Impacts of Dairy Development Programs in Andhra Pradesh

A Living from
Livestock
Pro-Poor
Livestock
Policy
Initiative
Dairy Development Programs in
Andhra Pradesh, India: Impacts and
Risks for Small-scale Dairy Farms
PPLPI Working Paper No. 38
Otto Garcia, Amit Saha, Khalid Mahmood,
Asaah Ndambi and Torsten Hemme
International Farm
Comparison
Network (IFCN)

i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface..................................................................................................................ii
1. Executive Summary................................................................................................ 1
Introduction......................................................................................................... 1
Methodology ........................................................................................................ 1
Trends of Milk production in India and Andhra Pradesh ..................................................... 2
Results: Comparison of ‘Typical Dairy Farms’ in Andhra Pradesh.......................................... 2
Results: Assessment of Dairy Development Programs in Mahboobnagar .................................. 3
Conclusion........................................................................................................... 8
2. Introduction......................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Overview....................................................................................................... 9
2.2 Objectives ..................................................................................................... 9
2.3 Methodology................................................................................................... 9
2.4 Structure of the Paper......................................................................................10
3. Milk Production and Farm Comparison in Andhra Pradesh .................................................11
3.1 India - Dairy in the National Context.....................................................................11
3.2 Andhra Pradesh - Dairy in the Regional Context .......................................................13
3.3 Description of ‘Typical’ Dairy Farms in Andhra Pradesh ..............................................15
3.4 Farm Comparison: Household Approach .................................................................17
3.5 Farm Comparison: Whole Farm Approach ...............................................................19
3.6 Farm Comparison: Dairy Enterprise Approach ..........................................................21
3.7 Summary ......................................................................................................25
4. Evaluation of Dairy Development Programs in Andhra Pradesh ...........................................26
4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................26
4.2 Methodology..................................................................................................26
4.3 Farm-level Risk Analysis of Dairy Development Programs ............................................27
4.4 Feeding Programs ...........................................................................................28
4.5 Milk Marketing Programs ...................................................................................33
4.6 Husbandry Programs ........................................................................................36
4.7 Breeding Programs ..........................................................................................41
4.8 Animal Health Programs....................................................................................45
4.9 Summary: Ranking Program Impacts on Household Incomes .........................................49
4.10 Summary: Ranking Program Impacts on Return to Labour ...........................................51
4.11 Summary: Ranking Program Impacts on Dairy Competitiveness.....................................53
5. Dairy Development Ladder for Mahboobnagar ...............................................................55
5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................55
5.2 Overview of the Dairy Development Ladder ............................................................55
5.3 Economic Outcomes.........................................................................................57
5.4 Conclusion ....................................................................................................57
6. Conclusions ........................................................................................................59
Annexes
A1 Methodological Background....................................................................................61
A2 IFCN Method: Costs of Production Calculations.............................................................63
Cost Calculation...................................................................................................63
A3 Description of IFCN Result Variables .........................................................................66
Cost of Milk Production (only) ..................................................................................66
A4 Milk Production in ANDHRA PRADESH.........................................................................68
A5 Dairy Production Systems in Andhra PRADESH ..............................................................69
A 6 Major Stakeholders and Supply Chain in the Andhra......................................................70
A7 Risk Variables and Assumptions ...............................................................................71
Selection of stochastic variables ...............................................................................71
Standardized Man Equivalent ...................................................................................71
References ............................................................................................................72

For more information visit the PPLPI website at: http://www.fao.org/ag/pplpi.html
or contact: Joachim Otte - Programme Coordinator of the Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Facility
Email: Joachim.Otte@fao.org Tel: +39 06 57053634 Fax: +39 06 57055749
Food and Agriculture Organization - Animal Production and Health Division Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 00100 Rome, Italy
ii
PREFACE
This is the 38th
of a series of Working Papers prepared for the Pro-Poor Livestock Policy
Initiative (PPLPI). The purpose of these papers is to explore issues related to livestock
development in the context of poverty alleviation.
Livestock is vital to the economies of many developing countries. Animals are a source
of food, more specifically protein for human diets, income, employment and possibly
foreign exchange. For low income producers, livestock can serve as a store of wealth,
draught power, fuel and organic fertiliser for crop production and a means of transport.
Consumption of livestock and livestock products in developing countries, though
starting from a low base, is growing rapidly.
The study applies a method of economic analysis developed by the International Farm
Comparison Network (IFCN), which is based on the concept of ‘typical farms’, to assess
the potentials of dairy development in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. The state
was divided into two zones with distinct levels of milk production densities: a high and
a low density milk production areas. Three broad farm types were selected to
represent typical farms from each of these regions: landless farming systems with 1
local cow or buffalo, small farmers with 2 to 3 buffaloes and commercial farms with 11
to 14 cows or buffaloes. Farms with 2 to 3 dairy animals and 1 to 2 ha land represent
the most common farm type found in the state. Each farm is described in detail with
assets, production costs, profits and other economic information presented both
graphically and in the text. Dairy development interventions and their potential
impacts on household income, return to labour and costs of milk production are
explored.
Although this study is seen as a research method development exercise, we hope it will
provide useful information to its readers and any feedback on method improvements
and results is much welcome by the authors, PPLPI and the Livestock Information,
Sector Analysis and Policy Branch (AGAL) of the Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO).
Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not
imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory,
city or area or its authorities or concerning the delimitations of its frontiers or
boundaries. The opinions expressed are solely those of the author(s) and do not
constitute in any way the official position of the FAO.
Furthermore, neither the authors nor any other legal entities related to the IFCN
activities accept any liability whatsoever for any direct or consequential loss howsoever
arising from any of the IFCN material or its content or otherwise arising in connection
herewith.
Authors
Otto Garcia, PhD: Dairy economist, Dairy Development Initiative and the IFCN Dairy
Research Centre, Germany. Email: otto.garcia@ifcndairy.org
Amit Saha, PhD: Dairy economist, Post doctoral fellow at FAL-Federal Agricultural
Research Centre, Germany (Until October 2005) (He is currently at NDDB, India).
Khalid Mahmood, MBA: Dairy economist, IFCN Dairy Research Centre, Germany

Preface
For more information visit the PPLPI website at: http://www.fao.org/ag/pplpi.html
or contact: Joachim Otte - Programme Coordinator of the Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Facility
Email: Joachim.Otte@fao.org Tel: +39 06 57053634 Fax: +39 06 57055749
Food and Agriculture Organization - Animal Production and Health Division Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 00100 Rome, Italy
iii
Asaah Ndambi, MSc: Dairy economist, IFCN Dairy research Centre, Germany
Torsten Hemme, PhD: Head IFCN Dairy Research Centre, Germany.
Keywords
Costs of production, India, Impact analysis, Andhra Pradesh, Policy, Poverty reduction,
Small-scale dairy, Typical farms, Risk analysis, Dairy development.
Date of publication: 25 September 2006

1
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
Andhra Pradesh is one of the agriculturally most advanced states in India but still has
high levels of rural poverty. Mixed crop-livestock farming is the predominant farming
system practiced by over 80 percent of rural households in the state. Of the total
livestock population, bovines accounted for about 41 percent in 2003 (GoAP, 2004). In
the rural economy, milk is one of the most important products of cattle and buffalo
enterprises, contributing over 51.5 percent of the value of all livestock output and 1
billion US-$ of value added at constant 1993-94 prices in 2002-03 (GoAP, 2002-03).
Other products include manure, fuel, draught power, meat, bones, skins and hides.
With landless, marginal and small operational holdings (< 2 hectare land) accounting for
nearly 80 percent of the 12.6 million farming households (GoAP, 2004), increasing milk
production from these farm types could be an efficient way to improve rural
livelihoods.
The main purposes of this study were to:
(1) Gain insights into the household /dairy farming economics in Andhra Pradesh,
(2) Assess the impact of the main dairy development activities on household income
and on the economic competitiveness of typical dairy farms in the state,
(3) Evaluate the impacts of the main development activities on the risk profiles of the
farms, and
(4) Assess the impact of combined dairy development programs on the economic and
risk profiles of typical farms in the state.
In order to achieve the above, a methodology to quantify the farm-level impacts of
different local dairy development programs, policies, interventions and ideas as seen
by local dairy stakeholders (policy makers, farmers, milk processors, NGOs, etc.) was
developed. The results are intended to inform the political process to initiate
discussion for finding the most efficient dairy development activities.
Methodology
The methodology applied for the economic analysis was developed by the International
Farm Comparison Network (IFCN) and utilizes the concept of typical farms. Farm types
are determined by regional dairy experts taking into consideration (a) location of the
farm, (b) farm size in terms of herd size and (c) the production systems that make
important contributions to milk production in the region among other key criteria. Two
regions, the highly dense milk production region of Guntur and the less dense of
Mahboobnagar districts were selected. From each of the districts, a first category of
farms (small farmers) was chosen to represent the size that is closest to the statistical
average (2 and 3 buffaloes) for both districts, respectively. As customary in IFCN,
larger and smaller farm types were selected to evaluate the potential for economies of
scale effects and other predominant production systems in the regions. Therefore, the
selected farms include landless, grazing and stall-feeding production systems consisting
of local and/or crossbred cows and buffaloes. Management levels on the typical farms
are average to slightly above average compared to other farms of the same type. Data
is collected using a standard questionnaire.
The calculations are based on the computer simulation model, TIPI-CAL (Technology
Impact and Policy Impact Calculations) version 4.0. This version has been developed in
the years 2005-2006 to better represent the complexity of small scale dairy farming and
to capture the various risks faced by dairy farmers.

1. Executive Summary
2
This is the first ‘dairy development policy evaluation study’ done within the IFCN Dairy
Research Network. Although great efforts were made both to include all major dairy
development programs and to model their economic, social and biological complexities,
the authors invite readers’ comments on the plausibility of the development pathways
and their results and welcome suggestions for improvements of the research
methodology utilized (Please contact Otto Garcia at: otto.garcia@ifcndairy.org).
Trends of Milk production in India and Andhra Pradesh
India produced about 92 million tons of milk in 2004, accounting for 15 percent of total
world milk production. Average milk yield in India, at 800 kg per dairy animal per year
have been increasing steadily between 1996 and 2003 at an average annual rate of 3.8
percent.
Andhra Pradesh (AP) accounts for 8.4 percent of the national dairy animal population
and produces 7.6 percent of the country’s milk. Andhra Pradesh’s milk production
comes mostly from farms of less than 2 hectares with 1 to 4 dairy animals. The milk
yields in Andhra Pradesh are slightly higher than the Indian average and are increasing
at a faster rate. Farm gate milk prices, however, are slightly lower than the average
for India.
Results: Comparison of ‘Typical Dairy Farms’ in Andhra Pradesh
Based on dairy development and agro-climatic features, the state of Andhra Pradesh
can be classified into two zones, progressive and lagging. Following the IFCN
methodology, in the progressive Guntur district three farm types GR-1, GR-2 and GR-11
were identified as ‘typical’. In the lagging Mahboobnagar district another three farm
types, MN-1, MN-3, and MN-14 were chosen. These farm types provide a picture of
income levels, possible economies of scale and the effect of commercialization.
Household comparison
Household incomes range from 1,000 to 4,000 US-$ per year. The landless farms in
both regions and the medium-sized farm in Mahboobnagar are unable to achieve a daily
household income above the 1 US-$ per person mark. In contrast, the small farm in the
progressive zone surpasses (GR-2) exceeds the 1 US-$/capita/day income level, which is
mainly due to higher off-farm income.
Comparison of the dairy enterprise - Costs of milk production
Farmers in both regions receive total returns from 18 to 27 US-$ per 100 kg ECM milk
produced (includes cash and non-cash quantifiable benefits). They, however incur total
costs of 16 to 38 US-$, when family labour, imputed at local wage rate, is included.
This means that only the largest farms in both regions make an entrepreneurial profit.
On the other hand, if family labour is excluded from the calculation, all farms make a
dairy income of 5 to 10 US-$ per 100 kg ECM. This income from dairy production is
relatively higher in the less dense milk production region, which explains the trend of a
faster growing buffalo population in MN-3 like households in Mahboobnagar as
compared to Guntur. These returns to dairy production (from cash and non-cash
benefits) and the lack of better alternative uses of their production factors are the
main reasons for these small farms to keep operating.

3
Results: Assessment of Dairy Development Programs
in Mahboobnagar
Mahboobnagar represents a fairly typical dairy situation, in which larger farms (like MN-
14) are very competitive milk producers while the vast majority of smaller farms (like
MN-3) are economically unattractive and would be expected to significantly decrease in
number as soon as these households have better alternatives. This critical situation of
small-scale farms persists in spite of numerous dairy development activities long in
existence in the region. Therefore, this study assesses the farm-level impact of over 40
potential dairy development programs, activities and farmers’ ideas in Mahboobnagar
for farm type MN-3. Finally, several of these programs and ideas are combined to
assess the feasibility of bringing MN-3’s dairy competitiveness level up to that of the
larger farms in the region. The results of the program assessments are summarized in
the following four pages.
Impacts on Household Income
Current situation: The MN-3 household currently achieves a total income of 0.80 US-$
per capita per day. The dairy activities contribute 0.13 US-$ or 16 percent to the daily
per capita household income. With this per capita income, this household can afford
considerably low living standards, which has no yet set benchmark under Indian
conditions.
Dairy development program impacts: The analysed dairy development programs have
the potential to increase the per capita household income by up to 27 percent above its
current situation.
Four programs would result in a significant income improvement for the household.
These are those in which a) the farm produces fodder rather than milk for sale (this
scenario assumes a fodder market and more off-farm work), b) the household ‘sells’ as
much family labour as possible on the labour market (a maximum of 2,700 man-hours
per year is assumed for this family), c) the three local buffaloes are replaced with two
well-managed grade buffaloes, and d) herd size is increased to five grade buffaloes.
Potential improvement for MN-3: Although all of the above programs individually have
large impacts on the dairy activities, none of them is able to lift the family to the 1 US-
$/person/day line. This is explained by the low share of dairy income (only 16 percent)
in the total household income.
Impacts on Dairy Competitiveness on the Local Labour Market
Current situation The family makes returns of 0.047 US-$ per hour of (man equivalent)
labour invested in the dairy as compared to 0.11 US-$ per hour received for off-farm
work. However, the family’s off-farm employment is limited to 2,700 hours per year
and is seasonally bound. The family will therefore maintain its dairy activities unless
more attractive employment opportunities arise.
Dairy development program impacts: The programs analysed increase the return to
dairy labour by up to 145 percent above the current situation. Seven programs increase
the return to labour in the dairy above 0.10 US-$ per hour bringing it close to the local
wage rate.
The most promising programs are those where a) the farmer gains access to more
fodder from public land, b) he joins the drought-relief cattle camp, and c) he expands
his herd to five grade buffaloes which are well-managed. On the other hand, returns to
labour decrease when the farmer purchases costly livestock (life) insurance, when he
joins a cooperative and receives a lower milk price and when he utilizes distant (public)
veterinary services.

4
Potential improvement for MN-3: Although about every fourth of the programs assessed
decrease the dairy return to labour, another fourth of them increase the latter to a
level very close to off farm wages for unskilled labour. In other words, the woman and
children attending the dairy could earn a ‘wage’ similar to that of the husband working
off-farm.
Impacts on Competitiveness of Milk Production
Current situation: The full economic costs of milk production are 24 US-$ per 100 kg
ECM milk while the milk price received is only 16.5 US-$.
Dairy development program Impacts: Nearly all programs decrease the costs of
producing milk, some by as much as 33 percent.
The programs impacting most positively and also negatively on the dairy farm
competitiveness in milk production are the same as those impacting on the dairy return
to labour (mentioned previously).
Potential improvement for of MN-3: The programs F-Bank, C-Camp, 5-Grade can bring
MN-3’s production costs down to 16 US-$ per 100 kg milk, which creates a competitive
milk producer both locally and globally.

5
Dairy Development Program Impact Evaluation – Farm MN-3
Programs Feeding Breeding & + Loans
Household income
Dairy competitiveness on the local labour market
Competitiveness of milk production
Marketing Animal Husbandry Animal Health
Household per capita income
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
MN-3
C-Camp
UreaStraw
Groundnut
AllStraw
G-Fodder
GF-Cutter
Fbank
Vcommons
FallowLand
CattleFeed
CompletFeed
C-membr
QtrCoop
C-plant
C-Cooling
Fatomatic
CoopUnion
FodderSales
LabourSales
WSHG
Coop-12
Watering
CalfRearing
Prenatal
StallFeeding
Building
Yield
DIM
Yield+DIM
Herd-Reduct
1-Grad+Loan
1-Grad
2-Grad+Loan
2-Grad
3-Grad+Loan
3-Grad
5-Grad
Vaccines
Vet-Clinic
Vet-2-Farm
Health-INS
INS-Solo
INS-Coop
INS-WSHG
US$/Capita/Day
Per capita income/ day
Baseline
1 US$/ Capita/ Day Line
Return to labour input in the dairy enterprise
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
MN-3
C-Camp
UreaStraw
Groundnut
AllStraw
G-Fodder
GF-Cutter
Fbank
Vcommons
FallowLand
CattleFeed
CompletFeed
C-membr
QtrCoop
C-plant
C-Cooling
Fatomatic
CoopUnion
FodderSales
LabourSales
WSHG
Coop-12
Watering
CalfRearing
Prenatal
StallFeeding
Building
Yield
DIM
Yield+DIM
Herd-Reduct
1-Grad+Loan
1-Grad
2-Grad+Loan
2-Grad
3-Grad+Loan
3-Grad
5-Grad
Vaccines
Vet-Clinic
Vet-2-Farm
Health-INS
INS-Solo
INS-Coop
INS-WSHG
US$/hour
Return to Labour Baseline Regional wage rate
Costs of milk production (only)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
MN-3
C-Camp
UreaStraw
Groundnut
AllStraw
G-Fodder
GF-Cutter
Fbank
Vcommons
FallowLand
CattleFeed
CompletFeed
C-membr
QtrCoop
C-plant
C-Cooling
Fatomatic
CoopUnion
FodderSales
LabourSales
WSHG
Coop-12
Watering
CalfRearing
Prenatal
StallFeeding
Building
Yield
DIM
Yield+DIM
Herd-Reduct
1-Grad+Loan
1-Grad
2-Grad+Loan
2-Grad
3-Grad+Loan
3-Grad
5-Grad
Vaccines
Vet-Clinic
Vet-2-Farm
Health-INS
INS-Solo
INS-Coop
INS-WSHG
US$/100KgECM
Costs from P&L account - non-milk returns Opportunity costs Baseline costs level Milk price

6
This assessment of dairy development programs paid particular attention to the risks
associated with each of the programs by introducing stochastic elements into the
program assessment. The following input variables were made stochastic by
introducing probability distributions rather than mean values into the simulations: Milk
price, milk yield per cow, livestock prices, mortality rates, prices for purchased feed,
crop yield and prices, and wage rate of hired labour. The assessment therefore also
provides estimates of probabilities of the programs leading to specified results.
Risk Profile for Impacts on Household Income
Current situation: Household MN-3 runs a 0.53 risk of achieving a daily per capita
income below 0.80 US-$. The chance of achieving an income of 1 US-$ or higher are
very slim at 0.01.
Dairy development program impacts: Some of the assessed dairy programs have the
potential to more than double the probability of the household to achieve a per capita
income of at least 0.80 US-$ and they increase MN-3’s chances to make an income
above 1 US-$/capita/day from 0.01 up to 0.30.
Ranking of the programs: The most promising programs are those in which the farmer
improves the dairy genetics and steps up the husbandry practices/management.
Purchasing costly livestock life insurance for local buffaloes decreases the chances of
reaching the current per capita income.
Risk Profile for Impacts on Dairy Competitiveness on the Local Labour
Market
Current situation: The family currently has 0.45 risk of its dairy labour return to fall
below 0.047 US-$/man-equivalent hour while the chance of achieving a dairy return to
labour equal to the local wage rate is nil.
Dairy development program impacts: Some of the dairy programs analysed reduce the
risk of MN-3 to make a return to labour below the current situation from 0.45 to 0.10.
However, four programs increase the risks to MN-3’s returns to labour while three other
programs virtually do not change the probability of achieving the current returns.
Interestingly, five dairy programs increase the probability that MN-3 return to labour
surpasses the regional wage level to close to 0.30.
Ranking of the programs: The feeding programs have the highest impact on the risk of
falling below the current return to labour, while purchasing livestock insurance for
local buffaloes, stall feeding of local buffaloes and receiving a lower milk price, in this
case from the cooperative, clearly increase the risk of not achieving MN-3’s current
return to labour.
Risk Profile for Impacts on Competitiveness of Milk Production
Current situation: The chance that MN-3 brings it cost of milk production down to the
milk price level are nil. This means that, when all the used family resources are
imputed, this farm type cannot cover its full economic costs.
Dairy development program impacts: All but three of the assessed programs increase
the probability of MN-3’s cost of milk production to be closer to the milk price
received. However, the chance to fully cover costs and make an entrepreneurial profit
only reaches 0.12 in the best program (5-Grade).
Ranking of the programs: The programs impacting most positively the dairy farm’s
competitiveness of milk production are first the feeding programs followed by the
breeding and herd-expansion programs. Buying livestock life insurance for the local

7
animals, either as a individual or as a cooperative member, do not result in any
improvement of the probability of achieving more competitive milk production costs.
Risk Profiles for Impacts of Dairy Development Programs – Farm MN-3
Programs Feeding Breeding & + Loans
Household income
Animal HealthAnimal HusbandryMarketing
Probability of household income to be:
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
MN-3
C-Camp
UreaStraw
Groundnut
AllStraw
G-Fodder
GF-Cutter
Fbank
Vcommons
FallowLand
CattleFeed
CompletFeed
C-membr
QtrCoop
C-plant
C-Cooling
Fatomatic
CoopUnion
FodderSales
LabourSales
WSHG
Coop-12
Watering
CalfRearing
Prenatal
StallFeeding
Building
Yield
DIM
Yield+DIM
Herd-Reduct
1-Grad+Loan
1-Grad
2-Grad+Loan
2-Grad
3-Grad+Loan
3-Grad
5-Grad
Vaccines
Vet-Clinic
Vet-2-Farm
Health-INS
INS-Solo
INS-Coop
INS-WSHG
Below Baseline Between Baseline & 1 US$ line Above 1 US$/ Cap/ Day line
Probability of return to dairy labour to be:
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
MN-3
C-Camp
UreaStraw
Groundnut
AllStraw
G-Fodder
GF-Cutter
Fbank
Vcommons
FallowLand
CattleFeed
CompletFeed
C-membr
QtrCoop
C-plant
C-Cooling
Fatomatic
CoopUnion
FodderSales
LabourSales
WSHG
Coop-12
Watering
CalfRearing
Prenatal
StallFeeding
Building
Yield
DIM
Yield+DIM
Herd-Reduct
1-Grad+Loan
1-Grad
2-Grad+Loan
2-Grad
3-Grad+Loan
3-Grad
5-Grad
Vaccines
Vet-Clinic
Vet-2-Farm
Health-INS
INS-Solo
INS-Coop
INS-WSHG
Below baseline Between baseline and regional wage Above regional wage level
Probability of cost of milk production to be:
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
MN-3
C-Camp
UreaStraw
Groundnut
AllStraw
G-Fodder
GF-Cutter
Fbank
Vcommons
FallowLand
CattleFeed
CompletFeed
C-membr
QtrCoop
C-plant
C-Cooling
Fatomatic
CoopUnion
FodderSales
LabourSales
WSHG
Coop-12
Watering
CalfRearing
Prenatal
StallFeeding
Building
Yield
DIM
Yield+DIM
Herd-Reduct
1-Grad+Loan
1-Grad
2-Grad+Loan
2-Grad
3-Grad+Loan
3-Grad
5-Grad
Vaccines
Vet-Clinic
Vet-2-Farm
Health-INS
INS-Solo
INS-Coop
INS-WSHG
Above milk price +/- 10% around milk price Below milk price

8
Conclusion
A chance for dairy development: Milk production in Andhra Pradesh has shown
remarkable growth, but the potential role of dairy farming as a tool to increase
household incomes, create rural employment and increase the regional competitiveness
at producing milk are still to be realized. For dairy to play such a development role,
there is an urgent need to provide the vast majority of small-scale dairy farmers with
quality livestock services packaged in manners that are affordable and have maximum
impacts on the key production and economic factors of their farms.
Feeding programs have high impact: This study shows that feeding programs can have
an impressive impact of increasing return to dairy labour by up to 145 percent, thereby
surpassing the regional wage level. For the household, this means that any family
member staying on the dairy farm would ‘earn’ a higher wage than the family members
working off-farm as unskilled labourers. With such an attractive outcome, why are so
few farmers adopting better animal feeding practices? The answer seems to be
complex, but this study points to two main factors for farmers’ low adoption: higher
risk as well as the higher (daily) requirements of working capital.
Risk matters: The provision of livestock services and dairy development programs
traditionally has not assessed their impacts on the risk profile of participating farmers,
despite it being well-known that resource-poor farmers, being particularly vulnerable,
are risk avoiders. They will not participate in a ‘promising’ program if it increases the
risk of the farm to fall below its current performance levels. Subsistence farmers have
no economic buffer to compensate for any fall in either production or income.
Therefore, the desired development programs must simultaneously increase the farm’s
economic performance and improve the farm’s risk profile.
Farmers, in this study, were not only highly risk averse, but were also reluctant to
make positive assumptions such as having more or better access to water, working
capital, health services and a more remunerative and reliable milk price. Such
assumptions were a prerequisite for running some of the program scenarios.
Furthermore, MN-3 and smaller farmers were in wide agreement that without
conditions in place to diminish or eliminate their risk in adopting new technologies,
they would not join the main programs, in spite of their obvious potential benefits.
Their risks were simply too high and they offered investment in grade animals as an
example of how they would then have to stop grazing their animals on public land and
replace paddy, their main staple food, with green fodder. In addition, they would
produce for a very unreliable market (milk vendors) or obtain a non-remunerative milk
price (from the cooperative).
A ‘Dairy Development Ladder’: Dairy development programs in Andhra Pradesh, as
anywhere else, are not conceived to address all the (risk) factors, which finally
determine the adoption and success of the programs. It is questionable whether it
would be practical for any one program to attempt to simultaneously tackle all
identified issues and a sensible approach would seem to be to forge strategic
partnerships among already existing programs which have strong complementary
effects. Reflecting on the farmers’ most quoted example, if MN-3 is going to upgrade
its animals, it will require a reliable and remunerative milk price, access to affordable
high quality health services, animal feed etc. This means that the breeding efforts
driven by the Andhra Pradesh Livestock Development Agency (APLDA) must be
accompanied by complementary programs.
The need for one program to partner and/or build on another became evident in the
‘Dairy Development Ladder’ exercise carried out with stakeholders in Mahboobnagar.
The results indicate that, effective partnerships (among various programs and with the
farming community) can gradually lift MN-3 households out of poverty through
developing a competitive dairy farming business, which provides not only an excellent
local wage level, but also strengthens their position against international competition
in a global economy.

9
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 Overview
From the beginning of the 20th
century the Indian livestock industry has attracted
widespread attention and benefited from multiple organized development programs.
The pace of dairy development for example rapidly accelerated after 1970, fuelled by
Operation Flood. Subsequently, dairy development was seen as a nationwide anti-
poverty instrument with huge potential to ensure greater equity and food and social
security in rural India. The performance of the Indian dairy sector in the last three
decades has been impressive. Milk production witnessed a significant growth of about
4.5 percent per year, making India, with a production of 74.7 million tons in 1998-99,
the largest milk producer in the world.
However, most Indian dairy farmers today not only still live in poverty, but also face
new forces stemming from an increasingly liberalized Indian dairy sector. Trade
liberalization as spearheaded by the World Trade Organization (WTO) has fuelled major
trade policy reforms by the Government of India since the early 1990s. These recent
developments expose Indian farmers to an increasingly open economy environment in
which access to cost-effective and high quality dairy development programs becomes
critical if dairy farming is to significantly contribute to poverty reduction while
retaining international competitiveness.
2.2 Objectives
As, under this emerging environment, the Indian dairy sector moves towards less
governmental interventions and regulations, there is a paramount need to clearly
identify dairy development programs that have high impacts on both rural poverty
alleviation and international competitiveness. In this context, this study aims to
address the following specific questions:
1- What is the current economic situation of typical dairy farming households in
Andhra Pradesh? How high and stable are their incomes? How much do these
households benefit from dairying and how internationally competitive is milk
production of these typical farms?
2- What are the expected farm-level impacts of the main dairy development programs
in the district of Mahboobnagar?
3- What dairy development paths do local dairy farmers regard as feasible for typical
farms in Mahboobnagar, Andhra Pradesh and what dairy development programs
should be put in place to cater for the needs of these farmers?
2.3 Methodology
This study applies the IFCN methodology in the following chronological order:
1- IFCN engaged in a partnership with a state institution, namely Andhra Pradesh
Livestock Development Agency (APLDA), which has both a vast dairy farming
expertise and a state-wide coverage.
2- The districts to be studied were jointly selected by IFCN and APLDA. Then, in each
district; dairy-expert panels were formed to include not only local dairy

4. Evaluation of Dairy Development Programs
10
stakeholders, but also officers from APLDA, BAIF and other Non Governmental
Organizations heavily involved in the industry.
3- IFCN guided each panel during the identification and building up the typical dairy
farms. It also facilitated the validation and adjustments of results until the group
could agree on the plausibility of the farm analyses.
4- In the particular case of Mahboobnagar, the panel and later on other individually-
consulted dairy stakeholders provided key farm data, and validated results for all of
the dairy development programs and ideas evaluated in this study.
5- Also in Mahboobnagar, the panel completed a risk profile for the typical dairy farm.
This allowed for an assessment of the probability that the farm reaches specific
goals as a result of utilizing a particular service / program or a combination of
several programs.
6- By discussing the impacts of the various dairy development programs on this one
selected farm, the Mahboobnagar panel agreed on a likely farm-level dairy
development path for that farm type in their district. They identified and
combined the programs that would be required to develop the dairy farming sector
in the district. The dairy farming economics of each step in such a development
path are presented in this study.
This is the first ‘dairy development policy evaluation study’ done within the IFCN Dairy
Research Network. Although great efforts were made both to include all major dairy
development programs as well as to model their economic, social and biological
complexities, the authors invite readers’ comments on the plausibility of the pathways
and envisaged results and suggestions for improvements on research methodology
(Please contact Otto Garcia at: otto.garcia@ifcndairy.org for any suggestion/comment).
2.4 Structure of the Paper
This paper is arranged in the following sequence:
1- Executive Summary: Gives an overview of the main findings of the study.
2- Introduction: Provides details about the project, the methodology used, and the
contents of this report.
3- Milk Production in India and Andhra Pradesh: First, this section provides condensed
pictures of the national and state milk production sectors and their characteristics,
and second economic results for selected typical farms are presented at the
household, whole farm, and dairy enterprise levels.
4- Dairy Development Activities in Andhra Pradesh: Presents the results from the
farm-level impact analysis of potential dairy development programs.
5- Dairy Development Ladder for Mahboobnagar: Describes stakeholders’ perceptions
of the farm level economic impact of each major development step and details of
the dairy programs that will be required.

11
3. MILK PRODUCTION AND FARM COMPARISON IN ANDHRA PRADESH
3.1 India - Dairy in the National Context
National milk production
Milk production in India has been growing steadily by 4.5 percent per annum since 1996
and in 2003/2004 milk production reached 88.1 million tons (GOI, 2004). India
maintained its position as the largest milk producing country in the world consecutively
for the last 3 years. However the milk is produced by about 117 million cows and
buffaloes, of which 72.8 million are in milk, the average yield of the animals in milk
thus being very low at around 1,300 litres per year.
Dairy farm structures
There are about 56 million farm households who keep dairy animals (NSS, 2000). The
average number of animals per household falls between 2 and 3 adult female cows
(and/or buffaloes). Average milk production per farm comes to around 1,600 litres per
year. Although the number of these small farms is growing by around 2 percent per
year, the number of animals per household is at best stable or decreasing.
Milk prices
The average milk price in India (22 US-$/100 kg 4 percent ECM) in 2003 is close to the
world milk price level (Saha, 2004). Milk prices have been rising steadily at a rate of
over 5 percent per annum but in 2002 this growth dropped to 1.1 percent.
Beef prices
With the lack of proper beef markets due to widespread prohibition of the slaughter of
cattle prices have been stagnating at 27 US-$/100 kg live weight (Saha, 2004).
Land prices
Land prices are exceptionally high at around 17,532 US-$/ha of good arable land (Saha,
2004) as a result of practically non-functional land markets. Attachment of social and
emotional value of land by its owners along with risk aversion further increases the
market price of land. The role of land lease markets requires in-depth investigation.
Feed prices
Prices of feed based on soybean meal and corn have shown an increasing trend above
the world market prices reaching 151 US-$/ton (INR 6,980). At this price, the milk to
feed price ratio reaches a level of 1.5, which is marginally favourable. However, it
needs to be kept in mind that farmers in India normally use a home-prepared ration
mostly based on local feed residues such as wheat meal, rice bran, cottonseed and
mustard seed cakes, which makes the ration cheaper than the use of soybean meal and
corn.

3. Milk Production and Farm Comparison in Andhra Pradesh
12

13
3.2 Andhra Pradesh - Dairy in the Regional Context
Milk production and marketing
Andhra Pradesh is the fifth largest state in India with 8.4 percent of the country’s total
area (GoAP, 2004a). With 6.96 million tons of milk produced in 2003/04 (or 7.9 percent
of India’s milk production) it is the fourth largest milk producing state in the country
only after Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, and Rajasthan. Its milk production grew by 6.6
percent (4.5 percent nationally) during 1996-2003. This growth was fuelled mainly by
an increase in the buffalo population and to a lesser extent by breed improvement (50
and 18 percent local and upgraded buffaloes). Local vendors handle 72.4 percent of
the total milk produced while private dairy companies and cooperatives, the main
players in the formal markets, handle 14 and 5 percent respectively.
Bovine population
Andhra Pradesh has 7.4 percent of the bovine population (adult female dairy animals –
cows and buffaloes) of India (GoAP, 2004b). As per 2003 livestock census, the state is
endowed with 8.6 million ‘breedable’ bovine livestock. Of this stock, 68 percent are
buffaloes while the remaining 32 percent are cattle (GoAP, 2004b). At the national
level, the state has the second largest buffalo population after Uttar Pradesh. Cattle
provide the major part of animal draught power while buffaloes are almost entirely
kept for milk production.
Milk yields
The average milk yield per bovine is 2.22 kg per day which is slightly higher than the
national average of 2.06 kg per day. The yields of a local cow, crossbred cow, local
buffalo and grade buffalo were 1.05, 4.59, 1.81 and 4.26 kg per day respectively in
2003. Average yields in Haryana and Punjab, however, were respectively 4.25 and 4.33
kg per dairy animal per day in 2003.
Farm structures
Milk is produced by 5.04 million dairy farm households of which 85 percent hold 1 to 2
dairy animals (cows or buffaloes) (ISPA, 1994). The average milk production per farm
per year was about 1,400 litres in 2003 and has been increasing steadily by 7 percent
per year. The number of smallholder farms is decreasing marginally by 0.4 percent per
year while the average herd size remains more or less unchanged.
Natural conditions (temperature and rainfall)
Andhra Pradesh, on average, experiences moderate to high temperatures throughout
the year with only slight variation between seasons. Average annual rainfall in Andhra
Pradesh is 940 mm, falling mostly between June and September. The winter months of
October to December have some rainfall while January to May are dry.
Agriculture and land use
About 23 percent of the area of the state are covered with forests. The area under
permanent pastures and green fodder crops is less than 5 percent. Of the area under
crops, 68.3 percent were under food crops during 2002-03. The important crops for the

14
selected districts are rice, maize, castor and jowar. The price and yield variations of
these crops show rice and maize to have declining productivity and stagnating prices,
while castor and jowar show sustained productivity but only castor shows rising prices
GoAP (2004d).

15
3.3 Description of ‘Typical’ Dairy Farms in Andhra Pradesh
Typical dairy farms in Mahboobnagar district (rainfed region)
1-Cow farm (MN-1): Farm in the Talkondapalli mandal
Activities: This farm represents the household of an agricultural labourer with no land
and one non-descript local cow. The household consumes about 50 percent of its milk
production and sells the rest to the local milkman. While off-farm employment
contributes 80 percent of the family income, dairy provides only 4 percent.
3-Buffalo farm (MN-3): Farm in the Apayepali village
Activities: This farm keeps three local buffaloes on 3 ha of land, of which 1.4 are
rainfed land. From the irrigated 1.6 ha, 0.4 ha are used to grow paddy (one crop a
year), while the rest is used to grow crops like jowar, maize, castor, and chickpeas
depending on the rainfall pattern. Animals are mostly grazed on public land and own
fallow land. Over 70 percent of the milk produced is sold to the milk vendor and/or
the local cooperative.
14-Cow farm (MN-14): A commercial farm in the Talakondapalli mandal
Activities: This farm owns 3 ha of irrigated land and 5.8 ha rainfed. It has 13 crossbred
cows (6 local X Jersey and 7 local X Holstein) and 1 Deoni grade cow. Milk is sold to the
cooperative milk society, which pays higher prices than local vendors for cow milk (but
not for buffalo milk). The farm grows its own fodder throughout the year.
Typical dairy farms in Guntur district (irrigated region)
1-Buffalo farm (GR-1): Farm located in the Buddham village
Activities: The household head is an agricultural labourer, who owns no land and a
grade buffalo. Dairying only contributes 8 percent to the household income while off-
farm income contributes 85 percent. Milk is sold directly to the end consumer,
restaurants or to the local dairy co-operative.
2-Buffalo farm (GR-2): Farm in the Buddham village
Activities: The farmer owns 0.8 ha of irrigated land and 2 grade buffaloes. Off-farm
labour is the owner’s main occupation. Milk production, cash crops (such as paddy,
sunhemp and filipesera) and off-farm activities contribute 8, 13 and 79 percent of the
household income respectively.
11-Buffalo farm (GR-11): A commercial farm in the Buddham village
Activities: The farmer own 8 ha of irrigated arable land. This farmer also owns 4 pure
and 6 grade Murrah buffaloes and 1 Ongole cow. Partial grazing and feed
supplementation using concentrates, other crop residues and dry fodder are practiced.
The crops grown are paddy, jowar, filipisera and sunhemp.
Explanation of codes:
SAU: Standard Animal Unit = a female adult buffalo unit

16
Typical
F
Units MN-1° MN-3 MN-14 GR-
1°
GR-2 GR-
11
Number of No. 4 4 5 4 5 5
Family cash living US-
$/
360 641 165
4
360 631 165
4Family consumption from
farm US-
$/
86 270 394 150 314 485
Household
A t
1000 US-
$
2.6 28.7 115.
9
2.8 12.5 114.
8Family labour
tili ti
Manhours / 293
6
450
1
418
3
428
8
705
3
476
5Family
i
US-
$/
109
2
118
6
449
2
111
5
250
5
434
6
Types of
t i
Descriptio Laboure Laboure N/A Laboure Laboure N/A
Total off farm
t ti l
Manhours / 238
3
270
0
254
2
238
3
382
3
369
6Family labour
tili ti
Manhours / 119
2
177
1
0 187
5
327
7
0
Off farm+wage
i
US-
$/
100
2
505 0 100
6
209
6
0
Farm land
( d)
Ha 0.0 3.0 8.8 0.0 0.8 8.0
Types of
t i
Descriptio
Sheep +
Poultr
Crops+Goat+
Poultr
Crops+Goat+
Poultr Sheep +
P lt
Crops+Goat+
Poultr
Crops+Goat+
Poultr
Assets
l
1000 US-
$
0 26 98 0 9 98
Land
l
1000 US-
$
0 25 87 0 9 88
Family labour
tili ti
Manhours / 816 222
8
355
5
128
3
298
0
426
4Hired labour
tili ti
Manhours / 219 487 720
0
292 0 480
0
Farm
i
US-
$/
89 677 444
3
108 404 430
5
Herd
t
Units
Adult female
it
No. 1 3 14 1 2 11
Type of
i l
Descriptio 0 0 Crossbred
C
0 0
Murrah
B ff l(10) + Local
C (1)
Lactation yield (Non-
ECM)
Kg/
h d
570 540 237
9
105
0
136
5
196
7Daily lactation yield
(NECM) Kg/
h d
1.90 2.00 7.93 3.75 4.79 6.83
Fat content (Non-
ECM)
% 4 6 4 6 6 6
Area under fodder Ha 0.00 1.07 1.72 0.00 0.36 0.62
Daily feeding ration
(DM)
Kg/ lact.
i l
3.99 4.77 17.0
6
8.01 11.5
2
14.4
7
Concentrat Kg/ lact.
i l
0.81 0.68 4.03 1.98 2.73 3.41
Mineral Kg/
SAU
0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03
Dry
f dd
Kg/
SAU
0.70 2.33 4.05 3.47 2.64 3.98
Green
f dd
Kg/
SAU
2.48 1.77 8.95 2.56 6.15 7.04
Bought-in Feed (as
i )Concentrat Ton/ 0.18 0.36 11.0
0
0.46 1.28 9.40
Mineral Ton/ 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.10
Dry
f dd
Ton/ 0.50 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00
Green
f dd
Ton/ 1.83 4.00 10.0
0
7.00 4.69 25.0
0Herd
d tiInsemination
th d
Descriptio Natura
l
Natura
l
AI AI AI AI
Breeding
t
US$
/hd/
0.77 0.59 5.31 1.32 1.76 1.08
Calving
i t l
Month 18 20 15 16 16 16
Lactation
l th
Days 300 270 300 280 285 288
Age at first
l i
Month 36 50 30 44 44 42
Health
tMedicine US$ /hd/ 1.76 0.74 10.3
2
4.41 5.51 7.72
Cow
t lit
% 5 5 4 3 3 3
Heifer
t lit
% 5 4 3 3 3 3
Calf
t lit
% 25 40 20 20 15 15
OFF-FARM
ACTIVITIES
NON-DAIRY FARM
ACTIVITIES
HOUSEHOL
D
DAIRY FARM ACTIVITIES

17
3.4 Farm Comparison: Household Approach
Household income levels
Household net income combines the net cash income from on-farm and off-farm
activities and the annual household incomes range from 1,000 US-$ (MN-1) to 4,000 US-
$ (GR-11). Farm households MN-1, MN-3 and GR-1 are extremely poor achieving annual
incomes in the order of 1,000 US-$ for families of four. Farms MN-1 and MN-3 represent
85 percent of the dairy farm households in the region of Mahboobnagar and are the
main focus of current rural development programs. In the more progressive Guntur
region, GR-2 achieves more than double the income of MN-3 despite access to only half
the amount of irrigated land.
Household income structure
The share of off-farm income is relatively high for the smaller farms and decreases with
increasing size of farm holding. This clearly indicates that poor landless farm
households are mostly part-time farmers with proceeds from farming contributing less
than 20 percent to their household incomes. Non-dairy farm income, for example from
backyard poultry and goat rearing, provides an important share in Mahboobnagar,
adding up to 50 percent of the farm income in such households. Off-farm income can
contribute up to 90 percent of the household incomes and proves to be an important
instrument for reducing poverty in the smaller farming systems in both regions.
Household assets
The distribution of assets of the farms analyzed is highly inequitable with values
ranging from 2,600 US-$ for MN-1 and GR-1 to 115,000 US-$ for MN-14 and GR-11. The
small dairy farming systems with land hold 12,000 to 28,000 US-$ in assets, mostly in
the form of land. These land-owning farm households have significantly better risk
bearing ability allowing them to engage in entrepreneurial farming.
Household labour utilization
The use of family and hired labour for income generating activities ranges from 1,750
to 9,000 man-hours per year between MN-1 and GR-11. Labour utilization increases for
households having more assets due to employment creation opportunities the latter
offer. Significant use of hired labour is made by the commercial farms MN-14 and GR-
11. For instance, the ratio of family to hired labour for GR-11 is about 50:50.
Interestingly, landless farmers also hire labour to graze their animals on public land.
The practice is for several small herds to merge and the owners share the hourly wage
of a herd caretaker.
Household consumption and cash flow
Family living expenses, including cash expenditure and consumption of own farm
produce, vary from 450 US-$ to over 2,000 US-$ per year. The living expenses imputed
to consumption of own farm produce vary between 85 US-$ (MN-1) and 485 US-$ (GR-
11). The share of home-grown food consumption as percentage of family living
expenses varies between 20 and 33 percent and is not distinctly different between the
landless and largest farm types (at about 20 percent). The intermediate farm sizes
(MN-3 and GR-2) have the highest share of their food coming from their own farms
(over 30 percent). The landless households don’t have the assets to produce more of
their food needs, so they rely on purchased and bartered food while larger households

18
have reached a ceiling in consumption from their own farms and due to their cash
availability tend to purchase more and better food items.
Household Income
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
MN-1°
MN-3
MN-14
GR-1°
GR-2
GR-11
1000US-$/Year
Total Household Net Income
Household Income Structure
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
MN-1°
MN-3
MN-14
GR-1°
GR-2
GR-11
Dairy income Other Farm income
Off farm income
Labour- Used for Income Generation
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
MN-1°
MN-3
MN-14
GR-1°
GR-2
GR-11
Manhrs/Year
Hired Labour
Off-farm family labour
Family labour on w hole farm
Household Assets
2.612.20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
MN-1°
MN-3
MN-14
GR-1°
GR-2
GR-11
1000US-$
Family Assets Farm Assets
Other Farm Assets Off Farm Assets
Own Farm Household Consumption
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
MN-1°
MN-3
MN-14
GR-1°
GR-2
GR-11
crops dairy
Other farm enterprises Off-farm Enterprises
Household Consumption
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
MN-3
MN-14
GR-2
GR-11
1000US-$/Year
Cash living expenses Homegrown consumption
cash on hand year end

19
3.5 Farm Comparison: Whole Farm Approach
Farm returns
Farm returns range from 200 to 9,000 US-$ per year. Small farms with land generate
farm returns of 900 to 1,300 US-$ per year. All farms are able to cover the total farm
expenses and generate a net positive farm income ranging from 90 to about 4,000 US-$
per year. The small farms with land (GR-2 and MN-3) are able to make a net farm
income of 400 and 675 US-$ per year respectively. The large variations in farm income
are linked to scale, productivity, technology and labour utilization.
The return share of dairying is relatively higher in the more productive zone than in the
less productive zone. Other farm activities, mostly goat and poultry raising, were
found to be important in the landless farms in both regions and also in the small farm
with land in the less progressive region of Mahboobnagar (MN-3). The role of crops is
important in generating returns on MN-3, GR-2 and GR-11.
Farm output marketed and cash flow
The proportion of dairy output sold varies from 40 to 96 percent. Larger farms meet
their milk needs and have more reliable markets for their milk, especially due to their
stronger bargaining power. Smaller farms, however, do not only consume much of their
production because the family needs it, but also due to insecure markets and non-
remunerative milk prices. Consumption of food crops, mostly rice and jowar, accounts
for 3 to 25 percent of crop returns, depending on the farming system. The annual net
farm cash flow ranges from 10 to 4,000 US-$ in GR-1 and MN-14 respectively, which
shows how vulnerable the small and landless farmers are to liquidity risks.
Farm assets and structures
With increase in assets, the proportion of farm output sold increases in both regions.
Farm assets range from 200 to 98,000 US-$. For the landless farms, MN-1 and GR-1,
animals account for 40 to 70 percent of the farm assets, while for the other farms, land
is, by far, the single most valuable asset, constituting 90 to 97 percent of the farm
asset value.
Explanations of variables; year and sources of data:
Farm returns: All cash receipts minus the balance of inventory (for example livestock).
Returns to dairy: Milk, cull cows, heifers, calves, sale and use of manure, draught power, etc.
Proportion of farm output sold: Sale of crops such as rice, wheat, etc. divided by value of total farm
production
Other farm output sold: Sale of poultry meat/ eggs, and goat, after home consumption is met.
Farm cash flow: Total cash farm returns / year – Total cash farm expenses / year
Farm assets: All assets related to the farm (land, cattle, machinery, buildings, etc.)
IFCN data collection based on expert estimations and statistics, year 2004.

20
Farm Returns and Income
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000 MN-1°
MN-3
MN-14
GR-1°
GR-2
GR-11
US-$/year
Net Farm Income Farm returms
Total Farm Expenses
Farm Return Structure
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
MN-1°
MN-3
MN-14
GR-1°
GR-2
GR-11
Other farm activities
Cash crops
Dairy
Structure of Farm Assets
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
MN-1°
MN-3
MN-14
GR-1°
GR-2
GR-11
Machinery & Building
Livestock
Land
Total Farm Assets
0.35
0.20
0
20
40
60
80
100
MN-1°
MN-3
MN-14
GR-1°
GR-2
GR-11
1000US-$/Year
Proportion of Farm Output Sold
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
MN-1°
MN-3
MN-14
GR-1°
GR-2
GR-11
Dairy Crops Other farm
Farm Cash Flow
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
MN-1°
MN-3
MN-14
GR-1°
GR-2
GR-11
US-$/year
Farm cash returns Farm cash expenses
Net farm cash flow

21
3.6 Farm Comparison: Dairy Enterprise Approach
Returns to the dairy enterprises (cash and non-cash)
The total returns per 100 kg ECM range from 18 to 27 US-$. These returns combine the
sales of milk, livestock, draught power and manure. In addition, households consume
milk and utilize manure for fuel and / or fertilizer. These non-cash returns to the dairy
enterprises range from 58 to 260 US-$ per year. Interestingly, there is a clear
difference between the two regions in the total value of milk consumed, which is due
to differences in both milk price and quantity of milk consumed.
Costs and profits of the dairy enterprises
When the household’s own resources used on the dairy enterprises are included, total
milk production cost ranges from 16 to 38 US-$ per 100 kg ECM. After deducting total
production costs from milk returns, only the two largest farms cover the full costs and
make entrepreneurial profits ranging from 1.0 to 2.5 US-$ per 100 kg ECM.
On the other hand, when the household’s own resources used in the dairy enterprises
are excluded from the cost calculation, all six dairy enterprises generate a positive
income ranging from about 5 to 10 US-$ per 100 kg ECM. These positive incomes and
the lack of attractive economic alternatives to dairy farming are the main reasons for
these farms to keep operating.
Cost of milk production
The cost of milk production only in these farms varies from 16 to 30 US-$ per 100 kg of
ECM. The highest production cost of 30 US-$ (MN-1) is mainly attributable to high
opportunity costs of labour (with family labour being valued at the existing market
wage rate) combined with low milk yields and high animal mortality rates. However,
the lack of sufficient alternative employment questions the validity of using existing
local wages for valuation of family labour. The high cash cost (darker blue bar) in the
landless system (GR-1) is mainly due to the need of purchasing feed and fodder, which
are expensive (while in the MN region grazing on public land is more prevalent).
Returns to labour
Returns to labour are inversely correlated to the cost of milk production. While the
two largest farms achieve much higher returns to labour than the local agricultural
wage rate, labour on the smaller farms earns around half of the local wage rate.
Interestingly, there seems to be no significant difference between regions and between
the landless and intermediate sized farms in the study.
Significant economy-of-scale effects can only be observed on the larger farms. This
seems to indicate that for smaller farms to capitalize on such effects they should
consider, among other factors, increasing productivity (through more productive
animals, practices and technologies) and increasing herd size up to somewhere
between 4 and 10 lactating dairy animals.
Explanation of variables:
Return structure and cost structure: See Annex A3
Costs of milk production: See Annex A2
Farm Profit Margin: Farm income from dairy enterprise / Gross dairy returns * 100

22
Total Dairy Returns
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
MN-1°
MN-3
MN-14
GR-1°
GR-2
GR-11
US-$/100KgECM M ilk Livestock Other
Cost Items Structure
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
MN-1°
MN-3
MN-14
GR-1°
GR-2
GR-11
US-$/100KgECM
Capital Costs
Labour Costs
Cost of other M eans of Production
Purchased Feed
Land Costs
Cost of Milk Production
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
MN-1°
MN-3
MN-14
GR-1°
GR-2
GR-11
US-$/100KgECM
Opportunity costs
Costs from P&L account - non-milk returns
M ilk price
Return to Labour
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
MN-1°
MN-3
MN-14
GR-1°
GR-2
GR-11
US-$/hour
Return to Labour Local Wage Level
Returns and Profits
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
MN-1°
MN-3
MN-14
GR-1°
GR-2
GR-11
US-$/100KgECM Farm Income Entrepreneur's Profit
Non Cash Returns of Dairy Enterprise
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
MN-3
MN-14
GR-2
GR-11
US-$/Year
Dung for fuel/ fertilizer
M ilk kept for family/ calves

23
Labour productivity
Labour input varies from about 450 up to 1,000 man-hours per lactating dairy animal
per year. The profitability of the two large farms is clearly driven by higher labour
productivity and resulting lower wage cost per 100 kg ECM. The 4 to 5 times higher
labour productivity of large versus small-scale systems makes large-scale commercial
dairy farming economically viable and financially attractive. Interestingly, labour input
per dairy animal is generally higher in the region of Guntur than in Mahboobnagar.
Capital productivity
Capital input per dairy animal is similar for the two largest farms. The smaller farms,
however, have much higher capital invested per animal in the irrigated region from 35
to 40 US-$ per dairy animal against only 14 to 18 US-$ in the rainfed region. However,
capital productivity is very similar between both regions, namely between 2,000 and
2,500 kg ECM milk produced per 1,000 US-$ invested. Also, capital productivity seems
to be little affected by changes in farm size (note that GR-2 has the highest capital
productivity of all six farms).
Land productivity
Land input per dairy animal varies from 0.05 to 0.35 hectares, which includes land used
to produce by-products fed to dairy animals. The land needed per animal declines as
herd size increases. Farmers in the rainfed region require twice as much land per
animal as their counterparts in the irrigated area. Land use per dairy animal is higher in
the smaller farms than in the larger farms, which is due to the intensity of land use for
fodder cultivation. The small farms generally feed crop residues after removing the
grains, like rice, Jowar, needing to use more land to meet their feed demands (0.18 to
0.35 ha/head). The large farms, instead, use 0.05 to 0.06 ha of land per dairy animal
to grow a constant supply of green fodder (such as Lucerne, Sorghum, Napier grass and
maize grain) throughout the year, which results in higher land productivity.
IFCN method: See Annex A2 and A3
Labour productivity: Total quantity of milk produced in farm in kg ECM in the year/ Total man- hours of labour
utilized in dairy enterprise in the year
Capital productivity: Total milk produced in kg ECM in the year/ Total present market value of capital assets
used in dairy enterprise in 1,000 US-$
Land productivity: Total milk produced in kg ECM in the year / Total land used in dairy enterprise in hectares

24
Labour Input
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
MN-1°
MN-3
MN-14
GR-1°
GR-2
GR-11
Manhours/dairyanimal/year Labour Productivity
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
MN-1°
MN-3
MN-14
GR-1°
GR-2
GR-11
KgECM/hr
Land Productivity
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
MN-1°
MN-3
MN-14
GR-1°
GR-2
GR-11
KgECM/ha
Capital Productivity
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
MN-1°
MN-3
MN-14
GR-1°
GR-2
GR-11
KgECM/1000US-$
Capital Input
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
MN-1°
MN-3
MN-14
GR-1°
GR-2
GR-11
US-$/dairyanimal/year
Land Input
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
MN-1°
MN-3
MN-14
GR-1°
GR-2
GR-11
Ha/dairyanimal

25
3.7 Summary
Milk production in Andhra Pradesh
Milk production in Andhra Pradesh has been growing steadily at an average annual
growth rate of 6.6 percent between 1996 and 2003. However, milk yields, at 2.22 litres
per animal per day, are only slightly above the national average.
The landless farm households in both regions studied and the small farm type in the
less progressive region of Mahboobnagar are the poorest. Without adequate assets to
allow investments, these poor households are also highly vulnerable to risk. Large
farms are able to produce milk at half the cost of a landless farm in the Mahboobnagar
region (MN-1). Cost competitiveness is to a large extent determined by labour costs
per 100 kg ECM, the productivity of the cows and feed costs. Intensive use of land for
green fodder production throughout the year increases the land productivity of the
large farming systems.
Areas of intervention
Though milk yields have been growing at an average annual rate of 4.7 percent over the
period of 1996 to 2001, there is a need to accelerate this growth through more focused
development interventions. Based on observed yield variations in the regions of Guntur
and Mahboobnagar, it appears that there is significant potential to improve the average
yield of buffalo in smallholder dairy production systems simply by improving breeding,
feeding and herd management. This improvement would have a major impact on
employment, milk production and nutritional status of the people in Andhra Pradesh.
At the farm level, initiatives that provide incentives to farmers to keep more
productive animals without compromising their ability to work off-farm will be a
necessary precondition to enhance dairy development in the region. This will entail
analysis of farm types and strategies that are labour-saving, require little investment
and are of low risk. A mechanism to provide loans for the purchase of animals without
the requirement of assets as collateral security is necessary for the small production
systems.
No significant differences in cost of milk production were found between the two
regions. However, milk prices in the progressive regions are higher. This implies that
dairy competitiveness in Andhra Pradesh has less to do with regional and location
specificity but rather with markets and overall development. There is therefore scope
to improve farm competitiveness by improving market access to the producers in
Mahboobnagar.
When family labour is calculated at the local wage rate, smallholder dairy farming
systems are locally not competitive with the larger commercial systems. This may
require interventions to particularly address the smallholders’ low asset bases, their
poor access to markets and information, and their high vulnerability to shocks.

26
4. EVALUATION OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS IN ANDHRA
PRADESH
4.1 Introduction
The low productivity of dairy animals in India generally, and in Andhra Pradesh in
particular, is known to be mainly due lack of proper nutrition, and poor health.
Therefore, numerous programs have been implemented in the region to increase milk
production by providing better nutrition and health services to animals, with the
ultimate aim to improve the socio-economic condition of small-scale dairy farmers.
Several organizations, from the local and state government, non-governmental
organizations to local grassroots groups, are engaged in the supply of farm inputs
(insemination, vaccines, medicine, subsidized calf feed, mineral mixtures, fodder
seeds, etc.) and provision of technical services to cattle owners. For milk production,
the Andhra Pradesh Livestock Development Agency (APLDA) targets the buffalo
population and the share of grade buffaloes exhibits a significant growth trend
indicating a shift from traditional subsistence dairy farming to a semi- or fully
commercial dairy enterprise aiming at greater economic returns.
This emphasis on dairy development programs is to a large extent driven by the
combination of increasing urbanization leading to higher demand for dairy products
coupled with a decrease in land for both cropping and grazing. As a result, small-scale
dairy farmers in the State seek dairy development programs that assist them in raising
profitability and incomes. Thus, there is a need to evaluate the farm-level impacts of
the main dairy development programs against these objectives and rank them
accordingly.
4.2 Methodology
The region of Mahboobnagar was selected for this assessment. Using a panel of local
dairy experts and farmers, over forty dairy development programs and farmers’
proposals for dairy development were classified intro five intervention categories: (a)
feeding, (b) marketing, (c) husbandry, (d) breeding and (e) health. The most recent
version of the model TIPI-CAL (Version 4.0), which supports risk analysis by
incorporating the stochastic simulation software SIMETAR, was used to analyse the
impact of changes in farm performance resulting form the information provided by the
panel for each of the proposed interventions. The panel was presented with the results
for comments and adjustments were made where required.
The results of the farm-level impacts are presented for three parameters: (1) overall
household income, (2) the returns to labour in dairy vis-a-vis the local labour market,
and (3) farm competitiveness of milk production.
In addition to these quantified impacts, it is known that farmer perceive many of the
dairy development programs as increasing the risk of their enterprise. To inform dairy
development administrators, a risk assessment is presented for each dairy development
program. Section 4.3 explains how the risk is assessed.
Sections 4.4 to 4.8 present the farm-level impacts and the risk profiles of the dairy
development programs selected for assessment in Mahboobnagar district of Andhra
Pradesh state. As mentioned above, the dairy development programs are grouped into
five categories and each category will initially be presented separately. Finally,
summary graphs 4.9 to 4.10 portray all programs side by side, grouped by category to

4. Evaluation of Dairy Development Programs in Andhra Pradesh
27
provide an overview of their impacts on household income, return to labour, and costs
of milk production with the associated risk profiles.
4.3 Farm-level Risk Analysis of Dairy Development Programs
Dairy development programs commonly confront farmers with risks and uncertainty as
well as with unique opportunities. Risk and uncertainty are particularly important in
developing countries due to the high vulnerability of resource-poor-farmers, market
imperfections, asymmetric information and poor communication networks.
Understandably, small-scale farmers are risk averse and more likely to adopt dairy
programs that reduce risk, while programs and activities that are perceived as highly
risky are avoided regardless of how attractive their outcomes may be. Therefore, risk,
real or perceived, has an important bearing on dairy development programs as their
rate of adoption and success are dependent not only on yields or incomes, but also on
their inherent risks.
The risk analysis incorporates the main output and input prices and production factors
in the farm. The following variables are deemed important in determining the
variability of outcomes and are used as probability distributions in the stochastic
simulations: Milk price, livestock price, wage rate of hired labour, purchase price of
feed, milk yield and mortality, crop yields, and crop prices. The probability
distribution functions below have been created by estimating min/max values and using
the SIMETAR software to estimate empirical distribution functions. Details are
presented in Annex 7.
Applying these probability distributions for selected input variables to run stochastic
simulations yields probability distributions for the selected output variables.
The risk results as distribution
function at three levels:
1. Household livelihood,
2. Return to labour
3. Cost of milk production
Income per Capita
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.50 0.70 0.90 1.10
US-$ / capita/ day
Probablity
Cost of Milkproduction
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
15 25 35 45
US-$/ 100 Kg ECM
Probablity
Return to Labour
0
5
10
15
20
-0.05 0.00 0.05
US-$/ Hour
Probablity
Milk yield
0.000
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.010
300 400 500 600
Kg ECM Milk
Prob.
Livestock prices
02
4
6
8
10
12
14
0.15 0.25 0.35
US-$/ Kg live wt
PProb
Wage rate hired
0
10
20
30
40
0.08 0.13
US-$/ 100 Kg ECM
Prob.
Purchased feed prices
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
1 3 5 7
US-$/ 100Kg ECM
Prob.
Mortality rate
0
2
4
68
10
12
14
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30
Percentage
Prob.
Milk price
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
12 17 22
US-$/ 100 Kg ECM
Prob
Distribution functions for input variables
Prob = Probability

28
In order to facilitate the reading and interpretation of the risk associated with the
different dairy development programmes, the risk analysis results are presented as a
stop light chart as shown below where green signifies as positive outcome, i.e.
achieving or surpassing the goal set, red signifies a negative outcome, i.e. falling below
a set threshold, while yellow signifies an outcome falling between the previous two.
4.4 Feeding Programs
4.4.1 Description of the Programs
Baseline: The farmer has three local buffaloes, with a milk yield of 540 kg per year.
The animals graze on public land, using hired labour, for about four hours a day. The
animals are fed crop residues and lactating animals receive 0.4 kg of a homemade
concentrate mix. The farm has surplus of paddy and jowar straw and family labour.
The farmer does not cultivate fodder as only 0.4 of the 3 ha of owned farmland is
irrigated.
C-Camp (cattle camp): As a drought relief measure, the farmer receives 5 kg of paddy
straw per female-buffalo for 60 days. The family puts in 120 man-hours (from
unutilised labour) to care for the animals, which must stay within the camp premises,
but hired labour for grazing is reduced by 240 man-hours. Other management and
production parameters remain unchanged.
Urea Straw: The farmer utilises urea and requires 35 additional man-hours to mix,
store and feed urea-treated straw to lactating animals. Due to an improved nutritional
balance, animals have a higher dry matter intake and milk yield increases to 608
kg/year.
Groundnut: The farmer feeds more by-pass protein to better utilize the paddy straw
and low quality grasses available. Groundnuts are locally produced and widely fed to
ruminants, and milk yield increases to 621 kg/year.
All Straw: Since the farm produces a surplus of straw, the farmer buys both
concentrates and green fodder to utilize all straw produced on the farm. The farmer
declines to reduce land dedicated to rice to plant fodder for the animals.
G-Fodder: The farmer replaces some land of rice with Napier to produce an extra 2.5
tons of green fodder needed to utilize all the straw from the farm. About 100 man-
hours of family labour are re-allocated to cultivate, cut-and-carry, and feed the home-
grown fodder. Concentrated by-products such as rice polish and groundnut cake is
bought in.
The risk results
as stoplight
chart.
Green: Good
Yellow: Moderate
Red: Bad
Prob. of a higher Household Income
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Example farm
Above World Bank Poverty line
Between Baseline & Poverty line
Below Baseline
Prob. of Cost of Milk Production
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Example farm
Below milk price
Closer to milk price +/-10 %
Above milk price
Prob. of return to dairy labour to be;
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Example farm
Above regional wage level
Between baseline and regional wage
Below baseline

29
GF-Cutter (green fodder cutter): Once the farmer grows fodder, he buys a chaff cutter
to chop the fodder. This decreases fodder spoilage, increases dry matter intake of the
lactating animals and therefore increases milk yields. The cost of the cutter is
deducted over a period of two years.
F-Bank (fodder bank): A group of 10 farmers associate to grow Napier in irrigated
public land. The farmer puts in 80 man-hours to plant, care for, and cut-and-carry
daily green fodder. Irrigation and fertilizer are available and affordable. The farmer
obtains 2.5 tons of green grass for a total cost of 475 Rupees cash.
V-Commons (village community): The farmer, as part of a village project, contributes
50 hours to manage common grazing land and pays a grazing fee of 100 Rs. per adult
buffalo. His animals now obtain the required additional 2.5 tons of green fodder with
the same amount of hired labour.
Fallow Land: The fodder output from the owned fallow land (1.4 ha) is doubled
through more drought-resistant fodder cultivars and more access to irrigation from a
public well. Variable costs increase to 1,000 Rs./ha for subsidized irrigation, fertilizer
and seeds of an appropriate grass variety and family labour requirements increase by
50 man-hours.
Cattle Feed: The farmer replaces his own groundnut and rice polish feed mix (costing
2,889 Rs./ton) with the cooperative commercial feed mix (costing 5,500 Rs./ton). Milk
yield increases and so do various reproductive parameters. However, milk price goes
down from 10 to 9.36 Rs/ltr as milk has to be sold to the cooperative.
Complete Feed: The farmer replaces his own groundnut and rice polish feed mix
(costing 2,889 Rs/ton) with the cooperative complete feed (costing 4,500 Rs/ton). This
feed contains roughages, which makes it less expensive than the cooperative cattle
feed. However, again milk price goes down from 10 to 9.36 Rs/ kg as milk has to be
sold to the cooperative.

30
Technical parameters associated with the feeding programs
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Herd
management Units MN-3 C-Camp UreaStraw Groundnut AllStraw G-Fodder GF-Cutter Fbank Vcommons FallowLand CattleFeed CompletFeed
Adult female units No. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Type of animal Description 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lactation yield
(Non-ECM) Kg/ head 540 540 608 621 810 810 810 810 770 743 648 648
Daily lactation
yield (Non-ECM) Kg/ head 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.4 2.4
Fat content (Non-
ECM) % 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Area under fodder
crops Ha 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.14 1.14 1.07 1.07 1.11 1.07 1.07
Concentrate
Kg/ lact.
animal 0.68 0.90 1.01 1.12 1.41 1.55 1.55 1.49 1.37 1.35 1.05 1.19
Minerals Kg/ SAU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dry fodder Kg/ SAU 2.33 2.27 2.27 2.27 2.88 2.77 2.75 2.83 2.83 2.78 2.27 2.27
Green fodder Kg/ SAU 1.77 1.13 1.72 1.72 2.31 2.20 2.26 2.36 2.28 2.31 1.72 1.72
Concentrate Ton/ yr 0.36 0.48 0.57 0.64 0.80 0.88 0.88 0.85 0.78 0.77 0.59 0.67
Minerals Ton/ yr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dry fodder Ton/ yr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Green fodder Ton/ yr 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 6.5 4.0 4.0 6.5 6.2 4.0 4.0 4.0
Insemination
method Description Natural Natural Natural Natural Natural Natural Natural Natural Natural Natural Natural Natural
Breeding costs US$ /hd/yr. 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59
Calving interval Months 20 20 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 18 18
Lactation length Days 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270
Age at first calving Months 50 50 50 50 49 48 48 48 48 50 50 50
Medicine
expenses
US$ /hd/
yr. 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74
Cow mortality % 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Heifer mortality % 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4
Calf mortality % 40 40 40 40 40 35 35 35 35 35 40 40
MN-3: typical farm (Baseline farm) Vcommons: improved village communal grazing land
C-Camp: Cattle Camp (drought relief effort) FallowLand: improved grazing on own farmland
UreaStraw: adding Urea to paddy straw CattleFeed: balanced feed mix (concentrates+vit.+minerals)
Groundnut: protein rich by-product (also used as a source of by-pass protein) CompletFeed: a total mixed ration (roughages+concentrates)
AllStraw: providing other feedstuffs to use all of the homegrown paddy straw ECM = Energy Corrected Milk
G-Fodder: growing fodder on the own farmland SAU: Standard Animal Unit (1 adult female unit)
GF-Cutter: manual fodder chopper means >5% above baseline
Fbank: fodder bank in public land means <5% below baseline
Bought-in Feed (as is)
Daily feeding ration (DM)
Herd reproduction
Health parameters
FEEDING PROGRAMS
Abbreviations:

31
4.4.2 Impacts of the Programs
Household income
The household currently obtains a total income of 0.80 US-$/capita per day with a
probability of 0.47 to achieve an income above this level (and a 0.53 risk to fall below
this level).
The feeding programs increase the daily per capita income up to 0.86 US-$ (a 5 percent
increase). They also increase the probability of surpassing the 0.80 income level from
0.47 to 0.68 for C-Camp. In other words, the risk of falling below the current income
level decreases from 0.55 to 0.32 for the C-Camp program.
Despite these positive results (higher income and lower risk), the impacts are minor.
These low impact levels are basically due to the low contribution of the dairy income
(16 percent) to total household income.
The dairy enterprise returns nearly 0.047 US-$/man-hour utilized, with a probability of
0.55 to provide higher returns.
The feeding programs increase the return to dairy labour up to a maximum of 0.114 US-
$/man-hour for F-Bank, which is a 45 percent increase relative to with the baseline.
The programs also increase the probability of achieving the baseline return to labour to
up to 0.90 (as compared with the 0.65 for the baseline).
Interestingly, programs C-Camp and those involving access to sufficient green fodder
allow the farm to make a return to labour above 0.10 US-$/hour, which is the regional
wage for agricultural labourers. All-Straw shows that the farmer could pay for green
fodder at market price in order to utilize all his straw and make a return to labour
equal to the regional wage. On the other hand, increasing green fodder output from
the farm’s fallow land is predicted to have the lowest impact due to high variable
production costs, especially for irrigation.
The dairy enterprise has total costs of 24 US-$ to produce 100 kg ECM milk while its
milk price is only 16.5 US-$ for the same amount. The chances of bringing total
production costs below the milk price level are slim.
The feeding programs reduce the costs of milk production to a minimum of 16 US-
$/100kg for F-Bank (a decrease of 33 percent). They also increase the probability of
the dairy breaking even (costs = returns) to up to 0.68 percent (from 0 for the baseline)
for the F-Bank scenario.
Again, those activities providing access to enough quality green fodder (from on and
off-farm) have the highest positive impact on production costs. The impacts of the
best feeding strategies could be enhanced by combination with breeding, herd
management and health improvement programs (which remain unchanged in these
feeding scenarios).
Household income: Income from farming and off farm activities. It includes cash and non cash transactions
Per capita calculation: Household Income divided by number people (adult equivalents) in the household
Return to labour: For dairy enterprise: Entrepreneur‘s profit plus labour costs divided by total labour input.
Cost of milk production: Costs of the dairy enterprise – non milk returns like livestock, manure, etc.

32
Household income
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
MN-3
C-Camp
UreaStraw
Groundnut
AllStraw
G-Fodder
GF-Cutter
Fbank
Vcommons
FallowLand
CattleFeed
CompletFeed
US$/Capita/Day
Baseline
Return to labour
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
MN-3
C-Camp
UreaStraw
Groundnut
AllStraw
G-Fodder
GF-Cutter
Fbank
Vcommons
FallowLand
CattleFeed
CompletFeed
US$/hour
Baseline
Return to Labour
Regional wage rate
Costs of milk production
0
5
10
15
20
25
MN-3
C-Camp
UreaStraw
Groundnut
AllStraw
G-Fodder
GF-Cutter
Fbank
Vcommons
FallowLand
CattleFeed
CompletFeed
US$/100KgECM
Baseline
Opportunity costs
Milk price
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
MN-3
C-Camp
UreaStraw
Groundnut
AllStraw
G-Fodder
GF-Cutter
Fbank
Vcommons
FallowLand
CattleFeed
CompletFeed
Below milk price
+/- 10% around milk price
Above milk price
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
MN-3
C-Camp
UreaStraw
Groundnut
AllStraw
G-Fodder
GF-Cutter
Fbank
Vcommons
FallowLand
CattleFeed
CompletFeed
Below baseline
Probability for household income to be:
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
MN-3
C-Camp
UreaStraw
Groundnut
AllStraw
G-Fodder
GF-Cutter
Fbank
Vcommons
FallowLand
CattleFeed
CompletFeed
Above 1 US$/ Cap/ Day line
Between Baseline & 1 US$ line
Below Baseline

33
4.5 Milk Marketing Programs
C-Member (cooperative member): As a member of the cooperative, the farmer sells all
his milk to the cooperative, which pays a 6.5 percent lower price than local vendors.
Therefore, the milk price is reduced accordingly in the calculations. Farmers keep
selling to the cooperative because it provides them with the only assured milk market,
and more regular and timely payment throughout the year (unlike the alternative of
local milk vendors).
Qtr-Coop (quarter cooperative): The farmer sells 25 percent of his marketable milk to
the cooperative in order to maintain his membership and utilize the services of the
society when needed. The rest of the milk is sold to local vendors who offer higher
prices especially during the lean season.
C-Plant (cooling plant): The milk cooperative purchases cooling equipment and adds
value to the local milk. Currently, most of the local milk is shipped as raw material to
be processed in the capital city of Hyderabad. Due to this local processing, the
cooperative pays the farmer an 8 percent higher milk price. The farmer sells all his
milk to the cooperative.
C-Cooling: The milk cooperative installs cooling units and the farmer obtains a 2.7
percent higher milk price due to less milk spoilage and better quality milk, especially
during evening milking and the summer season. The farmer sells all his milk to the
cooperative
Fatomatic: The milk cooperative pays the farmer a 16 percent higher milk price due to
installing milk-fat testing machines in its collection centres. The farmer sells all his
milk to the cooperative.
Coop Union: The milk cooperative pays the farmer an 11 percent higher milk price due
to becoming autonomous and therefore making better and quicker business decisions.
The farmer sells all his milk to the cooperative.
Fodder Sales: The farmer replaces the rice crop with green fodder (Napier). He sells
all his green fodder and by-products from other crops such as jowar. The family living
expenses increase to buy rice, milk and manure for fuel, which were supplied by own
farm production (for a total annual market value of US-$ 67, 48 and 33 respectively).
The family farm labour needs are reduced, but their off-farm working time is kept
unchanged.
Labour Sales: The household operates as in the baseline situation and dedicates around
2,700 hours to off-farm work, which is the maximum employment potential this family
has in the area.
WSHG (woman self-help group): The family joins a Women Self-Help Group, whose
members invest in a mini-dairy plant to process and pack their milk in plastic bags.
Members must invest the equivalent to about 13 US-$ per adult dairy animal owned per
year. The group expects to obtain a milk price at least 20 percent higher than that
paid by the local vendor, once the profits from the dairy plant are distributed to the
members.
Coop12: Milk unions in other areas of the state pay up to 15 Rupees per kg of quality
buffalo milk (0.33 US-$). Farmers in Mahboobnagar welcome a similar opportunity to
sell top quality milk for at least 12 Rupees per kg (0.27 US-$).

34
Technical parameters associated with the marketing programs
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Herd management Units MN-3 C-membr QtrCoop C-plant C-Cooling Fatomatic CoopUnion FodderSales LabourSales WSHG Coop-12
Adult female units No. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 3
Type of animal Description
Local
Buffalo
Local
Buffalo
Local
Buffalo
Local
Buffalo
Local
Buffalo
Local
Buffalo Local Buffalo N/A Local Buffalo
Local
Buffalo
Local
Buffalo
Lactation yield (Non-
ECM) Kg/ head 540 540 540 540 540 540 540 0 540 540 540
Daily lactation yield
(Non-ECM) Kg/ head 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2
Milk price US$/ 100 kg ECM 16.62 15.56 16.35 16.80 15.97 18.05 17.22 0 16.62 19.94 19.94
Fat content (Non-
ECM) % 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 6 6 6
Area under fodder
crops Ha 1 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 0 1.07 1.07 1.07
Concentrate Kg/ lact. animal 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0 0.68 0.68 0.68
Minerals Kg/ SAU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dry fodder Kg/ SAU 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.33 0 2.33 2.33 2.33
Green fodder Kg/ SAU 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.77 0 1.77 1.77 1.77
Concentrate Ton/ yr 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0 0.36 0.36 0.36
Minerals Ton/ yr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dry fodder Ton/ yr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Green fodder Ton/ yr 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 4 4 4
Insemination
method Description Natural Natural Natural Natural Natural Natural Natural 0 Natural Natural Natural
Breeding costs US$ /hd/yr. 1 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0 0.59 0.59 0.59
Calving interval Months 20.00 20 20 20 20 20 20 0 20 20 20
Lactation length Days 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 0 270 270 270
Age at first calving Months 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 0 50 50 50
Medicine expenses US$ /hd/ yr. 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0 0.74 0.74 0.74
Cow mortality % 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 5
Heifer mortality % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 4 4 4
Calf mortality % 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 0 40 40 40
MN-3: typical farm (Baseline farm) LaborSales: household sells maximun labor time for off-farm work
C-membr: farmer becomes a cooperative member WSHG: women self-help group associated for milk marketing
QtrCoop: farmer sells only 25 percent of marketable milk to the Cooperative Coop12: Cooperative pays 12 Rs/ kg of buffalo milk
C-plant: cooperative set up a processing plant in the current facilities ECM = Energy Corrected Milk
C-Cooling: cooperative install cooling units and summer milk wastage is minimised SAU: Standard Animal Unit (1 adult female unit)
Fatomatic: cooperative installs milk testing machines in collection centers means >5% above baseline
CoopUnion: the cooperative become autonomous means <5% below baseline
FodderSales: farmer keeps no dairy animals and sells by-products & green fodder
MARKETING PROGRAMS
Abbreviations:
Daily feeding ration (DM)
Bought-in Feed (as is)
Herd reproduction
Health parameters

35
4.5.2 Impacts of the programs
Household income
The household currently obtains a total income of 0.80 US-$/capita per day with a
probability of 0.47 to achieve an income above this level (and a 0.53 risk to fall below
this level).
The assessed marketing programs increase the per capita income to 0.926 (about 14
percent increases for both Fodder Sales and Labour Sales), indicating the relevance of
a local fodder market and more off-farm employment for increasing the total income of
this type of household. Regarding the Fodder Sales scenario, the family must spend
more in purchasing rice, milk and manure as to keep the same living standard as in the
Baseline farm.
Likewise, these programs have slight impacts on improving the risk profile of the
household income, except for the Fodder Sales, Labour Sales, Coop 12, and Fatomatic.
From these four programs, the Fodder Sales scenario demands cautions from the
reader, since the set of risk input variables used in this study excludes relevant risk
factors affecting a fodder crop enterprise. This is why the risk of a low household
income is highly underestimated.
The dairy enterprise returns nearly 0.047 US-$/man-hour utilized, with a probability of
0.55 to provide higher returns.
The marketing programs increase the return to dairy labour to up to 0.095 US-$/man-
hour (about 100 percent increase for the Coop-12 with respect to the baseline). They
also increase the probability of earning a higher return to labour than the current 0.05
US-$ to up to 0.86 and Coop-12 even achieves a probability of 0.19 of obtaining a return
to labour above the regional wage rate.
All scenarios, except the C-Member, reduce the risk of achieving a return to labour
below the baseline level. This can be explained by the lower milk price paid by the
cooperative to its members on one hand, and, on the other hand, by the poor access
and little capability of this farm to capitalize on the services provided by the
cooperative.
The dairy enterprise has total costs of 24 US-$ to produce 100 kg ECM milk while its
milk price is only 16.5 US-$ for the same amount. The chances of bringing production
costs below the milk price level are extremely slim.
The marketing programs assessed reduce costs of milk production to 21 US-$/100 kg
milk (a decrease of 13 percent). More importantly, they also increase the probability
of the farm breaking even (costs = returns) to 0.41 as compared to 0 for the baseline.
As shown by the Fatomatic scenario, farmers see the poor recording of fat content in
their buffalo milk as one of the main reasons for the low cooperative milk price.
(Cooperative representatives, along with farmers, provided their perspectives in
building this scenario.)
Household income: Income from farming and off farm activities. It includes cash and non cash transactions
Per capital calculation: Household income divided by number people (adult equivalents) in the household
Return to labour: For dairy enterprise: Entrepreneur‘s profit plus labour costs divided by total labour input.
Cost of milk production: Costs of the dairy enterprise – non milk returns like livestock, manure, etc.
Stoplight chart: It is a simplified way to show the risk results by probabilities of reaching targets.
Stoplight chart costs: Below/above milk price means costs are at least 10% below/10% above the milk price

36
Household income
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
MN-3
C-membr
QtrCoop
C-plant
C-Cooling
Fatomatic
CoopUnion
FodderSales
LabourSales
WSHG
Coop-12
US$/Capita/Day
Baseline
Return to labour
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
MN-3
C-membr
QtrCoop
C-plant
C-Cooling
Fatomatic
CoopUnion
FodderSales
LabourSales
WSHG
Coop-12
US$/hour
Baseline
Return to Labour
Regional wage rate
Costs of milk production
0
5
10
15
20
25
MN-3
C-membr
QtrCoop
C-plant
C-Cooling
Fatomatic
CoopUnion
FodderSales
LabourSales
WSHG
Coop-12
US$/100KgECM
Baseline
Opportunity costs
Milk price
Probability for household income to be:
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
MN-3
C-membr
QtrCoop
C-plant
C-Cooling
Fatomatic
CoopUnion
FodderSales
LabourSales
WSHG
Coop-12
Above 1 US$/ Cap/ Day line
Between Baseline & 1 US$ line
Below Baseline
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
MN-3
C-membr
QtrCoop
C-plant
C-Cooling
Fatomatic
CoopUnion
FodderSales
LabourSales
WSHG
Coop-12
Below milk price
+/- 10% around milk price
Above milk price
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
MN-3
C-membr
QtrCoop
C-plant
C-Cooling
Fatomatic
CoopUnion
FodderSales
LabourSales
WSHG
Coop-12
Below baseline

37
4.6 Husbandry Programs
Watering: Livestock in Mahboobnagar normally face high temperatures and direct solar
radiation, which increases the need for water. In spite of these conditions, buffaloes in
MN-3 farm types tend to graze for most of the day with little or no access to water for
drinking, let alone to bathe as is typical for water buffalo. Therefore, this scenario
assumes the farmer uses more labour to provide animals with drinking water (ad
libitum three times per day instead of twice as is currently the case) and yield
increases by 8 percent.
Calf Rearing: As part of a program, the farmer obtains a weekly allowance of
concentrated calf feed equivalent to 0.25 kg per day per calf under six months of age.
This feed is given free of charge and the family only needs to allocate time to pick up
the feed and give it to the calves. The benefits are lower calf mortality (down from 40
to 25 percent, which translates into higher cattle sales and ultimately lowers the costs
of producing milk.
Prenatal: Pregnant animals receive 0.75 kg of concentrates during the last trimester of
gestation. As a consequence, milk yield increases by 15 percent while female-buffalo
mortality decreases to 30 percent.
Stall Feeding: All buffaloes are kept in confinement, which increases milk yield but
also costs such as feed, veterinary medicine, breeding, etc. Buffaloes do not graze on
public land (cheaper fodder) and must be artificially inseminated as they no longer
have access to local bulls at grazing.
Building: Insulation of the barn roof against solar heat is improved and animals are
kept in the barn during the peak hot time of the day. Heat stress is significantly
reduced, which increases dry matter intake, milk yield and conception rate.
Yield: The farmer increases fodder and concentrate purchases to reach the state-
average-daily yield of 2.5 kg per lactating animal. Reproductive (inter-calving period,
days dry, etc) parameters remain unchanged.
DIM (days in milk): The days in milk (lactation length) increase from 270 to 280 and the
inter-calving period decreases from 20 to 18 months due to improved management.
Daily milk yield is kept unchanged and this scenario assesses the impact of improving
the reproductive parameters of the farm while keeping all other parameters
unchanged. Feed use is increased to cover the increase in annual milk output.
Yield + DIM: The farm achieves both a daily milk yield of 2.5 kg and more days in milk
per animal per year (a combination of the previous two scenarios). Feed purchases and
other production factors are adjusted accordingly.

Impacts of Dairy Development Programs in Andhra Pradesh

Impacts of Dairy Development Programs in Andhra Pradesh

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Impacts of Dairy Development Programs in Andhra Pradesh

Similar to Impacts of Dairy Development Programs in Andhra Pradesh (20)

Impacts of Dairy Development Programs in Andhra Pradesh