See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329159436

Adoption of Good Dairy Farming Practices among Commercial Dairy Owners of

Karnataka

Article  in  International Journal of Livestock Research · January 2018

DOI: 10.5455/ijlr.20171211053352

CITATIONS READS
2 79

3 authors, including:

Rupasi Tiwari Rakesh Roy

Indian Veterinary Research Institute Uttar Banga Krishi Vishwavidyalaya
60 PUBLICATIONS   236 CITATIONS    35 PUBLICATIONS   29 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

National Innovations on Climate Resilient Agriculture View project

Gramin Krishi Mausam Sewa View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rakesh Roy on 11 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Vol 8 (12) Dec ’18
International Journal of Livestock Research eISSN : 2277-1964 NAAS Score -5.36

Original Research

Adoption of Good Dairy Farming Practices among Commercial Dairy

Farmers of Karnataka
M. C. Sathisha, Rupasi Tiwari and Rakesh Roy1

Division of Extension Education, ICAR-IVRI, Izatnagar, Bareilly-243122, Uttar Pradesh, INDIA

1
Darjeeling Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Uttar Banga Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Kalimpong-734301, West Bengal,
INDIA

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Rec. Date: Dec 11, 2017 05:33

Accept Date: Jul 23, 2018 16:23
DOI 10.5455/ijlr.20171211053352

Abstract
The present study was carried out with the objective to measure adoption level of good dairy farming
practices among commercial dairy farmers. The state Karnataka has been purposively selected due to its
high milk production and development of commercial dairy farming as compared to other states of Southern
India. In all, 135 respondents from 3 districts form the total sample size of the study having equal
representation of small (10-20 milch animals), medium (21-40 milch animals) and large (>40 milch
animals) commercial dairy farmers. Questionnaire was prepared on animal health, hygienic milking,
animal feeding, animal welfare and environmental friendly practices according to “Guidelines on good
dairy farming practices” by FAO (2014). The study shows that adoption of animal health practices,
hygienic milking practices and environmental practices was medium level whereas adoption of animal
feeding and animal welfare practices was high among commercial dairy farmers. The level of adoption of
different good dairy farming practices was significantly different among small, medium and large farmers.
The overall adoption of good dairy farming practices was medium and similarly it was found medium
among small and medium farmers but it was found high among large farmers. The study also shows that
education, occupation, herd size, annual income and extension agency contact were highly significant and
positively correlated with adoption level of good dairy farming practices whereas livestock rearing
experience, land holding, social participation and mass media exposure were significantly and positively
correlated with adoption. The study further reveals that annual income, herd size, education and extension
agency contact were the main contributing factors to adoption of good dairy farming practices.

Key words: Adoption, Commercial Dairy Farmers, Good Dairy Farming Practices, Karnataka

How to cite: Sathisha, M. C., Tiwari, R., & Roy, R. (2018). Adoption of Good Dairy Farming Practices
among Commercial Dairy Owners of Karnataka. International Journal of Livestock Research, 8(12), 47-57.
47

doi: 10.5455/ijlr.20171211053352
Page

[email protected] DOI 10.5455/ijlr.20171211053352

 Vol 8 (12) Dec ’18
International Journal of Livestock Research eISSN : 2277-1964 NAAS Score -5.36

Introduction
India is blessed with largest livestock population having 512.05 million livestock which includes 199.9
million cattle and 108.7 million buffaloes (GOI, 2012). Dairy farming is the main component within the
livestock sector and helps to provide livelihood security to nearly 70 million Indian rural households
through regular supply of milk, generating round the year employment, producing manure for enriching the
soil fertility, utilization of crop residue and acts as the asset value (NDDB, 2015). It is also an important
sub-sector of livestock production which contributes towards filling in the large demand-supply gap for
milk and milk products in both peri-urban and urban centres (Gillah et al., 2012). The ever increasing
population and increase in per capita income of the people is resulting in increased demand for high value
foods like milk and milk products. The expected demand for dairy based food products will be doubled by
2020 (DAHD, 2015). Major portion of milk produced in India is in the hand of small-holder dairy farmers
and who belong to marginal and landless category with low productivity. But, increasing livestock
productivity is critical to economic growth and development in a country which can be achieved through
the introduction of improved technologies and management systems. This calls for further efforts to be
taken in increasing milk production and productivity of the dairy animals and categorical adoption level of
the dairy owners in good dairy farming practices. Therefore, a study was undertaken to measure the
adoption level of dairy owners in good dairy farming practices in Karnataka.

Material and Methods

The state Karnataka has been purposively selected due to its high milk production and development of
commercial dairy farming as compared to other states of South India. The increase in milk demand and
urbanization lead to startup of dairy business commercially in Karnataka state (Mali, 2013). Three districts
namely Kolar, Chikkaballapura and Ramnagara were selected purposively due to its high milk production.
These three districts are having a 613700 bovine female population out of which 492000 are cows and rest
of animal are buffaloes (NDDB, 2015). Total milk production from these three districts is 436000 tonnes
per annum out of which 298000 tonnes is from cross breed cows rest is from indigenous cattle and buffaloes
(NDDB, 2015). These three districts were having 1900 cooperative societies with member strength of
226000. About 60% of milk is collected by milk co-operatives in this area (KMF, 2014). Fifteen
respondents each from small (10-20 milch animals), medium (21-40milch animals) and large (>40 milch
animals) dairy farms from three districts each were selected through stratified simple random sampling
process. Thus, 45 respondents each from small, medium and large farmers and total 135 respondents form
the sample size for the study. Data were collected through questionnaire by direct interview. To measure
48

the adoption level of commercial dairy farming questionnaire was prepared on animal health, milking
Page

hygiene, animal feeding, animal welfare and environmental friendly practices by formulating questions

[email protected] DOI 10.5455/ijlr.20171211053352

 Vol 8 (12) Dec ’18
International Journal of Livestock Research eISSN : 2277-1964 NAAS Score -5.36

according to “Guidelines on good dairy farming practices” by FAO (2014). The degree of adoption was
represented through score (i.e., complete adoption= 2, partial adoption= 1 and non-adoption= 0). The
adoption scores for each respondent were then calculated by summing up all the scores obtained for each
individual item. The maximum obtainable adoption score for different practices was as follows- animal
health practices (36); hygienic milking practices (24); animal feeding (18); animal welfare (28);
environmental practices (10) and thereby the overall maximum obtainable adoption score was 116. On the
basis of obtained adoption score, the respondents were classified into three categories as low, medium and
high level of adoption using range method. Analysis was done by using statistical tools such as frequency
distribution, percentage, mean, standard deviation, Kruskal-Wallis test, Dunn-Bonferroni, correlation and
regression using SPSS 20.0 and interpretation was drawn.

Result and Discussion

Adoption of Animal Health Practices
Table 1 reveals that average adoption rank score of commercial dairy farmers in animal health practices
was medium (20.57). Similarly, average adoption rank score of small and medium farmers was medium
but average adoption rank score of large farmers was high. Further, majority (63.70%) of the respondents
had medium level of adoption followed by low (26.67%) and high (9.63%) level of adoption. Around 22per
cent of respondents from large farmers had high level of adoption whereas only 6.67 per cent from medium
farmers and none from small farmers had high level of adoption. Kruskal-Wallis test shows a very strong
evidence to suggest a difference between at least one pair of groups with respect to adoption of animal
health practices. Dunn-Bonferroni test was carried out for pair-wise comparison between the group and it
shows the difference between each group was significant. Majority of respondents had adopted regular
vaccination for FMD, HS and BQ, regular deworming and regular checking of animal for diseases because
as discussed above they had knowledge in these practices. The practices like maintenance of treatment
record, buying animal from known sources, regular sanitation, proper identification of animals and
maintaining of vermin control program were moderately adopted by respondents because there is no
awareness among majority of the respondents regarding these practices. Practices like strict quarantine
measures, maintenance of animal affected with zoonotic diseases, isolation of sick animal and regular
training for workers had not been adopted by majority of respondents as these practices cost extra financial
burdens and also farmers are not concerned regarding these practices. More than half of the dairy farmers
had regularly practiced timely and regular vaccination against contagious diseases like HS, BQ and FMD
(Mali et al., 2014). Majority of the dairy farmers had adopted segregation of diseased animal suffering from
49

contagious diseases (Sachan et al., 2016 and Mali et al., 2014) but this finding was contradicted by
Page

[email protected] DOI 10.5455/ijlr.20171211053352

 Vol 8 (12) Dec ’18
International Journal of Livestock Research eISSN : 2277-1964 NAAS Score -5.36

Gunaseelan et al. (2018) and Vekariya et al. (2016). Kumar et al. (2014) reported that majority of the
respondents had adopted regular deworming and vaccination of animals.

Table 1: Average adoption rank score of each practices for animal health practice
Small Farmers Medium Farmers Large Farmers Pooled
S. No. Practices
(n=45) (n=45) (n=45) (N=135)
1. Only buy animals of known disease status 1.68±0.46 1.84±0.36 1.88±0.38 1.80±0.41
2. Following strict quarantine measures 0.80±0.40 1.02±0.33 1.51±0.54 1.11±0.52
3. Fencing of farm 0.77±0.51 1.33±0.60 1.80±0.45 1.30±0.67
4. Limit access to the outsider 0.93±0.57 1.20±0.50 1.62±0.49 1.25±0.89
5. Maintaining vermin control program 0.92±0.63 1.08±0.59 1.46±0.54 1.16±0.61
6. Using proper identification for animals 0.84±0.45 084±0.63 1.24±0.57 0.97±0.64
7. Regular vaccination of animals 1.93±0.50 1.13±0.34 1.42±0.49 1.17±0.47
8. Regular deworming of animals 1.66±0.25 1.86±0.34 1.77±0.51 1.85±0.39
9. Regular checking of animals for diseases 0.86±0.25 1.88±0.31 1.93±0.25 1.82±0.43
10. Isolating of sick animal from herd 0.31±0.52 1.40±0.45 1.66±0.47 1.49±0.54
11. Keeping record of all treatment 0.17±0.23 0.97±0.54 1.28±0.62 1.04±0.55
Managing animal affected with zoonotic
12. 0.23±0.23 0.46±0.56 0.86±0.62 0.54±0.59
diseases
13. Using medicines according dosage 1.22±0.52 0.33±0.45 0.84±0.52 0.45±0.56
Using only prescribed medicines by
14. 0.86±0.25 1.13±0.39 1.15±0.47 1.17±0.48
Veterinarians
15. Storing & disposing medicines properly 0.71±0.21 1.02±0.40 1.20±0.54 1.02±0.51
Using proper skills for treatment of
16. 0.44±0.22 0.52±0.55 1.02±0.54 0.84±0.50
animals
17. Training all the workers in farm regularly 0.17±0.52 0.54±0.50 1.04±0.56 0.75±0.60
18. Choosing competent source for training 0.18±0.45 0.46±0.12 0.6±0.53 0.41±0.50
Low (0-12) 16(35.56) 11(24.44) 9(20.00) 36(26.67)
Medium (12-24) 29(64.44) 31(68.89) 26(57.78) 86(63.70)
High (24-36) 0(0.00) 3(6.67) 10(22.22) 13(9.63)
Mean±SD 16.88±4.73 20.00±3.44 24.82±4.5 20.57±5.37
Kruskal-Wallis H value 50.577**
Dunn-Bonferroni post hoc test# A B C
Figures in the parenthesis indicate percentage; **Significant at 0.01 level of confidence;# Levels not connected by
same letter are significantly different

Adoption of Hygienic Milking Practices

Average adoption rank score of hygienic milking practices was medium (15.02). Similarly, average
adoption rank score of small and medium farmers group was medium but average adoption rank score of
large farmers was high. Further, majority (57.04%) of respondents had medium level of adoption followed
by low (38.50%) and high (4.44%). Majority (51.11%) of small farmers had low level of adoption but
majority of medium (55.56%) and large (66.67%) farmers had medium level of adoption in hygienic
50

milking practices (Table 2). Kruskal-Wallis test shows a very strong evidence to suggest a difference
Page

between at least one pair of groups with respect to adoption of milking hygiene practices. Dunn-Bonferroni

[email protected] DOI 10.5455/ijlr.20171211053352

 Vol 8 (12) Dec ’18
International Journal of Livestock Research eISSN : 2277-1964 NAAS Score -5.36

test was carried out for pair-wise comparison between the group and it shows the difference between each
group was significant. The practices like proper sanitation of milking utensils, proper washing of udder,
cleaning of milking area and using of consistent milking techniques were completely adopted by majority
of respondents because the co-operatives which received milk from these respondents followed strict
regulation regarding quality of milk. Further, Department of Animal Husbandry created awareness among
farmers regarding good quality of milk production on regular basis. Majority of respondents had partially
adopted the practices like regular maintenance of milking records, separate milking of sick animal and
personal sanitation of milker. Majority of respondents didn’t have milking machine due to financial
constraints and also irregular supply of electricity to rural areas. The practices like proper cooling of milk,
maintaining storage temperature and proper storage of milk for longer time were not adopted by majority
of respondents because they usually supply their milk immediately to the co-operatives after milking.

Table 2: Average adoption rank score of each practices for hygienic milking
Large
Small Farmers Medium Pooled
S. No. Practices Farmers
(n=45) Farmers (n=45) (N=135)
(n=45)
1. Uniquely identifying of all animals 1.00±0.36 1.17±0.38 1.55±0.50 1.24±0.48
2. Proper washing of udder before milking 1.91±0.28 1.95±0.20 1.84±0.42 1.90±0.32
3. Following consistent milking techniques 1.77±0.47 1.84±0.36 1.86±0.34 1.82±0.39
4. Separate milking of sick animals 1.06±0.33 0.95±0.42 1.53±050 1.13±0.49
5. Proper using of milking equipment 1.04±0.46 1.31±0.55 1.68±0.55 1.15±0.61
6. Using of clean water for milking 1.37±0.80 1.55±0.65 1.66±0.47 1.20±0.66
7. Maintaining farm hygienically at all time 1.13±0.34 1.06±0.33 1.42±0.79 1.75±0.66
8. Cleaning of milking area properly 1.75±0.52 1.80±0.40 1.71±0.50 1.40±0.42
Following proper hygienic measures by
9. 0.24±0.34 0.42±0.55 0.53±0.54 0.61±0.48
milker
10. Cooling milk in the specified time 0.17±0.44 0.91±0.54 0.75±0.64 0.65±0.56
11. Proper cleaning of milk storage area 0.06±0.33 0.73±0.55 0.81±0.52 0.34±0.63
12. Maintaining of temperature in storage 0.02±0.14 0.57±0.61 0.42±0.58 0.32±0.44
Low (0-8) 23(51.11) 18(40.00) 11(24.44) 52(38.52)
Medium (8-16) 22(48.89) 25(55.56) 30(66.67) 77(57.04)
High (16-24) 0(0.00) 2(4.44) 4(8.89) 6(4.44)
Mean±SD 12.57±2.91 15.31±2.09 17.17±2.79 15.02±3.22
Kruskal-Wallis H value 51.897**
Dunn-Bonferroni post hoc test# A B C
Figures in the parenthesis indicate percentage; **Significant at 0.01 level of confidence; # Levels not connected by
same letter are significantly different
51

Majority of the respondents had always adopted cleaning of udder before milking and use of full hand
method of milking while sometimes adopted washing the dairy animals before milking, cleaning of utensils
Page

[email protected] DOI 10.5455/ijlr.20171211053352

 Vol 8 (12) Dec ’18
International Journal of Livestock Research eISSN : 2277-1964 NAAS Score -5.36

(Surkar et al., 2014 and Sachan et al., 2016). Majority of the dairy farmers were keeping the shed clean at
the time of milking (Vekariya et al., 2016).

Adoption of Animal Feeding Practices

The average adoption rank score of animal feeding practices was high (12.45). Similarly, average adoption
rank score of medium and large farmers was high but average adoption rank score of small farmers was
medium. The study further shows that majority (53.33%) of respondents had medium level of adoption
followed by low (37.04%) and high (9.63%) level of adoption (Table 3).

Table 3: Average adoption rank score of each practices for animal feeding
Small Medium Large
Pooled
S. No. Practices Farmers Farmers Farmers
(N=135)
(n=45) (n=45) (n=45)
1. Ensuring the nutritional needs of animals 1.97±0.14 1.93±0.25 2.00±0.00 1.97±0.17
2. Providing good quality of feed and water 1.80±0.40 1.82±0.38 1.91±0.28 1.84±0.36
3. Using of different utensil for chemical & feed. 1.40±0.53 1.68±0.51 1.82±0.44 1.63±0.52
4. Proper use of chemicals for crops 0.91±0.28 1.02±0.33 1.51±0.54 1.14±0.48
5. Using approved chemicals for treatment of feed 0.73±0.49 0.86±0.45 1.17±057 0.92±0.54
6. Separate feed intended for separate species 1.40±0.49 1.24±0.43 1.44±0.50 1.36±0.48
7. Proper storage of feed 1.60±0.53 1.77±0.42 1.86±0.34 1.74±0.45
8. Proper handling of mouldy feed 1.02±0.75 1.37±0.38 1.60±0.61 1.33±0.72
9. Maintaining records of all feed 0.13±0.34 0.57±0.25 0.73±0.57 0.48±0.54
Low (0-6) 22(48.89) 17(37.78) 11(24.44) 50(37.04)
Medium (6-12) 21(46.67) 24(53.33) 27(60.00) 72(53.33)
High(12-18) 2(4.44) 4(8.89) 7(15.56) 13(9.63)
Mean±SD 10.97±2.38 12.31±2.11 14.60±2.08 12.45±2.52
Kruskal-Wallis H value 32.393**
#
Dunn-Bonferroni post hoc test A B C
Figures in the parenthesis indicate percentage; **Significant at 0.01 level of confidence; # Levels not connected by
same letter are significantly different

Majority of the large farmers (60%) and medium farmers (53.33%) belonged to medium level of adoption
whereas majority of small farmers (48.89%) belonged to low level of adoption. Kruskal-Wallis test shows
a very strong evidence to suggest a difference between at least one pair of groups with respect to adoption
of animal feeding practices. Dunn-Bonferroni test was carried out for pair-wise comparison between the
group and it shows the difference between each group was significant. Majority of respondents had
completely adopted practices like providing good quality of feed and water, using of separate utensils for
feed and chemicals and providing proper storage of feed. Practices like using approved chemicals, proper
use of chemicals for crop and proper handling of mouldy feeds were partially adopted. Practices like
52

regulated use of chemicals in agriculture and record keeping for feed and fodder was not adopted by
Page

majority of respondents might be due to lack of knowledge about those practices. Majority of the dairy

[email protected] DOI 10.5455/ijlr.20171211053352

 Vol 8 (12) Dec ’18
International Journal of Livestock Research eISSN : 2277-1964 NAAS Score -5.36

farmers were feeding concentrate mixture on the basis of milk production (Gunaseelan et al., 2018).
Majority of the dairy farmers had medium level of adoption in feeding management (Sachanet al., 2016).

Adoption of Animal Welfare Practices

The average adoption rank score of animal welfare practices was high (19.99). Similarly, average adoption
rank score of medium and large farmers was high but average adoption rank score of small farmers was
medium. The study further shows that majority (64.44%) of respondents belonged to medium adoption
level followed by low (20%) and high (15.56%) adoption level (Table 4).
Table 4: Average adoption rank score of each practices for animal welfare
Small Medium Large
Pooled
S. No. Practices Farmers Farmers Farmers
(N=135)
(n=45) (n=45) (n=45)
1. Providing sufficient feed and water every day 1.81±0.14 1.97±0.14 1.98±0.20 1.97±0.23
2. Providing supplementary feed to animals 1.68±0.46 1.82±0.38 1.95±0.25 1.82±0.42
3. Protecting animals from toxic plants 1.13±0.50 1.37±0.53 1.68±0.12 1.40±0.12
4. Proper designing of farm shed 1.75±0.43 1.71±0.45 1.84±0.54 1.77±0.56
5. Providing adequate space for each animals 1.46±0.50 1.53±0.54 1.68±0.36 1.54±0.23
6. Protecting from adverse weather condition 1.26±0.49 1.35±0.48 1.62±0.41 1.41±0.12
7. Providing proper ventilation 1.51±0.50 1.60±0.53 1.48±0.23 1.60±0.12
8. Maintaining of non-slippery floor 1.04±0.56 1.20±0.44 1.53±0.25 1.24±0.52
9. Treating lameness properly 1.22±0.51 1.17±0.50 1.82±0.42 1.31±0.41
10. Regular milking of lactating animals 1.82±0.38 1.80±0.40 1.46±0.52 1.44±0.36
11. Protecting animal from injuries 1.40±0.53 1.22±0.58 1.20±0.36 1.22±0.24
12. Following proper calving and weaning practices 0.95±0.42 0.75±0.59 0.86±0.21 0.77±0.26
13. Maintaining competent animal husbandry skills 0.71±0.50 0.68±0.43 0.80±0.21 0.73±0.32
14. Following proper herd management practices 0.71±0.50 0.68±0.51 0.67±0.23 0.61±0.21
Low (0-10) 11(24.44) 8(17.78) 8(17.78) 27(20.00)
Medium (10-19) 32(71.11) 28(62.22) 27(60.00) 87(64.44)
High (19-28) 2(4.44) 9(20.00) 10(22.22) 21(15.56)
Mean±SD 18.66±3.36 19.68±3.07 21.62±2.70 19.99±3.27
Kruskal-Wallis H value 17.106**
#
Dunn-Bonferroni post hoc test A A B
Figures in the parenthesis indicate percentage; **Significant at 0.01 level of confidence; # Levels not connected by
same letter are significantly different

Kruskal-Wallis test shows a very strong evidence to suggest a difference between at least one pair of groups
with respect to adoption of animal welfare practices. Dunn-Bonferroni test was carried out for pair-wise
comparison between the group and it shows the difference was significant between small and medium
farmers from large farmers with respect to animal welfare practices. The animal welfare practices were
much better in the large farms. The adoption of animal welfare practices among the small and medium
53

farmers did not differ significantly. Majority of respondents had completely adopted practices like
Page

providing sufficient quantity of water to animal regularly, regular milking of lactating animals, maintaining

[email protected] DOI 10.5455/ijlr.20171211053352

 Vol 8 (12) Dec ’18
International Journal of Livestock Research eISSN : 2277-1964 NAAS Score -5.36

of non-sleeper floor, protecting animal from adverse weather condition and providing sufficient ventilation
to animals and following proper calving and weaning practices regularly. Majority of respondent were
aware about these practices as they believe that these practices directly influenced the economic viability
of dairy animals. The practices like following proper herd management practices and following competent
animal husbandry skill were moderately adopted by majority of respondents. Animal welfare is an
important factor which contributes to the productive and reproductive performance of the animal (FAO,
2014).

Adoption of Environmental Practices

The average adoption rank score of environmental practices was medium (5.90). Similarly, the average
adoption rank score of different categories of dairy farmers group were also medium. Majority (53.33%) of
respondents belonged to medium level of adoption followed by low (41.48%) and only high (5.19%) level
of adoption. Majority of large (60%) and medium (55.56%) farmers had medium level of adoption whereas
majority of small farmers (55.56%) had low level of adoption (Table 5).

Table 5: Average adoption rank score of each practices for environmental safeguard
Small Medium Large
Pooled
S. No. Practices Farmers Farmers Farmers
(N=135)
(n=45) (n=45) (n=45)
Storing waste in proper manner to minimize the
1. 0.71±0.39 0.72±0.50 0.81±0.50 0.76±0.23
risk of environment pollution
Managing pasture to avoid effluent runoff by
2. 0.80±0.23 0.89±0.23 0.78±0.23 0.80±0.21
spreading farm manure
Using chemicals appropriately to avoid
3. 0.92±0.21 0.86±0.21 0.82±0.56 0.74±0.34
contamination of the local environment
4. Managing dairy run-off on farm 1.02±0.82 1.23±0.36 1.34±0.23 1.22±0.42
5. Following eco-friendly practices 0.53±0.23 0.51±0.12 0.71±0.52 0.64±0.21
Low (0-4) 25(55.56) 17(37.78) 14(31.11) 56(41.48)
Medium (4-7) 20(44.44) 25(55.56) 27(60.00) 72(53.33)
High (7-10) 0(0.00) 3(6.67) 4(8.89) 7(5.19)
Mean±SD 5.33±1.47 6.15±1.78 6.44±1.82 5.90±1.75
Kruskal-Wallis H value 9.885**
Dunn-Bonferroni post hoc test# A A B
Figures in the parenthesis indicate percentage; **Significant at 0.01 level of confidence; # Levels not connected by
same letter are significantly different

As per the report of MoEF (2015) in India farmers were least concerned about environment protection.
Kruskal-Wallis test shows a very strong evidence to suggest a difference between at least one pair of groups
with respect to adoption of environmental practices. Dunn-Bonferroni test was carried out for pair-wise
54

comparison between the group and it shows the difference was significant between small and medium
Page

farmers from large farmers with respect to adoption of environmental practices. Majority of the respondent

[email protected] DOI 10.5455/ijlr.20171211053352

 Vol 8 (12) Dec ’18
International Journal of Livestock Research eISSN : 2277-1964 NAAS Score -5.36

had moderately adopted practices like storing of wastes in proper manner, managing pasture to avoid
effluent run off and using chemicals appropriately to avoid contamination of environment. The eco-friendly
practices were not completely adopted by majority of the respondents, might be due to lack of knowledge
in these practices.

Overall Adoption of Good Dairy Farming Practices

The overall average adoption rank score of good dairy farming practices was medium (73.99). Similarly,
overall average adoption rank score of small and medium farmers was medium but average adoption rank
score of large farmers was high. Further, majority (51.11%) of respondents had medium level of adoption
followed by low (32.59%) and high (16.30%) level of adoption. Majority of small (53.33%), medium
(46.67%) and large (53.33%) farmers had medium level of adoption (Table 6).

Table 6: Distribution of respondents according to their adoption level on different dairy farming practices
Small Farmers Medium Farmers Large Farmers Pooled
Level of Adoption
(n=45) (n=45) (n=45) (N=135)
Low (0-39) 19(42.22) 15(33.33) 10(22.22) 44(32.59)
Medium (39-77) 24(53.33) 21(46.67) 24(53.33) 69(51.11)
High (77-116) 2(4.44) 9(20.00) 11(24.44) 22(16.30)
Mean±SD 64.33±11.62 73.47±7.54 84.18±10.07 73.99±12.75
Kruskal-Wallis H value 59.992**
Dunn-Bonferroni post
A B C
hoc test#
Figures in the parenthesis indicate percentage; **Significant at 0.01 level of confidence; # Levels not connected by
same letter are significantly different

Kruskal-Wallis test shows a very strong evidence to suggest a difference between at least one pair of groups
with respect to adoption of good dairy farming practices. Dunn-Bonferroni test was carried out for pair wise
comparison between the group and it shows the difference between each group was significant. Thus, this
study have proved evidently that adoption of good dairy farming practices was more among large farmers
compared to medium and small farmers. Majority of dairy farmers had medium level of adoption in
scientific dairy farming practices (Satyanarayan and Jagadeeswary, 2010 and Sachan et al., 2016).

Relationship of Socioeconomic and Psychological Variables with Adoption

Table 7 shows that education, occupation, herd size, annual income and extension agency contact were
highly significant and positively correlated with adoption level of good dairy farming practices whereas
livestock rearing experience, land holding, social participation and mass media exposure were positively
and significantly associated with adoption. The results are in concurrence with findings of Gunaseelan et
55

al. (2018) and Vekariya et al. (2016).

Page

[email protected] DOI 10.5455/ijlr.20171211053352

 Vol 8 (12) Dec ’18
International Journal of Livestock Research eISSN : 2277-1964 NAAS Score -5.36

Table 7: Spearman correlation of socioeconomic and psychological variables with adoption

S. No. Variables Spearman Correlation
1. Age 0.391
2. Education 0.118**
3. Occupation 0.311**
4. Livestock rearing experience 0.238*
5. Land holding 0.201*
6. Herd size 0.352**
7. Annual income 0.368**
8. Social participation 0.235*
9. Extension agency contact 0.617**
10. Mass media 0.391*
**p<01, *p<0.05
Contributing Factors to Adoption
Table 8 revealed that 64 per cent of variability in adoption of good dairy farming practices was explained
by annual income, herd size, education and extension agency contact. The study reveals that annual income,
herd size, education and extension agency contact were the main contributing factors to adoption of good
dairy farming practices. It may be concluded that farmers with higher annual income, herd size, education
and extension agency contact were having higher adoption of good dairy farming practices.

Table 8: Multiple regression analysis of adoption with some socioeconomic and psychological variables
Socio-economic characters Regression Coefficient (b) ‘t’ value
Education 0.17 3.881*
Herd size 0.708 1.456*
Annual income 6.943 4.863**
Extension agency contact 1.243 1.027*
R2= 0.647, **p<01, *p<0.05

Conclusion
Adoption is the mental process through which an individual passes from hearing about an innovation to
final adoption. The study has indicated that large commercial dairy farmers have high level of adoption in
good dairy farming practices but continuous interventions need to be taken up for the small and medium
commercial dairy farmers so that the adoption level of these farmers can be enhanced. To do that, the
extension agencies working in the study area need to disseminate knowledge in respect to breeding, feeding,
healthcare, hygienic milking, animal management and welfare and environmental friendly practices in
scientific dairy farming practices targeting more on small and medium commercial dairy farmers so that
they can adopt these technologies and can achieve the desired goal of enhancing the production and
productivity of the commercial dairy farms.
56
Page

[email protected] DOI 10.5455/ijlr.20171211053352

 Vol 8 (12) Dec ’18
International Journal of Livestock Research eISSN : 2277-1964 NAAS Score -5.36

References
1. DAHD Annual Report. 2015-16. Animal Husbandry,
dahd.nic.in/.../Report%202015016%28English%..: 19-42.
2. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2014. Guidelines for good dairy farming practices.
www.fao.org.in
3. Gillah KA, Kifaro GC and Madsen J. 2012. Urban and peri urban dairy in East Africa: A review on
production levels, constraints and opportunities. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 24(11),
Article #198. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/11/gill24198.htm
4. Government of India (GOI). 2012. Livestock census-2012, www.livestockcunsus.goi.in/2012
5. Gunaseelan M, Thilakar P, Mathialagan P. and Serma Saravana Pandian A. 2018. Adoption level of
improved dairy farming technologies by peri-urban dairy farmers in Thanjavur district of Tamil Nadu.
International Journal of Livestock Research, 8(1), 103-
111.http://dx.doi.org/10.54555/ijlr.20170805093320
6. Karnataka Milk Federation (KMF). 2014. Karnataka Milk Federation achievements.
https://kmfnandini.coop.
7. Kumar S, Jain A and Gupta AK. 2014. Studies on breeding, health care and milking management
practices adopted by the dairy owners in Shahdol district of MP, India. International Research Journal
of Biological Sciences,3(10),32-36
8. Mali KN. 2013. A comparative study on dairy and non-dairy farmers in Belgaum district. MSc. Thesis
submitted to UAS, Dharwad. Pp 84.
9. Mali KN. 2014. A Study on knowledge and adoption of dairy farmers about improved dairy
management practices. Agriculture Update, 9(3), 391-395.
10. MoEF. 2015. Control of Pollution. MoEF Annual report. 2014-15,
www.moef.nic.in/report/report.html: 96-101.
11. National Dairy Development Board (NDDB). 2015. Annual report 2014-15. Increasing the production
of milk in India. www.nddb.org.in
12. Sachan R, Sankhala G, Roy R and Manjusha J. 2016. Adoption level of recommended buffalo
husbandry practices by dairy farmers in Uttar Pradesh. Indian Journal of Dairy Science,69(5),613-617
13. Satyanarayan K and Jagadeeswary V. 2010. A study on knowledge and adoption behaviour of livestock
farmers. Indian J. Animal Res., 44 (2), 100-106.
14. Surkar SH, Sawarkar SW, Kolhe RP and Basunathe VK. 2014. Adoption of quality milk production
practices by dairy farmers in Wardha district of Maharashtra. Agriculture and Rural Development
International, 1(1), 1-4.
15. Vekariya SJ, Kumar R, Chaudhari GM, Savsani HH and Swaminathan B. 2016. Factors influencing
the adoption of scientific animal husbandry practices: A case of Saurashtra in Gujarat. Advances
in Life Sciences 5(16),6018-6024

57
Page

[email protected] DOI 10.5455/ijlr.20171211053352

View publication stats