.*and +.) months average calving interval in buffaloes and cattle, respectively. These results arein line with the present study. 37 AG% AT 8RST CA(&!G )A8C. The age at first calving in buffaloes was )+!)/ months in #.4 S'G and #+.++4 in-'G. The respondent profile also revealed that this age was +1!)* months in *+.++4 of S'Gand "4 -'G. ;hilst +"!+ months was observed only in .4 S'G and .4 -'Grespondents. This shows the great difference of ?'7 among both the groups (S'G and -'G%.


May 17, 2018
Similar documents
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks