ECONOMICS OF PRODUCTION, PROCESSING AND MARKETING · PDF fileECONOMICS OF PRODUCTION,...

Research Study No.144

ECONOMICS OF PRODUCTION, PROCESSING AND MARKETING

OF FODDER CROPS IN GUJARAT

V.D.SHAH

MANISH MAKWANA

SHREEKANT SHARMA

AGRO-ECONOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE

SARDAR PATEL UNIVERSITY

VALLABH VIDYANAGAR – 388 120

GUJARAT

NOVEMBER – 2011

i

Foreword

Livestock sector provides livelihood support to millions of rural people having little

access to land. Development and growth of livestock are conditioned by the availability of

fodder from arable land and forest. The nutritive value of feed and fodder has a significant

bearing on productivity of livestock. According to Planning Commission of India and other

sources, large gap exists between requirement and availability of feed and fodder in the

country as well as Gujarat. The deficiency in feed and fodder is more conspicuous in arid and

semi-arid regions. As per Planning Commission, GoI, India is short in dry fodder by about

23.46 percent, green fodder by about 62.76 percent and concentrates by 30.00 percent. This

deficit of fodder is the result of numerous inter dependent as well as exogenous factors.

Owing to severe shortages of feed and fodder, livestock population suffers from

problem of underfeeding. Ensuring an adequate supply of reasonable quality feed and fodder

to livestock is one of the major challenges faced by country where dairying is largely the

avocation of poor, especially women.

The costs and returns analysis for various fodder crops of the state will be helpful to

know relative profitability of these crops in the region. The farmers will get remunerative

prices for their surplus produce only when the efficient and effective processing and

marketing of fodder and feed is in place. With this in view, Directorate of Economics &

Statistics, MoA, GoI asked our centre to undertake this study for Gujarat State.

This study is based on both, primary and secondary data collected from 150 sample

households and 4 processors spread over three districts of Gujarat State namely,

Banaskantha, Sabarkantha and Panchmahals. The data were collected by recall method

for year 2008-09.

The study illustrated that because of comparatively very low net returns, farmer have

least preference for growing fodder crops. Fodder markets in Gujarat being unorganized and

unregulated; fodder production is a low priority enterprise in potential fodder production

areas. Further, fodder being low value high volume produce is costly to transport and hence

normally consumed locally. There exists a severe deficit of fodder and particularly of green

fodder. The quality and quantity of feed and fodder fed to animal found much lower than it

recommended by department of Animal Husbandary.

On the basis of survey findings, policy relevant recommendations have been made for

increasing fodder production.

ii

Shri V. D. Shah, Research Officer, Shri Manish Makwana, Research Associate and

Shri Shreekant Sharma, Research Associate at our centre has put in hard work and efforts

for making this research study so enrich and excellent. Dr. Mahesh Pathak, Hon. Advisor

and Dr. (Mrs.) R. A. Dutta, Deputy Director provided overall guidance and encouragement

at various stages of the study. Dr. D. K. Grover, A.E.R.C., Ludhiana, who as a co-ordinator

of the study provided necessary framework of the study and guidance as and when required.

The authors also benefited greatly from interaction with the personnel of the Directorate of

Animal Husbandry, GoG and milk co-operative Dairies of the selected districts. Shri Manish

Makwana, Shri Shreekant Sharma, Shri C. M. Patel, Shri Himanshu Parmar and Shri

Hemal Padhiyar carried out field work efficiently. Shri J. B. Kahar and Shri Himanshu

Parmar carried out the data entry work. Shri Himanshu Parmar and Ms. Kalpana

Kapadia carried out data processing and tabulation with utmost accuracy. Shri Manish

Makwana, Shri Shreekant Sharma and Shri Himanshu Parmar competently handled

computerized draft entry of this study. Shri Vinod Parmar provided secretarial assistant.

Administrative staff and librarian provided excellent support as and when required. All

respondents and leaders of selected villages were very kind to provide required information

and support in a friendly manner during field work.

We will feel extremely rewarded, if the findings and recommendations of the study

can generate sufficient interest among academicians, policy makers, livestock farmers, dairy

organizations and all those who have keen interest in the development and growth of

livestock sector.

Date: 1/12/2011 Dr.Rajeshree A. Dutta

Place: Vallabh Vidyanagar Deputy Director & I/C, AERC

iii

Project Team

Sr.

No. Activities Name Designation

1. Project Leader Shri Vasant Shah Research Officer

2. Project Assistant Shri Manish Makwana Research Associate

Shri Shreekant Sharma Research Associate

3. Field Work

Shri Manish Makwana Research Associate


Shri Chamanbhai Patel Field Supervisor (CCS)

Shri Hemal Padhiyar Research Fellow

Shri Himanshu Parmar Research Fellow

4.

Primary

Tabulation/Data

Processing



Ms. Kalpana Kapadia Research Associate


5. Secondary Data

Tabulation


Ms. Kalpana Kapadia Research Associate

6. Computerised

Draft Entry




7. Data Entry

Shri Jagdishbhai Kahar Data Entry Operator


Shri Natvar Chauhan Research Fellow

8. Secretarial

Assistance Shri Vinod Parmar P. A. to Director

9. Library Assistance Shri Deep Patel Research & Ref. Asst.

(Library)

iv

Contents

Chapter Title Page

No. No.

Foreword i

Project Team iii

List of Tables vi

Chapter-1 Introduction 1-15 1.1 Background

1.2 Livestock Population 1.3 Livestock Sector and Agricultural Economy

1.4 Employment Generation By Livestock Sector

1.5 Feed And Fodder Scenario At National Level

1.6 Role of Fodders

1.7 Livestock Sector of Gujarat

1.8 Need of The Study

1.9 Objectives of The Study

1.10 Frame Work and Scope Of Study

Chapter-2 Methodology 16-22 2.1 Sampling Design

2.2 Selection of Crops

2.3 Method of Primary Data Collection

2.4 Secondary Data Collection

2.5 Analytical Framework

2.6 Limitations of Study

2.7 Organization of Report

Chapter-3 Status of Livestock Population and Fodder Crops

Cultivated in the Status 23-47 3.1 Introduction

3.2 General, Demographic and Land Profile of The Selected

Districts & Gujarat

3.3 Climate / Temperature / Soil Type

3.4 Monsoon, Rainfall and Irrigation

3.5 Land Use Pattern

3.6 Trends In Area Under Fodder Crops In Gujarat -1989-90 To 2006-07

3.7 The District-Wise Area Under Fodder Crops In

Gujarat-2001-02 To 2006-07

3.8 Crop Pattern

3.9 Estimate of Availability and Requirement of Feed And

Fodder in Gujarat State

3.10 Fodder Market Structure In Gujarat

3.11 Trends of Livestock Population In Gujarat

3.12 Growth In Livestock Population In Gujarat During 1951-2007

v

3.13 District Wise Variations In Livestock Population In Last Decade

and AAGR

3.14 Conclusion

Chapter-4 Socio-Economic Characteristics of Fodder

Growers 48-101 4.1 Demographic Characteristics

4.2 Land Resources

4.3 Farm Implements and Machinery

4.4 Livestock Resources

4.5 Cropping Pattern

4.6 Area, Yield and Production Status of Fodder Crops

4.7 Livestock Population and Milk or Meat Production of Sample HHs.

4.8 Feeding Practices

Chapter-5 Economic of Production for Fodder Crops 102-124 5.1 Cost Items Considered for Cost of Cultivation

5.2 Economics of Fodder Crops vis-à-vis Competing Crops

Chapter-6 Processing and Marketing System for Fodder

Crops 125-136 6.1 Disposal Pattern of Fodder Crops

6.2 Marketing of Fodder Crops

6.3 Fodder Processing and Cost Involved

6.4 Post Harvest Operational Costs For Hay Making

Chapter-7 Problems Faced by Growers of Fodder Crops 137-142 7.1 Production Problems

7.2 Marketing Problems

7.3 Conclusion

Chapter-8 Summary and Conclusions 143-160 8.1 Introduction

8.2 Objectives of The Study

8.3 Selection of Sample Districts/Blocks/Villages And Crops

8.4 About Selected Districts

8.5 Livestock Resources

8.6 Fodder Scenario In Gujarat

8.7 Major Findings of The Study

8.8 Policy Recommendations

8.9 Conclusions

References 161-162

Annexure-I 163

Annexure-II 164

vi

List of Tables

Table

No.

Title Page

No. 1.1 Requirement and availability of fodder in the country – 2010 3

1.2 Livestock Population in India-1951 to 2007 5

1.3 Shares of Agriculture and Livestock Sector in GDP at India 6

1.4 Supply and demand of green and dry fodder in India 9

1.5 Trends in Livestock and Poultry population (number in Lakh) In Gujarat 12

2.1 District-wise livestock population-2007-Gujarat State 16

2.2 List of Selected Districts, Tehsils, Villages and Category-Wise Sample

Households

18

3.1 Agricultural Statistics at a Glance for Selected Districts & Gujarat-2006-07 27

3.2 Land utilisation pattern for Gujarat state as well as selected districts 29

3.3 Area under fodder crops in Gujarat State-1989-90 to 2006-07 30

3.4 District-wise area under fodder crops in Gujarat 31

3.5 Crop Pattern of Selected Districts and Gujarat State 32

3.6 Availability and Requirement of feed and fodder of Gujarat 34

3.7 Number of livestock Gujarat State and AAGR, 1992 to 2007 36

3.8 Growth of the livestock during 1951-2007 in Gujarat state 37

3.9 District wise number of livestock in Gujarat and AAGR, 1997 to 2007 38

3.10 District-wise Number of Cattle, 1997 to 2007 40

3.11 District-wise Number of Buffaloes, 1997 to 2007 41

3.12 Breed-wise classification of buffalo population in Gujarat-2007 42

3.13 District-wise Number of Horses and Ponies, 1997 to 2007 43

3.14 District-wise Number of Sheep, 1997 to 2007 44

3.15 District-wise Number of Goat, 1997 to 2007 45

3.16 District-wise Number of Camels, 1997 to 2007 46

4.1 General Socio-Economic Characteristics of Sample Households-2008-09 49

4.2 Average land holding of sample households- 2008-09 52

4.3 Details of Farm Implementations, Machineries and Building of Sample

Households, 2008-09

54

4.4 Livestock Population of Sample HHs- 2008-09 56

4.5.1 Cropping Pattern of Sample Households- 2008-09 60

4.5.2 Season wise Cropping Pattern of Sample Households- 2008-09 (% to NCA) 61

4.6.1(A) Present status of area of fodder crops in kharif season as compared to 10

years before for sample households- 2008-09

63

vii

4.6.1(B) Present status of area of fodder crops in rabi season as compared to 10 years

before for sample households- 2008-09

65

4.6.1(C) Present status of area of fodder crops in summer season as compared to 10


66

4.6.2(A) Present status of production of fodder crops in kharif season as compared to

10 years before for sample households- 2008-09

67

4.6.2(B) Present status of production of fodder crops in rabi season as compared to

10 years before for sample households- 2008-09

68

4.6.2(C) Present status of production of fodder crops in summer season as compared

to 10 years before for sample households- 2008-09

69

4.6.3(A) Present status of yield of fodder crops in summer season as compared to 10


71

4.6.3(B) Present status of yield of fodder crops in summer season as compared to 10


72

4.6.3(C) Present status of yield of fodder crops in summer season as compared to 10


73

4.7.1 Present status of livestock population compared to 10 years before for

sample households- 2008-09

75

4.7.2 Present status of livestock milk and meat yield compared to 10 years before

for sample households- 2008-09

76

4.8.1 Livestock feeding practices followed by Sample Household- 2008-09 78

4.8.2(A) Rainy Season feeding composition for livestock population adopted by

marginal farmers, Sample Households- 2008-09

80

4.8.2(B) Winter Season feeding composition for livestock population adopted by


82

4.8.2(C) Summer Season feeding composition for livestock population adopted by


84


Small farmers, Sample Households- 2008-09

85


small farmers, Sample Households- 2008-09

86


small farmers, Sample Households- 2008-09

87


semi-medium farmers, Sample Households- 2008-09

88



89



90


medium farmers, Sample Households- 2008-09

91



92



93


large farmers, Sample Households- 2008-09

95



96

viii



97


overall farmers, Sample Households- 2008-09

98



99



100

5.1.1 A A Per Hectare Cost of Cultivation of Maize Crop (Kharif) Grown as Grain

Crop

105

5.1.1B Per Hectare Cost of Cultivation of Bajra Crop (Kharif) Grown as Grain

Crop.

107

5.1.2 Category-wise and item-wise Per Hectare Cost of Cultivation of Lucerne

Crop in Gujarat (Rabi)

109

5.1.3A Per Hectare Cost of cultivation of Lucerne crop (summer) 112

5.1.3B Per Hectare Cost of cultivation of Bajra (Grain) crop (summer) 114

5.2.1 Economics of Kharif Fodder crops vis-à-vis competing crops 117

5.2.2 Economics of Rabi Fodder crops vis-à-vis competing crops 120

5.2.3 Economics of Summer Fodder crops vis-à-vis competing crops 122

6.2.3(A) Marketing costs, margins and price spread analysis of fodder crop during

peak trader-Consumer), Sample Households, 2008-09 Kharif season

through Channel III (Producer-Local

127

6.2.3(B) Marketing costs, margins and price spread analysis of fodder crop during

peak Rabi season through Channel III (Producer-Local trader-Consumer),

Sample Households, 2008-09

128

6.2.3(C) Marketing costs, margins and price spread analysis of crop during peak

Summer season through Channel III (Producer-local trader-Consumer),

Sample Households, 2008-09

129

6.3.1 Details regarding storage/ processing of Kharif fodder, Sample Households,

2008-09

132

6.3.2 Details regarding storage/ processing of Rabi fodder, Sample Households,

2008-09

133

6.3.3 Details regarding storage/processing of Summer fodder, Sample

Households, 2008-09

134

6.3.4 Post Harvest operational costs for hay making method, Sample Household,

2008-09

136

7.1 Problems related to the production of fodder crops-Perception of sample

households

139

7.2 Problems related to the marketing of fodder crops-Perception of sample

households

141

8.1 List of Selected Districts, Tehsil and Villages 145

8.2 Livestock Population of Gujarat State-2007 147

8.3 Per Hectare Cost of Cultivation (variable cost) 152

8.4 Economics of Fodder Crops vis-à-vis competing crops 153

1

Chapter-1

Introduction

1.1 Background:

India is basically an agricultural country and nearly three-fourth population depends

on agriculture, livestock and allied sectors for livelihood. Nearly 70 percent of country

population lives in rural areas. Furthermore, of the 40.7 crore poor in the country, about 80

percent are rural poor. Livestock plays an important role in the rural economy of the country.

Livestock is a key source of supplementary income and livelihood especially for small land

holdings and landless rural poor households. Traditionally, in country including Gujarat,

agriculture and livestock are interwine in such a manner that it ensures sustainable livelihood

to a large proportion of rural population even during sub-normal rainfall / scarcity years.

Livestock is also an important asset for them. Livestock sector providing employment to

millions of rural people. Rapid growth of livestock sector is therefore most desirable not only

to sustain steady agriculture growth but also to reduce rural poverty especially when a

majority of land holdings are less than 2 hectares and about 30 percent of rural households

are landless. Keeping in view this pro-poor nature of agriculture and livestock sector and its

importance in national economy, the Eleventh Five Year Plan targeted 4 percent annual

growth for agriculture sector and emphasized livestock sector as an important driving force of

this targeted growth.

Livestock sector play a multifaceted role. Apart from significant contribution to

agricultural economy, it provides livelihood support, employment generation opportunities,

asset creation, recurring income and social and financial security to millions of households.

The share of agriculture in national GDP has declined from 34.72 percent (at current

price-2008-09) in 1980-81 to only 10.99 percent in 2008-09. However, the share of livestock

sector in national GDP showed uptrend between period 1980-81 to 1993-94 and after that it

showed downtrend (See Table 1.3). However, data shown in Table 1.2 clearly exhibit that the

growth in livestock sector has been much faster than crop sector. The share of livestock

sector at current prices in agriculture jumped from 13.88 percent in 1980-81 to 29.63 percent

in 2008-09 (See Table 1.3).

In rural areas, most of the livestock rearing activities are mainly performed by

women. As many as 750 lakh women are engaged in livestock sector as against 150 lakh

men. There is an increasing trend in respect of women participation in livestock development

2

activities. This has led to empowerment of women headed households in the rural

communities.

India has a very huge population of livestock. Of the total livestock population of the

world, India alone has about one-fifth cattle population. As per all India census estimate, total

livestock population (excluding poultry, dogs and rabbits) in year 2007 was over 529 millions

(See Table 1.2). Among the livestock products, milk is the most important product. The

contribution of milk sector to the total output from livestock is about 68 percent and in some

states it is as high as 80 percent. Although, the quantity of milk production in the country

showing upward trend, annual growth rate of milk production showing positive but

downward trend after 1990-91. It dips form 5.48 percent during 1980-1990 to 3.77 percent

during period 2000-2010.

Although India has very large population of livestock, the productivity of milk and

other livestock product per animal is very low compared to other many countries in the

world. As against the minimum nutritional requirement of 201 gms/day/head of milk, its

availability is very low and varied across states. The growth attained in livestock sector

hitherto has been attributed largely to increase in animal numbers and to a little extent on

productivity enhancement. Owing to problem of severe shortage of fodder and feed shortage,

the future growth of livestock has to be sustain primarily on enhancement of animal

productivity and not on increase in number of animals.

Future development and growth of livestock are highly associated with the scope of

availability of fodder from cultivable land, forest, pastures and grazing lands. Traditionally,

cattle grazed on the pastures and gauchar (grazing) lands and supported by feeding crop-

residues or straw of jowar, bajra, wheat, maize, paddy etc. either in the form of straw or a

bhusa supplemented with some green fodder. The economic viability of livestock husbandry

heavily depends on sources of feed and fodder as feeding cost account for about 65 to 70

percent of the total cost of livestock farming. The feed given to cattle comprises of dry

fodder, green fodder and concentrates. The adequate supply of nutritive fodder and feed is a

crucial factor impacting the productivity and performance of the animals. Currently, scarcity

of feed / fodder resources is a one of the major constraints impacting to livestock

development. Therefore, it is important to put more emphasis on fodder development

programmes for augmenting fodder /feed supply, while formulation of livestock development

strategy.

3

One of the main reasons for the low productivity of our livestock is malnutrition,

under-nutrition or both, beside the low genetic potential of the animals. The fact is adequately

supported by the table 1.1. From the table 1.1, it is evident that, we are highly deficient in

respect of availability of green fodder, dry fodder and concentrates. The deficit gap of

availability vis-à-vis the requirement of green fodder is very huge at 665.80 million MT

(62.76 %) and it is of 138 million MT (23.46 %) for dry fodder. The deficit of concentrates

also found to be more than 30 percent. The fodder and feed deficit varies across states and

found more acute and chronic in arid and semi-arid states where farming is highly dependent

on rainfall and have large livestock population.

Table: 1.1 Requirement and availability of fodder in the country - 2010

Type of fodder Green Dry

Availability (Million MT.) 395.20 451.00

Requirement (Million MT.) 1061.00 589.00

Deficit gap (Million MT.) 665.80 (62.76 %) 138.00 (23.46 %) Source: Report of the working group on Animal Husbandry and Dairying for the 11th Five Year Plan, Planning Commission, GoI

For exploiting fully the production potential of our livestock, balance and adequate

feeding is most crucial. Without balance feeding, it is difficult to economise the cost of

livestock production and to keep animals in good health. As discussed above, India suffers

from severe shortage of feeds and fodder. Due to fast industrialisation and increasing human

population, land available for gauchar, permanent pasture and fodder growing has been

decreasing. In addition, shift from forage crops to cash/commercial crops like cotton, cumin,

rapeseed and mustard, castor, fruits etc. also lead to shortage of feed and fodder. Further, on

account of diversified use of agricultural residues, the gap between the demand and supply of

fodder has widened further. Therefore, serious and intensive efforts are needed by all

concerns for augmenting of fodder resources and to fill up deficiency gap. Uptill now

government and non-government organisations paid very little attention towards quantitative

and qualitative development of feeds/fodder. In recent years, state and central government

and cooperative dairy organisations realised that without mitigation of acute shortage of

fodder and feed resources, expansion and development of livestock sector seems to be

uneconomical and not advisable. Therefore, to mitigate this problem, in the recent past,

central and state government implemented several programmes of fodder development. Of

these, major programmes are establishment of Central Fodder Seed Production Farm,

Regional Stations for Forage Production and Demonstration Central Minikit Testing

4

Programme on fodder crops, Establishment of Fodder Banks, Assistance to States for Feed

and Fodder Development and Enrichment of Straw and Cellulosic Wastes etc.

1.2 Livestock population:

India has the largest livestock population in the world. India has 20 percent of

world’s livestock with only 2.3 percent of the world’s geographical area. India is the leader in

buffaloe (57%) population and has world’s second largest cattle (12%) and goat (20%)

population. According to all India livestock census-2007 (Table 1.2), the country had 529

million livestock population and 648 million poultry population. The cattle, buffalo and total

livestock population showing continuous uptrend during 1951-2007. However, cattle

population increased to a very little extent during 1997-2007. Total livestock population

increased from 485.39 million in 1997 to 529.70 million in 2007, an increase of 9.13 percent

in last decade (Table 1.2). The poultry population also showing uptrend during 1951-2007,

but rate of increase was substantial during 1997-2007. It increased from 347.61 million in

1997 to 648.88 million in 2007 showing an increase of 86.67 percent (Table 1.2).

With adequate provision of feed and fodder for its large livestock population, India

has vast potential for meeting the growing needs of teeming millions, particularly in respect

of livestock products such as milk, milk products, eggs, meat and wool.

1.3 Livestock sector and agricultural economy:

Livestock /Animal Husbandry sector play an important role in the national economy

and particularly agriculture economy. It also impacts on the socio-economic characteristics of

the households. Livestock sector also play a significant role in supplementing family incomes

and generating gainful employment for rural poor, particularly among the landless labourers,

small and marginal farmers and women. It also provides balance and cheap nutritional food

in the form of milk to million people. Livestock serves as insurance against crop failure and

the vagaries like drought, famine and other natural calamities. This is a sector where poor

contributes to the growth directly instead of getting benefits from growth generated

elsewhere.

Of the total household in the rural area, it is estimated that about 73 percent own some

variant of livestock. More importantly, small and marginal farmers and landless account for

three quarters of these households. The focus of the very poor households is on small

animals. The prolificacy of goat, pig and poultry are the influencing factors for them. It

requires less investment and the returns are quick; losses, if any can be recovered soon.

Therefore, poor households can afford it. This multiple species animal husbandry system is

5

Table: 1.2 Livestock Population in India-1951 to 2007 (In Million Numbers)

Sr. No.

Species 1951 1956 1961 1966 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2003 2007 $

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 Cattle 155.30 158.70 175.60 176.20 178.30 180.00 192.45 199.69 204.53 198.88 185.18 199.08

2 Adult Female Cattle 54.40 47.30 51.00 51.80 53.40 54.60 59.21 62.07 64.36 64.43 64.51 72.95

3 Buffaloes 43.40 44.90 51.20 53.00 57.40 62.00 69.78 75.97 84.21 89.92 97.92 105.34

4 Adult Female Buffaloes 21.00 21.70 24.30 25.40 28.60 31.30 32.50 39.13 43.81 46.77 50.97 54.47

5 Total Cattle & Buffaloes 198.70 203.60 226.80 229.20 235.70 242.00 262.36 275.82 289.00 289.80 283.10 304.42

6 Sheep 39.10 39.30 40.20 42.40 40.00 41.00 48.76 45.70 50.78 57.49 61.47 71.56

7 Goats 47.20 55.40 60.90 64.60 67.50 75.60 95.25 110.21 115.28 122.72 124.36 140.54

8 Horses & Ponies 1.50 1.50 1.30 1.10 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.80 0.82 0.83 0.75 0.61

9 Camels 0.60 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.08 1.00 1.03 0.91 0.63 0.52

10 Pigs 4.40 4.90 5.20 5.00 6.90 7.60 10.07 10.63 12.79 13.29 13.52 11.13

11 Mules 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.13 0.17 0.19 0.22 0.18 0.14

12 Donkeys 1.30 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.02 0.96 0.97 0.88 0.65 0.44

13 Yaks NC NC 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.13 0.13 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.08

14 Total Livestock 292.80 306.60 335.40 344.10 353.60 369.00 419.59 445.29 470.86 485.39 485.00 529.70

15 Poultry 73.5 94.8 114.2 115.4 138.5 159.2 207.74 275.32 307.07 347.61 489.01 648.88

16 Dogs NC NC NC NC NC NC 18.54 17.95 21.77 25.48 29.03 19.09

17 Rabbits NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC 0.48 0.42

NC: Not Collected, $ Provisional derived from village level totals Source: Basic Animal Husbandry Statistics, 2010, Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Animal Husbandry Dairying & Fisheries, New Delhi

6

Table: 1.3 Shares of Agriculture and Livestock Sector in GDP at India (At Current Prices of 2008-09)

Sr. No.

Year

GDP- Total

(Rs. in Billion)

GDP-Agriculture GDP-Livestock Sector

(Rs. in Billion)

% to total GDP

(Rs. in Billion)

% to total GDP

% to Agri.

1 1980-81 1224 425 34.72 59 4.82 13.88

2 1985-86 2338 700 29.94 139 5.95 19.86

3 1986-87 2600 744 28.62 156 6.00 20.97

4 1987-88 2949 835 28.31 183 6.21 21.92

5 1988-89 3527 1041 29.52 217 6.15 20.85

6 1989-90 4087 1154 28.24 275 6.73 23.83

7 1990-91 4778 1352 28.30 308 6.45 22.78

8 1991-92 5528 1593 28.82 375 6.78 23.54

9 1992-93 6307 1779 28.21 432 6.85 24.28

10 1993-94 7813 2218 28.39 507 6.49 22.86

11 1994-95 9170 2552 27.83 577 6.29 22.61

12 1995-96 10733 2778 25.88 650 6.06 23.40

13 1996-97 12435 3340 26.86 747 6.01 22.37

14 1997-98 13901 3535 25.43 819 5.89 23.17

15 1998-99 15981 4064 25.43 911 5.70 22.42

16 1999-2000 17865 4097 22.93 947 5.30 23.11

17 2000-01 19250 4089 21.24 1047 5.44 25.61

18 2001-02 20977 4425 21.09 1093 5.21 24.70

19 2002-03 22614 4255 18.82 1149 5.08 27.00

20 2003-04 25382 4830 19.03 1183 4.66 24.49

21 2004-05 29676 3460 11.66 1106 3.73 31.97

22 2005-06 34023 4024 11.83 1190 3.50 29.57

23 2006-07 39419 4488 11.39 1306 3.31 29.10

24 2007-08 45410 5254 11.57 1475 3.25 28.07

25 2008-09 52286 5744 10.99 1702 3.26 29.63

Source: Basic Animal Husbandry Statistics, 2010, Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Animal Husbandry Dairying & Fisheries, New Delhi

also environment friendly. This sector plays an important and vital role in providing nutritive

food which is rich in animal protein to the general public and also supplementing family

incomes and generating gainful employment in the rural households more particularly among

the landless, small, marginal farmers and women. Income from livestock production accounts

for significant percentage in their total household’s income. In view of notable increase in

demand for livestock products, there is a good opportunities for rural households for raising

their income level and living standard through expansion of animal husbandry. And

expansions of animal husbandry largely rely on adequate availability of feed and fodder.

7

In India, the livestock production and agriculture are intrinsically linked and each one

being dependent on the other. Both are crucial for the overall food security of the people. In

2008-09, at current prices, livestock contribution was 29.63 percent in agricultural GDP of

the country and contribution in national GDP was to the extent of 3.26 percent only

(See Table 1.3).Over the years, the contribution of agriculture sector in total GDP showing

significant downtrend whereas contribution of livestock sector to agriculture sector has been

showing significant uptrend.

1.4 Employment generation by livestock sector:

Livestock sector has considerable potential to contribute towards alleviation of

problem of unemployment and poverty. Also, it can provide large scale self-employment

opportunities. In India, 70% of the rural households own livestock and for them livestock

sector is an important source of employment especially for women. In spite of the fact that

the average holding of livestock per household is small, even though, livestock sector has

considerable potential for generating additional employment through milk, meat, wool and

eggs production activities. Milk production activity alone involves more than 30 million

small producers.

1.5 Feed and fodder scenario at national level:

The adequate uninterrupted availability of fodder is a pre-requisite for improving the

productivity of livestock and to make livestock production cost efficient. Without ensuring an

adequate supply of quality feed and fodder, the achievement of targeted growth of livestock

sector in the coming years looks almost impossible. The data system for collecting fodder

production information is far from adequate and hence data /estimates of fodder production

and demand in the country vary widely. Feed and fodder production and its utilisation depend

on the cropping pattern, climate, socio-economic condition and livestock type. The cattle and

buffaloes are normally stall fed species and fed on the fodder available from cultivated land

and supplemented to a small extent by harvested grasses. Grazing in pastures and commonly

fallow lands and harvested grasses are the main fodder source of small ruminants like sheep

and goat. Camels are fed on lopping of trees and shrubs. They also browse on standing trees

and shrubs. Horses are stall fed with dry and green fodder. Concentrates feeding is restricted

to lactating high yielding bovines and work animals. Stall feeding largely confined to

buffaloes, cross-breed cattle and draught animals. The major sources of fodder supply are

crop-residues (by-products of cereals and pulses), cultivated fodder and grass/tree leaves/

8

fodder from common property resources such as gauchar land, forest, permanent pastures and

grazing lands.

Fodder crops may be classified as temporary or as permanent crops; the former are

cultivated and harvested like any other crop, the latter relate to land used permanently (five

years or more) for herbaceous forage crops, either cultivated or growing wild (wild prairie or

grazing land / gauchar land). They may include some areas of forest lands that are used for

grazing. Temporary crops grow in artificial meadows which are normally used very

intensively, with various cuttings every year. They contain three major groups of fodder:

grasses, including cereals harvested green; legumes including pulses harvested green; and

root crops that are cultivated for fodder purpose. Through processing, the fodder can be feed

to animals as green feed; as hay, i.e. crops harvested dry or left to dry if harvested green; or

as silage products. Silage or ensilage is a method of preservation of green fodder through

fermentation to retard spoiling and this method of processing is more popular in many states

of India as compared to hay making. However, silage is not so popular in Gujarat state and

used on a small scale by large farmers associated with dairy business.

On the other hand, if we examine the land resources available for growing fodder and

forage crops, it is estimated that the average cultivated area devoted to fodder production is

around 4 to 5 per cent of the total cultivated area. Similarly, the area under permanent

pastures and cultivable wastelands is approximately 13 and 15 million hectares respectively.

Likewise, the total area under forests is 2.51 crore hectares and from that open to grazing is

2.1 crore hectares. All these resources are able to meet the forage requirements of the grazing

animals only during the monsoon season and initial months of winter season. But for the

remaining periods of the year, the animals have to be maintained through stall feeding by

feeding crop residues or straws of jowar, bajra, ragi, wheat, barley, etc. either in the form of

whole straw or a bhusa, supplemented with some green fodder or as a sole feed. The crop

residues are available mainly from wheat, maize, paddy, bajra, jowar, ragi, sugarcane trash,

etc., which are relatively poor in nutritive value. The green fodder resources for livestock are

mainly derived from grazing in grasslands and pastures, fodder crops from cropped lands,

weeds, bund grasses, tree leaves and mixed forages. Green fodder is the essential component

of feeding high yielding milch animals to obtain optimum level of milk production. The

technology of growing year round fodder production has helped the dairy farmers to sustain

milk production at 6-7 litres per day per milch animal with economical use of concentrates

and reduction in cost of milk production.

9

As the area under fodder producing crops remained by and large at constant, the

increasing requirement of fodder has to be met compulsory through improved productivity by

development and use of high yielding varieties having better nutritive value, fodder

conservation and its better utilisation and improvement of pasture land. Therefore, at this

stage, there is a need to focus more on research of development of forage varieties which are

high yielding, pest resistant and have better nutritive value. The inadequate production and

availability of quality seed of high yielding varieties of fodder crops is also acting as one of

the major constraints in enhancing fodder production.

Owing to increasing pressure of population on land and higher benefit-cost ratio,

currently Indian farmers focusing more on growing foodgrains, oilseeds and cash crops and

production of fodder remains highly neglected. The current priorities given by farmers to

foodgrains, oilseeds and cash crops are likely to worsen supply position of fodder. There are

several reports and studies showing demand and supply position of feed and fodder in the

country. The data/estimates of demand and supply of fodder given in several reports/sources

for the same period differ widely. However, most of such reports showed that there exists a

large gap between the demand and supply of feed and fodder in the country. This gap is likely

to increase as requirements of feed and fodder are increasing year after year owing to increase

in the country’s livestock population. The deficit of fodder varies across states. The most of

the fodder deficit states lie in arid and semi-arid agro ecological zones. The Gujarat is also

fodder deficit state.

Table: 1.4 Supply and demand of green and dry fodder in India (In Million MT.)

Source: Report of the working group on Animal Husbandry and dairying for the Eleventh five year plan (2007-2012), Planning Commission, Government of India

According to the report of the working group on Animal Husbandry and Dairying for

the Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007-12), Planning Commission, GoI, there is a huge deficit in

the country in green fodder and dry fodder. Over the years, deficit of green and dry fodder is

Year

Supply Demand Deficit as % of Demand

(actual demand)

Green Dry Green Dry Green Dry

1995 379.30 421 947 526 59.95 (568) 19.95 (105)

2000 384.50 428 988 549 61.10 (604) 21.93 (121)

2005 389.90 443 1025 569 61.96 (635) 22.08 (126)

2010 395.20 451 1061 589 62.76 (666) 23.46 (138)

2015 400.60 466 1097 609 63.50 (696) 23.56 (143)

2020 405.90 473 1134 630 64.21 (728) 24.81 (157)

2025 411.30 488 1170 650 64.87 (759) 24.92 (162)

10

showing upward trend (See Table 1.4). The deficit of green fodder expected to move up

further from 62.76 percent (666 million MT.) in year 2010 to 64.21 percent (759 million

MT.) in year 2020 (See Table 1.4). According to report, huge deficit gap of fodder is

expected to be aggravated in the years to come. Further, on account of diversified use of crop

residues and declining trend in land availability for forage / fodder production, the gap

between demand and supply of fodder is likely to be widen further. The quantitative and

qualitative deterioration of common grazing land owing to overgrazing and lack of proper

maintenance resulted in low biomass production and increased the fodder deficit. The area

under fodder crops in the country has also remained almost static (around 5%) for last two

decades and it look uncertain whether this will increase in future.

Owing to severe shortages of feed and fodder and its higher prices, large number of

India’s livestock population, particularly in the arid and semi-arid regions suffer from

underfeeding problem. Thus, feed and fodder deficit in fact have been the main limiting

factor in raising livestock productivity and achieving targeted growth of livestock sector.

Thus, to ensure an adequate supply of quality feed and fodder is one of the major challenges

faced by the India where dairying is largely the avocation of poor, especially women. The

need of the hour is therefore, of sincere efforts to reduce gap between the requirement and

availability of feeds and fodder which include technological interventions to enhance

productivity, bringing more area under fodders, use of high yielding seed for improving

fodder productivity, improvement of pasture and grazing lands, formulation of balance

rations, feeding of unconventional feed etc. All are agree on the fact that quality and quantity

of feeds and fodders supply will be the key factor for sustaining the future growth and

development of the livestock and dairy sector of India.

1.6 Role of fodders:

Fodder plays an important role in economising the cost of production of livestock

products especially of milk. Fodder comprises a major protein of dairy ration of milch

animals and therefore cultivation of nutritious and high yielding fodder is inevitable.

Profitable livestock farming depends mainly on adequate availability of fodder with

reasonable price. With increase in number of animal population & shrinking land resources,

the problem to provide adequate feed and forage become so acute.

1. Feed & fodder cost constitute about 60-70% of cost of milk production. Thus

cultivated fodder has an important role in meeting requirement of various nutrients &

roughage to produce milk most economically.

11

2. Feeds given to animals not only meet nutrient requirement but fills the rumen to

satisfy the animal.

3. In view of microbial digestion system, feeds have to meet requirement of cattle

production and microbes to promote digestion.

4. Fodder crops provide all the critical elements like highly digestible protein,

carbohydrates, fats and minerals. Green fodders are a very good source of B-carotene

(precursor of vitamin A).

5. Common cereal fodder crops like Maize, Sorghum and Oats are rich in energy. And

the leguminous crops like Lucerne, Berseem & Cowpea are rich in proteins and good

source of minerals which are critical for rumen microbes as well as animal system.

6. Fodder cultivation has been traditional in most parts of the country. Since generations

farmers cultivate certain varieties and crops for fodder production and area allocation

to these crops depending upon availability of land, water and requirement for own

livestock.

1.7 Livestock sector of Gujarat:

In Gujarat, of the total human population of 5.06 crore (2001 census) and of which

about 62.6 percent is in rural areas and percentage of population below poverty line is 14.06.

Livestock sector in the state has made spectacular growth in 2000s, with positive

impact on lives of rural people mainly of small farmers, marginal farmers and landless

labourers by enhancing considerably their income and living standard. “AMUL” is well

known worldwide.

The gross value of output from livestock sector in Gujarat has increased at an annual

compound growth rate of nearly 12 percent from Rs. 5724 crore in 1999-2000 to Rs. 14734

crore in 2007-2008. The contribution of gross value of output from livestock sector to gross

value of output from agriculture and allied sectors is about 25 percent at current prices and

contribution to total GSDP is about 5 to 5.5 percent. This shows that livestock sector have

played vital role in generating income at household level and contributing significantly to the

state economy.

Milk production and poultry farming are important activities of livestock farming in

Gujarat which provides supplementary income, employment and nutrition to majority of rural

households. Gujarat is the fifth largest producer of milk in the country contributing about 7.4

percent to national production. Per capita availability of milk in Gujarat has increased from

291 gms. per day in 2000-01 to 403 gms. in 2008-09. In Gujarat, growth in milk production

12

went up from 4.6 percent in 1990s to 5.1 percent in 2000s. Dairy co-operatives have played

vital role in the development of dairy sector and particularly in increasing milk production in

the state. Among poultry products, eggs production in the state grew at a growth rate of about

16 percent per annum. Currently, the growth in milk and egg sector in the state is 6 and 16

percent respectively as compared to 4 and 6 percent of national average. The state has

potential for achieving further growth in milk and egg production.

In milk production, buffaloes and cows are the main contributor. Buffaloe is

predominant milch animal in the state accounting for 63 percent of milk production. The

buffaloe population went up from 39.3 lakh in 1997 to 48.3 lakh in 2007 showing an increase

Table: 1.5 Trends in Livestock and Poultry population in Gujarat: 1992 to 2007 (number in Lakh)

1992 1997 2003 2007 % change over 1997

Crossbred cows(>2.5 years) 1.30 1.83 3.40 5.70 211.48

Indigenous (>3 years) 20.10 22.45 23.40 22.50 0.20

Buffaloes (>3 years) 31.50 39.30 42.30 48.25 22.70

Total 196.70 209.65 228.50 237.90 13.50

Poultry 56.60 72.37 81.50 133.73 84.80

Source: GoG (2008)

of about 22.7 percent in last decades (See Table 1.5). The population of indigenous cows

remained by and large unchanged but population of crossbred cows has jumped from 1.8 lakh

in 1997 to 5.7 lakh in 2007 (See Table 1.4). This fast pace uptrend in crossbred cow

population is likely to be continue in the years to come as it has higher economical value and

better benefit cost ratio. The Poultry animals also increased from 56.6 lakh in 1997 to 133.7

lakh in 2007 registering significant increase of about 84.8 percent.

Livestock sector of Gujarat state is also facing a problem of acute shortage of green

fodder (28%) and concentrates (73%). At present, owing to notable areas under cereal crops,

supply of dry fodder match the demand but in near future, the problem of deficit of dry

fodder is likely to arise. On account of shortage of fodder and feed, its prices are very high

and in turn cost of production of livestock products also going up. Thus, shortage of feed and

fodder resources is hurting the growth of livestock production in the state. In Gujarat, in

recent past, shift in crop pattern toward commercial crops like cotton, cumin, castor,

mustard/rapeseeds, fruits etc. whose by product mostly non-useable as fodder, also

aggravated the problem of shortage of feed and fodder. Thus, for livestock development in

13

state, shortage of feeds and fodder is a cause of a big concern and needs to be address on a

priority basis.

There is no regulated and organised market in the state for sale and purchase of feed

and fodder for livestock. In rural areas, farmer having surplus fodder sell some quantity to

needy cattle owners. Generally, demand for green and dry fodders in a village is met from

within village. Hence, very small scale grass / fodder marketing takes place in the rural areas

of the state. In the state, commercial processing of fodder crops is on a very small scale. The

various types of concentrates manufactured by dairy co-operatives as well as private sector

are available in the market.

1.8 Need of the study:

The livestock sector in India contributes in the range of 30 to 35 percent in total

agricultural output. The desired annual growth of agriculture sector can be accomplished only

through enhancing overall productivity of the livestock sector. This would require a steady

and adequate supply of quality fodder for supporting the livestock population. Having only 4

to 5 percent of total cropping area under fodder cultivation and low productivity of fodder

crops has resulted in a severe deficit of green fodder, dry fodder and concentrates. For

development of livestock sector, the need of the hour is, therefore, to meet this shortfall of

fodder (which is over 55%) by adopting suitable measures for increasing the production of

crop residues, green fodder and agricultural by-products. Fodder deficit can mainly be

attributed to our limitations in increasing the area under fodder crops, limited availability of

good high yielding fodder varieties, lack of quality seeds of improved hybrids/ varieties, poor

quality of dry fodder like paddy/wheat straw, changing crop pattern in favour of cash crops

etc. Besides, low priority accorded to investment in fodder production, lack of post-harvest

management for surplus fodder, poor management of grazing/pasture lands and inadequate

research, extension and manpower support also aggravated the shortfall situation of fodders.

The importance of feeds and fodders in dairy farming needs no emphasis. With

increase in the pressure on land due to urbanisation and industrialisation and decrease in the

area under fodder and food crops coupled with increasing demand for milk and milk

products, the dependency of livestock / dairy farmers on external or purchased inputs has also

increased and it is putting pressure especially on the resource poor dairy farmers. Efforts are

being made and underway for reducing the gap between the requirement and availability of

feeds and fodders through technological interventions to increase the yields, bringing more

area under fodder crops, conservation of feeds and fodders, improving the nutritive value of

14

the poor quality roughages, formulation of balanced rations, feeding of unconventional feeds

etc. But “fodder scarcity” continued and it has becomes a challenging issue in most of the

developing countries including India, where dairying is largely the avocation of the poor,

especially women.

Ensuring an adequate supply of reasonable quality feed and fodder is one of the major

challenges which Indian livestock sector is facing currently. While there is some debate on

the exact size of the current deficit, there is general agreement that the quantity and quality of

feed and fodder supply will be of vital importance in sustaining the growth of the livestock

sector in future.

The costs and returns analysis for various fodder crops will be helpful to examine the

relative profitability of these crops in the region. The farmers will get the remunerative prices

for their surplus produce only when the effective and efficient processing and marketing

system of fodder and feed is in place.

With this in view, the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of

Agriculture, Government of India asked Agro-Economic Research Centre, Vallabh

Vidyanagar, Gujarat to undertake this study for Gujarat state with the objectives shown

below.

1.9 Objectives of the study:

The following are the specific objectives of the study:

1. To study the status of fodder crops cultivated in the state;

2. To estimate the costs of production and returns associated with the cultivation of

important fodder crops;

3. To examine the present processing and marketing system of fodder crops and to estimate

costs and returns across different channels of fodder crops;

4. To identify the processing and marketing system and to estimate the costs and returns at

each link for these fodder crops;

5. To study the problems faced by the producers in production, marketing and processing

of these fodder crops and remedial measures thereof.

1.10 Frame work and scope of study:

This study makes an attempt to assess the status of fodder crops in the state, cost of

production and net returns from cultivation of fodder crops, marketing and processing system

of fodder production and problems of cultivation of fodder crops.

15

This common study is to be conducted in 5 states and it is to be co-ordinate by Agro

Economic Research Centre, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. The survey

instruments, tabulation, technical inputs and guidance for the study were provided by AERC,

Ludhiana.

**************

16

Chapter -2

Methodology

The sampling design used in the study for selection of study crops, sample districts,

sample tehsils and sample farmers along with methodology used for collection and analysis

of data have been discussed in this chapter.

2.1 Sampling design

The study is based on both primary as well as secondary data. The primary data were

collected for agricultural year 2008-09. The selection of study crops, sample districts, sample

tehsils, sample villages, sample farmers and local processors/traders was made in the

following manner:

i) Selection of sample districts: As per sampling design provided by the coordinator

centre, it was decided to select 3 districts of the state which have highest population of the

livestock. District-wise data on livestock population is given in Table 2.1.

Sr.

No District Ca

ttle

Bu

ffa

lo

Sh

eep

Go

at

Ho

rse

Po

ny

Mu

le

Do

nk

ey

Ca

mel

Pig

Do

g

Ra

bb

it

To

tal

Liv

esto

ck

Po

ult

ry

1 Banaskantha 660113 955158 160558 309401 1440 73 0 3233 5066 5311 62261 2370 2164984 272255

2 Sabarkantha 620696 774928 66695 343981 288 0 0 5070 3105 1623 16745 507 1833638 401369

3 Kachchh 388717 225992 575019 484982 2322 28 11 3356 8575 963 16962 352 1707279 23175

4 Panchmahals 588561 615970 3960 446639 134 33 1 4330 462 343 23650 647 1684730 481557

5 Dahod 588511 283764 5547 505287 39 0 0 1638 99 0 44176 183 1429244 592998

6 Vadodara 481872 462358 4423 312254 389 0 0 2888 174 0 6664 111 1271133 710493

7 Rajkot 451706 362042 217333 197487 740 30 0 1674 96 957 9110 244 1241419 182339

8 Bhavnagar 340063 334140 258267 199173 1336 25 0 1766 310 0 5373 366 1140819 1250961

9 Junagadh 481049 377487 46949 106849 473 11 0 625 534 3254 7233 122 1024586 67355

10 Kheda 227082 627823 29405 118387 220 2 0 3757 793 413 5514 665 1014061 460173

11 Jamnagar 349945 256755 207967 172618 391 7 1 1226 2450 0 10749 329 1002438 38591

12 Surendranagar 346861 290113 133515 190500 1199 109 0 1173 271 0 278 60 964079 1706

13 Mehsana 216242 567605 14752 87640 440 52 1 2413 5755 1000 83 81 896064 114299

14 Amreli 268984 200569 136607 133764 857 25 0 177 2 389 293 87 741754 15896

15 Ahmedabad 216941 343699 23150 125800 806 14 2 2506 1307 5 2400 284 716914 452470

16 Patan 131016 363514 53750 102937 680 11 0 3250 3357 131 5235 185 664066 23313

17 Anand 147238 407080 10503 76176 134 52 0 6194 1631 233 3214 356 652811 4593181

18 Surat 226873 246607 1086 106237 282 18 0 693 12 2646 5365 380 590199 767148

19 Gandhinagar 148468 364040 16658 47149 128 14 0 1175 1801 400 9655 477 589965 185376

20 Valsad 308149 96487 2999 147164 26 0 0 93 5 244 8866 479 564512 1044331

21 Tapi 214544 176458 955 94258 48 0 0 70 0 2723 5623 175 494854 502832

22 Bharuch 121869 153814 6896 133671 524 72 6 1521 836 267 3769 108 423353 271136

23 Navsari 156319 102142 1773 66644 22 1 0 1019 2 369 2625 198 331114 610494

24 Narmada 140863 58951 131 71897 20 0 0 115 1 74 367 73 272492 123847

25 Porbandar 83108 105346 22649 22325 478 9 0 149 1810 0 5161 160 241195 29371

26 Dangs 69934 20727 17 36917 1 0 0 65 0 440 7600 109 135810 156242

7975724 8773569 2001564 4640137 13417 586 22 50176 38454 21785 268971 9108 23793513 13372908

Source: 18th Livestock Census Report - 2007

Directorate of Animal Husbandry, Government of Gujarat.

TABLE - 2.1 DISTRICTWISE 18TH

LIVESTOCK CENSUS - 2007 - GUJARAT STATE.

Total

17

The data shows that first four districts having highest livestock population were

Banaskantha, Sabarkantha, Kutch and Panchmahals. In livestock population of Kutch,

there was a large proportion of small ruminants and particularly of sheeps (5.75 lakh). As

small ruminants are very less dependent upon fodder and almost 100 percent dependent

upon open grazing along with browsing of shrubs and bushes. Among livestock, cattle

and buffaloes are important from economic point of view and fodder consumption. The

cattle and buffaloes population of Kutch district is nearly half (614709) than that for

Panchmahals (1204531) district. Therefore, with the approval from coordinating centre,

we dropped third rank Kutch district from the selection and selected next district

Panchmahals. Thus, we selected Banaskantha, Sabarkantha and Panchmahals districts for

the study.

ii) Selection of tehsils: From each of selected district, two blocks using distance criteria

were selected purposively. One block near and second block far from district headquarter

and have large area under study crops were selected purposively. Accordingly, Palanpur

and Kankrej blocks from Banaskantha district, Himmatnagar and Ider blocks from

Sabarkantha district and Godhra and Lunawada blocks from Panchmahals district were

selected (See Table 2.2) for study.

iii) Selection of villages: On the basis of discussion with District Cooperative Dairy

Officials, Taluka Development Officers and Officials of State Agriculture and Animal

Husbandry Department, four to five villages were selected from each selected block. The

numbers of villages selected from each blocks varied keeping in view the availability of

adequate number of sample farmers growing selected fodder crops. The list of selected

villages from each block is given in Table 2.2.

iv) Selection of farmers: From each selected block/tehsil, total 25 sample farmers growing

selected crops were selected at random. The selected farmers were of different farm size

categories i.e. marginal (<1 hect.), small (1-2 hect.), semi-medium (2-4 hect.), medium

(4-10 hect.) and large (>10 hect.) and representing different social strata such as SC, ST,

OBC and General castes. Thus, from each selected district, total 50 sample farmers

(grower of study crops) were selected at random for the study. Altogether, 150

(50X3=150) sample households were selected for primary survey of the study. The

circumstances explained in 2.6 compelled us to deviate from prescribed sampling design.

The village-wise and farm size-wise distribution of sample farmers is presented in

Table 2.2.

18

v) Selection of local trader/ processors: With a view to know and to study different stages

of fodder processing and also to assess the cost involved at each stage of fodder

processing, total four processors were selected at random from the sample districts. Two

local traders were also selected at random from the selected districts to estimate costs and

returns across the marketing channel of fodder. The problems which we faced while

selecting local traders/processors are discussed in 2.6.

Table 2.2: List of Selected Districts, Tehsils, Villages and Category-Wise Sample

Households.

District Block Village MF SF SMF MDF LF Total

Veganpur 1 1 1 4 1 8

Odidra 1 0 3 0 1 5

Moti Kantadi 0 2 2 1 0 5

Vonzhol 1 0 3 3 0 7

Untadi 1 3 2 0 0 6

Vardhari 0 1 5 0 0 6

Vaadi 1 1 2 3 0 7

Paanch Mahudia 1 0 3 2 0 6

Dalpur 0 0 3 3 0 6

Desashan 0 0 3 3 0 6

Hadiyol 0 2 3 4 0 9

Katwal(Hapa) 1 0 1 1 1 4

Badoli 1 1 2 3 0 7

Godhamaji 0 1 2 2 1 6

Poshina 1 0 4 1 0 6

Mota Kotada 0 0 1 5 0 6

Khodala 1 1 2 3 0 7

Kushkal 0 0 3 1 0 4

Chadotar 1 2 3 1 0 7

Madana(Gadh) 2 2 3 0 0 7

Khoda 1 1 2 1 1 6

Dungrasan 0 2 2 0 0 4

Khasa 0 0 0 2 0 2

Chekhala 2 2 0 2 0 6

Adhgam 1 2 2 2 0 7

17 24 57 47 5 150

Banaskantha Palanpur

Kankrej

Grand Total

Panchmahals Godhra

Lunawada

Sabarkantha Himmatnagar

Ider

Note: MF=Marginal Farmers (<1 hect.), SF= Small Farmers (1-2 hect.), SMF=Semi-Medium Farmers

(2-4 hect.), MDF=Medium Farmers (4-10 hect.) and LF=Large Farmers (>10 hect.)

2.2 Selection of crops

On the basis of data on area under different fodder crops collected from the office of

District Development Officer (DDO) of the selected districts, one important fodder crop for

each season were selected for the in depth analysis. Lucerne was selected as study crop for

rabi season where as bajra crop was selected as study crop for summer season.

19

In Gujarat, during kharif season, generally farmers are not growing pure fodder crops.

Hence, during kharif season, the area under pure fodder crops in selected districts was almost

negligible. Therefore, in such situation, we selected the most important food grain crop

(whose by product/residue is used as fodder) as study crop for kharif season. Maize was

selected as kharif study crop for Panchmahals and Sabarkantha districts. As area under maize

is nearly nil in Banaskantha district, we selected bajra, the most important food grain crop

having better fodder value as study crop for Banaskantha district.

For estimating the cost of cultivation of fodder residue (By product) in selected food

grain crops (Main and Byproduct) the method used is stated below:

BPC= (BPR/TR)*TC

Where,

BPC= Total cost of cultivation of by product (Fodder residues).

BPR= Farm Harvest Price of by product (Fodder residues).

TR= Total value of crop-output (Main + By product)

TC= Total cost of cultivation of crop.

2.3 Method of primary data collection

The primary survey instrument was prepared and finalized by AERC, PAU, Ludhiana

after consultation with associated AERCs. The season wise primary data were collected by

recall method from the selected sample households by interviewing the decision makers of

the households. Quantitative/ qualitative information was collected in the schedule on various

related aspects such as demographic profile, landholding, farm machinery, season wise

cropping pattern, livestock details, cost of cultivation of fodder crops, post harvest hay and

silage making. Opinions of farmers were collected on various aspects such as decadal

comparison of area, production and yield of fodder crops. Similar comparison was also made

with respect to animal population, production and yield. Suggestions with respect to problems

of fodder production, processing and marketing were also obtained. In addition to household

schedule, a processor schedule was also administered to capture the data to know and to study

different stages of fodder processing and to assess the costs involved at each of its stages.

Local traders were also selected at random from the selected districts for estimation of costs

and returns across different marketing channels of fodder.

In addition to field survey other important information and data were also collected

through personal discussion with District Co-operative Dairy Officials, Taluka Development

20

Officers and Officials of State Agriculture and State Animal Husbandry Department. The

reference year for primary survey was agricultural year 2008-09.

2.4 Secondary data collection

The secondary data required for the study were collected from the various government

departments such as Directorate of Agriculture, GoG and Directorate Animal Husbandry

Department, GoG, Central/ State government publications and websites. District-wise time

series data on livestock population and area under total fodder crops were collected from

above mentioned sources.

2.5 Analytical framework

The main objective of the study is to examine the costs of production and returns

associated with the cultivation of important fodder crops. Therefore, average cost of

cultivation, components of cost of cultivation, return of main products and by products were

analyzed in details for study crops across different agricultural seasons and different class of

farmers. To study the status of fodder crops cultivated in the state, season wise cropping

pattern and livestock details were collected and analyzed. Available processors and local

traders were surveyed with respect to their turnover, crops they handle, rate of

charge/commission and post harvest operational cost to examine the present processing and

marketing system of fodder crops and to estimate costs and returns across different marketing

channels of fodder crops. The data on post harvest process of hay and silage making were

also analysed. Qualitative questions were put to farmers on various aspects such as decadal

comparison of area, production and yield of fodder crops were also analysed. Similar

comparison was also made with respect to animal population, production and yield.

Suggestions with respect to problems they faced with regard to fodder production, processing

and marketing were also obtained from the respondents. In addition to field survey,

information on current major problems of fodder production and the possible solutions to

eliminate it were also collected through personal discussion with District Cooperative Dairy

Officials, Taluka Development Officers (TDO) and Officials of State Agriculture and State

Animal Husbandry Department.

2.6 Limitations of study

1. Selection of study crops: In Gujarat, generally farmers are not growing pure fodder

crops during kharif season. Hence in Gujarat, the area under pure fodder crops is almost

negligible during kharif season. Therefore the most important foodgrain crops, whose by

product (crop residues) is used as fodder was selected as study crop for kharif season.

21

Accordingly, maize was selected as kharif study crop for Panchmahals and Sabarkantha

districts. But, as area under maize grain crop was nearly nil in Banaskantha district.

Therefore, for Banaskantha district, we selected bajra grain crop as study crop for kharif

season.

2. District selection: As per final study design, we have to select three districts on the basis

of either highest area/production of fodder or proportion of the livestock population in

the state. On the basis of the proportion of the livestock population in the state, first four

districts which figure out are 1) Banaskantha 2) Sabarkantha 3) Kutch 4) Panchmahals.

The data of total livestock population includes population of cattle, buffalo, sheep, goat,

horse, pony, mule, donkey, camel, pig, dog and rabbits. Kutch stands in third position in

livestock population because of very high proportion of small ruminants such as sheep

and goat which are very less dependent on fodder and almost depends upon open grazing

along with browsing of shrubs and bushes. Moreover large livestock holders of Kutch

district are migrating to other districts for at least six months in each year. Panchmahals

district which stands fourth in proportion of livestock population has high population of

cattle and buffalo (1204531) whereas Kutch has nearly half of the cattle and buffalo

population (614709). As from the point of view of fodder and economic consideration,

cattle and buffalo population are more important. Therefore in place of Kutch,

Panchmahals district was selected with prior approval from the coordinating centre.

Panchmahals was selected on the basis of more cattle and buffalo population.

3. Secondary data: The time series data on district wise production and yield of different

fodder crops and total fodder crops were not available with any government

departments/private sources. So the same has not been incorporated and stated as non

available (NA).Hence it is not possible to work out growth rates of fodder production

and yields.

4. Local traders, forwarding/ commission agents and processors: In Gujarat, system of

processing of fodder crops for commercial purpose is operating on a very negligible

scale. Even silage method of storing and processing of fodder is not so popular among

farmers and processors. The big dairy farmers are using hay making method for storage

of fodder. There is no regulated and organised market for fodder in Gujarat. Therefore,

despite sincere efforts, we were not able to find adequate numbers of sample processors/

channel partners for the study.

22

5. Summer crop: Banaskantha, Sabarkantha and to some extent Panchmahals districts are

water starving and have limited irrigation sources. Therefore, from our sample farmers,

only those farmers, who have adequate irrigation facility had grown study crop in

rabi/summer season. Therefore, for rabi/summer study crops, data available are for not

for all sample farmers.

6. Among selected sample farmers, no one involved in marketing of fodder production. All

sample farmers used fodder production for own consumption. Hence, disposal pattern

not examined in Chapter-4.

7. Period of annual growth rates: In Gujarat, sub-division and reformation of districts

took place in 1997. Adopting sub division process of then existing 18 districts, total 26

districts were formed with new boundary. The new 8 districts were formed by effecting

reduction in the geographical area of old 10 districts. In this process of reformation, there

was a substantial change in the geographical area of many districts. For example, old

Kheda district divided into two districts namely Kheda and Anand. Similarly old

Bharuch district was divided into Bharuch and Narmada districts. In view of reformation

process of districts in 1997, data for 1992 were not available for new 8 districts. For 10

old districts whose geographical area reduced for formation of new districts, the data for

1992 and post 1997 period become non-comparable. In view of this situation, to know

the correct trend in growth of livestock sector, instead of calculating growth rate as

suggested for period 1992-2007, we worked out growth rate for the period 1997-2007.

The limitation listed above were communicated to the coordinating agency and approval

on each one of them were taken thereof. The present study is attempted with best efforts of

adhering to the study design.

2.7 Organization of report

The present study report is divided into eight chapters including first introduction

chapter. The sampling design and methodology used for study has been presented in chapter

two. Chapter three presents status of livestock population and cultivation of fodder crops in

the state. The fourth chapter presents socio economic characteristics of sample households,

status of production of fodder crops, livestock population and feeding practices. The chapter

five presents cost of cultivation and economics of fodder crops vis-à-vis competing crops.

Chapter six provides status and costs involved in processing and marketing of fodder crops.

Problems faced by growers are presented in chapter seven. Chapter eight provides summary,

conclusions and policy recommendations.

23

Chapter-3

Status of Livestock and

Fodder Crops in the State

3.1 Introduction:

Livestock constituted an important component of the livelihood system of rural

households of the state. Hence for improving the livelihood security of millions of rural

households of the state, the development of livestock sector is most important and crucial.

And desired level of development of livestock sector can only be achieved through suitable

measures for enhancing productivity of livestock and reducing the cost of production of

livestock products. For enhancing livestock productivity, providing adequate quantity of

quality nutritious feed and fodder to livestock is most crucial. At present, majority states of

the country are facing problem of severe shortage of feed, fodder and concentrates for

livestock. The fodder deficit can mainly be attributed to our limitations in increasing the area

under fodder crops and lack of adequate efforts and attention from government side to raise

the productivity and production of fodder crops. Only 4 to 5 percent of total cropped area of

the country is under fodder cultivation and it is almost static since last two decades or so. In

Gujarat also, area under fodder production is almost static around 10 percent and in recent

years showing declining trend. This situation is mainly because of unwillingness of farmers

to put more areas under fodder crops because of non favourable economics of fodder

cultivation compared to other crops. The economic viability of livestock husbandry mainly

depends upon sources of feed and fodder as feeding cost constitutes about 65 to 70 percent of

total cost of livestock farming. Therefore, reviewing the economics of production, processing

and marketing of fodder crops on the basis of field survey in selected districts, it will be

pertinent to have a glance at fodder and livestock related major aspects and characteristics

such as livestock population, crop pattern, land use pattern, fodder availability and demand

etc. for study districts/state. With this in view, in this chapter, broad profile and

characteristics related with fodder economics has been provided for selected districts and

State as a whole.

3.2 General, demographic and land profile of the selected Districts & Gujarat:

Gujarat is situated between 20o1' and 24

o7' north latitudes and 68

o4' and 74

o4' east

longitudes on the west coast of India. The state can be broadly divided in to South, Middle,

North and Saurashtra- Kutch regions. The state has an area of 196024 sq. km. and the

24

population stood at 5.07 crore, which is 5 percent of the national population.

In the state, the contribution of gross value of output from livestock sector is 5 to 5.5 per cent

to the Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) and its share in agriculture gross value of output

is around 22 per cent. Livestock sector had witnessed steady growth at 6-7 percent per annum

with lower volatility.

The geographical area of the state is 196 lakh hectares and reporting area is 188.12

lakh hectares. The net are sown is around 52 percent of reporting area. The area under forest

is 18.48 lakh hectares. The area under forest is an important source of fodder and grazing for

animals. Over the years, it declined from 10.44 percent in 1980-81 to 9.83 percent in 2004-07

(see Table 3.2). The area under permanent pastures and cultivable waste lands is 11.53 lakh

(6.13 %) and 19.75 lakh (10.50 %) hectares respectively. The permanent pasture and gauchar

are good source of fodder, forage and grass and also for grazing for animals. The area under

permanent pasture and grazing land in the state is almost stagnant since last three decades or

so. Owing to over grazing and very poor maintenance, the quality of pasture land has

worsened sharply and at present productivity is very low. In State crop pattern, compared to

foodgrain crops, higher area allocation given to non-food crops. Among food grains, cereal

crops like bajra, paddy, jowar, maize and wheat are dominant and crop residues or straws of

these crops is widely used as dry fodder for feeding animals. The groundnut, cotton and

castor are the main cash crops of the State. From these crops, by product of groundnut crop is

used for feeding animals. Area under pure fodder crops in the state showing declining trend

since 2001. It declined from 12.08 percent in 2001-04 to 10.32 percent of the total cropped

area in 2004-07. This is one of the main factors which limit the development of livestock

sector in the state to a great extent. Animal wealth (as per census-2007) of state comprises of

33.50 percent cattle, 36.90 percent buffaloes, 8.40 percent sheeps, 19.50 percent goats and

about 1.70 percent other animals (Table 3.5). The animal density is 1.26 per hectare of

reporting area. In total livestock, proportion of buffaloes is higher in the middle and north

Gujarat due to well developed network of milk co-operatives and availability of good

infrastructure to pursue dairy activities. Indigenous cattle breeds like Kankrej and Gir are

very good and dual-purpose breeds. Livestock rearing and milk production is the backbone of

the economy of Gujarat’s farmers. Currently, livestock sector of Gujarat state is facing severe

deficit of green fodder and concentrates. The major fodder crops grown in the state are pearl

millet (bajra), sorghum, guar, lucerne, cowpea and grasses like guinea, Dhaman and Sewan.

25

In the last decade, the state as a whole has made well progress in both agriculture and

livestock sectors, but across districts, development has been uneven with high variability.

Certain areas are lagging in the race of development. Panchmahal dominated by ST

population is one of the districts which require special attention to have livestock

development status at par with the other districts. Here, agriculture is very traditional and

mainly rainfed. Irrigation facilities are very limited. Surface run-off of rainwater is very high.

In certain pockets, water has become a limiting factor. It roughly lies between 73° 15' and 74°

eastern longitude and 20° 30' and 23° 30' northern latitude. The district has geographical area

of 5083.71 sq. kms. (2.60 % of state) with population of 20.25 lakh (3.99 % of state) having

sex ratio 938 (female per 1000 male).

Sabarkantha district is situated in Northeast of Gujarat state. Sabarkantha is famous

for cattle-rearing and dairy enterprise. The majority rural households and particularly women

are actively engaged with dairy activities/ livestock husbandry. The district has wide and

strong network of milk co-operatives and hence milk producers not facing any problem in

marketing of milk. Also, the district possesses very good infrastructure facilities and

favourable climate condition to pursue animal husbandry. All type of veterinary services are

available in every corner of the district round the clock. Here, majority rural households are

using dairying effectively as an income generating activity. The income from animal

husbandry / dairying ensures survival of families during lean agricultural /scarcity periods. It

also enhanced economic empowerment to women. The total land area of the district is 7260

sq.km. (3.70%). As shown in Table 3.1, the population of Sabarkantha district was 20.83 lakh

as per 2001 census and constitutes about four percent of the state population. In the total

population, the male population was 10.69 lakh (51.36 %) and the female population was

10.12 lakh (48.64 %).

The Banaskantha district is situated between the parallels of latitude 23° 49' and 24°

42' and the meridians of longitude 71°.1' and 73°.0'. The area covered by the district is

10,757 sq. km. (5.49 %). Some parts of the district are flat and some are hilly and full of

small hills and hillocks. According to Census 2001, the population of Banaskantha district

reported as 25.04 lakh. Of the total population, more than 88 percent of the district resides in

rural areas. The sex ratio is (females per 1000 males) 930. Majority rural households are

engaged in agriculture and livestock / dairy farming. Their livelihood security is highly

dependent on prospect of agriculture and livestock farming. Rural women are actively

associated with dairy activities. The district has well developed co-operative dairy network

26

and it is a leading producer of milk in the state. Milk producers are not facing any difficulties

in marketing of milk. The district has good infrastructure facilities such as numbers of

veterinary polyclinics, animal insemination centres, sheep and wool extension centres etc. to

pursue animal husbandry. The district is facing a problem of high incidence of poverty, low

employment availabilities in lean agriculture seasons, acute shortage of water resources for

both, drinking and irrigating crops, frequent drought and distress migration of big livestock

holders along with livestock in summer season.

3.3 Climate / temperature / soil type:

Gujarat is heterogeneous in respect of agro-climatic condition and it has about 20

percent arid and 9 percent semi-arid areas of the country. Gujarat has tropical climate and the

climate of the state as well as of selected districts (Sabarkantha, Banaskantha and

Panchmahal) is extreme. The average temperature of the State ranged from 30

Celsius to 460

Celsius. Among selected districts minimum temperature varied from 2.0 to 7.2 Celsius and

maximum temperature from 45.6 to 46.3 Celsius (see Table 1.1). The climate of the

Panchmahals district is dry and hot. The climate of Banaskantha and Sabarkantha districts is

characterized by a hot summer and dryness in the non rainy seasons. The soil type of

Panchmahals district is sandy loam with surface colour reddish brown to brown. In

Banaskantha and Sabarkantha districts, soil type is sandy loam to sandy. The climate and soil

type variations in selected districts supports diversified crop pattern.

3.4 Monsoon, rainfall and irrigation:

The agriculture plays an important role in state economy, as nearly 60 percent of its

population is dependent on agriculture and allied sectors. The agriculture prospects in the

state largely depend on arrival of rainfall, quantum of rainfall and even distribution of rainfall

over time span as more than 55 percent cropped area of state is rainfed.

The output of agriculture sector in the state is highly volatile mainly due to its high

dependence on rainfall. Agriculture is largely dependent on the south-west monsoons from

June/ July to September/October, which is often erratic and unevenly distributed. Irregular

and erratic rainfall and limited irrigation are two main causes which impacting adversely on

the prospect of agriculture in Gujarat. There is a wide variation in the yearly rainfall from one

part to another part of the state. The average normal rainfall of the state is 890 mm. for 10

year period ending 2004-05. Among selected districts, Panchmahal have average annual

rainfall (910 mm) higher than state average whereas in remaining two selected districts,

average annual rainfall is lower than state average of 890 mm. (see Table 3.1). Owing to

27

scanty and erratic rainfall and unfavourable natural conditions, frequent drought conditions

appearing in Banaskantha, Sabarkantha and Panchmahals districts. This ultimately causing

adverse impact on prospect of agriculture and fodder production and on livestock sector. This

makes livelihood more difficult for rural poor.

Table: 3.1 Agricultural Statistics at a Glance for Selected Districts & Gujarat-2006-07

No. Particulars Unit Banaskantha Sabarkantha Panchmahal Gujarat

1 Population-2001 Census 000' 2504 2082 2025 50671

2

Temperature (2004-08)

i) Maximum C 0 45.6 46.3 46.2 46.0

ii) Minimum C 0 2.0 7.2 7.0 3.0

3

Rainfall

i) Normal (1996-05) Mm. 590 731 910 890

ii) Actual (2007-10) Mm. 656 864 735 969

4 Net Sown Area

(NSA) 00' Hect. 7398 4376 2796 97449

5 Gross Cropped Area

(GCA) 00' Hect. 9850 5735 3031 117499

6 Cropping Intensity % 133.14 131.06 108.40 120.57

7

Irrigation

Total Net Irrigated Area

(NIA) 00' Hect. 4188 2122 529 42376

Gross Irrigated Area

(GIA) 00' Hect. 5176 2865 640 52787

% GIA to GCA % 52.55 49.96 21.12 44.93

Irrigation Intensity % 123.59 135.01 120.98 124.57

8

Sources of Irrigation

Government Canals 00' Hect. 135 276 172 9098

% to GIA % 2.61 9.63 26.88 17.24

Wells-Tube wells 00' Hect. 5017 1561 422 42095

% to GIA % 96.93 89.39 65.94 79.75

Source: 1) Statistical Abstract of Gujarat State-2009, Socio-Economic Review Gujarat State-2007-08,

Directorates of Economics & Statistics, Government of Gujarat,

2) Season & Crop Report-2006-07, Directorate of Agriculture, Gandhinagar

Irrigation is a crucial factor affecting the productivity of crops and acreage under

fodder and other crops in the rabi and summer seasons. The groundwater, surface water and

irrigation scenario of Gujarat state is not so encouraging as compared to national level.

The percentage of area under irrigation and multiple crops clearly indicates that agriculture in

Gujarat is primarily rainfed. In 2006-07, about 44 percent of gross cropped area (GCA) was

irrigated. However, in Banaskantha and Sabarkantha districts, area irrigated was 50-52

percent of GCA. The area under irrigated crops is very low in Panchmahals district. Only 21

28

percent area of GCA was irrigated. In these districts, year-wise percentage of irrigated area

fluctuating widely as it depends upon the quantum of rainfall in a year. The source wise data

reveals that in Banaskantha and Sabarkantha districts, Wells and Tube wells are the prime

sources of irrigation and area irrigated by these sources was more than 89 percent of gross

irrigated area (GIA). In Panchmahals also, nearly 66 percent area of GIA was irrigated by

Wells / Tube wells. Banaskantha and Sabarkantha districts falls under dark zone because of

substantial decline in underground water level. Water level is very deep. Due to deep water

table, cost of irrigation in these districts is relatively very high. This push up the cost of

cultivation of irrigated crops.

The irrigation intensity in the state is very low at 124.57 percent. The cropping

intensity is also very low at 120.57 percent. In selected districts, the irrigation intensity

ranged from 120.98 percent in Panchmahal to 135.01 percent in Sabarkantha (see Table 3.1).

Low irrigation intensity also demonstrates that water resources are scare in the study districts

as well as state. Low cropping intensity in the selected districts demonstrates that area sown

more than once is low mainly due to scare irrigation resources. Banaskantha and Sabarkantha

districts are facing serious problem of continuous decline in water table. Therefore, in low

rainfall years, these districts are witnessing large scale decline in crop area and also area

under fodder crops in rabi and summer seasons. The irrigation facilities in Panchmahals

district are very meagre. The medium / small irrigation projects such as Kadana, Panam,

Hadaf, Bhadar and Sukhi are in the districts and have canal irrigation in nearby areas but area

irrigated by canal was about 27 percent of total irrigated area due to inadequate water storage

in the dams. By and large, it can be said that water is one of the important limiting factors in

selected districts for the development of the dynamic agriculture and livestock husbandry.

3.5 Land use pattern:

Land utilisation pattern for Gujarat state as well as selected districts namely

Banaskantha, Sabarkantha and Panchmahals has been presented in Table 3.2. Out of total

reporting areas of 188.12 lakh hectares in the State, net area sown in 2004-07 was about

97.45 lakh hectares (51.67 %) and gross area sown was about 114.91 lakh hectares. About 26

lakh hectares land was barren and uncultivable waste. In the context of fodder, land under

forest (9.75 %), permanent pasture and grazing land (4.53 %) and cultivable waste (10.50 %)

are other important sources. During period 1980-81 to 2006-07, the area under forest in the

state declined to small extent whereas area under pastures and cultivable waste remained

29

almost unchanged. Owing to poor maintenance and care, productivity of pasture land turned

low.

In Panchmahals district, total area under forest is 11.06 thousand hectares (22.80 %).

Out of 22.80 percent forest area, only 12.23 percent comes under dense forest. The area under

pastures and grazing land was only 3 percent of total reporting area. The area under

culturable waste was also very low (2.3 %). Owing to poor management and maintenance,

productivity of pasture and grazing land is also low. Thus, facility of animal grazing available

in the district is on very limited scale.

Table:3.2 Land Utilisation Pattern in the selected Districts & Gujarat State (Area in 00 Hectares)District Year Reporting

Area

Forests Barren &

Unculturable

land

Land put to

Non

Agricultural

Uses

Culturable

Waste

Permanent

Pasture &

Other

Grazing

land

Land Under

Misc.Tree

Crops &

Groves not

Incl. in Net

Area Sown

Current

Fallows

Other

Fallows

Net Area

Sown

8850 2277 296 556 334 251 0 321 83 4732

(100.0) (25.7) (3.3) (6.3) (3.8) (2.8) (0.0) (3.6) (0.9) (53.5)

8850 2243 378 590 136 274 0 484 9 4738

(100.0) (25.3) (4.3) (6.7) (1.5) (3.1) (0.0) (5.5) (0.1) (53.5)

5138 1257 175 369 121 152 0 485 13 2566

(100.0) (24.5) (3.4) (7.2) (2.4) (3.0) (0.0) (9.4) (0.3) (49.9)

5138 1169 263 373 120 152 0 250 10 2801

(100.0) (22.8) (5.1) (7.3) (2.3) (3.0) (0.0) (4.9) (0.2) (54.5)

7298 1229 297 407 176 343 0 292 89 4465

(100.0) (16.8) (4.1) (5.6) (2.4) (4.7) (0.0) (4.0) (1.2) (61.2)

7298 1274 361 409 133 343 0 413 7 4358

(100.0) (17.5) (4.9) (5.6) (1.8) (4.7) (0.0) (5.7) (0.1) (59.7)

7298 1271 352 423 146 341 0 380 0 4385

(100.0) (17.4) (4.8) (5.8) (2.0) (4.7) (0.0) (5.2) (0.0) (60.1)

7298 1263 359 425 144 341 0 358 0 4409

(100.0) (17.3) (4.9) (5.8) (2.0) (4.7) (0.0) (4.9) (0.0) (60.4)

12299 1457 202 633 339 723 0 666 106 8173

(100.0) (11.8) (1.6) (5.1) (2.8) (5.9) (0.0) (5.4) (0.9) (66.5)

12327 1494 353 688 251 696 0 722 0 8123

(100.0) (12.1) (2.9) (5.6) (2.0) (5.6) (0.0) (5.9) (0.0) (65.9)

10449 1107 310 530 176 651 0 355 0 7320

(100.0) (10.6) (3.0) (5.1) (1.7) (6.2) (0.0) (3.4) (0.0) (70.1)

10449 1107 310 531 177 652 0 306 0 7368

(100.0) (10.6) (3.0) (5.1) (1.7) (6.2) (0.0) (2.9) (0.0) (70.5)

188220 19655 25034 10670 19856 8483 40 5394 3322 95766

(100.00) (10.44) (13.30) (5.67) (10.55) (4.51) (0.02) (2.87) (1.76) (50.88)

188219 18847 26090 11221 19702 8457 40 10379 521 92962

(100.00) (10.01) (13.86) (5.96) (10.47) (4.49) (0.02) (5.51) (0.28) (49.39)

188118 18653 25997 11419 19849 8507 40 9189 131 94333

(100.00) (9.92) (13.82) (6.07) (10.55) (4.52) (0.02) (4.88) (0.07) (50.15)

188119 18490 26008 11526 19752 8510 143 6630 150 97192

(100.00) (9.83) (13.83) (6.13) (10.50) (4.52) (0.08) (3.52) (0.08) (51.67)

Note: Figures in brackets denote the percentage to Reporting area , * TE-2004-07

Source: Various Season & Crop Report, Directorate of Agriculture, GoG, Gandhinagar

1990-91

2000-01

2004-07*

Banaskantha

Panchmahals

Sabarkantha

1990-91

2000-01

2004-07*

1980-81

1990-91

2000-01

2004-07*

1980-81

Gujarat State

1980-81

1990-91

2000-01

2004-07*

1980-81

Banaskantha had very low area under forest (10.60 %) and culturable waste (1.70 %)

and hence availability of open grazing facility for cattle is also limited. In Sabarkantha, area

under forest is somewhat better (17.30 %) but area under culturable waste is very low (2 %)

hence quantum of available grasses for cattle from culturable waste land is low (Table 3.2).

30

To sum up, in all three selected districts, to increase the fodder production, need is felt

for concerted efforts to develop community pastures with improved grasses and cultivation of

fodder trees on marginal land and degraded forest areas. Also, take up suitable measures to

increase bio-mass production on wastelands and common grazing lands. Also encourage for

silvi-pastures in wastelands and available forest lands.

3.6 Trends in area under fodder crops in Gujarat -1989-90 to 2006-07:

From the data given in Table 3.3, it is evident that area under fodder crops more or

less remained static between 12 lakh to 13 lakh during 1989-2005. As a result, percent share

of area under fodder crops to gross cropped area also found almost stagnant around 11 to 12

percent (Table 3.3). However, during 2006-07, area under fodder crops and its percentage to

Table: 3.3 Area under fodder crops in Gujarat State-1989-90 to 2006-07 (Area in '00 Hect.)

Sr.No. Year Cropped Area % Cropped Area

to GCA

1 1989-90 12024 11.20

2 1990-91 13251 12.46

3 1991-92 12055 11.42

4 1992-93 12343 11.16

5 1993-94 11516 10.73

6 1994-95 12430 11.05

4 1995-96 12070 10.98

5 1996-97 12337 11.16

6 1997-98 13096 11.68

7 1998-99 13227 11.81

8 1999-00 12835 11.99

9 2000-01 13711 13.06

10 2001-02 13355 11.69

11 2002-03 12625 11.88

15 2003-04 13355 11.69

16 2004-05 12636 11.23

17 2005-06 11847 10.36

18 2006-07 11118 9.46

Source: Irrigation in Gujarat-2007 & Season and Crop Report-2006-07

GCA declined to some extent. Owing to significant increase in bovine cattle population and

more or less static area under fodder crops, gap between supply and demand of fodder is

widening. In near future, it is unlikely to increase area under fodder crops due to high

preference of farmers for other crops. Therefore, there is a need to laid more emphasis for

increasing productivity per unit of arable areas as well as augmenting forage production from

wastelands. This declining / static trend in area under fodder crops is one of the main

disturbing factors affecting negatively on fodder production as well as development of

livestock sector in Gujarat.

31

3.7 The District-wise area under fodder crops in Gujarat-2001-02 to 2006-07:

The data given in Table 3.4 reveals that Kutch (17.00%), Banaskantha (13.84 %),

Patan (9.21%) and Ahmedabad (8.88 %) are the major fodder growing districts of the state. In

Narmada, Dangs, Porbandar, Panchmahals, Dohad and Valsad districts, area devoted to pure

fodder crops was negligible and less than one percent of GCA (Table 3.4). In these districts,

livestock are more dependent on dry-fodder and open grazing.

Table: 3.4 Districtwise area under Fodder Crop In Gujarat (Area in '00 Hect.)

Area % to total Area % to total Area % to total Area % to total Area % to total

1 Ahmedabad 1135 (8.29) 915 (7.25) 882 (6.60) 911 (7.21) 987 (8.88)

2 Amreli 473 (3.45) 378 (2.99) 451 (3.38) 441 (3.49) 264 (2.37)

3 Banaskantha 1997 (14.59) 2060 (16.32) 2156 (16.14) 1897 (15.01) 1539 (13.84)

4 Bharuch 243 (1.77) 187 (1.48) 165 (1.24) 189 (1.50) 133 (1.20)

5 Narmada 39 (0.28) 36 (0.29) 45 (0.34) 34 (0.27) 36 (0.32)

6 Bhavnagar 851 (6.22) 839 (6.65) 719 (5.38) 791 (6.26) 684 (6.15)

7 The Dangs 33 (0.24) 32 (0.25) 32 (0.24) 32 (0.25) 32 (0.29)

8 Gandhinagar 355 (2.59) 357 (2.83) 432 (3.23) 387 (3.06) 314 (2.82)

9 Jamnagar 501 (3.66) 424 (3.36) 443 (3.32) 446 (3.53) 380 (3.42)

10 Junagadh 301 (2.20) 292 (2.31) 379 (2.84) 322 (2.55) 342 (3.08)

11 Porbandar 142 (1.04) 120 (0.95) 106 (0.79) 93 (0.74) 83 (0.75)

12 Kachchh 2292 (16.74) 1491 (11.81) 2107 (15.78) 1935 (15.31) 1890 (17.00)

13 Kheda 169 (1.23) 177 (1.40) 190 (1.42) 188 (1.49) 177 (1.59)

14 Anand 86 (0.63) 176 (1.39) 163 (1.22) 148 (1.17) 151 (1.36)

15 Mahesana 912 (6.66) 940 (7.45) 966 (7.23) 946 (7.49) 887 (7.98)

16 Patan 801 (5.85) 821 (6.50) 912 (6.83) 1016 (8.04) 1024 (9.21)

17 Panchmahal 74 (0.54) 100 (0.79) 83 (0.62) 88 (0.70) 84 (0.76)

18 Dohad 47 (0.34) 43 (0.34) 46 (0.34) 51 (0.40) 37 (0.33)

19 Rajkot 336 (2.45) 328 (2.60) 359 (2.69) 322 (2.55) 317 (2.85)

20 Sabarkantha 493 (3.60) 502 (3.98) 569 (4.26) 454 (3.59) 419 (3.77)

21 Surat 501 (3.66) 474 (3.75) 448 (3.35) 378 (2.99) 360 (3.24)

22 Surendranagar 696 (5.08) 830 (6.57) 657 (4.92) 567 (4.49) 578 (5.20)

23 Vadodara 365 (2.67) 325 (2.57) 279 (2.09) 286 (2.26) 273 (2.46)

24 Valsad 470 (3.43) 466 (3.69) 463 (3.47) 452 (3.58) 3 (0.03)

25 Navsari 379 (2.77) 312 (2.47) 303 (2.27) 262 (2.07) 124 (1.12)

26 Total 13691 (100.00) 12625 (100.00) 13355 (100.00) 12636 (100.00) 11118 (100.00)

27 GCA

Source : Various Season and Crop Report

Directorate of Agriculture, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar

Sr.

No.District

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2006-07

107910 106307 114210 112569 117499

3.8 Crop pattern:

As our main objective of the study is to examine economics of production and

processing of fodder crops, it is pertinent to examine cropping pattern of the study regions

and particularly proportion of area devoted to fodder crops and cereals crops whose

crop-residues are use as feed and fodder for livestock. The data on crop pattern of selected

districts and state as a whole is presented in Table 3.5. The data exhibits area under crop as a

percentage to GCA.

For the development of livestock, area under pure fodder crops and other crops which

provides fodder residues is very crucial. In crop pattern, Paddy (Rice), Wheat, Jowar, Maize,

Bajra, Groundnut, Guar, Pulses and green fodder crops (Lucerne, Jowar, Maize, Bajra etc.)

32

are important crops in the context of fodder and fodder residues. The fodder is produced as

green fodder crops, dry fodder (straw) from cereals, pulses and groundnut. The estimated

grain to straw ratio for different crops varies widely. It is 1:2 for paddy and coarse cereals,

1:1.2 for wheat and 1:0.5 for groundnut and pulses.

Table: 3.5 Crop Pattern of Selected Districts and Gujarat State (Percentage to GCA)

Sr.

No. Crops

TE 2001-04 TE 2004-07

Bansa

kantha

Sabar

kantha

Panch

mahals Gujarat

Bansa

kantha

Sabar

kantha

Panch

mahals Gujarat

1 Rice 0.00 3.04 23.96 6.23 0.00 1.62 24.55 6.50

2 Wheat 4.72 9.09 2.91 5.04 5.19 13.43 5.84 7.86

3 Jowar 1.19 0.02 2.23 1.83 0.93 0.19 0.93 1.37

4 Bajra 30.24 5.16 6.16 10.50 27.11 4.40 5.58 8.57

5 Maize 1.25 27.93 40.19 4.56 0.82 22.57 38.93 4.10

6 Total Cereals 38.97 45.56 76.72 28.77 34.70 42.37 76.64 28.85

7 Gram 0.02 0.37 1.08 0.73 2.21 1.14 0.92 1.44

8 Tur 0.38 8.04 8.71 3.00 0.34 5.18 8.19 2.55

9 Total Pulses 6.33 15.52 12.92 7.27 6.27 10.35 12.66 7.06

10 Total Foodgrains 45.30 61.08 89.64 36.05 40.97 52.73 89.30 35.92

11 Cotton 0.72 6.89 2.76 15.55 1.31 13.86 3.17 18.02

12 Groundnut 0.37 6.84 0.73 17.94 1.40 9.83 0.91 16.86

13 Total Oil Seeds 25.31 16.53 2.24 26.89 31.35 19.91 2.42 26.00

14 Rajko 1.49 0.73 0.19 0.65 1.23 0.87 0.23 0.61

16 Green Grass 0.30 0.08 0.01 0.13 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.07

17 Guar 11.15 1.67 0.30 2.23 8.98 1.32 0.22 1.94

18 Ghas Baval 0.02 0.01 1.47 1.73 0.00 0.01 0.83 0.84

19 Jowar Fodder 6.69 7.48 0.43 6.75 6.67 5.02 0.94 6.25

20 Maize Fodder 0.22 0.05 0.18 0.45 0.07 0.66 0.45 0.41

21 Other Fodder Crops 0.05 0.05 0.34 0.11 0.21 0.04 0.11 0.17

22 Total Fodder 19.92 10.06 2.93 12.08 17.32 7.98 2.79 10.32

23 Gross Cropped Area

(GCA)

100.00

(10399)

100.00

(5180) 100.00

(2928)

100.00

(109476)

100.00

(9941)

100.00

(5427)

100.00

(3047)

100.00

(115005)

Note: Figure in parenthesis denote gross cropped area in 00’Ha.

Source: Various Season and Crop Report, Directorate of Agriculture, GoG, Gandhinagar

For period TE 2004-07, area under pure fodder crops in the state is accounting for

10.32 percent of GCA. It declined from 12.08 percent in TE 2001-04. In the state, Bajra,

Wheat, Paddy and Maize are important cereal crops and good sources of fodder residues

(straw). These four cereal crops accounted for 27.03 percent of GCA. The area under total

cereal crops accounting for only 28.55 percent of GCA. Two important cash crop, cotton and

groundnut together claimed 34.88 percent of GCA. The by-product of groundnut is useful as

fodder. The crop pattern for TE 2004-07 further suggests that in Gujarat area under non-

foodgrains crops was much higher and around 64 percent of GCA.

33

In Banaskantha district, Bajra and Wheat are important cereal crops which provide

fodder residues and together claiming 32.30 percent of GCA. Area under pure fodder crops

accounting for 17.32 percent of GCA. The Guar is used as concentrate to feed animals. The

area under Guar was 8.98 percent. Thus, in Banaskantha district, fodder and fodder residues

are available from about 58 percent of total cropped area. Nearly 60 percent area of GCA was

under non-food grain crops (Table 3.5). This is a disturbing trend for livestock development.

In Sabarkantha district, in TE 2004-07, area under Wheat, Bajra, Maize, Groundnut

and total fodder crops accounting for 13.43 %, 4.4 %, 22.57 %, 9.83 % and 7.98 %

respectively. As compared to TE 2001-04, area under pure fodder crops declined by 2.08

percent in TE 2004-07 (Table 3.3).

In Panchmahals district, Maize, Paddy and Wheat are most important sources of

fodder residues. These together, accounted for nearly 70 percent of GCA. The area under

total foodgrains was as high as 89.3 percent of GCA suggesting dominating position of

foodgrain crops in district’s agriculture. Area devoted to pure fodder crops was very low and

only 2.79 percent. This suggests that fodder requirement for livestock in the district is met

from fodder residues of Maize, Paddy and Wheat crops.

In all the three selected districts, public sources of fodder supply are gauchar and

pasture lands, forest areas, trees and grasses on wastelands and alongside roads and rail

tracks. The examination of data for period 2001-04 and 2004-07 reveals that in selected

districts as well as state, area under fodder production has declined marginally and crop

pattern shifted slightly in favour of non-food crops. This shows non-willingness of farmers to

increase area under pure fodder crops and high preference for other crops. If this trend persist

in the coming years, the gap between demand and supply of fodder is likely to be widened.

Hence, in coming years, the gap between demand and supply of feed and fodder for livestock

sector has to be fill up by increasing the productivity of fodder crops through development

and introduction of suitable high yielding varieties and technology along with other necessary

measures.

3.9 Estimate of availability and requirement of feed and fodder in Gujarat state:

The data given in below Table 3.6 clearly reveals that Gujarat suffers from severe

deficiency of feed, fodder and concentrates and it is acting as prime constraint to exploit fully

the production potential of animals.

Balanced feeding is essential not only to enhance the milk production but also to

economise the production and to maintain good health of the animals. To estimate

34

fodder / grass requirements of the state, attempts have been made by several sources. The

advisory committee on Animal Husbandry and Dairying (2010), Planning Commission, GoI,

prepared estimates of total availability and requirement of feed and fodder in Gujarat for

period 2008-09 to 2014-15 keeping in view the projected livestock population. In Gujarat,

data system on fodder production is far from adequate. No precise data on production of crop

by-products, crop-residues, green fodder crops, edible weeds from cultivated fields, grasses

from grazing and forest lands and fodder foliage obtained from trees and forest areas are

available. The data of availability of fodder during 2008-15 are projected. This data /

estimates are shown in Table 3.6. The estimates shows that in the years to come, deficit of

green fodder is expected to move up from 28.92 percent in year 2009-10 to 34.37 percent in

year 2014-15. At present, Gujarat is facing a huge deficit in concentrates. This deficit is likely

to increase from 73.65 percent in year 2009-10 to 75.79 percent in 2014-15. In respect of

availability of dry fodder, it was little surplus (1.21 %) in year 2009-10. However, it is fear

that concerted if efforts of

Table: 3.6 Availability and Requirement of feed and fodder of Gujarat (000’tonnes)

Fodder

Type

Projections up to 2015

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Green Fodder

Availability 26000 26026 26052 26078 26104 26130 26156

Requirement 36000 36616 37242 37879 38526 39185 39855

% Deficit -27.77 -28.92 -30.05 -31.15 -32.24 -33.32 -34.37

Dry Fodder

Availability 15000 15030 15060 15090 15120 15151 15181

Requirement 14600 14850 15104 15362 15625 15892 16163

% Deficit +2.40 +1.21 +0.29 -1.77 -3.23 -4.66 -6.08

Concentrates

Availability 4100 4100 4100 4100 4100 4100 4100

Requirement 15300 15562 15828 16098 16374 16654 16938

% Deficit -73.20 -73.65 -74.10 -74.53 -74.96 -75.38 -75.79 Source: Report of the Advisory Committee on Animal Husbandry & Dairying, Planning Commission, GoI,

Yojana Bhavan, New Delhi, January-2010

raising the production of dry fodder not made, the current surplus availabilities is likely to

turn into deficit of 6.08 percent in 2014-15. In view of severe shortage of animal feeds and

fodder in the state, serious efforts are needed by government and other related organisations

to increase the feed and fodder production while expanding the dairy activities. The seed

production of fodder crops and its adequate availability is found as one of the major

constraint in raising the fodder production. Therefore, there is a need to ensure production of

35

quality seed of high yielding varieties for fodder crops as well as pastures grasses / legumes

in adequate quantity. Also, tap new non-conventional energy and protein supplement feed

and fodder for animals.

The selected districts are also experiencing shortage of fodder as farming here is

highly dependent on rainfall. Availability of fodder is generally satisfactory during the

monsoon season provided the rainfall is normal. August to October is considered flush season

for fodder. Acute shortage of fodder is felt from March to June, the period before the onset of

monsoon. If monsoon fails, fodder availability becomes difficult even from October onwards.

The green and dry fodder has remained short in supply partly due to increase in livestock

population and partly due to shift in crop pattern.

3.10 Fodder market structure in Gujarat:

There is no regulated and organised fodder / grass market in Gujarat. Small scale

marketing of fodder / grass exists in all rural areas of the state where fodder / grass are sold

by producers to traders or directly to consumers. In rural areas, farmers having surplus fodder

sell some quantity to needy cattle owners / panjarapole. Generally, demand for green and dry

fodders in a village is met from within village. While green fodder is available from crops

like lucerne, bajra, maize and sorghum, the sources of dry fodder are crop-residues and by-

product of cereals and pulses crops. Farmers bring head loads or cartloads of grass / fodder

from their fields to the village. Normally, surplus green fodder is sold as standing crop on

area basis. Surplus dry straw is sold either in bundles or weight basis in the village to needy

cattle owners. Natural grass is abundantly available from September to October when grass is

harvested. Generally, grass producers sell their grass soon after the harvest to needy farmers.

Grass being a bulky and less remunerative product, producers sell it just after harvest. The

forest department sells the harvest rights of their grass land to the traders before the harvest

season begins.

3.11 Trends of livestock population in Gujarat:

The Gujarat state accounts for about 4 percent share in total livestock population of

the country. This share has remained by and large constant during the period 1992 to 2007

with marginal up and down. During the last four to five decades, the livestock economy of

Gujarat witnessed a number of changes in terms of its size, composition and productivity.

The size of livestock herd increased from 196.7 lakh in 1992 to 237.9 lakh in 2007 indicating

spectacular increase in livestock population of Gujarat. Overall, the livestock population

increased at the average annual growth rate (AAGR) of 1.28 percent during period 1992-2007

36

(Table 3.5). Among milch animals of the state, buffaloe have top position. The buffaloe

population in Gujarat showed continuous uptrend and it increased from 52.66 lakh (26.8

percent) in 1992 to 87.74 lakh (36.9 percent) in 2007, showing average annual growth rate of

3.46 percent during this period. Among different categories of livestock, the annual average

growth rate was found highest for buffaloe. The category of cattle is a next important

category of livestock in the state. The total cattle population increased from 68.06 lakh (34.6

percent) in 1992 to 79.77 lakh in 2007 showing annual average growth rate of only 1.06

percent. However, during 1992-1997, cattle population showed negative trends. This has

happened due to drastically reduction in bullock population owing to farm mechanisation and

high cost of feeding.

Table: 3.7 Number of livestock Gujarat State and AAGR, 1992 to 2007 (Thousands)

No. Particulars 1992 1997 2003 2007 AAGR

(2007 over 1992)

1 Cattle 6806

(34.6)

6750

(33.9)

7425

(32.5)

7977

(33.5) 1.06

2 Buffaloe 5266

(26.8)

6286

(31.5)

7142

(31.3)

8774

(36.9) 3.46

3 Horses 13

(0.1)

15

(0.1)

18

(0.1)

14

(0.1) 0.5

4 Donkeys 80

(0.4)

74

(0.4)

66

(0.3)

51

(0.2) -2.96

5 Sheeps 2027

(10.3)

2160

(10.8)

2062

(9.0)

2004

(8.4) -0.08

6 Goats 4239

(21.6)

4385

(22.0)

4541

(19.9)

4640

(19.5) 0.6

7 Camels 62

(0.3)

65

(0.3)

53

(0.2)

38

(0.2) -3.21

8 Any others 1175

(6.0)

194

(1.0)

1538

(6.7)

291

(1.2) -8.88

9 Total 19668

(100.0)

19929

(100.0)

22845

(100.0)

23789

(100.0) 1.28

Figures in brackets denote the percent share in total.

Source: Bulletin of Animal Husbandry and Dairying Statistics 2008-09 and Livestock Census 1997, Director of Animal Husbandry,

Krishibhavan, Gandhinagar. Statistical Abstract of Gujarat State 1998, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Government of Gujarat, Gandhinagar.

Thus, shift in bovine population witnessed in favour of crossbreed cows and buffaloe.

It is interesting to note that the total cattle population increased over a period of time but the

share of cattle in total livestock population declined from 34.60 percent in 1992 to 33.50

percent in 2007. Except horses and goats, population of other species of livestock showing

down trend during 1992-2007 and recorded negative annual growth rate (Table 3.5). In

Gujarat, owing to higher feeding cost, keeping of livestock species such as donkey, horse,

sheep and camel has become more uneconomical and hence population of these species

showing down trend. Despite higher feeding cost, the net return from milk production from

buffaloes and cross-breed cows is quite positive. These encourage farmers for keeping more

37

buffaloes / cross bread cows. Hence, population of buffaloes and crossbreed cows shows

rising trend and this trend is likely to continue in the years to come. The population of

indigenous cows is almost stagnant with negative bias. Now, livestock farmers have high

preference for cross-breed cow.

3.12 Growth in livestock population in Gujarat during 1951-2007:

The data showing percent growth of the livestock population in Gujarat between two

censuses during period 1951-2007 has been provided in below given Table 3.8. From the

table, it is evident that during 1972-1977 and 1983-1987, growth in livestock population

found negative. The growth in livestock population was found highest at 28.00 percent for

Table: 3.8 Growth of the livestock* during 1951-2007 in Gujarat state

Sr. No. Livestock Census

Year

Total Livestock

(In ‘000)

Percent Growth

between two census

1 2 3 4

1 1951 11977 -

2 1956 13312 11.15

3 1961 13454 1.07

4 1966 14338 6.57

5 1972 15098 5.30

6 1977 14406 -4.58

7 1983 18440 28.00

8 1987 17343 -5.95

9 1992 19668 13.41

10 1997 19929 1.33

11 2003 22845 14.63

12 2007 (P) 23789 4.13 *

without Dogs

Source: Summary Report on 18th Livestock Census-2007, Gujarat State, Directorate of Animal Husbandry,

Gandhinagar

period 1977-1983. The growth in livestock population was more than 11 percent during

period 1956-1961, 1992-1997 and 1997-2003. The percent growth in livestock population

during 1951-2007 fluctuated very widely and showed high variation (Table 3.8).

3.13 District wise variations in livestock population in last decade and AAGR:

In Gujarat, prior to 1997, there were 18 districts. In 1997, sub-division and

reformation of 18 districts took place and total 26 districts were formed. Thus, from 1997-98

new 8 districts came into existance. Due to this, geographical boundary of old districts

38

changed significantly. Hence, district level data of livestock for 1992 not comparable with

same data for post 1997 period. In view of this situation, average annual growth rate (AAGR)

Table: 3.9 District wise number of livestock in Gujarat and AAGR, 1997 to 2007

(In Thousands)

No. Name of District 1997 2003 2007 AAGR

(2007 over 1997)

1 Ahmedabad 584 731 717

2.07 (2.9) (3.2) (3.0)

2 Anand 504 553 653

2.62 (2.53) (2.42) (2.74)

3 Amreli 746 766 742

-0.05 (3.7) (3.4) (3.1)

4 Bhavnagar 1165 1246 1141

-0.21 (5.9) (5.5) (4.8)

5 Banaskantha 1467 1862 2161

3.95 (7.4) (8.2) (9.1)

6 Bharuch 425 467 423

-0.05 (2.1) (2.0) (1.8)

7 Dahod 1422 1165 1429

0.05 (7.1) (5.1) (6.0)

8 Dang 125 164 136

0.85 (0.6) (0.7) (0.6)

9 Gandhinagar 375 534 590

4.64 (1.9) (2.3) (2.5)

10 Jamnagar 902 1041 1002

1.06 (4.5) (4.6) (4.2)

11 Junagadh 937 1031 1025

0.90 (4.7) (4.5) (4.3)

12 Kutch 1652 1573 1707

0.33 (8.3) (6.9) (7.2)

13 Kheda 751 893 1014

3.05 (3.8) (3.9) (4.3)

14 Mahesana 745 806 896

1.86 (3.7) (3.5) (3.8)

15 Narmada 281 351 272

-0.32 (1.4) (1.5) (1.1)

16 Navsari 335 410 331

-0.12 (1.7) (1.8) (1.4)

17 Patan 545 550 664

1.99 (2.7) (2.4) (2.8)

18 Porbandar 229 251 241

0.51 (1.2) (1.1) (1.0)

19 Panchmahal 1048 1687 1685

4.86 (5.3) (7.4) (7.1)

20 Rajkot 1150 1298 1241

0.76 (5.8) (5.7) (5.2)

21 Surendranagar 715 855 964

3.03 (3.6) (3.7) (4.1)

22 Sabarkantha 1391 1750 1834

2.80 (7.0) (7.7) (7.7)

23 Surat+Tapi 907 1107 1085

1.81 (4.6) (4.9) (4.6)

24 Vadodara 1092 1271 1271

1.53 (5.5) (5.6) (5.3)

25 Valsad 436 483 565

2.63 (2.2) (2.1) (2.4)

Gujarat 19929 22845 23789

1.79 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0)

Note: Figures in parenthesis denotes percentage share to Gujarat

Source: Same as Table: 3.5

39

for each district of Gujarat worked out for period 1997-2007 instead of suggested period

1992-97.

The district-wise data on livestock population for period 1997-2007 along with

calculated AAGR are presented in Table 3.9. The livestock population in the state during

1997-2007 increased with average annual growth rate (AAGR) of 1.79 percent. It increased

from 199.29 lakh in 1997 to 237.89 lakh in 2007, showing an increase of 19.37 percent.

Across districts, annual growth rate of livestock during 1997-2007 varying significantly.

During 1997-2007 the livestock population as well as its share in state livestock population

increased remarkably for Anand, Gandhinagar, Banaskantha, Sabarkantha, Panchmahals,

Surendranagar, Kheda, Anand and Valsad districts. During 1997-2007, livestock population

increased at a faster pace in Banaskantha (47.30 %), Gandhinagar (57.33 %), Kheda (35.01

%), Panchmahals (60.78 %), Surendranagar (34.82 %) and Sabarkantha (31.85 %) districts.

And hence average annual growth rates (AAGR) of livestock population for these districts

also found higher than state AAGR of 1.79 percent (See Table 3.6). Compared to 1997, the

livestock population declined in 2007 in Amreli, Bhavnagar, Narmada, Navsari and Bharuch

districts and as a result, these five districts recorded negative AAGR during 1997-2007

(Table 3.9). The livestock population of Dahod, Jamnagar, Junagadh, Kutch, Rajkot,

Porbandar and Vadodara districts recorded positive AAGR during period 1997-2007 despite

decline in their percent share to state livestock population in 2007. Thus during 1997-2007,

the livestock development across districts found uneven but state as a whole it was

remarkable.

District-wise cattle population – (1997-2007):

District wise data on cattle population during 1997-2007 along with calculated AAGR

in percentage are presented in below Table 3.10. The cattle population of Gujarat, which

stood at 67.50 lakh in 1997 increased to 79.77 lakh in 2007 with an average annual growth

rate of 1.68 percent. As compared to buffaloes, the AAGR of cattle for the state found much

lower mainly because of significant reduction in bullocks population and non-increase in

indigenous cow population. Owing to farm mechanization, population of worked animals

(bullock) declined. This table also indicates that AAGR for cattle during period 1997-2007

found positive for all districts except for three districts namely Bharuch, Dahod and Patan. As

against 1.68 percent AAGR for Gujarat state, AAGR of selected districts found higher at 3.87

(Panchmahals), 3.44 (Sabarkantha) and 5.68 percent (Banaskantha) respectively. This shows

that in the selected districts, cattle and particularly cross-breed cows hold prime importance.

40

Table: 3.10 District-wise Number of Cattle, 1997 to 2007 (In thousands)

Sr.

No.

Name of

District 1997 2003 2007

AAGR (%)

(2007 over 1997)

1 Ahmedabad 188 (2.79) 226 (3.04) 217 (2.72) 1.44

2 Anand 117 (1.73) 132 (1.78) 147 (1.84) 2.31

3 Amreli 268 (3.97) 255 (3.43) 269 (3.37) 0.04

4 Bhavnagar 328 (4.86) 336 (4.53) 340 (4.26) 0.36

5 Banaskantha 380 (5.63) 495 (6.67) 660 (8.27) 5.68

6 Bharuch 134 (1.99) 142 (1.91) 122 (1.53) -0.93

7 Dahod 657 (9.73) 515 (6.94) 589 (7.38) -1.09

8 Dang 67 (0.99) 84 (1.13) 70 (0.88) 0.44

9 Gandhinagar 84 (1.24) 124 (1.67) 148 (1.86) 5.83

10 Jamnagar 319 (4.73) 349 (4.70) 350 (4.39) 0.93

11 Junagadh 434 (6.43) 456 (6.14) 481 (6.03) 1.03

12 Kutch 375 (5.56) 335 (4.51) 389 (4.88) 0.37

13 Kheda 185 (2.74) 201 (2.71) 227 (2.85) 2.07

14 Mahesana 154 (2.28) 160 (2.15) 216 (2.71) 3.44

15 Narmada 139 (2.06) 171 (2.30) 141 (1.77) 0.14

16 Navsari 136 (2.01) 165 (2.22) 156 (1.96) 1.38

17 Patan 132 (1.96) 117 (1.58) 131 (1.64) -0.08

18 Porbandar 76 (1.13) 83 (1.12) 83 (1.04) 0.88

19 Panchmahal 403 (5.97) 645 (8.69) 589 (7.38) 3.87

20 Rajkot 417 (6.18) 439 (5.91) 452 (5.67) 0.81

21 Surendranagar 272 (4.03) 294 (3.96) 347 (4.35) 2.47

22 Sabarkantha 443 (6.56) 588 (7.92) 621 (7.78) 3.44

23 Surat +Tapi 362 (5.36) 404 (5.44) 442 (5.54) 2.02

24 Vadodara 447 (6.62) 461 (6.21) 482 (6.04) 0.76

25 Valsad 233 (3.45) 248 (3.34) 308 (3.86) 2.83

Gujarat 6750 (100.00) 7425 (100.00) 7977 (100.00) 1.68

Source: Same as Table: 3.5, Note: Figures in parenthesis shows percentage share to state total

Across districts, cattle population shows wide variation. It ranged from 0.70 lakh in Dangs

districts to 6.60 lakh in Banaskantha district. In terms of cattle population (2007), selected

Banaskantha, Sabarkantha and Panchmahals districts occupied first three ranks.

District-wise buffaloe population – (1997-2007):

District wise numbers of buffaloes population and its average annual rate (AAGR) in

percentage during 1997 to 2007 is presented in Table 3.11. The buffaloes population of

Gujarat, which stood at 62.86 lakh in 1997 and it increased to 87.74 lakh in 2007 with an

annual average growth rate of 3.39 percent. This shows thereby sharp acceleration in

buffaloes population in Gujarat during this period. It is important to note that in 1997, cattle

population (67.50 lakh) was higher than buffaloes population but owing to higher growth

41

Table: 3.11 District-wise Number of Buffaloes, 1997 to 2007 (In thousands)

Sr.

No.

Name of

District 1997 2003 2007

AAGR (%)

(2007 over 1997)

1 Ahmedabad 244 (3.88) 277 (3.88) 344 (3.92) 3.49

2 Anand 303 (4.82) 291 (4.07) 407 (4.64) 2.99

3 Amreli 181 (2.88) 177 (2.48) 201 (2.29) 1.05

4 Bhavnagar 280 (4.45) 307 (4.30) 334 (3.81) 1.78

5 Banaskantha 538 (8.56) 715 (10.01) 955 (10.88) 5.91

6 Bharuch 131 (2.08) 133 (1.86) 154 (1.76) 1.63

7 Dahod 271 (4.31) 214 (3.00) 284 (3.24) 0.47

8 Dang 19 (0.30) 27 (0.38) 21 (0.24) 1.01

9 Gandhinagar 222 (3.53) 310 (4.34) 364 (4.15) 5.07

10 Jamnagar 173 (2.75) 210 (2.94) 257 (2.93) 4.04

11 Junagadh 301 (4.79) 305 (4.27) 377 (4.30) 2.28

12 Kutch 165 (2.62) 178 (2.49) 226 (2.58) 3.2

13 Kheda 414 (6.59) 488 (6.83) 628 (7.16) 4.25

14 Mahesana 467 (7.43) 478 (6.69) 568 (6.47) 1.98

15 Narmada 51 (0.81) 61 (0.85) 59 (0.67) 1.47

16 Navsari 106 (1.69) 117 (1.64) 102 (1.16) -0.38

17 Patan 261 (4.15) 222 (3.11) 364 (4.15) 3.38

18 Porbandar 79 (1.26) 85 (1.19) 105 (1.20) 2.89

19 Panchmahal 345 (5.49) 517 (7.24) 616 (7.02) 5.97

20 Rajkot 246 (3.91) 274 (3.84) 362 (4.13) 3.94

21 Surendranagar 165 (2.62) 203 (2.84) 290 (3.31) 5.8

22 Sabarkantha 589 (9.37) 683 (9.56) 775 (8.83) 2.78

23 Surat+ Tapi 329 (5.23) 408 (5.71) 423 (4.82) 2.54

24 Vadodara 338 (5.38) 386 (5.40) 462 (5.27) 3.17

25 Valsad 68 (1.08) 76 (1.06) 96 (1.09) 3.51

Gujarat 6286 (100.00) 7142 (100.00) 8774 (100.00) 3.39

Source: Same as Table: 3.5, Note: Figures in parenthesis shows percentage share in total

rate, buffaloes population (87.74 lakh) surpassed the cattle population (79.77 lakh) in the

state in 2007.

The data further reveals that the growth of buffaloes was sharp and positive in all the

districts (except Navsari) of the state during 1997-2007. Overall, the buffaloes population in

the state increased at the average annual growth rate of 3.39 percent during 1997-2007.

During this period, average annual growth rates in selected Banaskantha, Panchmahals and

Sabarkantha districts were 5.91, 5.97 and 2.78 percent respectively (Table 3.11). The above

table also indicates that in the state, importance of buffaloes is increasing and contributing

highest in milk economy. In the state, buffaloes population increased at a faster pace and

buffaloes become more popular milch animal among milk producers because net return from

42

milk production of buffaloes is much higher than other type of milch animals. Buffalo is

primarily stall fed on cultivated fodders, harvested grasses and crop by-products / crop

residues.

Breed-wise examination of buffaloes population in 2007 reveals that, among different

breed, Mehsani breed is most popular and in total buffaloes it accounted for 38.41 percent.

Surti (17.75 %) and Jaffarabadi (16.57 %) are other breeds of buffaloes which are popular in

the state. Of the total buffaloes, 21.10 percent had of non-descript breed. In selected districts,

Banaskantha had about 92.00 percent buffaloes of Mehsani breed. Sabarkantha had 41.57

percent buffaloes of Mehsani breed and 41.67 percent of non-descript breeds. In

Panchmahals, 64.07 percent buffaloes were of non-descript breeds. Breed-wise buffalo

population (2007) of Gujarat state and selected districts has been shown in below Table 3.12.

Table: 3.12 Breed-wise classification of buffalo population in Gujarat-2007

Districts Breed-wise buffalo population (2007)

Mehsani Surti Jaffarabadi Banni Non-Descript Total Buffalo

Banaskantha 880156 4447 507 35142 34906 955158

(92.15) (0.47) (0.05) (3.68) (3.65) (100.00)

Sabarkantha 322140 34069 7147 78622 332950 774928

(41.57) (4.40) (0.92) (10.15) (42.97) (100.00)

Panchmahals 56823 150499 5535 8436 394677 615970

(9.22) (24.43) (0.90) (1.37) (64.07) (100.00)

Gujarat State 3370215 1556856 1470004 525015 1851479 8773569

(38.41) (17.74) (16.75) (5.98) (21.10) (100.00) Source: Summary report of 18

th Livestock Census-2007, Gujarat State, Directorate of Animal Husbandry, GoG,

Gandhinagar, Note: Figures in parenthesis shows percentage share in total

District-wise horses and ponies population – (1997-2007):

District wise growth of Horses and Ponies population is presented in Table 3.13. The

horses and ponies are not important animals and their contribution to livestock economy is

very insignificant. Overall, growth of Horses and Ponies during 1997-2007 had been found

negative (-0.69 %). Only Banaskantha district showed positive growth rates (See Table 3.13).

With the significant increase in fodder cost, horse keeping becomes uneconomical. Hence,

growth of horse population is negative.

District-wise sheep population – (1997-2007):

District wise population and average annual growth rate (AAGR) of Sheep population

has been presented in Table 3.14. It reveals that the growth of this species in the state is

negative (-0.75 percent) during period 1997 to 2007. The table also showed that Ahmedabad,

Anand, Patan, Sabarkantha and Panchmahals districts recorded the positive AAGR during

period 1997-2007 whereas in remaining districts growth in sheep population found either

43

Table: 3.13 District-wise Number of Horses and Ponies, 1997 to 2007 (In thousands)

Sr.

No.

Name of

District 1997 2003 2007

AAGR (%) (2007

over 1997)

1 Ahmedabad 2 (13.33) 1 (5.56) 1 (7.14) -6.7

2 Anand 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0

3 Amreli 1 (6.67) 1 (5.56) 1 (7.14) 0

4 Bhavnagar 1 (6.67) 2 (11.11) 1 (7.14) 0

5 Banaskantha 1 (6.67) 1 (5.56) 2 (14.29) 7.18

6 Bharuch 1 (6.67) 1 (5.56) 1 (7.14) 0

7 Dahod 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0

8 Dang 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0

9 Gandhinagar 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0

10 Jamnagar 1 (6.67) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) -100

11 Junagadh 0 (0.00) 1 (5.56) 1 (7.14) -

12 Kutch 2 (13.33) 2 (11.11) 2 (14.29) 0

13 Kheda 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0

14 Mahesana 0 (0.00) 1 (5.56) 1 (7.14) -

15 Narmada 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0

16 Navsari 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0

17 Patan 1 (6.67) 1 (5.56) 1 (7.14) 0

18 Porbandar 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (7.14) -

19 Panchmahal 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0

20 Rajkot 1 (6.67) 1 (5.56) 1 (7.14) 0

21 Surendranagar 1 (6.67) 1 (5.56) 1 (7.14) 0

22 Sabarkantha 1 (6.67) 3 (16.67) 0 (0.00) -100

23 Surat+Tapi 1 (6.67) 1 (5.56) 0 (0.00) -100

24 Vadodara 1 (6.67) 1 (5.56) 0 (0.00) -100

25 Valsad 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0

Gujarat 15 (100.00) 18 (100.00) 14 (100.00) -0.69


negative or stagnant (Table 3.14). In Gujarat, sheep and goat are non-stall fed species and are

left for open grazing.

District-wise goat’s population – (1997-2007):

District wise Goats populations along with average annual growth (AAGR) have been

presented in Table 3.15. The Goat population increased from 43.85 lakh in 1997 to 46.40

lakh in 2007. Thus, overall goat population increased at an average annual growth rate of

0.57 percent during period 1997-2007 (Table 3.15). Table 3.15 also shows that out of 25

districts, goat population declined in 11 districts.

44

Table: 3.14 District-wise Number of Sheep, 1997 to 2007 (In thousands)

Sr.

No. Name of District 1997 2003 2007

AAGR

(2007 over 1997)

1 Ahmedabad 17 (0.79) 21 (1.02) 23 (1.15) 3.07

2 Anand 9 (0.42) 16 (0.78) 11 (0.55) 2.03

3 Amreli 152 (7.04) 141 (6.84) 137 (6.84) -1.03

4 Bhavnagar 303 (14.03) 290 (14.06) 258 (12.87) -1.59

5 Banaskantha 167 (7.73) 180 (8.73) 161 (8.03) -0.37

6 Bharuch 7 (0.32) 7 (0.34) 7 (0.35) 0.00

7 Dahod 7 (0.32) 5 (0.24) 6 (0.30) -1.53

8 Dang 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0.00

9 Gandhinagar 22 (1.02) 15 (0.73) 17 (0.85) -2.55

10 Jamnagar 238 (11.02) 233 (11.30) 208 (10.38) -1.34

11 Junagadh 59 (2.73) 56 (2.72) 47 (2.35) -2.25

12 Kutch 615 (28.47) 495 (24.01) 575 (28.69) -0.67

13 Kheda 33 (1.53) 38 (1.84) 29 (1.45) -1.28

14 Mahesana 16 (0.74) 15 (0.73) 15 (0.75) -0.64

15 Narmada 1 (0.05) 1 (0.05) 0 (0.00) -100.00

16 Navsari 4 (0.19) 3 (0.15) 2 (0.10) -6.70

17 Patan 38 (1.76) 48 (2.33) 54 (2.69) 3.58

18 Porbandar 42 (1.94) 34 (1.65) 23 (1.15) -5.84

19 Panchmahal 2 (0.09) 4 (0.19) 4 (0.20) 7.18

20 Rajkot 259 (11.99) 275 (13.34) 217 (10.83) -1.75

21 Surendranagar 100 (4.63) 101 (4.90) 134 (6.69) 2.97

22 Sabarkantha 53 (2.45) 69 (3.35) 67 (3.34) 2.37

23 Surat+Tapi 4 (0.19) 4 (0.19) 2 (0.10) -6.70

24 Vadodara 7 (0.32) 7 (0.34) 4 (0.20) -5.44

25 Valsad 5 (0.23) 4 (0.19) 3 (0.15) -4.98

Gujarat 2160 (100.00) 2062 (100.00) 2004 (100.00) -0.75


45

Table: 3.15 District-wise Number of Goat, 1997 to 2007 (In thousands)

Sr.

No.

Name of

District 1997 2003 2007

AAGR (%)

(2007 over 1997)

1 Ahmedabad 105 (2.39) 120 (2.64) 126 (2.72) 1.84

2 Anand 51 (1.16) 67 (1.48) 76 (1.64) 4.07

3 Amreli 141 (3.22) 141 (3.11) 134 (2.89) -0.51

4 Bhavnagar 239 (5.45) 196 (4.32) 199 (4.29) -1.81

5 Banaskantha 355 (8.10) 331 (7.29) 309 (6.66) -1.38

6 Bharuch 135 (3.08) 136 (2.99) 134 (2.89) -0.07

7 Dahod 486 (11.08) 383 (8.43) 505 (10.88) 0.38

8 Dang 38 (0.87) 43 (0.95) 37 (0.80) -0.27

9 Gandhinagar 38 (0.87) 47 (1.04) 47 (1.01) 2.15

10 Jamnagar 156 (3.56) 173 (3.81) 173 (3.73) 1.04

11 Junagadh 121 (2.76) 122 (2.69) 107 (2.31) -1.22

12 Kutch 468 (10.67) 459 (10.11) 485 (10.45) 0.36

13 Kheda 99 (2.26) 105 (2.31) 118 (2.54) 1.77

14 Mahesana 94 (2.14) 82 (1.81) 88 (1.90) -0.66

15 Narmada 88 (2.01) 99 (2.18) 72 (1.55) -1.99

16 Navsari 85 (1.94) 88 (1.94) 67 (1.44) -2.35

17 Patan 102 (2.33) 113 (2.49) 103 (2.22) 0.1

18 Porbandar 29 (0.66) 25 (0.55) 22 (0.47) -2.72

19 Panchmahal 287 (6.55) 450 (9.91) 447 (9.63) 4.53

20 Rajkot 213 (4.86) 218 (4.80) 197 (4.25) -0.78

21 Surendranagar 164 (3.74) 180 (3.96) 191 (4.12) 1.54

22 Sabarkantha 291 (6.64) 315 (6.94) 344 (7.41) 1.69

23 Surat+Tapi 183 (4.17) 208 (4.58) 200 (4.31) 0.89

24 Vadodara 288 (6.57) 313 (6.89) 312 (6.72) 0.8

25 Valsad 129 (2.94) 127 (2.80) 147 (3.17) 1.31

Gujarat 4385 (100.00) 4541 (100.00) 4640 (100.00) 0.57


District-wise camel’s population – (1997-2007):

In Gujarat, camels are used mainly for transportation purpose. The Camel’s role in

livestock economy is negligible. Camels are fed on loopings of trees and shrubs. They also

browse on standing trees and shrubs. Some-time, camel is stall fed with dry and green fodder.

District wise camel populations have been presented in Table 3.12. The table depicts that the

camel population in Gujarat recorded alarming decrease and it decreased from 65 thousands

in 1997 to only 38 thousand in 2007. The AAGR for camel population was highly negative

(-5.28 %). The AAGR of camel population in various districts of the state found either highly

negative or stagnant. Not a single district recorded positive AAGR during 1997-2007.

46

Table: 3.16 District-wise Number of Camels, 1997 to 2007 (In thousands)

Sr.

No. Name of District 1997 2003 2007

AAGR (%) (2007

over 1997)

1 Ahmedabad 2 (3.08) 2 (3.77) 1 (2.63) -6.70

2 Anand 2 (3.08) 2 (3.77) 2 (5.26) 0.00

3 Amreli 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0.00

4 Bhavnagar 1 (1.54) 1 (1.89) 0 (0.00) -100.00

5 Banaskantha 18 (27.69) 12 (22.64) 5 (13.16) -12.02

6 Bharuch 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (2.63) 0.00

7 Dahod 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0.00

8 Dang 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0.00

9 Gandhinagar 3 (4.62) 3 (5.66) 2 (5.26) -3.97

10 Jamnagar 2 (3.08) 2 (3.77) 2 (5.26) 0.00

11 Junagadh 1 (1.54) 1 (1.89) 1 (2.63) 0.00

12 Kutch 17 (26.15) 11 (20.75) 9 (23.68) -6.16

13 Kheda 1 (1.54) 1 (1.89) 1 (2.63) 0.00

14 Mahesana 9 (13.85) 8 (15.09) 6 (15.79) -3.97

15 Narmada 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0.00

16 Navsari 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0.00

17 Patan 5 (7.69) 4 (7.55) 3 (7.89) -4.98

18 Porbandar 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 2 (5.26) 0.00

19 Panchmahal 1 (1.54) 1 (1.89) 0 (0.00) -100.00

20 Rajkot 0 (0.00) 1 (1.89) 0 (0.00) 0.00

21 Surendranagar 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0.00

22 Sabarkantha 3 (4.62) 4 (7.55) 3 (7.89) 0.00

23 Surat +Tapi 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0.00

24 Vadodara 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0.00

25 Valsad 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0.00

Gujarat 65 (100.00) 53 (100.00) 38 (100.00) -5.23


47

3.14 Conclusion:

The foregoing analysis clearly suggests that large stock of livestock contributed

significantly in augmenting milk, milk products, meat and other livestock based products in

state. The buffaloes and cattle population showed remarkable growth rates during 1997-2007

whereas population of Camels, Sheeps and Horses showed negative growth rate during the

same period. In livestock economy of Gujarat, buffaloes and cattle are most important

categories of animal. Owing to farm mechanisation and high feeding cost, population of

bullocks declined. Owing to wide and strong network of co-operative milk dairies, there is no

problem of marketing of milk and hence milk producers are fetching good prices of milk and

generating good income. Therefore, the milk production in the state increased at a faster pace.

Presently, the livestock sector of Gujarat is facing a severe shortage of feed and fodder. The

shortage of feed and fodder directly impacting on milk yield of animals and consequently on

cost of milk production. The efforts are needed to be initiated to strengthen fodder resources

for livestock in the state through introduction of various development programmes and policy

initiatives in order to exploit fully untapped production potential of livestock sector in the

state.

**************

48

Chapter 4

Socio-Economic Characteristics of Sample Households

and Feeding composition for Livestock

Background:

This chapter mainly deals with the socio economic profile of the selected 150 sample

household’s status of production and yield of fodder crops and feeding composition for

livestock. It is given based on the analysis of farm level survey data collected for agricultural

season 2008-09. As mentioned earlier, three districts of Gujarat namely 1) Banaskantha 2)

Sabarkantha and 3) Panchmahals were selected for the study. For studying the economics of

production and processing of fodder crops in Gujarat, 50 sample households growing selected

fodder crops comprising of different farm sizes were selected as sample from each selected

districts. Thus, overall 150 sample farmers were selected for study. All the related field data

required for the study were collected for agricultural year 2008-09 from these 150 sample

farmers through recall method in one round. In the chapter, analysis is attempted for the state

using combine data of 150 sample households.

4.1 Demographic characteristics:

As in Gujarat, livestock rearing and dairy activities are the major source of income for

small and medium category farmers and women of farming community. For economizing the

livestock production, availability of timely work force and adequate availability of balance

fodder is a pre-requisite. In this context, to study family size and land holding size of the

sample households is most important. Further, other socio economic characteristics such as

education level, practice of keeping permanent farm servants are also affecting directly or

indirectly on the economics of fodder production. With this in view, socio economic profile

of sample HHs has been discussed here.

4.1.1 Family size and age of head:

Family size is an important demographic parameter. Larger family size ensures timely

more availability of family human labour for carrying/managing the labour intensive

dairy/livestock rearing and fodder growing activities of the households. The extent of

availability of family labour is directly impacting on the cost of production of fodder crops as

well as of milk and livestock products. In this context, family size of sample households has

been discussed here. The Table 4.1 shows that except large size households, majority of

49

Marginal Small Semi medium Medium Large Overall

No of Sample HHs 17 24 57 47 5 150

Less than 4 11.8 12.5 10.5 0.0 0.0 7.3

4-8 88.2 83.3 78.9 85.1 40.0 81.3

Above 8 0.0 4.2 10.5 14.9 60.0 11.3

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Illiterate 27.3 18.5 15.4 15.7 24.4 17.6

Primary 29.5 31.5 24.4 22.3 17.1 24.9

Matric 30.7 26.2 24.4 25.7 34.1 26.2

Higher Secondary 8.0 11.5 21.3 15.7 12.2 16.2

Graduate and above 4.5 12.3 14.5 20.7 12.2 15.2

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Upto 30 17.3 12.5 3.5 4.3 0.0 6.7

31-50 35.3 41.7 40.4 44.7 60.0 42.0

Above 50 47.1 45.8 56.1 51.1 40.0 51.3

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Less than 50,000 70.6 16.7 8.8 4.3 0.0 15.3

50,000-1,00,000 5.9 37.5 28.1 0.0 0.0 17.3

1,00,000-2,50,000 23.5 33.3 45.6 42.6 20.0 39.3

2,50,000-5,00,000 0.0 12.5 10.5 31.9 60.0 18.0

More than 5,00,000 0.0 0.0 7.0 21.3 20.0 10.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Nos. of HHs 0 3 8 11 4 26

% of HHs 0.0 12.5 14.0 23.4 80.0 17.3

Average Per HH farm labour

(Nos.)0.0 0.2 0.2 0.5 1.4 0.3

Wages* (Rs./month/person) 0.0 2122.0 3987.3 3499.1 3642.9 3487.8

Nos. of HHs 0 0 4 4 0 8

% of HHs 0.0 0.0 7.0 8.5 0.0 5.3

Per HH farm labour (Nos.) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1

Wages (Rs./month/person) 0.0 0.0 3133.3 3945.0 0.0 3458.0

Nos. of HHs 0 0 0 0 0 0

% of HHs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Per HH farm labour (Nos.) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Wages (Rs./month/person) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Average Family Size

Educational Status of head of the family

Age of Heads (Years)

(iii)Children

Annual Family Income (Rs.)

Table:4.1 General Socio-Economic Characterstics of Sample Households-2008-09

ParticularsFarm Size category

(Per cent HHs)

* Notes: Wages includes perks also.

Source: Field Survey

Permanent farm labour

(i)Male

(ii)Female

50

marginal, small and medium category households have family members between 4 and 8.

None of the marginal farmers have family size above 8 whereas 60 percent of the large

farmers have family size above 8. Overall 81.30 percent households have family size 4-8

persons. The data clearly shows positive correlation between family size and farm size.

Overall, about 42.00 percent sample households had young head with age above 30

years but below 50 years. The 51.30 percent sample households have head of age above 50

years.

4.1.2 Education status:

Apart from other factors, education level of the head of the households plays an

important role in adoption of improved agricultural production technology, farm

mechanization and to economise the cost of production. Formal education also helps them for

better and judicious use of available farm resources. Keeping this in view, the data on

educational status of head of sample households has been presented in Table 4.1. The data

shows that heads of 82.40 percent sample households were literate. About 31.40 percent had

education up to higher secondary and above. About 26.2 percent had matriculation education.

Illiteracy was found to be significantly higher among the marginal and the large

farmers i.e. 27.3 percent among the marginal and 24.4 percent among the large farmers.

Higher secondary and graduation education was higher among the semi medium and medium

farmers. The data clearly reveals good literacy level of head of sample households.

4.1.3 Annual net income:

The data on annual net income per household for reference year 2008-09 was

collected. The sources of income comprised of agriculture, livestock and dairy, casual labour,

self employment and salary, profession and others. Overall 39.30 percent of sample

households had income ranging from Rs.1 lakh to Rs.2.5 lakh. The data in Table 4.1 clearly

shows that annual family income increases with increase in farm size. This suggests highly

positive correlation between farm size and annual income. About 71 percent of the marginal

farmers had annual net income below Rs.50, 000 whereas 60 percent of the large farmers had

annual income ranging from Rs. 2.5 lakh to Rs.5 lakh. None of the marginal farmer had net

annual income above Rs. 2.5 lakh whereas none of the large farmers had income below Rs.1

lakh. As majority marginal and small farmers have net annual income below Rs.1 lakh, their

financial capacity to invest more on agriculture and livestock/dairying is very low and nearly

nil. Hence, they are facing lot of problems in purchasing fodder from the open market for

51

feeding their milch animals. Subsequently they are under feeding their animals as they cannot

afford to purchase required quantity of fodder.

4.1.4 Permanent farm labour:

Agriculture and dairy are labour intensive activities. Moreover the demand of labour

for agriculture is not constant; it fluctuates widely across different stages of the crops and the

agriculture seasons. However, labour demand for livestock/dairy activities is remaining more

or less uniform throughout the year. Farmers always try to meet labour requirements from

their own family sources but during the peak of the agriculture season, sometimes they have

to hire labour on daily wage basis.

With the increase in land size, number of animal and annual income of the household,

it was found that, they are opting for hired permanent attached labour to meet labour

requirements for agriculture and dairy activities. Table 4.1 shows that none of the marginal

farmers had permanent labour. Mostly male labourers were hired as permanent servant. Out

of 47 medium size households, 11 households (23.40 percent) hired permanent farm labour.

Out of 5 large farmer households, 4 households (80 percent) hired permanent farm labour.

The percentage of households having permanent farm labour is increasing with increase in

farm size. Large and medium farmers hired 1.4 and 0.6 permanent laborers per sample

household respectively. Overall, sample households hired 34 permanent attached servants,

out of which 26 were male and 8 were female. There was no case of child attached servant.

The average wage, inclusive of perks paid to permanent labour ranged from Rs.2,100

to Rs. 4, 000 per month. No gender bias seen in wage payment to permanent labour.

4.2 Land resources:

Today, livestock are competing for feed and fodder from the same land which grow

grains for human population. Every year human and livestock population are ever increasing

at geometric progression rate but the land is almost stagnant with declining bias. This has

resulted in malnourishment for both. The scientific advances in agriculture during and after

the green revolution mainly focused on introducing the high yielding dwarf varieties for

cereals. The introduction of these varieties have sorted out to some extent the problem for

human population by only increasing the foodgrain production but on the other side due to

lesser yield of byproducts, fodder availability declined and the livestock’s became further

malnourished. To add to the plight, gauchar and agriculture land in villages are shrinking year

after year. As allocation of area to fodder crops is highly depend upon the farm size, analysis

on livestock population, cropping pattern, cost of cultivation etc. for sample households have

52

been done according to their farm size. The selected farmers were of different farm size

categories i.e. marginal (<1 hect.), small (1-2 hect.), semi-medium (2-4 hect.), medium (4-10

hect.) and large (>10 hect.).

4.2.1 Operational land holding:

The data presented in Table 4.2 shows that average land holding for marginal farmers

was 0.70 hect. for small farmers 1.48 hect., for semi-medium farmers 2.63 hect., for medium

farmers 5.64 hect. and for large farmers 12.37 hect.

Marginal Small

Semi

Medium Medium Large Overall

Irrigated 0.64 1.13 1.85 4.68 8.78 2.72

Unirrigated 0.03 0.32 0.51 0.75 2.32 0.56

Total 0.67 1.45 2.36 5.43 11.10 3.28

Irrigated 0.03 0.02 0.27 0.08 0.47 0.15

Unirrigated 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01

Total 0.03 0.03 0.27 0.11 0.47 0.16

Irrigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01

Unirrigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.80 0.05

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.80 0.06

Irrigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Unirrigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Irrigated 0.67 1.15 2.12 4.79 9.25 2.87

Irrigated (%) 96.17 77.55 80.41 85.00 74.78 82.23

Unirrigated 0.03 0.33 0.52 0.85 3.12 0.62

Total 0.70 1.48 2.63 5.64 12.37 3.50

Fallow land

Leased-out land

Total operation land


Table: 4.2 Average land holding of sample households- 2008-09

(Hectares)

Particulars

Farm Size category

Owned land

Leased-in land

The overall average land holding per sample household was 3.5 hect. The large and

semi medium farmers had on an average 0.47 hect. and 0.27 hect. leased in land respectively.

Marginal and small farmers had only 0.03 hect leased in land. Land was kept fallow in the

reference year by only medium and large size farmers. There was not a single case of leasing

out of land among the sample HHs. The lease contract in the selected districts is generally

based on either share of produce or fixed rental. Irrigation is a basic need and one of the

crucial factors in fodder production. Adequate irrigation facility is must in order to grow

fodder crops in rabi/summer seasons. It is interesting to note that overall 82.23 percent of

53

operational land was

irrigated. From the total

operational land, 96.17

percent land of the marginal

farmers, 77.55 percent land

of small farmers, 80.41

percent land of semi

medium farmers, 85.00

percent land of medium

farmers and 74.78 percent

land of large farmers were irrigated. The data shows negative correlation between percentage

of irrigated operational land holding and farm size.

4.3 Farm implements and machinery:

The use of farm implements and machineries has a direct bearing on cost of

production and productivity of fodder crops. Farm mechanization helps in effective

utilization of agriculture inputs. It increases the speed of completion of agricultural

operations, reducing labour costs and increases the productivity of land and labour. Besides,

it also helps in reducing the drudgery involved in farm operations. Irrigation pumps, tillage

equipments, sprayers, chaff cutters, tractors and threshers are part of farm mechanization in

Gujarat. Ownership of farm machinery is a symbol of affluence in the village. Even marginal

farmers with small holdings utilize these improved farm equipments by hiring it for field

operations. However, mechanization has not been achieved in fodder crops to the extent to

which it has been achieved in horticulture, plantation and cash crops. In the present context,

there is a sharp increase in agriculture wage rates due to higher demand of labour and short

supply of labour during the peak agriculture seasons. MNREGA also affected hike in labour

charges for various agricultural operations (Shah and Makwana, 2011). Thus, it is pertinent to

discuss the farm power and machinery of the sample households.

Per household data relating to ownership of farm implements, machineries and farm

buildings have been presented in Table 4.3. The data presented in Table 4.3 shows that

medium farmers own the highest i.e. Rs.5.8 lakh worth of farm building and machinery

where as marginal farmers own only Rs.0.45 lakh worth of farm building and machinery.

Among the farm machinery, tractor holds a place of pride among the farmers. Because of its

usefulness for multiple activities, it was found to be one of the most common and valuable

54

Table 4.3 Details of Farm Implements, Machineries and Building of Sample Households, 2008-09, (Per HHs)

Type of machine Marginal Small Semi medium Medium Large Overall

Nos. PV

(Rs.)

Nos. PV

(Rs.)

Nos. PV

(Rs.)

Nos. PV

(Rs.)

Nos. PV

(Rs.)

Nos. PV

(Rs.)

1. Tractor 0.00 0.00 0.08 15625.00 0.25 86578.95 0.62 206914.89 0.60 226000.00 0.32 107766.67

2. Trolley 0.00 0.00 0.08 4583.33 0.18 10877.19 0.55 36542.55 0.20 20000.00 0.26 16983.33

3. Harrow 0.00 0.00 0.04 1250.00 0.07 1543.86 0.26 4872.34 0.20 8000.00 0.12 2580.00

4. Cultivator 0.00 0.00 0.13 875.00 0.21 2464.91 0.55 6638.30 0.40 7400.00 0.29 3403.33

5. Electric motor 0.41 13764.71 0.58 18125.00 0.93 22315.79 1.04 28510.64 0.80 29400.00 0.85 22853.33

6. Diesel Engine 0.00 0.00 0.17 2958.33 0.18 3526.32 0.17 4234.04 0.40 10000.00 0.16 3473.33

7. Planker 0.29 164.71 0.33 252.92 0.54 534.39 0.45 459.57 0.20 200.00 0.44 412.87

8. Spray pump 0.59 907.65 0.54 616.67 0.74 1136.84 1.13 2474.47 1.20 2460.00 0.83 1490.87

9. Generator 0.00 0.00 0.04 279.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 44.67

10. Cart 0.12 3058.82 0.29 7291.67 0.44 10385.96 0.51 11553.19 0.20 4000.00 0.39 9213.33

11. Drip System 0.06 1470.59 0.00 0.00 0.09 13210.53 0.51 56808.51 0.00 0.00 0.20 22986.67

12. Small tools 14.47 1635.29 12.25 1679.17 19.05 2833.33 26.11 4192.02 19.00 3700.00 19.65 2967.50

13. Shed for

fodder/Cattle 0.65 12382.35 0.83 26645.83 1.00 71605.26 1.11 105297.87 0.80 13000.00 0.96 66303.33

14. Farm House 0.24 11588.24 0.25 13750.00 0.35 32824.56 0.43 118212.77 0.40 45000.00 0.35 54526.67

15.Chaff Cutter 0.12 58.82 0.13 208.33 0.25 147.19 0.30 725.53 0.20 200.00 0.23 329.93

16. Others 0.00 0.00 0.04 41.67 0.21 292.98 0.28 360.64 0.40 350.00 0.19 242.67

Total PV 45031.18 94182.08 260278.07 587797.34 369710.00 315578.50

Note: PV denote Present Value (Rs.)


55

asset among the semi medium, medium and large farmers. Marginal and small farmers

generally hired it to perform operations on task or per hour basis. In general the numbers and

value of farm machineries showed a positive correlation with farm size. Due to electrification

in majority villages, there were more electric motors as compared to diesel engines. Chaff

cutter is one of the very important instruments for livestock rearing/dairy enterprise. It is used

for cutting straw or hay into small pieces for feeding cattle and buffaloes. This helps in

increasing animal digestion and prevents wastage of the fodder. Though government has

introduced various schemes to promote chaff cutter, but Table 4.3 shows a very thin

distribution of chaff cutter among all the categories of sample farmers.

4.4 Livestock resources:

Gujarat has rich livestock resource of indigenous breeds. The famous cattle breeds of

Gujarat are Kankrej in north and Gir in Saurashtra and among the buffalo breeds, these are

Mehsani in north-central, Jaffarabadi in Saurashtra and Surti in south Gujarat. Government

and dairy co-operatives have started various programmes to improve the quality of livestock

resources through crossbreeding.

The data presented in Table 4.4 shows that nearly 99 percent of the total livestock’s

were bovines. Medium farmers had the maximum population of bovines i.e. 16.62 per HHs

whereas the marginal farmer had the least i.e. 5.41 per HHs. The bovine population shows a

positive correlation with farm size except in the case of large farmers. As discussed earlier,

animal husbandry is very labour intensive job. As large farmers have operational land above

10 hect. they have to devote much of their time and energy in farming related activities.

Therefore, they are paying less attention on dairy farming. Secondly, if we look at the density

of bovine animals/ha. of operational land, we find marginal farmers have the highest bovine

density of 7.73 animals and this gets declining as the farm size increases. It implies that

marginal farmers had the most intensive dairy farming whereas the large farmers had least

intensive dairy farming. It was observed during the field survey that as small and marginal

farmers fed more bovine animals from less of the land and open grazing the malnourishments

and lower productivity among their animals were clearly visible.

Earlier, like farming, dairy was also a way of life. But now a day’s with milk

cooperative revolution, milk production has become revenue generating commercial activity.

This has led to increase in the demand of good breed animals with higher milk yield and milk

fat percentage. Central and state governments, dairy co-operatives and NGOs took up various

initiatives to improve the quality and breed of milch animals by cross breeding.

56

Nos.PV

(Rs.)Nos.

PV

(Rs.)Nos.

PV

(Rs.)Nos.

PV

(Rs.)Nos.

PV

(Rs.)Nos.

PV

(Rs.)

Adult female in milk 0.18 1823.53 0.00 0.00 0.21 3161.40 0.83 27042.55 0.20 2000.00 0.37 9948.00

Adult female in dry 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 789.47 0.04 425.53 0.40 6000.00 0.05 633.33

Adult male 0.53 7470.59 0.58 7791.67 0.91 13710.53 1.06 17531.91 1.00 15000.00 0.87 13296.67

Young stock (male) 0.06 235.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 1234.04 0.40 5000.00 0.05 580.00

Young stock (female) 0.18 529.41 0.00 0.00 0.05 149.12 0.38 2257.45 0.00 0.00 0.16 824.00



Adult male 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 789.47 0.15 2340.43 0.00 0.00 0.07 1033.33

Young stock (male) 0.00 0.00 0.08 75.00 0.11 494.74 0.55 1117.02 0.00 0.00 0.23 550.00




Adult male 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 191.49 0.00 0.00 0.01 60.00

Young stock (male) 0.29 452.94 0.21 220.83 0.25 500.00 0.51 1117.02 0.00 0.00 0.32 626.67


Male 0.00 0.00 0.04 125.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 20.00

Female 0.18 264.71 0.04 104.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 46.67

Young stock 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Male 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 1106.38 0.20 20000.00 0.01 666.67

Female 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Young stock 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Bovines 5.41 83323.53 6.00 111025.00 8.82 150470.18 16.62 267063.83 10.00 144250.00 10.47 172874.33

Total Operational

Land (Ha)0.70 --- 1.48 --- 2.63 --- 5.64 --- 12.37 --- 3.50 ---

Density of

Bovines/Ha of

Operational Land

7.73 --- 4.05 --- 3.36 --- 2.95 --- 0.81 --- 2.99 ---

Total Livestock 5.59 83588.24 6.08 111254.17 8.82 150470.18 16.66 268170.21 10.20 164250.00 10.51 173607.67

2. Total Bovines includes cattle and buffaloes only.


1. Indigenous Cattle

2. Crossbred Cattle

3. Buffalo

4. Goat

5. Horse

Note: 1.PV denote Present Value (Rs.)

Table 4.4 Livestock Population of Sample HHs- 2008-09 (Per HHs)

Particulars

MF SF SMF MDF LF Overall

57

The Table 4.4 shows that about 86 percent of the total adult cows in milk were crossbred. It

also shows that small, semi medium and medium farmers are rearing mainly crossbred

cattle’s and proportion of rearing indigenous cattle is small and declining year after year. This

eventually proves the success of efforts of improving the quality of animals through

crossbred animal programmes. Among the total bovines, we find more female bovines than

males; this is for the obvious reason that draught power has been replaced by tractors and

other machineries. Further, it is uneconomical to keep bullocks for small and medium farmers

due to high feeding cost. Overall, on an average value of total livestock per sample household

was found to be Rs.1,73,608. It was Rs. 83,324 for marginal farmers, Rs.1,11,254 for small

farmer, Rs.1,50,470 for semi medium farmer, Rs.2, 68,170 for medium farmer and Rs.

1,64,250 for large farmer. The value of livestock shows a positive correlation with the farm

size except in the case of large farmers for the reason stated above. The costliest livestock

with the farmers were the adult female crossbred cow in milk (Rs.58, 307) and adult female

buffalo in milk (Rs.56, 107). We find negligible population of goats and horses among the

sample households. Goat is known as ‘Poor man’s cow’ and an important component of

livestock resource in arid/fully dry areas of Gujarat. Marginal and even undulating lands

which are unsuitable for cattle’s or buffaloes rearing can be utilized profitably for rearing

ovine’s (Goat’s and Sheep’s) . With very low investments, it can be a profitable venture for

small and marginal farmers. But there are cultural aspects attached to it as norms of most of

the castes of selected areas prohibit rearing of ovine’s and poultry.

4.5 Cropping pattern:

Crops are grown mainly in two distinct seasons, kharif (July to October), and rabi

(October to February). With adequate availability of irrigation facility, summer crops are also

grown between March and June. The decisions to grow crops during a season are usually

based on expected profit, personal preferences, resource availability and own requirement for

food consumption and feeding livestock.

Since one of our main objectives is to assess the cost of cultivation and revenue

generated from fodder crops vis-à-vis competing crops, it is pertinent to examine the

cropping pattern adopted by the sample households. It is also worth to see the differences in

the cropping pattern as the farm size of HHs varies. In Gujarat, the prominent kharif crops are

jowar, bajra, maize, paddy and cotton. During the rabi season, prominent crops are wheat,

rapeseed and mustard, grams and lucerne. In the summer season the major crops grown are

bajra and maize.

58

As stated earlier, one important fodder crop for each season were selected for the in

depth analysis. Lucerne, pure fodder crop was selected as study crop for rabi season where as

bajra crop whose byproduct (straw) is used as dry fodder was selected as study crop for

summer season. During Kharif season, generally farmers are not growing pure fodder crops

in selected districts. Therefore, in such situation we selected the most important food grain

crop (whose by product/residues is used as fodder) having better fodder value as study crop.

Accordingly, maize was selected as Kharif study crop for Panchmahals and Sabarkantha

districts. As area under maize is nearly nil in Banaskantha district. Hence, for Banaskantha

district we selected bajra, the most important food grain crop whose byproduct (straw) have

better fodder value as study crop.

For analysis related to fodder crops vis-à-vis competing crops, based on the highest

percentage contribution to net cropped area (NCA) in the cropping pattern, we finalized

wheat as competing crop for lucerne in the rabi season. Similarly jowar is the competing crop

for bajra in summer season. As Cotton is a long duration crop covering at least two seasons, it

is not advisable to compare it with net return of study crop having four month duration.

Therefore, for kharif season, we selected paddy as competing crop for in depth analysis. The

Table 4.5.1 exhibits season-wise crop pattern of sample households as a percentage to gross

cropped area (GCA).Table 4.5.2 exhibits season-wise crop pattern of sample households as a

percentage to net cropped

area (NCA). From the

Table 4.5.1, it is evident

that 54.26 percent of GCA

devoted to kharif crops.

About 35.58 percent of

GCA was under rabi crops

(Table 4.5.1). Of the

GCA, only 21.93 percent

area devoted to pure

fodder crops such as

lucerne, bajra, maize,

sorghum etc. and rest

devoted to other crops

59

(Table 4.5.1). Pie chart is given here show season wise area allocation of gross cropped area

(GCA) to pure fodder crops and other crops.

It is clear that the ratio of fodder to the total cropped area of season is phenomenally

higher in the summer season. It was 36.34 percent which is almost double as compared to

Kharif and rabi seasons. The main reasons to such a phenomenon can be upsurge in demand

of fodder in the summer season, higher price realisation for fodder in summer and to meet

own requirements. In Kharif season, area allocated to cotton crop was highest and it was

24.29 percent area of NCA (Table 4.5.2). Of the total area under Kharif crops, cotton claimed

almost one fourth area. In Kharif season, pure fodder crops were grown on 21.91 percent of

NCA whereas rest area was used for growing cash crops, foodgrain crops, vegetables and

other non fodder crops (Table 4.5.2). In kharif, paddy, maize and bajra were important

foodgrain crops and byproducts (straw) of these crops were used as dry fodder for feeding

livestock. In kharif, the paddy claimed 10.77 percent of NCA, maize claimed 9.99 percent

and bajra claimed 4.58 percent of NCA (Table 4.5.2). Among pure fodder crops (green

fodder) in kharif, bajra, sorghum and maize were important crops.

Category wise examination of data reveals that in kharif, proportionate allocation to

pure fodder crops is decreasing with the increase in size of land holdings. Small and marginal

farmers devoted around 32 percent area to pure fodder crops whereas medium and large

farmers devoted around 19 percent area to pure fodder crops. Moreover, we can see that

small and marginal farmers cultivated mostly crops like bajra and maize whereas crops like

paddy and cotton were mostly cultivated by the large and medium farmers. Bajra and maize

are less commercial crops and comparatively have less return per unit. Even then, small and

marginal farmers are cultivating maize and bajra. The probable reason may be these crops

requires less investment and provide good quantity of fodder for which small and marginal

farmers are in dire need owing to high bovine density. In the large farmer case as they have

large land, higher investment capacity and low bovine density as mentioned earlier, their

fodder requirement is not acute and hence they focus more on commercial crops while

deciding about sowing of crops. As wheat is the chief staple crop in Gujarat, predominance of

wheat is visible in rabi crops. It accounted for 55.12 percent of NCA of the total rabi net

cropped area (Table 4.5.2). Rapeseed and mustard was also important rabi crop and it

accounted 11.30 percent of rabi NCA. Of the total area under rabi crops, only 17.83 percent

area devoted to pure fodder crops. Lucerne and maize were two important pure fodder crops

of rabi season and it claimed 13.35 percent and 1.15 percent of rabi NCA respectively

60

Season / Crop MF SF SMF MDF LF Overall

1. Paddy 3.48 2.86 4.38 6.23 13.11 5.84

2. Maize 9.00 8.69 5.53 4.38 7.49 5.42

3. Bajra 4.22 5.00 3.56 1.74 0.00 2.49

4. Jowar 2.63 2.71 1.81 0.27 3.75 1.25

5. Cotton 3.47 9.69 11.50 14.84 15.74 13.18

6. Sugarcane 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.70 0.00 0.43

7. Vegetable 0.00 0.60 0.28 0.14 0.00 0.20

8. Others 7.40 8.19 12.76 15.89 8.55 13.56

i. Maize 2.58 0.75 0.47 1.23 1.28 1.01

ii. Bajra 10.30 10.32 5.87 3.37 1.91 4.75

iii. Sorghum 0.42 1.97 2.47 4.10 2.21 3.20

iv. Guar 0.00 2.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18

v. Lucern 0.54 0.00 0.96 0.50 0.00 0.56

vi. Others 0.00 2.33 3.48 1.03 5.74 2.19

Kharif Fodder 13.84 17.63 13.26 10.23 11.14 11.89

Kharif Total 44.05 55.36 53.27 54.43 59.79 54.26

Kharif (Fodder /Total) 31.43 31.85 24.88 18.80 18.64 21.91

1. Wheat 13.69 17.70 20.31 19.75 20.11 19.61

2. Gram 0.33 0.60 1.36 1.64 0.75 1.37

3. Rape seed & Mustard 3.20 2.01 4.61 3.56 7.28 4.02

4. Vegetable 0.00 1.44 1.38 0.50 0.00 0.79

5. Others 2.10 2.18 2.01 4.66 2.63 3.45

i. Maize 1.15 0.00 0.80 0.26 0.00 0.41

ii. Sorghum 0.00 0.30 0.09 0.11 0.18 0.12

iii. Lucerne 14.20 7.24 4.60 4.45 1.21 4.75

iv. Cowpea 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.11

v. Others 0.88 0.83 1.05 1.04 0.18 0.96

Rabi Fodder 16.24 8.37 6.90 5.86 1.58 6.35

Rabi Total 35.56 32.30 36.57 35.96 32.36 35.58

Rabi (Fodder / Total) 45.66 25.90 18.87 16.29 4.89 17.83

1. Maize 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.21 0.00 0.33

2. Bajra 14.24 5.75 4.42 4.16 5.14 4.72

3. Cowpea 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.24

4. Others 0.00 2.16 1.52 0.91 1.12 1.18

i. Jowar 1.17 0.30 0.70 0.83 1.59 0.82

ii. Lucerne 0.00 0.15 0.09 0.27 0.00 0.18

iii. Maize 0.42 0.00 0.13 0.29 0.00 0.20

iv. Others 4.57 3.97 2.56 2.48 0.00 2.50

Summer Fodder 6.15 4.42 3.48 3.87 1.59 3.69

Summer Total 20.39 12.34 10.15 9.61 7.86 10.16

Summer (Fodder / Total) 30.17 35.82 34.22 40.31 20.29 36.34

Fodder 36.23 30.42 23.63 19.96 14.32 21.93

GCA 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Table 4.5.1: Cropping Pattern of sample households, 2008-09 (Percentage of GCA)


A. Kharif Crops

Fodder

B. Rabi Crops

Fodder

C. Summer Crops

Fodder

61

Season / Crop MF SF SMF MDF LF Overall

1. Paddy 7.91 5.16 8.22 11.45 21.93 10.77

2. Maize 20.44 15.70 10.38 8.05 12.53 9.99

3. Bajra 9.57 9.03 6.69 3.20 0.00 4.58

4. Jowar 5.98 4.89 3.40 0.50 6.27 2.30

5. Cotton 7.87 17.49 21.59 27.27 26.33 24.29

6. Sugarcane 0.00 0.00 0.38 1.29 0.00 0.79

7. Vegetable 0.00 1.09 0.52 0.25 0.00 0.37

8. Others 16.80 14.79 23.94 29.19 14.29 25.00

i. Maize 5.87 1.36 0.88 2.26 2.13 1.86

ii. Bajra 23.39 18.64 11.02 6.19 3.20 8.76

iii. Sorghum 0.95 3.56 4.64 7.53 3.70 5.90

iv. Guar 0.00 4.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33

v. Lucern 1.23 0.00 1.81 0.91 0.00 1.04

vi. Others 0.00 4.21 6.53 1.90 9.60 4.03

Kharif Fodder 31.43 31.85 24.88 18.80 18.64 21.91

Net Cropped Area (NCA) 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

1. Wheat 38.49 54.81 55.55 54.91 62.15 55.12

2. Gram 0.94 1.86 3.73 4.56 2.33 3.86

3. Rape seed & Mustard 9.00 6.22 12.60 9.91 22.51 11.30

4. Vegetable 0.00 4.47 3.77 1.38 0.00 2.21

5. Others 5.92 6.74 5.49 12.95 8.12 9.68

i. Maize 3.23 0.00 2.20 0.72 0.00 1.15

ii. Sorghum 0.00 0.93 0.24 0.29 0.57 0.33

iii. Lucerne 39.94 22.41 12.57 12.38 3.75 13.35

iv. Cowpea 0.00 0.00 1.01 0.00 0.00 0.31

v. Others 2.48 2.56 2.86 2.89 0.57 2.69

Rabi Fodder 45.66 25.90 18.87 16.29 4.89 17.83


1. Maize 0.00 0.00 7.25 2.21 0.00 3.26

2. Bajra 69.83 46.64 43.55 43.34 65.42 46.47

3. Cowpea 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.71 0.00 2.31

4. Others 0.00 17.54 14.98 9.42 14.29 11.61

i. Jowar 5.72 2.44 6.85 8.67 20.29 8.03

ii. Lucerne 0.00 1.22 0.89 2.83 0.00 1.77

iii. Maize 2.04 0.00 1.30 2.97 0.00 1.96

iv. Others 22.40 32.16 25.18 25.85 0.00 24.58

Summer Fodder 30.17 35.82 34.22 40.31 20.29 36.34


Table 4.5.2: Season-wise Cropping Pattern of sample households, 2008-09

(Percentage to NCA)

A. Kharif Crops

Fodder


B. Rabi Crops

Fodder

C. Summer Crops

Fodder

62

(Table 4.5.2). Generally, pure fodder crops in rabi season are grown under irrigated condition

and hence area devoted to pure fodder crop was found low. From the Table 4.5.1 and Table

4.5.2, we see clearly negative correlation between percent of area allocation to lucerne and

the farm size. For this relationship, reasons are same as stated above. In summer season, main

requirement for growing any crop is availability of adequate irrigation. Earlier, we have seen

that marginal and small farmers had high percentage of irrigated land. In congruence to it,

from Table 4.5, we see that marginal farmers allocated 30.17 percent of sown area in

summer, whereas large farmers allocated only 20.29 percent of total cropped area in summer.

This suggests negative correlation between the percent of GCA of fodder crops to NCA in

summer and farm size. In summer bajra as cereal crop and jowar as pure fodder crop were

important. The analysis suggest that small and marginal famers who are in acute need of

fodder are trying to fulfill the need by allocating higher proportion of their available land

resources towards pure fodder crops or cereal crops whose byproducts can be use as fodder.

4.6 Area, yield and production status of fodder crops:

In this section, the present status of fodder crop (2008-09) vis-à-vis the status that

used to be before 10 years (1998-99) is being examined here. The opinion of sample farmers

on changes in respect of area, production and yield across various seasons kharif, rabi and

summer have been collected. The collected responses have been analyzed in the form of

percent of HHs reporting increase, decrease or remained same. Here data have been collected

and analyzed for those crops whose main product or by product (straw) are used as either

green or dry fodder. The data is analyzed and presented season wise. The decision of area

allocation to different crops is influence by so many factors such as soil type, water

availability, market price, home consumption need of fodder requirement for livestock

feeding, investment capacity, rainfall pattern etc. Thus, while deciding area allocation to

crops, farmers take into consideration his fodder requirements, but it is not a sole

consideration. There are other considerations also. In kharif season, in selected districts,

fodder is produced as green fodder (sorghum, green grass) and as crop residues (straw) of

cereals (maize, paddy, bajra) pulses and groundnut. The byproducts (straw) of these crops are

used as dry fodder for feeding livestock and farmers store it in bundle or hay form.

4.6.1 Status of area under fodder crops:

(i) Kharif season:

The data presented in Table 4.6.1 (A) shows that during the kharif season the area

under maize, bajra, sorghum, paddy, cowpea and green grass have increased in the reference

63

Season/Crop MF SF SMF MDF LF Overall

Increased 37.50 37.50 55.56 66.67 75.00 56.76

Decreased 25.00 12.50 3.70 7.41 0.00 8.11

Remained same 37.50 50.00 40.74 25.93 25.00 35.14

Increased 15.38 26.67 51.43 59.38 75.00 46.46

Decreased 30.77 26.67 14.29 21.88 0.00 20.20

Remained same 53.85 46.67 34.29 18.75 25.00 33.33

Increased 100.00 60.00 40.91 62.50 66.67 55.36

Decreased 0.00 0.00 18.18 16.67 0.00 14.29

Remained same 0.00 40.00 40.91 20.83 33.33 30.36

Increased 0.00 25.00 26.67 42.86 50.00 34.69

Decreased 100.00 50.00 46.67 28.57 0.00 36.73

Remained same 0.00 25.00 26.67 28.57 50.00 28.57

Increased 25.00 33.33 47.37 80.95 75.00 59.26

Decreased 0.00 0.00 10.53 0.00 0.00 3.70

Remained same 75.00 66.67 42.11 19.05 25.00 37.04

Increased 0.00 0.00 60.00 60.00 50.00 55.17

Decreased 0.00 50.00 0.00 13.33 0.00 10.34

Remained same 0.00 50.00 40.00 26.67 50.00 34.48

Increased 0.00 50.00 70.00 73.33 66.67 65.63

Decreased 100.00 0.00 10.00 13.33 0.00 15.63

Remained same 0.00 50.00 20.00 13.33 33.33 18.75

Increased 33.33 50.00 13.64 53.85 100.00 35.29

Decreased 33.33 8.33 4.55 7.69 0.00 7.84

Remained same 33.33 41.67 81.82 38.46 0.00 56.86


Table 4.6.1(A): Present status of area of fodder crops in kharif season as

compared to 10 years before for Sample households- 2008-09

(Percentage multiple response)

A. Kharif

i. Maize

ii. Bajra

iv. Guar

v. Paddy

vi. Cowpea

vii. Green Grass

iii. Sorghum

viii. Others

64

year (2008-09) as compared to the base year (1998-1999). This positive change is a result of

many factors, major one being increases in fodder requirements. Guar is a protein rich fodder.

It is also used as vegetable. Guar gum is the chief product from guar. It is also used as

concentrates. About 36.73 percent of farmers reported decline in the area under guar crop.

The reason they stated was low profitability in the crop and high volatility in the market price

of guar gum.

The examination of status of area under study crops bajra and maize, the Table 4.6.1

(A) shows that 56.76 percent maize growers and 46.46 percent bajra growers reported

somewhat increase in area under these crops. Only 8.11 percent maize growers reported

decline in area under maize. It further shows that majority of small and marginal farmers

reported that the area under the crops in the reference year either increased or remained same

vis-à-vis the area that used to be 10 years before. The area under these crops has increased

among the semi medium, medium and large farmers. In case of competitive crop paddy,

similar trend was witnessed.

(ii) Rabi season:

In rabi season, wheat is grown mainly for grain purpose while lucerne, sorghum, and

maize are grown mainly for green fodder crop. The area allocation to different crops highly

depends upon the soil moisture level and extent of availability of irrigation. The data

presented in Table 4.6.1 (B) shows that during the rabi season, the proportion of sample

farmers reporting increase in the area under wheat, maize and sorghum in the reference year

(2008-09) as compared to the base year (1998-1999) has been very high. No one reported

decrease in area under maize. Only 4 percent sample households reported decrease in area

under sorghum. About 15 percent reported decrease in area under wheat and lucerne. The

increase in area under these crops mainly owes to increase in area under irrigation in the

surveyed districts. Moreover, wheat and maize growers constantly fetched good market

prices in recent years. This has incentivized them to increase the area under wheat and maize.

About 48.74 percent of farmers reported no change in area under the lucerne crop. Further,

the Table 4.6.1 (B) shows that proportion of farmers who made no changes in area allocation

to lucerne during 1999-2009 found much higher among small, marginal and semi medium

farmers. However, the medium and large farmers increased area under lucerne crop. In case

of competitive crop wheat, the marginal, semi medium, medium and large farmers reported

increase in the area, whereas small farmers reported decline in area under wheat.

65


Increased 50.00 33.33 48.57 58.82 60.00 51.04

Decreased 10.00 8.33 20.00 17.65 0.00 15.63

Remained same 40.00 58.33 31.43 23.53 40.00 33.33

Increased 27.27 18.75 33.33 46.15 60.00 36.13

Decreased 9.09 18.75 18.75 12.82 0.00 15.13

Remained same 63.64 62.50 47.92 41.03 40.00 48.74

Increased 33.33 66.67 75.00 75.00 100.00 72.73

Decreased 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Remained same 66.67 33.33 25.00 25.00 0.00 27.27

Increased 0.00 50.00 54.55 75.00 33.33 56.00

Decreased 0.00 0.00 9.09 0.00 0.00 4.00

Remained same 100.00 50.00 36.36 25.00 66.67 40.00

Increased 0.00 33.33 33.33 42.86 0.00 31.25

Decreased 33.33 50.00 0.00 28.57 0.00 18.75

Remained same 66.67 16.67 66.67 28.57 100.00 50.00

B. Rabi


i.Wheat

Table 4.6.1(B): Present status of area of fodder crops in rabi season as



ii. Lucerne

iii. Maize

iv. Sorghum

v. Others

(iii) Summer season:

The data presented in Table 4.6.1(C) shows that during the summer season the area

under maize reported to be up in the reference year (2008-09) as compared to the base year

(1998-1999). This positive change is due to increase in area under irrigation in the surveyed

districts. The area under cowpea crop is showing considerable decrease. For bajra crop, about

50.93 percent sample households reported no change in area during period 1999-2009. About

31.48 percent households reported higher allocation of area to bajra crop in summer season.

Only 17.59 percent households reported somewhat decline in area under summer bajra

mainly due to diversification in crop pattern and limited availability of irrigation water.

66

Table 4.6.1(C): Present status of area of fodder crops in summer season as compared to

10 years before for Sample households- 2008-09



C. Summer

i. Maize

Increased 100.00 33.33 64.29 81.25 33.33 67.57

Decreased 0.00 33.33 14.29 12.50 33.33 16.22

Remained same 0.00 33.33 21.43 6.25 33.33 16.22

ii. Bajra Increased 23.08 18.75 24.39 47.06 50.00 31.48

Decreased 0.00 12.50 19.51 26.47 0.00 17.59

Remained same 76.92 68.75 56.10 26.47 50.00 50.93

iii. Cowpea Increased 0.00 50.00 14.29 0.00 0.00 14.29

Decreased 0.00 0.00 57.14 50.00 0.00 42.86

Remained same 0.00 50.00 28.57 50.00 100.00 42.86

iv. Others Increased 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Decreased 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Remained same 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Source: Field Survey

4.6.2 Status of production of fodder crops:

(i) Kharif season:

The data presented in Table 4.6.2 (A) shows that the production of kharif maize,

bajra, sorghum, paddy, cowpea fodder and green grasses increased in the reference year

(2008-09) as compared to the base year (1998-1999). This positive change in fodder

production is a result of many factors, such as increase in area under these crops, better

agronomic practices and use of high yielding variety seeds. About 36.73 percent sample

farmers reported increase and similar proportion reported decline in the production under

guar crop. Thus no clear picture is available in respect of production of guar.

If we see the status of production in respect of study crops bajra and maize, the Table

4.6.2 (A) shows that 71.62 percent maize grower and 48.48 percent bajra growers reported

increase in production in the reference year as compared to base year 1998-99. Only 9.46

percent maize growers and 20.20 percent bajra growers reported decline in production. It

further shows that production of these crops in the reference year increased across all farm

size categories. In case of competitive crop paddy, 68.52 percent farmers reported increase in

fodder production. About 50.00 percent of small and marginal farmers reported no change in

production. The majority of semi medium, medium and large farmers reported increase in the

production of paddy fodder. About 65.63 percent sample households reported increase

67


Increased 50.00 62.50 74.07 77.78 75.00 71.62

Decreased 25.00 12.50 7.41 7.41 0.00 9.46

Remained same 25.00 25.00 18.52 14.81 25.00 18.92

Increased 15.38 33.33 54.29 59.38 75.00 48.48

Decreased 30.77 26.67 14.29 21.88 0.00 20.20

Remained same 53.85 40.00 31.43 18.75 25.00 31.31

Increased 100.00 80.00 45.45 66.67 66.67 60.71

Decreased 0.00 0.00 18.18 16.67 0.00 14.29

Remained same 0.00 20.00 36.36 16.67 33.33 25.00

Increased 0.00 37.50 26.67 42.86 50.00 36.73

Decreased 100.00 50.00 46.67 28.57 0.00 36.73

Remained same 0.00 12.50 26.67 28.57 50.00 26.53

Increased 50.00 33.33 63.16 85.71 75.00 68.52

Decreased 0.00 16.67 10.53 0.00 0.00 5.56

Remained same 50.00 50.00 26.32 14.29 25.00 25.93

Increased 0.00 0.00 60.00 60.00 50.00 55.17

Decreased 0.00 50.00 10.00 13.33 0.00 13.79

Remained same 0.00 50.00 30.00 26.67 50.00 31.03

Increased 0.00 50.00 70.00 73.33 66.67 65.63

Decreased 100.00 0.00 10.00 13.33 0.00 15.63

Remained same 0.00 50.00 20.00 13.33 33.33 18.75

Increased 66.67 58.33 22.73 46.15 100.00 41.18

Decreased 33.33 8.33 9.09 15.38 0.00 11.76

Remained same 0.00 33.33 68.18 38.46 0.00 47.06

Table 4.6.2 (A): Present status of production of fodder crops in kharif season as

compared to 10 years before for Sample Households- 2008-09


iv. Guar

v. Paddy

vi. Cowpea


A. Kharif

i. Maize

ii. Bajra

iii. Sorghum

viii. Others

vii. Green Grass

68

in green grass production during reference year whereas only 16.63 percent sample

households reported decline in it. In case of sorghum, 60.71 percent sample households

reported increase in production and about 25.00 percent sample HHs reported no change in

the production.

(ii) Rabi season:

The data presented in Table 4.6.2 (B) shows that during the rabi season the proportion


Increased 50.00 41.67 54.29 61.76 60.00 55.21

Decreased 10.00 8.33 25.71 17.65 0.00 17.71

Remained same 40.00 50.00 20.00 20.59 40.00 27.08

Increased 27.27 31.25 35.42 48.72 40.00 38.66

Decreased 9.09 12.50 16.67 10.26 20.00 13.45

Remained same 63.64 56.25 47.92 41.03 40.00 47.90

Increased 33.33 66.67 93.75 80.00 100.00 81.82

Decreased 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Remained same 66.67 33.33 6.25 20.00 0.00 18.18

Increased 0.00 50.00 63.64 75.00 33.33 60.00

Decreased 0.00 0.00 9.09 0.00 0.00 4.00

Remained same 100.00 50.00 27.27 25.00 66.67 36.00

Increased 0.00 33.33 46.67 42.86 0.00 37.50

Decreased 33.33 50.00 0.00 42.86 0.00 21.88

Remained same 66.67 16.67 53.33 14.29 100.00 40.63


i.Wheat

B. Rabi

Table 4.6.2 (B): Present status of production of fodder crops in rabi season as



ii. Lucerne

iii. Maize

iv. Sorghum

v. Others

of sample farmers reporting increase in the fodder production of wheat, maize and sorghum

during reference year (2008-09) as compared to the base year (1998-1999) is very high. No

one reported decrease in fodder production of maize. Only 4 percent reported decrease in

sorghum production. About 17.71 percent and 13.45 percent sample households reported

decrease in fodder production of wheat and lucerne respectively. The increase in production

under these rabi crops is a result of improved irrigation facilities, which is of immense

importance in rabi season, better agronomic practices, use of high yielding seeds, increased

69

use of fertilizers, better plant protection measures adopted by sample households. About

47.90 percent of farmers reported no change in production in respect of lucerne crop grown in

rabi.

Further the Table 4.6.2 (B) shows that proportion of farmers who reported no changes

in production of rabi lucerne during 1999-2009 found much higher among small, marginal

and semi medium farmers. Nearly 48.72 percent of medium and 40.00 percent of large

farmers reported somewhat increase in the production of lucerne crop. In the case of

competitive crop wheat, the fodder production went up in the case of marginal, semi medium,

medium and large farmers. The small farmers reported decline in the production of wheat.


The data presented in Table 4.6.2(C) shows that majority sample households (67.57

percent) reported increase in fodder production in summer maize during the reference year

(2008-09) as compared to the base year (1998-1999). In respect of production of other fodder

crops in summer season, cent percent households reported decrease in the reference year. The


Increased 100.00 33.33 64.29 81.25 33.33 67.57

Decreased 0.00 33.33 14.29 12.50 33.33 16.22

Remained same 0.00 33.33 21.43 6.25 33.33 16.22

Increased 23.08 25.00 31.71 50.00 50.00 36.11

Decreased 0.00 12.50 21.95 23.53 0.00 17.59

Remained same 76.92 62.50 46.34 26.47 50.00 46.30

Increased 0.00 50.00 14.29 0.00 0.00 14.29

Decreased 0.00 0.00 57.14 50.00 0.00 42.86

Remained same 0.00 50.00 28.57 50.00 100.00 42.86

Increased 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Decreased 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00

Remained same 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


C. Summer

i. Maize

ii. Bajra

iii. Cowpea

iv. Others

Table 4.6.2 (C): Present status of production of fodder crops in summer season

as compared to 10 years before for Sample Households- 2008-09


70

increase in production of fodder from maize and bajra crops is result of better irrigation

facilities, which is of most important factor influencing the production of summer crops.

The fodder production of cowpea crop showed considerable decline. For bajra fodder

about 46.30 percent sample households reported no change in production during period 1999-

2009. About 36.11 percent households reported higher production of bajra fodder crop in

summer season. Only 17.59 percent households reported somewhat decline in production of

summer bajra fodder.

4.6.3 Status of yield of fodder crop:

As arable land is limited, the main focus of agriculture technologies is to increase

yield per unit of area and time. In the past 10 years, with advancement of agricultural

technologies we are able to produce more from same piece of land. The factors contributing

for higher production includes better irrigation facilities and efficient use of irrigation water,

better agronomic practices, use of high yielding seeds, use of fertilizers and manures, plant

protection measures and post harvest technology.

(i) Kharif season:

If we see the status of yield under kharif study crops namely bajra and maize, Table

4.6.3 (A) shows that 71.62 percent maize growers and 48.48 percent bajra growers reported

somewhat increase in yield for these crops. Only 9.46 percent maize growers and 19.19

percent of bajra growers reported decline in yield. It further shows that majority of small and

marginal farmers reported that in the reference year, yield of maize and bajra crops either

increased or remained same vis-à-vis the yield that used to be 10 years before. The large

number of semi medium, medium and large farmers reported good increase in the yield of

kharif bajra and maize. Not a single large farmer reported decrease in yield of these crops. In

case of competitive crop paddy, similar trend was witnessed. In case of guar , nearly 34.69

percent sample growers reported decline in the yield during reference year(2008-09) vis-à-vis

base year (1998-99). For sorghum, cowpea and green grasses, more than 80.00 percent

growers reported either increase or same yield level.

71


Increased 50.00 62.50 74.07 77.78 75.00 71.62

Decreased 25.00 12.50 7.41 7.41 0.00 9.46

Remained same 25.00 25.00 18.52 14.81 25.00 18.92

Increased 23.08 33.33 51.43 59.38 75.00 48.48

Decreased 23.08 26.67 14.29 21.88 0.00 19.19

Remained same 53.85 40.00 34.29 18.75 25.00 32.32

Increased 100.00 80.00 45.45 65.22 66.67 60.00

Decreased 0.00 0.00 18.18 17.39 0.00 14.55

Remained same 0.00 20.00 36.36 17.39 33.33 25.45

Increased 0.00 37.50 26.67 47.62 50.00 38.78

Decreased 100.00 50.00 46.67 23.81 0.00 34.69

Remained same 0.00 12.50 26.67 28.57 50.00 26.53

Increased 50.00 50.00 63.16 85.71 75.00 70.37

Decreased 0.00 16.67 10.53 0.00 0.00 5.56

Remained same 50.00 33.33 26.32 14.29 25.00 24.07

Increased 0.00 0.00 60.00 60.00 50.00 55.17

Decreased 0.00 50.00 20.00 13.33 0.00 17.24

Remained same 0.00 50.00 20.00 26.67 50.00 27.59

Increased 0.00 50.00 70.00 73.33 66.67 65.63

Decreased 100.00 0.00 20.00 13.33 0.00 18.75

Remained same 0.00 50.00 10.00 13.33 33.33 15.63

Increased 66.67 58.33 22.73 46.15 100.00 41.18

Decreased 33.33 8.33 9.09 15.38 0.00 11.76

Remained same 0.00 33.33 68.18 38.46 0.00 47.06

Table 4.6.3 (A): Present status of yield of fodder crops in kharif season as



iv. Guar

v. Paddy

vi. Cowpea


A. Kharif

i. Maize

ii. Bajra

iii. Sorghum

viii. Others

vii. Green Grass

72

(ii) Rabi season:

The data presented in Table 4.6.3 (B) shows that during the rabi season, the

proportion of sample farmers reporting increase in the fodder yield for wheat, maize and

sorghum in the reference year (2008-09) as compared to the base year (1998-1999) is high.

No one reported decrease in yield under maize. Only 4 percent reported decrease in yield for

sorghum. About 17.71 percent and 13.45 percent reported decrease in yield for wheat and

lucerne respectively. The increase in yield for these crops is an effect of developments stated

earlier in the surveyed districts. About 48.74 percent of farmers reported no change in yield

under


Increased 50.00 41.67 51.43 64.71 60.00 55.21

Decreased 10.00 8.33 25.71 17.65 0.00 17.71

Remained same 40.00 50.00 22.86 17.65 40.00 27.08

Increased 27.27 31.25 33.33 48.72 40.00 37.82

Decreased 0.00 12.50 16.67 12.82 20.00 13.45

Remained same 72.73 56.25 50.00 38.46 40.00 48.74

Increased 33.33 66.67 87.50 80.00 100.00 79.55

Decreased 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Remained same 66.67 33.33 12.50 20.00 0.00 20.45

Increased 0.00 50.00 54.55 75.00 33.33 56.00

Decreased 0.00 0.00 9.09 0.00 0.00 4.00

Remained same 100.00 50.00 36.36 25.00 66.67 40.00

Increased 0.00 33.33 46.67 42.86 0.00 37.50

Decreased 33.33 50.00 0.00 42.86 0.00 21.88

Remained same 66.67 16.67 53.33 14.29 100.00 40.63


B. Rabi

i.Wheat

Table 4.6.3 (B): Present status of yield of fodder crops in rabi season as



ii. Lucerne

iii. Maize

iv. Sorghum

v. Others

the lucerne crop. Further the Table 4.6.3 (B) shows that proportion of farmers who expressed

no changes in yield level of lucerne during period 1999-2009 was found much higher among

small, marginal and semi medium farmers.

73

Not a single large farmer reported decrease in yield of wheat, maize and sorghum. In

the case of competitive crop wheat, about 55.21 percent sample farmers reported

improvement in yield whereas only 17.71 percent reported decrease in fodder yield of wheat.


The data shown in Table 4.6.3(C) shows that majority sample growers of summer maize and

bajra crops reported good improvement in the fodder yields of these crops. Only 16.22

percent of maize growers and 18.52 percent of bajra growers reported decrease in fodder

yields of these crops in reference year compared to base year 1998-99. However, only 14.29

percent cowpea growers reported improvement in fodder yield whereas about 50.00 percent

reported decline in the fodder yield.


Increased 100.00 33.33 64.29 81.25 33.33 67.57

Decreased 0.00 33.33 14.29 12.50 33.33 16.22

Remained same 0.00 33.33 21.43 6.25 33.33 16.22

Increased 23.08 25.00 31.71 47.06 50.00 35.19

Decreased 0.00 12.50 21.95 26.47 0.00 18.52

Remained same 76.92 62.50 46.34 26.47 50.00 46.30

Increased 0.00 50.00 14.29 0.00 0.00 14.29

Decreased 0.00 0.00 71.43 50.00 0.00 50.00

Remained same 0.00 50.00 14.29 50.00 100.00 35.71

Increased 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Decreased 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00

Remained same 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


C. Summer

i. Maize

ii. Bajra

iii. Cowpea

iv. Others

Table 4.6.3 (C): Present status of yield of fodder crops in summer season as



74

4.7 Status of Livestock population and milk or meat production of sample HHs:

Gujarat is blessed with some of the world’s best livestock breeds and large livestock

population. Even though, it suffers from comparatively lower yield per animal. One of the

major constraints in livestock development is the underfeeding owing to severe scarcity of

fodder resources. The present status of livestock numbers with sample households is analyzed

here by comparing it with numbers 10 years before (1998-99).

4.7.1 Status of Livestock population:

The Table 4.7.1 shows that 50.70 percent of farmers reported that the population of

bullock remained almost same in the reference year (2008-09) as compared to the base year

(1998-1999). Further none of the small farmers reported increase in the bullock population.

This is for the obvious reason that draught power has been replaced by tractors and

machineries. Further, it becomes uneconomical to keep bullocks particularly for small and

marginal farmers due to very high feeding cost and small land size. On the contrary, 53.21

percent sample farmers reported an increase in the population of the cow. Further, increase in

number of female buffaloes, was reported by 34.03 percent sample households. The increase

in population of cow is mainly attributed to the crossbred varieties of cow. Economically, the

crossbred cows are more advantageous as compared all milch animals including buffaloes.

Further price of crossbred cow is more or less similar to buffaloes. With proper care and

maintenance, crossbred cows regularly giving one calf at every interval of 13-14 months as

compared to buffaloes which largely matures late and give birth to calves at the interval of 16

to 18 months. Thus lactation period is higher in case of crossbred cows. The milk yield per

day is also higher in case of crossbred cows as compared to buffaloes. Though the fat percent

is higher in the case of buffaloes but the higher milk yield of crossbred cows compensate the

lower fat percent in cow’s milk. In general, the increase in the livestock population and

particularly in milk animals was higher in the case of semi medium, medium and large

farmers as compared to small and marginal farmers. Goats were mostly found with the small,

marginal and medium farmers. About 50.00 percent reported that the population of goat has

either decreased or remained same. One medium and one large farmer reported decline in the

population of horses as compared to the previous decade.

75

Particulars MF SF SMF MDF LF Overall

Increased 16.67 0.00 33.33 32.00 80.00 30.99

Decreased 16.67 37.50 18.52 16.00 0.00 18.31

Remained same 66.67 62.50 48.15 52.00 20.00 50.70

Increased 30.00 50.00 53.66 59.46 66.67 53.21

Decreased 20.00 33.33 19.51 13.51 33.33 20.18

Remained same 50.00 16.67 26.83 27.03 0.00 26.61

Increased 66.67 0.00 33.33 66.67 0.00 50.00

Decreased 33.33 0.00 33.33 0.00 0.00 14.29

Remained same 0.00 100.00 33.33 33.33 0.00 35.71

Increased 13.33 18.18 32.14 45.65 80.00 34.03

Decreased 33.33 36.36 35.71 28.26 20.00 32.64

Remained same 53.33 45.45 32.14 26.09 0.00 33.33

Increased 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Decreased 50.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 50.00

Remained same 50.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00

Increased 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Decreased 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Remained same 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1. Cattle

i. Male

ii. Female

2. Buffalo

(Per cent multiple response )

4.7.1: Present status of livestock population compared to 10 years before for

Sample Households- 2008-09


i. Male

ii. Female

3. Goat

4. Horse

4.7.2 Status of Livestock milk or meat production:

The data presented in Table 4.7.2 shows that majority sample households reported

improvement in the milk yield and production of both, cows and buffaloes in the in the

reference year (2008-09) as compared to the base year (1998-1999). About 54.13 percent of

cattle farmers and 39.58 percent of the buffalo farmers reported increase in the milk yield and

production. About 29.36 percent of cow farmers and 31.25 percent of buffalo farmers

reported more or less no change in the milk yield and production. Majority of the small, semi

medium, medium and large farmers reported increase in the cow milk yield. This positive

change is because of improvement in the quality and breed of milch animals by cross

76

breeding for higher milk yield of milch and fat animals. Improvements in veterinary services

also contributed in enhancing milk yield, mainly due to inferior quality of buffalo and


Increased 20.00 50.00 53.66 64.86 66.67 54.13

Decreased 20.00 16.67 19.51 10.81 33.33 16.51

Remained same 60.00 33.33 26.83 24.32 0.00 29.36

Increased 13.33 31.82 39.29 50.00 60.00 39.58

Decreased 33.33 31.82 32.14 21.74 40.00 29.17

Remained same 53.33 36.36 28.57 28.26 0.00 31.25

Increased 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 25.00

Decreased 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00

Remained same 50.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00

Increased 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00

Decreased 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Remained same 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 75.00

(Per cent multiple response )


4.7.2: Present status of livestock milk and meat yield compared to 10 years before for


1. Cattle

Female

2. Buffalo

Female

3. Goat (Milk)

4. Goat (Meat)

shortage of fodders. Only marginal and small farmers reported somewhat decline in buffalo

milk yield. Only four sample households which include small, marginal and semi medium

farmers reported keeping of goats. Nearly 50.00 percent goat farmers reported no change in

goat milk yield. About 75.00 percent reported no change in goat meat production.

4.8 Feeding practices and feeding composition:

Feeding practices play a very important role in livestock productivity. Adequate

quantity of right kind of fodder/feed fed to livestock is enhancing the livestock productivity.

The feeding practice varies with the cropping season as the season determines the level of

availability of certain fodder and feeds. It also varies with the economic status of the farmer.

Large and medium farmers generally prefer feeding concentrates, mineral mixtures and other

nutritive fodder/feed whereas the high prices of these feeding stock drives back the small and

marginal farmers and they are forced to depend more upon green and dry fodder. Thus, it is

77

pertinent to discuss the feeding practices followed by the sample households across the

farmer size category and cropping seasons. The bovine population is primarily stall fed on

cultivated fodders, harvested grasses and crop by products. Sheep, goat and donkeys are left

for grazing in pastures, harvested fields and community fallow lands. Horses are generally

stall fed. During August to November, even bovine cattle population is left for grazing in

open and community fallow lands. When monsoon fails, fodder availability become little

difficult from November onwards and acute shortage of fodder is felt from March to June, the

period before the onset of monsoon season. In Gujarat, livestock farmers are using 3 types of

feeding practices:

� Only stall feeding during the year.

� Only open grazing during the year.

� Combination of both stall feeding and open grazing i.e. partly stall feeding and partly

open grazing.

4.8.1 Livestock feeding practices:

The data presented in Table 4.8.1 shows category wise livestock feeding practices

followed by sample farmers during the reference year.

It is evident from the data that most popular way of feeding livestock is a combination

of both, stall feeding and grazing. Among the indigenous cow owners, 59.04 percent of the

farmers reported that they send their cattle’s for grazing in the morning and in the evening

they stall feed the animals. About 39.76 percent farmers having indigenous cattle reported

that they solely opted for stall feeding to animals during the entire year as they are generally

highly productive animals. Only 1.20 percent of the overall farmers, which comprised only

the small farmers (12.50 percent), reported that they completely depend upon open grazing

and not using stall feeding at all. These indigenous cattle’s are generally low productive or

dry animals. Moreover the poor economic condition of small and marginal farmers does not

permit them for stall feeding their animals throughout the year. If we see the mode of feeding

pattern according to farm size, about 75.00 percent of large farmers opted for stall feeding

whereas only 25 percent each of marginal and small farmers followed stall feeding. Thus we

can interpret a positive correlation between farm sizes and proportion of stall feeding for the

indigenous cow. In the care of indigenous young stock, we can see 69.23 percent farmers are

following combination of both, stall feeding and grazing whereas 30.77 percent of famers

which comprise of only semi medium and medium farmers adhere to only stall feeding.

78


Stall Feeding Only 25.00 25.00 42.86 39.29 75.00 39.76

Grazing Only 0.00 12.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20

Stall feeding and Grazing 75.00 62.50 57.14 60.71 25.00 59.04


Grazing Only 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00



Grazing Only 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00



Grazing Only 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00



Grazing Only 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00



Grazing Only 0.00 7.69 4.76 0.00 0.00 2.88



Grazing Only 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00



Grazing Only 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


Young Stock

Table 4.8.1: Livestock feeding practices followed by Sample Households-2008-09

1. Indigenous Cattle

Adults

2.Crossbred Cattle

Adults

Young Stock

(Per cent multiple response)

Young Stock

3. Buffalo

4. Goat

5. Horse

Adults


In the crossbred cows, we can observe altogether different trend in feeding ways, as

compared to it followed for indigenous cows. As crossbred cows are highly productive and

valuable for the farmers, 75.28 percent of sample farmers adhere only to stall feeding

79

whereas it is already mentioned earlier that just 39.76 percent of indigenous cattle owners

followed only stall feeding. Only grazing not followed by any of the crossbred cow farmers

due to reasons mentioned earlier. About 24.72 percent farmers followed combination of both,

stall feeding and grazing. In congruence with the pattern as in case of indigenous cow

owners, all large farmers followed only stall feeding whereas 66.67 percent of marginal

farmers followed stall feeding. Thus, we can interpret a positive correlation between farm

sizes and proportion of farmer using stall feeding for the crossbred cows. In the crossbred

young stock case, 59.72 percent farmers followed stall feeding only vis-à-vis 30.77 percent in

case of indigenous young stocks due to aforesaid reasons. About 40.28 percent of famers

followed both, stall feeding and grazing. None of crossbred young stock owners sent their

animals for grazing.

In buffaloes, we can notice a pattern more or less similar to crossbred cows. About

66.41 percent farmers followed stall feeding only, 33.59 percent farmers followed both stall

feeding and grazing. None of the buffaloes were found to be completely dependent upon

grazing. A positive correlation between farm sizes and stall feeding also observed for

buffaloes. In the case of young buffalo stocks, 51.92 percent owners followed stall feeding

and 45.19 percent practiced both, stall feeding and grazing. About 2.88 percent of the young

buffalo stocks owners were completely dependent on grazing. They were small and semi

medium farmers only. Further, the young buffalo stocks which were dependent on grazing

were mostly the males and hence of less economic importance.

Goats and horses were found only with very few households. Goat owners were small

and marginal farmers and they practiced combination of grazing and stall feeding. One

medium and one large farmer were found to own horses and they were completely practiced

stall feeding.

4.8.2 Seasonal feeding composition of marginal farmers:

The dairy farmers adopt feeding practices and feeding composition taking into

account the availability of fodder and feed and type of animal. Generally availability of grass

in grazing land and fodder varies according to seasons. Keeping this in view, livestock owner

makes suitable changes in feeding practices and composition of feeding. With this in view

seasonal feeding composition according to category of farmers is being analyzed here. The

data presented in Table 4.8.2 (A) shows the feeding composition for livestock’s adopted by

the marginal farmers during the rainy season. On an average, marginal farmer feeds daily

13.67 kg/day/animal of feed and fodder per in milk indigenous cow. Among different

80

Ind.

cows X-bred Buffalo

Ind.

cows X-bred Buffalo Bullock Buffalo

1. Green Fodders

i. Maize 0.00 1.44 3.74 --- 6.00 3.00 1.56 --- 1.03 --- 0.00

ii. Bajra 3.33 6.75 4.04 --- 0.00 1.40 0.00 --- 0.60 --- 0.00

iii. Sorghum 0.00 0.63 0.61 --- 0.00 0.00 0.11 --- 0.03 --- 0.00

iv. Guar 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- 0.00 --- 0.00

v. Lucerne 0.00 0.00 0.78 --- 0.00 1.40 0.33 --- 0.00 --- 0.00

vi. Green Grass 3.33 3.31 3.39 --- 0.00 2.80 0.22 --- 0.11 --- 0.00

vii. Any other 0.00 0.25 0.96 --- 2.00 0.00 0.33 --- 0.37 --- 0.00

Total Green Fodders 6.67 12.38 13.52 --- 8.00 8.60 2.56 --- 2.14 --- 0.00

Green Fodder Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 --- 1.00 1.00 1.00 --- 1.00 --- 0.00

2. Dry fodders

i. Wheat straw 0.67 0.00 0.91 --- 0.00 1.00 0.44 --- 0.20 --- 0.00

ii. Paddy straw 0.00 3.25 1.17 --- 5.00 1.60 14.00 --- 2.46 --- 0.00

iii.Jowar 0.00 1.56 0.13 --- 2.00 0.00 0.00 --- 0.26 --- 0.00

iv. Bajra 2.33 0.25 1.57 --- 0.00 1.60 3.11 --- 0.46 --- 0.00

v. Maize 0.00 0.00 0.13 --- 0.00 0.00 0.67 --- 0.09 --- 0.00

vi. Any other 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- 0.00 --- 0.00

Total Dry Fodders 3.00 5.06 3.91 --- 7.00 4.20 18.22 --- 3.46 --- 0.00

Dry Fodder Ratio 0.45 0.41 0.29 --- 0.88 0.49 7.13 --- 1.61 --- 0.00

3. Grains

i. Wheat 0.00 0.00 0.35 --- 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- 0.00 --- 0.00

ii. Bajra 1.00 1.38 0.91 --- 0.00 1.00 0.00 --- 0.06 --- 0.00

iii. Mixed Bhusa 0.00 0.19 0.00 --- 0.50 0.00 0.00 --- 0.06 --- 0.00

iv. Any other 0.00 0.75 0.43 --- 0.50 0.00 0.00 --- 0.06 --- 0.00

Total Grains 1.00 2.31 1.70 --- 1.00 1.00 0.00 --- 0.17 --- 0.00

Grains Ratio 0.15 0.19 0.13 --- 0.13 0.12 0.00 --- 0.08 --- 0.00

4. Concentrates

i. Mixed feed 0.00 0.69 0.17 --- 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- 0.23 --- 0.00

ii. Oil cakes 0.00 0.00 0.13 --- 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- 0.14 --- 0.00

iii. Dairy cattle feed 3.00 0.81 0.61 --- 1.00 0.00 1.22 --- 0.60 --- 0.00

iv. Any other 0.00 0.00 0.22 --- 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- 0.00 --- 0.00

Total Concentrates 3.00 1.50 1.13 --- 1.00 0.00 1.22 --- 0.97 --- 0.00

Concentrates Ratio 0.45 0.12 0.08 --- 0.13 0.00 0.48 --- 0.45 --- 0.00

Season Total 13.67 21.25 20.26 --- 17.00 13.80 22.00 --- 6.74 --- 0.00


Table 4.8.2(A): Rainy Season feeding composition for livestock population adopted by marginal

farmers, Sample Households- 2008-09

(Kg./Animal/Day)

Season/Crop

In Milk Animals Dry animals Male

Young

Stock Horse Goat

categories of animals, an average highest quantity of 21.25 kg/day/animal feed and fodder

was fed to crossbred cow. The inmilk buffalo was given 20.26 kg/day/animal of feed and

fodder. Among dry female animals, a Crossbred dry cow was fed with highest 17.00 kg/day

feed and fodder whereas a dry buffalo was fed with 13.80 kg/day. In the case of bullocks,

22.00 kg comprising mainly of dry fodder was fed daily. The young stocks, was fed on an

average 6.74 kg/day feed and fodder. None of the marginal farmers possessed indigenous dry

cows, male buffalo or horse. In total feed and fodder given to in milk indigenous cow, the

proportion of green fodders, dry fodders, grains and concentrates was 1:0.45:0.15:0.45. This

81

suggests that in total feed and fodder, the share of green fodder was highest at 48.80 percent.

Similarly this ratio for in milk crossbred cow was 1:0.41:0.19:0.12 and for the in milk buffalo

1:0.29:0.13:0.08. This shows that in milk crossbred cows are fed more grains compared to in-

milk buffalo. Dry fodder and concentrates are fed more to indigenous cows. In case of dry

bovines, the ratios were 1:0.88:0.13:0.13 and 1:0.49:0.12:0.00 for crossbred cow and buffalo

respectively. This clearly indicates sharp increase in dry fodder feeding and decline in

concentrates and grains in case of dry bovines. In case of bullock, the ratio was

1:7.13:0.00:0.48. It implies large scale use of dry fodder for feeding bullock. The ratio for the

young stock was 1:1.61:0.08:0.45. The major green fodders were bajra, green grass, sorghum,

lucerne and maize whereas major dry fodders were paddy straw, maize straw, wheat straw,

bajra straw and jowar straw. Similarly major grains were bajra and wheat. Concentrates

mainly comprised of dairy cattle feeds (Amuldan, Sabardan, Banasdan etc.), oilcakes of

cotton and groundnut were mainly fed to the animals. The data further reveals that total

quantity of feed and fodder given daily to in milk animals was much higher than the dry

animals of corresponding category. Further, in total fodder and feed, proportion of dry fodder

found somewhat higher for dry animals and bullocks compared to corresponding in milk

animals.

The data presented in Table 4.8.2 (B) shows the feeding composition of livestock

adopted by the marginal farmers during the winter season. On an average, marginal farmer

fed daily 15.33 kg/animal feed and fodder to an indigenous in milk cow. Among different

categories of animals, highest quantity of feed and fodder was given to in milk crossbred

cow. It was 28.91 kg/day/animal. This quantity of feed and fodders is relatively higher in

comparison to quantity of 21.96kg for rainy season. In-milk buffaloes given 21.96 kg/

day/animal feed and fodder. A Crossbred dry cow was fed with 20.00 kg/day/animal which

was highest among the dry animals. Dry buffalo was fed with 15.20 kg. In case of bullock,

17.78 kg. comprising mainly of dry fodder was fed daily. For the young stocks, on an

average 7.06 kg of feed and fodder was fed daily. None of the marginal farmers possessed

indigenous dry cows, male buffalo or horse. In total feed and fodder given to in milk

indigenous cow, the proportion of green fodder, dry fodder, grains and concentrates was

1:0.85:0.00:0.45. Similarly the ratio for in milk crossbred cow was 1:0.91:0.13:0.18 and for

in milk buffalo 1:0.38:0.15:0.15. This shows more grains and concentrates are fed in winter

season compared to rainy season. Dry fodder was fed more to crossbred cows and

concentrates was fed more to indigenous cows. In case of dry bovines, corresponding ratio

82

Ind.

cows X-bred Buffalo

Ind.


i. Maize 0.00 0.75 2.04 --- 4.00 4.00 1.44 --- 1.17 --- 0.00

ii. Jowar 3.33 0.00 0.30 --- 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- 0.00 --- 0.00

iii. Lucerne 3.33 8.25 6.96 --- 0.00 3.20 0.56 --- 0.60 --- 1.00

iv. Green grass 0.00 3.31 2.26 --- 0.00 2.40 0.00 --- 0.11 --- 2.00

v. Any other 0.00 0.75 1.52 --- 4.00 0.80 1.33 --- 0.17 --- 0.00

Total Green Fodder 6.67 13.06 13.09 --- 8.00 10.40 3.33 --- 2.06 --- 3.00


i. Wheat straw 1.33 0.00 0.65 --- 0.00 0.20 0.89 --- 0.14 --- 0.00

ii. Paddy straw 0.00 2.25 1.43 --- 5.00 1.00 7.11 --- 1.00 --- 0.00

iii. Bajra Straw 2.67 3.56 1.35 --- 0.00 0.80 1.78 --- 1.03 --- 0.00

iv. Maize Straw 1.67 1.31 0.78 --- 5.00 0.60 4.56 --- 0.94 --- 0.00

v. Jowar Straw 0.00 4.75 0.13 --- 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- 0.06 --- 0.00

vi. Any other 0.00 0.00 0.61 --- 0.00 0.20 0.00 --- 0.03 --- 0.50

Total Dry Fodder 5.67 11.88 4.96 --- 10.00 2.80 14.33 --- 3.20 --- 0.50

Dry Fodder Ratio 0.85 0.91 0.38 --- 1.25 0.27 4.30 --- 1.56 --- 0.17

i. Wheat 0.00 0.63 0.13 --- 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- 0.17 --- 0.00

ii. Bajra 0.00 0.13 0.65 --- 0.00 0.40 0.00 --- 0.14 --- 0.00

iii. Maize 0.00 0.75 0.91 --- 0.50 0.60 0.00 --- 0.06 --- 0.00

iv. Any other 0.00 0.19 0.22 --- 0.50 0.00 0.00 --- 0.11 --- 0.00

Total Grains 0.00 1.69 1.91 --- 1.00 1.00 0.00 --- 0.49 --- 0.00

Grains Ratio 0.00 0.13 0.15 --- 0.13 0.10 0.00 --- 0.24 --- 0.00

i. Mixed feed 0.00 0.69 0.35 --- 0.00 0.40 0.00 --- 0.31 --- 0.00

ii. Oil cakes 0.00 0.69 0.13 --- 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- 0.23 --- 0.00


iv. Any other 0.00 0.06 0.30 --- 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- 0.03 --- 0.00



Season Total 15.33 28.94 21.96 --- 20.00 15.20 17.78 --- 7.06 --- 0.00


Table 4.8.2 (B): Winter Season feeding composition for livestock population adopted by marginal


Season/Crop

(Kg./Animal/Day)

1. Green Fodder

2. Dry fodder

3. Grains

4. Concentrates


Young

Stock Horse Goat

were 1:1.25:0.13:0.13 and 1:0.27:0.10:0.10 for crossbred cows and buffaloes respectively.

Thus, it clearly reveals a sharp increase in dry fodder feeding and decline in concentrates and

grains in case of dry bovines. In case of bullock, the ratio was 1:4.30:0.00:0.03. It implies that

for bullock feeding, use of more dry fodders, less green fodders, nil grains and negligible

concentrates. The ratio for the young stock was 1:1.56:0.24:0.64. In total quantity of feed and

fodder fed to animals, as compared to rainy season, the share of green fodder declined and

share of dry fodder increased in winter. The average quantity of feed and fodder fed to

83

animals per day was higher in winter as compared to that for rainy season. The major green

fodders in winter season were lucerne, green grass, jowar and maize major dry fodders were

paddy straw, wheat straw, bajra straw and maize straw, similarly major grains were of bajra,

maize and wheat. Concentrates mainly comprised of dairy cattle feeds (Amuldan, Sabardan,

Banasdan etc.) oilcakes of cotton and groundnut were mainly fed to the animals. These were

fed more during the winter seasons.

The data presented in Table 4.8.2 (C) shows the feeding composition of livestock

adopted by the marginal farmers during the summer season. On an average, marginal farmer

feeds daily 15.00 kg of feed and fodder to an indigenous in milk cow. The highest quantity of

23.84 kg feed and fodder per in milk animal given daily to crossbred cow. This is also

relatively higher in comparison to that in rainy season but lower in comparison to winter

season. In milk buffalo was given 21.52 kg/day/animal. Crossbred dry cow was fed with

22.00 kg of feed and fodder daily. It was highest among the dry animals. Dry buffalo was fed

with 18.60 kg/day/animal. In case of bullocks, 17.44 kg comprising mainly of dry fodder was

fed daily. For the young stocks, on an average 6.76 kg of feed and fodder was fed daily.

None of the marginal farmers possessed indigenous dry cows, male buffalo or horse. In total

quantity of fodder and feeds given to indigenous in milk cow, proportional share of green

fodder, dry fodder, grains and concentrates was 1:1.56:0.00:0.25. Similarly, for in milk

crossbred cow, it was 1:1.05:0.17:0.14 and for in milk buffalo 1:0.81:0.13:0.23. This shows

that in feeding, increase in quantity of dry fodders and decline in green fodder in the summer

season. Further in case of in milk buffalo, more grains are fed. In case of dry bovines, the

ratios were 1:1.71:0.14:0.29 and 1:2.31:0.00:0.27 for crossbred and buffalo respectively.

This clearly shows a sharp increase in dry fodder feeding and decline in green fodder

concentrates and grains in case of dry bovines. In case of bullock, the ratio was

1:1.90:0.10:0.02. It implies relatively higher use of dry fodder to feed bullocks. The ratio for

the young stock was 1:1.79:0.18:0.61. The major green fodders in summer season were

lucerne, jowar and bajra and major dry fodders were paddy straw, wheat straw, bajra and

maize. Similarly major grains were of bajra and wheat. Concentrates mainly comprised of

dairy cattle feeds (Amuldan, Sabardan, Banasdan etc.), oilcakes of cotton and groundnut were

mainly fed to the animals. The analysis further reveals that total quantity of feed and fodder

fed to animals found highest for winter season and lowest for kharif season. This was so,

mainly because of higher scale of open grazing and lower scale of stall feeding in kharif

season.

84

Ind.

cows X-bred Buffalo

Ind.


i. Maize 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- 0.17 --- 0.00

ii. Bajra 0.00 8.13 5.35 --- 7.00 3.00 2.67 --- 0.86 --- 0.00

iii. Cowpea 0.00 0.00 0.26 --- 0.00 0.00 0.89 --- 0.06 --- 0.00

iv. Jowar 1.67 1.25 0.26 --- 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- 0.03 --- 0.00

v. Lucerne 3.67 0.75 2.96 --- 0.00 1.60 2.22 --- 0.74 --- 0.00

vi. Any other 0.00 0.00 1.13 --- 0.00 0.60 0.00 --- 0.03 --- 2.00

Total Green Fodder 5.33 10.13 9.96 --- 7.00 5.20 5.78 --- 1.89 --- 2.00


i. Wheat straw 2.67 4.06 2.43 --- 0.00 3.20 0.78 --- 0.46 --- 0.00

ii. Paddy straw 1.67 0.94 1.09 --- 6.00 3.20 4.89 --- 1.00 --- 0.00

iii. Bajra Straw 4.00 3.31 3.09 --- 0.00 4.00 2.78 --- 1.34 --- 0.00

iv. Maize Straw 0.00 2.19 1.30 --- 6.00 1.60 2.56 --- 0.57 --- 0.00

v. Jowar Straw 0.00 0.13 0.13 --- 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- 0.00 --- 0.00

vi. Any other 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- 0.00 --- 0.00

Total Dry Fodder 8.33 10.63 8.04 --- 12.00 12.00 11.00 --- 3.37 --- 0.00

Dry Fodder Ratio 1.56 1.05 0.81 --- 1.71 2.31 1.90 --- 1.79 --- 0.00

i. Wheat 0.00 0.63 0.00 --- 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- 0.00 --- 0.00

ii. Bajra 0.00 0.13 0.43 --- 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- 0.06 --- 0.00

iii. Maize 0.00 0.50 0.48 --- 0.50 0.00 0.00 --- 0.06 --- 0.00

iv. Any other 0.00 0.44 0.35 --- 0.50 0.00 0.56 --- 0.23 --- 0.00

Total Grains 0.00 1.69 1.26 --- 1.00 0.00 0.56 --- 0.34 --- 0.00

Grains Ratio 0.00 0.17 0.13 --- 0.14 0.00 0.10 --- 0.18 --- 0.00

i. Mixed feed 0.00 0.33 0.13 --- 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- 0.23 --- 0.00

ii. Oil cakes 0.00 0.34 0.13 --- 0.00 0.40 0.00 --- 0.11 --- 0.00


iv. Any other 0.00 0.36 0.43 --- 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- 0.07 --- 0.00



Season Total 15.00 23.84 21.52 --- 22.00 18.60 17.44 --- 6.76 --- 2.00

Season/Crop


Young

Stock Horse Goat


Table 4.8.2 (C): Summer Season feeding composition for livestock population adopted by marginal


(Kg./Animal/Day)

1. Green Fodder

2. Dry fodder

3. Grains

4. Concentrates

4.8.3 Seasonal feeding composition of small farmers:

The data presented in Table 4.8.3 (A), 4.8.3 (B) and 4.8.3 (C) shows the feeding

composition for different livestock’s adopted by the small farmers during the rainy, winter

and summer season respectively. The following important observations are emerging from

these three Tables:

1) Among different categories of animals, an average quantity of feed and fodder given

(per day/animal) was highest for in milk crossbred cow followed by in milk buffalo. For in

milk crossbred cow, it was 27.36 kg. in rainy season, 31.52 kg. in winter and 25.92 kg. in

summer season. For in milk buffalo, it ranged from 26.53 kg. in rainy season to 20.18 kg. in

85

Ind.

cows X-bred Buffalo

Ind.


i. Maize --- 0.46 1.37 --- 2.00 3.08 0.50 --- 0.32 --- 0.00

ii. Bajra --- 5.00 5.16 --- 2.00 5.31 1.43 --- 0.50 --- 0.00

iii. Sorghum --- 2.82 3.42 --- 2.00 1.54 0.36 --- 0.30 --- 0.00

iv. Guar --- 0.04 0.00 --- 1.00 0.00 0.14 --- 0.00 --- 0.00

v. Lucerne --- 0.04 0.00 --- 1.00 0.77 0.14 --- 0.04 --- 0.00

vi. Green Grass --- 6.57 3.87 --- 4.00 1.77 1.07 --- 1.14 --- 0.00

vii. Any other --- 1.18 1.13 --- 1.00 0.46 0.86 --- 0.06 --- 0.00

Total Green Fodder --- 16.11 14.95 --- 13.00 12.92 4.50 --- 2.36 --- 0.00

Green Fodder Ratio --- 1.00 1.00 --- 1.00 1.00 1.00 --- 1.00 --- 0.00

i. Wheat straw --- 1.79 0.47 --- 2.00 0.77 5.07 --- 0.28 --- 0.00

ii. Paddy straw --- 0.82 1.05 --- 1.00 0.92 0.86 --- 0.62 --- 0.00

iii.Jowar --- 1.93 0.79 --- 1.00 0.46 4.00 --- 0.72 --- 0.00

iv. Bajra --- 1.54 0.92 --- 1.00 0.31 3.93 --- 0.68 --- 0.00

v. Maize --- 0.43 0.42 --- 1.00 0.62 0.50 --- 0.46 --- 0.00

vi. Any other --- 1.07 0.55 --- 0.00 0.00 3.57 --- 0.40 --- 0.00

Total Dry Fodder --- 7.57 4.21 --- 6.00 3.08 17.93 --- 3.16 --- 0.00

Dry Fodder Ratio --- 0.47 0.28 --- 0.46 0.24 3.98 --- 1.34 --- 0.00

i. Wheat --- 0.52 0.53 --- 0.00 0.23 0.21 --- 0.06 --- 0.00

ii. Bajra --- 0.30 0.37 --- 0.00 0.00 0.43 --- 0.16 --- 0.00

iii. Mixed Bhusa --- 0.41 0.34 --- 0.00 0.00 0.36 --- 0.08 --- 0.00

iv. Any other --- 0.59 0.53 --- 0.00 0.77 0.39 --- 0.18 --- 0.00

Total Grains --- 1.82 1.76 --- 0.00 1.00 1.96 --- 0.48 --- 0.00

Grains Ratio --- 0.11 0.12 --- 0.00 0.08 0.44 --- 0.20 --- 0.00

i. Mixed feed --- 0.54 0.58 --- 1.00 0.46 0.29 --- 0.26 --- 0.00

ii. Oil cakes --- 0.50 0.61 --- 1.00 0.00 0.14 --- 0.12 --- 0.00

iii. Dairy cattle feed --- 0.75 0.37 --- 0.00 0.46 0.29 --- 0.34 --- 0.00

iv. Any other --- 0.07 0.13 --- 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- 0.00 --- 0.00

Total Concentrates --- 1.86 1.68 --- 2.00 0.92 0.71 --- 0.72 --- 0.00

Concentrates Ratio --- 0.12 0.11 --- 0.15 0.07 0.16 --- 0.31 --- 0.00

Season Total --- 27.36 22.61 --- 21.00 17.92 25.11 --- 6.72 --- 0.00

1. Green Fodder

2. Dry fodder

3. Grains

4. Concentrates


Table 4.8.3 (A): Rainy Season feeding composition for livestock population adopted by small farmers, Sample

Households- 2008-09(Kg./Animal/Day)

Season/Crop


Young

Stock Horse Goat

summer season.

2) Across seasons, total quantity of feed and fodder fed to different categories of

livestock was highest in winter season and lowest in summer season. For example, per day

per animal, crossbred cow was given 27.36 kg. in rainy, 31.52 kg. in winter and 25.92 kg. in

summer season.

3) In total feed and fodder, quantity of dry fodder given to animal was lowest in rainy

season and highest in summer season. For example, green fodder and dry fodder ratio for in

milk crossbred cow was 1:0.47 for rainy and 1:1.24 for summer season (Table 4.8.3 (A), (B),

(C)).

86

Ind.

cows X-bred Buffalo

Ind.


i. Maize --- 0.14 0.79 --- 2.00 3.08 0.36 --- 0.40 --- 0.00

ii. Jowar --- 0.68 0.63 --- 2.00 0.00 0.29 --- 0.18 --- 0.00

iii. Lucerne --- 8.89 9.29 --- 2.00 7.00 2.21 --- 1.66 --- 0.00

iv. Green grass --- 2.75 3.08 --- 2.00 2.31 1.07 --- 1.26 --- 0.00

v. Any other --- 6.00 2.87 --- 2.00 1.23 0.00 --- 0.90 --- 0.00



i. Wheat straw --- 1.32 0.87 --- 2.00 1.31 2.64 --- 0.40 --- 0.00

ii. Paddy straw --- 2.27 0.79 --- 2.00 1.69 2.64 --- 0.82 --- 0.00

iii. Bajra Straw --- 3.13 2.21 --- 2.00 2.69 2.21 --- 1.56 --- 0.00

iv. Maize Straw --- 0.66 0.37 --- 2.00 0.31 0.93 --- 0.50 --- 0.00

v. Jowar Straw --- 1.75 1.08 --- 2.00 0.31 2.07 --- 0.46 --- 0.00

vi. Any other --- 0.82 0.82 --- 0.00 0.00 4.29 --- 0.44 --- 0.00

Total Dry Fodder --- 9.95 6.13 --- 10.00 6.31 14.79 --- 4.18 --- 0.00

Dry Fodder Ratio --- 0.54 0.37 --- 1.00 0.46 3.76 --- 0.95 --- 0.00

i. Wheat --- 0.48 0.47 --- 0.00 0.23 0.43 --- 0.06 --- 0.00

ii. Bajra --- 0.57 0.82 --- 0.00 0.00 0.07 --- 0.30 --- 0.00

iii. Maize --- 0.18 0.00 --- 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- 0.14 --- 0.00

iv. Any other --- 0.66 0.55 --- 0.00 0.38 0.71 --- 0.14 --- 0.00

Total Grains --- 1.89 1.84 --- 0.00 0.62 1.21 --- 0.64 --- 0.00

Grains Ratio --- 0.10 0.11 --- 0.00 0.05 0.31 --- 0.15 --- 0.00

i. Mixed feed --- 0.11 0.87 --- 0.50 0.46 0.79 --- 0.50 --- 0.00

ii. Oil cakes --- 0.46 0.63 --- 0.50 0.00 0.71 --- 0.16 --- 0.00


iv. Any other --- 0.04 0.18 --- 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- 0.10 --- 0.00



Season Total --- 31.52 26.53 --- 21.00 21.23 21.43 --- 10.00 --- 0.00


(Kg./Animal/Day)

1. Green Fodder

2. Dry fodder

3. Grains

4. Concentrates

Season/Crop

Young

Stock Horse Goat


Table 4.8.3 (B): Winter Season feeding composition for livestock population adopted by small farmers, Sample

Households- 2008-09

4) Total quantity of feed and fodder given to dry bovines was lower than quantity given

to in milk bovines of same category. For example, in rainy season in milk crossbred cow was

given 27.36 kg./day/animal whereas dry crossbred cow was given 21.00 kg./day/animal

(Table 4.8.3 (A)). This trend persists in all seasons.

5) As compared to in milk bovine animals, decline in use of green fodder was observed

for dry bovines. As compared to dry milch animals, quantity of green fodders and grain given

to in-milk animals found relatively much higher.

6) The major green fodders were lucerne, grasses, jowar, bajra and maize. Whereas

major dry fodders were bajra straw, jowar straw, maize straw and wheat straw.

87

Ind.

cows X-bred Buffalo

Ind.


i. Maize --- 0.09 0.00 --- 2.00 0.00 0.36 --- 0.22 --- 0.00

ii. Bajra --- 5.95 4.53 --- 2.00 1.92 3.14 --- 1.50 --- 0.00

iii. Cowpea --- 0.07 0.00 --- 2.00 0.00 0.29 --- 0.16 --- 0.00

iv. Jowar --- 1.10 1.26 --- 0.00 1.85 0.29 --- 0.26 --- 0.00

v. Lucerne --- 1.61 1.82 --- 2.00 1.62 1.14 --- 0.80 --- 0.00

vi. Any other --- 1.07 1.26 --- 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- 0.24 --- 0.00



i. Wheat straw --- 2.23 2.89 --- 3.00 2.31 1.57 --- 0.96 --- 0.00

ii. Paddy straw --- 2.63 0.89 --- 3.00 3.08 2.29 --- 0.74 --- 0.00

iii. Bajra Straw --- 4.03 3.11 --- 3.00 4.15 5.00 --- 1.32 --- 0.00

iv. Maize Straw --- 0.85 0.45 --- 3.00 1.54 0.50 --- 0.48 --- 0.00

v. Jowar Straw --- 2.46 0.50 --- 3.00 0.00 0.71 --- 0.46 --- 0.00

vi. Any other --- 0.07 0.05 --- 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- 0.02 --- 0.00

Total Dry Fodder --- 12.28 7.89 --- 15.00 11.08 10.07 --- 3.98 --- 0.00

Dry Fodder Ratio --- 1.24 0.89 --- 1.88 2.06 1.93 --- 1.25 --- 0.00

i. Wheat --- 0.46 0.61 --- 1.00 0.46 0.36 --- 0.12 --- 0.00

ii. Bajra --- 0.54 0.45 --- 0.50 0.00 0.07 --- 0.18 --- 0.00

iii. Maize --- 0.18 0.08 --- 0.50 0.00 0.00 --- 0.16 --- 0.00

iv. Any other --- 0.39 0.37 --- 0.50 0.00 0.00 --- 0.12 --- 0.00

Total Grains --- 1.57 1.50 --- 2.50 0.46 0.43 --- 0.58 --- 0.00

Grains Ratio --- 0.16 0.17 --- 0.31 0.09 0.08 --- 0.18 --- 0.00

i. Mixed feed --- 0.86 0.58 --- 0.00 0.69 0.64 --- 0.42 --- 0.00

ii. Oil cakes --- 0.43 0.61 --- 0.00 0.00 0.07 --- 0.06 --- 0.00


iv. Any other --- 0.29 0.39 --- 0.00 0.00 0.14 --- 0.00 --- 0.00



Season Total --- 25.92 20.18 --- 25.50 17.69 16.57 --- 8.44 --- 0.00

4. Concentrates


1. Green Fodder

2. Dry fodder

3. Grains

Horse

Table 4.8.3 (C): Summer Season feeding composition for livestock population adopted by small farmers, Sample

Households- 2008-09(Kg./Animal/Day)

GoatSeason/Crop


Young

Stock

4.8.4 Seasonal feeding composition of semi medium farmers:


composition for different livestock’s adopted by the semi medium farmers during the rainy,

winter and summer season respectively. Important observations emerging from these three

Tables are as follow:

1) Across the seasons it was found that all categories of animals except crossbreed cow

were fed highest quantity of fodder and feed during winter season. For example in

milk buffalo given per day 21.91 Kg. in kharif, 23.57 Kg. in rabi and 21.62 Kg. in

summer season. Among different categories of animals, highest quantity of fodder

and feed given to in-milk crossbreed cows.

88

Ind.

cows X-bred Buffalo

Ind.


i. Maize 3.00 1.65 1.88 0.00 0.62 1.38 1.24 --- 0.78 --- ---

ii. Bajra 2.08 6.81 4.27 4.00 5.69 2.58 0.56 --- 1.04 --- ---

iii. Sorghum 1.25 0.80 1.14 0.50 0.15 0.63 0.29 --- 0.23 --- ---

iv. Guar 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- 0.00 --- ---

v. Lucerne 0.42 0.30 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.25 --- 0.14 --- ---

vi. Green Grass 3.00 3.15 5.34 1.75 0.38 4.83 1.15 --- 0.71 --- ---

vii. Any other 0.00 2.89 1.23 0.00 4.19 0.80 0.71 --- 0.26 --- ---

Total Green Fodder 9.75 15.59 14.65 6.25 11.04 10.40 4.20 --- 3.16 --- ---

Green Fodder Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 --- 1.00 --- ---

i. Wheat straw 0.50 5.68 0.85 4.75 4.46 1.48 4.82 --- 0.62 --- ---

ii. Paddy straw 1.25 1.94 0.99 0.00 2.08 0.83 4.89 --- 1.43 --- ---

iii.Jowar 0.42 1.70 0.69 0.00 0.35 0.63 2.53 --- 0.36 --- ---

iv. Bajra 0.42 1.66 0.72 0.50 0.58 0.70 2.80 --- 0.35 --- ---

v. Maize 1.00 0.75 0.35 0.25 0.35 0.30 2.04 --- 0.89 --- ---

vi. Any other 0.00 0.26 0.15 0.00 0.23 0.30 1.76 --- 0.16 --- ---

Total Dry Fodder 3.58 11.98 3.75 5.50 8.04 4.23 18.84 --- 3.81 --- ---

Dry Fodder Ratio 0.37 0.77 0.26 0.88 0.73 0.41 4.48 --- 1.20 --- ---

i. Wheat 0.58 0.16 0.42 0.00 0.23 0.15 0.60 --- 0.12 --- ---

ii. Bajra 0.21 0.54 0.44 0.00 0.23 0.13 0.40 --- 0.12 --- ---

iii. Mixed Bhusa 0.42 0.69 0.37 0.00 0.15 0.38 0.35 --- 0.13 --- ---

iv. Any other 0.83 0.14 0.38 0.00 0.15 0.18 0.24 --- 0.08 --- ---

Total Grains 2.04 1.54 1.61 0.00 0.77 0.83 1.58 --- 0.46 --- ---

Grains Ratio 0.21 0.10 0.11 0.00 0.07 0.08 0.38 --- 0.14 --- ---

i. Mixed feed 0.17 0.67 0.50 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.47 --- 0.21 --- ---

ii. Oil cakes 0.58 0.48 0.51 0.00 0.12 0.20 0.38 --- 0.11 --- ---

iii. Dairy cattle feed 0.63 1.25 0.81 0.00 0.23 0.35 0.36 --- 0.48 --- ---

iv. Any other 0.00 0.05 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 --- 0.00 --- ---

Total Concentrates 1.38 2.45 1.90 0.00 0.38 0.63 1.25 --- 0.79 --- ---

Concentrates Ratio 0.14 0.16 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.30 --- 0.25 --- ---

Season Total 16.75 31.56 21.91 11.75 20.23 16.08 25.87 --- 8.22 --- ---


1. Green Fodder

2. Dry fodder

3. Grains

4. Concentrates

Table 4.8.4 (A): Rainy Season feeding composition for livestock population adopted by semi-medium farmers,

Sample Households- 2008-09(Kg./Animal/Day)

Season/Crop


Young

Stock Horse Goat

2) The major fodder were maize and bajra green fodder in rainy season, lucerne, wheat

straw and bajra straw in winter and bajra green fodder and paddy straw in summer

season.

3) In milk animals were fed more as compared to dry animals of same category.

4) Indigenous cows are fed overall less feed and fodder across all the seasons as

compared to cross bred cows.

5) As compared to in milk bovine animals, decline in use of green fodder and higher use

of dry fodder was observed for dry bovines.

89

Ind.

cows X-bred Buffalo

Ind.


i. Maize 1.00 1.12 0.97 1.25 1.04 1.00 0.64 --- 0.87 --- ---

ii. Jowar 1.00 0.82 0.94 0.25 0.58 2.75 0.51 --- 0.56 --- ---

iii. Lucerne 3.25 8.53 8.09 1.75 8.69 3.55 2.45 --- 0.96 --- ---

iv. Green grass 0.50 1.30 1.80 0.25 0.23 0.58 0.42 --- 0.31 --- ---

v. Any other 2.00 2.61 1.67 2.75 0.00 1.50 0.13 --- 0.21 --- ---



i. Wheat straw 2.00 4.63 1.26 6.00 6.00 1.35 5.44 --- 0.94 --- ---

ii. Paddy straw 1.83 2.19 1.69 0.00 2.54 0.75 4.75 --- 0.85 --- ---

iii. Bajra Straw 2.25 2.52 1.20 1.75 0.54 0.63 2.67 --- 0.73 --- ---

iv. Maize Straw 1.33 0.82 0.67 1.75 0.23 0.50 3.18 --- 0.52 --- ---

v. Jowar Straw 0.33 1.68 0.95 0.00 0.12 0.33 1.89 --- 0.39 --- ---

vi. Any other 0.00 0.69 0.30 0.00 0.50 0.45 1.38 --- 0.19 --- ---

Total Dry Fodder 7.75 12.53 6.08 9.50 9.92 4.00 19.31 --- 3.63 --- ---

Dry Fodder Ratio 1.00 0.87 0.45 1.52 0.94 0.43 4.66 --- 1.25 --- ---

i. Wheat 0.42 0.35 0.54 0.00 0.23 0.55 0.33 --- 0.06 --- ---

ii. Bajra 0.42 0.58 0.67 0.00 0.15 0.08 0.24 --- 0.14 --- ---

iii. Maize 0.50 0.29 0.33 0.00 0.19 0.18 0.18 --- 0.11 --- ---

iv. Any other 0.58 0.24 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.22 --- 0.13 --- ---

Total Grains 1.92 1.46 2.00 0.00 0.58 1.03 0.96 --- 0.44 --- ---

Grains Ratio 0.25 0.10 0.15 0.00 0.05 0.11 0.23 --- 0.15 --- ---

i. Mixed feed 0.17 0.55 0.59 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.36 --- 0.26 --- ---

ii. Oil cakes 1.08 0.37 0.51 0.00 0.12 0.35 0.42 --- 0.11 --- ---


iv. Any other 0.00 0.05 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- 0.00 --- ---



Season Total 19.42 30.94 23.57 15.75 21.46 15.30 25.44 --- 7.84 --- ---

Young

Stock Horse Goat


2. Dry fodder

3. Grains

4. Concentrates

Season/Crop


(Kg./Animal/Day)

1. Green Fodder

Table 4.8.4 (B): Winter Season feeding composition for livestock population adopted by semi-medium farmers,


6) Bullocks were fed more dry fodder and less green fodder in all the seasons. The

proportion of green fodder and dry fodder for bullock was 1:4.48 in kharif, 1:4.66 in

winter season and 1:2.97 in summer season.

90

Ind.

cows X-bred Buffalo

Ind.


i. Maize 0.83 0.65 0.82 0.00 0.31 0.78 0.62 --- 0.16 --- ---

ii. Bajra 2.25 5.96 5.63 4.00 1.31 1.45 1.71 --- 1.12 --- ---

iii. Cowpea 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 --- 0.04 --- ---

iv. Jowar 0.00 1.84 0.46 0.00 2.19 0.20 0.55 --- 0.14 --- ---

v. Lucerne 0.00 0.99 2.21 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.84 --- 0.35 --- ---

vi. Any other 2.50 0.34 0.59 0.50 0.15 1.00 0.45 --- 0.22 --- ---



i. Wheat straw 0.75 5.92 2.23 7.50 9.12 4.70 3.89 --- 0.87 --- ---

ii. Paddy straw 4.42 1.83 1.97 1.00 2.15 1.85 2.95 --- 1.54 --- ---

iii. Bajra Straw 2.75 3.63 1.78 0.50 1.31 1.80 1.91 --- 1.05 --- ---

iv. Maize Straw 1.67 0.86 0.68 0.50 0.31 0.38 1.29 --- 0.31 --- ---

v. Jowar Straw 0.25 1.44 1.00 0.00 1.27 1.38 1.49 --- 0.18 --- ---

vi. Any other 0.00 0.61 0.29 0.00 0.77 1.03 0.82 --- 0.07 --- ---

Total Dry Fodder 9.83 14.30 7.95 9.50 14.92 11.13 12.35 --- 4.02 --- ---

Dry Fodder Ratio 1.76 1.46 0.80 2.11 3.77 2.82 2.97 --- 1.98 --- ---

i. Wheat 0.08 0.19 0.42 0.00 0.08 0.23 0.45 --- 0.06 --- ---

ii. Bajra 0.17 0.44 0.54 0.00 0.23 0.35 0.42 --- 0.08 --- ---

iii. Maize 0.25 0.28 0.29 0.00 0.04 0.13 0.13 --- 0.06 --- ---

iv. Any other 0.42 0.55 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.11 --- 0.12 --- ---

Total Grains 0.92 1.46 1.72 0.00 0.35 0.93 1.11 --- 0.32 --- ---

Grains Ratio 0.16 0.15 0.17 0.00 0.09 0.23 0.27 --- 0.16 --- ---

i. Mixed feed 0.17 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.08 0.13 0.11 --- 0.09 --- ---

ii. Oil cakes 0.63 0.04 0.38 0.00 0.23 0.35 0.38 --- 0.06 --- ---


iv. Any other 0.00 0.06 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 --- 0.00 --- ---



Season Total 17.71 25.74 21.62 14.00 20.12 16.85 18.56 --- 7.06 --- ---

4. Concentrates


Season/Crop


Young

Stock Horse

Table 4.8.4 (C): Summer Season feeding composition for livestock population adopted by semi-medium farmers,


(Kg./Animal/Day)

1. Green Fodder

2. Dry fodder

3. Grains

Goat

4.8.5 Seasonal feeding composition of medium farmers:


composition for different livestock’s adopted by the medium farmers during the rainy, winter

and summer season respectively. Important observations from these three Tables are:

91

Ind.

cows X-bred Buffalo

Ind.


i. Maize 0.28 2.79 3.26 0.00 2.05 6.40 0.93 0.00 0.52 0.00 ---

ii. Bajra 5.10 5.23 5.43 5.00 2.26 3.31 1.21 0.00 0.67 13.00 ---

iii. Sorghum 2.69 5.00 1.49 0.00 2.08 1.71 0.61 0.00 1.01 0.00 ---

iv. Guar 0.00 3.58 0.31 0.00 4.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.00 ---

v. Lucerne 0.00 0.32 0.39 0.00 0.51 0.30 0.07 0.00 0.10 0.00 ---

vi. Green Grass 2.31 2.80 4.36 1.00 2.56 2.89 1.14 5.00 0.61 0.00 ---

vii. Any other 0.00 0.55 1.31 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.74 0.00 0.14 0.00 ---

Total Green Fodder 10.38 20.27 16.55 6.00 14.08 14.85 4.70 5.00 3.56 13.00 ---

Green Fodder Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ---

i. Wheat straw 0.15 3.20 1.08 1.00 0.69 0.44 5.11 0.00 0.98 0.00 ---

ii. Paddy straw 0.64 1.26 1.38 0.00 1.18 2.15 6.80 0.00 0.61 0.00 ---

iii.Jowar 4.49 3.74 0.99 2.00 2.36 0.61 4.18 10.00 1.26 5.00 ---

iv. Bajra 0.26 1.34 1.24 3.00 1.15 0.89 4.68 0.00 0.60 5.00 ---

v. Maize 0.13 0.58 0.50 0.00 0.64 0.44 2.37 0.00 0.30 0.00 ---

vi. Any other 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.61 0.00 0.11 0.00 ---

Total Dry Fodder 5.67 10.43 5.19 6.00 6.03 4.61 23.75 10.00 3.86 10.00 ---

Dry Fodder Ratio 0.55 0.51 0.31 1.00 0.43 0.31 5.05 2.00 1.09 0.77 ---

i. Wheat 0.15 0.34 0.72 0.50 0.21 0.14 0.39 0.00 0.13 0.00 ---

ii. Bajra 0.00 0.70 0.80 1.00 0.64 0.53 0.65 0.00 0.25 5.00 ---

iii. Mixed Bhusa 1.85 0.60 0.38 0.00 0.15 0.38 0.44 0.00 0.12 0.00 ---

iv. Any other 0.00 0.84 0.13 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.08 0.00 ---

Total Grains 2.00 2.48 2.04 1.50 1.19 1.05 1.49 0.00 0.58 5.00 ---

Grains Ratio 0.19 0.12 0.12 0.25 0.08 0.07 0.32 0.00 0.16 0.38 ---

i. Mixed feed 0.00 0.29 0.50 0.00 0.38 0.31 0.56 0.00 0.21 3.00 ---

ii. Oil cakes 0.03 0.34 0.64 0.00 0.24 0.31 0.39 0.00 0.14 4.00 ---

iii. Dairy cattle feed 0.14 0.54 0.77 1.00 0.09 0.68 0.43 0.00 0.55 0.00 ---

iv. Any other 0.00 0.19 0.16 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.03 0.00 ---

Total Concentrates 0.17 1.36 2.07 1.00 1.10 1.30 1.38 1.00 0.93 7.00 ---

Concentrates Ratio 0.02 0.07 0.13 0.17 0.08 0.09 0.29 0.20 0.26 0.54 ---

Season Total 18.22 34.54 25.85 14.50 22.40 21.81 31.32 16.00 8.93 35.00 ---


1. Green Fodder

2. Dry fodder

3. Grains

4. Concentrates

Table 4.8.5 (A): Rainy Season feeding composition for livestock population adopted by medium farmers,

Sample Households- 2008-09(Kg./Animal/Day)

Season/Crop


Young

Stock Horse Goat

92

Ind.

cows X-bred Buffalo

Ind.


i. Maize 0.51 2.01 3.38 0.00 1.90 4.16 1.02 0.00 0.48 3.00 ---

ii. Jowar 0.00 1.22 1.13 0.00 1.44 1.15 0.67 0.00 0.26 0.00 ---

iii. Lucerne 6.21 10.89 8.61 5.50 6.85 6.38 2.70 0.00 2.23 8.00 ---

iv. Green grass 1.18 1.92 1.76 0.00 0.56 0.66 0.88 0.00 0.45 0.00 ---

v. Any other 0.00 0.44 1.19 0.00 1.49 0.00 0.14 5.00 0.19 0.00 ---



i. Wheat straw 0.00 5.25 1.29 1.50 1.79 0.52 5.79 0.00 0.84 3.00 ---

ii. Paddy straw 1.28 2.05 1.97 0.00 2.00 2.13 5.86 0.00 0.72 0.00 ---

iii. Bajra Straw 0.10 2.41 1.50 2.00 5.77 0.89 3.58 10.00 1.53 7.00 ---

iv. Maize Straw 0.13 1.31 0.84 0.00 1.00 0.56 2.07 0.00 0.38 0.00 ---

v. Jowar Straw 4.64 1.46 0.90 2.50 0.51 0.31 1.61 0.00 0.34 3.00 ---

vi. Any other 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.53 0.00 0.07 0.00 ---

Total Dry Fodder 6.15 12.93 6.51 6.00 11.08 4.51 19.44 10.00 3.88 13.00 ---

Dry Fodder Ratio 0.78 0.78 0.41 1.09 0.91 0.37 3.60 2.00 1.07 1.18 ---

i. Wheat 0.15 0.31 0.72 0.00 0.23 0.24 0.40 0.00 0.13 0.00 ---

ii. Bajra 1.35 0.76 0.95 1.00 0.21 0.42 0.49 0.00 0.14 8.00 ---

iii. Maize 0.00 0.29 0.22 0.00 0.19 0.26 0.30 0.00 0.05 0.00 ---

iv. Any other 0.00 0.96 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.39 0.11 0.00 0.21 0.00 ---

Total Grains 1.50 2.31 2.06 1.00 0.67 1.31 1.30 0.00 0.53 8.00 ---

Grains Ratio 0.19 0.14 0.13 0.18 0.05 0.11 0.24 0.00 0.15 0.73 ---

i. Mixed feed 1.85 0.96 0.88 0.00 0.36 0.11 0.61 0.00 0.37 3.00 ---

ii. Oil cakes 0.03 0.41 0.81 0.00 0.26 0.31 0.49 0.00 0.12 2.00 ---


iv. Any other 0.00 0.04 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 ---



Season Total 17.50 33.58 27.16 13.50 24.77 19.16 27.63 17.00 8.90 37.00 ---


Young

Stock Horse


(Kg./Animal/Day)

1. Green Fodder

2. Dry fodder

3. Grains

4. Concentrates

GoatSeason/Crop

Table 4.8.5 (B): Winter Season feeding composition for livestock population adopted by medium farmers,


93

Ind.

cows X-bred Buffalo

Ind.


i. Maize 0.00 0.63 1.10 0.00 0.54 0.62 1.30 0.00 0.42 0.00 ---

ii. Bajra 5.46 3.28 3.29 1.00 0.95 0.74 1.35 4.00 1.02 5.00 ---

iii. Cowpea 0.00 2.15 0.13 0.00 1.92 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.82 0.00 ---

iv. Jowar 0.05 0.35 1.49 0.00 0.23 0.56 0.37 0.00 0.22 3.00 ---

v. Lucerne 0.00 0.96 1.32 1.00 0.00 0.05 0.68 0.00 0.27 0.00 ---

vi. Any other 0.31 1.06 1.42 1.00 0.00 1.36 0.49 0.00 0.21 0.00 ---



i. Wheat straw 1.41 5.35 2.19 1.50 2.33 1.65 5.34 0.00 1.30 0.00 ---

ii. Paddy straw 0.00 1.89 1.48 0.00 1.33 3.66 2.70 0.00 0.66 0.00 ---

iii. Bajra Straw 3.03 5.16 2.18 4.50 5.85 2.50 2.72 10.00 1.54 3.00 ---

iv. Maize Straw 0.00 0.95 0.97 0.00 0.97 1.61 1.44 0.00 0.26 0.00 ---

v. Jowar Straw 4.49 1.02 1.13 2.00 0.51 0.70 1.28 0.00 0.40 0.00 ---

vi. Any other 0.00 0.41 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.61 0.00 0.09 0.00 ---

Total Dry Fodder 8.92 14.78 8.00 8.00 11.00 10.95 14.10 10.00 4.25 3.00 ---

Dry Fodder Ratio 1.53 1.75 0.91 2.67 3.02 3.29 3.31 2.50 1.44 0.38 ---

i. Wheat 1.05 0.43 0.73 0.00 0.51 0.11 0.33 0.00 0.12 0.00 ---

ii. Bajra 0.00 0.41 0.88 1.00 0.26 0.35 0.37 0.00 0.19 6.00 ---

iii. Maize 0.00 0.38 0.24 0.50 0.58 0.34 0.17 0.00 0.14 0.00 ---

iv. Any other 0.00 0.33 0.17 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.11 0.00 ---

Total Grains 1.05 1.56 2.03 1.50 1.74 0.80 0.91 0.00 0.56 6.00 ---

Grains Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.23 0.50 0.48 0.24 0.21 0.00 0.19 0.75 ---

i. Mixed feed 0.90 0.90 0.54 0.00 0.31 0.10 0.47 0.00 0.34 3.00 ---

ii. Oil cakes 0.00 0.35 0.61 0.00 0.21 0.30 0.39 0.00 0.09 2.00 ---


iv. Any other 0.03 0.16 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 ---



Season Total 16.82 26.83 20.70 12.50 17.22 15.89 20.50 16.00 8.56 22.00 ---

Horse GoatSeason/Crop


Young

Stock

(Kg./Animal/Day)

4. Concentrates


Table 4.8.5 (C): Summer Season feeding composition for livestock population adopted by medium farmers,


1. Green Fodder

2. Dry fodder

3. Grains

1) Grains and concentrates, given to in milk bovines was higher than quantity fed to dry

animals. For example, in milk crossbred cow was given 1.86 kg/animal/day

concentrates during rabi season, whereas dry crossbred cow was given just 0.79

kg/animal/day concentrates during the same season. (Table 4.8.5 (B)).

94

2) As compared to in milk bovine animals, decline in use of green fodder and higher use

of dry fodder was observed for dry bovines.

3) The quantity of dry fodder fed to bullocks was higher than quantity of green fodder in

all the seasons and the ratio of green fodder and dry fodder fed to bullock in rainy

season was 1:5.50, in winter season 1:3.60 and in summer season 1:3.31 ( Table 4.8.5

(A),(B),(C) ).

4) Indigenous cows were fed overall less feed and fodder across all the seasons as

compared to crossbred cows.

5) The major green fodders were lucerne, grasses, jowar, bajra and maize. Whereas major

dry fodders were bajra straw, jowar straw, maize straw and wheat straw.

4.8.6 Seasonal feeding composition of large farmers:


composition for different livestock’s adopted by the large farmers during the rainy, winter

and summer season respectively. Important observations from these three Tables are:

1. Across the seasons, it was found that in milk crossbred cow was fed the highest

fodder and feed by the large farmers as compared to other categories of farmers.

Among different categories of animals, in-milk crossbred cow was fed highest

quantity of feed and fodder.

2. In milk animals were fed more as compared to dry animals. This was so because the

nutrient requirement of bovines differs according to the physiological stage of

animals.

3. Overall, indigenous cows were fed less feed and fodder across all the seasons as

compared to crossbred cows.

4. In each season, total quantity of feed and fodder fed to different categories of

livestock was highest in winter season and lowest in summer season. For example, per

day per animal, crossbred cow was given 35.00 kg. in rainy, 36.50 kg. in winter and

30.50 kg. in summer season.

5. As compared to in milk bovine animals, relatively decline use of green fodder was

observed for dry bovines.

95

Ind.

cows X-bred Buffalo

Ind.


i. Maize 0.00 9.00 3.00 0.00 6.50 3.57 2.00 0.00 1.63 0.00 ---

ii. Bajra 6.00 3.00 4.95 0.00 2.25 3.57 1.40 0.00 0.94 0.00 ---

iii. Sorghum 0.00 3.00 1.64 0.00 2.75 2.43 0.80 0.00 0.25 0.00 ---

iv. Guar 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---

v. Lucerne 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---

vi. Green Grass 5.00 2.00 5.00 7.00 1.00 3.43 1.60 0.00 1.50 20.00 ---

vii. Any other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---



i. Wheat straw 3.00 1.00 1.27 0.00 1.00 1.43 1.80 0.00 0.75 0.00 ---

ii. Paddy straw 0.00 6.50 2.55 5.00 3.00 1.86 9.60 0.00 1.75 0.00 ---

iii.Jowar 2.00 1.50 0.82 0.00 1.00 0.14 4.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 ---

iv. Bajra 1.00 2.50 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.71 3.20 0.00 1.00 0.00 ---

v. Maize 0.00 1.00 1.27 4.00 1.00 1.14 0.80 0.00 0.56 0.00 ---

vi. Any other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---

Total Dry Fodder 6.00 12.50 6.91 9.00 7.00 5.29 19.40 0.00 4.19 0.00 ---

Dry Fodder Ratio 0.55 0.74 0.47 1.29 0.56 0.41 3.34 0.00 0.97 0.00 ---

i. Wheat 1.00 0.00 1.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.44 0.00 ---

ii. Bajra 1.00 1.00 0.64 0.00 0.50 0.14 1.40 0.00 0.13 0.00 ---

iii. Mixed Bhusa 0.00 1.00 0.23 0.00 0.50 0.14 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---

iv. Any other 0.00 0.00 0.27 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 10.00 ---

Total Grains 2.00 2.00 2.23 1.00 1.00 0.29 2.40 0.00 0.88 10.00 ---

Grains Ratio 0.18 0.12 0.15 0.14 0.08 0.02 0.41 0.00 0.20 0.50 ---

i. Mixed feed 0.00 1.00 0.73 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---

ii. Oil cakes 0.00 1.50 0.55 0.00 0.75 0.14 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---


iv. Any other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---



Season Total 21.00 35.00 26.55 17.00 22.25 18.79 30.00 0.00 10.28 30.00 ---


1. Green Fodder

2. Dry fodder

3. Grains

4. Concentrates

Table 4.8.6 (A): Rainy Season feeding composition for livestock population adopted by large farmers, Sample

Households- 2008-09

(Kg./Animal/Day)

Season/Crop


Young

Stock Horse Goat

96

Ind.

cows X-bred Buffalo

Ind.


i. Maize 0.00 7.50 2.73 0.00 5.50 3.43 1.20 0.00 1.13 0.00 ---

ii. Jowar 0.00 4.00 1.55 0.00 4.00 2.14 0.80 0.00 0.75 0.00 ---

iii. Lucerne 10.00 5.00 8.82 3.00 3.50 1.86 2.40 0.00 2.13 10.00 ---

iv. Green grass 0.00 1.00 2.09 2.00 1.00 2.43 0.80 0.00 1.00 10.00 ---

v. Any other 0.00 0.00 0.82 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 10.00 ---



i. Wheat straw 3.00 2.00 1.64 0.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 ---

ii. Paddy straw 0.00 4.50 1.36 5.00 3.00 1.57 7.20 0.00 2.00 0.00 ---

iii. Bajra Straw 0.00 4.00 0.45 0.00 4.00 1.43 4.80 0.00 0.63 0.00 ---

iv. Maize Straw 0.00 2.50 0.95 3.00 2.50 1.57 2.40 0.00 0.75 0.00 ---

v. Jowar Straw 5.00 1.00 0.86 0.00 1.00 0.71 2.80 0.00 1.00 0.00 ---

vi. Any other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---

Total Dry Fodder 8.00 14.00 5.27 8.00 12.50 7.29 20.20 0.00 5.13 0.00 ---

Dry Fodder Ratio 0.80 0.80 0.33 1.14 0.89 0.74 3.88 0.00 0.96 0.00 ---

i. Wheat 2.00 0.00 1.91 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.75 0.00 ---

ii. Bajra 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.13 0.00 ---

iii. Maize 0.00 0.50 0.36 0.00 0.50 0.14 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---

iv. Any other 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---

Total Grains 3.00 1.50 3.55 1.00 0.50 0.14 1.20 0.00 0.88 0.00 ---

Grains Ratio 0.30 0.09 0.22 0.14 0.04 0.01 0.23 0.00 0.16 0.00 ---

i. Mixed feed 0.00 1.00 0.45 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.31 0.00 ---

ii. Oil cakes 0.00 1.50 1.36 1.00 1.00 0.14 1.20 0.00 0.13 0.00 ---


iv. Any other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---



Season Total 23.00 36.50 27.91 17.00 29.50 17.57 28.60 0.00 12.59 30.00 ---


(Kg./Animal/Day)

1. Green Fodder

2. Dry fodder

3. Grains

4. Concentrates

GoatSeason/Crop


Young

Stock Horse

Table 4.8.6 (B): Winter Season feeding composition for livestock population adopted by large farmers, Sample

Households- 2008-09

97

Ind.

cows X-bred Buffalo

Ind.


i. Maize 0.00 6.00 2.45 0.00 3.50 3.00 1.60 0.00 0.88 0.00 ---

ii. Bajra 4.00 3.00 4.09 0.00 2.00 1.43 1.80 0.00 1.25 0.00 ---

iii. Cowpea 0.00 0.00 1.09 0.00 0.00 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 ---

iv. Jowar 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.86 0.80 0.00 0.25 0.00 ---

v. Lucerne 3.00 0.00 1.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.25 0.00 ---

vi. Any other 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.25 25.00 ---



i. Wheat straw 5.00 2.00 2.27 0.00 2.00 3.71 2.60 0.00 0.75 0.00 ---

ii. Paddy straw 0.00 5.50 1.82 5.00 5.50 4.43 5.20 0.00 2.38 20.00 ---

iii. Bajra Straw 5.00 4.00 2.27 5.00 4.00 2.57 3.80 0.00 1.44 0.00 ---

iv. Maize Straw 0.00 4.00 1.18 2.00 4.00 2.57 4.00 0.00 0.81 0.00 ---

v. Jowar Straw 0.00 1.00 0.36 0.00 1.00 1.43 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---

vi. Any other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---

Total Dry Fodder 10.00 16.50 7.91 12.00 16.50 14.71 16.40 0.00 5.38 20.00 ---

Dry Fodder Ratio 1.43 1.65 0.77 4.00 2.54 2.29 3.57 0.00 1.30 0.80 ---

i. Wheat 2.00 0.00 2.45 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.75 0.00 ---

ii. Bajra 1.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.13 0.00 ---

iii. Maize 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---

iv. Any other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---

Total Grains 3.00 0.00 3.27 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.88 0.00 ---

Grains Ratio 0.43 0.00 0.32 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.21 0.00 ---

i. Mixed feed 0.00 1.00 0.73 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---

ii. Oil cakes 0.00 1.50 1.36 1.00 1.00 0.14 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---


iv. Any other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---



Season Total 22.00 30.50 24.64 17.00 26.00 21.43 24.80 0.00 11.28 45.00 ---

Young

Stock Horse Goat

4. Concentrates


Table 4.8.6 (C): Summer Season feeding composition for livestock population adopted by large farmers,


(Kg./Animal/Day)

1. Green Fodder

2. Dry fodder

3. Grains

Season/Crop


4.8.7 Seasonal feeding composition of sample farmers-overall:

The data presented in Table 4.8.7 (A), 4.8.7 (B) and 4.8.7 (C) shows average feeding

composition followed for different livestock’s by the sample farmers during the rainy, winter

and summer season respectively. Important observations from these three Tables are as

follow:

1) In all seasons, total quantity of feed and fodder fed to dry bovines was lower than

quantity given to in milk bovines of same category. For example, in rainy season, in-milk

cross-bred cow was given daily 31.55 Kg. whereas dry cross-bred cow was given 21.50

Kg. /day.

98

cows X-bred Buffalo cows X-bred Buffalo Bullock Buffalo

i. Maize 0.85 2.30 2.55 0.00 1.83 4.17 1.09 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.00

ii. Bajra 4.36 4.68 4.85 3.25 3.48 3.22 0.91 0.00 0.78 8.67 0.00

iii. Sorghum 2.18 3.47 1.55 0.25 1.38 1.32 0.44 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.00

iv. Guar 0.00 2.12 0.13 0.00 2.55 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00

v. Lucerne 0.09 0.27 0.49 0.00 0.30 0.34 0.16 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00

vi. Green Grass 2.56 3.21 4.59 2.88 1.66 3.41 1.09 5.00 0.69 6.67 0.00

vii. Any other 0.00 1.21 1.18 0.00 1.58 0.42 0.69 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00

Total Green Fodder 10.05 17.27 15.34 6.38 12.77 12.89 4.39 5.00 3.25 15.33 0.00

Green Fodder Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00

i. Wheat straw 0.31 3.58 0.91 2.63 2.10 0.88 4.57 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.00

ii. Paddy straw 0.73 1.56 1.23 1.25 1.66 1.56 6.02 0.00 1.02 0.00 0.00

iii.Jowar 3.31 2.92 0.78 0.50 1.52 0.55 3.24 10.00 0.83 3.33 0.00

iv. Bajra 0.42 1.40 1.03 1.00 0.92 0.79 3.71 0.00 0.53 3.33 0.00

v. Maize 0.31 0.59 0.44 1.13 0.55 0.44 1.89 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00

vi. Any other 0.00 0.34 0.13 0.00 0.08 0.13 1.30 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00

Total Dry Fodder 5.07 10.39 4.51 6.50 6.83 4.35 20.73 10.00 3.76 6.67 0.00

Dry Fodder Ratio 0.50 0.57 0.29 1.02 0.53 0.34 4.73 2.00 1.16 0.43 0.00

i. Wheat 0.25 0.28 0.57 0.13 0.20 0.14 0.49 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00

ii. Bajra 0.12 0.66 0.62 0.25 0.46 0.35 0.51 0.00 0.19 3.33 0.00

iii. Mixed Bhusa 1.40 0.60 0.34 0.00 0.18 0.31 0.36 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00

iv. Any other 0.18 0.62 0.30 0.25 0.17 0.13 0.14 0.00 0.10 3.33 0.00

Total Grains 1.95 2.16 1.83 0.63 1.01 0.93 1.51 0.00 0.51 6.67 0.00

Grains Ratio 0.19 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.34 0.00 0.16 0.43 0.00

i. Mixed feed 0.04 0.44 0.50 0.00 0.27 0.22 0.46 0.00 0.21 2.00 0.00

ii. Oil cakes 0.15 0.39 0.55 0.00 0.23 0.22 0.36 0.00 0.12 2.67 0.00

iii. Dairy cattle feed 0.44 0.77 0.75 0.25 0.18 0.49 0.45 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.00

iv. Any other 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.01 1.00 0.02 0.00 0.00

Total Concentrates 0.62 1.73 1.91 0.25 0.89 0.94 1.29 1.00 0.87 4.67 0.00

Concentrates Ratio 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.29 0.20 0.27 0.30 0.00

Season Total 17.70 31.55 23.59 13.75 21.50 19.10 27.91 16.00 8.40 33.33 0.00

1. Green Fodder

2. Dry fodder

3. Grains

4. Concentrates


Table 4.8.7(A): Rainy Season composition practices for livestock population adopted by overall farmers, Sample (Kg./Animal/Day)

Season/Crop

In Milk Animals Dry animals Male Young

Stock Horse Goat

99

Ind.

cows X-bred Buffalo

Ind.


i. Maize 0.58 1.63 2.05 0.63 1.82 3.00 0.84 0.00 0.66 2.00 0.00

ii. Jowar 0.40 1.04 0.95 0.13 1.25 1.55 0.53 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00

iii. Lucerne 5.47 9.90 8.39 3.00 7.17 5.17 2.41 0.00 1.67 8.67 0.60

iv. Green grass 0.95 1.87 2.00 0.63 0.48 0.97 0.66 0.00 0.47 3.33 1.20

v. Any other 0.44 1.48 1.60 1.88 0.90 0.63 0.19 5.00 0.27 3.33 0.00



i. Wheat straw 0.56 4.49 1.19 3.38 3.32 0.94 4.92 0.00 0.78 2.00 0.00

ii. Paddy straw 1.31 2.15 1.65 1.25 2.30 1.57 5.23 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.00

iii. Bajra Straw 0.71 2.57 1.44 1.38 3.62 1.02 3.01 10.00 1.22 4.67 0.00

iv. Maize Straw 0.47 1.14 0.72 1.63 0.87 0.57 2.56 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.00

v. Jowar Straw 3.45 1.69 0.88 0.63 0.41 0.33 1.71 0.00 0.37 2.00 0.00

vi. Any other 0.00 0.51 0.26 0.00 0.18 0.20 1.19 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.30

Total Dry Fodder 6.51 12.54 6.14 8.25 10.70 4.62 18.62 10.00 3.82 8.67 0.30

Dry Fodder Ratio 0.83 0.79 0.41 1.32 0.92 0.41 4.03 2.00 1.12 0.50 0.17

i. Wheat 0.24 0.35 0.62 0.25 0.21 0.31 0.34 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00

ii. Bajra 1.06 0.67 0.81 0.25 0.17 0.24 0.31 0.00 0.16 5.33 0.00

iii. Maize 0.11 0.30 0.29 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00

iv. Any other 0.13 0.69 0.34 0.00 0.03 0.30 0.20 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00

Total Grains 1.54 2.01 2.06 0.50 0.62 1.07 1.07 0.00 0.52 5.33 0.00

Grains Ratio 0.20 0.13 0.14 0.08 0.05 0.09 0.23 0.00 0.15 0.31 0.00

i. Mixed feed 1.35 0.77 0.72 0.00 0.25 0.14 0.49 0.00 0.34 2.00 0.00

ii. Oil cakes 0.25 0.43 0.65 0.25 0.25 0.27 0.48 0.00 0.13 1.33 0.00


iv. Any other 0.00 0.05 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00



Season Total 17.90 32.52 25.40 15.50 23.70 17.90 25.55 17.00 8.65 34.67 2.10

(Kg./Animal/Day)

Season/Crop


Young

Stock Horse Goat

1. Green Fodder

2. Dry fodder

3. Grains

4. Concentrates


Table 4.8.7 (B): Winter Season feeding composition for livestock population adopted by overall farmers,


100

Ind.

cows X-bred Buffalo

Ind.


i. Maize 0.18 0.63 0.82 0.00 0.63 0.71 0.86 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00

ii. Bajra 4.44 4.44 4.49 2.25 1.24 1.21 1.77 4.00 1.09 3.33 0.00

iii. Cowpea 0.00 1.28 0.19 0.00 1.08 0.10 0.11 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00

iv. Jowar 0.13 0.86 0.97 0.00 0.99 0.57 0.42 0.00 0.19 2.00 0.00

v. Lucerne 0.25 1.00 1.85 0.25 0.03 0.38 0.88 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00

vi. Any other 0.76 0.81 1.02 1.25 0.06 1.00 0.38 0.00 0.23 8.33 1.20



i. Wheat straw 1.40 5.15 2.32 4.13 4.77 2.86 4.00 0.00 1.06 0.00 0.00

ii. Paddy straw 1.05 1.93 1.56 1.75 1.96 3.05 2.99 0.00 1.02 6.67 0.00

iii. Bajra Straw 3.05 4.56 2.23 2.63 3.96 2.51 2.67 10.00 1.35 2.00 0.00

iv. Maize Straw 0.36 1.01 0.83 0.75 1.00 1.27 1.45 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00

v. Jowar Straw 3.24 1.21 0.89 0.50 0.85 0.86 1.21 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00

vi. Any other 0.00 0.41 0.13 0.00 0.28 0.72 0.57 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00

Total Dry Fodder 9.11 14.28 7.97 9.75 12.82 11.27 12.89 10.00 4.13 8.67 0.00

Dry Fodder Ratio 1.58 1.59 0.85 2.60 3.18 2.83 2.91 2.50 1.56 0.63 0.00

i. Wheat 0.80 0.38 0.61 0.25 0.32 0.17 0.36 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00

ii. Bajra 0.05 0.41 0.66 0.25 0.23 0.28 0.33 0.00 0.14 4.00 0.00

iii. Maize 0.05 0.34 0.26 0.13 0.35 0.20 0.12 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00

iv. Any other 0.09 0.40 0.31 0.00 0.23 0.07 0.10 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00

Total Grains 1.00 1.52 1.84 0.63 1.13 0.73 0.91 0.00 0.48 4.00 0.00

Grains Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.20 0.17 0.28 0.18 0.20 0.00 0.18 0.29 0.00

i. Mixed feed 0.67 0.63 0.54 0.00 0.25 0.16 0.33 0.00 0.25 2.00 0.00

ii. Oil cakes 0.14 0.28 0.52 0.25 0.25 0.28 0.36 0.00 0.08 1.33 0.00


iv. Any other 0.02 0.15 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00



Season Total 17.01 26.36 21.18 14.38 18.96 16.79 19.30 16.00 8.04 29.67 1.20

1. Green Fodder

2. Dry fodder

3. Grains

4. Concentrates


(Kg./Animal/Day)

Season/Crop


Young

Stock Horse Goat

Table 4.8.7 (C): Summer Season feeding composition for livestock population adopted by overall farmers,


2) As compared to in milk bovine animals, relatively decline use of green fodder and higher

use of dry fodder was observed for dry bovines.

3) The major green fodder crops used to fed to animals were lucerne, grasses, jowar, bajra

and maize. Whereas, major dry fodders were bajra straw, jowar straw, maize straw and

wheat straw.

4) Goats were mostly dependent on grazing. For example none of the goat owners fed any

feed and fodder to their goats during the rainy season.

101

5) Across the seasons, total quantity of feed and fodder fed to different categories of

livestock was highest in winter season and lowest in summer season. For example,

crossbreed cow was given total 31.55 Kg./day in rainy, 32.52 Kg./day in winter and 26.36

Kg./day in summer.

6) Bullocks were fed more dry fodder and less green fodder in all the seasons.

7) Grains and concentrates given to in milk bovines was higher than its quantity fed to dry

animals.

8) As compared to crossbreed cows, quantity of feed and fodder fed to indigenous cows was

lower.

9) The quantity of feed and fodder fed to animals was found somewhat lower compared to

that recommended by Department of Animal Husbandry, GoG.

**************

102

Chapter-5

Economics of Production of Fodder Crops

Generally, economists suggest that acreage under forage crops should be increase to

meet the increasing demand of fodder from fast growing livestock sector. But, the scale of

change in acreage depends highly on net return per unit for growing fodder crops as a

substitute for other competing higher value crops. In the current scenario, as arable land is

limited and there is acute competition between food and non-food crops, fodder crops get

neglected and the probability of increasing arable area under fodder crops seems almost

negligible. It is worth to note that hardly any study is available which has analysed season-

wise the comparative economics of fodder crops and the competing crops. Keeping this in

view, we analysed here the economics of different fodder crops and its competing crops on

the basis of cost of cultivation and production data. The main objective of this chapter is to

find out economics of cultivation of selected fodder crops and net returns associated with

these fodder crops. The net returns of any crop is highly depends upon cost of cultivation,

yield and price realisation. Cost of cultivation of any crop is the sum total of several

components of cost. Therefore, component-wise cost data analysed here to study cost of

cultivation of study crops selected for kharif, rabi and summer seasons. The basic criterion

for selecting study crops was the acreage allocated to crop. According to this criterion, for

selected districts, one important fodder crop for each season was selected for attempting in

depth analysis. Lucerne was selected as study crop for Rabi season whereas bajra sown as

grain crop was selected as study crop for summer season. During Kharif season, the area

under pure fodder crops found almost negligible in study districts. Therefore, the most

important food grain crops (whose by product/residue is widely used as dry fodder) in the

selected districts were selected as study crops for Kharif season. Accordingly, maize (grain

crop) was selected as Kharif study crop for Panchmahals and Sabarkantha districts whereas

bajra grain crop was selected as study crop for Banaskantha district. In scarcity years, grain

crop of bajra and maize virtually turning into fodder crops. In normal rainfall years, sufficient

fodder is available from crop-residues (by-products in straw form) of bajra and maize crops.

In nutshell, the analysis attempted in the chapter will provides overall view of output,

input and operational cost of cultivation and net returns for selected fodder crops across

categories of farmers in the selected districts. It also provides comparative economics of

selected fodder crops vis-à-vis its competing crops.

103

5.1 Cost items considered for cost of cultivation:

The analysis of cost of cultivation of crops included various components of costs.

Here, only variable cost components are considered. Variable costs vary directly with the

production. Variable costs may be either cash costs or non-cash costs. Cost of seed, FYM,

fertiliser, plant protection measures, hired irrigation, hired human labour / machine labour

etc. are cash costs. In our analysis, unpaid family labour, machine labour (own) and interest

on working capital are considered as a variable cost with the assumption that alternative

employment opportunities were available to them. The family labour, FYM, own machine

labour etc. evaluated as per the prevailing locality rates. The purchased inputs including hired

human / machine labour evaluated at the purchase price. Interest on working capital worked

out at the rate of 10.0 percent per annum for half crop-period. The farm production, main and

byproduct evaluated using prevailing farm harvest price (FHP) of the crops. The fixed cost

such as rental value of land, depreciation of implements, interest on fixed capital, land

revenue etc. are ignored.

The main green fodder crops in selected districts are forage sorghum (jowar), maize

green fodder, bajra green fodder grasses and lucerne. In selected districts, main crops whose

by-product is used as fodder are bajra, maize, paddy and wheat. The choice of farmers for

fodder crops depends on sowing time, availability of irrigation and rainfall, quantity and

quality requirement of feed and fodder for own use, soil type etc. The cost of seed, irrigation,

human / machine labour vary considerably between different species of fodder crops.

Cost of cultivation of study crops

A. Kharif crops (Maize and Bajra):

In Kharif season area devoted to different crops including fodder crops highly

depends upon rainfall pattern. In kharif season, in Panchmahals and Sabarkantha districts,

general practice is to grow maize on large scale as green fodder as well as cereal crop,

whereas in Banaskantha district, bajra is grown on large scale as either pure green fodder or

as cereal crop. When maize and Bajra are grown as cereal crops, the by-product (crop

residues / straws) of these crops are generally used as dry fodder for feeding animals during

the year. It is store in the form of bundles or hay. In scarcity years, maize and bajra grown as

grain crops virtually become fodder crops. Generally, after keeping required quantity of dry

fodder with them, farmer sells surplus quantity, if any, to other needy livestock keepers of the

village or nearby villages.

104

(i) Maize crop:

Maize is an important food crop for Panchmahals and Sabarkantha people. It is also

one of the most important fodder crops particularly for milch animals. Maize is an important

kharif crop which gives very palatable, highly succulent and nutritionally rich fodder. It is

free from antimetabolies. Maize occupied key position in terms of acreage among different

fodder crops in the State. It is mainly grown for both, grain as well as green fodder purpose.

When it is grown for grain purpose, its by-product (residues) is used as dry-fodder. There is a

substantial demand of by-product of maize as it is also one of the important ingredients of

poultry feed. Also, it is cultivated as pure green fodder. The green fodder of maize is nutritive

and it has very high yield. Green maize fodder is considered as most ideal for silage making.

In irrigated areas, maize as green fodder crop preferably taken up during period March to

June to meet the requirement of green fodder for feeding livestock during summer. The need

is felt to raise the level of production of maize in view of its substantial demand as food, feed

and poultry feed. Maize can successfully be grown as kharif, rabi and summer crop. In

Gujarat, of the total maize, only 20-30 % is grown under irrigated conditions. For fodder

purpose, maize is the most important kharif crops in the Panchmahals and Sabarkantha

districts. It accounts for the highest area among different forage crops. In kharif, it is mostly

grown as rainfed crop.

While calculating the cost of cultivation per hectare for selected crops, only variable

costs are considered. As mentioned earlier, the fixed costs are ignored. With a view to

examine net return and cost of cultivation of study and competing crops, item-wise cost data

and gross variable cost of cultivation has been worked out for each selected crop. The

category-wise, item-wise per hectare cost and gross cost for maize grown as grain crop

(MP+BP) has been presented in Table 5.1.1 A. The percentage share of each item in total cost

of cultivation is also shown in given table.

The data presented in Table 5.1.1 A, shows that overall, average cost of cultivation

per hectare for kharif maize (cereal) comes to Rs. 15107 and across different farm categories,

it varied from Rs.12131 for large farmers to Rs. 16352 for semi-medium farmers. From the

data, it emerged that human labour (32.70 %), machine labour (20.20%), FYM (14.80 %) and

chemical fertiliser (14.80 %) were the major contributors in the total cost of cultivation of

105

Table 5.1.1 A: Per Hectare Cost of Cultivation (variable cost) of Maize Crop Grown as Grain Crop*-Kharif. (Rs. / ha.)


1. Human labour

i) Hired 3695 (25.2) 1425 (10.4) 4555 (27.9) 3801 (25.3) 2396 (19.7) 3769 (24.9)

ii) Family 1746 (11.9) 2543 (18.6) 1126 (6.9) 1126 (7.5) 745 (6.1) 1178 (7.8)

Total Human labour 5441 (37.1) 3968 (29.0) 5681 (34.7) 4926 (32.8) 3140 (25.9) 4947 (32.7)

2.Machine labour 2558 (17.4) 2805 (20.5) 3570 (21.8) 2869 (19.1) 2089 (17.2) 3045 (20.2)

3.Seed 1079 (7.4) 1993 (14.6) 1622 (9.9) 1679 (11.2) 1235 (10.2) 1612 (10.7)

4.FYM 1500 (10.2) 1733 (12.7) 1945 (11.9) 2330 (15.5) 3167 (26.1) 2241 (14.8)

5.Fertilzer 1638 (11.2) 1688 (12.3) 2351 (14.4) 2260 (15.0) 2250 (18.5) 2233 (14.8)

6.Plant protection measures 449 (3.1) 277 (2.0) 270 (1.7) 310 (2.1) 51 (0.4) 287 (1.9)

7.Irrigation 1776 (12.1) 988 (7.2) 644 (3.9) 401 (2.7) 0 (0.0) 494 (3.3)

8.Misc.expenses 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)

9.Total (1 to 8) 14441 (98.4) 13452 (98.4) 16083 (98.4) 14777 (98.4) 11932 (98.4) 14859 (98.4)

10.Interest on working capital 241 (1.6) 224 (1.6) 268 (1.6) 246 (1.6) 199 (1.6) 248 (1.6)

11. Total variable cost (9+10) 14682 (100.0) 13677 (100.0) 16352 (100.0) 15023 (100.0) 12131 (100.0) 15107 (100.0)

Note: Figures in parentheses are respective percentage to total cost. * For Panchmahals and Sabarkantha districts.


106

kharif maize. As kharif maize is almost dependent on rainfall, irrigation was given to crop

only under very moisture stress condition. Hence, the share of irrigation in total cost of

cultivation was only 3.30 percent. The share of expenses incurred on insecticides / pesticides

was also found very low (1.90%) which suggests that generally farmers not prefer to use

insecticides / pesticides for kharif maize. The category-wise examination of cost data reveals

positive correlation between farm-size and FYM / fertiliser costs. FYM and fertiliser cost is

increasing with the increase in farm-size (see Table 5.1.1 A). Amongst selected districts, total

cost of cultivation per hectare for maize was found highest for Sabarkantha district

(Rs. 16044).

From the above analysis, it can be concluded that labour (human + machine)

component is the key contributor in total cost of cultivation of maize crop grown in kharif.

(ii) Bajra crop:

Gujarat State occupied 3rd

rank in the country in respect of area under bajra. Bajra is

an important food crop for the people of Gujarat state and important fodder crop for livestock

feeding. Generally, bajra is grown in Gujarat during kharif and summer season. In the Gujarat

state, bajra is grown as cereal as well as green fodder crop. When bajra is grown as cereal

crop, its by-product (crop-residues) is used as dry fodder for feeding livestock. Farmers are

making bundles of dry fodder and store surplus quantity of it for feeding livestock during the

year. Owing to lack of adequate safe storage, they store it in the open ganjis and it is subject

to risk of fire, unseasonal rainfall etc. As there is no risk of HCN poisoning, bajra fodder can

be fed to the animals at any stage. As a green fodder crop, it is quick growing short duration

fodder crop and takes 50-55 days for first cut. It is a most suitable fodder crop for dry

farming areas. It has drought and heat tolerance, high photosynthetic efficiency, cosmopolitan

character with regard to adaptation to different soil types, high dry matter production and

high protein content. Before flowering, its stems are soft and juicy but its nutritive value falls

quickly after flowering. It contains oxalic acid but within safe limit. It is crossed with napier

grass to produce hybrid napier grass which has been adopted widely. Bajra is the most

important kharif crop in the Banaskantha district and accounts for the highest area among

forage crops. Therefore, we selected it as kharif study crop for Banaskantha district.

The category-wise and item-wise cost data for kharif bajra (cereal) crop has been

presented in Table 5.1.1 B. The data presented in Table 5.1.1 B reveals that overall, average

cost of cultivation per hectare for kharif bajra was Rs. 14101. It was lowest at Rs. 10178 for

107

Table 5.1.1B: Per Hectare Cost of Cultivation (variable costs) of Bajra Crop Grown as Grain Crop*-Kharif. (Rs. /ha.)


1. Human labour

i) Hired 1623 (15.8) 497 (4.9) 2283 (15.5) 2108 (15.4) 0 (0.0) 2057 (14.6)

ii) Family 1375 (13.4) 2569 (25.2) 1751 (11.9) 1767 (12.9) 0 (0.0) 1923 (13.6)


2. Machine labour 2172 (21.2) 2781 (27.3) 2535 (17.2) 2845 (20.8) 0 (0.0) 2791 (19.8)

3.Seed 254 (2.5) 458 (4.5) 1186 (8.0) 875 (6.4) 0 (0.0) 876 (6.2)

4.FYM 1788 (17.4) 2722 (26.7) 3583 (24.3) 3348 (24.5) 0 (0.0) 3474 (24.6)

5.Fertilzer 2107 (20.5) 984 (9.7) 3177 (21.5) 2344 (17.1) 0 (0.0) 2667 (18.9)


7.irrigation 780 (7.6) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 131 (1.0) 0 (0.0) 69 (0.5)

8.Misc.expenses 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)

9.Total (1 to 8) 10099 (98.4) 10011 (98.4) 14515 (98.4) 13462 (98.4) 0 (0.0) 13870 (98.4)



Note: Figures in parentheses are respective percentage to total cost. * For Banaskantha and Sabarkantha districts.


108

small farmers and highest at Rs. 14757 for semi-medium farmers. Thus, it varied significantly

across different farm categories. Further, no definite relationship observed between farm

sizes and cost of cultivation. In Gujarat, kharif bajra is grown as rainfed crop and no practice

of giving irrigation except special situation. Therefore, percent share of irrigation and plant

protection measures in total cost of cultivation found very negligible. In total cost of

cultivation, human labour (28.20%), machine labour (19.80 %), FYM (24.60 %) and

chemical fertiliser (18.90%) were the major contributors. The data further shows that there is

no practice of using insecticides / pesticides in kharif bajra. Across different farm categories,

seed cost varying significantly and it was Rs.254/ha. for marginal farmers to Rs. 1186 /ha. for

semi-medium farmers. The variation in seed cost was mainly due to variation in varieties of

seed used.

Among selected districts, overall cost of cultivation per hectare for bajra crop was

found significantly higher at Rs.17846 in Sabarkantha compared to that Rs. 10356 for

Banaskantha district. In Banaskantha district, total cost of cultivation varied from

Rs. 9825/ha. for medium farmers to Rs.10968/ha. for marginal farmers. In Sabarkantha

district, it varied from Rs.17547/ha. for medium farmers to Rs.18793/ha. for semi-medium

farmers. The wide variation in cost of cultivation across districts, suggests wide variation in

inputs use pattern and cultivation practices for bajra crop among farmers of Sabarkantha and

Banaskantha districts.

B. Rabi fodder crop:

During rabi season, agricultural activities take place mainly in the irrigated areas.

Area allocation to different crops highly depends upon available water resources and

moisture level of soil. In all three selected districts, farmers are growing lucerne as green

fodder crop in rabi season. Hence, we selected lucerne as study crop for rabi season. It may

be noted that out of 150 sample households, some households had not grown lucerne crop in

rabi season. Hence, for analysis of lucerne crop, only lucerne growing sample households are

considered (reduced sample size).

(i) Lucerne crop:

Lucerne is 3rd

important forage crop of India as well as of Gujarat. Lucerne is

valuable leguminous forage and hay crop which is generally grown in areas where assured

irrigation is available. Being deep rooted crop, lucerne extracts water from the deeper zone of

the soil. In India, lucerne is grown over one million hectare area and provides 60 to 130 tones

of green forage/ha. It can be grown both as annual as well as perennial crop. This crop

109

Table 5.1.2: Category-wise and item-wise Per Hectare Cost of Cultivation (variable costs) of Lucerne Crop in Gujarat-Rabi (Rs. /ha.)


1. Human labour

i) Hired 1011 (3.0) 1642 (5.0) 2146 (6.5) 1836 (6.0) 1815 (6.2) 1850 (5.9)

ii) Family 5115 (15.2) 5129 (15.5) 4784 (14.5) 3234 (10.5) 2933 (9.9) 3913 (12.5)


2. Machine labour 3491 (10.3) 3700 (11.2) 2941 (8.9) 4331 (14.1) 2559 (8.7) 3714 (11.8)

3.Seed 11193 (33.2) 9885 (30.0) 10145 (30.7) 11228 (36.4) 10204 (34.6) 10619 (33.8)

4.FYM 3149 (9.3) 2890 (8.8) 3363 (10.2) 2516 (8.2) 3089 (10.5) 2640 (8.4)

5.Fertilzer 3151 (9.3) 2572 (7.8) 2534 (7.7) 2174 (7.1) 3300 (11.2) 2340 (7.5)


7.irrigation 5871 (17.4) 6162 (18.7) 6155 (18.6) 4832 (15.7) 5125 (17.4) 5443 (17.3)

8.Misc.expenses 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)

9.Total (1 to 8) 33200 (98.4) 32459 (98.4) 32489 (98.4) 30310 (98.4) 29026 (98.4) 30857 (98.4)



Note: Figures in parentheses are respective percentage to total cost.


110

may supply green fodder continuously for 2-3 years with proper treatments and care. It

contains about 15-20% crude protein with 72% digestibility, 1.5% calcium, 0.2% phosphorus

(on dry weight basis) and high amount of vitamin A, B and D. Since lucerne is a rich

nutritional feed, it should be used only in small quantities when it feed to animals. Lucerne is

one of the important and most nutritive diets for milch animals because it is effective in

enhancing milk yield. Lucerne is also one of the important fodder (green) crops in Gujarat

state and it occupies about 6.40 percent share in total area under fodder. In selected districts,

area under lucerne was (16.05 %) highest in Banaskantha district.

As lucerne is a long duration perennial crop, we collected input and output data up to

end of reference period i.e. ending of June-2009. Hence, data analysed here for lucerne not

reflect complete picture of net return.

The category-wise and item-wise cost data for cultivation of lucerne crop has been

given in Table 5.1.2. The data shows that overall, total cost of cultivation per hectare for

lucerne was highest at Rs.31372 (marginal farmers) and lowest at Rs.29509 (large farmers).

The data further reveals negative correlation between farm size and cost of cultivation. The

cost of cultivation decreases with the increase in size of land holding. The item-wise

examination of cost shows that in total cost of cultivation, share of seed cost was highest at

33.80 percent. Of the total cost of cultivation, human labour constitutes 18.40 percent,

irrigation constitutes 17.30 percent and machine labour constitutes 11.80 percent. In total

cost, FYM contributed 8.40 percent whereas fertiliser contributed 7.50 percent.

Among selected three districts, total cost of cultivation per hectare for lucerne varied

from Rs. 26879 in Panchmahals to Rs.37849 in Banaskantha district. In all three districts,

seed cost, human labour cost and irrigation cost were major contributors in total cost of

cultivation.

In Banaskantha district, total cost of cultivation per hectare for lucerne varied from

Rs. 30971 for large farmers to Rs. 42189 for marginal farmers. In Panchmahals, it varied

from Rs. 25515 for small farmers to Rs. 29297 for marginal farmers. In Sabarkantha, it varied

from Rs. 28372 for medium farmers to Rs. 32544 for small farmers. In all the three selected

districts, cost of cultivation found higher for marginal and small farmers compared to that for

medium and large farmers.

In nutshell, following points emerged from the above analysis. First of all, seed cost

was highest amongst all costs due to high price of HYV seeds of lucerne. Secondly, lucerne is

an irrigated crop and hence irrigation intensity and irrigation cost found higher for lucerne

111

crop compare to other pure fodder crops. Thirdly, human labour intensity as well as cost was

higher due to long duration of lucerne crop compare to other fodder crops.

C. Summer fodder crops:

In Gujarat, the summer season period is March to mid June. During summer, crop

sowing activities take place mostly in the irrigated areas. Crops are generally grown in those

areas where adequate irrigation from various sources is available. Hence, the quality and

production quantity of summer fodder crops varying with level of soil moisture, soil fertility

and soil temperatures. In Gujarat, summer season is mostly hot and dry. Among the three

selected districts, for detailed analysis two study crops were selected for summer season.

Lucerne was selected as study crop for summer in Sabarkantha and Banaskantha districts and

bajra was selected as study crop in all three selected districts.

(i) Lucerne crop:

Lucerne (Medicago sativa) is the most widespread and popular green fodder and is

cultivated in hot as well as cold atmosphere. It is cultivated in majority districts of the state.

Lucerne summer is grown only under irrigated condition and has good nutritional value.

The category-wise and item-wise cost data for cultivation of lucerne crop in summer

season has been given in Table 5.1.3 A. The data shows that overall, total cost of cultivation

per hectare for lucerne was Rs. 25075 and across farm categories, it varied between Rs.

26956 (small farmers) and Rs. 24559 (marginal farmers). The data further reveals least

variation in cost of cultivation across farm-sizes. It is surprising to note that, not a single large

farmer had grown lucerne in summer. This is so because lucerne is a long duration crop and

many large farmers had grown it in Rabi season. The item-wise examination of cost data

shows that in total cost of cultivation, share of seed cost was highest at 34.6 percent. Of the

total cost of cultivation, human labour constitutes 19.8 percent, irrigation constitutes 19.5

percent, fertiliser constitutes 9.0 percent and FYM constitutes 7.7 percent. The item-wise

share in total cost of summer Lucerne not varied significantly from that of for rabi season.

However, total cost of cultivation per hectare of summer lucerne was lower than it for rabi

lucerne. This is so, because cost of cultivation of summer lucerne includes operational cost of

four months whereas rabi lucerne includes such costs of eight months.

Among selected two districts, Banaskantha and Sabarkantha, total cost of cultivation

per hectare for lucerne varied from Rs. 19838 in Sabarkantha to Rs. 26108 in Banaskantha

district. In two selected districts, seed cost, human labour cost and irrigation cost were major

contributors in total cost of cultivation. In Banaskantha district, total cost of cultivation per

112

Table 5.1.3A: Per Hectare Cost of cultivation (variable costs) of Lucerne crop-Summer (Rs. /ha.)


1. Human labour

i) Hired 741 (3.0) 1587 (5.9) 80 (0.3) 439 (1.7) 0 (0.0) 669 (2.7)

ii) Family 4397 (17.9) 1518 (5.6) 3910 (15.0) 6422 (25.2) 0 (0.0) 4291 (17.1)


2. Machine labour 988 (4.0) 3924 (14.6) 1730 (6.6) 2401 (9.4) 0 (0.0) 1466 (5.8)

3.Seed 8151 (33.2) 9263 (34.4) 10560 (40.5) 8576 (33.7) 0 (0.0) 8667 (34.6)

4.FYM 1853 (7.5) 3002 (11.1) 2896 (11.1) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1933 (7.7)

5.Fertilzer 2470 (10.1) 2075 (7.7) 1436 (5.5) 2223 (8.7) 0 (0.0) 2249 (9.0)


7.irrigation 4817 (19.6) 5146 (19.1) 5041 (19.3) 4995 (19.6) 0 (0.0) 4895 (19.5)

8.Misc.expenses 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)

9.Total (1 to 8) 24157 (98.4) 26514 (98.4) 25653 (98.4) 25057 (98.4) 0 (0.0) 24664 (98.4)





113

hectare for lucerne varied from Rs. 25474 for medium farmers to Rs. 26956 for small

farmers. In total cost of cultivation, share of seed cost (40.44 %) was highest for

semi-medium farmers. In Sabarkantha, share of seed cost (44.8 %) as well as irrigation cost

(23.70 %) was highest for marginal farmers.

(ii) Bajra (Grain) crop:

In Gujarat, Bajra as cereal crop is grown as rainfed crop in kharif season and as

irrigated crop in summer season. When it is grown for grain purpose, straw of bajra (by-

product) is used as dry fodder. It is also grown as purely green fodder purpose. It is grown by

the farmers for own food consumption as well as to meet feed and fodder requirements for

livestock. The green fodder of bajra is very important and nutritive feedstock for cattle

ensuring improvement in milk yield. Bajra is primarily a food cum fodder crop in the Gujarat

especially during the summer when green fodder is scarce.

The category-wise and item-wise cost data for summer bajra (Grain) crop has been

presented in Table 5.1.3 B. The data presented in Table 5.1.3 B reveals that overall, average

cost of cultivation per hectare for summer bajra was Rs. 18560. It was lowest at Rs. 17673 for

large farmers and highest at Rs. 19525 for medium farmers. Thus, it varied significantly

across different farm categories. In Gujarat, summer bajra is grown as irrigated crop.

Therefore, percent share of irrigation cost in total cost of cultivation of summer bajra is very

significant. In total cost of cultivation, human labour (27.04 %), irrigation (26.20 %),

machine labour (16.30 %), FYM (11.20 %) and fertiliser (11.90%) were the major

contributors. Across different farm categories, seed cost varying significantly due to

difference in varieties and seed rate applied. It varied from Rs. 859 /ha. for marginal farmers

to Rs. 1064 /ha. for small farmers. The cost of cultivation per hectare for summer bajra

remains always higher than it for kharif bajra. This is mainly due to irrigation cost.

Among selected districts, overall cost of cultivation per hectare for bajra crop was

found significantly higher (Rs. 20469) for Sabarkantha district than it Rs. 16965 for

Banaskantha district. In Banaskantha district, total cost of cultivation varied from Rs. 14835

/ha. for small farmers to Rs. 18959 / ha. for large farmers. In Sabarkantha district, it varied

from Rs. 18181 / ha. for large farmers to Rs. 21488 / ha. for semi-medium farmers. In

Panchmahals district, it varied from Rs. 15789 / ha. for large farmers to Rs. 21892 / ha. for

medium farmers. The wide variation in cost of cultivation across districts and across farm

sizes suggests wide variation in inputs use pattern and cultivation practices for summer bajra

crop among farmers of selected districts.

114

Table 5.1.3B: Per Hectare Cost of cultivation (variable costs) of Bajra (Grain) crop-Summer (Rs. /ha.)


1. Human labour

i) Hired 2223 (12.5) 2069 (11.4) 3299 (17.9) 2985 (15.3) 3490 (19.7) 3147 (17.0)

ii) Family 3036 (17.0) 3329 (18.4) 2380 (12.9) 2094 (10.7) 925 (5.2) 1930 (10.4)


2. Machine labour 3178 (17.8) 3092 (17.1) 2818 (15.3) 2884 (14.8) 2922 (16.5) 3031 (16.3)

3.Seed 859 (4.8) 1064 (5.9) 772 (4.2) 870 (4.5) 862 (4.9) 813 (4.4)

4.FYM 1287 (7.2) 2146 (11.9) 2134 (11.6) 2241 (11.5) 1442 (8.2) 2070 (11.2)

5.Fertilzer 1912 (10.7) 1829 (10.1) 1830 (9.9) 2337 (12.0) 2652 (15.0) 2204 (11.9)


7.irrigation 4998 (28.0) 4257 (23.5) 4801 (26.0) 4892 (25.1) 5090 (28.8) 4860 (26.2)

8.Misc.expenses 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)

9.Total (1 to 8) 17545 (98.4) 17786 (98.4) 18133 (98.4) 19205 (98.4) 17383 (98.4) 18256 (98.4)





115

5.2 Economics of fodder crops vis-à-vis competing crops

Magnitude of change in area under fodder crops depends on net return from grown

crops as a substitute for other competing crops. Comparisons of net return from selected

fodder crops vis-à-vis its competing crops will be useful to understand about the alternative

use of cultivated land.

In Gujarat, during Kharif season, the area under pure fodder crops is almost

negligible. Therefore, the most important food grain crops (whose by product/residue is used

as dry fodder) were selected as study crops for Kharif season. Accordingly, maize was

selected as Kharif study crop for Panchmahals and Sabarkantha districts and bajra (cereal) the

most important food cum fodder crop for Banaskantha district as study crop for the Kharif

season.

The cost of cultivation represent worked out here the cost of cultivation of total

production i.e. main (grain) production plus by-production (straw used as fodder). For

estimating separately the cost of cultivation of grain and fodder (by-product / crop residues),

part of selected cereal crops (main and by-product) the method stated below is used.

BPC= (BPR/TR)*TC

Where,

BPC= Total cost of cultivation of by-product.

BPR= Total value of by-product (at FHP).

TR= Total value of main product plus by-product.

TC= Total cost of cultivation of crop.

The economics of selected fodder crops vis-à-vis its competing crops is analysed here

for each study crop selected in different seasons. One of the objectives of this study was to

study the economics of fodder crops in the selected regions and compare its profitability / net

return with that of competing crops. For analysis, variable cost of cultivation is taken into

consideration. The data on cost of cultivation per hectare, yields value of main production

(MP), value of by-products (BP), gross value of total production (MP+BP) and net return per

hectare over variable cost are presented in Table 5.2.1. The net return per hectare over

variable cost is obtained by subtracting total variable cost per hectare from gross value of

production per hectare. The gross value of production per hectare is obtained by multiplying

yield (Qtl. /ha.) with farm harvest price (FHP) of the crop.

(i) Kharif study crops (Maize, Bajra):

Category-wise data on yield, variable cost, gross value of production and net returns

for study crops maize, bajra and competing crop paddy are presented in Table 5.2.1 and also

116

shown graph in Figure 5.1. It is evident from the table that net returns over variable cost for

maize, bajra and paddy cereal crops varied significantly across category of farmers.

For maize as pure green fodder crop, overall net return per hectare over variable cost

found to be Rs. 21954 and across farm categories it varies from Rs. 19480 (SMF) to Rs.

31806 (MF). Overall, gross value of production per hectare was Rs. 38176 and variable cost

Rs. 16222. Yield achievement varies from 323 Qtl. /ha. to 296.40 Qtl. /ha. Owing to high

variation in variable cost, significant variation observed in net returns for different categories

of farmers.

For maize cereal crop, overall, farmers achieved production (per ha.) of 50.18 Qtl.

grains and 49.84 Qtl. dry fodders as by-product. For maize, grain straw ratio found to be

nearly 1:1. Total gross value of production (MP+BP) was Rs. 48905, comprising of main

product amounting Rs. 38949 and by-product (dry fodder) worth Rs.9956. Total variable

cultivation cost was Rs. 16130. Thus, net return per hectare of maize cereal crop comes to Rs.

32775. This shows that maize (cereal) crop growers generated 203 percent net return over its

variable cost of cultivation (Table 5.2.1).

If we compare net return of maize cereal crop with maize green fodder crop, cereal

crop growers realised on an average higher return of Rs. 10821 per hectare. This shows that

growing maize as cereal crop is more profitable than growing it as green fodder.

In Banaskantha, bajra as cereal crop is grown for grain and fodder purpose. The

average yield achieved by growers was 37.80 Qtl./ha. grain (MP) and 44.94 Qtl. /ha. dry-

fodder in the form of straws. Thus, grain straws ratio for bajra crop was 1:1.19. Overall, per

hectare value of gross production (MP+BP) was Rs. 38911 and total variable cultivation cost

was only Rs.11924. Hence, net return per hectare for bajra crop comes to Rs. 26987. This

shows that bajra crop growers generated 226 percent net returns over its variable cost (Table

5.2.1).

The net return per hectare for bajra grown as cereal crop was Rs. 26987 which was

higher by Rs. 11187 compared to net return of Rs. 15100 for bajra grown as green fodder

crop (Table 5.2.1).

The above analysis clearly established that growing of maize and bajra as cereal crops

is more profitable compared to growing these crops exclusively as green fodder crops.

Paddy is another competing crop of maize in Panchmahals and Sabarkantha districts.

Paddy is grown as cereal crop and by-product of paddy is used as fodder. Overall, gross value

117

Table 5.2.1: Economics of Maize and Bajra crops vis-à-vis competing crops Paddy and other crops- Kharif. (Rs. / Ha.)


Kharif (Maize Green Fodder )

Area of Land (Ha.) 0.53 0.20 1.21 5.11 0.81 7.86

Yield (Qtl. /Ha.) 323.00 296.40 296.40 307.53 296.40 305.41

Farm Harvesting Price (Rs. /Qtl.) 125 125 125 125 125 125

Gross value of MP (Rs. /Ha.) 40375 37050 37050 38441 37050 38176

Total Variable cost (Rs. /Ha.) 8569 13387 17570 16841 15981 16222

Net return over variable cost (Rs. /Ha.) 31806 23663 19480 21599 21069 21954

Kharif (Maize Grain)-MP

Area of Land (Ha.) 1.66 5.04 13.48 18.77 4.76 43.72

Yield (Qtl. /Ha.) 44.58 47.77 50.36 51.24 49.99 50.18





Kharif (Maize Dry Fodder) BP

Area of Land (Ha.) 1.66 5.04 13.48 18.77 4.76 43.72

Yield (Qtl. /Ha.) 47.59 48.17 50.22 50.60 48.31 49.84


Gross value of BP (Rs. /Ha.) 9508 9623 10032 10109 9650 9956



Kharif (Maize Crop) (MP+BP)

Area of Land (Ha.) 1.66 5.04 13.48 18.77 4.76 43.72



Total Gross Value of (MP+BP) 44108 46703 49121 49881 48448 48905

Total Variable cost of (MP+BP) 17844 13584 18625 16239 10736 16130


Kharif crop- (Bajra Grain) MP

Area of Land (Ha.) 0.92 0.00 4.97 0.69 0.00 6.59

Yield (Qtl. /Ha.) 32.50 0.00 38.62 39.00 0.00 37.80





Kharif (Bajra Dry Fodder) BP

Area of Land (Ha.) 0.92 0.00 4.97 0.69 0.00 6.59

Yield (Qtl. /Ha.) 36.83 0.00 46.66 43.33 0.00 44.94





Contd….

118

Kharif season (Bajra Crop) (MP+BP)

Area of Land (Ha.) 0.92 0.00 4.97 0.69 0.00 6.59 Gross value of MP (Rs. /Ha.) 24375 0 28964 29250 0 28351


Total Gross Value of (MP+BP) (Rs. /Ha.) 33031 0 39930 39433 0 38911

Total Variable cost of (MP+BP) (Rs.

/Ha.) 13964 0 10101 22295 0 11924


Competing crop Kharif season (Paddy grain) MP

Area of Land (Ha.) 1.21 1.92 11.32 27.88 8.32 50.65

Yield (Qtl. /Ha.) 30.17 27.04 37.40 31.78 30.63 32.63





Kharif -Competing crop (Bajra Green Fodder)

Area of Land (Ha.) 2.15 4.78 15.07 12.02 0.00 34.02

Yield (Qtl. /Ha.) 183.86 174.37 179.78 182.88 0.00 180.37





Competing crop Kharif season (Paddy Dry Fodder) BP

Area of Land (Ha.) 1.21 1.92 11.32 27.88 8.32 50.65

Yield (Qtl. /Ha) 29.01 27.04 28.80 30.94 28.23 29.82





Competing crop during Kharif season (Paddy Crop) (MP+BP)

Area of Land (Ha.) 1.21 1.92 11.32 27.88 8.32 50.65




Total Variable cost of (MP+BP) (Rs.

/Ha.) 13676 17160 21023 15650 13816 16444

Net returns over variable cost (Rs. /Ha.) 18699 12043 17824 18521 18837 18291 Source: Field Survey MP=Main product (grain), BP= By-products.

of production (MP+BP) and total variable cost of paddy were Rs. 34375 and Rs. 16444

respectively. Across farm categories, high variation noticed in gross value of main product

and total variable cultivation cost. Overall, net return per hectare for paddy was Rs. 18291

and it varies from Rs. 12043 (SF) to Rs. 18837 (LF).

From the above analysis, it is very obvious that in Panchmahals and Sabarkantha

districts, the net returns were higher for cultivation of maize as cereal crop compared to those

for competing crops maize green fodder and paddy. In Banaskantha district, net return was

higher for cultivation of bajra as cereal crop compared to its competing crops.

119

Figure 5.1: Economics of Maize and Bajra crops vis-à-vis competing crops Paddy and other crops –Kharif

(Rs. / Ha.)

It may be noted that crops grown in kharif are highly dependent on rainfall. The

rainfall in selected districts is highly erratic, uneven and fluctuating every year. Therefore,

output and net returns realisation from crops are also likely to vary widely from year to year.

(ii) Rabi season (Lucerne and Wheat):

The economics of Rabi (fodder crops) lucerne crop vis-à-vis competing wheat crop is

presented in Table 5.2.2 and also presented in graph form in Figure 5.2. It is seen from the

table that the distribution of net returns over variable cultivation cost for lucerne and wheat

shows wide variation amongst different categories of farmer.

Lucerne is a very long duration crop. Lucerne is selected as study crop for rabi

season. The data analysed here for lucerne crop are related to period of eight months.

120

Therefore, yield and gross value of production reported here may seem somewhat higher.

For lucerne, the overall per hectare total variable cost was Rs. 36393 and net return over total

variable cost was Rs. 13828. The yield was 397.82 quintal per hectare. The gross value of

production was Rs. 50221. The gross value of production varied from Rs. 37418 (LF) to Rs.

51573 (MDF).

Table 5.2.2: Economics of Fodder crop- Lucerne vis-à-vis competing Wheat crop – Rabi

season. (Rs. /Ha.)


Rabi (Lucerne Fodder)

Area of Land (Ha.) 1.43 4.71 11.93 22.51 0.82 41.39

Yield (Qtl. /Ha.) 372.61 389.49 390.87 408.53 296.40 397.82





Competing rabi crop (Wheat Grain) MP

Area of Land (Ha.) 3.32 11.92 52.52 88.30 12.77 168.83

Yield (Qtl. /Ha.) 32.79 29.15 35.88 36.42 38.15 35.80





Competing rabi crop (Wheat Dry Fodder) BP

Area of Land (Ha.) 3.32 11.92 52.52 88.30 12.77 168.83

Yield (Qtl. /Ha.) 32.49 34.14 33.02 30.57 40.27 32.35





Competing rabi crop (Wheat Crop) (MP+BP)

Area of Land (Ha.) 3.32 11.92 52.52 88.30 12.77 168.83




Total Variable cost of (MP+BP) (Rs. /Ha.) 18171 12807 15453 15521 26071 16158



Amongst different category of farmers total variable cost was highest for medium

farmers (Rs. 38585 /ha.), net return was higher for semi-medium farmers (Rs. 16439 / ha.)

and productivity was highest for 408.53 quintal / ha. for medium farmers.

121

Figure 5.2: Economics of Lucerne crop vis-à-vis competing crops Wheat crop –Rabi (Rs. / Ha.)

Wheat was selected as competing crop of lucerne for rabi season. In Rabi season

overall, total variable cost per hectare for wheat grain (MP only) was Rs.14236, and yield

was 35.80 quintal. Total variable cost per hectare was higher for large farmers (Rs. 22632)

and yield was highest (38.15 Qtl. /ha.) for medium farmers.

Overall, total variable cost per hectare for wheat by-product (Dry fodder) was

Rs.1922 and net return over variable cost was Rs. 4064. Total variable cost per hectare was

higher for large farmers (Rs. 3439) and net returns over variable cost found higher for small

farmers (Rs.4282).

Overall, total variable cost per hectare for wheat (MP+BP) was Rs.16158, net returns

over variable cost was Rs. 33922. Total variable cost per hectare was higher for large farmers

(Rs. 26071) and net returns over variable cost found higher for medium farmers (Rs. 34996).

The above analysis clearly reveals that net return for cultivation of rabi lucerne was

much lower compared to that for competing crop wheat. Further, it reveals that in rabi season,

growing of pure fodder crop lucerne is less profitable compared to growing of non-fodder

crops including wheat.

122

(iii) Summer season (Bajra, Lucerne, Jowar green fodder and Bajra green fodder):

Two study crops namely bajra grown as cereal crop and lucerne were selected as

study crops for summer season. The jowar / sorghum green fodder and bajra green fodder

were selected as competing crops for summer. The economics of crops selected for summer

season is presented in table 5.2.3 and in graph form in Figure 5.3.

Table 5.2.3: Economics of selected Fodder crops vis-à-vis competing crops-Summer

(Rs. /Ha.) Particulars MF SF SMF MDF LF Overall

Summer (Bajra Grain) MP

Area of Land (Ha.) 2.54 1.91 9.07 4.45 3.26 21.23

Yield (Qtl. /Ha.) 37.62 40.82 39.84 40.94 36.16 39.33

Price (Rs. /Qtl.) 767 767 767 767 767 767

Gross value of MP (Rs. /ha.) 28855 31307 30560 31402 27735 30165

Total Variable cost (Rs. /ha.) 11829 12706 12744 14140 11388 12710

Net return over variable cost (Rs. /ha.) 17026 18600 17816 17262 16347 17455

Summer (Bajra Dry Fodder) BP

Area of Land (Ha.) 2.54 1.91 9.07 4.45 3.26 21.23

Yield (Qtl. /Ha.) 45.70 46.05 45.85 47.02 36.77 44.70


Gross value of BP (Rs. /ha.) 10771 10855 10808 11082 8668 10536



Summer season (Bajra Crop) (MP+BP)

Area of Land (Ha.) 2.54 1.91 9.07 4.45 3.26 21.23


Gross value of BP (Rs. /ha.) 10771 10855 10808 11082 8668 10536

Total Gross Value of (MP+BP) (Rs. /ha.) 39626 42161 41367 42484 36403 40701

Total Variable cost of (MP+BP) (Rs. /ha.) 16443 17303 17436 19389 15084 17353


Lucerne (Fodder)

Area of Land (Ha.) 0.40 1.17 2.49 1.46 0.00 5.51

Yield (Qtl. /Ha) 303.81 254.72 242.17 283.36 0.00 260.24





Competing crop summer (Bajra Green Fodder)

Area of Land (Ha.) 0.56 0.51 2.53 6.50 0.20 10.30

Yield (Qtl. /Ha.) 213.24 207.48 189.00 187.14 187.72 190.03


Gross value of production (Rs. /ha.) 31118 30278 27581 27309 27394 27731



123

Competing summer (Jowar / Sorghum Green Fodder)

Area of Land (Ha.) 0.28 0.20 1.80 3.72 1.01 7.02

Yield (Qtl. /Ha) 215.24 222.30 176.63 233.98 172.90 29.02






It may be noted that area allocation to different crops in summer season depends upon

the extent of availability of irrigation. Owing to irrigation, variable cost of cultivation of

summer crops goes high compared to same crops in kharif season.

For summer bajra, per hectare average yield of MP (Grain) was 39.33 Qtl. and

by-product (dry fodder) was 44.70 Qtl. Overall, total variable cost of cultivation per hectare

was Rs. 17353 and across farm categories, it varied from Rs. 15084 (LF) to Rs. 19389

(MDF). The net return per hectare over variable cost was Rs. 23344 which comprises of

Rs.17455 for main production (grain) and Rs. 5894 for by-production (dry fodder).

The second study crop lucerne is a long duration crop. Here, data considered for

analysis pertain to period of four months only and covering partly expenses and production

(only initial). Therefore, net return obtained here for summer lucerne not reflects real and

picture.

Overall, variable cost of cultivation per hectare for lucerne was Rs. 25850 and gross

value of production was Rs. 32418. This yielded net return of Rs. 6569 / ha.

The competing crop bajra green fodder yielded net return of Rs. 9085 /ha. The other

competing crop jowar / sorghum green fodder yielded net return of Rs. 16246 / ha.

The net return per hectare for bajra cultivation as cereal crop was Rs. 23349 which

was much higher than it for bajra fodder (Rs. 9085), jowar fodder (Rs. 16246) and Lucerne

(Rs. 6589). This clearly shows that cultivation of bajra as cereal crop in summer is generating

higher profit rather than cultivating pure fodder crops like bajra fodder, jowar fodder

and lucerne.

The comparison of net return of pure fodder crops grown in summer reveals that

jowar green fodder yielded highest net return of Rs. 16246 whereas lucerne yielded lowest

net return of Rs. 6569.

124

Figure 5.3: Economics of Bajra and Lucerne crops vis-à-vis competing (Lucerne & Jowar green fodder) crops- Summer

(Rs. / Ha.)

Conclusion:

The analysis clearly established that cultivation of maize and bajra is less profitable

when they are grown as pure fodder crops. The cultivation of bajra, maize and wheat crops

are more profitable when they are grown as cereal crops. The by-product (straw/crop

residues) of these crops is used as dry fodder and fetched good market price. Owing to

unfavourable economics of net return, farmers are growing green fodder crops on very

limited areas. Generally, farmers have no interest in growing green fodder in excess of their

requirements. They are not growing for commercial marketing purpose. They have high

preference for cereal crops such as bajra, maize, wheat and paddy whose by-product can be

used as dry fodder. This attitude of farmers of Gujarat created severe and chronic shortage of

green fodder but little surplus position in respect of dry-fodder. In normal rainfall situation,

sufficient fodder is available from crop-residues from cereals and pulses crops to meet

dry fodder requirements.

**************

125

Chapter 6

Processing and Marketing System for Fodder Crops

Background:

Farmers of Gujarat are growing fodder mainly for home consumption. A small area is

set aside for fodder crops by farmers where irrigation is available. In normal rainfall years,

generally farmers are not facing problems of fodder shortage. During low rainfall/scarcity

years, the arid and semi arid regions of Gujarat are experiencing shortage of fodder/grass.

Fodder is being bulky, less remunerative and costly to transport, most of the producers having

surplus fodder sell it soon after the harvest, mostly within the village or nearby villages.

Generally fodder buyers are landless, marginal and small dairy farmers. In normal years,

fodder/grass is marketed locally. Since not all areas are self sufficient in fodder/grasses, there

is a sell of fodder/grasses from surplus areas to deficit area on a very small scale. Due to

costly transportation, movement take place in nearby villages. Even within the village, few

farmers having surplus fodder sell some quantity of fodder to needy dairy farmers. Generally

demand for green and dry fodders in a village is met from within the village. Thus, intra area

and inter area marketing of fodder takes place, of course on very small scale. The marketing

of fodder gets impetus during scarcity/famine period.

In some cases, surplus green fodder is sold as standing crop on area basis. Sometimes,

labour gets fodder as wages in kind. Surplus dry straw is sold either in bundles or weight

basis in village. The rural fodder markets in Gujarat are not organised.

In India, for marketing of fodders, various marketing channels are operating. The

main channels are:

i. Producer- Commission agent- Consumer

ii. Producer- Processor- Consumer

iii. Producer- Local Trader- Consumer

iv. Producer-Consumer

From the above channels, first two channels are almost not operating in Gujarat. In

Gujarat fodder is generally sold by producers either directly to consumers (Channel-IV)or

trough local traders to consumers (Channel-III). During our survey, we came across only one

marketing channel, namely producer-Local Trader-Consumer (Channel-III).

126

Fodder processing is not very common in Gujarat. Among the two main methods of

processing, silage making and hay making, the later is only practised to some extent. Hay is

made out of crop residues like wheat, paddy, bajra, jowar and maize. Fodder crops like bajra,

jowar and maize are also harvested at flowering stage and stored as hay to meet the

requirement of fodder during lean period.

6.1 Disposal pattern of fodder crops:

As mentioned earlier, it was found that all the sample households cultivated fodder for

home consumption. Thus, during entire reference year none of the sample farmers had

disposed/sold fodder to anyone. Hence, disposal pattern not examined here. The same has

been intimated to coordinating centre and included as limitation of the study.

6.2 Marketing of fodder crops:

We came across 2 local traders, one in Panchmahals district and other in Banaskantha

district. Table 6.2.3 shows the average purchase price, marketing cost and profit margins of

local trader. The price spread between the producer, local trader and consumer is also

illustrated. As the sample size is very small, it can be only treated as a case study and no

general inferences can be drawn upon based on these observations. These local traders

operate within small radius covering few villages. They are using camel cart/bullock

cart/tractor for collecting dry fodder from farmers and transporting it to their destination.

Generally, they are preparing bundle of dry fodder. Generally, each bundle is of weight 2-

3kgs. In kharif, generally they are marketing green fodder of bajra, maize, sorghum and green

grass. Mostly landless, small and marginal farmers are purchasing fodder from the local

traders.

(i) Kharif season:

The data presented in Table 6.2.3(A) shows that in the kharif season, the net price

received by the producer was just Rs.250/Qtl. which is the lowest among all the seasons.

Among different marketing costs, the major cost of Rs.15/Qtl. (5 percent of consumer’s

price) was incurred towards loading and unloading as these operations is done by labourers.

This cost look high because of recent surge in wage rates across the state. Fodder being

bulky, one has to incur higher transport cost per unit. Thus, due to higher transportation cost,

fodder movement take place on limited scale and within few nearby villages. About

Rs.8.33/Qtl. (2.8 percent of consumer’s price) spent on transport. No chaffing cost and

packing cost. Thus, total transporting cost with loading and unloading came to Rs.23.33/Qtl.,

which is about 7.8 percent of the consumer’s price of fodder. An average consumer’s price of

127

fodder was Rs.300/Qtl. Of the amount spent by consumer 83.33 percent goes to producer,

7.77 percent spent as transportation and marketing cost and remaining 8.90 percent was net

profit margin earned by local trader for selling fodder during the kharif season.

ParticularsOverall

(Rs./Qtl.)

% Share in

consumers' price

1. Net price received by the producer 250.00 (83.3)

(i) Chaffing 0.00 (0.0)

(ii) Packing 0.00 (0.0)

(iii) Weighing/filling/sewing charges 0.00 (0.0)

(iv) Loading/unloading 0.00 (0.0)

(v)Transportation 0.00 (0.0)

Sub-total 0.00 (0.0)

3.Purchase price of Local Trader 250.00 (83.3)

(i) Chaffing 0.00 (0.0)

(ii) Packing 0.00 (0.0)




Sub-total 23.33 (7.8)

5. Net profit margin of Local Trader 26.67 (8.9)

6. Consumer's price 300.00 (100.0)


Table 6.2.3(A): Marketing costs, margins and price spread analysis of fodder crop during

peak Kharif season through Channel III(Producer-local trader-Consumer), Sample

Households, 2008-09

2.Marketing costs

4. Costs born by Local Trader

(ii) Rabi season:

The data presented in Table 6.2.3(B) shows that in the rabi season, the net price

received by the producer was Rs.275/Qtl. Among different cost for marketing, the major cost

was of Rs.15/Qtl. was of loading/unloading of fodder. It is same as in Kharif. About Rs.

7.69/Quintal was spent as transportation fare. The total transportation and marketing cost was

Rs.22.69/Qtl which is about 6.5 percent of consumer’s price of fodder. An average price at

which the consumer gets fodder was Rs.350/Qtl. Thus, of every Rs.100 spent by consumer,

Rs.78.60 goes to fodder producers, Rs.6.50 spent as transportation/marketing cost and

remaining Rs.14.90 was net profit margin earned by local trader for selling fodder during the

rabi season. The net profit margin earned by trader in rabi was significantly higher as

compared to kharif season.

128

ParticularsOverall

(Rs./Qtl.)

% Share in

consumers' price


(i) Chaffing 0.00 (0.0)

(ii) Packing 0.00 (0.0)





3.Purchases price of Local Trader 275.00 (78.6)

(i) Chaffing 0.00 (0.0)

(ii) Packing 0.00 (0.0)




Sub-total 22.69 (6.5)

5. Net margins of Local Trader 52.31 (14.9)



Table 6.2.3 (B): Marketing costs, margins and price spread analysis of crop during peak

Rabi season through Channel III(Producer-local trader-Consumer), Sample Households,

2008-09

2.Marketing costs of producer



The data presented in Table 6.2.3(C) shows that in the summer season, the net average price

paid to the producers was Rs.340/Qtl. which is the highest among all three seasons. Among

the transportation and marketing costs, the major cost of Rs.15/Qtl. was incurred for loading

and unloading of fodder. This cost remains unchanged irrespective of season. About

Rs.8.33/Qtl. was spent on transportation fare. The total cost spent by local traders came to

Rs.23.33/Qtl. which is about 5.58 percent of the consumer’s price of fodder. It is the lowest

among all the seasons because the value of fodder has increased in summer season whereas

other costs remained more or less same. On an average, the consumer paid Rs.400/Qtl. for

fodder. Thus, for every Rs.100 spent by consumer, Rs.85.00 goes to producers, Rs.5.83 was

spent as by local trader for transportation and marketing and remaining Rs.9.17 was net profit

margin earned by local trader during the summer season. Thus, net profit margin earned by

local trader was lower in summer in relation to it for winter.

129

ParticularsOverall

(Rs./Qtl.)

% Share in

consumers' price


(i) Chaffing 0.00 (0.0)

(ii) Packing 0.00 (0.0)





3.Purchases price of Local trader 340.00 (85.0)

(i) Chaffing 0.00 (0.0)

(ii) Packing 0.00 (0.0)




Sub-total 23.33 (5.8)

5. Net margins of Local Trader 36.67 (9.2)




Table 6.2.3 (C): Marketing costs, margins and price spread analysis of crop during peak

Summer season through Channel III (Producer-local trader-Consumer), Sample Households,

2008-09

2.Marketing costs of producer

6.3 Fodder processing and cost involved:

As mentioned earlier, we find some sample households following the practice of hay

making. Fodder can be preserved either in the green form as Silage or in the dry form as Hay.

None of the sample households prepared silage during reference year. Brief description of

process of hay making and silage making is given below:

1. Hay: Hay is specially prepared for dry fodder containing 10-15% moisture only. It is

prepared by harvesting the crop at flowering stage or dent stage, when it has maximum

nutrient contents.

Hay making: The best time for cutting the crop for hay making is when it is 1/3 to ½ in

bloom. The crop cut early is higher in protein, lower in crude fiber and contains more

vitamins so it is more nutritive. Hay is more palatable and will shatter less. It is best to

let the crop lie in the field for few hours until it is well wilted or sun cured. It should be

raked in to small loose bundles called “windrows”. Haymaking is a process of turning

green and perishable fodder into a product that can be safely stored and easily

transported without danger of spoilage. Hay is covered by a tarpaulin sheets for drying

in humid climate. Moreover, spraying of some insecticides are also done to minimize

130

insect pest damage. Good quality hay must retain a larger proportion of leaves which

become brittle on drying and fall off quickly. In addition, the cured hay should have a

natural green colour, pleasant aroma, optimum moisture content, free from moulds etc.

During hay-making, particularly in the hot summer, excessive and direct exposure to

sunlight should be avoided.

Qualities of Good Hay:

� It should be leafy. Leaves are rich in protein, vitamins and minerals.

� Colour of hay should be green parrot like, which indicates the amount of carotene- a

precursor of vitamin-A present in it.

� It should be soft and pliable in texture.

� It should be free from dirt, dust and fungus/mould growth.

� It should have small or aroma characteristic of the crop from which it is prepared.

� It should be free from weeds and stubbles.

2. Silage: Silage is chopped fodder that is sealed in a pit without the contact of air or water

for fermentation. It is the product of green/succulent fodder harvested and preserved in

succulent form under anaerobic fermentation in a closely air tight structure called silo.

Silage contains 65% moisture and 35% dry matter. Silage is considered as a pre-

digested feed for ruminants.

Silage making: Silage making involves following steps:

� Harvest the crop (jowar, maize) at 50% flowering /dent stage, when it contains

maximum nutrients.

� Dry/wilt the harvested crop for 1-2 hrs so that its moisture content is reduced to 70%

or so. If moisture content is more, silage will be slimy/ lumpy, and with lower

moisture, there will be mould growth.

� Chaff the green fodder into small pieces (1-2.5inch) by electric chaff cutter. Set the

chaff cutter in such a way that the chaffed fodder is thrown directly into the silo pit.

� Spread the chaffed green fodder evenly into the silo and press it to the maximum

extent for expulsion (removal) of air trapped in occasionally, trampling should also be

done.

� Do even spread of common salt @ 0.5-0.7% i.e. 10-15 kg per 2 tons of chaffed

materials. Because all the fodders are deficient in sodium and chloride. Salt improves

the taste and acts as preservative. If the crop is poor in sugar and/or protein content

131

like legumes and/or Napier hybrid/natural grasses, respectively one can add

[email protected]% and [email protected]% in the silage material.

� Fill up the silo layer by layer using chaffed fodder (1-2feet) and silage additives (salt,

molasses) in as much compact manner as possible, over a week time.

� Cover the top of the silage material with poor quality dry roughages like wheat or

paddy straw (about 1 feet layer).

� Lastly, close the silo pit with a plastic sheet and pack it with minimum of 3 feet layer

of earth/ soil on the top for complete pressing of silage material.

� Finally, seal or plaster the top of earth layer with a mixture of cow-dung and mud to

create anaerobic condition in the silo. Check after 3-4 days for the presence of any

cracks and if found, seal it again.

� Maintain this air-tight condition for 2.5 to 3 months for complete fermentation of

green forage into the silage.

Qualities of Good Silage

� It should have yellowish green colour (Khaki colour).

� It should have fine aroma of lactic and acetic acids.

� There should not be any mould or fungus growth.

� It should have soft texture without coarse stems.

As stated earlier, fodder processing is not very common in Gujarat. The Table 6.3.1

present the details of storage/processing of kharif fodder by the sample households. Among

the 150 sample households, 65 households (43.33 percent) were found making fodder hay.

None of the sample households were found preparing silage for storage and processing of

fodder. Among the 4 selected processors, none of them processed fodder during the kharif

season. Among the farmer categories, 27 semi medium and 18 medium farmers prepared hay

of fodder. Per hay, the average storage capacity of 121.33 M3 was found highest among the

large farmers followed by medium farmers. Small farmers had only 71.33 M3

storage area. As

rains are frequent in kharif, all the farmers were found using plastic/tarpaulin sheets to cover

the hay. This practice saves the hay from development of moulds. Few small and marginal

farmers were also found covering the hay with stitched plastic fertilizer bags. Chemicals like

BHC/Gamaxene/Phorate etc. were used by 24.62 percent hay making farmers to prevent the

damage caused by insects and pests. These chemical were generally sprinkled in the form of a

circle little away from the stored hay. The remaining farmers said that they avoided to use

chemical as it changes the smell and taste of fodder and the bovines do not like this kind of

132

smell of fodder. As far as average quantity of fodder stored is concerned, large farmer stored

the maximum of 110.00 quintal of fodder. The fodder storage capacity and fodder quantity

stored increased with the increase in farm size groups except small farm size class. The

fodder was stored maximum for around 140 days by large farmers, whereas marginal farmers

stored it for minimum period of 46 days. The storage cost for fodder ranged from Rs.2.30 to

3.70/Qtl./month. Loss of produce during storage period was highest at 16.25 percent in the

case of small farmers and minimum at 12.50 percent in the case of marginal farmers. Overall,

14.14 percent loss was reported during storage period.

MF SF SMF MDF LF Overall Processor

No. of HHs 8 9 27 18 3 65 0

Hay making (% HHs) (47.06) (37.50) (47.37) (38.30) (60.00) (43.33) (0.00)

Silage making (% HHs) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

Any other (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

2. Average Storage

capacity (M3)

83.00 71.33 111.22 116.61 121.33 104.18 0.00

Sheet (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (0.00)

Chemical (37.50) (11.11) (25.93) (27.78) (0.00) (24.62) (0.00)

4. Average quantity of

produce stored (Qtl.)17.88 46.22 49.74 85.11 110.00 57.91 0.00

5. Average Storage

period (Days)46 101 98 119 140 100 0

6. Rent for storage

(Rs/Qtl./Month)3.30 3.70 3.20 2.90 2.30 3.16 0.00

7. Produce lost during

storage (% of Kg./Qtl.) (12.50) (16.25) (13.70) (14.33) (15.00) (14.14) (0.00)

Farm size category

1. Processing method adopted (% HHs)

Table 6.3.1 : Details regarding storage/ processing of Kharif fodder, Sample Households, 2008-09

Particulars

3.Material used for storage (%)

Note: Figures in parenthesis indicate percentage of households to total households of respective category.


The Table 6.3.2 presents the details of storage/processing of rabi fodder by the sample

households. Overall, 5.33 percent households were found preparing hay for storage of fodder.

One of the processor prepared silage in the rabi season. The average storage capacity of

200.00 M3 was found highest among the small farmers followed by medium farmers. None

of the marginal farmers and large farmers stored fodder during the rabi season. During the

rabi season plastic/tarpaulin sheets were used to cover the hay but not that frequent as in the

case of kharif season. Chemicals were used by 37.50 percent of hay making farmers which

was higher as compared to kharif season. Average fodder stored was maximum 131.00

133

quintals by the medium farmers. The fodder was stored for 159 days by medium farmers and

90 days by small farmers. Semi-medium farmers stored it for only 50 days. The storage cost

for fodder ranged from Rs.3.00 to 3.10/Qtl./month. Loss of produce during storage period

was found highest at 15.60 percent in the case of semi medium farmers and minimum at

13.50 percent in the case of small farmers. Overall, 14.18 percent loss was reported during

the storage period.


No. of HHs 0 1 2 5 0 8 1

Hay making (% HHs) (0.00) (4.17) (3.51) (10.64) (0.00) (5.33) (0.00)


Any other (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

2. Average Storage

capacity (M3)

0.00 200.00 30.00 146.00 0.00 123.75 36.00

Sheet (0.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (0.00) (100.00) (100.00)

Chemical (0.00) (100.00) (50.00) (20.00) (0.00) (37.50) (100.00)

4. Avearage quantity of


5.Storage period (Days) 0 90 50 159 0 123 80

6. Rent for storage

(Rs/Qtl./Month)0.00 3.10 3.10 3.00 0.00 3.14 3.00


storage (% of Kg./Qtl.)(0.00) (13.50) (15.60) (13.75) (0.00) (14.18) 3.5

Farm size category

Particulars




Table 6.3.2: Details regarding storage/ processing of Rabi fodder, Sample Households, 2008-09


During the rabi season, the processor prepared silage of 62.00 quintals and stored it

for 80 days. The storage area was of 36.00 M3 and cost of storage came around Rs.

3.00/Qtl./month. Loss in terms of weight during processing was reported at 3.50 percent. The

silage prepared by processor mostly used by himself to feed own herd.

134


No. of HHs 6 5 14 8 2 35 3

Hay making (% HHs) (35.29) (20.83) (24.56) (17.02) (40.00) (23.33) (0.00)


Any other (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

2. Average Storage

capacity (M3)

59.83 59.60 112.07 131.13 68.00 97.46 40.00

Sheet (66.67) (80.00) (50.00) (37.50) (50.00) (54.29) (100.00)

Chemical (33.33) (20.00) (14.29) (25.00) (0.00) (20.00) (100.00)

4. Avearage quantity of


5.Storage period (Days) 68 72 102 98 150 94 90

6. Rent for storage

(Rs/Qtl./Month)3.40 3.40 3.00 2.90 3.00 3.10 3.00


storage (% of Kg./Qtl.)(15.50) (19.75) (18.30) (17.33) (20.00) (17.90) 5

Farm size category


Particulars

Table 6.3.3: Details regarding storage/ processing of Summer fodder, Sample Households, 2008-09




The Table 6.3.3 presents the details of storage/processing of summer fodder by the

sample households. Overall 23.33 percent households stored fodder in hay form. Three

processor prepared silage in the summer season. Overall, average storage capacity was 97.00

M3 which was lowest among all the seasons. Medium farmers had the highest (131.13 M3)

storage capacity among all farm categories. During the summer season, plastic/tarpaulin

sheets were used by 54.29 percent households. Overall, chemicals were used by 20.00

percent hay/silage making households. Average quantity of fodder stored was highest at

42.13 quintals by the medium farmers. Overall, average quantity of fodder stored was 28.50

quintals. Among three seasons, fodder storage was found lowest in summer season. Overall,

the average period of storage was about 94 days and it ranged from 68 days for marginal

farmers to 150 days for large farmers. The storage cost for fodder ranged from Rs.2.90 to

3.40/Qtl./month. Loss of produce during storage period was high in the case of large and

small farmers. Overall, 17.90 percent lost was reported during the storage period which was

highest among all the seasons.

During the summer season, each of three processors prepared silage of 75.00 quintals

and stored fodder for 90 days. The storage area was of 40.00 M3 and cost of storage was

135

around Rs. 3.00/Qtl./month. About 5.00 percent was lost in terms of weight during

processing. The silage prepared was mostly used to feed own herd.

6.4 Post harvest operational costs for hay making:

The data presented in Table 6.3.4 shows the component wise various costs involved in

fodder processing by the sample households. Overall, post harvest operational cost of

processing was found highest for summer season. The cost of processing 1 quintal of summer

lucerne and bajra fodder was Rs.27.34 and Rs.27.24 respectively. It was little more than

Rs.24/Qtl. for kharif bajra fodder and maize fodder. Whereas cost of Rs. 21.42 was incurred

for processing same quantity of wheat fodder in rabi season. The processors processed

highest quantity of kharif bajra fodder (5720 Qtl.) followed by summer bajra fodder (4541

Qtl.) for hay making. Overall, 3519 quintals of kharif maize fodder was processed for hay

making. Thus, it can be interpreted that bajra and maize were the main fodders processed for

hay making. Farmers of all the farm size categories prepared hay of maize during kharif and

of bajra during summer. Major six cost components used for estimating the total post harvest

operational cost for hay making. They were harvesting, packing, loading/unloading,

transportation, storage and chemical used. The other costs, if any, included in miscellaneous

expenditures. The costs were taken at prevailing prices during the reference year 2008-09.

About 30 to 40 percent of the total operational cost was incurred for harvesting. The other

major costs were transportation and storage. Transportation is done usually by means of

camel/bullock cart and tractors. The cost of storage was estimated based on the opportunity

cost of rent of similar space. Packing and loading/unloading contributed 10 to 15 percent of

the total operational cost. With rising labour and transportation costs, the farmers are

expecting further rise in all costs in the years to come. Chemicals were very often used in

small amount claiming about 3 to 5 percent of the total cost.

Further, it can be deduced that the main variation in the total post harvest operational

cost is due to variation in crops and seasons. Amongst different farm size categories the

variation in total post harvest operational cost for processing was negligible and no

correlation found between the total post harvest operational cost and farm size category.

136

Particulars

Kharif fodder (Maize) (Rs. /Qtl.) % (Rs. /Qtl.) % (Rs. /Qtl.) % (Rs. /Qtl.) % (Rs. /Qtl.) % (Rs. /Qtl.) %

Quantity Processed (Qtl.) 79 --- 243 --- 1087 --- 1880 --- 230 --- 3519 ---

Harvesting 9.87 (40.0) 9.26 (36.6) 8.80 (29.5) 9.36 (40.7) 10.70 (41.3) 9.28 (36.4)

Packing 2.85 (11.5) 4.32 (17.1) 4.20 (14.1) 2.44 (10.6) 3.70 (14.3) 3.21 (12.6)

Loading/unloading 4.43 (17.9) 3.70 (14.6) 3.91 (13.1) 1.98 (8.6) 2.61 (10.1) 2.79 (11.0)

Transportation 3.16 (12.8) 3.50 (13.8) 3.17 (10.6) 4.49 (19.5) 4.35 (16.8) 3.98 (15.6)

Chaffing 0.00 (0.0) 0.00 (0.0) 3.64 (12.2) 0.11 (0.5) 0.00 (0.0) 1.18 (4.6)

Storage 2.85 (11.5) 3.09 (12.2) 3.18 (10.7) 2.26 (9.8) 2.83 (10.9) 2.65 (10.4)

Chemical used 0.00 (0.0) 0.00 (0.0) 1.47 (4.9) 0.53 (2.3) 0.00 (0.0) 0.74 (2.9)

Any other 1.52 (6.2) 1.44 (5.7) 1.43 (4.8) 1.84 (8.0) 1.72 (6.6) 1.67 (6.5)

Total 24.68 (100.0) 25.31 (100.0) 29.82 (100.0) 23.01 (100.0) 25.89 (100.0) 25.50 (100.0)

Quantity Processed (Qtl.) 346 --- 833 --- 2381 --- 2160 --- --- --- 5720 ---

Harvesting 9.39 (40.7) 9.90 (43.5) 10.16 (45.0) 9.65 (43.3) --- --- 9.89 (43.9)

Packing 2.23 (9.6) 2.58 (11.3) 2.75 (12.2) 2.85 (12.8) --- --- 2.73 (12.1)

Loading/unloading 2.31 (10.0) 2.94 (12.9) 2.46 (10.9) 2.29 (10.3) --- --- 2.46 (10.9)

Transportation 5.49 (23.8) 4.65 (20.4) 4.56 (20.2) 4.34 (19.5) --- --- 4.55 (20.2)

Chaffing 0.00 (0.0) 0.00 (0.0) 0.00 (0.0) 0.00 (0.0) --- --- 0.00 (0.0)

Storage 1.50 (6.5) 0.00 (0.0) 0.65 (2.9) 0.93 (4.2) --- --- 0.71 (3.1)

Chemical used 0.58 (2.5) 0.97 (4.3) 0.31 (1.4) 0.67 (3.0) --- --- 0.56 (2.5)

Any other 1.59 (6.9) 1.74 (7.6) 1.71 (7.6) 1.55 (7.0) --- --- 1.65 (7.3)

Total 23.09 (100.0) 22.79 (100.0) 22.60 (100.0) 22.28 (100.0) --- --- 22.54 (100.0)

Rabi fodder (Wheat)

Quantity Processed (Qtl.) --- --- --- --- 288 --- 2354 --- --- --- 2642 ---

Harvesting --- --- --- --- 9.20 (46.7) 8.74 (47.2) --- --- 8.79 (47.1)

Packing --- --- --- --- 0.00 (0.0) 0.00 (0.0) --- --- 0.00 (0.0)

Loading/unloading --- --- --- --- 2.08 (10.6) 1.98 (10.7) --- --- 1.99 (10.6)

Transportation --- --- --- --- 4.69 (23.8) 4.06 (21.9) --- --- 4.13 (22.1)

Chaffing --- --- --- --- 0.00 (0.0) 0.00 (0.0) --- --- 0.00 (0.0)

Storage --- --- --- --- 0.00 (0.0) 0.00 (0.0) --- --- 0.00 (0.0)

Chemical used --- --- --- --- 1.91 (9.7) 1.99 (10.7) --- --- 1.98 (10.6)

Any other --- --- --- --- 1.82 (9.3) 1.77 (9.6) --- --- 1.78 (9.5)

Total --- --- --- --- 19.70 (100.0) 18.53 (100.0) --- --- 18.66 (100.0)

Quantity Processed (Qtl.) --- --- 115 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 115 ---

Harvesting --- --- 5.65 (24.1) --- --- --- --- --- --- 5.65 (24.1)

Packing --- --- 2.61 (11.1) --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.61 (11.1)

Loading/unloading --- --- 4.78 (20.4) --- --- --- --- --- --- 4.78 (20.4)

Transportation --- --- 5.22 (22.2) --- --- --- --- --- --- 5.22 (22.2)

Chaffing --- --- 0.00 (0.0) --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.00 (0.0)

Storage --- --- 2.61 (11.1) --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.61 (11.1)

Chemical used --- --- 0.87 (3.7) --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.87 (3.7)

Any other --- --- 1.74 (7.4) --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.74 (7.4)

Total --- --- 23.48 (100.0) --- --- --- --- --- --- 23.48 (100.0)

Summer fodder (Bajra)

Quantity Processed (Qtl.) 309 --- 113 --- 1546 --- 2440 --- 133 --- 4541 ---

Harvesting 10.61 (36.5) 10.18 (37.1) 10.59 (36.7) 10.12 (37.2) 10.30 (38.1) 10.32 (37.0)

Packing 3.40 (11.7) 3.10 (11.3) 3.22 (11.2) 3.21 (11.8) 3.20 (11.8) 3.23 (11.6)

Loading/unloading 4.76 (16.4) 4.87 (17.7) 4.58 (15.8) 4.21 (15.5) 4.89 (18.1) 4.41 (15.8)

Transportation 5.02 (17.3) 4.42 (16.1) 5.09 (17.6) 4.87 (17.9) 3.38 (12.5) 4.90 (17.6)

Chaffing 0.00 (0.0) 0.00 (0.0) 0.94 (3.2) 0.54 (2.0) 0.75 (2.8) 0.63 (2.3)

Storage 2.75 (9.5) 2.88 (10.5) 2.81 (9.7) 2.57 (9.5) 2.63 (9.7) 2.68 (9.6)

Chemical used 0.32 (1.1) 0.44 (1.6) 0.19 (0.7) 0.53 (2.0) 0.00 (0.0) 0.39 (1.4)

Any other 1.86 (6.4) 1.55 (5.6) 1.46 (5.0) 1.14 (4.2) 1.88 (7.0) 1.33 (4.8)

Total 29.05 (100.0) 27.43 (100.0) 28.88 (100.0) 27.20 (100.0) 27.03 (100.0) 27.90 (100.0)

Quantity Processed (Qtl.) --- --- 32 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 32 ---

Harvesting --- --- 6.25 (22.9) --- --- --- --- --- --- 6.25 (22.9)

Packing --- --- 4.69 (17.1) --- --- --- --- --- --- 4.69 (17.1)

Loading/unloading --- --- 5.47 (20.0) --- --- --- --- --- --- 5.47 (20.0)

Transportation --- --- 4.38 (16.0) --- --- --- --- --- --- 4.38 (16.0)

Chaffing --- --- 0.00 (0.0) --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.00 (0.0)

Storage --- --- 3.13 (11.4) --- --- --- --- --- --- 3.13 (11.4)

Chemical used --- --- 1.56 (5.7) --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.56 (5.7)

Any other --- --- 1.88 (6.9) --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.88 (6.9)

Total --- --- 27.34 (100.0) --- --- --- --- --- --- 27.34 (100.0)

Note: Figures in parenthesis denotes percentage of respective total


Table 6.3.4A: Post Harvest operational costs for hay making method, Sample Household, 2008-09

MF SF SMF MDF LF Overall

Summer fodder (Lucerne)

Rabi fodder (Lucerne)

Kharif fodder (Bajra)

137

Chapter-7

Problems Faced by Growers of fodder Crops

In this chapter, an attempt has been made to study various problems associated with

production and marketing of fodder crops using opinion data collected from the sample

farmers. Operational cost, input-output ratio, cost efficiency and economics of fodder crops

vis-à-vis other competing crops have been examined in chapter-5. The processing and

marketing system of fodder crops in Gujarat state have also been examined in previous

chapter. In order to know problems faced by sample farmers and intensity of these problems,

their views on various aspects associated with the cultivation, production and marketing of

fodder crops were collected from selected 150 sample farmers and analysis based on these

perception data has been attempted here.

The following findings are based on analysis of perception data collected from the

sample farmers.

7.1 Production problems

On the basis of responses received from sample households, the intensity of problems

related to production of fodder crops across different size group of farmers have been

identified and presented in Table 7.1. The data exhibit that sample households faced number

of problems related with production process of fodder crops. Below mentioned are the major

problems faced by sample households mainly for production of fodders.

1. Problems related to seed quality:

The data exhibit that in kharif season, overall 77.33 percent of sample households

reported problem with regard to quality of seeds. They found substandard quality of available

fodder seeds. The inferior quality of seeds directly impacted on yield level and subsequently

on net-return from crops. About 16.67 percent households reported high intensity of this

problem whereas 32.67 percent reported seed quality problem with medium intensity. In rabi

and summer season also, sample farmers continued to face problem of inferior quality of

seeds for fodder crops with more or less similar intensity. As compared to large farmers, the

intensity of problem relating to quality of seeds found higher for small and medium farmers.

Few sample households reported low germination and high impurity in the seeds. The maize

and bajra growers also reported problem of spurious seeds. Some sample households reported

problem of higher payment for lucerne seed, mainly due to short supply.

138

2. Problems related to inputs delivery:

In kharif season, overall 36.00 percent of sample households not faced any problem in

respect of inputs delivery. Problem of inputs delivery increases with the decrease in farm

size. The 82.35 percent marginal farmers faced such the problems related with inputs delivery

whereas only 40.00 percent large farmers faced problems. The main problem of inputs

delivery was non-availability of adequate quantity of seeds at time when it was needed. Non-

availability of adequate financial credit, human labour and machine labour were other

problems. The intensity of problems related to inputs varied from farmer to farmer depending

upon their financial and social status and requirement.

3. Problems related to expenditure on fodder production:

In kharif season, on an average 77.23 percent of sample farmers reported problems

related to rise in expenditure for fodder production. Nearly 48.00 percent sample farmers

faced this problem with high intensity whereas 18.67 percent faced it with low intensity.

Across different categories of farmers, this problem found more severe for marginal (71.00

%) and large farmers (60.00 %). The proportion of farmers facing this problem is varying

across categories of farmers but across seasons it remained more or less same. In all three

selected districts, water resources for irrigation are scare and lifting of water for irrigation

from very deep level become very costly. Hence, expenditure on irrigation for rabi and

summer fodder crops goes very high. This subsequently caused significant reduction in net

returns from fodder crops. Moreover, owing to MNREGA and high inflation, human labour

rate increased significantly and labour shortage was felt at critical stages of crops. As a result

cost of human labour went up and it enhanced the cost of production.

4. Problems related to insects-pests and diseases:

In kharif season, more than 72.00 percent sample farmers faced problems related to

insects/pests, plant diseases and insecticides / pesticides. The intensity of problem of

insects/pests was more for bajra and maize crops when they are grown as cereal crops. In rabi

season, 76.00 percent and in summer season 68.00 percent of sample farmers faced this

problem. Across categories of farmers, intensity of problems varying much. Nearly 50.00

percent sample farmers lack technical knowledge of tacking pests and plant diseases

problems in a cost efficient ways. Further, few farmers reported problem of spurious and

adulterated insecticides / pesticides. Owing to adulterated insecticides / pesticides, more

spraying required controlling pests and diseases. This enhanced the cost of production.

Farmers also faced the problems of high prices of insecticides / pesticides.

139

Table: 7.1 Problems related to the production of fodder crops- Perception of sample households (% of total sample HHs.)

High Medium Low None Total High Medium Low None Total High Medium Low None Total High Medium Low None Total High Medium Low None Total High Medium Low None Total

A.

1 Seed quality 23.53 29.41 23.53 23.53 100 20.83 37.50 20.83 20.83 100 15.79 33.33 31.58 19.30 100 14.89 31.91 27.66 25.53 100 0.00 20.00 40.00 40.00 100 16.67 32.67 28.00 22.67 100

2 Input delivery 35.29 29.41 17.65 17.65 100 12.50 33.33 20.83 33.33 100 19.30 22.81 21.05 36.84 100 6.38 14.89 38.30 40.43 100 0.00 0.00 40.00 60.00 100 15.33 22.00 26.67 36.00 100

3 Expenditure on production 70.59 11.76 5.88 11.76 100 54.17 12.50 4.17 29.17 100 47.37 10.53 22.81 19.30 100 36.17 10.64 23.40 29.79 100 60.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 100 48.00 10.67 18.67 22.67 100

4 Insect-pests and disease 35.29 17.65 23.53 23.53 100 25.00 29.17 20.83 25.00 100 35.09 17.54 22.81 24.56 100 27.66 8.51 27.66 36.17 100 0.00 40.00 60.00 0.00 100 30.00 17.33 25.33 27.33 100

5 Technical knowledge 29.41 23.53 17.65 29.41 100 12.50 37.50 8.33 41.67 100 35.09 19.30 19.30 26.32 100 14.89 19.15 21.28 44.68 100 40.00 0.00 40.00 20.00 100 24.67 22.00 18.67 34.67 100

6 Access to credit 52.94 11.76 11.76 23.53 100 29.17 4.17 16.67 50.00 100 42.11 8.77 10.53 38.60 100 17.02 10.64 14.89 57.45 100 20.00 0.00 40.00 40.00 100 32.67 8.67 14.00 44.67 100

7 Availability and cost of labour 47.06 23.53 11.76 17.65 100 45.83 4.17 16.67 33.33 100 50.88 12.28 22.81 14.04 100 23.40 14.89 27.66 34.04 100 40.00 20.00 40.00 0.00 100 40.67 13.33 22.67 23.33 100

8 Any other 11.76 5.88 0.00 82.35 100 4.17 8.33 12.50 75.00 100 14.04 0.00 1.75 84.21 100 6.38 0.00 4.26 89.36 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 9.33 2.00 4.00 84.67 100

B.

1 Seed quality 29.41 35.29 23.53 11.76 100 20.83 33.33 25.00 20.83 100 14.04 31.58 29.82 24.56 100 12.77 31.91 27.66 27.66 100 0.00 20.00 40.00 40.00 100 16.00 32.00 28.00 24.00 100

2 Input delivery 41.18 35.29 11.76 11.76 100 12.50 37.50 16.67 33.33 100 19.30 24.56 21.05 35.09 100 6.38 17.02 36.17 40.43 100 0.00 0.00 40.00 60.00 100 16.00 24.67 24.67 34.67 100




6 Access to credit 52.94 11.76 11.76 23.53 100 29.17 4.17 16.67 50.00 100 40.35 8.77 12.28 38.60 100 17.02 12.77 14.89 55.32 100 20.00 0.00 40.00 40.00 100 32.00 9.33 14.67 44.00 100


8 Any other 11.76 5.88 0.00 82.35 100 4.17 8.33 12.50 75.00 100 12.28 0.00 5.26 82.46 100 6.38 0.00 4.26 89.36 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 8.67 2.00 5.33 84.00 100

C.

1 Seed quality 35.29 29.41 11.76 23.53 100 20.83 29.17 16.67 33.33 100 15.79 31.58 28.07 24.56 100 14.89 25.53 34.04 25.53 100 0.00 20.00 40.00 40.00 100 18.00 28.67 26.67 26.67 100

2 Input delivery 47.06 29.41 5.88 17.65 100 16.67 33.33 12.50 37.50 100 21.05 21.05 17.54 40.35 100 6.38 21.28 29.79 42.55 100 0.00 0.00 40.00 60.00 100 18.00 23.33 20.00 38.67 100




6 Access to credit 47.06 17.65 5.88 29.41 100 29.17 4.17 16.67 50.00 100 40.35 8.77 8.77 42.11 100 17.02 12.77 14.89 55.32 100 20.00 0.00 40.00 40.00 100 31.33 10.00 12.67 46.00 100


8 Any other 17.65 0.00 0.00 82.35 100 4.17 8.33 12.50 75.00 100 12.28 1.75 3.51 82.46 100 6.38 0.00 4.26 89.36 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 9.33 2.00 4.67 84.00 100

Source: Field survey

Kharif fodder

Rabi fodder

Summer fodder

Medium Large OverallNo. Particulares

Marginal Small Semi-Medium

140

5. Problems related to technical knowledge:

In all three seasons, nearly 65 percent of sample farmers reported that they lack adequate

technical knowledge about the new improved varieties of fodder crops. Further, they have no

knowledge about the cost efficient ways of tackling plant diseases and use of right type

insecticides / pesticides. According to majority sample farmers neither government extension

agencies nor representative of district level dairy co-operative had provided any technical

guidance at different stages of the fodder crops. The fellow farmers provided necessary help and

guidance to solve the problems when arised. Majority farmers found lacking technical

knowledge on preparing balance feeds for their livestock.

6. Problems related to access to credit:

The problems of access to credit not relate to only fodder crops. It relate to cultivation of

all crops. Generally, farmers have high preference to invest their own financial resources on

cereals and cash crops. Hence, for growing fodder crops for marketing purpose, financial

resources available with farmers are less. Therefore, some farmers require credit support from

institutional sources. Owing to low credit worthiness, they find it difficult to avail credit from

institutional sources with ease. Also, private money lender not prefers to give credit for growing

fodder crops. Further, they are charging very high rate of interest. Looking to the net return from

fodder crops, such high interest rate are non affordable to farmers. The problems of access to

credit found more for small land holders and relatively less for large land holders. The intensity

of problem of access to credit found almost same in different seasons.

7. Problems related to labour:

Among all problems, timely availability of human / machine labour at reasonable rate

was the major problem for cultivation of fodder and other crops. In all three seasons, more than

75.00 percent of sample households faced the problem of non-availability of adequate labour

force when needed. At peak period, shortage of labour turned more acute and labour wage rates

went up. In summer, owing to migration and MNREGA works, shortage of human labour felt on

large scale and labour rates also moved up. As a result, cost of cultivation of crops also moved

up. This problem is not associated with only fodder crops. This problem relate to cultivation of

all crops. All categories of farmers are facing problem of non-availability of adequate human /

machine labour at critical stages of crops with reasonable / normal labour rates.

141

Table 7.2: Problems related to the marketing of fodder crops- Perception of sample households (% of total sample HHs.)

High Medium Low None Total High Medium Low None Total High Medium Low None Total High Medium Low None Total High Medium Low None Total High Medium Low None Total

A.

1 Marketing information 0.00 0.00 11.76 88.24 100 4.17 12.50 8.33 75.00 100 1.75 7.02 1.75 89.47 100 0.00 10.64 2.13 87.23 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 1.33 8.00 4.00 86.67 100 0

2 Output price related problems 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 12.50 0.00 87.50 100 0.00 3.51 0.00 96.49 100 2.13 0.00 0.00 97.87 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.67 3.33 0.00 96.00 100 0

3 Packing material 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 4.17 4.17 91.67 100 0.00 1.75 0.00 98.25 100 0.00 0.00 2.13 97.87 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 1.33 1.33 97.33 100 0

4 Packaging 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 1.75 0.00 98.25 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.67 0.00 99.33 100 0

5 Transportation 0.00 5.88 0.00 94.12 100 0.00 25.00 4.17 70.83 100 1.75 7.02 1.75 89.47 100 4.26 8.51 0.00 87.23 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 2.00 10.00 1.33 86.67 100 0

6 Delay in the payments 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0

7 Marketing costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0

8 Other stroage facilities 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 4.17 0.00 95.83 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.67 0.00 99.33 100 0

9 Role of intermediaries 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 2.13 0.00 97.87 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.67 0.00 99.33 100 0

10 Any other 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0

B.




4 Packaging 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 1.75 0.00 98.25 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.67 0.00 99.33 100 0

5 Transportation 0.00 5.88 0.00 94.12 100 4.17 20.83 4.17 70.83 100 1.75 7.02 1.75 89.47 100 4.26 8.51 0.00 87.23 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 2.67 9.33 1.33 86.67 100 0


7 Marketing costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0



10 Any other 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0

C.




4 Packaging 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 1.75 0.00 98.25 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.67 0.00 99.33 100 0

5 Transportation 0.00 5.88 0.00 94.12 100 4.17 20.83 4.17 70.83 100 3.51 5.26 1.75 89.47 100 4.26 8.51 0.00 87.23 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 3.33 8.67 1.33 86.67 100 0


7 Marketing costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0



10 Any other 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0

Source: Field survey

Rabi fodder

Summer fodder

Kharif fodder

Medium Large Overall Local

trader/Forwarding/

commission

agent/Processor

No. Particulares

Marginal Small Semi-Medium

142

7.2 Marketing problems

In study areas, fodder crops are grown mainly for home consumption. As such fodder

markets have not developed and no regular market channel exist. Small scale fodder / grass

marketing take place in the rural areas, where few farmers sell surplus quantity of fodder to

needy cattle owners especially landless and marginal farmers. Generally, demand of dry and

green fodder is met from within the village or nearby villages. Further, fodder being low value

high volume produce, it is costly to transport and hence normally consumed locally. During the

year, not a single sample farmer involved in marketing process of fodder crops. Hence, opinions

expressed by them on problems of marketing of fodder are based on their past experience.

The opinions received from sample farmers on problems of marketing of fodder crops

are presented in Table 7.2. As more than 86.00 percent of sample households were not involved

with marketing of fodder crops, they are not in position to inform about the problems they faced

while marketing of fodder production. Therefore, they reported no problem. The data exhibit

that by and large they do not faced problems related to output price, payment, packing,

marketing costs, storage and role of intermediateries. Few households reported problems in

respect of non-availability of market information in time and transport facility at reasonable rate.

As fodder being high volume low value crop, transporting of fodder has become very costly.

Hence, demand of fodder not coming from the distant places. Across different seasons, problems

relating to marketing of fodder not varying much.

7.3 Conclusion:

As per views of sample households, for production of fodder crops, they faced number of

problems. Among problems, the non-availability of human / machine labour at critical stages of

crop, high labour rates, no easy access to credit and higher expenditure for production were the

major problems. They also faced the problems of quality seeds, spurious insecticides / pesticides

and higher prices of seeds. In study area, fodder crops are grown mainly for home consumption.

Hence, very small scale fodder / grass marketing take place in study areas. Here, few farmers

who have surplus quantity of fodder sell it to needy cattle owners especially landless and

marginal farmers having dairy animals. Generally, demand of dry and green fodder is met from

within village. Fodder being high volume and low value produce, it is costly to transport and

hence normally consumed locally or by surrounding villages. Main problem they are facing in

respect of marketing of fodder crops is non-availability of market information in time and

adequate transport facility at reasonable rate.

**************

143

Chapter-8

Summary and Conclusions

8.1 Introduction

India is basically an agricultural country and nearly three-fourth population depends

on agriculture, livestock and allied sectors. Livestock sector play a multifaceted role in the

rural economy of the country. Apart from significant contribution to agricultural economy, it

provides livelihood support, social and financial security to millions of rural households. It is

also a major supplier of draught power and manures for crop production. It also provides

balance and cheap nutritional food in the form of milk. Traditionally, in country as well as

Gujarat, agriculture and livestock are intertwining in such a manner that it ensures sustainable

livelihood to large rural population even during sub-normal rainfall / scarcity years.

Therefore, rapid growth of livestock sector is most desirable not only to sustain agriculture

growth but also to eradicate rural poverty especially of landless and small farmers. Keeping

this pro-poor nature of agriculture and livestock sector in view, Eleventh Five Year Plan

targeted 4 percent annual growth for agriculture and emphasized livestock sector as a most

important driving force of this targeted growth.

The growth of livestock sector has been much faster than crop sector. The share of

livestock sector at current prices in agriculture jumped from 13.88 percent in 1980-81 to

29.63 percent in 2008-09.

Although India has the largest livestock population in the world, the productivity of

milk and other livestock products per animal is very low. Uptill now, the growth attained in

livestock sector has been attributed mainly to increase in animal numbers and to a little extent

on productivity enhancement. Owing to severe problem of fodder and feed shortage in the

country, the future growth in livestock has to sustain primarily on enhancement of animal

productivity. One of the main reasons for low productivity of livestock is malnutrition, under-

nutrition or both, besides the low genetic potential of the animals. The economic viability of

livestock husbandry heavily depends on sources of feed and fodder as feeding cost account

for about 65 to 70 percent of the total cost of livestock farming. The adequate supply of

nutritive feed and fodder is a crucial factor impacting the productivity, performance and

health of the animals.

Development and growth of livestock are conditioned by the availability of fodder

from arable and forest land. The feed given to cattle comprises of dry-fodder, green fodder

144

and concentrates. Currently, in the country very huge gap exists between requirement and the

actual availability of feed and fodder. The deficiency is more conspicuous in arid and semi-

arid regions. As per the Planning Commission, GoI, for year 2010, the deficit gap of

availability vis-à-vis the requirement of green fodder was of 62.76 percent for green fodder,

23.46 percent for dry fodder and more than 30 percent for concentrates. The shift in crop-

pattern from food crops to cash/commercial crops has also contributed towards reduced

production of by-products (dry fodder) which widens further the deficiency gap of fodder.

The deficit-gap varies across states and found more chronic in arid and semi-arid states.

Owing to severe shortage of feed and fodder and its higher prices, India’s livestock

population suffers from underfeeding problem. Ensuring an adequate supply of reasonable

quality feeds and fodder to livestock sector is one of the major challenges faced by India

where dairying is largely the avocation of poor, especially women. While there is some

debate on size of current deficit, there is general agreement that the quantity and quality of

feed and fodder supply will be of vital importance in sustaining the growth of livestock sector

in the coming years.

The costs and returns analysis for various fodder crops will be helpful to examine the

relative profitability of these crops in the region. The farmers will get the remunerative prices

for their surplus produce only when the effective and efficient processing and marketing

system of fodder and feed is in place.

With this in view, the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of

Agriculture, Government of India asked Agro-Economic Research Centre, Vallabh

Vidyanagar, Gujarat to undertake this study for Gujarat state with the objectives shown

below.

8.2 Objectives of the study

The following are the specific objectives of the study:

1. To study the status of fodder crops cultivated in the state;

2. To estimate the costs of production and returns associated with the cultivation of

important fodder crops;

3. To examine the present processing and marketing system of fodder crops and to

estimate costs and returns across different channels of fodder crops;

4. To identify the processing and marketing system and to estimate the costs and returns

at each link for these fodder crops;

5. To study the problems faced by the producers in production, marketing and

processing of these fodder crops and remedial measures thereof.

145

8.3 Selection of sample districts/blocks/villages and crops

The study is based on both primary as well as secondary data. The primary data were

collected for agricultural year 2008-09.

As per sampling design provided by the coordinator centre, AERC, Ludhiana, 3

districts of the state having highest population of the livestock were selected for the study.

From each of selected district, two blocks using distance criteria were selected purposively.

One block near and second block far from district headquarter and have large area under

study crops were selected purposively (Table 8.1).

Table: 8.1 List of Selected Districts, Tehsil and Villages

Sr.

No. Districts

Blocks

/Tehsils Selected Villages

Nos.of selected HHs.

1. Panchmahals Godhra Veganpur, Odidra, Motikantadi, Vinzhol 25

Lunawada Untadi, Vardhari,Vaadi,Paanch Mahudia 25

2. Sabarkantha Himmatnagar Dalpur, Deshashan, Hadiyol, Katwal (Hapa) 25

Ider Badoli, Godhamaji, Poshina, Mota Kotada 25

3. Banaskantha Palanpur Khodala,Kushkal,Chadotar,Madana(Gadh) 25

Kankrej Khodala, Dungrasan, Khasa, Chekhala,

Adhgam

25

On the basis of discussion with concern agriculture Officers at block level, four to five

villages were selected from each selected block. The numbers of villages selected from each

blocks varied keeping in view the availability of adequate number of sample farmers growing

selected fodder crops. From each selected block/tehsil, total 25 sample farmers growing study

crops were selected at random. The selected farmers were of different farm size categories i.e.

marginal (<1 hect.), small (1-2 hect.), semi-medium (2-4 hect.), medium (4-10 hect.) and

large (>10 hect.) and representing different social strata. Thus, from each selected district

total 50 sample farmers (grower of study crops) and altogether 150 (50X3=150) sample

households from three selected districts were selected for primary survey of the study. The

list of selected districts, blocks and villages is shown in Table 8.1. With a view to study

different stages of fodder processing to assess the cost involved at each stage of fodder

processing and to estimate costs and returns across the marketing channel of fodder, total four

processors and two local traders were also selected at random from the selected districts.

In Gujarat, during Kharif season, generally farmers are not growing pure fodder

crops. Therefore, we selected the most important foodgrain crop (whose by product/residue is

146

used as fodder) as study crop for Kharif season. Accordingly, maize grain (for Panchmahals

and Sabarkantha districts) and bajra grain (for Banaskantha district) crops were selected as

study crops for kharif season. Lucerne was selected as study crop for rabi season and bajra

crop for summer season.

8.4 About selected districts

The climate of all three selected districts is characterized by a hot summer and

dryness in non-rainy season. Owing to scanty and erratic rainfall, frequent drought conditions

appearing in selected districts. This is causing adverse impact directly on prospect of

agriculture, fodder production and livestock sector. Majority rural households are engaged in

agriculture and dairy farming. Their livelihood security is highly dependent on agriculture

and livestock farming. Rural women of Banaskantha and Sabarkantha districts are actively

associated with dairy activities and generating good income. Both districts have well

developed co-operative dairy network and leading producer of milk in the state. All three

districts are facing problem of high incidence of poverty, low employment opportunities,

acute shortage of water resources and limited irrigation facilities, frequent droughts and

distress migration of big livestock holders. In all three districts, owing to poor management

and maintenance, productivity of pasture and grazing land is very low. The grazing facility

available to animals is on very limited scale. The livestock sector in these districts is facing

severe shortage of feed and fodder which directly impacting adversely on growth of livestock

sector.

8.5 Livestock resources

India has vast resource of livestock, which play a vital role in improving the socio-

economic conditions of the rural masses. India ranks first in respect of cattle and buffalo, 2nd

in goats, 3rd

in sheep and 7th

in poultry population in the world. India has 57% of the world's

buffalo population.

In total livestock population of the country, the percent share of Gujarat remained

around 4 percent during last four to five decades. Overall, the livestock population (2007) of

Gujarat was 23789 thousands and it increased at an average annual growth rate (AAGR) of

1.79 percent during period 1997-2007 (Table 8.2). From 26 districts of Gujarat state,

livestock population in 13 districts registered higher AAGR than state and 5 districts showed

negative AAGR during 1997-2007 (Table 8.2). The cattle population in Gujarat was 7977

thousands and during 1997-2007, it increased at AAGR of 1.68 percent. Compared to state

147

AAGR for total cattle, 11 districts showed higher AAGR and 3districts showed negative

AAGR. Among different categories of bovine animals, average annual growth rate (AAGR)

Table: 8.2 Livestock Population of Gujarat State-2007 (Figures in '000)

Sr.

No. Items

Population

('000)

AAGR (2007

over 1997)

for state

Nos. of Districts with

AAGR

higher

than state

AAGR

lower

than state

Negative

AAGR

to state

1. Total Livestock 23789 1.79 13 8 5

2. Total Cattle 7977 1.68 11 12 3

3. Total Buffaloes 8774 3.39 8 17 1 Source: Bulletin of Animal Husbandry and Dairying Statistics 2008-09 and Livestock Census 1997, Director of Animal Husbandry,

Krishibhavan, Gandhinagar. Statistical Abstract of Gujarat State 1998, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Government of Gujarat, Gandhinagar.

was found highest for buffaloes. As per 2007 census, the buffaloes population in Gujarat was

8774 thousands and it increased with AAGR of 3.39 percent during 1997-2007. Compared to

state AAGR of buffaloes population, 8 districts recorded higher AAGR and 1 (Navsari)

district showed negative AAGR. Among different breeds of buffaloes, Mehsani breed is most

popular in selected districts as well as state. The population of Horses, Sheep and Camels

decreased during 1997-2007 period. The population of goats increased marginally during this

period.

8.6 Fodder scenario in Gujarat

In state, the area under fodder crops remained more or less static between 12 to 13

lakh hectares (11 to 12 % of GCA) during 1989-2005. Owing to significant increase in

bovine cattle population and nearly static area under fodder crops during last two decades,

gap between supply and demand of fodder is widening year after year. This declining / static

trend in fodder area in the state is one of the main causes affecting adversely on the growth of

fodder production and limiting the development of livestock sector in Gujarat.

Crop-pattern data of state reveals that Kutch (17.00%), Banaskantha (13.84%), Patan

(9.21%) and Ahmedabad (8.88%) districts are major fodder growing districts. In 6 districts of

the state, area devoted to pure fodder crops was less than one percent of GCA and hence

livestock in these districts are more dependent on dry-fodder and open grazing. These

districts are facing severe shortage of green fodder. In state, lucerne, jowar, maize,

bajra, groundnut, guar and pulses are grown as green fodder crops. Maize,

bajra, jowar, paddy, wheat and pulses are grown as grain crops but providing crop-residues

(straw) which are used as dry fodder. In study districts, bajra, maize, paddy, wheat are

important cereal crops which provides fodder residues.

148

In state as well as selected districts, public sources of fodder supply are gauchar,

pasture lands, trees and grass on wastelands.

According to Advisory Committee (2010), Planning Commission, GoI, Gujarat state

is suffering from huge deficit of green fodder and concentrates. The estimate show that for

Gujarat, deficit of green fodder is being expected to move up from 28.92 percent in year

2009-10 to 34.37 percent in 2014-15. The deficit of concentrates is likely to increase from

73.65 percent in 2009-10 to 75.79 percent in 2014-15. The availability of dry-fodder in state

at present is little surplus. Fodder deficit can mainly be attributed to almost nil increase in

area under fodder crops, increase in livestock population, shift in crop-pattern in favour of

cash crops, limited availability of good fodder hybrid varieties, lack of quality of seeds of

improved varieties, poor quality of dry-fodder like paddy / wheat straw etc. and lack of care

and maintenance and overgrazing of gauchar and pasture land.

8.7 Major findings of the study

1. Land holding, farm implements and livestock resources

i. Average land holding for marginal farmers was 0.70 ha., for small farmers 1.48 ha., for

semi-medium farmers 2.63 ha., for medium farmers 5.64 ha. and for large farmers 12.37

ha.

ii. The density of bovines’ animal/ha. of operational land found highest at 7.73 animals for

marginal farmers and this gets declining as the farm size increases. It implies that more

intensive dairy farming was adopted by marginal farmers.

iii. Chaff cutter is one of the important instruments for livestock rearing / dairy enterprise.

It is used for straw cutting into small pieces for feeding livestock and it helps in

digestion of feeds and preventing wastage of fodder. Very thin distribution of chaff

cutter observed among all categories of sample farmers.

iv. Medium farmers had the maximum population of bovine i.e.16.62 per HHs. whereas

marginal farmers had the least i.e.5.41 per HHs. Now a day, milk production has

become commercial activity and hence practice of keeping better breed milch animals

increased to a great extent. Farmers have high preference for rearing crossbreed cattle

and hence proportion of rearing indigenous cattle is decreasing every year. About 86

percent of the adult in milk cows were crossbreed. Due to higher feeding cost, bullock

keeping becomes uneconomical. Hence, bullock’s population is declining every year.

Draught power has been replaced by tractors and machineries. Overall, on an average,

value of total livestock per sample HHs. was Rs.173608. It was lowest at Rs.83324 for

149

marginal farmers and highest at Rs.268170 for medium farmers. Average cost of adult

female crossbreed in milk cow was Rs. 58307 whereas it was Rs.56107 for in-milk

adult female buffalo.

2. Status of area, production and yield of fodder crops

i. Of the total cropped area (GCA), sample farmers devoted 21.93 percent area to pure

fodder crops (green fodder) such as lucerne, maize, bajra, sorghum (jowar) and grass. In

kharif, of the net cropped area, 21.91 percent devoted to pure fodder crops. It was 17.83

percent in rabi and 36.34 percent in summer. The maize, bajra, paddy and wheat were

important cereal crops whose by-product / straw / crop residues are used as dry fodder

for feeding livestock. Of the GCA, area devoted to these crops was about 30 to 40

percent. Generally, pure fodder crops in rabi and summer season are grown under

irrigated condition. Hence, due to fluctuating rainfall and limited irrigation, area under

pure fodder crops remained at low. Therefore, green fodder supply remained short in

study areas.

ii. As compared to 10 years before i.e.1998-99, majority sample farmers reported marginal

increase in area under bajra, maize, paddy and wheat in year 2008-09. These crops have

better fodder value (dry fodder). However, as compared to base year 1998-99, area

under guar seed and cow-pea declined in 2008-09. During same period, area under

lucerne showed somewhat increase whereas due to crop diversification, area under

summer bajra showed marginal decline.

iii. Overall, the production of green fodder as well as of dry fodder increased in the

reference year 2008-09 as compared to base year 1998-99. The increase in fodder

production was a result of many factors such as increase in area under crops, yield

improvement, better agronomic practices, higher use of HYV seeds, efficient use of

irrigation etc. The majority sample farmers reported increase in production of fodder

from lucerne, sorghum, maize, bajra, paddy and wheat crops. However, they reported

decline in production of fodder from cowpea and guar crops.

iv. The majority sample households reported improvement in fodder yield for lucerne,

wheat, bajra, maize and sorghum in 2008-09 compared to it in 1998-99. The yield

improvement was a result of multiple factors. However, decline in yield was reported

for cow-pea crop.

150

3. Milk production

About 54.13 percent cow owners and 39.58 percent of the buffalo owners reported

good improvement in the milk yield in reference year (2008-09) as compared to the base year

(1998-99). However, improvement in milk yield was lower than expectation. The

improvement in milk yield was due to improvement in the quality and breed of milch

animals, better feeding and rearing practices and easy availability of veterinary services.

4. Feeding practices

The most popular practice of feeding livestock is a combination of both, stall feeding

and grazing. Among the indigenous cow owners, 59.04 percent opted for open grazing in the

morning and stall feeding to animals in the evening. About 39.76 percent indigenous cow

owners reported stall feeding to animals during the entire year. The examination of feeding

pattern reveals that about 75.00 percent large farmers are following stall feeding whereas

only 25.00 percent each of marginal and small farmers follow stall feeding. It indicates

positive correlation between farm size and proportion of stall feeding.

A crossbreed cows are highly productive and valuable to farmers. Hence, about 75.28

percent crossbreed cow owners adhere to only stall feeding whereas 24.72 percent followed

combination of both, stall feeding and open grazing. None of crossbreed young stock owners

send their animals for open grazing.

In case of buffaloes, about 66.41 percent farmers followed only stall feeding and

33.59 percent farmers followed combination of both, stall feeding and grazing.

5. Feeding composition

The availability of fodder varies across seasons. The livestock owners adopted

feeding practices and feeding composition taking into consideration the availability of fodder

and feeds and type of animal. The feeding composition also varies according to category of

farmers, economical condition of farmers and type of animal. The major green fodder used

were bajra, maize, lucerne, green grass and sorghum and major dry fodder were bajra straw,

maize straw, jowar straw, wheat straw and paddy straw. Major grains used to feed animals

were bajra and wheat. Concentrates mainly comprised of dairy cattle feeds and oilcakes of

cotton and groundnut.

From the data on feeding composition for different categories of livestock adopted by

sample farmers across different seasons, following important observations are emerging.

i. Among different categories of animals, an average quantity of feed and fodder given

per animal per day was highest for in-milk crossbreed cow followed by in-milk

151

buffaloe. For in-milk crossbreed cow, it was 31.55 kg. in kharif, 32.52 kg. in winter

and 26.36 kg. in summer. For in-milk buffalo, it was 23.59 kg. in kharif, 25.40 kg. in

winter and 21.18 kg. in summer.

ii. Across seasons, total quantity of feeds and fodder fed to different categories of

livestock found lowest in summer season. Except few cases, it was found highest for

winter season. For example, crossbreed cow was fed per day per animal 31.55 kg. in

kharif, 32.52 kg. in winter and 26.36 kg. in summer season.

iii. In all seasons, in-milk animals were fed higher quantity of feed and fodder compared

to dry-animals of same category.

iv. Overall, indigenous cows were fed less quantity of feed and fodder in all seasons as

compared to cross-breed cows.

v. As compared to in-milk bovine animals, decline in use of green-fodder, grain and

concentrates was observed for dry bovines.

vi. Bullocks were fed relatively more dry fodder and less green fodder in all seasons.

vii. Goats were mostly dependent on grazing. In rainy season, none of the goat owners fed

any feed and fodder to their goats.

viii. Major green fodder used to feed animals were lucerne, bajra, maize, sorghum (jowar)

and maize. Major dry fodders were wheat straw, bajra straw, paddy straw and maize

straw. Wheat and bajra were major grains used to feed animals. Concentrates mainly

comprised of dairy cattle feeds (Amuldan, Sabardan), Oilcakes of cotton and

groundnut etc.

ix. An average quantity of feed and fodder fed to animals found less than the

recommended quantity by Department of Animal Husbandry of the state.

6. Cost of cultivation of fodder crops

Area allocation to different crops including fodder crops highly depends upon rainfall

pattern, availability of water and farmer’s requirement of fodder. In study districts, maize,

bajra and lucerne are grown as pure green fodder crops. Also, maize, bajra, paddy and wheat

are grown as grain crops whose by-product (crop residues/straw) is used as dry-fodder for

feeding animals. It is store in the form of bundles or hay. In scarcity years, maize and bajra

grown as grain crops virtually become fodder crops.

For cost of cultivation, only variable costs are considered. The average cost of

cultivation (variable cost) per hectare was highest at Rs. 31372 for rabi lucerne, followed by

Rs.25075 for summer lucerne and Rs. 18560 for summer bajra cereal crop (Table 8.3). It was

152

Rs. 15107 and Rs.14101 for kharif maize grain and bajra grain crops (Table 8.3). Owing to

irrigation cost, cost of cultivation was higher for summer bajra than kharif bajra crop. For

lucerne, in total cost of cultivation, share of seed cost was highest and it was around 34

percent. Overall, human labour, machine labour, FYM and fertiliser were the major

contributors in total cost of cultivation. For irrigated crops, irrigation cost was also an

important cost (Table 8.3).

Table: 8.3 Per Hectare Cost of Cultivation (variable cost) (Rs. / Ha.)

Particulars

Kharif Crop Rabi Crop Summer Crop

Maize Grain Bajra Grain Lucerne Lucerne Bajra Grain

1. Human labour

i) Hired 3769 (24.9) 2057 (14.6) 1850 (5.9) 669 (2.7) 3147 (17.0)

ii) Family 1178 (7.8) 1923 (13.6) 3913 (12.5) 4291 (17.1) 1930 (10.4)

Total Human

labour 4947 (32.7) 3980 (28.2) 5763 (18.4) 4961 (19.8) 5077 (27.4)

2.Machine labour 3045 (20.2) 2791 (19.8) 3714 (11.8) 1466 (5.8) 3031 (16.3)

3.Seed 1612 (10.7) 876 (6.2) 10619 (33.8) 8667 (34.6) 813 (4.4)

4.FYM 2241 (14.8) 3474 (24.6) 2640 (8.4) 1933 (7.7) 2070 (11.2)

5.Fertilzer 2233 (14.8) 2667 (18.9) 2340 (7.5) 2249 (9.0) 2204 (11.9)

6.Plant protection measures

287 (1.9) 13 (0.1) 338 (1.1) 494 (2.0) 202 (1.1)

7.Irrigation 494 (3.3) 69 (0.5) 5443 (17.3) 4895 (19.5) 4860 (26.2)

8.Misc.expenses 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)

9.Total (1 to 8) 14859 (98.4) 13870 (98.4) 30857 (98.4) 24664 (98.4) 18256 (98.4)

10.Interest on working capital

248 (1.6) 231 (1.6) 514 (1.6) 411 (1.6) 304 (1.6)

11. Total variable

cost (9+10) 15107 (100.0) 14101 (100.0) 31372 (100.0) 25075 (100.0) 18560 (100.0)


7. Economics of fodder crops vis-à-vis competing crops

The magnitude of change in area under fodder crops depends on net return from

grown fodder crops as a substitute for other competing crops. With this in view, net return

from selected fodder crops vis-à-vis its competing crops given in Table 8.4.

In kharif season, net return per hectare for maize cereal crop comes to Rs. 32775

which was higher by Rs.10821 compared to net return of Rs. 21954 for maize grown as pure

green fodder. Similarly, compared to bajra green fodder crop, net return per hectare was

higher by Rs. 11187 for bajra grown as cereal crop (Table 8.4).

In rabi season, net return per hectare was Rs. 13828 for lucerne whereas it was Rs.

33922 for competing crop wheat (Table 8.4).

153

In summer season, net return for study crop lucerne was only Rs. 6569 whereas it was

Rs. 16246 for competing crop jowar / sorghum grown as green fodder crop.

Table: 8.4 Economics of Fodder Crops vis-à-vis competing crops (Rs. /Ha.)

(1) Kharif Crop (Maize Green Fodder)

(i) Total Gross Value of MP+BP (Rs. /Ha.) 38176

(ii) Total Variable Cost (Rs. /Ha.) 16222

(iii) Net Return Over Variable Cost (i-ii) (Rs. /Ha.) 21954

(2) Kharif Crop (Maize) (MP+BP)




(3) Kharif Crop (Bajra) (MP+BP)




(4) Competing Kharif Crop (Paddy Crop) (MP+BP)




(5) Rabi Crop (Lucerne Fodder)




(6) Competing Rabi Crop (Wheat Crop) (MP+BP)




(7) Summer Crop (Bajra Crop) (MP+BP)




(8) Summer Crop (Lucerne)




(9) Competing Summer Crop (Bajra Green Fodder)




(10) Competing Summer Crop (Jowar / Sorghum Green Fodder)



(iii) Net Return Over Variable Cost (i-ii) (Rs. /Ha.) 16246 Source: Field Survey

154

The above data established that cultivation of maize, bajra and lucerne is less

profitable when they are grown as green fodder crops. The cultivation of bajra, maize and

wheat are more profitable when they are grown as cereal crops as by-product (straw) of these

crops are fetching good market price. Owing to less favourable economics of net returns,

farmers have less preference for growing green fodder crops. They are growing green fodder

on very limited areas to meet their own requirement. They are not interested in growing green

fodder for marketing purpose. Due to relatively higher returns, they have high preference for

cash crops and cereal crops such as bajra, maize, wheat and paddy whose by-product is used

as dry-fodder. This attitude of farmers of Gujarat is largely responsible for chronic shortage

of green fodder.

8. Marketing and processing of fodder crops

In Gujarat, organised fodder markets have not developed. Hence there is no regular

market channel. Small scale fodder/grass marketing take place in rural areas where producers

having marketable surplus fodder, sell some quantity of fodder to needy cattle owners

especially landless, marginal and small dairy farmers. In normal years, fodder/grass are

marketed locally. Generally, demand for green and dry fodder in a village is met from within

village. As fodder being high volume low value, less remunerative and bulky product,

transportation for long distance become very costly and non-affordable. Hence sell of

fodder/grass take place either within village or in nearby villages. In some cases, surplus

green fodder is sold as standing crop on area basis. Sometimes labour gets fodder as wages in

kind. Surplus dry straw is sold either in bundles or weight basis. The marketing of fodder gets

impetus during scarcity/famine period. Fodder/ grass are generally sold by producers either

directly to consumers or through local traders to consumers. In Gujarat, marketing channels

namely Producers-Local Traders-Consumers is operating on a small scale. Local traders

operate within small radius covering few villages.

Not a single sample household had disposed/ sold fodder production during reference

year. Hence, disposal pattern of sample households not examined here.

9. Marketing costs, margins and price spread of fodder crops

During survey, we come across only one marketing channel for fodder namely

Producers-Local Traders-Consumers. In this channel local trader incurred marketing

expenses mainly on transportation and loading/unloading of fodder. No spending on chaffing

and packing of fodder. Total marketing cost was born by local trader (purchase).

155

The data clearly reveals that transportation and marketing costs per Qtl. remained

around Rs.23 in all the three season. These costs were borne by local traders. However,

purchase price and sell price of fodder was lowest in kharif season and highest in summer

season. The consumer’s price was Rs. 300/Qtl. in kharif and it touched to Rs. 400/Qtl. in

summer. The net profit margin of local trader on consumer’s price was highest at Rs.

52.31(9.17%) in rabi season and lowest at Rs. 26.67 (8.9 %) in kharif season.

10. Fodder storage and processing

Fodder can be preserve/store in the green form as silage or in dry form as hay. In

Gujarat, large dairy farmers are following practice of hay making. Silage making and

processing of fodder is on negligible scale and not common. In kharif 65 sample households,

in rabi 8 sample households and in summer 35 households prepared hay of fodder. They

make hay either in godown/farmhouses or in open ground. Not a single sample household

opted for silage making during reference year.

All farmers were found using plastic/tarpaulin sheet to cover hay. This practice saves

the hay from development of moulds. Few small/marginal farmers were also found covering

hay with stitched plastic fertilizer bags. Chemical like, BHC/Gamxene/Phorate were used by

one fourth hay making households to prevent the damage caused by insects and pests. Many

farmers said that they avoided use of chemical as it changes the smell and taste of fodder and

the bovines do not prefer this kind of smell of fodder.

The fodder storage capacity and fodder quantity stored generally (except few cases)

increased with the increase in farm size group. The fodder was stored maximum for 140 days

and minimum for 46 days. The storage cost per Qtl. per month range from Rs. 2.30 to Rs.

3.30 in kharif, Rs. 3.00 to 3.10 in rabi and Rs. 2.90 to Rs. 3.40 in summer. Average quantity

stored per household was 57.91 Qtl. in kharif, 100.93 Qtl. in rabi and only 28.50 Qtl. in

summer. Loss of produce during the storage period ranged from 14.14 percent in kharif to

17.90 percent in summer.

The four fodder processors were selected for study. From these, three processors

prepared silage of 75.00 Qtl. in summer season and stored fodder for 90 days. The storage

area was of 40.00 M3 and cost of storage was around Rs.3.00/Qtl./month. About 5.00 percent

was lost in terms of weight during processing. All processors, used chemical to keep fodder

free from insects and pests. They also used plastic sheet to cover the fodder.

156

11. Post harvesting operational cost of hay making

The cost of harvesting, packing, loading, unloading etc. are operational costs for hay

making. Overall, post harvesting operational costs of processing one quintal fodder was

found highest for summer season. It was Rs. 27.34 for Lucerne and Rs. 27.24 for bajra

fodder. Whereas, processing cost was lowest at Rs. 21.42 for wheat in rabi season. It was Rs.

24.32 and Rs. 24.57 for kharif maize fodder and kharif bajra fodder respectively. Among

various operational costs, share of harvesting in total cost was more than 50.00 percent. The

other major cost items were transportation, loading/unloading and storage. No correlation

found between total operational cost and farm size categories.

12. Problems faced by fodder growers:

As per views of sample farmers, for production and marketing of fodder crops, they

faced number of problems. Among different problems, major problems were as follow:

(i). Nearly 77.33 percent of sample households reported problem of inferior quality of

seeds of fodder crops. Few farmers reported higher payment for lucerne seed owing to

shortage. Nearly 18.00 percent households faced the problem of non-availability of adequate

quantity of required brand HYV seeds of fodder at time when it was needed.

(ii). In selected districts, water resources are scare and irrigation is very costly. Hence,

cost of production of fodder crops goes high in rabi and summer season. This subsequently,

lowered the net return from fodder crops. Non-availability of adequate irrigation restricts

farmers from allocating more areas to fodder crops.

(iii). The rate of human labour and machine labour are very high. Shortage of human

labour was felt at critical stage of crops. As a result, cost of labour went up and ultimately it

enhanced the cost of production. This, in turn, reduced net return from fodder crops.

(iv). In kharif season, more than 72.00 percent sample farmers faced problems related to

insects / pests and plant diseases. The farmer lacks technical knowledge of tackling problem

of pests and plant diseases. Further they reported problem of spurious and adulterated

insecticides / pesticides. This enhanced the cost of production.

(v). Farmers have high preference to invest their own financial resources on cash crops

and cereal crops. Hence, for growing fodder crops for marketing purpose, financial resources

available with them are less. Therefore, some farmers require credit support from

institutional sources. Due to low credit worthiness, they find it difficult to avail credit from

institutional sources. The problem of access to institutional credit found more severe for

marginal and small farmers.

157

(vi). The net return per hectare for growing pure fodder crops is very less compared to

other competing crops. Further, no regulated / organised market for fodder crops. The fodder

being high volume low value crop, it is costly to transport. Owing to these all reasons,

majority farmers are growing fodder crops for home consumption only.

13. Marketing problems

In study areas, fodder crops are grown mainly for home consumption. As such fodder

markets have not developed and no regular market channel exist. Small scale fodder / grass

marketing take place where few farmers having marketable surplus quantity of fodder, sell it

to needy cattle owners. Generally, demand of green and dry fodder is met from within village

or nearby villages. Fodder being low value high volume crop produce, it is costly to transport

and hence consumed locally. During reference year, not a single sample farmer involved in

marketing of fodder crops. On the basis of past experience, few farmers reported problems in

respect of non-availability of market information and transport facility at reasonable rate.

8.8 Policy recommendations

Undoubtedly, quality and quantity of feeds and fodder supply will be of vital

importance in sustaining the growth of livestock sector in the years to come. In country as

well as Gujarat, there exists a huge gap between requirement and the availability of feed and

fodder for livestock. Available supplies in the country can hardly met nearly sixty percent of

present needs and that too with poor quality forage. In this context, for increasing the

production and reducing deficit of feeds and fodder, following recommendations are made.

1. Fodder markets being unorganized and unregulated, fodder production become low

priority enterprise in potential fodder production areas. Also, dry fodder being mainly by-

products from cereal crops, their economics linked with demand and price realisation of

main products. In normal year, there were surplus productions of fodder / grass. Hence,

organizing fodder banks in these areas is suggested. Fodder / grass from surplus

production areas may be stored in these fodder banks in normal years. This would also

give boost to fodder production in potential areas.

2. Non-availability of HYV seeds of fodder crops has been identified as a major constraint

for fodder production. Good quality fodder seeds are not easily available. It is suggested

that government must evolve an arrangement to produce HYV seeds for fodder crops in

adequate quantity and these should be made available at reasonable rate in adequate

quantity to the farmers.

158

3. Net returns per hectare for growing green fodder is very less compared to competing

crops. The net returns from cereal crops whose by-product is used as fodder is higher than

green fodder crops. Hence, shift in crop pattern witnessed in favour of cash crops and

commercial crops. Therefore, there is a need to adopt price mechanism which ensure

higher net return from cereal crops and prevent shift in crop pattern from cereal crops to

cash crops. In view of limited scope of increasing area under fodder crops, there is a need

to local more emphasis on increasing productivity per unit of arable areas and augmenting

forage production from wastelands and culturable waste.

4. Create organised marketing structure in surplus fodder / grass production areas. Also

arrange to provide market information uninterruptly to farmers.

5. The production of grass / fodder can be increase by regeneration of wastelands through

controlled exploitation and growing grass in a systematic manner. The problematic lands

may be treated to make them fit for growing grass. Cultivation of fodder trees on

marginal land and degraded forest areas will be helpful in increasing forage production.

Also encourage silvi-pasture in waste lands. Government may provide organizational and

financial support to individuals for making investment in such treatments.

6. Large quantities of fodder / grass are stored in the open by producers. Fodder / grass

stored in the open are subject to risk of fire, unseasonal rain, higher loss weight, theft etc.

Hence, large producers of fodder / grass should be encouraged to create godown by

providing institutional credit at reasonable rate. They should also be provided bank credit

for growing fodder.

7. A separate feed and fodder development authority should be established within the

Directorate of Animal Husbandry with necessary technical manpower to undertake inter-

agency co-ordination in fodder production, fodder seed production, conservation and

transportation of fodder.

8. The forest grass should be harvested during monsoon season and converted into hay and

packed, compressed and transported to other destinations. This would be helpful in

reducing fodder deficit.

9. The state should develop and maintain pasture and fodder patches along water reservoir,

canals and rivers. Gram panchayat should be encouraged for development of pasture

lands.

159

8.9 Conclusions

The study clearly illustrates that in country as well as Gujarat, large gap exists

between requirement and availability of feed and fodder and fodder scarcity becomes a

challenging issue. Owing to severe deficit of feed and fodder, livestock sector is suffering

from problem of underfeeding. In Gujarat, owing to significant increase in livestock numbers

and limitations to increase area under fodder crops, gap between demand and supply of feed

and fodder is widening year after year. As a result, animals are facing problems of

malnutrition, under nutrition or both. This has an ill effect on the productivity of milch

animals and growth of livestock sector as a whole.

In Gujarat, milk production has become income generating commercial activity.

Owing to higher milk yield and favourable economics, farmers have high preference for

cross-breed cows and buffaloes. Therefore, population of indigenous cow recorded

continuous downtrend. There exist a large scope of increasing cow’s and buffalo’s milk

production through an arrangement of adequate nutritive feed and fodder and genetic

improvement of these animals. Because of high feeding cost and farm mechanisation, to keep

bullocks for farm operation become uneconomical and hence bullock population showed

continuous decline.

The study reveals that production and yield of fodder crops increased in the reference

year 2008-09 compared to base year 1998-99. Compared to 1998-99, the good improvement

was seen in milk yield for cow and buffaloe mainly because of genetical improvement.

However, increase in milk yield was far below the potential. Hence, scientific and sincere

efforts are needed by all concerns for raising the milk yield further and increasing the

profitability of milk producers. In the state, stall feeding largely confined to high yielding

milch animals and work animals. For other animals, combination of stall feeding and grazing

was adopted by farmers for feeding animals.

The study further illustrated that highest quantity of feed and fodder was fed to in-

milk cross-breed cow followed by in-milk buffaloe. Dry and unproductive animals were fed

relatively very less quantity of feed and fodder. Also quantity of green fodder, grain and

concentrates fed to in-milk animals found much higher compared to dry animals. Grain and

concentrates feeding is restricted to lactating high yielding bovines and to bullocks during

working period only. The quantity and quality of feed and fodder fed to animal found lower

than it recommended by Department of Animal Husbandry. Across seasons, quantity of feed

and fodder fed to animal found varying with lowest in summer and highest in winter.

160

The study established that because of comparatively low net return, farmers have least

preference for growing fodder crops and therefore they grow it on a limited scale only to

meet own requirements. They are not growing for commercial purpose. Further, farmers

shifted crop-pattern in favour of cash crops and commercial crops and subsequently area

under fodder remained stable. Therefore, state government must evolve a plan to bring

uncultivated land under fodder crops and to improve the productivity of Gauchar, wastelands

and pasture. Fodder markets being unorganized and unregulated, fodder production is a low

priority enterprise. Fodder being low value high volume produce, it is costly to transport and

hence generally consumed locally. In rural areas, small scale marketing of fodder takes place.

Generally, it is marketed locally or in nearby areas. In the state processing and marketing of

fodder found on a very small scale. Many fodder growers advocated for establishment of

regulated market in each tehsil. Hay making is most popular method for storage of fodder. In

most of the regions of Gujarat, effective and efficient processing and marketing system of

fodder is not in place.

In Gujarat, very little attention paid to post-harvest and storage technology for fodder

crops. In Gujarat, many farmers, especially large dairy farmers have surplus dry fodder.

Hence, government must encourage them for storing fodder through adoption of silage

process.

For production and marketing of fodder, major problems faced by sample farmers

were non-availability of HYV seeds in adequate quantity, low irrigation, low net returns from

fodder crops and non-remunerative prices, unorganized fodder markets, lack of godowns for

storage, weak financial status and low productivity and qualitative deterioration of gauchar,

wasteland and pasture etc.

For accelerating the growth of livestock sector, state government must evolve a plan

to mitigate the major problem of non-availability of quality HYV seeds for various fodder

crops.

The study give clear message that for sustaining the future growth and development

of livestock sector and providing livelihood support to millions of rural people of the state,

ensuring an adequate supply of nutritive feed and fodder will be the key factor. Therefore,

concerted efforts by all concerns are needed to be initiated for strengthening fodder resources

and reducing feed and fodder deficit through introduction of various development

programmers and policy initiatives.

**************

161

References:

1. A.K.Mishra, D.B.V.Raman, M.S.Prasad, Y.S.Ramakrishna “Strategies for forage

production and utilisation, KVK Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture,

Hydrabad-500059.

2. Report of the Working group on Animal Husbandry and Dairying for the 10th

Five

Year Plan (2002-2007), Government of India, Planning Commission, January-2002.

3. Report of the Working group on Animal Husbandry and Dairying for the 11th

Five

Year Plan (2007-2012), Government of India, Planning Commission.

4. Dr M J Bhende, Prof R S Deshpande, Dr P Thippaiah “Evaluation study of Feed and

fodder development under the centrally sponsored schemes In Karnataka”

Agricultural Development & Rural Transformation (ADRT) unit, ISEC, Bangalore.

5. Basic Animal Husbandry Statistics-2010, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying

and Fisheries, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi, Government of India

6. Handbook of Agriculture, Indian Council of Agricultural Research

Pusa, New Delhi-110012.

7. Pratap S Birthal, P Parthasarathy Rao “Technology Options for Sustainable Livestock

Production in India” National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy

Research, New Delhi 110 012.

8. N.G. Hegde, Livestock Development for Sustainable Livelihood of Small Farmers

Souvenir of the 39th Annual General Meeting and 48th National Symposium on

“Energising Rural India – A Challenge to Livestock Industry. Compound Livestock

Feed Manufactures Association of India (CLFMA), Manesar, Haryana. August 26,

2006.

9. Report of The Advisory committee On Animal husbandry & dairying, Volume-I,

Main Report, Planning Commission, Government of India

10. V.P.Sharma, Hrima Thaker “High Growth Trajectory and Structural Changes in

Gujarat Agriculture, Edited by R.Dholkia, Macmillan Publication ltd.

11. Usha Nagpal, Economics of Fodder Crops Cultivation (1981)-A case study of kharif

crops in Sirsa districts of Haryana, Agricultural Economics Research Centre,

University of Delhi.

12. H.Basavaraja and others, Kharif Sorghum in Karnataka: An Economic Analysis,

Agricultural Economics Research Review ,Vol. 18 July-December 2005 pp 223-240

162

13. S.P.Seetharaman and others, Understanding Fodder Marketing- A study in Gujarat,

Centre for Management in Agriculture, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad.

14. V.D.Shah, Production and utilisation pattern of milk at the rural producers’ level in

Gujarat (108), Agro-Economic Research Centre, Sardar Patel University, V.V.Nagar.

15. V.D.Shah and Manish Makwana, Impact of NREGA on wage rates, food security and

rural urban migration in Gujarat state (141), Agro-Economic Research Centre, Sardar

Patel University, V.V.Nagar.

16. http://www.love4cow.com/

163

Annexure-I

Comments offered by Project co-ordinator, AERC, Ludhiana (Punjab).

1. Title of the draft report examined:

Economics of Production, Processing and Marketing of Fodder Cultivation in

Gujarat

2. Date of receipt of the Draft report: Dec. 13, 2011

3. Date of dispatch of the comments: Jan. 3, 2012

4. Comments on the Objectives of the study:

The study addresses all the five objectives set forth for the study.

5. Comments on the methodology

The study has adopted a common methodology proposed for all the coordinating

centres. May be due to some technical reasons, the district-wise livestock analysis

have carried out for the period 1997-2007 as against the proposed period of 1992-

2007. Even district wise analysis for various fodder crops of the state could not be

carried out due to non availability of data.

6. Comments on analysis, organization, presentation etc.

i) Report is analytically good and presents the results in a lucid manner. The text

need to be revisited to make meaningful inferences as well as to rectify

typographical errors: See Page 60, “Of the GCA..”; “Uptill now.. (Page 145). I

strongly suggest that the report should be copy edited before submitting its final

version.

ii) In Table 1.5, for the % change, which base has been taken (1992/1997)? Please

recheck.

iii) In Tables 3.10 to 3.16, the percentage share of each district in total state livestock

population (for each livestock category) may be added.

iv) In Tables 3.13, 3.14 and 3.16, absolute numbers may be provided in place of

rounding in thousands.

v) In table 4.5, the cropping pattern has been provided based on the % to Gross

cropped area. To facilitate uniformity in consolidation of the report, the cropping

pattern may be provided based on the % to Net cropped area.

vi) In Tables 5.1.1 to 5.1.3, it should have been Total variable cost in place of total

cost as mentioned at col. 11.

vii) In Tables 6.2.3 (A) to 6.2.3 (C), the percentage share to consumers’ rupee may be

calculated to draw meaningful information.

viii) In Table 6.3.4, the percentage share of each item in total cost may be calculated

for each category and crop.

ix) The policy section at page 161 needs some elaborations to make the research

report more useful.

7. Overall view on acceptability of report

The report is acceptable after incorporating the above comments.

164

Annexure-II

Actions taken on the comments:

i) Report edited and typographical errors rectified.

ii) In Table 1.5: Table denotes % change over 1997. It is clearly mentioned in the

report.

iii) Table 3.10 to 3.16: As suggested, percentage share of each district in total

livestock population worked out and shown.

iv) Table 3.13, 3.14 and 3.16: Absolute numbers not available in GoG published data.

Data available are rounded in thousands.

v) In Table 4.5, for uniformity in consolidation of the report the cropping pattern

provided in Table 4.5.2 based on % to NCA.

vi) Table 5.1.1 to 5.1.3: Total variable cost shown in row 11.

vii) Table 6.2.3(A) to 6.2.3(C), the percentage share to consumer’s rupee calculated

and shown in tables.

viii) Table 6.3.4: The percentage share of each item in total cost calculated for each

category and crop.

ix) Revised the policy section.

ECONOMICS OF PRODUCTION, PROCESSING AND MARKETING · PDF fileECONOMICS OF PRODUCTION,...

Documents

Transcript of ECONOMICS OF PRODUCTION, PROCESSING AND MARKETING · PDF fileECONOMICS OF PRODUCTION,...