NAAS Score 2020

                   5.36

UserOnline

Free counters!

Previous Next

Factors Influencing Milk Producers’ Preference for Dairy Husbandry Services- A case of Salem District of Tamil Nadu

Sangameswaran Rajendran Sunitha Prasad
Vol 8(1), 225-234
DOI- http://dx.doi.org/10.5455/ijlr.20170725104711

The plethora’s of studies regarding preference of dairy husbandry services were conducted in which determinants affecting milk producers’ preference were not studied. This study aimed to identify the common attributes that influence milk producers’ preference for availing Dairy Husbandry Services in Salem district of Tamilnadu, India. The study was conducted among the milk producers of Dairy cooperative society and private in the selected five blocks of Salem district of Tamil Nadu. Purposive and multistage random sampling procedures were followed for selection of study area and respondents. The data were collected with the help of pre-structured interview schedule through personal interview method from 150 milk producers (75 milk producers from dairy cooperative society and 75 milk producers from private). The findings of the study revealed that ‘livestock capital’ pursued first followed by ‘land capital’ and ‘socio-personal factors’ in influencing milk producers’ choice in preferring dairy husbandry service providers. The study has identified that the livestock and land capital explained positive and breakthrough feature in milk producers’ preference for availing dairy husbandry services. This study concluded that irrespective of the affiliation of milk producers to the milk procurement agencies socio-economic factors were conglomerate into major determinants namely land and livestock capital, socio-personal and situational factors. In future, the policy supports and interventions towards dairy development should acknowledge the contribution of all the above mentioned factors for ensuring sustainability in dairying among rural milk producers.


Keywords : Dairy Husbandry Services Milk Producers Preference of Service Providers

Introduction

Livestock sector plays an important role in socio-economic development of rural households in India. Improvement in livestock production is therefore an important pathway for increasing the income of marginal and small farmers and landless labourers (Venkatasubramanian and Rao, 2011). The services in animal health, production, extension and market need to enhance the capacity of poor households to exploit the full potential of livestock Production (Ahuja and Redmond, 2001). Even though the services were available, accessibility of Dairy Husbandry Services to milk producers varies. In many milk shed areas Dairy Cooperative Societies, Private milk procurement agencies and private practitioners were providing Dairy Husbandry Services to the milk producers at the door step on payment basis/cost-recovering basis. Gautam et al. (2010) reported that the existing of organization of veterinary services would be of little help in increasing the productivity of dairy animals. Various studies concluded that demand for veterinary services at door step was not very different across poor and non-poor (Ahuja et al., 2000; John 2002; Ahuja et al., 2008 and Kumar et al., 2011). The plethora of studies regarding preference of dairy husbandry services were conducted (Bardhan 2010, Thirunavukkarasu and Sudeepkumar, 2005, Ahuja and Redmond 2004, Rathod et al., 2011, Mirajkar et al., 2011) in which determinants affecting milk producers preference were not studied. This study aimed to identify the common attributes that influence milk producers’ preference for availing Dairy Husbandry Services viz., breeding, therapeutic, and extension services from various service providers in milk shed areas of Salem District of Tamil Nadu.

Materials and Methods

The present study was conducted in the selected five blocks of Salem district of Tamil Nadu. Salem district was selected purposively as it stands first in cross-bred milch animal population of 4.0 lakhs and milk production with 4.6 lakh tones/annum (www.aavin.com).  Dairy cooperatives and many private milk marketing agencies are involved in milk procurement from the milk producers in Salem district. Dairy cooperatives and the private agency which tops first in milk procurement were selected for the study.  Purposive and multistage random sampling procedures were followed for selection of study area and respondents.  Five blocks were selected randomly and one village from each block was selected randomly provided dairy cooperatives and selected private agency were operating in the villages. The data were collected with the help of pre-structured interview schedule through personal interview method from 150 milk producers (75 milk producers from dairy cooperative society and 75 milk producers from private). Preference of milk producers and twelve socio-economic indicators were considered as consequent and antecedent variables respectively. The collected data were tabulated, computed and analyzed statistically by Principle component analysis and Varimax rotation method (factor analysis) by SPSS 16.0 software. The interpretation of factor analysis is based on rotated factor loadings and rotated Eigen value. The categorized factors/latent constructs were named based on pragmatic reasoning rather than theoretical reasoning.

Salem district
20 blocks
Five blocks
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
15 milk pourers from dairy cooperative
15 milk pourers from private agencies
30 respondents from each village
30X5 =150 respondents
Salem district
20 blocks
Five blocks
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
15 milk pourers from dairy cooperative
15 milk pourers from private agency
30 respondents from each village
30X5 =150 respondents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Results and Discussion

To discern and quantify the socio-economic factors of Milk producers’ preference for availing Dairy Husbandry Services, factor analysis by principal component method and factor classification by Kaiser Normalization was done.

 

Identification and Prioritization of Different Factors Influencing Preference of Milk Producers of Dairy Cooperative Societies in Availing Breeding Services

Table 1 presents the factor analysis for an intrinsic conglomeration of different socio-economic variables influencing milk producers’ preference for breeding services to form a homophiles group of predictor variables/ factors.

Table 1: Factor analysis of predictor variables influencing preference of milk producers of Dairy Cooperative Societies for availing breeding services

Factor Variables Factor Loading Eigen Value Variance Contribution (%)
1 Income From Agriculture (X7) 0.825 4.15 27.68
Land Holding (X4) 0.819
Milk Production(X9) 0.78
Milk Sales (X11) 0.777
Herd Size (X6) 0.718
Income From Dairying (X8) 0.696
2 Distance of Milk Procurement Centre(X12) 0.72 3.14 21.62
Education(X3) 0.407
Family Size(X2) 0.886
3 Milk Consumption (X10) 0.713 1.39 9.29
Experience In Dairying (X5) 0.519

The first factor was named as “Land and Livestock Capital which comprised of six variables viz., income from agriculture (0.825), land holding (0.819), milk production (0.780), milk sales (0.777), herd size (0.718) and income from dairying (0.696). The per cent of variance explained by this factor has been 27.68 with eigen value 4.15. The second and third factor was reticulated with “Socio-personal factors” viz., family size (0.886), education (0.407), milk consumption (0.713), experience of dairying (0.519) and “Situational attribute” viz., distance of farm home from milk procurement centre (0.720). These factors explained the total of 30.91 per cent variance with eigen value 3.14 and 1.39 respectively. All the variables had positive loadings indicated that the renamed factors had convivial effect on milk producers’ preference to avail breeding services.

Identification and prioritization of different factors influencing Preference of milk producers of Dairy Cooperative Societies in availing therapeutic services

Table 2 presents the factor analysis for an intrinsic conglomeration of different socio-economic variables influencing milk producers’ preference for therapeutic services to form a homophiles group of predictor variables/ factors. The first factor influencing preference was named as “Land and Livestock capital” reticulated with seven variables viz., milk production (0.847), milk sales (0.835), income from agriculture (0.808), land holding (0.796), herd size (0.737), income from dairying (0.622) and milk consumption (0.579).  It exerted the variance of 31.75 % and eigen value was 4.12.

Table 2: Factor analysis of predictor variables influencing preference of milk producers of Dairy Cooperative Societies for availing therapeutic services

Factor Variables Factor Loading Eigen Value Variance Contribution (%)
1 Milk Production(X9) 0.847 4.12 31.75
Milk Sales (X11) 0.835
Income from Agriculture (X7) 0.808
Land Holding (X4) 0.796
Herd Size (X6) 0.737
Income from Dairying (X8) 0.622
Milk Consumption (X10) 0.579
2 Experience in Dairying (X5) 0.78 3.22 24.78
Family Size(X2) 0.577
Distance of Milk Procurement Centre(X12) 0.448
3 Education(X3) 0.889 5.64 43.45
Age(X1) 0.818

The second factor was reticulated with “Socio-personal factors” namely experience in dairying (0.780), family size (0.577) and “Situational attributes” viz., distance of milk procurement center (0.448). This factor explained 24.78 % variance with eigen value of 3.22. The third factor was also encompassed with “Socio-personal factors” viz., education (0.889) and age (0.818).This factor exerted the highest percentage of variance (43.55) with eigen value 5.64. The positive association of all the factors explained the positive feature in preferring Dairy Husbandry Services providers for availing therapeutic services.

Identification and Prioritization of Different Factors Influencing Preference of Milk Producers of Dairy Cooperative Societies in Availing Extension Services

The data regarding factor analysis for conglomeration of socio-economic variables to form a homophiles determinants/factors influencing milk producers preference to avail Extension services was presented in Table 3.The first factor was encompassed with six variables viz., milk sales (0.881), milk production (0.881), herd size (0.812), income from dairying (0.698), land holding (0.694) and income from Agriculture (0.688). The factor was named as “Land and Livestock capital”. It explained the variance per cent of 32.88 and eigen value of 4.60. The second factor was reticulated with “Socio-personal factors” viz., family size (0.783) and milk consumption (0.691). It explained the percentage of variance (15.20 %) and eigen value of 2.12. The third factor consisted of two variables namely distance of milk procurement center (0.753) and experience in dairying (0.647). It explained percentage of variance (10.39%) and eigen value of 1.46.

Table 3: Factor analysis of predictor variables influencing preference of milk producers of Dairy Cooperative Societies for availing extension services

Factor Variables Factor Loading Eigen Value Variance Contribution (%)
1 Milk Sales (X11) 0.881 4.6 32.88
Milk Production (X9) 0.881
Herd Size (X6) 0.812
Income from Dairying (X8) 0.698
Land Holding (X4) 0.694
Income from Agriculture (X7) 0.688
2 Family Size(X2) 0.783 2.12 15.2
Milk Consumption (X10) 0.691
3 Distance of MPC (X 12  ) 0.753 1.46 10.39
Experience in dairying(X5) 0.647
4 Education(X2) 0.795 5.61 40.11
Age(X1) -0.74

The fourth factor which exerted highest variance of 40.11 per cent and eigen value of 5.61 was “Socio-personal factors”. The variables were age (-0.740) and education (0.795). The negative loading of variable age explained that this variable exerted hindrance in milk producers’ preference in availing extension services. Whereas all other socio-personal factors directly influence the milk producers’ preference of Dairy Husbandry Services providers in availing extension services.

A further perusal of data in Table 1 to 3 showed that the factor land and livestock capital trailed far front in influencing milk producers’ choice to prefer dairy husbandry service providers to avail breeding, therapeutic and extension services. On the other hand socio-personal and situational factors trailed far behind in influencing milk producers’ choice to prefer service providers in availing services.

Identification and Prioritization of Different Factors Influencing Preference of Milk Producers of Private Agency in Availing Breeding Services

The data regarding factor loading, eigen value and variance contribution of each factor influencing preference of milk producers of private agency to avail Breeding and therapeutic services were presented in Table 4. The first factor influencing was Livestock capital” viz., milk sales (0.946), milk production (0.941), income from dairying (0.876) and herd size (0.630). It explained 32.69 per cent variance and eigen value of 4.58. The factor ‘experience in dairying (-0.630)’ exerted negative loading indicating hindrance in influencing the choice of milk producers to avail breeding services. Positive factor loading of livestock capital showed that it exerted positive and boosting feature in influencing milk producers’ preference in availing breeding services.

 

Table 4: Factor analysis of predictor variables influencing preference of milk producers of private agency for availing breeding and therapeutic services

Factor Variables Factor Loading Eigen Value Variance Contribution (%)
1 Milk Sales(X11) 0.946 4.58 32.69
Milk Production(X9) 0.941
Income From Dairying(X8) 0.876
Herd Size(X6) 0.63
Experience In Dairying(X5) -0.63
2 Income From Agriculture(X7) 0.882 3.04 21.69
Land Holding(X4) 0.863
Distance Of Milk Procurement Centre(X12) 0.531
3 Family Size(X2) -0.742 6.86 48.99
Age(X1) 0.706
Milk Consumption(X10) 0.727
Preference of Milk producers-Therapeutic Services
1 Milk Sales(X11) 0.959 2.94 24.52
Milk Production(X9) 0.955
Income From Dairying(X8) 0.869
Herd Size(X6) 0.641
2 Income from Agriculture(X7) 0.904 5.61 46.78
Land Holding(X4) 0.885
Age -0.421
3 Distance Of Milk Procurement Centre(X12) 0.756 3.9 32.57
Family Size(X2) -0.648
Experience In Dairying(X5) 0.62
Milk Consumption(X10) 0.732

The second factor explained the percentage of variance (21.69 %) and eigen value of 3.04. It was reticulated with variables pertaining to “Land capital” viz., income from agriculture (0.822), land holding (0.863) and “Situational factor” viz., distance of the farm home from procurement centre (0.531). All the variables in the said factor exerted high positive loading indicating direct influence in milk producers’ preference in availing breeding services. The third factor has encompassed three variables namely family size (-0.742), age (0.706) and milk consumption (0.727). The factor was named as “Socio-personal factor”. It explained the highest percentage of variance (48.99) and eigen value of 6.86. Family size had negative loading in the said factor indicating hindrance in influencing the milk producers’ choice to avail breeding services.

 

 

Identification and Prioritization of Different Factors Influencing Preference of Milk Producers of Private Agency in Availing Therapeutic Services

The first factor influencing was named as “Livestock Capital” with four variables namely milk sales (0.959), milk production (0.955), income from dairying (0.869), herd size (0.641). It explained around twenty five per cent in total variance and eigen value of 2.94.  Milk producers belonging to Private agency were satisfied with the production environment of their livestock component as indicated by their higher positive loadings. It is also clear that this factor exerted higher influence in milk producers’ preference to avail therapeutic services. The second factor explained highest percentage of variance (46.78) and eigen value of 5.61. This factor was reticulated with “Land Capital” variables viz., income from agriculture (0.904) and land holding (0.885) along with “Age” (-0.421). Higher the positive loading exerted by land capital indicate its direct influence in milk producers’ preference to avail therapeutic services. The third factor was named as “Situational and Socio-personal factors” viz., distance of milk procurement centre (0.756), family size (-0.648), experience in dairying (0.620) and milk consumption (0.732). It explained 32.57 per cent variance and eigen value of 3.90.The negative association of the variable ‘family size’ and ‘age’ explained the negative and undermine feature in milk producers’ preference to avail therapeutic services.

Identification and Prioritization of Different Factors Influencing Preference of Milk Producers of Private Agency in Availing Extension Services

The data regarding factor analysis of each factor influencing preference of milk producers of private agency to avail Extension services were presented in Table 5.

Table 5: Factor analysis of predictor variables influencing preference of milk producers of private agency for availing extension services

 

 

Factor

 

Variables

Factor Loading  

Eigen

Value

 

Variance Contribution (%)

1 Milk sales(X11) 0.956 2.38 18.31
Milk production(X9) 0.950
Income from dairying(X8) 0.870
Herd size(X6) 0.639
2 Income From Agriculture (X7) 0.925 2.38 18.36
Land Holding(X4) 0.916
Milk Consumption(X10) 0.412
3 Education (X3) 0.778  

6.94

 

53.37

Age(X1) -0.736
Family Size(X2) 0.677

The first factor explained 18.31 per cent in total variance and eigen value of 2.38 was “Livestock capital”. It consisted of four variables viz., milk sales (0.956), milk production (0.950), income from dairying (0.870) and herd size (0.639). The second factor was named as “Land Capital” with contribution of 18.36 per cent of variance and eigen value of 2.38. The variables were income from agriculture (0.925) and land holding (0.916) and milk consumption (0.412). All the variables related pertaining to Livestock and Land capital had positive association explaining positive and breakthrough feature in milk producers’ preference for availing extension services. The third factor exerted highest variance contribution (53.37 %) which can be named as “Socio-personal factor”. The total eigen value was 6.94. The variables were education (0.778), age (-0.736) and family size (0.677). Age of the milk producers was negatively associated with the socio-personal factor which acted as hindrance in milk producers’ preference to avail extension services.

It was important to note from the above discussion that ‘livestock capital’ pursued first followed by ‘land capital’ and ‘socio-personal factors’ in influencing milk producers’ choice in preferring dairy husbandry service providers.

Conclusion

The present study could be concluded that irrespective of the affiliation of milk producers to the milk procurement agencies socio-economic factors were conglomerate into major determinants namely land and livestock capital, socio-personal and situational factors. All the factors are making cob-web structures to influence the decision to prefer the dairy husbandry services providers in availing services. The study has identified that the livestock and land capital explained positive and breakthrough feature in milk producers’ preference for availing dairy husbandry services. It is evident from the study that milk producers were satisfied with the production environment of their land and livestock component as it is indicated with higher positive loadings. It is suggested that milk procurement agencies should form exclusive service delivery wing to ensure quality and timely dairy husbandry services by giving special emphasis to situational factor (location of the farm home from the centre). In future, the policy supports and interventions towards dairy development should acknowledge the contribution of all the above mentioned factors for ensuring sustainability in dairying among rural milk producers.

References

  1. Ahuja V, George PS, Ray S,  Mc Connell K, Gandhi V, Umali-Deininger  D  and De Haan C. 2000. Agricultural services and the poor: Case  of  Livestock health  and Breeding services in India Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad; The world bank, Washington DC and the Swiss Agency for development and co-operation Bern 148.
  2. Ahuja V and Redmond E. 2004. Livestock service and the poor. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 36:247-268.
  3. Ahuja V and Redmond E. Economic  and policy issues in livestock service delivery to the poor, Background paper for the FAO project memorandum “Pro-poor livestock policy initiative : Fostering the policy dialogue in support of equitable, safe and clean livestock farming”.
  4. Ahuja V , Mc Connell K, Umali-Deininger D , and de Haan    2008. Are the poor willing to pay for Livestock services? Evidence from Rural India, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 58 (1):84-89
  5. Bardhan D. Factors influencing farmers’ willingness to pay for animal health services and preference for private veterinary practitioners. Indian Journal Animal Sciences. 80 (8): 790-797.
  6. Mirajkar PP, Kumar S, and Singh YP. 2011. Preference of service providers for the veterinary service-a case study of Sangli District of Maharastra state, India Veterinary World. 4(3):106-108.
  7. Rathod P, Nikam TR, Landge S, and Hatey A. 2011. SWOT Analysis of Dairy Cooperatives: A Case Study of Western Maharashtra. International Journal Research in Commerce and Management. 2 (8): 35-41.
  8. John AJ. 2002. Integrated Livestock service delivery system for promoting small holder livestock production In : Livestock services and the poor: Proceedings and presentations of the international workshop held at Bhubaneswar, India. pp. 141-155
  9. Singh RP and Hazell PBR. 1993. Rural Poverty in the Semi-Arid Tropics of India: Identification, Determinants and Policy Interventions, Economic and Political Weekly. 28 (12 &13): 9-15.
  10. Thornton PK, Kruska  RL, Henninger N, Kristjanson  PM, Reid RS, Atieno F, Odero, AN and Ndegwa T. 2002 . “Mapping poverty and livestock in the developing world, ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya”.http://www.ilri.cgiar.org/InfoServ/Webpub/Fulldocs/Mappoverty/index.html
  11. Thirunavukkarasu D and Sudeepkumar NK. 2005. Milk marketing options for dairy farmers in open economy and their choice in Tamil Nadu, India. Livestock Research for Rural Development. 17 (8).
  12. Venkatasubramanian, V., and Rao, SVN. 2011. Livestock Extension Education. http://icarzcu3.gov.in/book_cover/Livestock_Extn_Educn/Livestock%20Extension%20Education.pdf
  13. aavin.com
Full Text Read : 1655 Downloads : 311
Previous Next

Open Access Policy

Close