USAID- DRDF Dairy Projectpdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00MH9K.pdf · · 2017-01-13Reasons for...

`

End-line Survey of Extension Phase USAID- DRDF Dairy Project

Final Report

January, 2017

Prepared By

Sustainable Solutions (Pvt.) Ltd.

List of Acronyms

AIT Artificial Insemination Technician

AI Artificial Insemination

BZU Bahawaddin Zakrya University

DRDF Dairy and Rural Development Project

FGD Focus Group Discussion

KII Key Informant Interviews

KG Kilogram

HH Household

NGO Non-Government Organization

USAID United State Agency for International Development

UVAS University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences

WLEW Women Livestock Extension Workers

Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMARY ............................................................................... 1

1. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND ............................................... 5

2. OBJECTIVE & SCOPE OF WORK ................................................... 5

2.1. Objective ........................................................................................... 5

2.2. Scope of Work ..................................................................................... 6

3. METHODOLOGY ....................................................................... 6

3.1. Sampling ............................................................................................ 6

3.2. Instrument Development .......................................................................... 7

4. SURVEY EXECUTION ................................................................. 8

4.1. Field Team Training ......................................................................... 8

4.2. Field Team Deployment and Data Collection .............................................. 8

4.3. Data Validation .............................................................................. 9

4.4. Data Processing / Cleaning ................................................................. 9

4.5. Data Analysis - Report ...................................................................... 9

5. FINDINGS ................................................................................ 10

5.1. Women Livestock Extension Workers (WLEWs)........................................ 10

5.1.1. Respondent Level of Education ...................................................... 10

5.1.2. Respondent Marital Status and age ................................................. 11

5.1.3. Respondent Household Income ...................................................... 11

5.1.4. Distribution of Workers’ Household Income ....................................... 12

5.1.5. Respondent Contribution to Household Income ................................... 12

5.1.6. Possession of Productive Assets ..................................................... 13

5.1.7. Possession of General Assets ......................................................... 14

5.1.8. Workers Household Debt ............................................................. 14

5.1.9. Distribution of Household Expense .................................................. 15

5.1.10. Knowledge of Animals and Diseases ................................................ 16

5.1.11. Training Received by Workers ...................................................... 16

5.1.12. Knowledge of Farm Animal Feed & Nutrition Requirement .................... 16

5.1.13. Knowledge about Farmers Possessing Livestock .................................. 17

5.1.14. Family Issues and Challenges ........................................................ 17

5.1.15. Selling of Animal Feed to Farmers ................................................. 19

5.1.16. Extension Service Outreach ......................................................... 19

5.1.17. Linkages with Suppliers .............................................................. 19

5.1.18. Book Keeping and Business Training ............................................... 20

5.1.19. Treatment of Animals ................................................................ 20

Conclusion/Recommendations ................................................................. 21

5.2. Artificial Insemination Technicians ........................................................ 22

5.2.1. Level of Education ..................................................................... 22

5.2.2. Age Group and Marital Status ........................................................ 22

5.2.3. Household Productive Assets ......................................................... 23

5.2.4. Household General Assets ............................................................ 24

5.2.5. AITs Household Debt .................................................................. 24

5.2.6. Distribution of Household Expense .................................................. 24

5.2.7. Household Income and AIT’s Contribution ......................................... 25

5.2.8. Increase in HH income and Economic Security .................................... 25

5.2.9. Knowledge of Breeding of Animals .................................................. 26

5.2.10. Livelihood Training Received by AITs .............................................. 26

5.2.11. AI Reach ................................................................................ 26

5.2.12. AI Services and Monthly Income .................................................... 28

5.3. Farmers............................................................................................ 30

5.2.13. Farmer’s Level of Education ........................................................ 30

5.2.14. Marital Status, age group and family size ......................................... 30

5.2.15. Possession of Productive Assets ..................................................... 31

5.2.16. Possession of General Assets ........................................................ 31

5.2.17. Farmers and Household Debt........................................................ 32

5.2.18. Distribution of Household Expense ................................................. 32

5.2.19. Contribution of Respondent to Monthly HH Income ............................. 33

5.2.20. Household’s Perceived Economic Conditions ..................................... 33

5.2.21. Household’s Nutritional Status ...................................................... 34

5.2.22. Land Ownership (Acres) .............................................................. 34

5.2.23. Ownership of Animal Breed ......................................................... 34

5.2.24. Monthly Income from Farmer’ Livelihood Activities ............................. 36

5.2.25. Fodder Used ........................................................................... 37

5.2.26. Knowledge of Animal’s Nutrition Requirement ................................... 37

5.2.27. Facilities Available for Basic health of Farm Animals ........................... 38

5.2.28. Livestock Common Diseases ......................................................... 38

5.2.29. Breeding Practices .................................................................... 38

5.2.30. AIT Service Availability .............................................................. 39

5.2.31. Satisfaction with the Animal Health Services ..................................... 39

5.2.32. Satisfaction with the Breeding Services ........................................... 40

5.2.33. Knowledge and Use of Farm Practices ............................................. 40

5.2.34. Reasons for Farmers’ Inability to Use Farming Practices ....................... 41

5.2.35. Services of Silage Making ............................................................ 42

5.2.36. Increase in Income after Dairy Project Training ................................. 42

5.2.37. Dairy Project Information to Farmers .............................................. 43

5.2.38. Follow Up Meetings ................................................................... 44

Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................. 45

6. Learning from Dairy Development Project ........................................ 47

Annex 1: Participants of FGDs ..................................................................... 51

List of Tables

Table 1 Endline Sample for data collection............................................................................................. 7

Table 2: Details of KIIs conducted .......................................................................................................... 7

Table 3: Education Level of Respondents ............................................................................................. 11

Table 4: Respondent age category and marital status .......................................................................... 11

Table 5 Workers HH income segregated by income source .............................................................. 12

Table 6 Distribution of HH income ...................................................................................................... 12

Table 7: Respondent Contribution to HH Income .............................................................................. 13

Table 8 Possession of HH productive assets ........................................................................................ 13

Table 9: Possession of General Assets ................................................................................................. 14

Table 10: Debt and ability to repayment .............................................................................................. 14

Table 11 Knowledge level of respondent regarding basic animal health .............................................. 16

Table 12: Level of knowledge of workers about diseases in farm animals........................................... 16

Table 13: Knowledge of animal feed ..................................................................................................... 17

Table 14: Family Issues/challenges faced by workers ........................................................................... 18

Table 15 Problems Faced by Workers ................................................................................................. 18

Table 16: Animal Feed Being Sold by Workers .................................................................................... 19

Table 17 Extension services reach ........................................................................................................ 19

Table 18Workers- Business and book keeping training ....................................................................... 20

Table 19 Disease Treatment and Monthly Income .............................................................................. 21

Table 20: Level of Education of AITs .................................................................................................... 22

Table 21 Respondent age categories .................................................................................................... 23

Table 22: average number of HH members by age .............................................................................. 23

Table 23: HH Productive Assets........................................................................................................... 23

Table 24: Percent Responses regarding possession of general assets .................................................. 24

Table 25: Household Debt and ability to repayment ........................................................................... 24

Table 26: Distribution of household expanse ....................................................................................... 25

Table 27: HH monthly income and contribution of respondent (multiple responses) ........................ 25

Table 28: AIT's knowledge of type of semen ....................................................................................... 26

Table 29: AI Reach in villages ................................................................................................................ 27

Table 30: Average number of farmers with AI outreach ..................................................................... 27

Table 31: Success ratio of pregnancy in inseminated animals .............................................................. 27

Table 32: AIT's practices of applying imported semen and income ..................................................... 28

Table 33: AITs' using local semen and monthly income ....................................................................... 28

Table 34: AIT's services of pregnancy test ........................................................................................... 29

Table 35: Farmers level of education .................................................................................................... 30

Table 36: Distribution of farmers by age group ................................................................................... 31

Table 37: Farmers' possession HH productive assets .......................................................................... 31

Table 38: Farmers having debt .............................................................................................................. 32

Table 39: Farmers: Contribution to monthly income .......................................................................... 33

Table 40: Farmers- HH Nutritional status ............................................................................................ 34

Table 41: Farmers – Cultivated average agriculture land ..................................................................... 34

Table 42: Farmer - farm animal ownership (percentage Responses) ................................................... 35

Table 43: Farmers - farm animals segregated by sex ............................................................................ 35

Table 44: Farmers - Status on Milking and Dry Animals ...................................................................... 36

Table 45: Farmer - production and income of dairy and agriculture ................................................... 36

Table 46: Farmers – use of fodder ....................................................................................................... 37

Table 47: Facilities of basic health of farm animals (multi responses) .................................................. 38

Table 48: Farmer- satisfaction on animal health services ..................................................................... 40

Table 49: Farmer- satisfaction with breeding services ......................................................................... 40

Table 50: Farmer-knowledge of farm practices .................................................................................... 41

Table 51: Farmers - inability to follow farm practices .......................................................................... 41

Table 52: Farmer - silage making practice ............................................................................................ 42

Table 53: Farmer - change in income ................................................................................................... 42

Table 54: Farmer - DRDF follow -up meetings .................................................................................... 44

List of Figures Figure 1: Increase in workers' income .................................................................................................. 13

Figure 2: Average distribution of expense ............................................................................................ 15

Figure 3: Percentage distribution of income on HH expenses ............................................................. 15

Figure 4: Farmers HH possession of general assets ............................................................................. 32

Figure 5: Farmers: Distribution of HH expense in percentages ........................................................... 33

Figure 6: Farmers Knowledge of animal nutrient ................................................................................. 38

Figure 7: Farmer -breeding approaches in use ..................................................................................... 39

Figure 8: Farmer - availability of AI services ......................................................................................... 39

Figure 9: Farmer - Change in income after training ............................................................................. 43

Figure 10: Farmer - medium used for information ............................................................................... 44

End line Survey of Dairy Project

Page 1 of 58

EXECUTIVE SUMARY

The public, private, industrial and international development sector has been active in improving the

potential of the dairy and livestock sector in Pakistan. USAID has been highly instrumental in supporting

projects for bringing in a positive change in people’s lives. The Dairy project has been highly successful

in doing so for thousands of farmers, Artificial Insemination Technicians and Women Livestock

Extension Workers.

The project entered into an extension phase from October 2014- October 2016. A baseline had been

conducted for setting benchmarks on a set of variables. In order to document changes, as a result of

input provided by the extension project and in comparison with benchmarked values set during

baseline, this end line survey has been conducted.

The sample of a total of 827 population size was taken for this end line Survey which includes 560

farmers, 148 AIT’s and 119 Women Live Stock Extension Workers (WLEWs) in 5 district of Punjab

as follows.

a) Lodhran

b) Khanewal

c) Multan

d) Vehari

e) Bahawalpur

Challenges faced during the survey

Although a considerable focus was placed on equipping data enumerators with in-depth understanding

of questions as well as probing techniques during training, however, the quality of the responses to a

number of questions was dependent on the skills of the data enumerators. Furthermore, the

consultant during data collection provided clear instruction and orientation on techniques of getting

accurate information; nevertheless, some enumeration errors cannot be ruled out in the field.

Data enumerators encountered challenges as the randomly sampled beneficiaries were sparsely spread

out in the districts causing major logistical issues. The vast geographic spread of the beneficiaries’

village locations rendered the transportation arrangements made for data collection (i.e. one car for

each district) insufficient, causing problems in data collection and efficiency. In addition, many of

beneficiaries couldn’t be found easily as their phones remained unanswered. As a result, planned

schedule of data collection had to be revisited, which increased the timeline in data collection.


Page 2 of 58

Findings

Women Livestock Extension Workers

1) More than one third of WLEWs (36.1%) have completed high school and almost same

proportion of WLEWs reported to have completed middle level education. This indicates an

improved level of qualification of workers in comparison to baseline trends where 89%

reported completing middle level education.

2) The average household monthly income of the WLEWs is Rs. 22,000. It is evident that income

of household has slightly improved as compared to the baseline average HH income of Rs.

17,000. Income earned by workers through providing extension services together with jobs

and businesses in family are the main contributor to HH income which amounts to 45%.. This

is in contrast to baseline finding where main source of HH income was agriculture, amounting

to 39% of HH income. The increase in income is evdience of earning through the services

provided to farmers after acquired skills through project intervention.

3) A relatively small proportion i.e. 29% of the consulted workers have acquired debt. Of these,

57% are confident that they are able to repay the debt amount on a regular basis.

4) Almost all of workers consulted for the survey reported having different level of knowledge

about animal husbandry. Nearly 60% said that they have moderate to high level knowledge,

which is much higher than the average level of knowledge reported during baseline. During

baseline around 80% respondents reported basic level or no knowledge at all about animal

husbandry.

5) Data indicates that majority of workers possess knowledge about types of animal feed. More

than half of the workers (55.4%) said that they have high-level of knowledge regarding Vanda

and 38% believed that they have high-level of knowledge regarding fodder,and majority i.e.

62% said that they have moderate knowledge of fodder. Same proportion reported moderate

level knowledge about silage. It is evident from the data that workers’ knowledge has

considerably improved as compared to baseline data where majority (i.e. 80%) reported to

have basic level of knowledge about animal feed.

6) On average, each worker provides extension services to 75 farmers which account for 33%

of total estimated farmers in 3 villages in a month.

7) More than half of workers treat animals with diseases including tympani, indigestion,

diarrhoea and parasitic infestation.

8) Extension workers reported problems and issues affecting their work including

communities’ lack of willingness to consider women’s work as favourable, reluctance

of farmers to pay their remuneration for their services in the presence of public sector

veterinary staff providing similar services free of cost.These factors have a negative

bearing on their work.

Artificial Insemination Technicians

1) About 54.8% of the consulted AITs have completed high school and 41.9% have

completed intermediate. Only 3% have received education up to the graduation

level. None of the respondents are below middle school level of education.


Page 3 of 58

2) Less than half (47 %) of the respondents are married. The average age of the

consulted AITs is 27 years. A fair majority (65.5%) of the respondents are between

20 to 29 years of age, followed by 25% AITs who fall in 30-39 years age group.

3) The average monthly household income of the consulted AITs is Rs. 29,776, indicating

a noticeable increase in household income compared to the income reported in

baseline (i.e. Rs 21,173). The main source of income is non-agriculture (Rs. 10,971)

(AIT’s earning from extesnion servivces, jobs and businesses in family), followed by

sale of milk (10,419) and agriculture (Rs. 8,386). It should be noted that AITs’ monthly

income, as a result of their invlovment in extension services, makes up the largest

portion of houseolds’ income coming from non-agriculture sources. Non-agriculture

contributes up to 81% in household income through extension services and 53% of

contribution of AITs is through sale of milk. Similarly, AIT constributes up to 39% from

agriculture income source.

4) A large majority (92%) reported an increase in household income during last year. More than

90% said that they are economically secure. Above 40% of AITs said they have outstanding

loans. Of those, 86% are confident to pay off the loans.

5) All of the consulted AITs said that they have knowledge regarding breeding of farm animals.

Of which 49% of AITs claim to have high level of knowledge of natural mating and 48%

regarding artificial insemination. The trend shows an increase in knowledge level as compared

to baseline, where majority (above 60%) of respondents expressed to exhibit basic level of

knowledge regarding both types of breeding of animals.

6) Around half of AITs have high level of knowledge regarding local as well as imported

semen and 24% said that they possess high level of knowledge regarding sexed semen.

7) Survey results regarding outreach revealed that AITs are the second largest to provide

services to farmers after veterinary staff. AITs provide extension services to an average

number of 159 regular farmers in seven villages.

8) Data shows that, on an average, each AIT handles 7 cases per month using imported semen

in each district with a success ratio of 59%. On average AITs are using local semen in 33 cases

per month with a conception success ratio of 70%.

Farmers

1) Overall, 72% of farmers are married. Average age of farmers in the target districts is

36 years. Household size of the surveyed districts is 9, at an average.

2) On average, farmers cultivate 6.3 acres of agricultural land, out of which more than

two acres of land is being used to grow fodder.

3) A relatively small proportion i.e. 29% of the consulted farmers have outsanding loans,

of these, majority (93.1%) of farmers are confident to payoff their loans..


Page 4 of 58

4) The sale of milk contributes the largest portion of household income i.e. Rs. 25,887 followed

by livestock Rs. 16950, and from agriculture i.e. Rs. 13,984.

5) On average, farmers produce 450 liters of milk, of which 381 liters are sold in markets on a

monthly basis

6) Overall, a majority i.e. 85.7% perceived that their household is economically secure. A

fair majority of households (i.e. 68.9%) reported to have 3 meals a day.

7) Overall, 69.7% farmers reported owning Pure Sahiwal breed of cows, 58.2% farmers possess

cows of Cross/European breed and 57.7% said to own Local/Desi breed of cows. A change

can be noticed as compared to baseline figures in this regard as 60% reported owning Pure

Sahiwal breed, 54% Desi/Local and about 25% own cows of Cross European breed.

8) Above ninety percent of farmers are using cultivated fodder for farm animals in both winter

and summer seasons and a relatively smaller proportion around twenty percent use silage.

9) At an average, 90 percent of overall farmers claim to know animal nutritional requirements

indicating a change in knowledge base reported during baseline where 79 % of the farmers

reported knowing animals’ nutrition requirements.

10) For basic health and vaccination of animals both trained local person and veterinary hospital

are available for two third of farmers in the project area, whereas 27.8% of farmers reported

availability of AITs trained by dairy project.

11) A large majority, above ninety percent farmers reported to have knowledge about overall

benefits of best farming practices. Between, 68-79 percent farmers knew about silage making

and teat dipping. A large number i.e. 85% also reported to de-worming their animals and 93%

are vaccinating their animals. Similarly, 81% farmers are feeding their animals with Vanda.

However, only 22.6% farmers are making silage despite having greater knowledge they possess

on the subject.

12) The most important reason mentioned for not using all types of best farm practices is that

these practices are too expensive. The second most important reason is that ‘not enough

resources’ are available.

13) Responding to a question about increase in income after receiving training, 87% confirmed an

increase in their income. Level of increase in income varies and can be quantified in multiple

brackets e.g. 31.8% farmers reported an increase in monthly up to Rs.1000, 19.9% reported

an increase between Rs. 1000-2000, whereas same portion of farmers noted that their

monthly income has increased more than Rs. 5000.

14) A large majority i.e. 94% of farmers reported having heard about or watched programs on

dairy farming. The main source of information received on dairy farming is from social

mobilizers which are confirmed by 79% farmers. Almost 26% also reported leaflets and

pamphlets as sources of information regarding programs on dairy project.


Page 5 of 58

1. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

DRDF, in collaboration with the United States Agency for International Development (“USAID”), is

undertaking a Dairy Project in order to foster sustainable increase in dairy and livestock productivity

through adoption of best farming practices, breed improvement, availability of timely extension

services and promotion of livestock.

In this context, USAID-DRDF Dairy Project was conceived to fill the above gaps by;

Organizing the rural dairy farming in communities

Training unemployed rural women and men in livestock services to improve access to

breeding and health services; along with generating self-employment opportunities

Raising Awareness Amongst and Training Rural Dairy Producing Households in Farming Best

Practices to improve milk productivity through better management of livestock and input

resources and to inspire them to utilize needed livestock breeding and health services

To enable this activity to be sustainable beyond the funded life of the project by building the

capacity of the Dairy and Rural Development Foundation to introduce and maintain rural

businesses to improve the access of dairy households to inputs and continued technical

guidance.

The Dairy Project’s extension phase ran from October 2014 – October 2016. The project has

following four components:

1. Training and support for dairy farmers

2. Training and support for Artificial Insemination Technicians (AITs)

3. Training and support for Women Livestock Extension Workers (WLEWs)

4. Awareness Campaign

5. Farm up gradation

2. OBJECTIVE & SCOPE OF WORK 2.1. Objective

The main objective of this study is to measure the impact of the extension phase based on benchmarks

set on various variables during baseline. Following are the targeted areas that were covered under the

study:

Farm Productivity and efficiency: Milk Yield / Animal, Profitability, Milking Animals as a %age

of Total Animals Milk Quality and Price Yield, Livestock Growth, Land Usage

Sustainable availability of services: Extension, Quality Artificial Insemination, Diseases

Diagnosis and Treatment

Access to Inputs: Product Portfolio and Cost, quality of inputs, Usage

Market Access: Supply Chain steps to market of milk, livestock, meat

Employment opportunities for rural youth: Artificial Insemination, Health Provision, Herd

Management

Women Empowerment: Social Interaction and Respect, say in household affairs


Page 6 of 58

Community Engagement: Collective Self Extension and knowledge propagation, collective

buying on scale, self-managed and arranged follow up gatherings, collective decision making

and problem solving.

2.2. Scope of Work

The scope of work included background literature review in order to better understand the project,

conducting interview with the relevant project staff for in depth understanding of activities, designing

baseline and end-line methodologies, preparation for conduct of surveys, training of field team and

pretesting of tools and instruments, conducting survey for the collection of data, analyzing the survey

results and preparation of assignment report.

3. METHODOLOGY Following methodology was adopted for the study:

3.1. Sampling

The objective of the sampling strategy is to create a representative sample of beneficiaries benefiting

from the Dairy Project. As the endline survey was a follow-up of baseline carried out before start of

the project, therefore the study team used same sampling approach as used in baseline study. It is

important to mention that during the endline survey, the baseline sample frame was adjusted to reflect

exclusion of some sample districts (Muzaffargarh) and adjustment of sample beneficiaries. Following

steps were undertaken for sampling;

Phase 1. Sample frame: It was a list of all the project beneficiaries who can be sampled. The

baseline sample was selected from the sample frame of 40,000 farmers, 2,000 WELWs,

1,000 AITs and 100 Model Farms. Data was collected from 984 respondents during

baseline and the endline surveyed 827 beneficiaries of project. This change is mainly due

to exclusion of Muzaffargarh from endline and less number of beneficiaries in some

respondent groups.

Phase 2. Adjustments in end line: The project has conducted farmers’ trainings for different

durations. To reflect this distribution, the end-line survey used stratified random sampling

by dividing the total sample frame into three strata i.e. farmers with one-day training, ii)

farmers with 7 days training and iii) farmers who received one-month training. This

distribution was discussed and agreed with DRDF staff before rolling out the data

collection. Logic behind this approach was to ensure representation of each group.

Phase 3. Sample selection: Finally, the primary sampling units for different respondent types

were selected using simple random sampling. Each selected beneficiary was contacted by

field supervisor to get consent and time for face to face interview. As a quality check,

CNIC and phone numbers was collected to validate interview and information from DRDF

registration data.

Though majority respondents of end line survey are not exactly the same who were surveyed in

baseline, however, both baseline and endline target same type of respondent groups within the target

districts. So, the comparison is possible to reflect upon changes before and after project interventions.

As the respondents of both baseline and endline survey targets same type of beneficiaries having similar

characteristics, therefore the findings can be generalized at the project beneficiary level not for the

communities in general. For example, one can say in Multan, project beneficiary framers’ income has

increased by X amount but cannot be generalized. Table 1 summarizes endline survey data collection.


Page 7 of 58

Table 1 Endline Sample for data collection

Name of

District

Sample data collected

Farmers WLEWS AITs Total

Vehari 129 20 35 158

Lodhran 86 29 25 140

Khanewal 130 30 26 159

Multan 121 35 2 186

Bahawalpur 94 34 31 184

Total 560 148 119 827

In addition, two FGDs with a group of farmers and one FGD with combined group of AITs and

WLEWs in each district were conducted. Similarly, discussions with farmers of Model Farms were also

held (list of participants is annexed), besides KIIs (Key Informant Interviews) with government officials,

academia, DRDF management, and USAID staff. The table 2 provides details of participants of KIIs.

Table 2: Details of KIIs conducted

S# Name Designation Organization

1 Mr. Naseem Sadiq Secretary Livestock Department

2 Dr. Talat Naseer Pasha Vice Chancellor UVAS

3 Dr. Tayyab Munir Asst. Director ICE&E UVAS

4 Mr. Salman Shah Chairman DRDF

5 Mr. Sajjad Moghal Snr Development Advisor USAID Punjab and AOR

6 Mr. Ahmed Sajjad Chief Executive Officer DRDF

7 Mr. Sajid Naseer Managing Director PVTC

8 Mr. M Junaid Khan Chief of Party USAID PEEP

9 Dr. Umar Farooq General Manager Operations Dairy Project

10 Dr. Masood Dean Veterinary and Animal

Health Department BZU

11 Principal Veterinary College Principal Veterinary College Islamia University

Bahawalpur

12 Dr. Mohsin District Livestock Officer Livestock Department Vehari

13 Dr. Muhabbat Khan Ex-District Livestock Officer Livestock Department Vehari

14 Dr. Rab Nawaz District Livestock Officer Livestock Department

Bahawalpur

3.2. Instrument Development

Both quantitative and qualitative approaches were adopted to conduct end-line of Phase-II

beneficiaries. Instruments designed for baseline was used for end-line to track impact on set of same

variables. DRDF staff finalized these instruments during Baseline conduction after providing their

feedback. Moreover, the instruments were tested through piloting during baseline. However, a number

of performance variables were included in questionnaires for end-line survey.


Page 8 of 58

4. SURVEY EXECUTION

The survey teams were hired from the targeted districts as they were well conversant with the

custom-culture, demographics and local communities. Five teams comprising data enumerators and

one supervisor representing both male and female were selected. The supervisors were former social

mobilizers of DRDF who were selected owing to the reasons of being familiar to areas in all target

districts. The idea was to assist data enumerators to easily reach to locations of sampled beneficiaries

in each district.

The survey teams were closely monitored at all levels each survey team was managed and supervised

by the survey supervisor and the consultant. The purpose of this arrangement was to ensure quality

of quantitative data collection.

The monitoring teams randomly selected filled forms and re-visited household to validate the

information gathered by the field enumerators. In some cases, respondents were also contacted.

4.1. Field Team Training

Training of field enumerators

Before the data collection exercise, a training was organized for the enumerators and field supervisors

representing each district. This training covered concept development and questionnaire

understanding, mock exercise, feedback and concept rebuilding. The training was conducted at Vehari

at DRDF Vehari Office. The training mainly focused on the following:

1. Understanding of various themes and questions in data collection tools

2. Understanding of terminologies regarding livestock.

3. Understanding of community data gathering principles

4. Mock-up Sessions/demonstrations

5. Participant Selection

6. Group work

Training of Data Entry Operators

Data entry resource persons were oriented in Islamabad when data collection was completed. The

objective of the orientation was to impart a clear understanding of the program interventions, survey

tools and their objectives and to ensure meticulous data entry.

4.2. Field Team Deployment and Data Collection

Questions and variables in each section and question of the instrument (s) were explained to

enumerators during detailed orientation/training session. Accompanied visits, spot checks and back

checks for data quality assurance were performed by survey team leader and his team. The Field

Supervisors (FSs) continually oriented the enumerators throughout the assignment. They were

accompanied with enumerator’s teams during the interview until completely confident that all

members are able to handle the task on their own.

In addition, 15 FGDs were conducted with beneficiaries in their respective locations. Each group

comprised of 6-10 participants. In addition, 12 KIIs were conducted with stakeholders in Lahore,

Patuki, Vehari, and Bahawalpur.

A daily debriefing session was held at each regional office at the end of each day. The field team

performed data editing and data validation tasks. The teams swapped their filled instruments and


Page 9 of 58

cross-checked each other’s work. Marked envelops having filled out questionnaires were dispatched

to the centralized Data Management Hub in Islamabad, by the field supervisor.

4.3. Data Validation

Data quality assurance was ensured by:

Measurement Error: As part of the Quality Assurance Mechanism, all measurement errors were being

minimized through concept building exercise, mock exercise, and accompanied interviews.

Transcription Error: Transcription errors were minimized using data validation checklists. The

Enumerators validated the collected information before handing it over to the Field Supervisors (FS).

Any discrepancy in the filled instruments was adjusted using enumerators’ knowledge and respondents

were contacted via phone and verified information.

4.4. Data Processing / Cleaning

A specialized data entry program was developed in SPSS in line with the quantitative form to feed in

the data collected in the field.

4.5. Data Analysis - Report

The data collected in the field was randomly checked by the field supervisors for completion. The field

supervisors and monitors ensured cleaning of data at field level through checking completeness of

forms, consistency and logical flow of information. The data entry operators received clean forms to

be processed in the SPSS.

. Following steps were undertaken for data analysis and report writing:

Indexing of questionnaire

Post-entry verification

Perform Data Analysis

Consistency Check

Technical review of data analysis and final datasets

Draft report


Page 10 of 58

5. FINDINGS

The finding of the end-line survey could be clubbed into three main categories:

1. Women Livestock Extension Worker

2. Artificial Insemination Technicians

3. Farmers

5.1. Women Livestock Extension Workers (WLEWs)

Section Summary

The average household monthly income of the WLEWs is Rs. 22,000. It is evident that income of

household has slightly improved as compared to the baseline average HH income of Rs. 17,000.

‘Income earned by HHs through ‘other income sources’ is the main contributor to HH income which

amounts to 45% of HH income. It should be noted that workers’ income from extension makes up a

fairly considerable portion of households’ income from ‘other income sources’ besides family

employment and small businesses. This is in contrast to baseline finding where main source of HH

income was agriculture, amounting to 39% of HH income. The increase in income is evidence of

earning through the services provided to farmers after acquired skills through project intervention.

Almost all of workers consulted for the survey reported having different level of knowledge about

animal husbandry. Nearly 60% said that they have knowledge ranging from moderate to high level,

which is much higher than the average level of knowledge reported during baseline. During baseline

around 80% respondents reported basic level or no knowledge about animal husbandry. Data indicates

that majority of farmers possess knowledge about types of animal feed. More than half of the workers

(55.4%) said that they have high-level of knowledge regarding Vanda and 38% believed that they have

high-level knowledge regarding fodder, and majority i.e. 62% said that they have moderate knowledge

of fodder. Same proportion reported moderate level of knowledge about silage. It is evident from

the data that workers’ knowledge has considerably improved as compared to baseline data where

majority (i.e. 80%) reported to have basic level of knowledge about animal feed.

On average, each worker provides extension services to 75 farmers which account for 33% of total

estimated farmers in 3 villages in a month. More than half of workers treat animals with diseases

including tympani, indigestion, diarrhea and parasitic infestation.

Extension workers reported problems and issues affecting their work including communities’ lack of

willingness to consider women’s work as favorable, reluctance of farmers to pay their remuneration

for their services in the presence of public sector veterinary staff providing similar services free of

cost. These factors have a negative bearing on their work.

5.1.1. Respondent Level of Education

More than one third of WLEWs (36.1%) have completed high school and almost the same proportion

of WLEWs (34%) reported to have completed middle level education, 17% intermediate, 8.2% BA/BSc

and 2.7% have completed MA/MSc level of education. Across districts, variation does exist with regard

to WLEWs education level - 53% respondents from Lodhran have middle level education, whereas

50% in Bahawalpur have completed high school. Proportion of WLEWs of having intermediate level in

Multan is comparatively high as compare to other districts where 23%of them reported to have

intermediate level of education


Page 11 of 58

Table 3: Education Level of Respondents

Level of education

Education

Categories Illiterate

Up to

Primary Middle

High

School Intermediate BA/BSc MA/MSc

Any

Other Total

Overall 0.7% 1.4% 34.0% 36.1% 17.0% 8.2% 2.7% 0.0% 100.0%

5.1.2. Respondent Marital Status and age

Above 60% of the consulted WLEWs are married. Percentage of married WLEWs is the highest in

Multan (73.5 %) followed by Vehari (70%). On the contrary, proportion of married WLEWs is the

lowest in Khanewal (44 %).

The average age comes as 28 years. Data showed the highest number of workers (54.2%) is between

20-29 years of age bracket followed by 28.9% workers who fall under age category of 30-39 years of

age. More than 68 % of workers from Lodhran are between 20 to 30 years of age which is the highest

percentage among all districts.

Table 4: Respondent age category and marital status

Age Categories Marital Status

Up to 19

Years

20-29

Years

30-39

Years

40-49

Years

50 Years

and Above

Married Unmarried

7.7% 54.2% 28.9% 8.5% 0.7% 60.3% 39.7%

5.1.3. Respondent Household Income

Table (5) presents overall data on household income segregated by sources of income. The overall

average household monthly income of the workers is Rs. 22,000. District wise data indicates workers’

household income is highest in Bahawalpur (Rs. 25,000) followed by Khanewal (Rs. 23,000) and is

lowest in Vehari (Rs. 20,800). It is evident that monthly income of household has reasonably improved

as compared to level of income reported in baseline, where on average HH monthly income was

around Rs. 17,000.

Household’s other income sources which include jobs, small businesses in family and worker’s monthly

earning from extension services are the highest contributor among income sources (i.e. Rs. 10,000).

They noted that they earn income from selling Vanda, treating animals and selling animal medicines to

farmers. Household’s monthly income from livestock is Rs. 5,000, followed by agriculture (Rs. 4000)

and dairy (Rs. 3,000).

Workers’ engagement in extension services not only contributes to their family income but also

empowers them within their communities. Workers noted that despite the reluctance in accepting

women as livestock extension workers in a primitive society their social standing has been enhanced.

They further informed that income contribution to household has enhanced their respect in the family.

“Though I was literate but was unable to augment a livelihood. I had to handle household chores and look after my

family members. I always dreamt to carve out a profession/livelihood activity to support my family whose essential

needs were barely met. Fortunately, I got an opportunity to receive a livelihood training from dairy project which

greatly helped me to earn a considerable amount to meet needs of my family. I successfully treat farm animals

owned by farmers living in nearby villages. This work has provided me a respectable socio-economic standing.”

- A 20 years old female extension worker from Lodhran


Page 12 of 58

Table 5 Workers HH income segregated by income source

Income

Sources

Overall Dairy Agriculture Income Livestock Others (Jobs, extension

services –Vanda selling,

medicines, business etc.

Overall 22,000

3,000 4,000 5,000 10,000

5.1.4. Distribution of Workers’ Household Income

Overall, 92% workers consider ‘other’ sources, which mainly included workers’ livelihood activities

like animal treatment, Vanda and medicine selling as well as jobs and small business in their respective

families, as the main source of income for their households. This is followed by agriculture which

contributes 53% and dairy (46%). Variation can be noted in district wise data, especially in income

from dairy, agriculture and livestock. Income from dairy contributes to 62% of household income in

Vehari and 56% in Multan. Similarly, income from agriculture contributes to 76% of workers’ household

income in Vehari and 62% to households from Lodhran. In addition, livestock contributes up to 57%

to household income in Khanewal which is the highest contribution from livestock as compared to

other districts.

Table 6 Distribution of HH income

District Dairy Agriculture Livestock Others (Jobs, extension

services –Vanda selling,

medicines, business etc.

Vehari 62% 76% 38% 95%

Lodhran 52% 62% 31% 97%

Khanewal 33% 40% 57% 87%

Multan 56% 59% 21% 97%

Bahawalpur 32% 35% 18% 85%

Overall 46% 53% 32% 92%

5.1.5. Respondent Contribution to Household Income

Respondent’s major contribution to the household income is through non-agriculture income sources

which contributes to 76% of the household non-agriculture income. Respondent’s contribution to rest

of the household income sources appears to very nominal e.g. 11% contribution in sale of milk and

13% contribution in agriculture. Respondent’s contribution to monthly income varies across districts.

For instance, in Bahawalpur, contribution of respondents in income from sale of milk is 33% whereas

no contribution is noted in Multan and Khanewal in HH income from sale of milk. A minimal portion

of workers in both Multan (2%) and Lodhran (3%) give a helping hand to household monthly income

in agriculture income category, whereas in Khanewal, worker’s contribution in household income is

29% in agriculture related livelihood activity.


Page 13 of 58

Table 7: Respondent Contribution to HH Income

Income

Categories

Sale of

milk

Sale of Dairy

Products

Agriculture Non-Agriculture

income

Overall 11% 0 13% 76%

When question was asked regarding increase in income after receiving training, 59.3% of workers

responded affirmatively, whereas almost 32% of workers said that their income has stayed the same.

A nominal proportion reported that their income has decreased.

Figure 1: Increase in workers' income

5.1.6. Possession of Productive Assets

About three-fourth of workers reported possessing tools including sewing machine, washing machine,

and carpentry tools and livestock. In addition, 63.5% responded that they have land/real estate owned

by their respective families. Similarly, 43% reported owning cash saving and 49% said that they own

precious metals including gold, silver and jewellery etc. A considerable proportion (34%) of workers

said that they hold bank accounts. Variation regarding ownership of productive assets does exist.

Slightly more than 90% workers from Vehari reported to own livestock followed by Lodhran where

82% said that they possess livestock. A large majority (95%) from Vehari said that they own tools like

sewing machine, washing machine etc. On the contrary, only 9% workers from Bahawalpur informed

they hold bank accounts as compared to other districts where a considerable portion of respondents

reported holding bank accounts.

Table 8 Possession of HH productive assets

Productive Assets Percentage Responses

Savings certificates 3.4%

Livestock 77.0%

Cash savings 43.2%

Land/real estate) 63.5%

Bank accounts 34.0%

59.3%

31.7%

9.0%

Increased Stayed the same Decreased


Page 14 of 58

Productive Assets Percentage Responses

Tractor/farm equipment 15.5%

Gold, silver and precious metals (including

jewelry 49.7%

Other tools (e.g. sewing machine, washing

machine, carpentry tools 77.0%

5.1.7. Possession of General Assets

Almost all consulted workers reported to own fans at their households, followed by cell phones

reported by 96% workers. Almost 62% workers own refrigerators and 52% reported having washing

machine at their homes. However, there are variations in possession of general assets across districts

– all the workers from Vehari, Lodhran and Khanewal own fans. Likewise, Multan and Vehari, all

consulted workers have cell phone in their possessions. As opposed to overall trend, 61% workers in

Vehari reported to own TV with dish antenna at their households.

Table 9: Possession of General Assets

5.1.8. Workers Household Debt

A relatively small proportion i.e. 29% of the consulted workers has acquired debt. Of those, 57% are

confident that they are able to repay the debt amount on a regular basis. A small portion of the

consulted workers (9%) also reported that their family members have outstanding loans; however, a

fairly larger proportion of these workers believed that their household members are capable to pay

off outstanding debt.

District-wise data on workers and their household debt shows similar trends, nevertheless variation

in trends regarding workers’ ability repay their outstanding loans does exist. For instance, 83% workers

from Bahawalpur who have debt have shown their ability payback their debt. On the contrary, none

in Lodhran are capable to repay the amount.

Table 10: Debt and ability to repayment

% of having

debt

Ability to

make

regular

repayments?

Household

members

having debt

Ability to make

regular repayments

Overall 26.5%

57.1%

9.1%

66.7%

General Assets Response Percentage

Fans 98.6%

Landline phone 6.3%

Refrigerator 61.9%

Cell phone 95.9%

HH Other Assets (TV with dish antenna) 28.1%

Washing machine 52.4%

TV without Dish Antenna/Cable 36.1%

Bicycle 32.4%

Radio 7.7%


Page 15 of 58

5.1.9. Distribution of Household Expense

On an average, workers spend Rs. 26,411 monthly on household needs including food, health,

education, clothing, transportation, housing etc. Proportion of expense on household needs during

endline is much higher than baseline, where a little more than seventeen thousand rupees was spent

on household needs.

Workers reported their household spending Rs. 8,679 on food needs which is the main portion of

household expense. This is followed by education on which a household spends Rs. 3,722 and Rs.

2,972 on miscellaneous. Household expense distribution varies across districts. Workers from

Bahawalpur reported spending a large portion of income on household food needs whereas a small

portion on health (5%) as compared to other districts. It is evident that households from Khanewal

incur a noticeable portion of income (20%) on education among other districts.

Figure 2: Average distribution of expense

Figure 3 presents percentage of overall distribution of expenses by type of needs. The major expense

of workers at household level is food items on which 42 percent is incurred, 14% of expenses on

education and 11% incurred on fuel and electricity.

Figure 3: Percentage distribution of income on HH expenses

8679

2398

3722

2166 22911539

8371807

2972

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

42%

10%

14%

8%

11%

7%

3%

1%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Food

Health

Education

Clothing / footwear

Fuel and electricity

Transport

Communication (mobile phone, etc.)

Housing (rent & other costs)


Page 16 of 58

5.1.10. Knowledge of Animals and Diseases

Almost all of workers consulted for the survey reported having knowledge of animal husbandry. When

asked to rate their knowledge level about basic animal health, 38.5% workers reported their level of

knowledge as moderate. Comparatively a small portion of workers (19%) claimed that they have high

level of knowledge about animal health. Basic knowledge is reported by 23.6% respondents and 19%

said that they don’t have knowledge about basic animal health. As compared to baseline figures, an

upward trend in knowledge level can be observed in respondents of endline. For instance, 18.9%

respondents of endline reported having high level of knowledge, whereas during baseline only 6% of

respondents had reported possessing such level of knowledge.

Table 11 Knowledge level of respondent regarding basic animal health

Knowledge

Level None Basic Knowledge Moderate High

Overall 18.9% 23.6% 38.5% 18.9%

The table 12 presents respondents’ knowledge level of diseases in farm animals. It is evident from the

data that majority of workers possess better knowledge regarding diseases in farm animals. Above

sixty percent rated their knowledge from good to excellent with regard to diseases like diarrhoea,

tympani, indigestion and Parasitic Infestation each. Results of baseline indicated that respondents

lacked knowledge regarding diseases in animals. For instance, around eighty percent rate their

knowledge of each disease poor to fair. Workers believed that their level of knowledge has increased

as result of training and ongoing support from dairy project. Workers noted that due to their acquired

skills, they are able to provide animal health services to farmers in their respective areas.

Table 12: Level of knowledge of workers about diseases in farm animals

Diseases Poor Fair Average Good Excellent

Diarrhea 2.7% 6.8% 23.8% 56.5% 10.2%

Tympani 7% 6.8% 23.8% 57.1% 11.6%

Indigestion 0.0% 8.3% 23.4% 57.9% 10.3%

Parasitic Infestation 2.1% 6.9% 29.2% 53.5% 8.3%

Mastitis 6.2% 12.4% 28.3% 40.7% 12.4%

ND Vaccination 11.0% 16.4% 27.4% 39.7% 5.5%

Hemorrhagic

Septicemia

8.2% 15.8% 26.7% 41.1% 8.2%

Foot & Mouth

Diseases

7.5% 15.1% 21.9% 43.2% 12.3%

Calf Care 7.5% 17.0% 26.5% 40.1% 8.8%

5.1.11. Training Received by Workers

All of the consulted workers have received livestock extension training from Dairy Project. However,

data indicates that a few respondents have received livelihood training from other organizations.. For

instance, only three workers said that they received a livelihood training on kitchen gardening and

business development from organizations, other than Dairy Project.

5.1.12. Knowledge of Farm Animal Feed & Nutrition Requirement

Almost all of the workers said that they have knowledge of animal feed and nutrition requirement.

However, it is evident that workers’ knowledge level varies to a greater extent. More than half of

worker said that they have high-level of knowledge regarding Vanda, whereas 62% believed that they


Page 17 of 58

possess moderate level of knowledge regarding benefits and use of fodder. Almost a same portion of

respondents reported moderate level knowledge on benefits and use of silage. Variation is noticed in

knowledge level of workers across district; more than 80% each from Vehari and Bahawalpur rated

their knowledge level about Vanda high, whereas only 17% workers from Lodhran said that they

possess high level of knowledge about Vanda feed. Somewhat similar trends are noticed in other

districts.

Table 13: Knowledge of animal feed

Type of feed Basic Moderate High

Vanda 4.7% 39.9% 55.4%

Fodder 4.1% 62.1% 33.8%

Silage 16.4% 61.0% 22.6%

Nutrients 25.9% 51.8% 22.3%

Others 50.6% 33.7% 15.7%

Data reflects a change in knowledge level of workers as compared to the knowledge level of

respondents reported during baseline. It was noted during baseline that very few respondents

demonstrated moderate or high level of knowledge and majority of them had basic knowledge. For

instance, 82 % had basic knowledge about Vanda, above 70 % possessed basic knowledge of fodder,

silage and nutrients during baseline.

5.1.13. Knowledge about Farmers Possessing Livestock

Knowledge regarding ownership of livestock in same village is very high since all the consulted workers

share that they know farmers in their respective village who own livestock. District-wise trends are

found to be same. A large majority of workers (88%) also know farmers possessing farm animals who

live in nearby villages. Khanewal and Bahawalpur has highest number of workers (above 90% each)

who have knowledge of farmers owning livestock and who live in villages located nearby. Overall, a

little improvement can be noticed in knowledge level of workers as compared to baseline where 83%

of the consulted potential workers said that they know farmers who own livestock in other villages.

5.1.14. Family Issues and Challenges

Overall, 10% workers informed the survey team that they face challenges in working outside of their

homes; however, a large majority (89.9%) reported that they are able to work outside their homes.

Almost all workers in Multan and Bahawalpur reported that there are no barriers for them to work

outside their homes. When asked workers about their ability to interact with business contacts, 73.6%

responded affirmatively and said that they are able to have business contacts. However, there is a

variation in district-wise trend regarding mobility patterns. For instance, Bahawalpur has the largest

number of workers (100%) who say that they easily associate with business contacts showing a high

level of mobility and empowerment. On the contrary, Lodhran has more conservative population to

restrict mobility of workers since it has highest number of workers (62%) who showed inability to

interact with business contacts. Overall, 39% workers said that they face restriction on independent

mobility with Lodhran largest (i.e. 62%) and Bahawalpur lowest (i.e. 17.6%) saying that they face

restrictions.


Page 18 of 58

Table 14: Family Issues/challenges faced by workers

District Ability to work

outside home

Ability to associate with

business contact

Restriction on

independent mobility

Vehari 81.0% 81.0% 47.6%

Lodhran 89.7% 24.1% 62.1%

Khanewal 80.0% 73.3% 26.7%

Multan 97.1% 85.3% 50.0%

Bahawalpur 97.1% 100.0% 17.6%

Overall 89.9% 73.6% 39.9%

Extension workers reported problems and issues affecting their work in their respective communities.

For instance, 55% workers said that their work is not looked at favourably in communities. More than

sixty percent said that farmers often decline to pay their remuneration in return to their services. One

third of respondents (33%) noted that the presence of other service providers like veterinary officer

in their areas gets their work affected.

District level variations exist since 80% from Bahawalpur said that their work is not accepted whereas

only 28% workers from Khanewal reported to face such problem. A fair majority of workers (58%)

from Lodhran reported restriction on their mobility whereas a small number from Bahawalpur (9%)

said that restricted mobility affects their work. Patterns of other problems being faced by workers

are somewhat similar across districts.

Table 15 Problems Faced by Workers

Problems Work is not

looked at

favorably in

the society

Restrictions

on mobility

Restrictions

on talking

to men

Other

women in

their

Baradri

also

works

Farmers

decline to

pay for

your

services

Veterinary

Officer available

in your village

Overall 55.4% 35.8% 27.4% 21.8% 65.3% 33.1%

Discussion with workers during the data collection revealed that cultural barriers do exist but their

family members allow them to visit farmers. They noted that ever since they received training and

started providing services, perception on female mobility has somewhat changed. However, they said

that they can’t go to other villages located far away. They can only visit to farmers based in their

respective villages but they are allowed to go nearby villages when they are accompanied by a male

family member.

“In the beginning, farmers were not willing to acquire our services owing to a negative but a dominant belief that the treating

animals is a man’s domain and a woman is not capable to assume this responsibility. Our family members were reluctant to

allow us to work due to people’s attitude. However, we mustered our courage and successfully handled a few cases. Gradually,

more people started to approach us for treatment of animals. Now our work is now much appreciated”

-A worker from Vehari.


Page 19 of 58

5.1.15. Selling of Animal Feed to Farmers

It is evident from data that workers have sold animal feed to farmers. On average, workers sold 10

kilograms of Vanda to farmers on a daily basis earning Rs. 216, followed by 8 kilograms of mineral

mixture and 4 kilograms nutrients. FGDs with workers indicate that majority of workers sold animal

feed once but are not able to continue this enterprise. They stated that they received animal feed from

Dairy Project which they sold and earned a considerable amount. Owing to pressing family needs, they

spent a larger portion of revenue earned from selling animal feed. However, a few workers in each

district have continued buying and selling of animal feed thus making it a profit able business. They said

that they are effectively managing selling of feed.

Table 16: Animal Feed Being Sold by Workers

Vanda Nutrients Mineral Mixture

Quantit

y (kg)

Averag

e Sale

Kg (per

day)

Average

Income

(PKR)

Per day

Quantity

(kg)

Average Sale

per day (kg)

Average

Income

per day

(PKR)

Quantit

y (kg)

Average

Sale per

day (kg)

Income

per day

(PKR)

92 10 216 38 4 78 51 8 83

5.1.16. Extension Service Outreach

Extension workers provide extension services to 3 villages on average. On average 75 (33%) farmers

are receiving extension services out of 227 estimated farmers in 3 villages. Across districts, variation

does exist. For instance, in Multan, extension services are available in 5 villages with 169 farmers on

average indicating a bigger coverage among other districts. On the contrary, only 19 of farmers in

Lodhran receive extension services from workers which are the lowest among all districts.

Table 17 Extension services reach

Response Categories Average

Number of villages in reach of extension

services

3

Estimated number of farmers 227

No. farmers using extension services 75

5.1.17. Linkages with Suppliers

Slightly more than half of respondents reported to have developed linkages with suppliers. District-

wise trends depict a variation in level of linkages – more than eighty percent in Vehari and Khanewal

reported having linkages, whereas only 17% in Bahawalpur said that they have linkages whereas

majority of workers are unable to develop linkages with suppliers. During FGDs, workers highlighted

importance and benefits of developing linkages included cost sharing with suppliers, timely delivery of

input, and lending of input when needed. However, they said that they need a patronage and backing

to develop formal linkages with market. They seemed very confident to sustain partnership with

market once they are able to enter into it.

Workers purchase feed and medicines from a number of privately owned suppliers based in each

district. A few of them said that dairy project also supplies feed and medicines. Majority (i.e. 62%) of

workers receives supply after 5 days, 18% on weekly basis and 12% receive on a monthly basis.

Only 13% workers have partnered with suppliers who provide supply at their doorsteps. Majority of

workers purchase feed and medicines while visiting supply shops. They transport purchased feed and

medicine to their respective villages paying transportation charges, Majority i.e. 64% are very much


Page 20 of 58

satisfied with input suppliers while 21% are just satisfied with input suppliers. Rest showed little

satisfaction with the input suppliers.

5.1.18. Book Keeping and Business Training

A large majority (82.5%) reported to receive training on business practices and book keeping. Among

districts, all the workers from Multan participated in the training program, followed by Lodhran

(96.6%), Vehari (90.5%) and Khanewal (82%). Only 50% workers from Bahawalpur said that they have

received training whereas the rest in this district did not receive any training. Trained workers can be

expected to carry out better business practices including documentation of their transactions which

will eventually help them bring about efficiency in their work. It is generally believed that one of the

prerequisites for a successful enterprise is proper record keeping of transactions.

Table 18Workers- Business and book keeping training

District Training on Business Practices, Book

Keeping

Vehari 90.5%

Lodhran 96.6%

Khanewal 82.1%

Multan 100.0%

Bahawalpur 50.0%

Total 82.5%

5.1.19. Treatment of Animals

Table 19 presents details of workers’ engagement in treatment of farm animals. It appears workers

are providing basic health and treatment services to farm animals for almost all type of diseases listed

in the table below. Data indicates that majority of workers is involved in treatment of farm animals for

diseases like tympani, diarrhea and indigestion. For instance, about 81% of the workers reported

treatment of Tympani, 71 % are treating indigestion, 68% are treating Diarrhoea and 50% treat Parasitic

Infestation.

District level estimates present somewhat similar trends with a few exceptions. About 80% workers

from Khanewal are providing diarrhoea treatment services which are the largest across districts.

Similarly, more than 86% workers from Vehari are engaged in treating Tympani which is the highest

as compared to workers who treat this disease in other districts. As opposed to trend of workers’

involvement in treating animals for Parasitic Infestation across districts, only 3% workers from

Bahawalpur treat farms animals for this disease.

On an average, 9 animals are treated for diarrhoea, 7 animals for tympani, 10 animals for indigestion

and 17 animals for parasitic infestation in a month. Workers also provide vaccination services; they

handle 69 cases in a month, on an average.

They charge a fee according to type of disease and considering cost of medicines. On an average,

workers are charging Rs. 93 to treat one animal for diarrhea, Rs. 133 for treatment of tympani, and

Rs.114 for treatment of indigestion. Variation does exist across districts. Workers from Vehari and

Khanewal charge relatively higher fee for treating of diarrhea, tympani and indigestion among districts.


Page 21 of 58

Table 19 Disease Treatment and Monthly Income

Disease Do you treat? Av. No.

of Cases

/month

Av. Fee

Charged /

Case

Average

Monthly

Expanse

Average

Monthly

Revenue Yes No

Diarrhea 67.6% 32.4% 9 93 501 837

Tympani 81.1% 18.9% 7 133 314 931

Indigestion 71.2% 28.8% 10 114 529 1140

Parasitic Infestation 50.0% 50.0% 17 139 829 2363

Mastitis 31.5% 68.5% 4 251 600 1004

ND Vaccination 22.7% 77.3% 69 46 376 3174

Hemorrhagic

Septicemia

22.7% 77.3% 18 101 538 1818

Foot & Mouth

Diseases

33.3% 66.7% 12 152 760 1824

Calf Care 26.5% 73.5% 17 218 667 3706

A large majority (i.e. 90%) of workers are excited to share that farmers approach them for advice on

animal health and nutrition issues. Across districts, all the workers from Bahawalpur said that farmers

consult them on issues related to health and nutrition. Responding to a question about their reliability,

a majority (88.5%) said that farmers consider their services reliable. District-wise trends show a little

variation – above 90% each from Multan and Bahawalpur said that farmers consider them reliable

which is the highest across districts. Above 76 percent workers from Vehari reported having reliability

among farmers which is lowest as compared to other districts.

Conclusion/Recommendations

Almost all of workers consulted for the study reported an improved level of knowledge of animal

husbandry as compared to level of knowledge reported by potential workers during baseline,

Furthermore, a large number of workers have significantly higher level of knowledge on animal feed

as compared to knowledge level reported during baseline. Workers are engaged in providing extension

services to a considerable number of farmers in their respective areas. Majority of workers treat

diseases in animals like tympani, indigestion, diarrhea and parasitic infestation in animals.

Despite facing social issues and cultural issues, workers believe that their acceptance as worker in

their respective communities has improved during last one year. They claim that community members

recognize their work and give respect. In addition, workers believe that their livelihood greatly

contribute to household income which earned them respect in their families.

Workers believe that they should be linked with livestock department so that they can have better

acceptance within communities. Furthermore, since workers are not linked to livestock department

which could affect sustainability of their work after phasing out of the project, when there will be no

monitoring and support mechanism available for workers. There is an urgent need to have dialogues

with government relevant departments at provincial and district level to find ways to institutionalize

these workers. There is also need to discuss on policy level to sustain monitoring and ongoing support.

According to relevant government officials and academia they were not consulted during design and

conceptualization of the project. They believe that their contextual knowledge and experience might

have proved a value addition to the project especially in targeting and setting selection criteria as well

as in training design. Future interventions might need to be designed in close coordination with

relevant stakeholders including government line departments and relevant university departments.


Page 22 of 58

5.2. Artificial Insemination Technicians

Section Summary

The average monthly household income of the consulted AITs is Rs. 29,776, indicating a noticeable

increase in household income compared to the income reported in baseline (i.e. Rs 21,173). The main

source of income is non-agriculture (Rs. 10,971), followed by sale of milk (10,419) and agriculture (Rs.

8,386). It should be noted that AITs’ monthly income resulting from their involvement in extension

services, makes up a noticeable portion of households’ income from non-agriculture sources.

It is evident from survey data non-agriculture income source (AIT’s income from extension service,

jobs and business in household) contributes up to 81% in household income through extension

services, 53% of contribution of AITs to the income through sale of milk. Similarly, AITs contribute up

to 39% from agriculture income source. A large majority (92%) reported an increase in household

income during last year. More than 90% said that they are economically secure. Above 40% of AITs

said they have outstanding loans, of which, 86% are confident to pay off.

All of the consulted AITs said that they have knowledge regarding breeding of farm animals. Of which

49% of AITs claim to have high level of knowledge of natural mating and 48% regarding artificial

insemination. The trend shows an increase in knowledge level as compared to baseline, where majority

(above 60%) of respondents expressed to exhibit basic level of knowledge regarding both types of

breeding of animals. Around half of AITs have high level of knowledge regarding local as well as

imported semen and 24% said that they possess high level of knowledge regarding sexed semen.

Survey results regarding outreach revealed that AITs are the second largest to provide services to

farmers after veterinary staff. AITs provide extension services to 159 farmers in seven villages, on an

average, in a month. Similarly, on an average, each AIT handles 7 cases per month using imported

semen in each district with a success ratio of 59%. On average AITs are using local semen in 33 cases

per month with a conception success ratio of 70%.

5.2.1. Level of Education

Level of education of AITS is presented in table18. About 54.8% of the consulted AITS have completed

high school and 41.9% have completed intermediate. Only 3% have received education up to

graduation level.

Level of educational level varies across districts. Above 76% AITs from Khanewal have completed

education up to high school level. Bahawalpur has highest number of AITs who have received education

up to intermediate level (50%) across districts. Percentage of AITs with higher education (Graduation)

is the highest in Vehari (20%)

Table 20: Level of Education of AITs

Education

Level Illiterate

Up to

Primary Middle

High

school Intermediate BA/BSc MA/MSc

Overall 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 54.8% 41.9% 3.2% 0.0%

5.2.2. Age Group and Marital Status

Data shows that above 52% of AITs are married. Proportion of married respondents varies across

district. Above 65% of AITs from Vehari are married is the highest portion among districts. On the

contrary, Lodhran has the lowest number (39%) of married AITs as compared to other districts.


Page 23 of 58

The average age of the consulted AITs is 27 years. District wise variation reflects that average age of

AITs from Vehari is 29 and Khanewal is 24 which is less as compared to average ages in other districts.

A fair majority (65.5%) of the respondents are between 20 to 29 years of age, followed by 25% AITs

who are in 30 - 39 years of age group. Variation across districts is noticed – all the AITs from Multan

are in 20-29 years of age group, followed by Bahawalpur where 74% are between 20-29 years of age.

Similarly, 16.7% of AITs in Khanewal are up to 19 years of age – the largest number of proportion of

youth across districts.

Table 21 Respondent age categories

Age

Categories Up to 19 years 20-29 Years 30-39 Years 40-49 Years

50 Years and

Above

Overall 6.0% 65.5% 25.0% 3.4% 0%

The average household size in these project districts is 8 with an equal average number of males and

females per household. Table 20 shows average number of members of household.

Table 22: average number of HH members by age

5.2.3. Household Productive Assets

A large majority (86%) reported to own livestock and 83% said they also own tools including sewing

machine, washing machine, and carpentry tools. Also, 77.3% have precious metals and 74% have land

and real estate in possession. In addition, 62.2% responded that they have bank accounts and 61%

stated they have cash.

Variation regarding ownership of productive assets does exist. All the AITs from Multan and Lodhran

said they own livestock. A large majority (97%) AITs from Lodhran said that they own cash savings

which is the largest proportion among all districts whereas only 12.9% from Bahawalpur reported

having cash saving, which is the lowest proportion among all districts.

Table 23: HH Productive Assets

HH members Male Female

Infant (0-4) 1 1

Children(5-14) 2 2

Youth (15 -24) 2 2

Adults(25 -59) 2 2

Elder (60+) M 1 1

Productive Assets Overall


Livestock 85.7%

Cash savings 61.3%

Land/real estate) 74.8%

Bank accounts 62.2%


Gold, silver and precious metals (including jewelry 77.3%

Other tools (e.g. sewing machine, washing machine, carpentry tools 83.2%


Page 24 of 58

5.2.4. Household General Assets

AITs reported their households own a variety of general assets. All AITs reported their households

own cell phone and motorcycle. A large majority (98.3%) shared that their households possess fans

and 73.7% reported owing refrigerators. Washing machines are owned by a fairly large number of

households. District-wise trend shows a varying degree of household ownership of general assets.

AITs from Multan reported that they don’t possess TV set with dish antenna which is contrary to the

overall trend (Overall, 38% AITs reported ownership of TV with dish antenna in other districts).

Table 24: Percent Responses regarding possession of general assets

General Assets Overall

Fans 98.3%

Landline phone 0.8%

Refrigerator 73.7%

Cell phone 100.0%

HH Other Assets (TV with dish antenna) 40.3%

Washing machine 66.9%

TV without Dish Antenna/Cable 34.7%

Bicycle 31.1%

Radio 10.9%

Motorcycle 100.0%

5.2.5. AITs Household Debt

The consulted AITs reported outstanding debts, however, they showed their ability to repay their

debt. For instance, above 40% of AITs said they have outstanding loans. Of those, 86% are confident

to make regular repayments. A small number of AITs also reported members of their household who

are in debt. Nevertheless, they believed that majority of them are able to repay loan on a regular basis.

District level estimates show variation. Half of AITs each in Vehari, Multan and Bahawalpur reported

debt. On the contrary, a very small portion of AITs in Khanewal have debt.

AITs from Vehari, Khanewal and Bahawalpur showed their capability to repay debt. On the contrary,

AITs from Multan said that they don’t have resources to repay their debt.

Table 25: Household Debt and ability to repayment

Household

Debt

% AITs

having

debt

Ability to

repay

Ability of

HH

member to

repay debt

% of

household

member

having a loan

Ability of

regular

repayments

Overall 41.1% 86.4% 79.5% 16.3% 80.0%


Table 26 below gives percentage of distribution of expenses by household needs. Majority of the

household expenses is on food items which constitute almost one third of the total expenses incurred,

followed by 14% on education. Expenses on miscellaneous needs is11% of total expenses.

Variation in expenses varies across districts. For instance, households from Multan spend 45% of

income on food needs, whereas households in Lodhran spend a relatively small portion (28% of income


Page 25 of 58

on food items as compared to other districts. Households from Lodhran spend a significant portion

on health i.e. 27%, which is much larger than households’ investment on health in other districts.

Table 26: Distribution of household expanse

Household Needs Percent Distribution

Food 34%

Health 8%

Education 14%

Clothing / footwear 8%

Fuel and electricity 7%

Transport 8%

Communication (mobile phone,

etc.)

5%

Housing (rent & other costs) 5%

Miscellaneous 11%

5.2.7. Household Income and AIT’s Contribution

Table 27 presents estimates of household’s monthly income and AIT’s contribution. Estimates show

average monthly income of AIT’s household from non-agriculture livelihood activities is Rs. 10,971,

sale of milk is Rs. 10,419 and from agriculture is Rs. 8,386. Income of non-agriculture livelihood stands

high in its contribution to household income which is 81%. Data indicates that the revenue from AIT’s

extension services makes up a noticeable portion of non-agriculture livelihood source of households..

AIT contributes on average, more than 50% in the HH income coming from sale of milk. This is

followed by agriculture, where AITs contribute to HH income by 39%.

It is evident from data that AITs earn a considerable amount from AI extension services. As a result,

their contribution in monthly income has greatly improved. District-wise estimates reflect variations -

only 20% contribution from AITs from Bahawalpur to household income comes from sale of milk,

whereas 100% contribution is made by AITs in this district to household income through their

involvement in AI extension services as part of non-agriculture activity.

Table 27: HH monthly income and contribution of respondent (multiple responses)

Sources

of HH

income

Monthly

HH

Income

Sale of

Milk

%

Contribution

Monthly HH

Income

Agriculture

%

Contribution

Income HH

Non-

Agriculture

%

Contribution

Overall Rs. 10,419 53% Rs. 8,386 39% Rs.10,971 81%

5.2.8. Increase in HH income and Economic Security

A large majority (92%) of AITs reported an increase in household income during last year. All of AITs

from Multan and Lodhran said that their household income has increased. More than 90% said that

they are economically secured. All the AITs from Vehari and Multan said that they are economically

secure, followed by Lodhran (96%), Khanewal (84%) and Bahawalpur (80.6%).

A majority (72.7%) AITs noted that their family members take three meals in a day, whereas 27%

shared that their family members have 2 meals on a daily basis. Data reveals variation across districts.


Page 26 of 58

For instance, all AITs in Lodhran stated that their household members take three meals in a day. On

the contrary, only 25% AITs from Khanewal reported that their family members take 3 meals a day.

5.2.9. Knowledge of Breeding of Animals

All of the consulted AITs said that they have knowledge regarding breeding of farm animals. No

noticeable variation is noticed across districts. When AITs were asked to rate their knowledge level

of both types of breeding, almost 49% reported having high level of knowledge of natural mating of

breeding and almost 48% AITs rate their knowledge of artificial insemination as high. Above forty

percent rate their knowledge moderate in both categories of breeding of animals. Across districts,

80% AITs from Lodhran in each breeding category have moderate knowledge. On the contrary, more

than 80% of AITs from Khanewal demonstrate high level of knowledge in both breeding forms.

Knowledge level regarding breeding of farm animals

Knowledge Level None Basic Knowledge Moderate High

Natural Mating 0.0% 11.8% 40.3% 47.9%

Artificial Insemination 0.0% 7.6% 43.7% 48.7%

Almost half of AITs have high level of knowledge regarding local as well as imported semen. A relatively

small portion (24%) rates their knowledge high regarding sexed semen. A slightly above one third of

AITs each reported having moderate knowledge of local, imported and sexed semen. District level

variation is not momentous with an exception of Bahawalpur where all AITs possess high level of

knowledge regarding local and imported semen.

Table 28: AIT's knowledge of type of semen

AIT Knowledge of Semen

Knowledge

Level

None Basic Knowledge Moderate High

Local Semen 2.5% 11.8% 37.8% 47.9%

Imported Semen .8% 15.1% 34.5% 49.6%

Sexed Semen 15.1% 23.5% 37.0% 24.4%

5.2.10. Livelihood Training Received by AITs

It is noted that a few AITs have received livelihood training from different institutions. For instance, 2

respondents have completed 2-years Livestock Assistant Diploma (LAD) from Agriculture University

Faisalabad, 2 have completed a 3-months course on Village Veterinary Workers (VVW) from

University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore. Similarly, one respondent has completed one-

year Veterinary Assistant Diploma from a college and one has received 15-days training in agriculture

from an NGO. In addition, one respondent has received 15-days training on fisheries from GIZ.

5.2.11. AI Reach

The consulted AITs reported availability of AI services to farmers in target communities. For instance,

60% AITs confirmed that veterinary doctor is available for farmers, and 44% said that AITs are

providing AI services to farmers in target areas.


Page 27 of 58

Table 29: AI Reach in villages

Veterinary

Doctor

Veterinary

Technician

Veterinary

Officer AIT Any Other

59.6% 7.9% 2.6% 43.9% 2.6%

A large majority i.e. 85% shared that they maintain their register to document details of AI cases. All

the AITs from Lodhran and Multan maintain register. When asked about follow-up visits to farmers,

almost all of AITs reported to visit farmers to carry out pregnancy test of inseminated animals. No

variation in district level estimates regarding follow-up visits.

AITs provide AI extension services to 159 farmers on average in seven villages. AITs almost reach to

16% of farmers in 7 villages on average. AITs from Lodhran reach to 64% farmers in 10 villages whereas

5% farmers are being provided extension services in Bahawalpur.

Table 30: Average number of farmers with AI outreach

Average No. of

Villages with AI

Outreach

Estimated No. of

Farmers

No. farmers using AI

services

7 936 159

Table 31 below presents district-wise data on success ratio of pregnancy in inseminated animals.

Overall, AITs reported 51.9% inseminated cases are successful in one in two inseminated animals.

Variation is evident across districts – one pregnancy in two inseminated animals is the largest across

districts.

Table 31: Success ratio of pregnancy in inseminated animals

District

Success ratio of pregnancy in inseminated animals

1 in 1 1 in 2 1 in 3 1 in 4 1 in 5

Vehari 5.7% 5.7% 14.3% 42.9% 31.4%

Lodhran 12.0% 88.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Khanewal 29.2% 58.3% 12.5% 0.0% 0.0%

Multan 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Bahawalpur 0.0% 72.7% 27.3% 0.0% 0.0%

Overall 11.1% 51.9% 13.0% 13.9% 10.2%

When AITs were asked about their reliability among farmers, all of the consulted AITs responded

affirmatively and said that farmers consider their services for extension services. No variation exists

across the district.

All AITs reported linkages with input suppliers and other market forces. Across districts similar trend

prevails and no variation is noticed. Majority (60%) of AITs said that dairy project is main input

suppliers. In each district a small number of AITs partner with local vendors for input supply. Most of

the AITs receive input on their doorsteps through home delivery service. However, a small number

of AITs visit vendors and bring input using their own sources. Input is mostly supplied weekly and

majority of AITs (60%) are satisfied with services of suppliers.


Page 28 of 58

5.2.12. AI Services and Monthly Income

Data show that, on an average, each AIT handles 7 cases using imported semen in each district on a

monthly basis. The average monthly number of conception from imported semen is reflecting 59% of

success ratio. Average number of conceived cases in Lodhran is 8 out of 10 cases, suggesting success

ratio of 75%. AITs charge i.e. Rs. 1081 per case, on an average, nevertheless, AITs in Multan charge

Rs. 1,250 per case, on average, which is highest as compared to other districts. On average, each AIT

earns Rs. 7,567 using imported semen on a monthly basis with an expense of Rs. 4,208. Across districts,

AITs in Multan earns revenue of Rs, 12,500, on an average, in a month, which is the highest across all

districts. On the contrary, AITs from Khanewal, on an average, earn slightly more than four thousand,

which is the lowest as compared to other districts.

Table 32: AIT's practices of applying imported semen and income

District

Average

Applied

per

month

Average

Conceived

Per month

%

Conceive

d

Av. Fee

Charged /

Case

(PKR)

Average

Monthly

Revenue

(PKR)

Average

Monthly

Expense

(PKR)

Vehari 10 5 46% 1145 11450 6173

Lodhran 7 5 71% 1032 7224 4706

Khanewal 4 3 69% 1066 4264 575

Multan 10 8 75% 1250 12500 3020

Bahawalpur 5 3 66% 1050 5250 2781

Total 7 4 59% 1081 7567 4208

It is evident from data that on average AITs are using local semen in 33 cases per month. AITs in

Multan reported applying local semen on 75 cases, which is highest among all districts. On the other

hand, monthly use of local semen is lowest in Khanewal and Bahawalpur (26 cases each) among

districts. On average AITs charge Rs. 377 per case using local semen with a conception rate of 70%.

On an average, AITs earns Rs. 12,441 as monthly revenue with an expense of Rs. 4,438. The average

monthly revenue of AITs from Multan is highest among all district (i.e. Rs. 20,625), with an expanse of

Rs. 4411.

Table 33: AITs' using local semen and monthly income

District

Average

Applied per

month

Average

Conceived

Per

month

%

Conception

Av. Fee

Charged /

Case

Total

Monthly

Revenue

Total

Monthly

Expense

Vehari 40 26 63% 483 19,720 4411

Lodhran 35 27 79% 340 11,900 5510

Khanewal 26 18 69% 319 8,294 4061

Multan 75 63 83% 275 20,625 1350

Bahawalpur 26 19 72% 340 8,840 4184

Overall 33 23 70% 377 12,441 4438

On average an AIT performs 48 pregnancy tests in a month and charges Rs. 86 for each test. Average

monthly revenue from pregnancy tests is Rs. 3,088 and monthly expenses are Rs. 661.Average charges

for a pregnancy test in Multan and Vehari is more than one hundred rupees which is the highest among


Page 29 of 58

all districts. Average monthly income from pregnancy test services is Rs. 6,160 in Vehari which is

highest across districts.

AITs in Multan perform 112 tests in a month, on an average, which is the highest among districts. On

the other hand, 21 tests are being performed by AITs in Khanewal which is the lowest among districts.

Table 34: AIT's services of pregnancy test

No. of Tests per

month

Av. Fee

Charged / Case

Total Monthly

Revenue

Total Monthly

Expanse

48 86 3088 661

Overall 33% information was verified from register and a majority does not have registers maintained

though they claimed to update registers on a regular basis. District wise data indicates that are AITs

from Vehari and Multan are not accustomed to updating their registers. For instance, only one third

of AITs from these districts reported regularly maintaining their registers; however, 60% in other

districts maintain their registers on a regular basis.

Conclusion/Recommendations AITs reported that their monthly income has increased after receiving training from dairy project.

Data indicates that their earning substantially contributes to their household income which is a

reflection of positive engagement of AITs in livelihood activities their respective rural settings.

The consulted AITs reported possessing knowledge regarding breeding of farm animals including

natural mating and artificial insemination. Data indicate an increased level of knowledge as compared

to knowledge level reported during baseline, where a majority respondents exhibited only basic level

of knowledge regarding aforementioned types of breeding of animals. Similarly, findings of the survey

illustrate that AITs possess knowledge on variety of semen including local, imported and sexed semen.

It is evident from data AITs are ranked as the second largest to provide services to farmers after

veterinary officer. AITs provide extension services to a considerable number of farmers in villages in

their respective districts. AITs are using both local and imported semen with a higher success ratio.

FGDs with AITs revealed that few of them are registered with local livestock department,

nevertheless, majority are not registered. Similarly, no efforts have been made to link these AITs with

livestock department which could minimize their legitimacy and consequently affect sustainability of

their work in the long run. During interviews with district level livestock department official, it was

learnt that they have concerns regarding procedure adopted for AIT selection and training. There is a

need to hold a policy dialogue so that AITs are linked to livestock department to institutionalize their

work. In addition, livestock department’s involvement will also ensure proper monitoring and follow-

up of AITs.

Some AITs have established linkages with input suppliers which they did on their own, but majority

receive input especially semen from dairy project. However, AITs who purchase from local input

suppliers do not know quality of input. Dairy project may need to help AITs to link them to quality

input suppliers which can be a major prerequisite for sustainability in future.


Page 30 of 58

5.3. Farmers

Section Summary

The sale of milk contributes the largest portion of household income i.e. Rs. 25,887 followed by

livestock Rs. 16,950, and from agriculture is Rs. 13,984. On average, farmers produce 450 liters of

milk, of which 381 liters are sold in markets on a monthly basis

Overall, 69.7% farmers reported owning Pure Sahiwal breed of cows, 58.2% farmers possess cows of

Cross/European breed and 57.7% said to own Local/Desi breed of cows. A change can be noticed as

compared to baseline figures where 60% reported owning Pure Sahiwal breed, 54% Desi/Local and

about 25% own cows of Cross European breed.

At an average, 90 percent of overall farmers claim to know about animal nutritional requirements

indicating a change in knowledge base reported during baseline where 79 % of the farmers reported

knowing animals’ nutrition requirements.

For basic health and vaccination of animals both trained local person and veterinary hospital are

available for two third of farmers in the project area, whereas 27.8% of farmers reported availability

of AITs trained by dairy project.

Above ninety percent farmers reported to have knowledge about overall benefits of best farming

practices. Between, 68-79 percent farmers knew about silage making and teat dipping. A large number

i.e. 85% also reported to de-worming their animals and 93% are vaccinating their animals. Similarly,

81% farmers are feeding their animals with Vanda. However, only 22.6% farmers are making silage

despite having greater knowledge they possess on the subject.

5.2.13. Farmer’s Level of Education

Survey results showed that 18.6% of the farmers are illiterate and have never been to school while

14.1 % completed primary and 19.1% middle level. Comparatively a larger portion (i.e. 27.4%) has

completed high school. At district level, results showed a varying degree of educational back

ground.24.6% of farmer have never been to school in Vehari; whereas 35.1% of farmers in Bahawalpur

have completed high school.

Table 35: Farmers level of education

Level of

Education

Illiterate Up to

Primary

Middle High

School

Intermediate BA/BSc MA/MSc Any

Other

Overall 18.6% 14.1% 19.1% 27.4% 12.2% 5.9% 2.7% 0.0%

5.2.14. Marital Status, age group and family size

Overall, 72% of farmers are married. Number of married farmers is the highest in Vehari and Multan

(almost 80 %) and the lowest in Bahawalpur (63 %).

Average age of farmers in the target districts is 36 years. Above half of respondents are between 30

to 49 years of age while one fourth of respondents fall in the category of 50 years or above. Proportion

of very young (up to 29 years of age) farmers is the highest (52 %) in Bahawalpur, whereas older age

farmers (50 years or above) are more prevalent (24%) in Vehari among all districts. Household size in

these districts is 9. Household size is the largest in Khanewal i.e. 10.


Page 31 of 58

Table 36: Distribution of farmers by age group

Age

Category

Up to 19

Years

20-29

Years

30-39

Years

40-49

Years

50-59

Years

60 Years and

above

Overall 1.4% 35.1% 27.7% 17.4% 11.6% 6.9%

5.2.15. Possession of Productive Assets

Above ninety percent of farmers reported they own livestock. More than 80% farmers own land and

tools including sewing machine, washing machine, carpentry tools. A total of 30 % reported owning

Gold/silver and other precious metals. Nearly 60% reported to have cash in hand and whereas 48%

run bank accounts.

Survey results at the district level represent somewhat similar trends except Bahawalpur where only

16% have bank account as opposed to overall trend. However, farmers of this district have more cash

saving as compared to other districts.

Table 37: Farmers' possession HH productive assets

Productive Assets Overall


Livestock 96.40%

Cash savings 58.50%

Land/real estate 86.20%

Bank accounts 48.30%


Gold, silver and precious metals (including jewelry 79.30%

Other tools (e.g. sewing machine, washing machine,

carpentry tools) 87.10%

5.2.16. Possession of General Assets

Survey results showed that farmers own non-productive assets – a majority 98% reported to have

owned fans; similarly, 97% informed that they use cell phones. Likewise, more than 80% respondents

reported to own motorbikes –a main source of transportation in villages to travel to main city and

towns within district. Refrigerators and washing machines are owned by three fourth of respondents.


Page 32 of 58

Figure 4: Farmers HH possession of general assets

5.2.17. Farmers and Household Debt

A relatively small proportion i.e. 29% of the consulted farmers has acquired debt. Of those, majority

(93.1%) of farmers said that they are able to repay the debt amount. A small number of the consulted

farmers also reported that their family members also borrowed money to meet some of their urgent

needs, however, a fairly larger number of respondents (61.8%) of them believed that their household

members are capable to repay their outstanding loan. Variation is noted across districts. Almost half

of respondents in Lodhran reported debt. On the contrary, only one fourth of respondents from each

Khanewal and Multan reported having outstanding loan.

Table 38: Farmers having debt

% of

having

debt

Ability to make

regular

repayments?

household

members able

to make

regular

repayments

Household

members

having debt

Ability to make

regular

repayments

Overall 29.1% 93.1% 48.4% 7.6% 61.8%


On an average, a household spends Rs. 54,308 monthly on households needs including food, health,

education, clothing, transportation, housing etc. However, trends of house expense distribution vary

across districts. Farmers from Khanewal and Multan reported monthly expenses Rs. 67,092 and Rs.

66,597 respectively. Farmers from Lodhran reported Rs. 39,247 being incurred on household’s

expenses, which is the lowest as compared to other districts.

Figure 5 presents percentage of distribution of expenses by item overall. The major expense at

household level is food items on which 38 percent of household income is incurred, 11% of expenses

are taking place each on education, clothing and miscellaneous needs. During FGDs, AITs informed

that they spend on education of their siblings and children from their monthly income.

98.7%

2.0%

78.9%

97.1%

41.3%

76.9%

35.6%

37.9%

11.1%

85.5%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0%

Fan

Landline phone

Refrigerator

Cell phone

TV with dish antena

Washing machine

TV without Dish…

Bicycle

Radio

Motorcycle


Page 33 of 58

Figure 5: Farmers: Distribution of HH expense in percentages

5.2.19. Contribution of Respondent to Monthly HH Income

Data suggests that respondent farmers are substantially contributing to household income from sale

of milk (i.e. 58%). Likewise, respondents considerably contribute to household income from non-

agriculture as well as agriculture sources of livelihood. Respondent farmers contribute 45% from non-

agriculture and 39% contribute from agriculture sources to their household income. Survey results

illustrate an improvement in farmers’ contribution to household income from sale of milk as compared

to baseline figures where 38% of contribution was reported from this source. Qualitative data also

confirms that farmers’ contribution to household income from sale of milk has increased. Farmers

noted that their milk yield has increased due to their improved farming practices resulting in increase

in their household income.

Respondent’s contribution across districts varies. For instance, in Vehari respondents contribute to

94% of monthly household income while respondent farmers from Lodhran contribute 28%, which is

the lowest across districts. Overall, respondents from Vehari contribute 87%, whereas in Multan,

respondent farmers’ contribution to their household income appears to be at lowest i.e.16%.

Table 39: Farmers: Contribution to monthly income

Income

Categories

Sale of milk Sale of Dairy

products

Agriculture Non-Agriculture

income

HH

Income

(Rs)

Contribution

(%)

HH

income

Contribution

(%)

HH

income

Contribution

(%)

HH

income

Contribution

(%)

Overall 25,087 58 9,886 8.5 7,917 39 2,526 44.7

5.2.20. Household’s Perceived Economic Conditions Overall, a majority i.e. 85.7% perceived that their household is economically secure. District-wise

perceptions present somewhat similar trends where majority of farmers reported that they are

economically secure. However, a considerable proportion (35%) from Multan is apprehensive of their

livelihood prospects and said that they are not economically secure.

37.6

7.4

11.1

11.0

9.3

7.5

3.3

1.5

11.2

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0

Food water etc. =

Health

Education

Clothing / footwear

Fuel and electricity

Transport

Communication (mobile phone, etc.)

Housing (rent & other costs)

Miscellaneous


Page 34 of 58

5.2.21. Household’s Nutritional Status Table 40 presents household nutritional status of the consulted farmers. A fair large number of

farmers (i.e. 68.9%) reported their households are having meals three times a day. District wise data

on nutritional status of farmers’ household presents variation. Majority (93%) of farmers from Vehari

reported taking meals three times a day, indicating better nutritional status of their households. On

the contrary, a little above one third of farmers (30.8%) from Lodhran reported taking three meals

daily, and a majority of farmers (69.2%) in this district said that they take two meals in a day.

Table 40: Farmers- HH Nutritional status

District One Two Three

Four or

Great

Vehari 0.0% 7.0% 93.0% 0.0%

Lodhran 0.0% 69.2% 30.8% 0.0%

Khanewal 0.0% 28.9% 71.1% 0.0%

Multan 4.3% 28.3% 65.2% 2.2%

Bahawalpur 0.0% 58.1% 41.9% 0.0%

Total .6% 30.2% 68.9% .3%

5.2.22. Land Ownership (Acres) Table 41 presents details of the average land holding and its utilization. Average land holding in the

project area is 11 acres of cultivatable agricultural land. Land holdings size varies slightly across

districts. Farmers each from Lodhran and Multan have 12 acres of land holding on average, whereas

farmers each from Vehari and Bahawalpur reported owning 11 acres of land, on an average.

Regarding proportion of agricultural land used for growing fodder, it was noted that more than one-

third of the agricultural land was allocated for fodder. Land allocation for fodder varies across five

districts. A large portion of land is used for fodder in Multan (50%) followed by Bahawalpur (42%).

Farmers cultivate mainly maize on their land due to the fact that they are more sensitized regarding

nutritional benefits of maize for farm animals. Farmers believe that maize serves an important

component of nutritional feed of farm animals.

Table 41: Farmers – Cultivated average agriculture land

District

Cultivatable Agricultural

Land (Acres) % Used for Fodder

Vehari 11 22.1

Lodhran 12 29.6

Khanewal 10 23.0

Multan 12 49.6

Bahawalpur 11 41.5

Total 11 33.6

5.2.23. Ownership of Animal Breed

Survey findings show that farmers own each type of animal breeds. Discussion with farmers revealed

that animal breed has greatly improved over the years. The following table shows percentage


Page 35 of 58

responses on ownership of breed. Overall, 69.7% farmers reported owning Pure Sahiwal breed, 58.2%

farmers possess animals of Cross/European breed and 57.7% said that they own animals of Local/Desi

breed. There is shift in animal ownership trends as compared to baseline figures in this regard. For

instance, during baseline, about 60% reported owning Pure Sahiwal, 54% Desi/Local and about 25%

own animals of Cross European breed. This clearly indicates farmers’ improved sensitization regarding

benefits of adding quality breed in their herd.

In addition to adult farm animals, farmers have reported possessing herd of heifer and calf. For

example, slightly more than 50% farmers own calf of Pure Sahiwal breed, 44.3% reported possessing

calf of Cross/European breed and about 37% own calf of Desi/Local breed.

Ownership of farm animals varies across district. For example, ownership of pure Sahiwal is much

higher in Khanewal (86.9%) and Bahawalpur (80.4%). Lodhran has larger number of farmers who own

farm animals of Local/Desi breed. However, ownership of animals of Cross/European breed reflects

somewhat similar trends across districts except Bahawalpur where only 41.2% own this breed.

Table 42: Farmer - farm animal ownership (percentage Responses)

Pure (Sahiwal/Cholistan) Local (Desi) Cross/European

District Adult Heifer Calf Adult Heifer Calf Adult Heifer Calf

Vehari 64.3% 14.0% 27.9% 72.1% 24.8% 39.5% 57.4% 16.3% 34.1%

Lodhran 61.6% 10.5% 55.8% 80.2% 14.0% 62.8% 64.0% 17.4% 39.5%

Khanewal 86.9% 32.3% 36.2% 73.8% 33.1% 20.0% 68.5% 20.0% 40.8%

Multan 55.0% 0.0% 70.0% 40.8% 1.7% 40.8% 60.0% 1.7% 74.2%

Bahawalpur 80.4% 12.4% 77.3% 21.6% 3.1% 19.6% 41.2% 8.2% 33.0%

Overall 69.7% 13.8% 53.4% 57.7% 15.3% 36.5% 58.2% 12.7% 44.3%

Findings suggest that farmers own high portion of female farm animals as compared to male farm

animals in all categories of breed. About 58% farmers own female farm animals in Pure Sahiwal

breed, followed by 39.3% farmers who own animals of Cross/European breed, and 37.3% said they

possess female animals of Local/Desi breed. Though there are no baseline figures available on this

variable, nonetheless, qualitative data indicates that farmers pay greater attention on developing herd

containing milking animals of high quality breed. They noted that previously they didn’t have much

awareness about animals of high quality breed.

Table 43: Farmers - farm animals segregated by sex

Pure Sahiwal/Cholistan Local/Desi Cross/European

Male Female Male Female Male Female

Overall 26.20% 47.59% 20.47% 37.26% 18.86% 39.34%

A fairly large number of farmers said that majority of female animals in their possession are milking

animals. Milking animals in Cross/European breed are much higher (75%), followed by Pure Sahiwal

(62%) and Local/Desi breed milking farm animals reported by 61% farmers. Farmers said that they

are much sensitized regarding quality milking breed owing to high yield of milk.


Page 36 of 58

“Previously I was unable to produce high yield of milk due to the fact that I did not have quality breed of milking animals

in my herd. I was unable to earn adequate revenue and large portion of my earning would go to balance cost on

production. Out of desperation, I thought to close down dairy farming and start a new enterprise. However, due to

sensitization from staff of dairy project, I introduced milking animals of high quality breed into my herd. Soon, this

initiative started paying off my and milk production has substantially increased resulting in increase in revenue which

ultimately contributed to my household income”

-A farmer from Lodhran who owns a model dairy farm.

Table 44: Farmers - Status on Milking and Dry Animals

Animal Breed

Number of

Farmers having

female animals

Percentage of

farmers having

milking animals

Percentage of farmers

having dry animals

Pure Sahiwal 269 62% 38%

Local/Desi 212 61% 39%

Cross/European 226 75% 25%

5.2.24. Monthly Income from Farmer’ Livelihood Activities

Milk production is the main income source for majority of farmers with the fact that majority of

farmers are engaged in this activity for their livelihood. On average, farmers produce 450 liters of

milk, of which 381 liters are sold in markets on a monthly basis. Average monthly household income

from milk is Rs. 25,087 with an expense of Rs. 11,819. The consulted farmers shared during FGD that

their yield of milk has increased owing to improved feed, shed improvement, and disease control.

“I had 12 milking animals, but milk yield was not which adequate resulting in lesser revenue. I was oblivious of

modern dairy farming techniques and mainly relied on same orthodox outdated practices. When I attended training

organized by diary project, I learnt many meaningful skills of taking care farm animals. I have acquired skills and

knowledge regarding benefits of nutritional feed on growth of animals and milk yield. In addition, I came to know

how to look after animals. This training has given us an impetus to understand animals’ health conditions. I am

happy that milk yield has increased and I am able to save Rs.600-700 on a daily basis”

- A farmer from Vehari.

Production of butter seems to be less prevalent since only 39 farmers reported processing butter

production with a monthly average of 2.4 kilograms. A considerable number (i.e. 157) farmers

reported selling dry animals with an average of 3 animals in a year making a handsome amount (i.e. Rs.

95,333) yearly on an average. Similarly, 172 farmers said that they are also engaged in agriculture

activities including production of crops, fodder, manure/straw and earn a considerable revenue yearly

(i.e. Rs. 166,605) on average.

Table 45: Farmer - production and income of dairy and agriculture

Description

Quantity

Produced

(kg/liters)

Quantity

Sold

(kg/liters) Income Expense N

Milk(Monthly) 450 381 25,087 11,819 450


Page 37 of 58

Description

Quantity

Produced

(kg/liters)

Quantity

Sold

(kg/liters) Income Expense N

Butter & Ghee

(Monthly) 2.4 2 6,900 2123 39

Dry Animals(Sale)

(Yearly) 3 2 95,333 48868 157

Calf Sale(Yearly) 3 2 48,933 25151 105

Milking Animals

(Yearly) 2 2 59,555 16993 42

Others e.g.

Agriculture, Fodder,

Manure, Wheat

Straw etc.)

(Seasonal)

224 210 166,605 81119 172

5.2.25. Fodder Used During summer season, 97 % of the farmers are using cultivated fodder for farm animals, followed by

Vanda which is used by almost by 81% of farmers. Similarly, 80% farmers are using dried fodder during

summer season. (80%). Almost same trends are noticed in winter seasons. For instance, 95.6% farmers

reported using cultivated fodder, 78% Vanda and 80.5% are using dried fodder during winter season.

A considerable number of farmers used ‘Khal’ as fodder during both seasons. Farmers also use silage

during both seasons – 17% in summer and 22% in winter. Discussion with farmers revealed that training

has sensitized them regarding importance of nutritional feed and its benefits

Training and ongoing technical support from dairy project has increased my awareness regarding benefits of

nutritional feed. Owing to support, we have learnt how to process and make nutritional feed like silage and Vanda.

We came to know that nutritional feed increases animal’s growth and milk yield. Practically speaking, milk yield of my

farm milking animal has increased substantially owing to use of nutritional feed. -A 43 years farmer from Vehari

Comparing to baseline figures on usage of silage and Vanda, end-line survey results depict an

improvement e.g. during baseline 50% farmers reported using Vanda as animal feed, whereas during

time of end-line, 80% farmers said that they use Vanda. Likewise, during baseline little more than 5%

farmers reported using silage, whereas 17-22 percent farmers reported use of silage as feed during

this survey.

Table 46: Farmers – use of fodder

Type of

Fodder

Cultivated

Fodder

Collected

Fodder

Purchased

Fodder

Grazing Khal Vanda Silage Nutrition

Mix

Dried

Fodder

Summer 97.2% 13.9% 12.2% 11.7% 76.0% 81.3% 16.6% 35.8% 80.4%

Winter 95.6% 13.6% 13.5% 9.1% 75.0% 78.0% 21.7% 42.2% 80.5%

5.2.26. Knowledge of Animal’s Nutrition Requirement Figure 6 below present’s data on farmers’ knowledge of animal’s nutrition requirement. On average,

90% farmers know animal’s nutritional requirements – an improvement in knowledge as compared to

baseline figures where 79% of the farmers knew animals’ nutrition requirements. Similar trends

pertaining to farmers’ knowledge are noticed across districts except Bahawalpur- farmers where 58%

farmers said that they know about animal’s nutritional requirements.


Page 38 of 58

Figure 6: Farmers Knowledge of animal nutrient

5.2.27. Facilities Available for Basic health of Farm Animals

Data suggest that local trained persons and veterinary hospitals are available for almost one third of

farmers for providing services with regard to basic health and vaccination of animals. As opposed to

trends during baseline, services of AITs and WLEWs are also available for farmers. About 27.8%

consulted farmers reported availability of AITs and very nominal number (5%) said that services of

WLEWs are available. Discussion with farmers revealed that WLEWs do not reach to farmers due to

cultural constraints and they serve farmers live in their close vicinity. Some of farmers go to dispensary

or veterinary hospital since they treat their animals free of cost, whereas WLEWs charge a fee for

vaccination or treatment.

Table 47: Facilities of basic health of farm animals (multi responses)

Type of

Services

Self By a local

trained

Person

Local

Dispensary

Veterinary

Hospital

WLEWs AITs Any other

Overall 11.7% 32.3% 25.6% 32.7% 5.0% 27.8% 4.5%

5.2.28. Livestock Common Diseases

On average, two animals each from pure Sahiwal, one from local breed and three animals from cross

breed suffered from disease during the last one year. Variation across districts is not significant except

Bahawalpur where, on average, five animals were suffered from diseases.

Framers reported that 4 animals of pure breed, 5 animals of local breed and 6 animals of cross breed

got vaccinated during last one year. This shows a slight improvement in vaccination trend during

baseline where farmers reported 3.7 animals of pure breed, 2.2 animals of local breed and 2.4 animals

of cross breed received vaccination. Haemorrhagic Septicaemia and foot and mouth diseases are

reported by farmers as common diseases.

5.2.29. Breeding Practices A majority (84%) reported using artificial insemination as an approach for animal breeding showing a

significant change in the trend recorded during baseline where 45% reported using artificial

insemination for breeding of animals. Responses showed a considerable number (60%) of farmers are

96.9% 98.8%93.6% 96.5%

58.6%

90.0%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

120.0%

Vehari Lodhran Khanewal Multan Bahawalpur Overall


Page 39 of 58

also using natural mating as approach for breeding of their animals. A few farmers also reported use

of embryo transfer for breeding. Similar trends are noticed across districts.

Figure 7: Farmer -breeding approaches in use

5.2.30. AIT Service Availability Majority of farmers consulted said that they are well aware regarding importance of artificial

insemination technique for breeding of their animals. Similarly, they are well aware of presence of

trained artificial insemination technicians. More than half of farmers reported availing AI services in

their respective locations. Proportion of responses (i.e. 63.4%) of availability of AI technicians is notably

higher than the proportion of responses documented during baseline which said 53% of farmers were

aware of presence of AITs in their areas.

A large number of farmers (72%) from Vehari said that they are availing services of AI, whereas

comparatively a lower portion (41%) from Bahawalpur reported availing services of AI.

Figure 8: Farmer - availability of AI services

5.2.31. Satisfaction with the Animal Health Services

Almost 58% farmers said they are highly satisfied with available animal basic health services (12.6%

extremely satisfied, 45% very satisfied). This trend showed a significant increase in perceptions of

farmers as compared to their responses during baseline where only 9 percent of farmers showed a

high level of satisfaction with basic health services and vaccination of animals. One third of farmers is

somewhat satisfied with animal health services and 8% percent farmers appear not to be satisfied with

services available in the area. Variation is noticed across districts; above 70% farmers from Multan and

Vehari reported high level of satisfaction, whereas majority of farmers (61%) from Bahawalpur

reported little satisfaction on animal health services.

60.0%

83.9%

1.7%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0%

Natural Matting

Artificial Insemination

Embryo Transfer

3.7% 4.3%

37.7%

63.4%

Availability of AI Services (Multiple Responses)

AI Center AI Clinic Veterinary Hospital AI Technician


Page 40 of 58

Table 48: Farmer- satisfaction on animal health services

Ranking

categories

Extremely

satisfied

Very

satisfied

Somewhat

satisfied

Not very

satisfied

Not at all

satisfied

Overall 12.6% 45.0% 33.2% 6.6% 2.7%

5.2.32. Satisfaction with the Breeding Services

Likewise, above half of respondents showed their satisfaction (12.6% extremely satisfied, 45.7% highly

satisfied) indicating a significant increase in satisfaction level of farmers as compared to baseline where

only 11.6% farmers showed high level of satisfaction on available breeding services.

Level of satisfaction on breeding services varies across districts; almost 76% farmers from Vehari and

72% of the farmers from Multan expressed high level of satisfaction on breeding services. Nevertheless,

60% farmers in Bahawalpur expressed a somewhat satisfaction on breeding services available in the

area.

Table 49: Farmer- satisfaction with breeding services

Ranking

categories

Extremely

satisfied

Very

satisfied

Somewhat

satisfied

Not very

satisfied

Not at all

satisfied

Total 12.6% 45.7% 33.5% 6.0% 2.2%

5.2.33. Knowledge and Use of Farm Practices Table 50 presents details of knowledge and use of farmer practices. A large majority, above ninety

percent farmers reported to have high level knowledge about vaccination, natural mating, de-worming,

benefit of free water access to animals, Vanda feeding, AI using imported and local semen. Similarly,

considerably larger portion (68-79 percent) farmers know about silage making and teat dipping. Level

of knowledge in farmers about most of farming practices has significantly improved during the last one

year. Farmers level of knowledge regarding silage making, benefit of free water access to animals and

shed improvement has significantly improved as compared to baseline finding where 38% had

knowledge of silage making, 64% knew benefits of free water access and 42% had knowledge of shed

improvement.

Mostly farmers reported using their knowledge and carry out farming practices. A large number i.e.

85% reported they are de-worming and 93% are vaccinating their animals – a slight improvement as

compared to baseline trends (i.e. 81% de-worming, 84% vaccination). Similarly, 81% farmers are feeding

their animals with Vanda reflecting a substantial improvement as compared to baseline trends where

only 58% said that they are using Vanda for animal feeding. However, only 22.6% farmers are making

silage despite having greater knowledge they possess on the subject, displaying a slight improvement

as compared to baseline figures where only 15% farmers reported making silage to feed animal.

Nevertheless, farmers are using artificial insemination techniques using both imported (76.7%) and

local semen (80%) – a considerable improvement against baseline trends where a slightly more than

half of farmers were using AI techniques.

Across districts, both knowledge and use of farm practices are somewhat similar except Bahawalpur

where only slightly less than half of farmers reported not having knowledge of silage making, de-

worming and shed improvement.


Page 41 of 58

Table 50: Farmer-knowledge of farm practices

Farm Practices Knowledge Practice

De-worming 91.1% 85.2%

Vaccination 98.7% 92.9%

Silage Making 78.3% 20.6%

Free Water Access to Animals 94.8% 75.2%

Shed Improvement (fencing, model construction) 78.7% 30.4%

Vanda feeding to animals 97.2% 81.0%

Teat dipping 67.6% 45.8%

Natural Mating 96.1% 79.7%

Artificial Insemination using Imported Semen 92.5% 76.7%

Artificial Insemination using Local Semen 95.6% 80.1%

Data recording of farm animals 76.2% 38.3%

5.2.34. Reasons for Farmers’ Inability to Use Farming Practices

Below table-51 shows reasons highlighted by farmers for not using farming practices. Farmers who do

not use de-worming practices – 64% of them said that they do not have enough information, whereas

33% are of the view that they are satisfied with traditional methods of vaccination. 24% of the consulted

farmers don’t ensure free water access to animals owing to their belief on traditional methods. 35%

farmers reported not having enough resources for silage-making. Of those farmers who don’t prefer

Vanda and opt for traditional methods of feeding, said that Vanda feeding is too costly. About 63% of

farmers of those who do not practice data recording said that they do not have enough time to carry

out this activity.

Table 51: Farmers - inability to follow farm practices

Farm Practices Satisfied

with

traditional

methods

Too

Costly

Small land

to

implement

Not

enough

time

Not

enough

resources

Not enough

Information

Any

Other

De-worming 3.0% 4.5% 0.0% 6.0% 19.4% 64.2% 3.0%

Vaccination 33.3% 19.0% 9.5% 4.8% 14.3% 14.3% 4.8%

Silage Making 7.1% 30.6% 5.6% 7.5% 35.4% 12.3% 1.5%

Free Water Access

to Animals

23.6% 12.4% 28.1% 11.2% 16.9% 4.5% 3.4%

Shed Improvement

(fencing, model

Construction

8.6% 34.9% 14.1% 4.3% 23.9% 12.9% 1.2%

Vanda feeding to

animals

28.1% 32.8% 6.3% 4.7% 9.4% 14.1% 4.7%

Teat dipping 13.6% 13.6% 0.8% 20.0% 1.6% 42.4% 8.0%

Natural Mating 9.8% 7.3% 0.0% 0.0% 41.5% 8.5% 32.9%

Artificial

Insemination using

Imported Semen

33.3% 13.3% 1.1% 1.1% 10.0% 28.9% 12.2%

Artificial

Insemination using

Local Semen

36.3% 8.8% 0.0% 1.1% 9.9% 19.8% 24.2%

Data recording of

farm animals

7.3% 4.1% 0.0% 63.5% 8.2% 13.7% 3.2%


Page 42 of 58

5.2.35. Services of Silage Making

Slightly more than half of consulted farmers (56%) reported participating in silage show. Farmers also

informed availability of silage making technician in some of areas. However, only 18.9% farmers said

that they are using services of silage making technician. Farmers’ participation in silage show is much

higher in Lodhran (69.8%), followed by Vehari and Multan (60% each). Only one third of farmers from

Bahawalpur said that they participated in silage show.

Of those who avail services of silage making technician – a fair majority 62.8% showed satisfaction with

the work of silage making technician. However, level of responses pertaining to satisfaction level on

services of silage making technician vary across districts. Almost all of farmers from Bahawalpur are

satisfied with Silage Making Technician, nonetheless, only 20% farmers in Bahawalpur seem satisfied

with the services offered by the technician.

Table 52: Farmer - silage making practice

Districts

Percentage of

farmers

participated in

silage show

Percentage of farmers Using

services of the Silage Making

Technician

Level of satisfaction

regarding Silage

Making Technician

Vehari 61.4% 18.8% 44.6%

Lodhran 69.8% 12.1% 63.6%

Khanewal 52.0% 8.3% 53.8%

Multan 61.0% 37.3% 95.7%

Bahawalpur 34.1% 8.2% 20.0%

Overall 55.9% 18.9% 62.8%

5.2.36. Increase in Income after Dairy Project Training

A large majority of farmers (87%) reported an increase in their income after receiving training in dairy

farming. Almost of all of the farmers in Multan and 94% in Lodhran and 90% in Khanewal noted an

increase in their income. However, 20-25% farmers from Bahawalpur and Vehari reported either

decrease or no change in their income after receiving training in dairy.

Table 53: Farmer - change in income

District Income

Increased

Income

Decreased

No

Change

Vehari 81.1% 1.9% 17.0%

Lodhran 93.8% 3.7% 2.5%

Khanewal 90.3% 5.8% 3.9%

Multan 95.5% 4.5% 0.0%

Bahawalpur 75.3% 9.4% 15.3%

Overall 87.2% 5.1% 7.7%

Data indicates variation in responses of farmers regarding change in their income after training. For

instance, 31.8% farmers reported an increase in monthly income up to Rs.1000, whereas 19.9%


Page 43 of 58

reported Rs. 1000-2000. Almost same number of farmers noted that their monthly income has

increased more than Rs.5000. Across districts, 67% farmers from Bahawalpur fall in the first category

of income increase (up to 1000), whereas considerable number of farmers from Vehari (34%) reported

an increase in monthly income above Rs. 5000. Similarly, 25% farmers from Multan reported an

increase in income between Rs. 4000-5000 and 23% of farmers in this district reported increase in

income more than Rs. 5000.

Figure 9: Farmer - Change in income after training

5.2.37. Dairy Project Information to Farmers

A large majority 94% of farmers had heard/watched about programs on dairy farming. Across district,

similar trends are reported. Farmers considered the main source of information on dairy farming and

the project was through social mobilizer, reported by 79% farmers. Almost 26% reported leaflets and

pamphlets as sources of information regarding programs on dairy project. Farmers who have

heard/seen program through social mobilizers are 93% from Khanewal 92% from Bahawalpur and 83%

from Lodhran, whereas only 51% farmers from Multan have heard such program through social

mobilizers. Farmers shared during FGDs that dairy project’s social mobilizers and livestock experts

often would visit them and provided information about dairy project. In addition, aforementioned staff

from dairy project also discussed issues on fodder, animal’s health, sale of milk and related matters.

31.8%

19.9%

10.8%

7.1%

11.4%

19.0%

Rs. 0-1000

Rs. 1000-2000

Rs. 2000-3000,

Rs.3000-4000

Rs.4000-5000

Above Rs.5000

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0%

Level of Increase in Monthly Income After Training


Page 44 of 58

Figure 10: Farmer - medium used for information

Of those who received information on dairy farming through many promotional sources, 81.7%

percent of farmers rated it good or excellent. On the contrary, very few farmers 4 percent rated

disseminated programs as poor to fair.

Most of farmers in Bahawalpur rate high to the disseminated information. Similarly, a large majority

(70-80%) from other districts rate to the high disseminated information. Very few farmers in these

districts seem dissatisfied with the programs.

5.2.38. Follow Up Meetings

The consulted farmers reported that on average they were invited to 4 follow up meetings by the

Dairy Project after the trainings nearer to their location. However, district variation is noted. More

meetings were organized in Khanewal (7) followed by Vehari where on average 5 follow-up meetings

were carried out. On average, only one follow-up meeting was organized for farmers in Bahawalpur,

on the contrary.

On an average, 3 follow-up meetings were attended by farmers. There is a variation across district in

average number of meetings attended by farmers. Farmers from Khanewal attended 4 follow-up

meetings, which is largest number of meetings attended by farmers among all districts.

Responses regarding the usefulness of follow-up meetings, more than 86 percent of farmers rated

these meetings good or excellent. All of the farmers from Khanewal rated these meetings good or

excellent, followed by Bahawalpur 92% and Multan 85% who said these meetings are highly meaningful.

During FGD, farmers confirmed that follow-up meetings were meaningful due to the fact that dairy

project staff provided valuable insights on disease control precautions, animals’ nutritional

requirements, and importance of balanced daily feed intake. Farmers anticipated more benefits if more

follow-up meetings would have been conducted.

Table 54: Farmer - DRDF follow -up meetings

District Number of follow-up

meetings by DRDF

Number of meeting attended

Vehari 5 3

Lodhran 3 2

2.0%

9.2%

79.1%

20.4%

16.2%

Type of Meduims Used for Information to Farmers

Radio TV Social Mobilizer Leaflet/Pamphlet Street Theatre


Page 45 of 58

District Number of follow-up

meetings by DRDF

Number of meeting attended

Khanewal 7 4

Multan 3 2

Bahawalpur 1 1

Total 4 3

Conclusion and Recommendations

Data shows that farmers’ monthly household income has significantly increased as compared to

baseline trends on income. Farmers’ contribution in household income is substantial. The consulted

farmers greatly contribute to household income through sale of milk, livestock sale and agriculture. It

is evident from data that yield of milk has increased which resulting in increase in revenue. Reasons

described by farmer for increase in milk yield included use of nutritional feed, adding high quality breed

in their herd, disease control and proper care of animal using improved farming practices.

As discussed earlier, farmers have introduced farm animals of high quality breed. Findings of the survey

show that a considerable number of farmers own pure Sahiwal and European breed. Survey results

suggest that farmers’ ownership of aforementioned breed has increased as compared to trends

reported during baseline.

Improvement can also be observed in knowledge and skills of farmers of their animals’ health and

nutritional requirements. Farmers possess knowledge regarding benefits of nutritional feed,

importance of de-worming and vaccination of farm animals. However, a considerable portion of

farmers do not practice despite having knowledge on the subject and reasons cited include higher cost

involved and lack of enough resources.

Extension services are available for farmers which include local trained persons, veterinary hospital

and AITs for basic health, vaccination and breeding of farm animals. However, a small number said that

dairy project’s female extension workers are providing services. Inadequate presence of female

extension workers is mainly because of their inability to visit to large number of farmers live in villages

which are sparsely spread. And due to restricted mobility, female workers are unable to maximize

their outreach. Restriction on women is complex phenomenon and deep rooted in primitive societies

which can only be resolved if inclusive and concerted efforts are made engaging all stakeholders.

Farmers have also developed linkages with market agents for sale of milk comprising of individuals who

act as middle men as well as companies like Nestle Pakistan. However, farmers informed that they are

not appropriately paid since price is mainly determined by purchaser. Farmers noted that though yield

of milk has greatly improved and they are able to enhance their earning but due to relatively low prices

they are not able to substantially benefit out of an increased yield. There is a need for dairy project

to find solution for this challenge being faced by farmers. For addressing this issue, farmers’ groups

need to be formed at union council level so that farmers could have a platform to negotiate better

prices for their produce.

Discussions with farmers suggest that they are informally linked to model dairy farms where they are

expected to visit to seek guidance on farming. FGDs with farmers and informal discussions with

owners of model farm indicated that a very small number of farmers benefit from this arrangement.

Dairy project needs to make efforts to institutionalize this arrangement by adopting multi-pronged

strategies by holding mobilization meetings to explain benefits of continuous technical input and


Page 46 of 58

initiating more trainings to improve capacities of farmers who manage model dairy farms. These

trainings could be specialized training of trainers. This will be instrumental in enhancing the trust among

farmers.

Survey results show that farmers possess knowledge regarding benefits of silage and Vanda but

majority are reluctant to process and make the aforementioned feed. Farmers believe that process of

silage and Vanda making is expensive and they do not have ample resources. This can be addressed by

forming farmers’ enterprise groups in order mobilize them for resource sharing. A few successful

instances elsewhere can be instrumental for learning.


Page 47 of 58

6. Learning from Dairy Development Project Dairy Development Project was initiated on the basis of under mentioned three major lessons from

the previous experiences in the field of dairy development in Pakistan.

i. Livestock is an integral component of national economy in terms of its share in Gross

Domestic Production (GDP) and nutrition. It follows that increased productivity in

livestock sector can upturn GDP and, at the same time, enhance socio economic

conditions of people living below the poverty line.

ii. Skills and capacity enhancement of farmers plays vital role in improving the services in

livestock sector which, ultimately, results in better production of yield i.e. milk as well as

related dairy products and meat.

iii. Women constitute more than half of our population and they play a central role in agro

and livestock-based economy. Their share, however, remains unrecognized. Secondly, it

was also learnt, from previous projects, that the key to structural empowerment of

women lies in women’s freedom from economic subjugation which they can win through

their income-generation activities.

Keeping the abovementioned lessons in mind, dairy development initiative was started with the right

step in the right direction: empowerment of women through skill development. The project also

engaged women as livestock workers, small entrepreneurs and social mobilizers. The initiative was

also taken for including training program for men too. These training programs were focused on

Artificial Insemination, Livestock Farm Management and on the question of improvement in the on-

going phase of the project.

During the on-going phase, the project team learnt these key lessons:

1. Sharing information is key for better coordination among stakeholders

The project engaged numerous partners and stakeholders from Public- private sectors, NGOs, CBOs

and community members. Though it was challenging to take along all the stakeholders with diverse

stakes and interests in the project; the project team managed to do it by adopting participatory

approach. During the project implementation and community engagement phase, it was learnt that

sharing rather than concealing the information is key to trust building. This sharing of information plays

key role in reducing trust-deficit which naturally exists in the beginning of the project. Once the trust

is built, it promises better coordination which brings about desired results and developmental

outcomes. As result of help and assistance from stakeholders and partners; the project overachieved

the targets within the due timeframe and viable resources.

2. Learning is reciprocal process

The project engaged University of Veterinary & Animal Sciences (UVAS) as training institute. Through

the project, the faculty got an opportunity to know the ground realities at close quarters through

coming into direct connection with the rural communities and farmers. The faculty also had a chance

to relate their academic knowledge with the realities of the field. By this time, the faculty acknowledges

that learning is a never-ending process and they must remain in contact with the agro and livestock-

based workers in the field. Now, there is realization that through consecutive engagement; they can

upgrade their learning and find workable solutions to the problems faced in the field.

3. More to be done in livestock sector


Page 48 of 58

There are 6.500 million small farmers in Punjab; so a single project cannot reach to all the small scale

farmers in one go. The efforts are still little and less as compared to huge needs and demands of the

community at village level. For economic growth and social uplift, more efforts are required and more

work is needed to be done.

4. Better management improves the quality

Usually the training of 9-12 months is required for Artificial Insemination Technicians (AITs). However,

the Dairy Project trained its AITs in one month which was expended to six months later on as regular

requirement. About the quality of the training the UVAS is of the opinion that the better management,

implementation and integration of all stakeholders in the project yielded even better results in training

of less duration as compared to the training which are provided in 9-12 months.

5. Small farmers are backbone of the economy

In Pakistan the landholding is comparatively smaller and its reason is fragmentation of land. Therefore,

it is always challenging to reach out the smaller farmers in far flung areas. But once the small farmers

were approached and engaged; it resulted in increased productivity and profitability is enhanced and

it directly benefits the households at grassroots level. The small farmers which constitute 7.6 million

households and almost 50.00 million individuals are the half of the population in Punjab. So, improving

the conditions of these farmers amounts to improving the economy of the province.

6. A regulatory mechanism brings efficiency in the services of AIs.

The Provincial Government brought training and services for the Artificial Inseminators (AIs) under

a regulatory framework through a policy. The training delivery and examination for passing out trainees

was standardized with a database of successful service providers. This act of provincial government

improved the efficiency and efficacy in the services of AIs in the sector. The AIs are bound to ensure

Insemination of the promised breed. In case of failure; the AIs are taken to task by provincial authorities

with penalties like fines and cancellation of their licenses. During the process of standardization, it was

learnt that the regulations resulted in improved efficiency and efficacy of the services.

7. The community organizations and clusters are the key to success

In Pakistan the small farmers make a major portion of rural economy. The small farmers, however, do

not afford to adopt best practices at their own. For introduction and sustainability of best practices in

farming and dairy sector, each and every farmer needs to be approached and engaged in the

participatory development process. To reinforce the success stories and promote best practices; the

community organizations and clusters of farmers played a key role of a shared platform where smaller

farmers can participate on equal basis. Initially, the project did not encourage the community

organizations and clusters to avoid unnecessary pressure groups and power politics. Later on, it was

learnt that the community organizations are instrumental for promoting collective businesses like

supply of inputs i.e. medicines, semen, fodder and fertilizers along with selling dairy products. Dairy

and Rural Development Foundation (DRDF), after success of a few such organizations by the Dairy

Project, now plans to form at least 1000 organizations all across the Punjab.

8. Participation of women cannot be assured without removing the social barriers in the

society:

Women play a key role in agriculture sector by managing livestock at household level and processing

dairy products. Keeping their important role in view, DRDF took women empowerment initiative by


Page 49 of 58

ensuring their equal participation in services delivery in livestock and dairy sector. With passage of

time, it was realized that the women’s participation could not be ensured to the mark if their mobility

is restricted for socio-religious reasons. It was felt that until all the structural factors, which restrict

their mobility, are not removed; their full participation in services delivery cannot be ensured. From

collecting to selling milk, processing products and supplying fodder as well as treatment of animals, the

women in rural areas are always dependent upon their male relatives. Therefore, there is dire need

of shifting gender roles when it comes to service delivery and more.

9. Training is not an event it is a lifetime learning process

Training or skill development is not a one-time activity or an event but it is a lifelong journey. The

learning process never ends in life; so we cannot leave people after training, without refresher courses

and continuous engagement, in a particular skill, behavior and knowledge. A follow up is needed on

regular basis so that trainees must be equipped with new technological inventions and fresh

information. On realizing this, DRDF has decided to become permanent training institute for the

farmers to 1) facilitate follow up, 2) share new knowledge and 3) introducing best practices in the field.

10. Multi-disciplinary team is key to success of a development project

Dairy Project was implemented by a multi-disciplinary teamand diverse groups of people from

development sector and from corporate sector with relevant knowledge of social dynamics and

required skills. The team was efficient in conducting regular meetings, meeting the deadlines and

providing equal opportunities to the job seekers with appropriate skillset. Running a project with

such a team with diverse educational and professional backgrounds helped us achieve more than what

we were initially looking for.

11. During implementation successful components need to be scaled up

A project always starts to achieve some targets and translate certain outcomes into reality. The ground

realities, however, unfolded themselves during implementation phase and things were to be rearranged

accordingly. The project must be open to pick and scale up the successful components for greater

benefit of both direct and indirect beneficiaries and stakeholders of the project. In Dairy Development

Project the component of clustering the communities was one of the vital components, as it engaged

a wide range of stakeholders, needs to be picked and scaled up for social uplift and greater good of

great number of people.

12. Earning by women is spent on family wellbeing

While working with women and engaging them in income-generation activities; it was learnt that the

income generated by women is spent on family wellbeing as compared to that earned by men. Usually

50% of income earned by men comes to home after it has been spent on personal needs like cigarettes

and even drugs, in certain cases. The income by women, on the other hand, is spent on health and

educational needs of children. It has also been learnt that women have more propensity to save and

invest on lucrative projects.

13. A pre-designed structure doesn’t work for rural areas

Dairy Project had certain pre conceived notions and designs of animal shelters which were drastically

changed according to requirement of each individual farmers and ground realities. It has also been

learnt that the design of the physical structures must not be pre-conceived and kept open for


Page 50 of 58

modification during implementation phase of the project. The structure must be designed according

to the type and number of animals which vary from individual to individual, and place to place.

14. Farmers do not count their own input while calculating cost

In rural Pakistan, agriculture is not just an economic activity but a way of life. So, the in rural

communities hardly considered it a business or profession. The farmers usually do not count time

spent and work done in farming and livestock care by the family members. As result the farmers sell

their produce at cheaper prices. If time and labor by the family members is counted, the cost of the

produce would be far higher which would result in more profits and income. It was observed that the

farmers usually live hand to mouth because of not valuing the cost of their labor and time spent in

farming and animal care activities.

15. Street theatre was more effective than TV and Radio in Rural areas

Media campaigns were also part of mobilization process. However, it was observed that instead of

print and electronic media, people were more interested in street theatre. The electronic media was

ineffective because of interrupted electric supply and the print media proved to be unproductive in

the face of lower literacy rate. The street theater; however, was opted instead and was liked by

communities because of its entertaining nature, interactivity and live performance. The messages and

SoundBits communicated during the performance were carefully designed so that people may

remember and quote them.

16. Participatory learning was more effective than monotonous lectures

It was also learnt during the project that the monotonous lectures in skills development were

sometimes taken as too serious and boring by the trainees. The participatory learning method,

however, provide them with opportunity to share and learn from each other’s experiences in a

mutually learning environment. To make participation even more effective; a model farm was selected

for a visit where the farmers were briefed by the farm owner and he explains his innovative methods

of livestock management. The visiting farmers asked questions and shared their own experiences. It

was also learnt that through interactive exposures to model farms, the farmers learnt more as

compared to what they learnt in monotonous lecturing sessions by experts.

17. Consent of Government authorities should be accorded for Policy shift before a project

is launched

The shift in policy and regulation during implementation phase of the project jeopardized the smooth

implementation of the activities. The Dairy Project was designed for short duration training courses

for AITs. During implementation phase, however, the Government increased the duration of the

course through a policy shift.

The change in duration resulted into drastic increase in cost of the training for each trainee. As a

result, the number of trainees were reduced to meet the cost. It was also learnt that the Government

line departments must also be taken on board so that project could be implemented smoothly.


Page 51 of 58

Annex 1: Participants of FGDs

Farmers

S. No. Name of Farmer District

1 Sheik Azeem Dildar Lodhran

2 M. Ashraf Lodhran

3 M. Waseem Lodhran

4 Umair Lodhran

5 Faheem Lodhran

6 Gulzar Shah Lodhran

7 Shabbir Lodhran

8 M. Saqlain Lodhran

9 Muhammad Hanif Vehari

10 Irshad Ali Vehari

11 Abdul Majeed Vehari

12 Muhammad Faruq Vehari

13 Abdul Majeed Vehari

14 Habib Vehari

15 Muhammad Fazil Vehari

16 Ameero Bibi Bahawalpur

16 Hafiz Imran Bahawalpur

17 Syed Ahmed Bahawalpur

18 Muhammad Bilal Bahawalpur

19 Muhammad Bilal Bahawalpur

20 Muhammad Sharif Bahawalpur

21 M. Ramazan Multan

22 M. Naveed Multan

23 M. Imran Multan

24 Imran Multan

25 Ghulam Qadir Multan

26 Muhammad Irfan Multan

27 Azra Perveen Multan

28 M.Asif Multan

29 M. Umar Khanewal

30 Nadeem Faisal Khanewal

31 Zafar Iqbal Khanewal

32 Nayaz Khanewal

33 Ahmed Khanewal

34 M. Nasir Khanewal

AITs and WLEWs

S. No. Name District

1 Farhat Yasmin Khanewal

2 Razia Nazir Khanewal

3 Kiran Noreen Khanewal

4 Umar Khanewal

5 Mussarat Parveen Vehari

6 Sumera Liaqat Vehari

7 Nazia Koasar Vehari

8 Manzoora Bibi Vehari


Page 52 of 58

9 Sajida Vehari

10 Nazreena Bibi Vehari

11 M. Umair Vehari

11 Iram Hassan Bahawalpur

12 Khalida Yasmin Bahawalpur

13 Bushra Bibi Bahawalpur

14 Mohbeen Gulzar Bahawalpur

15 Gulzar Ahmed Bahawalpur

16 Musarrat Multan

17 Eashida Multan

18 Azra Parveen Multan

19 Imran Multan

20 M. Ramazan Multan

21 Sheikh Azeem Dildar Lodhran

22 Azra Bibi Lodhran

23 Shugufta Parveen Lodhran

Farm Upgradation (Individual Interviews and observations)

S. No. Name of Farmers District

1 Amjad Sindhu Multan

2 Lashkar Ali Multan

3 Shahzad Multan

USAID- DRDF Dairy Projectpdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00MH9K.pdf · · 2017-01-13Reasons for...

Documents

Transcript of USAID- DRDF Dairy Projectpdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00MH9K.pdf · · 2017-01-13Reasons for...