For verification of this paper, please visit on http://www.socialresearchfoundation.com/innovation.php#8

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.

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)

S.No.	Particulars	Landless	Marginal	Small	Others	Overall
1	Cutting/bringing fodder from market/field	1.93	2.49	2.01	2.61	2.17
2	Chaff cutting of fodder	0.55	0.68	0.86	0.91	0.54
3	Grazing	0.50*	0.15*	-	-	0.14
4	Feeding & giving water	0.52	0.60	0.80	0.61	0.58
5	Cleaning cattle shed	0.65	0.67	0.95	0.86	0.77
6	Milking animal	0.76	0.83	1.06	1.02	0.92
7	Handling milk	0.33	0.33	0.39	0.34	0.32
8	Marketing of milk and milk product	0.39	0.23	0.25	0.25	0.24
9	Total labour used	5.63	5.98	6.32	6.60	5.68

*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.

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

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.

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.