Decision making ability of women in dairying enterprise

Introduction

India is worlds largest milk producing country with share of about 16 per cent in worlds total milk production. India the current leader in dairy world rank -1 in milk production level of 198.4 million tonnes of milk growing steadily at a compound annual growth rate of about 5.68 per cent In fact the major share of credit for India's position as the largest milk producing country in the word and the significant increase in per capita availability of milk in the country has to go to largely illiterate rural women dairy farmers. (patel1996). Farm women involved in taking decisions about the different farm operations house hold activities efficiently and look after their children and other members of family. The over burdening of household domestic work does not allow the farm women to find sufficient time to obtain enough knowledge not only about any particular subject matter but also denies opportunities to obtain necessary information and knowledge about improved farm practices dairy technology and livestock management.

Methodology

Ex post facto research design was used for the present study as the phenomena has already occured. This study was conducted in mathura district of uttar pradesh a total of 120 women entrepreneurs from four randomly selected block selling more than 50.00 per cent of produced milk for more than 150 days in a year were selected as respondent for the present study Decision making ability of the respondents in dairy enterprise was studied under six subheads feeding, viz., breeding, and management, health care, marketing and miscellaneous. The responses were collected from respondents in a continuum viz, not consulted, joint, alone and the score of 0, 1, and 2 was allotted for these options, The weighted mean score of the statement was calculated and the statements were ranked accordingly

Result and Discussion

The results presented in Table 1 and Figure 1 reveals that majority of respondents had adequate decision making ability in feeding practices (68.18%) marketing practices (61.46%) and management practices (60.08%) respectively. Feeding practices i.

Quantity of concentrate to be fed 62.92 V ii.

Mineral mixture are to be fed 60.42 VI iii.

Frequency of feeding mixture 44.17 VII iv.

Green fodder to be fed 90.83 I v.

Quantity of crop residue to be fed 68.75 IV vi.

Colostrum feeding to calves 72.92 III vii.

Fodder Chopping 74.58 II 2.

AI in dairy animal 47.50 V ii.

Natural service in dairy animals 50.42 III iii.

Bull Selection in case of natural service 55.83 II iv.

Treatment of animal with reproductive disorders 57.08 I v.

Pregnancy diagnosis 48.33 IV vi.

Age of service in case of heifer 57.08 I 3.

Management practices i.

Type and number of animal to be kept 71.25 III ii.

Dehorning of calf 45.00 IX iii.

Animal are to be kept in open or in shed 62.50 VI iv.

Shed to be pucca or kutccha 66.25 IV v.

Colostrum to be fed to newborn Calf 63.75 V vi.

Shed to be disinfected or not 51.25 VIII vii.

Number of times animal are to be milked 77.08 I viii.

Time of milking 72.08 II ix.

Drying of dairy animal 60.00 VII x.

Maintenance of farm records 31.67 X 4.

Vaccination to be done 60.83 III ii.

First aid treatment to dairy animals 50.00 VI iii.

Bull selection in case of natural service 62.92 I iv.

Treatment of sick Animal 54.58 V v.

Disinfection of animal shed 61.25 II vi.

Protection of animal from extreme weather 57.92 IV 5.

Marketing and Processing of milk i.

Quantity of milk to be used for Home 59.17 IV ii.

Surplus of milk and its product to be sold processed 64.58 I iii.

Type of milk Product to be made 62.08 II

Conclusion

The result shows that majority of respondents had decision making ability in feeding practices i.e., 68.18 per cent, 52.71 involved in breeding practices, 60.08 per cent involve in management practices, 57.92 per cent involved in health care, 61.46 per cent involved in marketing practices, 42.33 per cent involved in miscellaneous practices as insurance of dairy animals, advantage of dairy schemes etc. Women in the study area were well equipped with the feeding practices, management practices breeding, health care and marketing and processing of milk. These type of activities need knowledge and precision where women lag behind. Similar findings were also reported by Cherian and Vats (2001) [11] who noticed that women usually made joint decisions with males regarding animal husbandry related decisions and less than 10 per cent decision was taken independently by female.

References

1. Ogdand GG, Hembade AS. Studies on the Participation of Women in Decision Making About Dairy Occupation in Parbhani District of Maharashtra State. Int. J Curr. Res. Aca. Rev. 2014;2(8):367-372.
2. Patel SJ, Kumar R, Patel AS, Patel NR, Parmar VN. Involvement of Farm Women in Decision Making Regarding Dairy Farming in Junagadh District of Gujarat State. Indian Journal of Hill Farming. 2017;30(1):45-58.
3. Paul, Pampi, Meena BS, Amit, Singh, Sajjad, et al. Gender Participation in Integrated Farming System in Tripura, India. Asian Journal of Dairy and Food Research. 2015;34(1):59-6
4. Munawar M, Safdar U, Luqman M, Butt TM, Hassan MZY, Khalid ME, et al. Factors inhibiting the participation of rural women in livestock production activities. J Agric. Res. 2013;51(2):213-220.
5. Shafaq A, Muhammad M, Aqeela S, Muhammad A, Mudassar, Yasin, et al. Gender and decision making process in livestock management. Sarhad J Agric. 2010;26(4):693-696.
6. Tekale VS. Participation of rural women in decision making process in agriculture. Int. J Exten. Edu. 2012;8:56-62.
7. Chayal K, Daaka BL, Suwalka RL. Analysis of role performed by farm women in dairy farming. Indian J Dairy Sci. 2009;62(6):491-494.
8. Ali A. Contribution of rural women in socio-economic development of Pakistan: A sociological analysis. Res. J Social Sci. 2007;1(2):16-18.
9. Cherian A, Vats A. Decision making pattern of rural women regarding farm, animal husbandry, home and family related decisions of Hill. Bhabur and Tarai zone of Uttar Pradesh state, Rural India. 2001;64(11-12):228-34.