Adoption of new knowledge and technologies is often constrained by institutional and policy challenges. Trying to promote new knowledge without addressing these challenges, often leads to poor results. Diagnosing these constraints and experimenting with new ways of addressing these constraints should be a priority for extension, argue Dr S V N Rao, Dr K Natchimuthu and Dr S Ramkumar.
CONTEXT
Cattle rearing is an important occupation for resource poor and landless families in rural and peri-urban areas of Puducherry. Cattle are the only asset for the landless poor and their contribution to the family income is quite substantial. Majority of the new generation livestock farmers are agricultural labour, forced to take up dairying due to subsidised loans provided by the government to buy cattle. Urbanization has led to conversion of farm lands for other purposes and this has led to reduced availability and high cost of fodder grass. Food crops (paddy) are being substituted by non food crops (casuarinas) which require less labour and supervision. There is almost no practice of growing green fodder crops in Puducherry and the area under fodder cultivation is less than 90 acres (PONLAIT Report, 2011). With increasing costs of fodder (especially paddy straw) and the low price for milk, farmers do not have adequate incentives to feed their cattle with purchased fodder.
INNOVATION SYSTEM DIAGNOSIS
In January 2008, a facilitated fodder innovation diagnosis workshop was organised at Rajiv Gandhi College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences (RAGACOVAS) now Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Veterinary Education and Research RIVER), Puducherry. This was done as part of the Fodder Innovation Project-II
implemented in India and Nigeria during 2007–2011 (Hall et al, 2007). This workshop was attended by almost every stakeholder related to the fodder sector and these included officials from line departments such as Animal Husbandry, Agriculture, Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK), District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Cooperative Milk Union (PONLAIT), a local NGO – MSSRF (MS Swaminathan Research Foundation) as well as the representatives from Women Self Help Groups (WSHGs) and land owners/farmers.
The diagnosis workshop noted that several of these organisations have programmes on fodder promotion focusing on distribution of seeds/slips, subsidies for fodder cultivation and training on fodder cultivation. The workshop concluded that unless and until green fodder is produced and made available locally to the landless livestock keepers, the fodder situation in Puducherry is unlikely to improve. The workshop called for formation of a fodder development forum comprising all fodder relevant actors to design, implement and evaluate interventions (with RAGACOVAS acting as the coordinating agency) and to design an institutional arrangement linking fodder growers/entrepreneurs and fodder buyers (landless livestock farmers in this case).
Multi stakeholder forum: A fodder development forum comprising representatives of all fodder relevant actors was formed in the stakeholder meeting held in February 2008. This multi stakeholder platform identified a cluster of villages to implement the project. This forum met on several occasions to review and finalise the plans of this action research. It also served as a monitoring and learning platform and helped promote joint working relationships on programmes outside this project too.
PILOTING A NEW INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT
Five farmers came forward to grow fodder on a commercial scale in 0.5 to 1 acre of their land, after they were convinced about the relative profitability of growing fodder, the technical and financial support that they could avail from different organizations and the offer to buy-back the harvested fodder by the dairy co-operative society (DCS), Sorapet.
The members of the WSHG at Sorapet agreed to buy fodder from the DCS on credit. The Secretary, DCS agreed to receive fodder in 10 kg bundles and sell to the milk pourers when they come to deliver milk to the DCS. The Secretary would then deduct the amount from bills of the milk pourers and the same will be paid to the fodder growers
Accordingly, based on several rounds of discussions and interactions with farmers and milk producers, fodder was grown on two acres of land in the selected village and was harvested and supplied through DCS to milk pourers on credit basis later to be recovered from their milk bills and finally to clear the bills of fodder growers. Initially there was a component of subsidy from the department of Animal Husbandry (DAH) which was later withdrawn due to paucity of funds.
Initial challenges: The sale of green fodder was initially good and gradually fell owing to the subsidy pull. There were instances of wastage of fodder due to late arrival of fodder at DCS, thick stems of the Napier grass and also due to poor sales of fodder. The secretary DCS found it difficult to sell fodder to members with dry cows (non pourers of milk to the society) for cash instead of credit. Despite the efforts to include the cost of transportation in the project, this system of routing fodder through DCS did not work.
When this issue was discussed in a stakeholder meeting, the WSHG leaders came forward to accept the responsibility of fodder distribution and collection of money from the fodder buyers with a resolution passed in their group meeting. The resolution was passed by the WSHG members based on the credibility they had on the officials and their recommendations. The fodder was accordingly delivered by the fodder grower at the doorsteps of the WSHG leader (Fig. 2). This system had solved two problems – one, even if the fodder was supplied late in the evening, the leader was able to distribute to the buyers (group members). Second, fodder was supplied to any buyer (irrespective whether they were members of the DCS or not) for cash. This system did work for few months to the satisfaction of all the stakeholders.
However, the fodder buyers especially the landless cattle owners had a grouse that feeding green fodder to cows was expensive and it should be subsidized. In all the meetings the issue of “low milk procurement prices” came up in one way or the other as it appeared to be a stumbling block for milk production-enhancement programmes.
New challenges: This system worked well as long as the WSHG leaders took active part in receiving and distributing fodder and collecting money from the buyers. Later, it suffered a serious setback when these leaders got engaged in local body elections. Though their involvement in fodder transaction, in a way, catapulted them to the political arena, they were no longer in a position to devote time for fodder transaction. Since WSHG members (lower stratum) and DCS secretary (upper stratum) were belonging to different communities the cooperation between them on fodder transaction was not up to the expected level. The fodder growers in both the experiments suffered due to delay in payments and sometimes wastage of fodder due to poor sales.
Perceptions on feeding green fodder: Cattle rearers preferred allowing their animals to graze on public or private lands (non cash cost) and dry fodder (paddy straw) rather than spending Rs. 20 (cash cost) every day to feed one cow on purchased/cultivated green fodder, however superior the latter may be in terms of quality, Total Digestible Nutrients (TDN), Digestible Crude Protein (DCP) and palatability. The reasons for their preference to paddy straw are that they can stock and use it for 4 to 6 months depending upon the season. Purchasing (during harvest season), transportation and stocking it could be completed on one day whereas the cultivated green fodder (heavier) needs to be obtained from the fodder producer or the DCS on a daily basis which they consider as laborious.
| Box 1: Institutions and policies matter
Milk testing: The milk producers especially the WSHG members after feeding the green fodder continuously for two months to their cows perceived that the income through sale of milk to the DCS did not increase and they attributed it to the faulty testing of the milk in the DCS. They were unhappy with the milk testing as it is neither transparent nor done on a regular basis. Not a single DCS out of the 93 functional DCSs in Puducherry has an automatic milk collection unit which is considered as transparent and foolproof method of weighing and testing milk. Testing of milk in these DCSs is never done on a regular basis. In most of the DCSs the milkotesters are not working.Unfortunately the milk producers/DCS members have no say in “testing of milk” and in “price fixation” although theoretically they own the DCS and PONLAIT (Rao et al, 2009). So the livestock keepers are right in their hesitation to invest in purchase of green fodder, when they don’t see any benefit. Price policy: In almost all the stakeholder meetings, the issue of low milk procurement price was discussed but without finding any feasible solution to address this. Although, PONLAIT is empowered to fix milk prices, in practice the Government will fix the price which will be in favour of the urban milk consumers (more in number) rather than the few scattered rural milk producers or members of the DCSs. The procurement price of Rs. 17 per litre (even today) offered by PONLAIT is the lowest in the country. In other words, there is no incentive for farmers to invest in any new technology or practice as there is no commensurate return on their investment. Subsidies without other support: The government of Puducherry has been implementing several schemes which include milch animal purchase, subsidies for green fodder production, calf feed, cattle feed etc. However, these schemes haven’t helped increase the milk production in Puducherry. The gradual decrease in milk procurement by the DCSs from an average of about 50, 000 litres per day in 2001–02 to 29,000 litres per day in 2010–11 and purchasing milk from other states from zero to 73,000 litres during the same period (PONLAIT, 2011) clearly shows that the subsidies are not helping the state, the milk society or the producers. Moreover, this has also adversely affected the mind set of resource poor livestock keepers as they prefer low quality subsidized inputs over the good quality purchased inputs. |
PROJECT OUTPUTS
Even with all these challenges, the project had some positive influence on fodder growers. One fodder grower who raised fodder on one acre of land for sale realised the benefits of feeding green fodder to his cattle and discontinued selling green fodder to the DCS/WSHGs. It is economical for him to feed his cattle with ad libitum green fodder rather than feeding with paddy straw which is costlier than green fodder. Similarly one old lady who had three repeat breeding cows felt happy with feeding green fodder (grown on 30 cents of leased land) to these cows as all of them were conceived. A farmer has been raising fodder on seven acres of land and supplying it daily to a nearby gaushala which is maintaining about 270 cattle. He also sells limited quantity of fodder to milk producers of his village.
A traditional betel nut cultivator after incurring heavy losses turned to fodder production and recovered from the losses. This fodder entrepreneur used fodder cultivation as a stepping stone to enter into supply of canned drinking water to nearby villages, a more profitable venture compared to fodder production. This also reflects on the low economic status attached to fodder production by the farmers of the Puducherry region.
Not a single farmer (other than the fodder entrepreneur who is supplying fodder mainly to gaushala) is growing fodder to sell it to the landless dairy farmers in the village. The landless continue to send their cattle for grazing on poor quality grasses which they consider as a good substitute for green fodder. They even now feel that it is worth depending on grazing rather than getting additional milk through purchased green fodder. It all depends upon their perceived economics which seems to be working out for them, the reason why they are still rearing dairy cattle. Due to financial crunch, the government has withdrawn all subsidies and the dairy farmers are at the receiving end. Shifting of occupation from dairy farming to goatery is quite discernible mainly because of very good demand for chevon (goat meat) and low price for milk.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
Beyond technology dissemination: Poor livestock keepers need access to good quality green fodder and many of them are now convinced about the technical supremacy of feeding their animals with green fodder. But they are not in a position to buy and feed their cattle with green fodder, without addressing the two basic issues of milk testing and milk prices. Any other types of programmes promoting fodder technology, subsidised seeds/saplings, trainings and demonstration will not have any major impact.
Engagement with policy issues: The project team strongly believes that extension should play a pivotal role in influencing policies rather than focusing only on technology dissemination as the former has a strong influence on technology dissemination, as evidenced by this project. In this case, none of the stakeholders in the state have a say or influence on price fixing policy, although everybody was convinced that the milk prices need upward revision. The milk and feed price ratios are decreasing over the years indicating thereby that the prices of feed are increasing at an increasing rate than the prices of milk (Tamizhkumaran et al, 2012). In most of the dairy developed countries, the prices of milk are linked to feed prices. However in India the policy of milk–feed ratios to fix the milk procurement prices is not being adopted.
Research on policy issues affecting technology update: There could be several such instances where technology dissemination is constrained due to lack of an appropriate policy. It will be useful if researchers bring out evidence of such instances to sensitize policy makers. Or else it will be the usual story “policy makers not aware of the research constraints; researchers not concerned about technology dissemination and sensitizing the policy makers is not the job of extension.” Undertaking an innovation system diagnosis helps in raising these issues upfront.
The project team organized a workshop on “Reclaiming Research in Livestock Development Through Policy Interventions – 12 Innovations in Livestock Development which Need Policy Support” in collaboration with Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) and Rajiv Gandhi College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences (now RIVER) in 2011. A platform was provided to selected researchers to present their research output (which is getting bogged down due to lack of appropriate policy) to policy makers (Rao et al 2011). The recommendations made during the workshop evoked a mixed response.
Either we may have to organize more such interfaces or should do something differently. We look forward to your views and experiences in this regard.
References:
Hall. A. J, Rasheed Sulaiman V and Peter Bezkorowajnyj 2007 Reframing Technical Change: Livestock Fodder Scarcity Revisited as Innovation Capacity Scarcity- A Conceptual Framework, FIP Conceptual Framework, International Livestock Research Institute http://www.crispindia.org/docs/FIPConceptual_Framework.pdf
PONLAIT. 2011. Annual Report, The Pondicherry Co-operative Milk Producers Union Rao, S.V.N; Ranjitha Puskur; Venkatasubramanian, V; Rasheed Sulaiman V;Joseph, A.K; Ramkumar S; Natchimuthu, K and Sasidhar, P.V.K. 2011 Reclaiming Research in Livestock Development through Policy Interventions- 12 Innovations in livestock development which need support” Proceedings and Recommendations of National Workshop organized at Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi on 26th and -27th April, 2011.
Tamizhkumaran. J, Rao, S.V.N and Natchimuthu. K. 2012. Prospects of livestock rearing in Puducherry In Compendium Kerala Veterinary Science Congress , held at Thiruvanthapuram on 10th &11th November, 2012.pp.165-175.
Dr S V N Rao (svnrao1953@gmail.com),
Dr K Natchimuthu (natchimuthuka@gmail.com)
Dr S Ramkumar (suku.ramkumar@gmail.com)
represented the Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Veterinary Education and Research, (RIVER) Puducherry in the Fodder Innovation Project (FIP-II) a project implemented by ILRI, UNU-MERIT and CRISP during 2007–2011 with DFID funding. The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Dr Andy Hall, Dr Rasheed Sulaiman V and Dr Ranjitha Puskur in designing and implementing this project.
Its a thought provoking lesson …..thank you for sharing.
Thanks to Dr. S.V.N.Rao for prompt responses and I am glad to note agreement that TOT is not the main objective of Extension and that the main objective is capacity building of farmer. Some more observations, experiences and views in this context for your consideration and comments: • TOT has not only become the main activity in most of the extension programmes but targets are given in many cases. Acceptance of technology is reviewed for assessment and not adoption. I differentiate between the two since Acceptance could be due to other attractions like Subsidy or Grants or personal influence while Adoption comes when the producer is convinced that the Technology is beneficial (from farmers perspective), fits into the prevailing production system, can be managed within available resources. The applies to Recommendations / Messages propagated/spread through the extension programmes. • The technologies/recommendations are centrally generated and propagated irrespective of variations in situations viz. production systems, socio-economic status of producers, marketing facility etc.. • The technology or recommendation should not only be tehnically sound, economcally beneficial (to animal owner) but also socially adaptable (by the owner) before it is chosen for wider propagation. Our Research, Extension and Development systems do not follow the process of pre-testing before choosing the technology or recommendation for wider propagation. • Most researchers do not define the systems or conditions in which the technologies or recommendations are likely to be beneficial. • Very few development / extension groups or projects undertake Situation Analysis and identification of Priority Needs of the producers of the area before choosing technology or the recommendation / message. Innovation is another word about which I seek clarity of perception – I harbor the view that anything done differently from prevailing method (could also be with regard to technology) to overcome some constraint or improve output is innovation. An example to fodder production is the way Tribal farmers from South Rajasthan make green maize available for feeding their cattle. Land and water are their main constraints and they cannot spare land exclusively for fodder cultivation so they found a way out. While sowing maize they use high seed rate and undertake thinning after it has grown to a certain height and that provides fodder and grain from the same plot. My question – Can something be done to change approach to extension? Can livestock extension be systems oriented and participatory, with due consideration to socio-economic status of the families? In my view a change in Extension Paradigm is needed while dealing with the underprivileged. Another question – Can Veterinary Extension Forum and or AES take initiative in orienting Vets and Livestock Extension officers? May I wish that the New Year provides opportunity and motivates experts like you to usher in change in Livestock Extension Paradigm for the benefit of Underprivileged livestock owners. Looking forward for a feed back and advice.
Congrats for a thought provoking blog! The institutional & policy changes often play much bigger role in facilitating faster adoption of technologies. For instance, breed improvement/crossbreeding was being emphasized in India since long, but it could attract the attention only when NDDB/AMUL came up with the idea of milk collection centers, where, procurement & marketing was emphasized. This change in approach motivated farmers to opt for high yielding animals, thus, propelled the need for technology adoption compared to the little impact of Key village scheme & Intensive Cattle Breeding Programme introduced to improve cattle breeding. The right policies would surely improve technology adoption scenario. No surprise, the cultivated fodder area has remained more or less static for long time now despite several programmes to increase it.
Many thanks for circulating this interesting and educative report from SVN Rao and his colleagues. It provides some very good lessons and pushed me to raise some questions to the extension specialists for clarity on perceptions regarding extension. The report as well as my observations on Extension Programmes (last few decades) makes me ask a question to the experts -Is Transfer of Technology (off the shelf) the main Goal / Objective or Purpose of Extension programme?? My perception is that the main goal / Objective of extension is to improve capability of farmer to make better decisions (re. selecting technology, management practices etc.) and Prof. van den Ban was one of those who agreed on this and showed me that he wrote about this objective in some of his papers. Som how TOT has become synonymous with extension and without testing appropriateness of technology for a particular situation. The TOT worked well for Green Revolution (the T & V or Benor system) where conditions / production systems were uniform. This is my dilemma, please advise me on that. Another dilemma – Is Fodder Production a New technology?? I ask since I have been reading/hearing (almost 5 decades) from Agriculture and Animal Science persons involved in research/development/extension referring fodder production as a new technology. However, farmers told me that they and their forefathers cultivated fodder crops (plot size depends on availability of land and water). And the interesting part is – the preference to the type of animals to whom it is offered – bullock at work in some areas and cows/buffaloes in milk in other areas. Does it not make good economic sense (they have a robust sense of economics)? Third question – Was an attempt made to promote/facilitate establishing alternate system of milk collection and marketing? Many NGOs & now NDP are trying that. I hope my remarks and questions will be taken in the right perspective and I would be suitably advised so as to refine my views and perceptions
Thanks for your comments on our blog. We always welcome and value your remarks as they are based on your experience of working with several extension projects in and outside the country. My answers to your questions and remarks are given below for your kind perusal. 1. TOT is not the main goal of extension. But unfortunately as you rightly pointed out, TOT and Extension are being considered as synonyms. As you noted Extension is defined as the conscious use of communication of information to help people input services. On the other hand extension is concerned mainly with education of farmers on management of resources and decision-making skills, which may contribute to technology transfer. Hence, it is necessary to understand that the focus of extension is on education of the farmers rather than supply of technical inputs and services. Because of the misconception about the role of extension, many institutions lay emphasis on supply of inputs and technical services, which are included as extension activities. However, extension agencies frequently engage in activities that are not directly connected to extension education such as provision of inputs, supervising credit repayment, enforcing government regulations, providing statistical information, organizising cooperatives etc., (Arnon, 1989). 2. In Fodder innovation Project, our focus is on making green fodder accessible to the landless dairy farmers in Puducherry. Feeding cattle with green fodder by the landless people in Puducherry is an innovation. You may notice that for the landless women in Puducherry, feeding cattle with green fodder is an innovation. You may notice that for a variety of reasons (including economics), the landless dairy farmers did not continue with green fodder feeding to their cattle. Here Feeding of green fodder is taken as an example and it may hold good with application of similar new knowledge As you are aware ultimately, t he farmer looks at from the angle “ how much I am spending and how much I am getting? ” Everyone knows that the price of feeds and fodder are increasing at a faster rate than that of milk. To me it is still a mystery why the milk prices are not linked to feed prices, as many other countries are doing. 3. On the question of why alternate milk collection is not tried in Puducherry, I would like to state that the NGOs cannot succeed in collecting milk by offering higher procurement price to the farmers as the consumer price of the Union is again lowest in the country ( Rs.26 / litre of toned milk) and union with the purchased milk from the neighboring states is a bulk supplier of fluid milk in Pondicherry. The Union is losing heavily because of this policy of favouring milk consumers who are more in numbers compared to milk producers
The New Extension Policy needs to focus on community organization so that small farmers can also benefit from the economies of scale can influence the policy. Secondly, more Extension Professionals may be recruited in the Extension Systems to organize the poor farmers and deal with their socioeconomic issues.