VIII. Conclusions and Policy Implications

From being a recipient of massive material support from the World Food Program (WFP) and the European Community (EC) in the 1950s and 1960s, India has positioned itself as the largest producer of milk in the world with estimated production of about 82 million tonnes in 2001-02, overwhelmingly from the output of millions of smallholder producers. The cooperative movement (Operation Flood) has been important in dairy development in different parts of the country, especially in the western (Gujarat), and undoubtedly, has played an important role in keeping smallholders involved with this fast growing sector. The Indian dairy sector, which was highly regulated and protected through various restrictions on imports and exports of dairy products and licensing provisions until early 1990s, has become progressively more liberalized since 1991, culminating in the repeal of licensing requirements in 2002 of the Milk and Milk Products Order (MMPO), which restricted the private dairies to procure milk in areas being served by the cooperative sector. One fear is that private dairies will begin to procure primarily from larger scale suppliers, even as they provide tough competition to cooperative milk processors, and eventually lead to the eclipse of smallholder dairy production that has been so important to millions of rural poor and women in India. While it is too early to assess changes in procurement patterns for milk as a result of the recent policy changes, it is important under liberalization to know whether larger scale producers have a cost advantage that will lead to the displacement of smallholders under a liberalized market. This study is an attempt in this direction. It might be recalled that there were four main issues, outlined earlier in this study:

• Do small-scale milk producers have lower profits per unit of output than do large producers?
• Are small-scale producers more efficient if family labor is not costed and environmental externalities taken into account?
• Do profits per unit of output of small-scale producers are more sensitive to Transaction Costs (TC's) and policy distortions than are those of large-scale producers?
• Do smallholder dairy producers generate a lower negative environmental externality per unit of output than large-scale producers?

The present study uses primary data from a survey of 520 milk producers divided between traditional cooperative milksheds of Gujarat and dynamic newer milksheds of the northern region of the country (Punjab and Haryana). The sample in both regions ranges from traditional smallholder producers to large-scale commercial producers. Stochastic profit frontiers with inefficiency effects are fitted to the data to assess scale differences in production efficiency, and the determinants of inefficiency at different scales of operation. Results are then analyzed to assess the likelihood that smallholders will continue to compete successfully in a liberalized market, and to explore policy options for enhancing their competitiveness in such a market.

The study begins with a review of changes in policy environment of the Indian dairy sector and the impetus for those changes (Chapter 2). Chapter 3 discusses the conceptual framework and econometric estimation of efficiency measures and determinants of inefficiency. Sampling procedures, sample design and composition, and data description are given in chapter 4. Chapter 5 provides discussion on socio-economic and demographic characteristics of households, asset composition and ownership pattern, milk production and marketing practices, provision of animal health and breeding services and constraints faced by dairy farmers. Mass balance estimation procedures and results are presented in Chapter 6. The issues of relative efficiency and profitability of dairy farming and farm sizes through profit frontier and inefficiency model are examined in chapter 7. Conclusions and policy implications of the study are discussed in Chapter 8.

8.1 Main Findings

Dairy is an important sub-sector of the Indian agriculture accounting for nearly 17 percent of the value of output from agriculture and allied activities. India is the largest producer of milk in the world with estimated production of about 82 million tonnes followed by the USA, although in terms of milk yield, the performance of Indian dairy sector is dismal. One of the major factors contributing to increase in milk production is adoption of crossbreeding programs by the farmers. The performance of Indian dairy sector over the last three decades (post-OF period) has been extremely impressive and milk production in the country has more than trebled to about 82 million tonnes between 1970-71 and 2001-02 with an average increase of about 4.5 percent per annum.

The government efforts in dairy development were intensified with the launching of the Operation Flood (OF) program in 1970, which had three phases from 1970 to 1996. The OF program was instrumental in establishing links between millions of small dairy farmers and urban consumers through cooperatives. Dairying was considered as important source of additional employment and income to small and marginal farmers as well as the landless in rural areas (NCA, 1976). Once the decision to adopt the cooperative structure as a means for dairy development was taken, government policies were formulated to support dairy cooperatives. Large public investments were made in the milk processing and marketing infrastructure through cooperatives.

In order to promote domestic milk production, the restrictive policy framework of restricting the entry of organized private dairies into the processing sector and protection against competition from imports by restricting imports of dairy products through various import restrictions was adopted. The sector remained highly regulated and restricted until early 90s under the industrial licensing framework. However, in 1991 as a part of domestic macro-economic reforms, dairy sector was delicensed and within a year, more than 100 new plants in the private sector were set up (Dairy India, 1997). Restrictions were again imposed in 1992 in the form of Milk and Milk Products Order (MMPO). The MMPO made it mandatory for units with milk processing capacity above 10,000 liters per day or milk solids capacity of 500 tonnes per year to get permission of the State/Central government. However, in March 2002 the government took an important decision to amend the Milk and Milk Products Order and restrictions on new milk processing capacity were removed, while regulation on health and safety issues continued.

The results of financial profitability show that small-scale producers have higher profits (without family labour) per liter of milk than large-scale producers, other things equal. However, there were regional differences. Small farmers in the western region have higher profits compared to their counterparts in the northern region, while large farmers in northern region have high profitability compared to western region. This differential pattern might be due to presence of cooperatives in the western region, which provide assured market for milk irrespective of level of production along with other production inputs and services. The relationship between farm size and profitability remained unchanged even after taking into account family labor but the level of profits declined substantially on small farms as small farms use mostly family labor for milk production activities.

The findings from the application of stochastic profit frontier function present a number of noteworthy features of the performance of the milk producers in relation to their specific characteristics. The hypothesis that there were no technical inefficiencies among milk producers was rejected. The explanatory variables, price of milk, price of fodder and feed and yield, have significant impact on farm profits. The analysis revealed that milk producers could benefit considerable by improving technical efficiency through use of best-practice production methods. The estimates of mean technical efficiencies of sample dairy farmers varied from 0.79 on farms with average daily milk production of 40-80 liters and more than 150 liters to 0.85 on small farms (<10 liters/day production level). The results clearly indicate that small farmers are technically more efficient compared to large-scale producers. The average technical efficiency of the sample farmers in northern region was lower (0.79) than that of in western region (0.84).

The analysis was successful in identifying the determinants of technical inefficiency at the farm level. In case of small farms, access to information and technology, access to credit and expenses on pollution abatement are important variables that significantly explain (reduce) inefficiencies. Together with the fact that most small farms do not have easy access to information and technology, and credit, these results suggest that the provision of extension services and credit to small-scale milk producers might be a promising way of increasing milk production and productivity in India. In case of large producers, access to information and technology and credit do not play a bigger role in explaining the technical inefficiency. The results clearly demonstrate that the profits per unit of output of small-scale producers are more sensitive to differences in transaction costs across farms, other things equal, than in the case for large-scale production. The results suggest that dealing with transaction costs (through institutions) is critical for improving the ability of smallholders to compete in the market place with large-scale producers.

With increased animal densities, manure quantity and its disposal become important issues with socioeconomic implications for livestock owners and communities. Livestock sector is coming under increasing social pressures to control negative externalities from their operations. Waste from livestock has been a potential source of environmental degradation in many countries. It is critical to examine empirically the magnitude of negative environmental impacts from livestock production. One of the hypotheses of this study was to examine whether smallholder dairy producers generate a lower negative environmental externality per unit of output than large-scale producers. The real amount spent per unit of output for environmental preservation by each farm, which will offset negative externalities, whatever they might be, was computed. The results reveal that smallholder milk producers spend relatively more on pollution abatement methods compared to large farmers. One reason that small farmers spend more on pollution abatement is that smallholder producers have crop-livestock mix activities and consider manure as a source of additional income and use it on their fields in place of chemical fertilizers or make dung cakes to use as fuel. In contrast, large farms, which are located close to peri-urban areas, do not find market for sale of manure and try to dispose-off in unsustainable manner. Therefore, failure to compensate for negative environmental externalities is another policy distortion that is encouraging the scaling-up of livestock production. The policy of livestock production waste pollution has so far remained on the low priority of the public policies related to environmental protection.

The above findings clearly show that smallholder milk producers have higher profits per liter of milk and are more efficient than those of large-scale producers, however, smallholders could still be driven out of the market due to:

(i) large farmers produce large volumes

(ii) smallholders have difficulty complying with SPS/quality standards

(iii) small-scale producers are more sensitive to transaction costs due to policy distortions and poor 

institutional support

(iv) smallholders have less access to world dairy markets

8.2 Issues for Further Research

No project can attempt to answer all the questions that arise out of the list of priorities. These are some of the issues/questions, which have not been addressed in this study and need an empirical investigation. Some of the issues, which need to be addressed, are listed below:

• How cost of milk procurement differs between small farms and large commercial farms?
• What types of contracts arrangements will emerge between producers and processors in an open economy environment and what could be their implications for the smallholder producers?
• Large commercial farms spend less on environmental pollution abatement and scaling-up of milk production is taking place, therefore, what kind of environmental implications does it have?
• Is it feasible for smallholder producers to comply with improved animal health, food safety and quality standards (SPS and TBT issues)? Whether smallholders can continue to compete without institutional support?

References

Ali, M. and J.C. Flinn. 1989. "Profit efficiency among basmati rice produces in Pakistan Punjab", American Journal of Agricultural Economics. May (1989): 303-310.

Battese, G.E. 1992. "Frontier production functions and technical efficiency: a survey of empirical applications in agricultural economics", Agricultural Economics. 7:185-208.

Battese, G.E. and T.J. Coelli. 1993. "A stochastic frontier production function incorporating a model for technical inefficiency effects." Working Papers in Econometrics and Applied Statistics No. 69, Department of Econometrics. University of New England, Armidale.

Battese, G. E. and T. J. Coelli. 1995. "A model for technical inefficiency effects in a stochastic frontier production function for panel data", Empirical Economics, 20: 325-332.

Candler, W. and N. Kumar. 1998. "India: The dairy revolution: Impact of dairy development in India and the World Bank's contribution", The World Bank Operation Evaluation Department (OED), Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

Coelli, T. J. 1994. "A guide to FRONTIER Version 4.1: A computer program for stochastic frontier and cost function estimation", Department of Econometrics, University of New England, Armidale.

Coelli, T., D.S. Prasada Rao, and G.E. Battese. 1999. "An introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis", Kluwer Academic Publishers. 275 pages.

Dairy India. 1997. "Dairy India-1997", P.R. Gupta (Ed.). Delhi: B.B. Nath Printers.

Dastagiri, M.B. 2001. "Demand for livestock products in India: Current status and projections to 2020", Agricultural Economics Research Review (Conference Proceedings). Delhi: Agricultural economics Research Association (India).

Delgado, C., M. Rosegrant and S. Meijer. 2001. "Livestock to 2020: The revolution continues", Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium (IATRC), Auckland, New Zealand, January 18-19, 2001.

Faassen, H. and H. van Dijk. 1987. Manure as a Source of Nitrogen and Phosphorous in Soils. In H. van der Meer et. al. (eds), Animal Manure on Grassland and Fodder Crops: Fertilizer or Waste? Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Wageningen.

Fried, H. O., C.A. Knox Lovell, and S. S. Schmidt, eds. 1993. "The measurement of productive efficiency: techniques and applications", Oxford University Press. New York. 425 pages.

Gandhi, V.P. and G. Mani. 1995. "Are livestock products rising in importance? A study of the growth and behaviour of their consumption in India", Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 50 (3) (July-September): 283-93.

Government of India (GOI). 1999. "Basic animal husbandry statistics 1999", Delhi: Department of Animal Husbandry & Dairying, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India.

Government of India (GOI). 2002. "Basic animal husbandry statistics 2002", Delhi: Department of Animal Husbandry & Dairying, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India.

Government of India (GOI). 2002. "Economic Survey 2001-02", Delhi: Economic Division, Ministry of Finance, Government of India.

Government of India (GOI). 2003. "Economic Survey 2002-03", Delhi: Economic Division, Ministry of Finance, Government of India.

Huffman, W. E. 1974. "Decision making: The role of education", American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 56: 85-97.

Huffman, W. E. 1977. "Allocative efficiency: The role of human capital", Quarterly Journal of Economics, 91: 59-79.

Jondrow, J., C.A. Knox Lovell, I. S. Materov, and P. Schmidt. 1982. "On the estimation of technical inefficiency in the stochastic frontier production function model", Journal of Econometrics, 19:233-38.

Kalirajan, K. 1991. "The importance of efficient use in the adoption of technology: A micro panel data analysis", Journal of Production Analysis, 2: 113-126.

Kalirajan, K. P. and R. T. Shand. 1985. "Types of education and agricultural productivity: A quantitative analysis of Tamil Nadu rice farming." Journal of Development Studies, 21:222-243.

Kellogg R.L., et.al. 2000. "Manure Nutrients Relative to the Capacity of Cropland and Pastureland to Assimilate Nutrients: Spatial and Temporal Trends for the United States." USDA, NRCS, ERS, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ land/pubs/manntr.html.

Kumar, P. 1998. "Food demand and supply projections for India", Agricultural Economics policy Paper 98-01. New Delhi: Indian Agricultural Research Institute.

Kumbahkar, S. C., S. Ghosh and J. T. McGuckin. 1991. "A generalized production frontier approach for estimating determinants of inefficiency in U.S. dairy farms", Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 9:279-286.

National Commission on Agriculture (NCA). 1976. "Reports covering Animal Husbandry (Part VII) and statistics (Part XIV)", Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, Government of India.

National Dairy Development Board (NDDB). 2003. Personal Communication.

National Dairy Development Board (NDDB). 2003. Materials from website: www.nddb.org.

Radhakrishna, R. and C. Ravi. 1994. "Food demand in India", Hyderabad, India: Centre for Economic and Social Studies. Mimeo.

Ray, S. 1988. "Data envelopment analysis, nondiscretionary inputs and efficiency: An alternative interpretation.", Socio-Economic Planning Science, 22:167-176.

Saxena, Rakesh. 2000. "Dynamics of demand for milk in this millennium", Paper presented at the XXX Dairy Industry Conference on Paradigm Shift in Dairying - Its Impact on the Indian Dairy Industry, December 8-9, 2000. Calcutta: Indian Dairy association (East Zone): 32-47.

Schultz T.W. 1975. "The value of ability to deal with disequilibria", Journal of Economic Literature", 13:827-896.

Shukla, R. K. and S. D. Brahmankar. 1999. "Impact evaluation of Operation Flood on rural dairy sector", National Council of Applied Economic Research, New Delhi, pp. 58-60.

Williams, P. 1992. Animal Production and European Pollution Problems. Photocopy. Rhone-Poulenc Animal Nutrition. France.

Yotopoulos, P. and J. Nugent. 1976. "Economics of development: Empirical investigations", New York: Harper and Row, pp. 144-163.

http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/lead/x6170e/x6170e2x.htm

How safe is dairy business?

Dairy farming is a safe business for the following reasons:

·         It is eco-friendly and does not cause environmental pollution as compared to other industries.

·         Requirement of skilled labour is relatively less.

·         Dairy product market is active round the year.

·         Minimum investment on inventory. (No need to to stock raw materials in huge quantities.)

·         Entire establishment can be shifted to a new location (if need arises e.g. Fire, Floods etc.)

·         One can insure animals.

·       Less energy requirement. Biogas plant fed with cow dung can supply maximum energy to meet farms day to day requirement. Decomposed slurry of such plant can also be effectively used as organic manure.

Limitations and Constraints:

·      Breeding of animals and getting expected milk yield is a biological phenomenon, which depends upon various factors.

·     Dairy farming besides good planning requires hardworking, reliable and alert manager. In India, usually persons from the family take the responsibility.

·     Inadequate management of feeding, heard health and lack of quality control in various stage of production can cause major loss affecting the profitability of the entire venture.

Starting the Farm – How to begin with:

·      One needs to decide first on the aims and objective of the farm. Every year there should be a progressive aim for breeding (including number of animals to be maintained) and production.

·       You can visit dairy farms that run on commercial basis and have a discussion with experienced farm owners. You need not have to rely much on others experience, analyze every event logically and if needed consult with local Veterinarians for more information.

·         If you plan to manage the farm on your own, look for opportunities to work for an existing farm for a minimum period of six months.

·      Develop interest and study feed and fodder’s market in your region, its difficulties in relation to seasons.

·       Manage a good team of labourers. You need to choose hardworking reliable persons preferably with some experience. You can also train them for specific jobs.

·         Visit the cattle market occasionally. Observe animals on sale and talk with persons engaged with purchasing of animals.

·         Read magazines and websites on Dairy Industry and keep yourself informed.

Getting some initial professional training…

Opportunities for training are available with most of the:

·         Agricultural/Veterinary Universities of various states

·         Krishi Vigyan Kendras

·         State Department of Animal Husbandry

·         State Institute of Rural Development

You can also choose to inquire with National level organization like: National Dairy Research Institute (NDRI) Karnal (Haryana) – For training on rearing of dairy animals and manufacture of milk products.

Alternately, you can also look for training facilities of non-governmental organizations that are active in farming sectors.

Selecting the animal to farm with – Cows v/s. Buffaloes

Cows

Buffalo

·         Good quality cows are available in the market and it cost around Rs.1500 to Rs.2000 per liter of milk production per day. (e.g. Cost of a cow producing 10 liter of Milk per day will be between Rs.15,000 to Rs.20,000). ·         If proper care is given, cows breed regularly giving one calf every 13-14 month interval. ·         They are more docile and can be handled easily. Good milk yielding cross breeds (Holstein and Jersey crosses) has well adapted to Indian climate. ·         The fat percentage of cow’s milk varies from 3-5.5% and is lower then Buffaloes.

·         In India, we have good buffalo breeds like Murrah and Mehsana, which are suitable for commercial dairy farm. ·         Buffalo milk has more demand for making butter and butter oil (Ghee), as fat percentage in milk is higher then cow. Buffalo milk is also preferred for making tea, a welcoming drink in common Indian household. ·         Buffaloes can be maintained on more fibrous crop residues, hence scope for reducing feed cost. ·         Buffaloes largely mature late and give birth to calves at 16 to 18 months interval. Male calves fetch little value. ·         Buffaloes need cooling facility e.g. Wallowing tank or showers / foggers with fan.

A suggestion to help you in deciding the animal to farm with:

Middle class health-conscious Indian families prefer low fat milk for consumption as liquid milk. We suggest you to go for a commercial farm of mixed type. (Cross breed, cows and buffaloes kept in separate rows under one shed). Conduct a through study of the immediate market where you are planning to market your milk .You can mix milk from both type of animals and sold as per need of the market. Hotels and some general customers (can be around 30%) prefer pure buffalo milk. Hospitals, sanitariums prefer cow’s milk.

What are the various breeds? What is the economic life of animals?

Popular buffalo milch breeds are Murrah, Surti, Mehasani, Jaffrabadi, and Nali – Ravi and Badhawari. The indigenous milch breeds of cattle are Gir, Sahiwal, Red Sindhi and Tharparkar. The exotic breeds of cattle are Holstein Friesian, Jersey and Brown Swiss.

Economic life of buffaloes is 5-6 lactation and that of Crossbreed cows is 6-7 lactation.

Productivity and characteristics of known Indian breeds of Cattle

 The minimum economic size to go with?

Under Indian condition a commercial dairy farm should consist of minimum 20 animals (10 cows, 10 buffaloes) this strength can easily go up to 100 animals in proportion of 50:50 or 40:60. After this however, you need to review your strength and market potential before you chose to go for expansion.

A glance at the Infrastructure and Manpower requirements

The space required per animal should be 40 sq.ft in shed and 80sq.ft open space. Besides, you will also need:

·         One room 10” x 10” for keeping implements.

·         One room 10”x 12” for milk storage

·         Office cum living room of suitable size.

·         Water tank capable of storing minimum 2000 liters

·         Bore well with capacity to fill water tank in 1 hr

Total land requirement for a unit of 20 animals can be sited as 3000 sq.ft. There should be space for expansion. Ideal space requirement for 100 animals is 13,000 to 15,000 sq.ft (120″ x 125”). For 20 animals initially, you can make contractual arrangements for getting an assured supply of 300 kgs. of Lucerne and 400 kgs. of maize fodder per day. However, in long run, as the strength of you farm will go up to 100 animals, It is advisable that you should go for a lease land of 15 to 20 acres with irrigation facility to cultivate green fodder for your animals. (One acre of green fodder cultivation for every five animals is required as a thumb rule.) The economics of whole dairy animal management depends upon its economic feeding. By making fodder’s like Lucerne or Berseem available for your animals you can reduce cost on feeding concentrate feed.

The strength of labourers in your farm can vary with number of animals usually the thumb rule is one labour for every 10 animals on milk or 20 dry animals or 20 young stock.