I. Patel
Professor, Institute of Rural Management, Anand 388001, India
Haijarabad Dairy Co-operative Society (HDCS)
Adoption study of UMMB among milk producers
Socio-economic background of the users of UMMB
Awareness about UMMB
Experiences in using UMMBs
Adoption of UMMB: The perspective of women dairy farmers
The perspective of resource-poor women dairy farmers
The perspective of a successful women dairy farmer
India is the largest milk producing country in the world. In 1997, total milk production in the country was 72 million tonnes, accounting for 13% of the world’s total milk production. India also has 16% (960.18 million head) of the world’s total bovine population (MoA 1999). During the last three decades, the progress made by the country in increasing milk production is remarkable. Annual milk production in India has made a quantum jump from 22 million tonnes in 1970 to 74 million tonnes in 1998–99. The Indian dairy sector consists predominantly of small-scale milk producers who generally keep on an average two milch animals. The households of marginal and small farmers, and landless labourers constitute about 76% of the total milch animal owning households and include approximately 65% of the total number of milch animals. They contribute about 65% of the total milk production of the country (NCAER 1999). In India, the co-operative dairy sector, based on the famous Anand Pattern with a three-tier structure (village, district and state levels), has played an important role in bringing the benefits of dairying to the small-scale milk producers.
Despite India’s large volume of milk production, the average productivity of milch animals is quite low. This is attributed to low genetic potential for milk production, poor nutrition and poor management and care of the milch animals (Jain et al. 1996). Proper feeding of the animals is essential for improving their productive potential. Most of the small-scale dairy farmers’ animals, however, survive on crop residues and natural herbage (grass, tree leaves etc.) which do not provide adequate nutrients to the animals for improving their growth and exploiting their productive potential. In general, low quality crop residues are deficient in fermentable nitrogen, carbohydrates and important minerals.
For supplementing the crop residue-based diet of large and small ruminants, the use of urea–molasses mineral block (UMMB) licks has been recommended by many livestock researchers. In India, the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) and a few other research institutes have engaged in research for development of new types of low-cost urea molasses products. Such products include urea treated straw, UMMBs and molasses-urea enriched straw, all of which aim to improve the nutritive value of the traditional straw-based diet thus promoting healthy growth and milk productivity of dairy animals.
Benefits of using UMMB are well documented by researchers in developed and developing countries (Garg et al. 1998). However, research on adoption of UMMB licks among milk producers, particularly among dairy farmers in developing countries is very limited. Even in India, where UMMB production technology and the product were introduced in the co-operative dairy sector in 1984, systematic research on the adoption of UMMB technology by co-operative milk unions and milk producers is very limited. A few studies have focused on understanding the marketing of UMMBs (Sethi 1990; Singh and Mukherjee 1996). However, seldom are efforts made to examine the diffusion and adoption of UMMB among small-scale dairy farmers. In light of the limited research on the adoption of UMMB by milk producers in India, a systematic and large-scale study in this area could be very useful.
This case study focuses on understanding salient issues in the diffusion and adoption of UMMB among dairy farmers. The scope of the study is limited to Gujarat, a state with a successful co-operative movement, based on the Anand Pattern. Specifically, an attempt is made to understand the differential adoption of UMMB by different categories of farmers in order to find out whether there is a need to change/modify the technology, extension and popularisation methods and also the approach to developing such technologies.
As a result of time constraints, the case study was focused on two leading milk unions of Gujarat, namely the Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers’ Union (known as Amul) and the Mehsana District Co-operative Milk Producers’ Union Limited. The NDDB worked closely with these unions in the initial stages of demonstrating and popularising the use of UMMB among dairy farmers.
Discussion is based on primary and secondary sources of information. To understand the diffusion and adoption of UMMB, focus group discussions and structured interviews were conducted with key informants (such as research scientists, NDDB officers, extension staff and officers of the selected unions and dairy farmers) in the selected villages, namely Haijarabad and Chikhodara in Amul’s milk shed and Parsa, Bhesana, Indrapura and Bhimapura in the Mehsana milk shed. These villages were selected, in consultation with the staff of the co-operative unions, because some efforts had been made in these villages to demonstrate and popularise UMMB licks. In addition, secondary sources of information, such as annual reports of the milk unions and annual reports of village milk co-operative societies etc. were also reviewed. Given the time constraints, the case study is based on limited field research; hence, the findings of the case study indicate trends, which need to be examined in detail with systematic and large-scale research.
Discussion is organised in three major sections. First, development of the technological innovation and its diffusion among the selected co-operative milk unions is reviewed. Secondly, adoption of UMMB among smallholders in the Amul and Mehsana milk sheds is examined on the basis of the limited field research. Finally, the trends emerging from the case study are discussed.
In the 1970s, when Operation Flood was launched by the NDDB in India, overall milk production was far below the national requirements. To enhance the nutrition and productivity of animals, and bring widespread economic benefits to milk producers, the NDDB under the Operation Flood Programme established cattle feed plants throughout the country to make reasonably priced compounded cattle feed and bypass protein feed available to farmers.
For efficient digestion of crop residues in the rumen, it is essential that a certain concentration of ammonia-nitrogen be maintained in the rumen. This level is difficult to achieve on a crop residues-based basal diet. Several researchers have shown that this level can be achieved by supplementing UMMB in the ration of animals. In this regard, the technological innovation of the UMMB has been an important breakthrough for enhancing the productivity and nutrition of dairy animals. The UMMB is essentially a feed supplement that provides soluble nitrogen, fermentable energy and minerals to micro-organisms in the rumen. It consists of urea, molasses, some proteins, minerals and gelling agents.
On the basis of a series of experiments and trials at the laboratory, farm and village levels, the NDDB developed UMMB licks in the early 1980s and standardised the formulation for commercial production. Laboratory trials were carried out with nearly 200 formulations. For production of UMMB, the NDDB experimented with a hot process (Kunju 1986). Furthermore, the NDDB also designed and fabricated the first UMMB manufacturing plant for commercial production and, in 1984, commissioned it at the Amul cattle feed plant. This was followed in 1985 by the commissioning of a second plant at the Boriavi cattle feed plant of Mehsana Milk Union.
The ‘hot process’ of manufacturing UMMB was found to be labour and energy intensive. There was also a serious problem of melting and de-shaping blocks from the ‘hot process’. Therefore, between 1984 and 1993, NDDB made earnest research efforts and succeeded in producing UMMB by a ‘cold process’ (Garg et al. 1998). In collaboration with an equipment fabricator, the NDDB also developed a device for manufacturing rectangular UMMB licks weighing 3 kg each, through the ‘cold process’. Thus, technological innovation of UMMB licks consisted of the formulation (ingredients), the process of mixing the ingredients and the cost-effective device for manufacturing UMMBs.
Research and field trials of UMMB in the villages have shown encouraging results (Box 1). However, it is important to emphasise here that after adoption of UMMB licks, the benefits are not visible immediately. It takes at least two weeks and is dependent upon regular licking of the blocks by the animals and on livestock feeding patterns.
First, the NDDB conducted a demonstration-cum-popularisation programme in Gujarat to demonstrate the benefits of UMMB; this was then revised and expanded to other states, such as Rajasthan, Orissa and Kerala. In the initial stage, the NDDB focused on feeding trials and a popularisation programme in selected villages of the Kheda and Mehsana milk sheds. During the trial phase, NDDB conducted a series of meetings, seminars, workshops and training programmes. Moreover, they carried out extension activities with all the concerned persons from the village level upward to the union level (i.e. farmers, promoters, union officials and extension staff etc.) in order to demonstrate the benefits of UMMB and popularise it among the milk producers. NDDB also developed extension materials on UMMB for the demonstration-cum-popularisation programme, such as a video film, folders, posters, flip charts and slides, and an artwork for wall paintings in public places.
Box 1. Benefits of using urea molasses mineral blocksThe major advantage of using UMMB is improvement in the digestive efficiency of ruminants, which brings many direct and indirect benefits:
In the past, a series of on-station and field trials by NDDB have been conducted on the animal response and economic benefits of using UMMB. Results summarised in the technical bulletins on animal licks indicate improvement in straw utilisation, savings in the use of concentrates and improvements in growth rate and milk production. Leng et al. (1991) reported results of a study on Surati buffalo that examined milk production response and level of income. Conventionally fed animals were compared with those fed UMMB and bypass protein along with decreasing quantities of concentrate. Results showed that after reducing the amount of concentrates by 40%, introduction of UMMB and bypass protein maintained milk yield and increased income over feed cost by 2.50 Indian rupees (Rs)/day per animal (US$ 1 = Rs 45.5). |
Based on the encouraging response of the field trials in Gujarat, in 1989, NDDB set up eight UMMB plants (hot process) across the country under Operation Flood. Subsequently, based on experiences in the Mehsana milk shed, a trial demonstration-cum-popularisation programme was conducted in seven milk sheds of Rajasthan, namely Ajmer, Jaipur, Jodhpur, Bhilwara, Bikaner, Pali and Ganganagar. The trial programme was pursued in phases between November 1992 and March 1993. It was also introduced in one milk shed in Orissa (Keonjhar) in April 1993 and two milk sheds (Eranakulam and Trivendrum) in Kerala during September 1993. UMMB trials and popularisation programmes in the selected milk sheds were conducted by NDDB and met all the requirements for training, extension, feeding, recording, supervision, monitoring and review of progress etc. The programmes placed the greatest emphasis on popularisation (training and extension support) and marketing of UMMBs.
After completion of almost all the trials and popularisation programmes by the end of 1993, NDDB concluded that the ‘hot process’ blocks had inherent problems, not only in non-licking by the animals but also in their production. Therefore, NDDB decided to replace UMMB production by the ‘hot process’ with production by a ‘cold process’, which was cheaper and more convenient to handle. The trial was concluded pending development of the cold process. Throughout the trial phase, NDDB’s efforts were directed towards addressing product-related problems. During 1984–90, 11 milk unions had adopted 11 hot process plants. With the improvement in UMMB production through the cold process, 8 of the 11 hot process plants were replaced with cold process plants and 3 new cold process plants were installed, 2 in Gujarat and 1 in Uttar Pradesh. Since 1984, a total of 22 UMMB production plants (11 hot process and 11 cold process) were installed in the states of Gujarat, Karnataka, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Pondichery (Union Territory). A cursory look at the production of UMMBs by Amul, Mehsana and the unions of Rajasthan and other states between 1984 and 2000 suggests that there has been a considerable decline in UMMB production since 1993–94 (Figure 1). Thus, indicating that diffusion of UMMB production technology among the co-operative milk unions across the country has remained limited despite intensive extension efforts by NDDB.
Source: UMMB production data for AMUL and Mehsana Milk Union were provided by the cattle feed plants of the respective unions. While the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) provided data for Rajasthan and other states.
Figure 1. Urea–molasses mineral block (UMMB) production in various co-operative union states.
During November 1995, NDDB signed a project agreement with Appropriate Technology International (ATI)–India, a non-governmental organisation, for diffusion of the UMMB technology, initially in the Ahmedabad, Mehsana and Banaskantha districts of Gujarat. Initially, the project was for five years. ATI promoted UMMB licks in the selected districts with intensive extension and marketing efforts. During this period, ATI faced several problems with the blocks including non-licking by the animals, melting and de-shaping etc. Similar problems had been seen previously by the NDDB. ATI changed the shape of the blocks from rectangular to hemispherical. However, the problem related to licking persisted. The farmers often reported that animals were biting the blocks rather than licking them. Use of inappropriate dispensers was another problem faced by ATI. Due to product-related problems and rejection of UMMB by the dairy farmers, in 1998, ATI switched over from UMMB to urea molasses granules (UMG) in the Mehsana milk shed.
To develop the UMMB production process (hot and cold) and production plant technology, the NDDB worked closely with Amul and the Mehsana Milk Union. However, the cattle feed factory at Boriavi could not maintain the quality of UMMBs, even through the cold process, because of inconsistencies in the quality of locally available raw materials and unskilled contractual labour. Hence, there was no substantial improvement in the adoption of UMMBs by the dairy farmers after introduction of the cold process in the Mehsana milk shed. Amul started production of UMMBs (cold process) by involving the professional staff and ensuring the quality of ingredients (raw materials). Nonetheless, even with quality assured, UMMB production did not increase because demand remained low (Figure 1). The experiences of Amul and the Mehsana Milk Union with UMMB production suggest that, in practice, the process of UMMB production is complex and requires professional inputs. Unless proper attention is paid to operating the plant, UMMB quality cannot be maintained.
Amul and the Mehsana Milk Union promoted UMMB among dairy co-operative society (DCS) staff and dairy farmers through concerted extension efforts. Focus group discussions were carried out with the concerned officials and field staff of Amul and structured interviews with the officials engaged in UMMB promotion in Mehsana milk shed. These revealed that both unions used multi-pronged extension strategies to diffuse information about UMMB at the village level and to encourage dairy farmers to use UMMB licks for their animals. However, the extension approach differed between the unions.
Amul introduced UMMB to the dairy farmers for the first time in the mid-1980s through the extension staff of the Department of Animal Husbandry, and the Department of Procurement and Inputs. The selected individuals were released from their routine work so that they could concentrate exclusively on diffusion of UMMB in the villages. Promotion of UMMB was undertaken in the form of a campaign, known as chatan dan zumbesh. The key extension strategy used for generation of awareness about UMMB was an intensive contact programme in each village with the DCS staff, management committee members, members of the village co-operative societies and other villagers. In general, efforts were made to first convince the DCS Chairman and some of the influential and educated members of the management committee, who were interested in increasing milk production of their dairy. The extension staff also demonstrated the use of UMMB licks. The Amul patrika, a fortnightly newsletter written in simple language and containing short articles, small posters and stripson UMMB, posters and flyers were used for disseminating information among the DCS members.
The extension approach of the Mehsana Milk Union for popularisation of UMMB was somewhat different. Unlike Amul, extension work was taken up primarily by small teams of extension staff, who were provided with all their prerequisites for field trials and extension activities, including vehicles for mobility, salaries for the union staff/supervisors, extension materials etc. Initially, the focus of extension efforts was on five to six experimental villages. However, later on, two to three extension teams visited more than 400 DCSs to popularise the UMMB. Extension was undertaken primarily through intensive contact programmes at the village level. Discussions and meetings were held with milk producers, DCS staff and management committee members, women dairy farmers and the villagers. Posters, film shows and other educational materials, developed by NDDB, were also used to generate awareness about UMMB licks and motivate dairy farmers to use them. During the annual audit of DCS accounts, efforts were also made to persuade DCS staff to purchase UMMB on a trial basis.
Given the high credibility of both unions, DCS staff and dairy farmers were receptive to the use of UMMB to improve productivity of their animals. Extensive extension efforts during the field trails in Amul and the Mehsana milk sheds succeeded in generating awareness about UMMB among DCS staff and milk producers. On the basis of negative feedback from the users of UMMB licks, several changes were made in the UMMB production process and product. These included the shift from the hot to the cold process, modification of the shape of blocks (from rectangular to round) and improvement in the palatability of the blocks (by reducing the highly alkaline pH) etc. However, the intensive extension efforts of both unions failed to persuade the dairy farmers to use UMMB licks on a regular basis beyond the trial stage.
Who were the adopters of UMMB in the Amul and Mehsana milk sheds? What were their experiences in using UMMB licks? Discussions with the concerned extension staff of both unions, DCS staff and milk producers in the selected villages threw light on the limited adoption of UMMBs among the milk producers.
In Mehsana Milk Union, UMMB licks were first promoted free of charge in a few experimental villages and then introduced for sale in additional villages through the village dairy co-operatives. The officials of Mehsana Milk Union consider UMMB a very useful product for milk producers in dry areas where animals’ diets are deficient in nitrogen due to shortages of green fodder. Despite concerted extension efforts in Mehsana milk shed, only a few large-scale milk producers from the dry areas adopted UMMBs. Most of the early adopters of UMMB licks in Mehsana milk shed were primarily concentrated in the green areas. Many of them had more than four animals. However, most of them discontinued the use of UMMB after the trail phase. As a result, the demand for UMMB declined.
Although Amul tried to popularise UMMB among all milk producers (including smallholders), the early adopters of UMMB were primarily those who had taken up dairying as an important income generating activity. They were educated and belonged to the upper castes of the patels, brahmins and banias. They, particularly the patels, were ready to adopt anything that would increase their income from dairying. They were progressive farmers who were receptive to new ideas and strove to improve milk productivity. In the words of the extension staff ‘their mindset was very different. Therefore, they adopted UMMB licks and used them. Similar receptivity to new ideas is not found among other communities who are in the dairy business now’.
For effective use of UMMB, it is essential that the block be put in a place that is accessible to the animals so that they could easily lick the block as and when necessary. In the reality of the field, however, this was not easy to achieve. Only a few large-scale milk producers had a properly constructed and spacious cattle shed in which the UMMBs could be properly placed. The availability of cattle sheds differed from place to place. In the villages of Kheda District, the land available for cattle sheds was very limited. Generally, the animals were kept in the courtyard in front of the house in a limited area. Often the animals were tied to a pole/batten by a rope so that they could move around. In the green belt of the Mehsana milk shed, cattle were kept in agricultural fields or tied to the trees in front of the vada (courtyard) near the house. Some farmers kept their animals in fields during the day and brought them home only in the evening for milking. Other milk producers took their animals to graze instead of keeping them in one place for stall-feeding. In such situations, it was difficult for the farmers to find an appropriate place for UMMBs.
Considerable efforts were made by NDDB to find an appropriate dispenser for holding the UMMBs. However, none of the options offered an acceptable solution. For example, initially the farmers used tagaras (small round metal vessels) for UMMB. As tagaras were lightweight, the animals used to tip them over and the blocks became soiled. To solve this problem, heavy cement blocks were introduced in the Mehsana milk shed for holding the UMMBs. However, neither tagaras nor cement blocks offered the right solution; as these dispensers were placed on the ground in front of the animals, cow dung, urine, dust, water, straw etc. spoiled the UMMBs. Once the blocks were spoiled, the animals would not eat them. NDDB further designed plastic dispensers for holding UMMBs. These plastic dispensers could be hung where they were accessible to the animals; however, the animals easily broke them, even when they were hung or placed above ground level. Similarly, metal boxes were designed in such a way that the animals could not chew the UMMB, but could easily lick them. Nevertheless, their use was also limited, as most farmers did not have a proper place in their cattle shed to hang them.
Irrespective of the type of dispenser used, a common problem reported by the early adopters was melting of the blocks. The blocks prepared through the hot process were sensitive to humidity and temperature, and melted easily. This made the blocks very messy and unhygienic. The blocks also attracted flies and other insects due to their molasses content. Instead of licking the blocks over a period of time, some of the animals chewed them. Unlike hot process blocks, the cold process blocks did not melt easily. However, some of the animals did not lick the blocks, presumably because of problems in palatability. The farmers sometimes used to sprinkle flour on the blocks to induce licking. Unused hard blocks were wasted, dissolved in water or cut into small pieces and mixed with cattle feed. The benefits of using UMMBs were not easily visible to the farmers when the animals did not consume an adequate quantity of the blocks. Inability to maintain quality of the UMMB was one of the major factors that adversely affected its use.
In summary, beyond the trial phase only a few small-scale milk producers used UMMB licks on a continuous basis. In Mehsana Milk Union, from about 1998, some of the users of UMMB from the green areas switched over from UMMB licks to urea molasses granules. Unfortunately, the use of granules does not have adequate scientific support. Due to once-a-day feeding practices, the granules release a short-lived high concentration of ammonia in the rumen, much of which is wasted. In a few villages (Chikodara, Gopalpura, Sarsa, Narsanda etc.) in Amul’s milk shed, however, some large-scale dairy farmers, who have undertaken animal husbandry as a primary occupation, have continued to use UMMBs.
Haijarabad, a small village with 400 households, and with a total area of 507 ha, is in Matar Taluka of Kheda District. It is a multi-caste village inhabited by patels, pandya, brahmins, baraiyas, ravals, harijans and Muslims. Agriculture is the main occupation and source of income for most of the households of Haijarabad while animal production is a secondary occupation for some of the villagers. Irrigation is available through canal and boreholes and most farmers produce crops twice a year.
The Haijarabad DCS was established in 1959 and in the last two decades, membership and milk procurement of the HDCS has increased substantially. Membership of HDCS almost doubled between 1981 and 2000, from 295 to 610 members, whilst milk procurement increased at the compound rate of about 3%. Of the 610 members of HDCS in 1999–2000, about 600 members were smallholders, who owned one or two milch animals. Thus, small-scale dairy farmers supply most of the milk for the HDCS.
Livestock censuses conducted by HDCS in 1990–91 and 1997–98 revealed that the animal population of Haijarabad had declined by about 9% within this seven-year period. The major reductions were in the populations of bullocks and buffalo.
UMMB, known locally as chatan dan or kala int, was first introduced in Haijarabad in 1984–85 by Amul. Haijarabad was selected by Amul as an experimental village to promote UMMBs among small-scale milk producers. UMMBs were supplied free to DCS members for trial. A quick review of UMMBs supplied to its members during 1984–91 shows that adoption of UMMBs in Haijarabad was very limited. It was difficult to examine the level of adoption among HDCS members as several years had passed since UMMB licks were introduced in Haijarabad. However, 15 users of UMMB (14 men and 1 woman) were identified with the help of DCS secretary and were interviewed with the help of a short structured questionnaire. As it was a long time since people had used UMMB licks, they could not provide precise and detailed information. Nonetheless, their responses shed some light on the adoption of UMMB in Haijarabad.
The selected 15 respondents were from diverse social backgrounds; the 12 belonged to the subcastes of patel, pandya, sisodiya and raval, and three of them were pathans (Muslims). Educational level of the respondents was low; four were illiterate, six had some primary education (up to 3–7 grades) and five had secondary education (up to 10th grade). The average family size of the respondents was 6.6. Except for three landless labourers, agriculture was the main occupation of the respondents. Only two respondents were engaged in service as a secondary occupation. Only one of the respondents, a woman from the family of a small-scale farmer, mentioned animal husbandry as a secondary income-generation activity. Most of the respondents (10 of 15) were marginal farmers with less than 1 ha of land; only two respondents owned more than 2 ha of land.
All the respondents owned livestock, consisting of cattle and buffalo. There were seven dairy farmers with 1–2 milch animals each and eight milk producers with 3–4 milch animals each. Except for one respondent who had a pucca (properly constructed) cattle shed with a proper roof and flooring, all other respondents kept their animals in thatched cattle sheds near their houses. In general, the space for keeping the animals was very limited. None of the respondents had undertaken dairy as an important income-generation activity. For most of them, dairy was a source of supplementary income. All the respondents used paddy straw as the main dry fodder; a few respondents also used bajra (pearl millet) and jowar (sorghum) straws. Alfalfa was used as green fodder by 12 of 15 respondents. Only one-third of respondents used grass, while use of maize and bajra as green fodder was very limited. Amul dan was the most popular concentrate. While cottonseed cake was used by one-third of the respondents, only a few respondents used rice bran, wheat grain or maize cake.
It is against this socio-economic background of the responders that we will examine their adoption behaviour.
How much information about UMMB had reached the villagers in Haijarabad? The users received information about UMMB from various sources. Amul extension staff members were the most important sources of information for the respondents. During their visit to the HDCS, they had discussed the new product and its benefits with the DCS staff and members of the management committee. All the respondents reported that members of the HDCS management committee informed them about UMMB. Thus, the management committee had played an important role in disseminating information about UMMB among the members. Nine of 15 respondents came to know about UMMB through a veterinary staff, who visited the village for pregnancy diagnosis or artificial insemination and advised them to use UMMBs for pregnancy-related problems. Though HDCS received material (posters, brochures, Amul patrika etc.), only two respondents learned about UMMB from Amul patrika. In summary, Amul’s extension approach appeared to have succeeded in disseminating information about UMMB among milk producers in Haijarabad.
Except for one individual, all respondent were aware of UMMB as a feed supplement with essential nutrients and were aware of its key benefits, such as an increase in milk production, and improvement in the health and reproductive efficiency of the animals. The respondents also knew about the procedure for using UMMBs. Most respondents used to put the UMMB in a tagara (a metal utensil) in front of the animals. Initially, they used to sprinkle wheat or bajra (pearl millet) flour on to the UMMB to induce the licking habit among the animals. Except for three respondents, who used UMMBs for in-milk, dry and pregnant animals, the rest used UMMBs for all their animals. It was not clear whether such practice was followed because of free availability of UMMBs or because of perceived benefits.
In general, any product for animals launched by Amul was viewed favourably by the members, because of Amul’s high credibility among the members. The respondents used the UMMBs during the trial stage; six of them used UMMBs during 1987–88 and the remaining nine respondents tried them during 1988–89. It was difficult to assess the quantity of UMMBs used per month per animal. The experiences of the farmers are summarised below:
In practice, benefits of UMMB were not visible to the respondents, as their animals did not lick an adequate quantity of the blocks. The milk producers were not greatly concerned about the long-term benefits of using UMMBs, for example the maintenance of a constant level of milk production, reduction in inter-calving period, maturity of calves, increase in food intake and improvement in animal health etc. As most of the milk producers were not engaged in systematic livestock care, they did not notice some of these benefits. Hence, most of them primarily used UMMBs while the blocks were provided free of charge.
As women dairy farmers are primarily responsible for animal husbandry, we tried to question one successful woman dairy farmer and a few resource-poor women smallholders about their perspective on the use of UMMB and the constraints to using them on a regular basis.
Focused group discussion was held with four poor Muslim women who had one to two milch animals. Agricultural wage labour was their primary source of income. However, full-time wage labour was available to them for only 120 days in a year. For them, animal husbandry was a supplementary income generation activity. Most of the smallholders, however, kept their milch animals in a subsistence manner. Rice and bajra (pearl millet) straws were the major dry fodders and were usually available at affordable prices in the village; however, due to drought this year, the smallholders had to buy dry fodder from the market at a higher price. In the monsoon season, grass was usually available free of charge, from agricultural fields where the smallholders worked. At times, they had to buy alfalfa from other farmers for the lactating animals. All of the smallholders regularly used Amul dan, the concentrate that they purchased from HDCS to maintain milk fat content. According to them ‘without fat in the milk, there is no return for the money spent on the animal’. Other concentrates, such as wheat grains, barley, maize etc. were given to the milch animals only if money was available.
Thus, the resource-poor smallholders spent judiciously on fodder and feed. One in-milk cow/buffalo normally gave two litres of milk/day for which the smallholders were paid 20 Indian rupees (Rs)/day (US$ 1 = Rs 45.5). About Rs 15/day was spent on Amul dan and fodder. The net income of Rs 5/day from dairy was used for meeting household expenses. Thus, they hardly had any surplus income to spend on a new feed supplement, such as UMMB. Some of the resource-poor women dairy farmers had used UMMBs for a few days when they were available free of charge from the HDCS, but they used each block judiciously, only giving it to the animal at the time of feeding in the morning and evening. Two women discontinued the use of UMMBs, as the animals that licked UMMBs were eating more fodder, but not giving more milk and milk fat to compensate for the increased expenses on fodder. Others found it inconvenient to use the blocks.
Sumitraben Amratbhai Patel is a 33-year old marginal farmer with 0.46 ha of irrigated land. She belongs to a nuclear family, consisting of her husband and two school-going children (a son and a daughter). She is educated up to 10th grade. Sumitraben has taken up animal husbandry as a primary occupation. Her husband also helps her to take care of their animals. Her family grows three crops a year, such as tobacco, wheat, bajra (pearl millet), jowar (sorghum) and rachaco (alfalfa). The gross annual family income is about 19 thousand Indian rupees of which about 58% are from animal husbandry. According to Sumitraben, 50% of the dairy income goes towards maintenance of the animals.
After her marriage in 1984, Sumitraben started with two buffalo and later purchased one cow with a loan from the bank. She used the income from cow milk to repay her loan and to maintain her animals (for fodder, purchase of concentrates etc). She regularly saves from her dairy income and has used the money to improve her assets (renovating her house, purchasing land for building a new house and improving farmland). Sumitraben keeps only two to three milch animals and maintains only those, which are regular milkers. She finds that cows are more profitable than buffalo because they are less expensive and give milk for a long duration.
She feeds all her animals on dry fodder, such as crop residues of rice, bajra (pearl millet) and jowar (sorghum) that are available from her farm. Only in-milk animals are fed on green alfalfa fodder, also grown in her fields. Concentrates are purchased from the market and only given to the in-milk animals. Amul dan is used regularly and only when it is not available does Sumitraben use cottonseed cake or sometimes rice bran and wheat. Recently, she has started giving a mineral mixture to the milch animals and calves.
Sumitraben came to know about UMMBs in a village meeting and used them several years ago, after purchasing blocks from the DCS. She was aware of UMMBs as a feed supplement with nutrients. In her opinion, the benefits of UMMBs are (1) to increase feed intake and (2) to improve health and reproductivity of the animals. However, she discontinued the use of UMMB after a period of time because of inconvenience in using UMMBs, wastage due to spoilage and the nuisance of flies and insects.
In summary, adoption of UMMBs in Haijarabad was limited. Most of the milk producers did not use the blocks beyond the trial stage due to inconvenience in using the blocks or due to invisibility of immediate and direct benefits in terms of increased milk production and milk fat content. As there was very low demand for UMMBs in the village, HDCS also did not purchase them.
Thus, the case study of UMMB diffusion and adoption among small-scale dairy farmers shows that even an intensive extension approach is unlikely to be effective unless the innovation that it promotes is perceived as relevant by the potential adopters and meets their needs or solves their problems. Benefits of UMMB were not visible to the milk producers, as for various reasons the animals did not lick adequate quantities of blocks. The milk producers were not greatly concerned about the long-term benefits of using UMMBs, as most of them were not engaged in systematic livestock care and consequently they did not notice these benefits.
The NDDB has developed the UMMB technology to improve the milk productivity of dairy farmers, particularly smallholders. This descriptive case study highlights the limited nature of diffusion and adoption of UMMB technology among small-scale dairy farmers of Amul and the Mehsana Milk Union in Gujarat. What are the lessons that can be learnt from this case study?
Thus, the key issue is as follows:
What should be the appropriate approach for developing innovations for small-scale dairy farmers? Should it be from laboratory to farm, from farm to laboratory or a combination of approaches?
What kind of extension approach is required for the persuasion and trial stages of the adoption process?
In summary, the major emphasis of development and diffusion of UMMB has been to try to fit the innovative product within the existing system. Improving milk production of the animals of small-scale dairy farmers from divergent livestock and farming systems needs to move away from such a top–down approach for ‘transfer of technology’ to a farmer-centred approach that is based on people’s felt needs and problems?
The case study is based on limited field research, however, the findings and the trends discussed need to be examined further through in-depth and rigorous research, for a clearer understanding of adoption processes and in order to develop an appropriate approach.
Garg M.R., Mehta A.K. and Singh D.K. 1998. Advances in the production and use of urea molasses mineral blocks in India. World Animal Review 90(1):22–27.
Jain D.K., Sharma K.N.S., Walli T.K. and Rai S.N. 1996. Estimates of nutrient requirement and availability for bovine population across major states in India. Dairy Economics, Statistics and Management Division, National Dairy Research Institute (ICAR), Karnal, India. 50 pp.
Kunju G.P.J. 1986. Urea molasses block: A feed supplement for ruminants. A paper presented at the international workshop on rice straw and related feeds in ruminant rations held at Anand, Kandy, Sri Lanka, 24–28 March 1986. National Dairy Development Board, Anand, India. 17 pp. (mimeo).
Leng R.A., Preston T.R., Sansoucy R. and Kunju P.J.G. 1991. Multinutrient block as a strategic supplement for ruminants. World Animal Review 67(1):11–19.
MoA (Ministry of Agriculture). 1999. Basis animal husbandry statistics 1999. Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, MoA, New Delhi, India. 148 pp.
NCAER (National Council of Applied Economic Research). 1999. Impact evaluation of Operation Flood on rural dairy sector. NCAER, New Delhi, India. 167 pp.
Sethi S. 1990. Study of the present sale profile of balanced cattle feed, urea molasses lick blocks, by-pass protein feeds and a strategy to market these products effectively (an NDDB New Delhi Project). Report of the Management Traineeship Segment–I, No. MTS–646, PRM 1989–91. Institute of Rural Management, Anand, India.
Singh A.K. and Mukherjee S. 1996. Monitor and analyse the findings of focus group trials aimed at test marketing molasses urea block in the district of Ahmedabad. Report of the Management Traineeship Segment–I, submitted to Appropriate Technology India (Ahmedabad), MTS–1149. Institute of Rural Management, Anand, India.
