Study on socio personal, psychological and economic profile of farm women on value addition of milk

Introduction

The livestock sector is vital for boosting family incomes and creating rural employment, especially for landless laborers, marginal farmers, and women. As a key human resource, women can contribute even more effectively when granted equal status and opportunities (Team and Cheryl, 2011; Arshad et al. 2010; Pal, 2013) [20,1,1,21] . In India, livestock production is predominantly managed by women. Beyond their household and community duties, rural women balance multiple complex roles within the farming system, handling the reproductive, productive, and management aspects of livestock care. The extent of women's involvement in livestock sub-sectors varies by region and community, shaped largely by their economic status and socio-cultural environment (Naz et al. 2022; Sennuga et al. 2022) [19,28] . In India, women have traditionally been the backbone of livestock rearing and dairy farming, leading to a sector that is predominantly femaledominated (Bajpai & Kushwaha, 2020; Rajpurohit & Sareen, 2022) [5,26] . Furthermore, research indicates that women often dedicate significantly more time to dairy farming activities than their male counterparts (Hansen et al. 2020) [10] . Currently, Women constitute approximately 70% of the workforce in India's dairy sector, an industry that remains deeply embedded in the nation's socio-cultural and family traditions (Bidhan et al. 2024) [7] . In today's globalized world, women represent an essential economic and social force. While they were historically confined to domestic roles within Indian society, they are now active participants in diverse sectors, including entrepreneurship. Specifically, the value addition of livestock products serves as a vital pathway for empowerment. By engaging in these highervalue activities, women can significantly boost their income and secure better livelihoods, providing the financial stability needed to meet daily household expenses. The demand for value-added dairy products in India is rising steadily, fueled by increased purchasing power and a growing consumer focus on health. Recognizing that milk processing can significantly enhance the socio-economic status, decision-making power, and entrepreneurial skills of rural women, the Division of Livestock Products Technology (SKUAST-Jammu) launched a series of targeted training programs across the Jammu district.

Materials and Methods

The study was conducted in two blocks R.S. Pura and Bishnah of Jammu district which were purposively selected, because a number of training programmes were organised by the Division of Livestock Products Technology (LPT) of the Faculty of Veterinary Sciences and Animal Husbandry, R.S.Pura, SKUAST-Jammu under the DST (GoI) sponsored project in various blocks of Jammu district. For trainee respondents 5 villages where training was conducted were selected purposively. Five villages adjacent to trainee villages were selected for non-trainee respondents. For the selection of trainee respondents, a list of farm women beneficiaries was prepared from the selected villages. A total sample size of 100 comprising of 50 beneficiaries/trainees and 50 non beneficiaries/non-trainees were selected for the study by using Multistage, purposive and random sampling technique. Ex post factor research design was used for conducting the study since the variables chosen have already been occurred. These variables thus selected were broadly categorized into independent (Age, Sex, Caste, Education, Family type, Family size, social participation, Experience in dairy farming, Land holding, Annual income) and dependent variables (Knowledge level, Entrepreneurial behavior, Entrepreneurial activities, Constraints). The respondents were divided into three group's viz., low, medium and high based on the statistical tool like frequency and percentage were used for analyzing the collected data. All the respondents were individually interviewed using pretested interview schedule.

Results and Discussion

Socio-personal profile of farm women

Age

The socio-personal profiles of the participants are presented in Table 1. The data reveals that a majority of the trainees (66%) fell within the younger age bracket (18-37 years), whereas nearly half of the non-trainees (48%) belonged to the middle-aged category. These results suggest that younger rural women demonstrate a higher inclination toward professional training and a greater potential for transitioning into entrepreneurship. This observation aligns with the findings of Arya et al. (2018) [2] , who noted a negative correlation between age and knowledge acquisition, indicating that younger individuals often derive greater benefits from skill development and training initiatives.

Education

According to the data in Table 1, educational attainment was notably higher among the trainee group. While 42% of trainees had completed at least a secondary education comprising 26% who were matriculates and 16% who reached middle school the non-trainee group faced significant educational barriers. Notably, 40% of nontrainees were illiterate, and none within this group had achieved a higher secondary certificate or a university degree. These findings are consistent with studies by Kaur et al. (2024) [12] , Arya et al. (2018) [2] , and Patel et al. (2016) [22, 23] , which similarly identified low literacy levels among non-participating farm women and a distinct educational disparity between those who seek training and those who do not.

Caste

As illustrated in Table 1, the caste distribution among participants revealed a significant demographic contrast. Nearly half of the trainees (42%) identified with the General category, followed by 32% from Other Backward Classes (OBC) and 26% from the Scheduled Caste (SC) category. Conversely, the non-trainee group was predominantly composed of individuals from the SC category (68%), with the General category representing a much smaller proportion at 26%. This disparity suggests a correlation between socio-demographic background and the participation rates in technological training initiatives.

Family size

As indicated in Table 1, more than half of the trainees (52%) originated from medium-sized families, while 40% belonged to small family units. In stark contrast, the vast majority of non-trainees (76%) were associated with small families. This demographic trend likely reflects a growing preference for nuclear family structures and the successful penetration of rural family planning initiatives. These findings are consistent with the research conducted by Atreya et al. (2018) [2] and Singh et al. (2021) [29] , who also reported a prevalence of smaller family sizes among rural populations, regardless of their participation in training programs.

No. of Family members involved in value addition

The data in Table 1 indicates that a substantial majority of trainees (82%) reported having two family members engaged in milk value addition. This trend was even more pronounced among the non-trainee group, where 96% exhibited the same level of intra-family participation. These figures suggest that milk processing remains a collaborative household endeavor across both cohorts.

Family type

Data analysis reveals that 56% of trainees resided in nuclear families, while a notable 40% lived in joint family structures. In contrast, the vast majority of non-trainees (86%) were part of nuclear families. This distinct preference among non-trainees for nuclear setups may be attributed to an increased desire for domestic autonomy, improved living conditions, and better access to essential amenities. Furthermore, these structures are often chosen to facilitate specialized investments in their children's future. Interestingly, these findings diverge significantly from the earlier research conducted by Kamble et al. (2024) [11] , highlighting a shift in contemporary rural family dynamics.

Social participation

As evidenced by Table 1, a substantial 90% of trainees actively participated in social organizations, with many holding memberships in multiple groups. In contrast, 66% of non-trainees maintained membership in only a single organization. These results suggest that trained women demonstrate higher levels of social capital and community engagement, likely bolstered by their entrepreneurial activities. While these findings align with the observations of Upadhyay and Desai (2011) [32] regarding high participation rates among trained farm women, they diverge significantly from the lower engagement levels reported by Maurya et al. (2021) [16] and Kamble et al. (2024) [11] .

Experience in dairy farming

According to the data, 72% of trainees in the dairy farming sector possessed between 5 and 20 years of experience, while the remaining 28% had an extensive professional background of 21 to 40 years. In contrast, the non-trainee group was characterized by a higher level of seniority, with 60% reporting 21 to 40 years of experience and only 34% falling within the 5 to 20-year bracket. These findings, which suggest that younger or mid-career professionals are more likely to seek formal training, are consistent with the results reported by Pathade et al. (2017) [24] .

Experience in value addition of milk

Analysis of the specialized experience in milk value addition reveals that 64% of trainees possessed between 1 and 9 years of experience, while 34% reported a tenure of 10 to 18 years. Among the non-trainee cohort, a vast majority (82%) had 1 to 9 years of experience, with only 14% exceeding a decade. Given that the trainee group predominantly comprised younger individuals, their relatively shorter professional history in both dairy farming and value-added processing is a direct reflection of their age. These results concur with the findings of Wanga et al. (2009) [34] and Kaur et al. (2021) [12] , who also noted a positive correlation between age and years of technical experience.

Land holdings

The socio-economic profiles of the participants are detailed in Table 2. The data indicates that both trainees and nontrainees are predominantly categorized as small-scale landholders, possessing either marginal plots ($<1$ ha) or small farms ($1-2$ ha). This prevailing landholding pattern reflects broader demographic shifts, specifically the intensifying population pressure and the ongoing transition toward nuclear family structures, which often lead to land fragmentation. These observations are consistent with the findings reported by Princess et al. (2024) [25] .

Herd size:

As illustrated in Table 2, a clear disparity exists in livestock ownership between the two groups. Nearly two-thirds (68%) of the trainees possessed a medium-sized herd, whereas 28% managed smaller herds. Conversely, a majority of the non-trainees (62%) maintained small-sized herds. These findings regarding the prevalence of specific herd sizes among rural participants are consistent with the research conducted by Nande (2019) [18] , Mahesh (2020) [15] , and Usadadiya (2021) [33] .

Income from dairying

The results, as detailed in the study, indicate a profound disparity in income levels between the two groups. A substantial majority (82%) of the trainees attained a high level of income from dairying, while an additional 16% reported very high income levels. In stark contrast, 100% of the non-trainees remained within the low-income category, with no representation in the higher income brackets. This significant economic advantage is largely attributed to the trainees' shift from selling raw milk to marketing processed, value-added products, which historically command higher market premiums. These findings align with the research of Devaki et al. (2015) [9] , Mahesh (2020) [15] , and Khode et al. (2020) [14] , who also highlighted the superior profitability of dairy value addition over traditional raw milk sales.

Annual income

The analysis reveals a striking divergence in annual income levels between the two cohorts. A substantial majority of trainees (86%) achieved a high annual income, with the remaining 14% reaching very high income levels; notably, no trainees were recorded in the low or moderate categories. Conversely, the vast majority of non-trainees (94%) were situated in the low-income bracket, with a negligible 2% attaining high-income status and none reaching the very high category. When viewed collectively, the total respondent pool was divided primarily between low annual income (47%) and high annual income (44%), with only 7% occupying the very high bracket. These findings regarding income disparity are consistent with the research reported by Khode et al. (2020) [14] . Note: 'f' denotes frequency; %: percentage

Marketing behavior

The socio-psychological profiles of the participants are detailed in Table 3. The study indicates that respondents who participated in milk value-addition training managed their enterprises with significantly greater efficacy than their untrained counterparts. These results align with research conducted by Ranuji (2006) [27] regarding the entrepreneurial behavior of dairy farmers. Significant disparities were also observed in logistics and commercial strategy. Regarding transportation, a substantial majority (90%) of trainees utilized motorized two-wheelers, whereas 56% of non-trainees relied on foot transport. Furthermore, a distinct shift in marketing channels was evident: 100% of the trainees managed their own retail outlets, while less than half (46%) of the non-trainees possessed similar direct-to-consumer marketing capabilities.

Price Satisfaction of milk and milk products

According to the data, credit and input accessibility were relatively balanced between the two groups; approximately half of the trainees obtained bank assistance as required, while 52% of non-trainees similarly utilized banking facilities. Payment patterns also showed a degree of consistency: the majority of both trainees (58%) and non-trainees (62%) received weekly or partial payments. Conversely, 42% of trainees and 38% of non-trainees opted for full monthly settlements. The most significant divergence was observed in financial satisfaction. The study revealed that a near-total majority (98%) of trainees were satisfied with the remuneration for their milk and value-added products. In stark contrast, only 50% of non-trainees expressed similar satisfaction, suggesting that value addition significantly enhances perceived financial returns.

Dairy is good source of employment

Regarding the potential for employment generation within the sector, 86% of the trainees affirmed that milk value addition and the subsequent sale of dairy products represent vital avenues for job creation. In a striking reversal of perspective, a nearly identical proportion of non-trainees expressed disagreement with this sentiment. This divergence in outlook suggests that training not only provides technical skills but also fosters a more optimistic and entrepreneurial perception of the industry's economic potential. These findings are corroborated by the research of Khode et al.

(2020) [14] and Baindha et al. (2011) [4] .

Mass media contact

As illustrated in Table 4, a significant disparity exists in the mass media exposure of the two groups. Exactly half (50%) of the trainees maintained a high level of mass media contact, with the remaining 50% reporting medium levels of engagement. In stark contrast, the vast majority of nontrainees (88%) were characterized by low mass media contact, while only 12% reached a medium level, and none achieved high engagement. When viewing the sample collectively, 44% of total respondents exhibited low mass media contact, followed by 31% with medium and 25% with high levels of contact. These results, indicating that training and information-seeking behavior are closely linked to media exposure, are in accordance with the findings of Nande et al. (2025) [17] and Swetank and Bose (2024) [31] .

Extension agency contact

The results demonstrate a profound disparity in extension service engagement between the two cohorts. A substantial majority of trainees (78%) maintained a high level of extension contact, with the remaining 22% reporting medium levels of engagement. Notably, none of the trainees were situated in the low-contact category. In sharp contrast, the non-trainee group exhibited a complete lack of medium or high-level engagement, falling entirely within the lowcontact bracket. On a cumulative basis, 50% of the total respondents reported low extension contact, while 39% maintained high levels. These observations, which underscore the role of training in bridging the gap between farmers and advisory services, are in accordance with the findings of Swetank and Bose (2024) [31] .

Conclusion

The findings of this study elucidate the socio-economic and psychological profiles of farm women, underscoring their pivotal contributions to the animal husbandry sector. The results indicate that the trainee cohort was primarily composed of younger individuals who had achieved middleschool or matriculation-level education. While 56% of trainees resided in nuclear families, this structural preference was significantly more pronounced among nontrainees (86%). Furthermore, trainees exhibited higher levels of social capital, maintaining active participation in one or more community organizations. Despite having relatively limited experience in both primary dairy farming (72%) and milk value addition (64%), trainees managed to achieve superior daily milk yields. Most notably, the data reveals a significant economic dividend: women who underwent training in milk value addition realized a 24% increase in income compared to their non-trained counterparts. This financial success is bolstered by their moderate-to-high proficiency in marketing behavior. To capitalize on these gains, it is recommended that specialized training programs focusing on scientific dairy technologies and value-added processing be expanded. Encouraging farm women to transition from raw milk sales to value-added production will be instrumental in enhancing both milk productivity and household earnings.

References

1. Arshad S, Muhammad S, Mahmood AIA, Randhawa IA, Khalid MCH. Rural women's involvement in decision-making regarding livestock management. Pak J Agri Sci. 2010;47(2):1-4.
2. Arya M, Sachan VK, Nautiyal P, Papnai G. Study on the socio-economic profile and knowledge level of farm women about soybean processing techniques. J Krishi Vigyan. 2018;6(2):201-204.
3. Atreya S, Singh P, Kumar S, Kumar M, Prasad KK. Socio-economic profile of the dairy farmers in Sultanpur district of Uttar Pradesh. Int J Agric Sci. 2018;10(12):6368-6372.
4. Baindha AG, Singh AK, Singh M, Shivaji A, Singh N. Entrepreneurial behaviour of milk processors in Karnal district of Haryana. M.V.Sc. thesis. Karnal: Division of Dairy Extension, NDRI; 2011.
5. Bajpai A, Kushwaha A. Suitable use of technologies in dairy enterprises for women empowerment. Agric Food E-Newsl. 2020;1-5.
6. Bhanotra A, Gupta J, Singh M. Socio-economic status and communication behavior pattern of the dairy farmers in Kathua district of Jammu and Kashmir. Int J Farm Sci. 2016;6(1):37-42.
7. Bidhan S, Tyagi R, Chander S. Contribution of women in the Indian dairy farming sector, obstacles they confront, and potential paths forward. J Emerg Technol Innov Res. 2024;11(7): C310-C315.
8. Chandrasekar GK, Satyanarayan K, Jagadeeswary V, Shree JS. Relationship between socio-economic and psychological factors of dairy farmers with days open: a study in rural Karnataka. Int J Pure Appl Biosci. 2017;5(1):171-177.
9. Devaki K, Senthilkumar K, Subramanian R. Socioeconomic profile of livestock farm women of Thiruvallur district, Tamil Nadu. Int J Sci Environ Technol. 2015;4(5):1322-1329.
10. Hansen BG, Bugge CT, Skibrek PK. Automatic milking systems and farmer wellbeing: exploring the effects of automation and digitalization in dairy farming. J Rural Stud. 2020;80:469-480.
11. Kamble A, Banthiya V, Landge S, Waigaonkar S. Socio-economic profile of dairy farmers and knowledge gain through MTCs in the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra. Pharma Innov J. 2024;13(2):2825-2829.
12. Kaur R, Ahlawat AK, Kumar R, Nath A. Impact assessment: empowering rural women through KVK training programmes. Int J Ext Educ. 2024;20(2):161167.
13. Kaur H, Kaur I, Singh VP, Wakchaure NS. Level of value addition of milk at farm and its relationship with socio-economic characteristics of dairy farmers in Punjab State. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2021;10(1):337-346.
14. Khode N, Singh BP, Chander M, Bardhani D, Verma MR, Pau AU. Impact of dairy trainings on herd productivity, income generation and employment. Indian J Anim Sci. 2020;90(8):1191-1194.
15. Mahesh M, Kumar KA, Kale BU, Shreenivas BV. Socio-economic profile analysis of dairy farmers of Yadgir district of Kalyana Karnataka region. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2020;9(4):350-353.
16. Maurya RK, Ojha PK, Mishra BP, Mishra D, Kalia A. Socio-economic status of dairy farmers in Bundelkhand region: an exploratory study. Econ Aff. 2021;66(4):707-710.
17. Nande MP, Ashwar BK, Patil SS. Comparative analysis of KVK trainees and non-trainees regarding scientific dairy farming. Int J Agric Ext Soc Dev. 2025;8(9):100104.
18. Nande MP, Kolhe SR, Shirsat SG. Socio-economic status in relation to adoption of animal husbandry practices of dairy farmers. Ind J Pure Appl Biosci. 2019;7(5):471-475.
19. Naz S, Arif M, Ali A. Women's participation and its determinants in livestock management across the developing world: a systematic review. Sarhad J Agric. 2022;38:383-396.
20. Team S, Doss C. The role of women in agriculture. ESA Working Paper No. 11-02. Rome: FAO, Agricultural Development Economics Division; 2011. p. 1-47.
21. Pal S. Participation of rural women in agriculture and livestock in Burdwan district, West Bengal, India: a regional analysis. Int J Soc Sci Interdiscip Res. 2013;2(4):66-80.
22. Patel SJ, Patel MD, Patel JH, Patel AS, Gelani RN. Role of women gender in livestock sector: a review. J Livest Sci. 2016;7:92-96.
23. Patel SJ, Kumar R, Patel AS, Patel JH, Chaudhary GM, Patel BK, Parmar VN. Knowledge of farm women regarding dairy husbandry in Junagadh district of Gujarat State, India. Int J Agric Sci. 2016;8(10):11101115.
24. Pathade SS, Sawant MN, Sadashive SM, Pordhiya KI, Ramesh N. Socio-economic and psychological characteristics of self-help group members. Indian Res J Ext Educ. 2017;17(1):97-100.
25. Princess SC, Kumar D, Saran S, Kumar S, Juniwal C, Nishanth MADJ, Dinesh D. Socio-economic profile of dairy farmers in Tamil Nadu. Int J Vet Sci Anim Husb. 2024;9(2):391-394.
26. Rajpurohit D, Sareen N. Time spent pattern of rural men and women on selected dairy farming practices in Bikaner district of Rajasthan, India. Indian J Dairy Sci. 2022;75(4):321-326.
27. Ranuji CR. A study on entrepreneurial behavior of dairy farmers in Dharwad. PhD thesis. Dharwad: University of Agricultural Sciences; 2006.
28. Sennuga SO, Lai-Solarin WI, Adeoye WA, Alabuja FO. Extension's role in improving livestock production: information needs, institutions and opportunities. Int J Agric Nutr. 2022;4:43-51.
29. Singh AK, Singh AK, Maji S. Socio-economic profile of dairy farmers in the central plain zone of Uttar Pradesh. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2021;10(1):988-995.
30. Singh RK. Role of women in livestock rearing in India. Jamshedpur (India): Author; 2020.
31. Swetank, Bose DK. Attitude of trainees and nontrainees towards training activities conducted by Krishi Vigyan Kendra in East Champaran district of Bihar. Int J Agric Ext Soc Dev. 2024;7(8):139-143.
32. Upadhyay S, Desai CP. Participation of farm women in animal husbandry in Anand district of Gujarat. J Community Mobil Sustain Dev. 2011;6(2):117-121.
33. Usadadiya NH. Adoption of clean milk production by dairy farmers of North Gujarat. MSc thesis. Sardarkrushinagar: Sardarkrushinagar Dantiwada Agricultural University; 2021.
34. Wanga OD, Mutuku MM, Olubandwa AA. Value added milk products: constraints to women in milk micro-enterprises in Kenya. J Dev Agric Econ. 2009;1(7):144-149.