Using Dairy Value Chains to Identify Production Constraints and Biosecurity Risks
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Ethics Approval
2.2. Study Area
2.3. Participants
2.4. Data Collection
2.5. Data Handling and Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Participants
3.2. Input Value Chains
3.2.1. Feed
- Green fodder: The farmer FGDs revealed that on average, 82% of farmers self-cultivated their green fodder, while others either purchased (12%), or harvested uncultivated grass or allowed their animals into community grazing fields (6%). The veterinary practitioners’ assessment regarding the supply of green fodder varied slightly from the farmers’ FGDs. They believed that a higher proportion of farmers (92%) self-cultivated fodder and only 6% purchased green fodder. The percentage of farmers allowing community grazing according to the veterinary practitioners was reported to be similarly low (3%; Table 2).
- Dry fodder: It was reported that the dry fodder usually consisted of wheat straw, which was obtained from the remains of the wheat crop harvest. The farmer FGDs reported that on an average 60% of the farmers used the wheat straw from their own fields, while 40% purchased it from the market, a figure that was found to be similar to the results of the questionnaire data (63% self-cultivated and 37% purchased). The veterinary practitioners, however, felt that a larger proportion of the farmers (75%) used the self-cultivated wheat straw (Table 2).
- Concentrates: Majority of farmers (63%) reported to purchase the readymade cattle product for the concentrate feed during the FGDs, but the proportion was slightly lower (55%) in the individual responses to the questionnaire. The average assessment of the veterinary practitioners was similar to the farmer FGDs. A large majority (75%) of farmers reported not using mineral supplementation in their animal feed, which was contrary to the findings of the questionnaire (47%) or the assessment of the veterinary practitioners (20%; Table 2).
3.2.2. Artificial Insemination and Veterinary Services
3.3. Output Value Chains
3.3.1. Milk
3.3.2. Animal Sales and Culling
3.3.3. Carcass Disposal
3.3.4. Biosecurity Practices
3.3.5. Manure Disposal and Use
4. Discussion
4.1. Input Value Chains
4.1.1. Feed
- Green fodder: Punjab is one of the better placed Indian states in terms of green fodder production due to its favorable agroclimatic conditions [19]. However, 18% of farmers relied on purchased green fodder or leaving their animals to community grazing. A dairy animal on average requires at least 40–50 kg of green fodder per day (8–10% of body weight) [20]. The daily availability of green fodder in the state varies from 25.6 to 28.1 kg per adult cow [21] indicating deficiency of green fodder, resulting in nutritional deficiencies and inadequate milk production [22]. The shortage of green fodder has been amplified over years due to the increased pressure on cultivable land to grow food grains, pulses and oilseeds to cater for growing human population in India. To bridge the gap between the demand and availability of fodder, the government of India added a feed and fodder component to the national livestock mission (NLM) [3]. The mission aims to enhance fodder production in the country by introducing fodder crops in the crop rotation, developing regional fodder calendars, organizing the demonstration of fodder conservation methods and establishing training programs for the farmers, among other related initiatives. Self-cultivated fodder emerged as a crucial link in the value chain, and implementation of such objectives would enhance the availability of green fodder to dairy farmers.It is pertinent to understand that the NLM drive follows earlier initiatives of the Feed and Fodder Development (FFDP-2005/06) and Accelerator Fodder Development Program (AFDP-2011/12), which largely remained ineffective [4,23]. Hence, the success of the NLM objectives will much depend on bringing radical changes to the farm practices through awareness campaigns and training.
- Dry fodder: Wheat is a major cereal crop in Punjab and use of the crop-residue for livestock feed is not unexpected [24]. However, a major proportion of the respondents (37%) reportedly purchase wheat straw from the market to feed their animals. This implies that either the crop residue obtained is grossly inadequate or is unavailable to small scale livestock farmers with small or no land holdings. Interestingly, in contrast the state faces a problem of underutilization of crop residues, and cultivators resort to crop burning, causing enormous environmental pollution [25]. Unfortunately, a study conducted to explore sustainable solutions to limit the burning of crop residue did not rank its usage for animal feed as a priority [26] against other economically beneficial options. The crop residue management scheme announced by the Government of India is likely to address this issue by encouraging the use of crop residues for environmentally friendly options such as a source of animal feed [26,27]. A major gap noted in the farmer FGDs is that silage making practices were not mentioned, although silage has been recommended by nutrition experts as a substitute when green fodder is not available [28]. The use of silage minimizes the total loss of nutrients from harvest through storage and offer increased feed handling efficiency [29], in addition to increasing the efficiency of land use [30]. However, despite the efforts of extension agencies [31], the uptake of this practice in this study was found to be negligible. Presumably, this may be due to poor awareness among farmers, low land availability or priority of other cash crops. Another factor that might restrict this activity is the enormous labor input involved in silage making, which makes it economically unviable for small-scale farmers. However, the barriers to the adoption of this practice need further investigation. A notable finding of the FGDs is that fewer farmers (<5%) opted for community grazing practices. There has been a reduction in the availability of open spaces for grazing. This may be because available space is increasingly being utilized for the cultivation of commercial crops, which restricts cattle grazing [32]. While this reduces the risk of animal-to-animal transmission of infectious diseases, it severely compromises welfare by restricting animal movement. The prospect of increasing farm sizes to facilitate grazing seems improbable in the future, but the option of erecting exercise rings within the available area could be explored. The practice of community watering at communal ponds was also found to have disappeared over years [33], however, the stakeholders of this study were unanimous that this practice is no longer critical. Most of the farmers use bore water or have installed submersible pumps for their watering needs. This is a positive development for animal and public health as animals are less likely to contract infectious diseases than they would have while congregating at the pond. Additionally, they are less likely to be infected with parasites such as liver fluke, which requires intermediate hosts such as snails living in or near ponds.
- Concentrates: In contrast to the practice in the rest of the country, where concentrate feed constitutes a mere 6% of the feed composition of dairy animals, the farmers in Punjab were reportedly more inclined to use compound or concentrated animal feed, as most of them purchased the concentrate [4]. The practice of using concentrate feed has in fact risen to 60% from less than half of the farmers in the state as reported by Janssen and Swinnen [19]. This could be due to better reach of the dairy cooperatives and multinational companies such as Nestle in Punjab compared with other states in India [19]. Nonetheless, a substantial majority of the respondents in this study (FGD average—37%, individual response—45%) still used self-prepared concentrate feed, which is possibly a reason for the milk production being below potential (Table 2). We understand that the practice of self-preparing feed concentrate consisting of on-farm produce mixed with locally available ingredients is more characteristic of small-scale farmers. These farmers refrain from purchasing commercial cattle feed due to economic constraints [4,34]. The farmers who purchased concentrate feed expressed dissatisfaction with the varying quality of the concentrate available in the market [35]. While it would be desirable for large scale dairy farmers to make their own feed mixes, educating farmers on the constituents of a good concentrate feed may not be practically viable. Hence, we recommend that the regulatory body constituted by the government must strictly ensure adherence to minimum standards of feed quality in the open market.
- Mineral mixtures: Surprisingly, according to the individual farmer response to the questionnaire, the usage of mineral mixture in the area of study has doubled compared to a study conducted by Bakshi and Wadhwa [34]. The use of mineral mixture is important in order to maintain reproductive potential and to prevent anestrous and infertility in cows. The increase in its usage could be credited to the success of extension messages conveyed by the government agencies in convincing farmers about its benefits. Nonetheless, there remains a huge potential for wider use of mineral mixtures in dairy animal feed, which could improve animal reproductive health and milk production.
4.1.2. Veterinary and Animal Health Management Services
4.2. Output Value Chains
4.2.1. Milk
4.2.2. Animal Purchase/Sale and Culling
4.2.3. Carcass Disposal
4.2.4. Manure Disposal and Use
4.3. System Vulnerabilities for Infectious Disease Transmission and Spread
5. Conclusions and Future Perspective
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Department of Animal Husbandry Dairying and Fisheries. Annual Report 2018–2019; Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare: New Delhi, India, 2019; p. 198.
- Ohlan, R. Dairy economy of India: Structural changes in consumption and production. South Asia Res. 2016, 36, 241–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Government of India. Animal Husbandry & Dairying. In Basic Animal Husbandry Statistics 2019; Government of India: New Delhi, India, 2019; p. 150. [Google Scholar]
- Landes, M.; Cessna, J.; Kuberka, L.; Jones, K. India’s Dairy Sector: Structure, Performance, and Prospects; United States Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
- Birthal, P.S.; Chand, R.; Joshi, P.; Saxena, R.; Rajkhowa, P.; Khan, M.T.; Khan, M.A.; Chaudhary, K.R. Formal versus informal: Efficiency, inclusiveness and financing of dairy value chains in Indian Punjab. J. Rural Stud. 2017, 54, 288–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- M4P. Making Value Chains Work Better for the Poor: A Tootlbook for Practitioners of Value Chain Analysis, Version 3; Making Markets Work Better for the Poor (M4P) Project; UK Department for International Development (DFID); Agricultural Development International: Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 2008; pp. 1–165.
- Taylor, N.; Hinrichs, J. Designing and Implementing Livestock Value Chain Studies. A Practical Aid for Highly Pathogenic and Emerging Disease (HPED) Control; 1810-0708; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2012; p. 43.
- Kuma, B. Market Access and Value Chain Analysis of Dairy Industry in Ethiopia. Ph.D. Thesis, Haramaya University, Haramaya, Ethiopia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Carron, M.; Alarcon, P.; Karani, M.; Muinde, P.; Akoko, J.; Onono, J.; Fèvre, E.M.; Häsler, B.; Rushton, J. The broiler meat system in Nairobi, Kenya: Using a value chain framework to understand animal and product flows, governance and sanitary risks. Prev. Vet. Med. 2017, 147, 90–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lowe, M.; Gereffi, G.; Ayee, G.; Denniston, R.; Fernandez-Stark, K.; Kim, J.; Sang, N. A Value Chain Analysis of the U.S. Beef and Dairy Industries; Report Prepared for Environmental Defense Fund; Center on Globalization, Governance & Competitiveness, Duke University: Duke, NC, USA, 2009; pp. 1–55. [Google Scholar]
- Achchuthan, S.; Rajendran, K. A Study on Value Chain Analysis in Dairy Sector Kilinochchi District, Sri Lanka. Glob. J. Manag. Bus. Res. 2012, 12, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Vamsidhar Reddy, T.S.; Baltenweck, I.; Kumari, R.; Jha, A.K.; Teufel, N. Issues in the development of dairy value chains in rural India. In Proceedings of the Presented at the International Conference of Agricultural Economists (ICAE), Milan, Italy, 8–14 August 2015. [Google Scholar]
- COI. 2011 Census of India; Government of India: New Delhi, India, 2011.
- NDDB. Dairying in Punjab A Statistical Profile; NDDB: Anand, India, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- NSSO. Livestock Ownership in India (70th Round) Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; Government of India: New Delhi, India, 2013.
- Dhand, N. General evidence for a brucellosis control program in India. In Proceedings of the Society for Veterinary Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine (SVEPM), Westport, Ireland, 25–27 March 2020. [Google Scholar]
- R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Wickam, H. Ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Janssen, E.; Swinnen, J. Technology adoption and value chains in developing countries: Evidence from dairy in India. Food Policy 2019, 83, 327–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, P.M. AB Managing Agriculture for a Better Tomorrow: The Indian Experience. In Managing Agriculture for a Better Tomorrow: The Indian Experience; Pande, D., Ed.; MD Publications Pvt. Ltd.: New Delhi, India, 1998; pp. 92–93. [Google Scholar]
- Singh, R. Availability and Utilization Pattern of Green Fodder in Punjab. Master’s Thesis, Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Ludhiana, Punjab, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Nagrale, B.G.; Datta, K.; Chauhan, A. An analysis of constraints faced by dairy farmers in Vidarbha region of Maharashtra. Indian J. Dairy Sci. 2015, 68, 390–394. [Google Scholar]
- Planning Commission, Government of India. Report of the Working Group on Animal Husbandry and Dairying for the 12th 5-Year Plan (2012–2017); Planning Commission, Government of India: New Delhi, India, 2012.
- Devi, S.; Gupta, C.; Jat, S.L.; Parmar, M. Crop residue recycling for economic and environmental sustainability: The case of India. Open Agric. 2017, 2, 486–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaur, A. Crop residue in Punjab agriculture-status and constraints. J. Krishi Vigyan 2017, 5, 22–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, P.; Singh, R.K. Selection of sustainable solutions for crop residue burning: An environmental issue in northwestern states of India. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2020, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, P.; Kumar, S.; Joshi, L. Socioeconomic and Environmental Implications of Agricultural Residue Burning: A Case Study of Punjab; Springer Nature: New Delhi, India, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- NDDB. Silage Making; NDDB: Anand, India, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Mahanna, W.; Chase, L. Practical applications and solutions to silage problems. In Silage Science and Technology; Dwayne, R., Buxton, R.E.M., Joseph, H.H., Eds.; American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 2003; Volume Agronomy Monograph No. 42, pp. 855–895. [Google Scholar]
- Phillips, C.J.C. The use of conserved forage as a supplement for grazing dairy cows. Grass Forage Sci. 1988, 43, 215–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, M.; Singh, G.; Keshava. Impact evaluation of training programmes on dairy farming in Punjab State. Indian Res. J. Ext. Edu. 2014, 14, 105–108. [Google Scholar]
- Lindahl, J.F.; Deka, R.P.; Asse, R.; Lapar, L.; Grace, D. Hygiene knowledge, attitudes and practices among dairy value chain actors in Assam, north-east India and the impact of a training intervention. Infect. Ecol. Epidemiol. 2018, 8, 1555444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, P.; Pandey, S.; Sharma, R.; Upadhyay, J.; Ray, A.; Biradar, N.; Radotra, S. CPLR and Water Resource Utilization by Livestock Farmers in Different Ecosystems of India. 2020. Available online: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/igc/23/3-6-1/8/ (accessed on 30 April 2020).
- Bakshi, M.; Wadhwa, M. Nutritional status of dairy animals in different regions of Punjab State in India. Indian J. Anim. Sci. 2011, 81, 52. [Google Scholar]
- Singh, J.; Singh, P.; Verma, H. Knowledge level of cattle feed manufactures of Punjab. J. Anim. Res. 2012, 2, 87–92. [Google Scholar]
- Chandel, B.; Singh, R. Policy interventions for mainstreaming of small milk producers in contemporary production system-a value chain analysis of Indian dairy sector. Indian J. Dairy Sci. 2015, 68, 73–82. [Google Scholar]
- Proch, V.; Singh, B.; Schemann, K.; Gill, J.; Ward, M.; Dhand, N. Risk factors for occupational Brucella infection in veterinary personnel in India. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2018, 65, 791–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mrunalini, N.; Reddy, M.; Ramasastry, P.; Rao, M. Seroepidemiology of human brucellosis in Andhra Pradesh. Indian Vet. J. 2004, 81, 744–747. [Google Scholar]
- Yohannes Gemechu, M.; Paul Singh Gill, J. Seroepidemiological survey of human brucellosis in and around Ludhiana, India. Emerg. Health Threat. J. 2011, 4, 7361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shome, R.; Kalleshamurthy, T.; Shankaranarayana, P.B.; Giribattanvar, P.; Chandrashekar, N.; Mohandoss, N.; Shome, B.R.; Kumar, A.; Barbuddhe, S.B.; Rahman, H. Prevalence and risk factors of brucellosis among veterinary health care professionals. Pathog. Glob. Health 2017, 111, 234–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, H.; Jadhav, V.J.; Garg, S.R. Aflatoxin M1 in milk in Hisar city, Haryana, India and risk assessment. Food Addit. Contam. Part B 2020, 13, 59–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Das, G.; Jain, D. Research Note: Factors Affecting the Price of Bullocks in the Organised Cattle Fairs of Rajasthan. Indian J. Agric. Econ. 2013, 68, 594–599. [Google Scholar]
- Das, G.; Jain, D.; Dhaka, J. Analysis of price spread and marketing efficiency of milch cow marketing in the state level cattle fairs of Rajasthan, India. Saarc J. Agric. 2014, 12, 33–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mondal, P.; Pandey, U. Factors influencing the market price of lactating Murrah buffaloes in Haryana. Indian J. Agric. Econ. 1993, 48, 687–693. [Google Scholar]
- Neethirajan, S. Digitalization of Animal Farming. Preprints 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hiremath Uday, V. Digitalisation in Rural Entrepreneurship a Paradigm Shift. Int. J. Trend Sci. Res. Dev. 2018, 250–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mudda, K.; Giddi, B.; Murthy, P. A study on the digitization of supply chains in agriculture-an Indian experience. J. Agric. Inform. 2017, 8, 45–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Integrity Systems. National Livestock Identification System. Available online: https://www.nlis.com.au (accessed on 18 November 2020).
- Danish Veterinary and Food Administration. Livestock Identification, Registration and Traceability. Available online: https://www.foedevarestyrelsen.dk/english/Animal/AnimalHealth/Animal%20diseases/Monitoring_control_animal_diseases/Livestock_identification_registration_and_traceability/Pages/default.aspx (accessed on 18 November 2020).
- Ministry of Primary Industries. National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) Programme. Available online: https://www.mpi.govt.nz/animals/national-animal-identification-tracing-nait-programme/ (accessed on 18 November 2020).
- Kennedy, U.; Sharma, A.; Phillips, C.J. The Sheltering of unwanted cattle, experiences in India and implications for cattle industries elsewhere. Animals 2018, 8, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brookes, V.; Gill, G.; Singh, C.; Sandhu, B.; Dhand, N.; Singh, B.; Gill, J.; Ward, M. Exploring animal rabies endemicity to inform control programmes in Punjab, India. Zoonoses Public Health 2018, 65, e54–e65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Singh, B.B.; Kaur, R.; Gill, G.S.; Gill, J.P.S.; Soni, R.K.; Aulakh, R.S. Knowledge, attitude and practices relating to zoonotic diseases among livestock farmers in Punjab, India. Acta Trop. 2019, 189, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, A.; Riedel, T.; Hussain, R.; Patel, I. Beef Ban in India: A Multi-dimensional Issue. J. Pharm. Pract. Community Med. 2020, 6, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bijla, S.; Khalandar, S.; Sharma, P.; Singh, A. An Analysis of Constraints Faced by Gaushalas in Haryana. Econ. Aff. 2019, 64, 191–195. [Google Scholar]
- Rao, T.; Chaurasia, S.; Singh, A.; Gamit, V. Management of Stray Cattle in Urban Area. Tongue Grafting Sohiong 2016, 3, 236. [Google Scholar]
- Cunningham, A.A.; Prakash, V.; Pain, D.; Ghalsasi, G.; Wells, G.; Kolte, G.; Nighot, P.; Goudar, M.; Kshirsagar, S.; Rahmani, A. Indian vultures: Victims of an infectious disease epidemic? Anim. Conserv. 2003, 6, 189–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taggart, M.A.; Cuthbert, R.; Das, D.; Sashikumar, C.; Pain, D.; Green, R.; Feltrer, Y.; Shultz, S.; Cunningham, A.; Meharg, A. Diclofenac disposition in Indian cow and goat with reference to Gyps vulture population declines. Environ. Pollut. 2007, 147, 60–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, B.; Ghatak, S.; Banga, H.; Gill, J.; Singh, B. Veterinary urban hygiene: A challenge for India. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz 2013, 32, 645–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pal, M.; Gizaw, F.; Fekadu, G.; Alemayehu, G.; Kandi, V. Public health and economic importance of bovine Brucellosis: An overview. Am. J. Epidemiol. Infect. Dis. 2017, 5, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chugh, T. Emerging and re-emerging bacterial diseases in India. J. Biosci. 2008, 33, 549–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahuja, S. Cost Effective Solution for Carcass Disposal in India. Int. J. Environ. Sci. 2011, 1, 1373. [Google Scholar]
- Sharma, R. Dalits and human rights in India. Towards Light 2017, VIII, 61. [Google Scholar]
- Pahwa, S.; Swain, S. The fate and management of sick and dying cattle–Consequences on small-scale dairy farmers of peri-urban areas in India. Indian J. Community Med. Off. Publ. Indian Assoc. Prev. Soc. Med. 2020, 45, S43. [Google Scholar]
- Mantur, B.; Amarnath, S.; Shinde, R. Review of clinical and laboratory features of human brucellosis. Indian J. Med. Microbiol. 2007, 25, 188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Penakalapati, G.; Swarthout, J.; Delahoy, M.J.; McAliley, L.; Wodnik, B.; Levy, K.; Freeman, M.C. Exposure to animal feces and human health: A systematic review and proposed research priorities. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 11537–11552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Vahora, S.; Thorat, G.; Ramjiyani, D. Involvement of Tribal Dairy Women in Health Care Management Practices of Animal Husbandry. Gujarat J. Ext. Educ. 2016, 70, 54–58. [Google Scholar]
- Kochar, D.; Gupta, B.; Gupta, A.; Kalla, A.; Nayak, K.; Purohit, S. Hospital based case series of 175 cases of serologically confirmed Brucellosis in Bikaner. JAPI 2007, 55, 271–275. [Google Scholar]
- Sathyanarayanan, V.; Razak, A.; Saravu, K.; Ananthakrishna, S.B.; Prabhu, M.M.; Vandana, K. Clinical profile of brucellosis from a tertiary care center in southern India. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Med. 2011, 4, 397–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Biswas, S.; Chatterjee, P.; Mukherjee, C.; Pal, P.; Pradhan, N. Awareness of farmers Regarding hygienic handling of their cattle to prevent zoonotic diseases. Explor. Anim. Med. Res. 2015, 5, 207–212. [Google Scholar]
- Punjab Energy Development Agency. New National Biogas and Organic Manure Management Programme (NNBOMP). Available online: https://www.peda.gov.in/nnbomp (accessed on 18 November 2020).
- Nasery, V.; Rao, A. Biogas for Rural Communities. Center for Technology Alternatives for Rural Areas, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay. 2011. Available online: www.cse.iitb.ac.in/sohoni/pastTDSL/BiogasOptions.pdf (accessed on 31 May 2012).
Variable | Categories | Veterinary Academics (n * = 12) | Veterinarians (n * = 41) | Paraveterinarians (n * = 15) | Farmers (n * = 46) | KIIs (n * = 5) | Total N (%) N # = 119 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sex | Male | 10 | 38 | 15 | 43 | 5 | 111 (93) |
Female | 2 | 3 | 0 | 03 | 0 | 8 (7) | |
Age $ | 20–30 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 29 | 1 | 37 (31) |
31–40 | 3 | 14 | 8 | 10 | 2 | 37 (31) | |
41–60 | 8 | 24 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 44 (37) | |
>60 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 (1) | |
Residence | Rural | 0 | 25 | 12 | 39 | 5 | 81 (68) |
Urban | 12 | 16 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 38 (32) | |
Working area | Rural | 0 | 29 | 12 | 46 | 2 | 89 (75) |
Urban | 12 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 17 (14) | |
Both | 0 | 9 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 13 (11) | |
Education | 10th | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 2 | 12 (10) |
11–12th | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 1 | 26 (22) | |
Diploma | 0 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 1 | 16 (14) | |
Bachelor | 0 | 29 | 0 | 11 | 1 | 41 (34) | |
Master | 0 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 (10) | |
PhD | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 (10) | |
Main Occupation | Cropping | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 9 (8) |
Livestock farming | 0 | 0 | 0 | 21 | 4 | 25 (21) | |
Mixed | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 7 (5) | |
Government | 12 | 41 | 15 | 1 | 1 | 70 (59) | |
Other | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 8 (7) | |
Experience $ | 1–10 | 4 | 10 | 9 | 21 | 1 | 45 (38) |
11–20 | 8 | 18 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 32 (27) | |
21–30 | 0 | 9 | 1 | 16 | 2 | 28 (23) | |
>30 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 14 (12) |
Input Parameter | Variable | Farmers | Veterinary Personnel | |
---|---|---|---|---|
FGD Consensus Average * (n = 3) | Questionnaire Data Average (n = 46) | FGD Consensus Average (n = 3) | ||
Fodder | Self-cultivated | 82 | 87 | 92 |
Purchased | 12 | 13 | 6 | |
Cut-and-carry grass (uncultivated) | 6 | 0 | - | |
Community grazing # | 4 | 3 | 3 | |
Wheat straw | Self-cultivated | 60 | 63 | 75 |
Purchased | 40 | 37 | 25 | |
Concentrate feed | Self-prepared | 37 | 45 | 37 |
Ready-mix purchased | 63 | 55 | 60 | |
Mineral mixture | Supplementation | 25 | 53 | 80 |
No supplementation | 75 | 47 | 20 |
Parameters | Veterinary Professionals | Min | Q1 | Median | Q3 | Max | Mean ± SD |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
General advice | Veterinarian | 10 | 30 | 60 | 70 | 100 | 53 ± 26 |
Paraveterinarian | 0 | 20 | 20 | 30 | 60 | 26 ± 14 | |
Animal attendant * | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 50 | 8 ± 9 | |
Other @ | 0 | 0 | 5 | 20 | 70 | 13 ± 17 | |
General case | Veterinarian | 0 | 20 | 40 | 50 | 100 | 37 ± 23 |
Paraveterinarian | 0 | 30 | 30 | 40 | 70 | 34 ± 14 | |
Animal attendant * | 0 | 5 | 10 | 20 | 60 | 14 ±12 | |
Other @ | 0 | 0 | 10 | 25 | 70 | 16 ± 19 | |
Artificial insemination | Veterinarian | 0 | 10 | 20 | 50 | 100 | 30 ± 24 |
Paraveterinarian | 0 | 25 | 35 | 40 | 70 | 35 ± 16 | |
Animal attendant * | 0 | 2 | 10 | 20 | 40 | 13 ± 11 | |
Other @ | 0 | 0 | 20 | 35 | 70 | 22 ± 21 | |
Pregnancy diagnosis | Veterinarian | 0 | 10 | 30 | 50 | 100 | 35 ± 27 |
Paraveterinarian | 0 | 20 | 30 | 40 | 70 | 32 ± 15 | |
Animal attendant | 0 | 0 | 10 | 30 | 70 | 16 ± 18 | |
Other @ | 0 | 0 | 10 | 25 | 70 | 17 ± 20 | |
Abortion handling | Veterinarian | 0 | 10 | 37.5 | 50 | 90 | 37 ± 25 |
Paraveterinarian | 0 | 20 | 30 | 40 | 70 | 32 ± 16 | |
Animal attendant * | 0 | 5 | 10 | 20 | 60 | 12 ± 12 | |
Other @ | 0 | 0 | 15 | 30 | 70 | 19 ± 19 | |
Calving assistance | Veterinarian | 0 | 10 | 40 | 50 | 90 | 38 ± 24 |
Paraveterinarian | 0 | 20 | 30 | 40 | 100 | 32 ± 18 | |
Animal attendant * | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 50 | 10 ± 10 | |
Other @ | 0 | 0 | 15 | 30 | 70 | 19 ± 20 | |
Retention of placenta | Veterinarian | 0 | 10 | 30 | 50 | 80 | 30 ± 19 |
Paraveterinarian | 0 | 20 | 32.5 | 50 | 90 | 36 ± 17 | |
Animal attendant * | 0 | 5 | 10 | 20 | 70 | 13 ± 15 | |
Other @ | 0 | 0 | 10 | 40 | 70 | 21 ± 21 |
Parameter | Variable | Minimum | Q1 | Median * | Q3 | Maximum | Mean ± SD |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dung disposal | Dung heap/Manure | 10 | 10 | 20 | 20 | 80 | 37 ± 38 |
Dung pats | 20 | 20 | 80 | 80 | 90 | 63 ± 38 | |
Biogas | 0 | 5 | 2 ± 3 | ||||
Milk | Milk collection center | 70 | 70 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 77 ± 6 |
Milk vendor/agent | 10 | 10 | 20 | 20 | 30 | 20 ± 10 | |
Consumer | 0 | 10 | 3 ± 6 | ||||
Carcass | Buried | 70 | 70 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 90 ± 17 |
Thrown away | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 10 ± 17 |
Veterinary Procedures | Biosecurity Measures | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Handwashing n * (%) | Disposable Sleeves/Gloves n (%) | Apron n (%) | Goggles n (%) | Mask n (%) | Nothing n (%) | |
General cases | 53 (93) | 32 (56) | 20 (35) | 10 (17) | 7 (12) | 1 (1.5) |
Artificial Insemination | 51 (89) | 54 (95) | 24 (42) | 9 (16) | 4 (7) | 0 |
Pregnancy diagnosis | 53 (93) | 55 (96) | 20 (35) | 7 (12) | 2 (3) | 0 |
Abortion | 53 (93) | 54 (95) | 35 (61) | 17 (30) | 18 (32) | 0 |
Calving | 52 (91) | 42 (74) | 30 (53) | 12 (21) | 11 (19) | 0 |
Retention of Placenta | 53 (93) | 56 (98) | 35 (61) | 18 (32) | 18 (32) | 0 |
Job Performed | Male Family Member Only | Female Family Member Only | Hired Labor Only | All |
---|---|---|---|---|
Buy fodder/wheat straw from the market | 46 | 0 | 38 | 17 |
Buy concentrate from the market | 85 | 0 | 15 | 0 |
Feed animals | 42 | 0 | 45 | 13 |
Manure management | 11 | 26 | 58 | 5 |
Dung-cake preparation | 4 | 43 | 50 * | 0 |
Spread manure in agricultural farms | 25 | 0 | 72 | 0 |
Milk animals | 39 | 21 | 29 | 11 |
Deliver surplus milk to the collection center | 92 | 0 | 8 | 0 |
Clean milk utensils | 34 | 34 | 24 | 8 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Singh, J.; Singh, B.B.; Tiwari, H.K.; Josan, H.S.; Jaswal, N.; Kaur, M.; Kostoulas, P.; Khatkar, M.S.; Aulakh, R.S.; Gill, J.P.S.; et al. Using Dairy Value Chains to Identify Production Constraints and Biosecurity Risks. Animals 2020, 10, 2332. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10122332
Singh J, Singh BB, Tiwari HK, Josan HS, Jaswal N, Kaur M, Kostoulas P, Khatkar MS, Aulakh RS, Gill JPS, et al. Using Dairy Value Chains to Identify Production Constraints and Biosecurity Risks. Animals. 2020; 10(12):2332. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10122332
Chicago/Turabian StyleSingh, Jaswinder, Balbir B. Singh, Harish Kumar Tiwari, Harmandeep Singh Josan, Nidhi Jaswal, Manmeet Kaur, Polychronis Kostoulas, Mehar Singh Khatkar, Rabinder Singh Aulakh, Jatinder Paul Singh Gill, and et al. 2020. "Using Dairy Value Chains to Identify Production Constraints and Biosecurity Risks" Animals 10, no. 12: 2332. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10122332
APA StyleSingh, J., Singh, B. B., Tiwari, H. K., Josan, H. S., Jaswal, N., Kaur, M., Kostoulas, P., Khatkar, M. S., Aulakh, R. S., Gill, J. P. S., & Dhand, N. K. (2020). Using Dairy Value Chains to Identify Production Constraints and Biosecurity Risks. Animals, 10(12), 2332. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10122332