|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pattern of Human Labour Utilization In Dairy Enterprise
With Respect To Various Categories Of Household In Western U.P. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Paper Id :
18361 Submission Date :
2023-11-08 Acceptance Date :
2023-11-19 Publication Date :
2023-11-25
This is an open-access research paper/article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. DOI:10.5281/zenodo.10539044 For verification of this paper, please visit on
http://www.socialresearchfoundation.com/innovation.php#8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Abstract |
Categories-wise analysis for household were performed with the hypothesis that animal as such is not cost centre individually but the households supporting it is off course that cost centre with a perspective that the households covered under the study were able to assess as how fat their enterprise proved and employment provider to themselves as well as outsiders in case of the inception of hired labour as per the demand of the holding size. The exercise revealed that total Man Minute required per day per household in respect of all the household covered under the study surfaced activity-wise along with relative percentage were 5.36 M.M/2.23 percent for grazing, 48.60MM. /20.11 percent for bringing grass and fodder, 38.09 M.M./15.84 percent for chaffing 24.51 M.M./ 10.19 percent for feeding, 44.51 MM 18.51 percent for milking 28.78MM / 11.97 percent for watering and bathing, 34.32 MM/14.27percent for cleaning of cattle shed and 16.33MM/6.78 percent for miscellaneous activities. Thus summation of the pool was 240.50 MM for all the three season put together while season wise figures were 153.80MM., 303:17 M.M. and 264.22 MM. for the summer, rainy and winter seasons respectively. The analysis fulfills the purpose of projection of labour requirement accordingly. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Keywords | Human Labour Utilization, Dairy Enterprise, Grazing, Chaffing, Feeding, Milking. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Introduction | After the inception of Operation Flood more and more
household were adopted dairying as a profession and flourishing cooperative
sector in the field has rendered all the connected activities and disposal of
output as well. The result is that India has become the Largest producer of
milk in the world last year. Through this study the data collected from the
milk producers was analysed household-wire with the assumption that for any
activity individually. The hypothesis beyond this is that be it any animal of any species it can not be
milch and milking for the year round as there are phases of pregnancy and
calving etc, so only a household can support wet and dry animals simultaneously
with calves, draft and heifers also. As per socio economies texture only
household-wise decision making in respect of selection of species or herd size
etc, is practicable so household- wise analysis bears utmost importance. Trends
regarding size of land holdings have also been observed to draw inferences
helpful for potential investors. The result have proved that all the
cost-components trends to reduce with the advancement of holding to a ascertain
extent. Projection in respect of labour requirement can also be made on the
basis of inferences drawn after adjusting internal or so to say family labour. The
study also facilitate the computation of absorbent of family labour in
different activity with the resultant indirect return in the shape of retaining family
labour cost included in computation in the connected family automatically with
the accomplishment of complete dairying for any unit. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Objective of study | The study facilitate the computation of absorbent of family
labour in different activity with the resultant indirect return in the shape of retaining family
labour cost included in computation in the connected family automatically with
the accomplishment of complete dairying for any unit. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Review of Literature | Kumari Binita
& Malhotra Ravinder (2016)- The Study concluded that average labour time used
in different activities in dairy enterprises for cooperative as well
as non-cooperative per household was in hour per day as under. M.M. equivalent
on the basis of above table can be computed as 276.6MM or cooperative sector
and 247.8MM for non-cooperative sector (per household per day) the results are
this resembling to our study. Singh Rishikant
KH and Chauhan A.K (2014) -The Study inferred average labour for performing different daily
activity per household hours per day as under. Mina-minute
equivalent on the basis of above table is computed as 225 per cooperative
sector and 188 fer Non-cooperative sectors respectively the findings are this
matching with our study. Kashish et.al
(2017) operation-wise,
category were Labour utilization was computed as under through this
study (Hrs/day/per household)
*Only four and
one respondents took their animal for a grazing among landless (LL) and
Marginal (M.F.) dairy farmers. respectively. Source, Kashish et.al, 2016. *M.M equivalent on the basis of above table for all categories combined is computer as 5.68x60=340.80M.M. Category wise employment generation was also computed under this study in the shape of man-day per annum including family labour and hired as well the result were as per the table given below. Female hours
were converted in to male equivalent by considering I made hour=0.67 female
hour and children hours converted in to 0.50 male labour (Sidhu and Bhullar,
2004 and Elumalai and Pandey, 2004)
Kumar (1993)
– Ascertained the
human labour utilization in various activities on dairy farm. Among different
farm categories on an average highest time per household was utilized in all
dairy activities by large farm as (344.15 man-min) followed b upper
medium farmers (310.79 man-min), lower medium farmers (275.61), small farmers
(248.32 man-min) and landless labourers (202.62 man-min). In the context it may
be noted that as the land holding size increased, the total time spent on all
dairy activities was also increases. In others words labour employment increases
It was also observed that maximum time was devoted on bringing fodder. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Methodology | For the purpose of study data from 240 milk producing households Moradabad district of western U.P. was collected through door to door survey and all the tehsils and blocks. were covered under the exercise by selecting villages from all the earmarks units. The duration of survey was in three rounds covering the periods of March to June (Summer season), July to October (Rainy season) and November to February (Winter season). Obtaing data Standard Adults Units (S.A.Us) in respect of herd reported household-wise were formed as under just to render the data comparable. Buffalo in milk = 1 unit Buffalo dry =0.4 unit Local cow in milk = 0.7 unit Local cow dry = 0.3 unit Crossbred cow in milk = 1.4 unit Crossbred Cow dry = 1.0 unit Heifer = 0.5 unit Young stock = 0.2 unit (Male & Female) Draught dairy animal = 0.5 Unit The weight assigned for the conversion of female labour and child labour into main equivalent were as under. 2 Males = 3 Females 1 Male = 1.5 Female I male = 2 children categories amongst households were formed on the basis of their holding an per the table being given here under |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Result and Discussion |
Component-wise,
category-wise, season-wise and for the pool of was households as a whole time
and motion analysis was as under. 1. Cattle
Grazing - This
activity perform by the households of Landless Laboure producers category
basically. Marginal farmers are also resorts to Cattle grazing during the rainy
season only. Rest of the categories never feed the herd through grazing The
total time consumed for this activity 16.36. MM per household per -day for the
first category and the relative percentage was 7.02 percent Seasonal impact to
12.47MM/6.98%, 18.96MM/7:05%, 17.66MM/7.02%, respectively for summer, rainy
& winter seasons. This signifies that maximum figures are for the rainy
season followed by winter, and then summer. The reason behind is very simple as
their is abundantness green grass all around during the rainy season. 2. Bringing grass & fodder - This activity came out to consume
48.60 MM per day per household for the pool with relative percentage of 20.21%.
Season wise figures were 19.76MM/12.85%, 62.47MM/20.61% and 63.56 MM
with 24.06%, for Summer, Rainy and Winter seasons respectively. Category
wise corresponding figure for all the season, put
together were 57.84MM/24.81%, 53.60MM/ 22.11%, 41.88MM/18.79%, 38.22MM/16.90%
and 38.66MM/14.22.% for all the five categories. This total time required for
this activity was found to decrease with the advancement of Category. 3. Chaffing - This activity had been assessed to consume 38.09MM
per household per day with the relative percentage share of 15.84, Seasonal
differences observed were tremendous as season-wise figures were
17.73MM/11.53% 49.96MM16.48%,46.56/17.62% for the summer, rainy and winter
season respectively. The cause behind the major difference was that since
chaffing as such is required in respect of grass and fodders only that are
brought to be fed. Corresponding figures for different category along with
relative percentage for the activity were 27.64MM/11.86%, 38.14mm/15.74%,
37.15MM/16.67%, 39.36MM/17.40% and 53.16MM/19.70% respectively for all the five
Categories. Thus baring the category & marginal farmer this
activity shows a rising trend due to the composition of diet bearing enhanced
quantity of green fodder with the advancement of category. 4. Feeding- Time recorded for this activity was 24.51 MM per
household per day with relative percentage of 10.19MM for the pool. Figures for
different season for the pool were 11.18MM/7.27%, 33.21MM/10.95% and
29.16MM/11.04% for summer, rainy and winter seasons respectively. This
tremendous difference in respect of summer season as compared to other seasons
is attributed to the non availability of green fodder during summer so time
required for mixing processing etc. is spared. Category
wise averages fer all the seasons put together and their relative
percentage were 16.15MM/6.93%, 22.19MM/9.16% 25.32MM/11.36%, 29.13MM/12.88% and
39.27 MM/14.55% for the households of all the five categories respectively.
Inter category comparison signifies that time required to perform this activity
shows a rising trend with the holding size simply because of better composition
of diet.
5. Milking- Time observed for carrying out this activity was
44.51 MM with relative percentage of 18.51% for the pool. Season wise figure
were 32.73MM/21.28% 50.22MM/16.56M and 50.59MM/19.14%, for the summer, rainy
and winter seasons respectively. Difference thus observed was due to yield
only, Category-wise.
6. Corresponding figures for all these
three session combined were 29.88MM/12.82%, 41.33MM/17.05%, 43.82MM/19.67%
54.50MM/24.10% and 67.46MM/25.0%, per household for all the five categories
respectively. Category wise escalation clearly signifies that bigger the herd
size better the composition of species and higher percentage of wet animals
better yield etc. all clubbed were responsible for the same. 7. Water &
bathing - Time observed
for performing these activities was 28.78MM Comprising 11.97 relative percentage for the pool season
wise corresponding figure were 21.32MM/13.36%, 37.41MM/12.34% and
27.63MM/10.46% for the Summer, Rainy and Winter season respectively. Category
wise one combined figurer for different
seasons were 22.85MM/9.80%, 27.67 MM/11.42%., 29.82MM/13.04%, 30.25MM/13.38%
and 39.88MM/14.78% for different categories. Thus Category trend for this activity was positive with the size of
the holding. 8. Cleaning of
cattle shed - This activity
was observed to consume 34.32 MM with relative percentage of 14.27%, fer the
pool Season wise figure 28.86MM/18.76%., 43.77MM/14.44%, and 30.33MM/ 11.48%,
per household for the summer, rainy and winter season respectively. Figures for all the three
season combined were 42.67MM/ 18.30%,38.87MM/16.04% 28.18MM/12.93%
25.29MM/11.18%, and 23.53MM 8.72%, per household per day for all the five
categories. The trend, observed for the categories signifies decrease with the
size of holding and this is due to the fact that bigger the size of holdings
the more the automation adopted.
9.
Miscellaneous operations - Activity under the ambit of this head were observed to Consume 16.33MM per
household per day with relative percentage of 6.78. Season wise figure were 9.75MM/ 6.34%, 22.85MM/7.54% and
16.39MM/6.20% for all the three season Session wise difference is attributed to
the fact that vaccination insemination are generally required to be performed
during rainy and winter seasons. category-wise
corresponding figures were 19.71MM/8.46%, 19.08MM/7.87% 16.81MM/7.54%,
9.41MM/4.16% and 8.17MM/3.03%, per household per day for all the five
categories.. Category wise trend observed was negative against the holding size
Season wise trend with in the category replicates the trend as analysed for the
pool. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Conclusion |
Over all total different categories for all this seasons put together was observed as 233.10MM, 242.36MM, 222.86MM, 226.16MM and 269.83MM for all the five different categories. In respect of the activity the grazing it was concluded that only landless labourers and partially marginal farmers are dependent upon this activity as far as bringing of grass and fodder and chaffing activity is concerned it was concluded that time consumed shows declining trend with size of holding as bigger the holding higher are the bulk purchase and seasonal variation were observed due to non-availability of green fodder and grass during the summer season. Regarding feeding activity it was concluded that this activity consumed the least MM during summer season due to savings in mixing time as there is non - availability of green fodder. If we go for category-wise conclusion this activity has shown rising trend due to better composition with the advancement of categories of holding. Rising trend was observed for the milking activity during rainy and winter season due to yield and inter category anylysis the trend was confirmed, keeping in view the bigger the herd, the more wet animals. Positive trend was observed in the activity of watering and bathing with the size of holding. Cleaning of cattle shed activity has shown a decaling trend with the size of holding as far as seasonal variation are concerned act takes the maximum time during rainy season as all the animals are put in closet during the season. Miscellaneous activity namely vaccination, insemination etc. were observed to consume lesser time with the advancement of holding or herd due to availing. bulk activity advantage. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
References | 1. Elumalai.K,
Pandey U.K (2004). Technological change in livestock sector of Haryana. Indian
J. Agri. Econimics 59(2): 249-257. 2. Kashish,
Kaur M, Sekh on M.K, Dhawan V.(2016) Economic analysis of milk production among
small holder dairy famers in Punjab. A case study of Amritsar district. Ind. J
Economics and Dev 2(2):335-340. 3. Kashish
Manjeet Kaur, Sekhon, M.K and Dhawan, Vikrant (2017) impact of dairying on
income and income distribution of small holder dairy farmers in Punjab, Indian
J. Dairy Science 70(6) pp. 781-788(2017). 4. Kumar
Pradeep (1993) role of women in agranian economy of northwest U.P. unpublished
Ph.D Thesis Meerut University Meerut. 5. Kumar
Binita and Malhotra Ravindra (2016)
Impact of women Dairy co-operative societies on income and Employment of women
in Begusarai District of Bihar.
Agricultural Economics Research Review vol.29(No2) July December 2016 pp.313-318. 6. Sindhu R.S,
Bhullar A.S. (2004)-Changing structure
of the farm economy in Punjab: Impact of livestock o income and
employment Ind.J. Agri Economics 59:578-87.
7. Singh
Rishikanta KH and Chauhan A.K. (2015) Impact of dairy co-operatives on income
and employment in rural Meghaliya – Indian J. Dairy Sc. 68(2)2015. |