INTRODUCTION #
“Growth in agriculture is critical for any econ- omy as research has revealed that GDP growth orig- inating in agriculture is at least twice as effective in reducing poverty as GDP growth originating outside agriculture”. The average agricultural GDP growth in the first four years of the 12th FYP (2012-17) is less than 2% which means that the 12th Plan period would face one of the worst performances of agriculture, which has target of 4%.
The following are some issues and proposed solutions #
Low viability of Indian farms #
The average farm holding in India which is 1 ha/ family is quite small, with 85% of holdings less than 2 ha in size. An irrigated plot of 2 ha, with two crops a year and reasonably high productivity, is not sufficient to give a farmer ample income to feed a family of five. People will have to move out of agriculture in due course, as has happened in almost all countries. But it should be a ‘pull factor’, inviting rural farming population to higher productivity jobs in the manufacturing and services sectors, and not a ‘push factor’ resulting from distress in agriculture. Movement to high productivity jobs will depend on the overall growth of the non-farm sector as well as skills that are developed for masses in rural areas. And it will take time, may be 15-20 years. In agri- culture sector, about 49% of the workforce produces just 16% of the GDP.
Hence, it is incumbent for us to ensure at least 4% growth in agriculture, if not more, to make a
smooth transition from agriculture to non-agriculture over the next 15-20 years. Successive governments has talked about various agricultural reforms but no one carried it forward. The reason being our political and bureaucratic system is more tonnage-centric than farmer-centric. We are happy and satisfied when production goes up, but don’t care whether farmers have gained from it. This attitude needs to change.
Distortion in the incentive structure for different crops #
Certain crops like paddy (rice) needs very high amounts of water for irrigation, roughly 3,000-5,000 litres per kg one kg of sugar uses 2000 liters of water, depending on where it is being grown. The paddy crop consumes just 12-15% of the water pumped into the fields, while 30-40% of irrigation water is lost through evaporation and roughly half goes back as groundwater with high nitrate content, polluting the potable water. This percolated water has to be lifted in time again and again through highly subsi- dized power. A part of the export competitiveness of Indian rice (10-15%) comes from these large sub- sidies on irrigation, power and fertilizers given by the government. Also, there is a government system of procurement of rice and wheat, which reduces the risk for rice growing farmers. This has pushed Indian farmers to grow more of rice and wheat and less of other essential crops like pulses and while we are exporting rice, basically we are exporting our water resources which is depleting at a fast speed.
Pulses in India are grown on about 25 million hectare of land, largely rain-fed (only 16% under irri- gation) and production hovering between 18-20 MT.
Pulses needs much less water, are nitrogen-fixing, and therefore do not need much chemical fertilizers either. They can thus save on large input subsidies (power, irrigation and fertilizers), much of which are normally cornered by rice, wheat and sugarcane as these crops have high irrigation cover and higher fertilizer consumption. Also, pulses do not have any government-procurement support and are also devoid of large input subsidies which have resulted in its net imports and retail prices soaring to around Rs. 200/kg. Most of the pulses are banned/restricted from exports, and imports are allowed at zero-duty, while rice imports attract 70% duty (protecting rice growing farmers).
The government should correct its policy and introduce “Crop neutral incentive structure”. At present, incentives are skewed in favour of rice, wheat, and sugarcane, and consequently nation is overloaded with their stocks. Policies need to be tweaked to get incentives for pulses at par with, say, rice.
In order to do this: first, direct buying of pulses from farmer groups needs to be encouraged. Second, rice import duty needs to be slashed from 70% to just 5-10%, if not zero, so that rice trade is truly open at both ends. Government should introduce policy to reward farmers especially in the Punjab and Haryana belt where water table is depleting fast. This reward could be, say, Rs 7,500-10,000/ hectare to those farmers who will grow pulses; this could save on input subsidies like cheap power and fertilizers.
Government regulation regarding BT cotton seed pricing #
In India, Monsanto Mahyco Biotech (India) Ltd. (a joint venture between Mahyco Seeds Ltd and Monsanto), licenses its patented Bollgard II cotton seed technology to 50 seed companies in exchange for a royalty fee. More than 90% of the cotton grown in India uses this technology.
In March 2016, the government cut the price of genetically modified Bollgard II cotton seeds to Rs.800 per 450g packet from Rs.830 – Rs.1000 earlier and slashed royalty (trait) fees by 74% from Rs. 163 to Rs. 43 which will bring uniformity in pricing of Bt cotton seeds across the country. The
government said that the order to regulate the Bt Cotton seed prices has been issued to safeguard the interests of the farming community under section 3 of the “Essential Commodities Act 1955”.
[The Essential Commodities Act 1955 provides for the regulation and control of production, dis- tribution and pricing of commodities which are declared as essential for maintaining or increasing supplies or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices. Exercising powers under the Act, various Ministries/Departments of the Central Govt. and under the delegated powers, the State Governments/UT Administrations can issue orders for regulating production, distribution, pricing and other aspects of trading in respect of the commodities declared as essential. Pulses have been declared as essential commodities under the Act till 30th Sept 2016.]
The industry lobby of R&D firms slammed the government’s decision as “it violates the principle of free market economics. It said that by slashing trait fees, the govt. has clearly shown that it is going for short-term populist measures rather than supporting innovation in the long term. They said that the decision will be detrimental in the long run as companies may have to reconsider their invest- ments in seed-based R&D in the country due to the current uncertain environment. This sends a bad signal internationally that we’re fairly arbitrary. We have the power to regulate patents, no doubt, but it should be open, transparent and based on robust methodology for a concrete, legitimate purpose”.
India approved the genetically modified Bt Cot- ton technology for commercial cultivation in 2002. The selling point of the technology was its resistance to the bollworm pest that reduced use of pesticides. While the technology helped India become the world’s second largest producer and exporter from a net importer of cotton, in recent years, resistance of Bt Cotton to pest attacks like pink bollworm has weakened (it was one of the justifications given by the government to lower the royalty and prices).
[18th May 2016 Order by the Ministry of Agricultures, Department of Agriculture issued notification dated 18th May 2016, according to which, “for any GM trait commercialized in India, the technology provider cannot charge a royalty
that exceeds 10% of the maximum sale price of the seeds, which is fixed by the government every year. The cap of 10% would apply for the first five years. From the sixth year, the royalty would decrease by 10% a year. Also, the technology provider could not refuse a license to any eligible Indian seed company. If delayed by more than a month, the license will be deemed to have been obtained”.
Barely few days after it issued the order, the Government withdrew the notification due to strong protests by the biotech industry and placed it as a draft for public consultation.
Doubling the Farmers Income #
The government has set the target of doubling the farmers income in six years by 2022.
The following is the seven point agenda through which government is planning to achieve this target:-
- Big focus on irrigation with large budgets, with the aim of “per drop, more crop.”
- Provision of quality seeds and nutrients based on soil health of each field.
- Large investments in warehousing and cold chains to prevent post-harvest crop losses.
- Promotion of value addition through food processing.
- Creation of a national farm market, removing distortions and e-platform across 585 mandis/ stations.
- Introduction of a new crop insurance scheme (Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana) to mit- igate risks at affordable cost.
- Promotion of ancillary activities like poultry, beekeeping and fisheries.
The government said that with a good strategy, well-designed programmes, adequate resources and good governance in implementation, this target is achievable.
HORTICULTURE REVOLUTION #
Fruits and vegetables give 4-10 times the return from other crops namely cereals, pulses and oilseeds. Study indicates that diversification towards horticul- tural crops is the most powerful factor in raising growth rate of agriculture GDP. A 1% shift in area
from non horticultural crops to horticultural crops adds 0.46 percentage points to growth rate of agri- culture sector. Due to changes in taste, preferences and food habits, the consumption pattern in India has been shifting towards fruits and vegetables and the per capita intake of fruits and vegetables will keep rising in coming years. Such changes are also hap- pening globally. Moreover, there is large deficiency of these items in Indian diet. All these indicators suggest that demand side prospects for fruits and vegetables are very bright. However, area under fruits and vegetables in the country has remained below 10%, despite favorable demand side factors. Even with 1/10 share in area, fruits & vegetables contribute more than one fourth of earnings from crop sector in the country.
Highly elastic demand for fruits and vegetables, preference of consumers for fresh farm produce and new e-commerce offers has vast the scope for increase in production of fruits and vegetables and farmers’ income in the country. The major constraint however is marketing. This is reflected in very high growth of 20% in horticultural imports, large price gap between producers and end users, high level of post harvest losses, frequent and often violent price fluctuations, low level of processing, and very low post harvest value addition. The main constraint to expand production of fruits and vegetables is the system of marketing and inadequate processing facility.
Horticultural crops, particularly vegetables, are more popular with smaller size land holdings as they have advantage in terms of family labour which is essentially required for labour intensive production. However, such farmers are severally constrained by scale factor in marketing of produce. In most cases a horticultural crop does not come to maturity at the same time and harvestable produce is distributed over a span of a few weeks. Being perishable, these crops cannot be stored at home to make a economical lot for taking to market. This further lowers the scale of marketable lot of farmers. The standard mode of disposal of marketable surplus is sale in nearby man- dis which is subject to APMC rules and regulations. This requires produce to pass through long market channel which involves payment of approved and unapproved taxes, market charges, and margins to a large number of intermediaries. Recently some states
have brought perishable fruits and vegetables out of purview of APMC Act but it has made difference only to small quantity of produce. The practice of marketing, required by market regulation, has prevented application of e-commerce in fruits and vegetables and kept producers and consumers apart. Recently in many cities online sale of fruits and veg- etables has been started by some innovative vendors but it has no back-end support. Market regulations has put some constraints in online purchases from the farmers/producers which can be of immense benefit to producers as well as consumers.
COMPARING WITH WHITE REVO- LUTION #
India’s experience of milk marketing, which ushered in the white revolution, offers interesting lessons for harnessing its horticulture potential. Milk and horticulture have lot of similarities. Both are high value, perishable, labour intensive, and income augmenting enterprises. Very stable and robust growth in milk production is attributable mainly to three market factors, namely, institution of milk cooperatives, complete freedom to milk producers and buyers for sale/purchase of milk throughout the country and deregulation of dairy sector. With simi- lar market conditions, India can achieve horticulture revolution in a much shorter period than White Revolution. We need simple measures for this—
- One, take fruits and vegetables out of APMC Act and make their sale and purchase completely free. This will allow setting up vegetable/fruit collection centres by local entrepreneurs, like milk collection centres, where farmers can sell even a few kg of their produce. In some cases integrators will start pooling the produce for marketing, like infor- mal milk vendors in the countryside. They can make economic lot and sell the produce in a market or they can have direct contact with vendors or other buyers in towns, cities and various consuming centres. This will also encourage private sector to go for contract farming and having assured supply of suita- ble material for processing. Many innovative vegetable & fruit sellers in urban areas will be attracted to develop back-end linkage to get direct supply from the producers. India
has waited for development of modern value chain in horticulture for a long time but this has not been happening due to legal hurdles and restrictions on free and direct marketing.
- Two, horticulture producers companies or associations of various types, like dairy cooperatives, can also help farmers in mar- keting their produce without involvement of long chain of market intermediaries. Some progress has been made in this area in the last two years and there are some impressive success stories; such experiences needs to be scaled up.
- Three, as delicensing of dairy in 1991 and the amendments in Milk and Milk Product Order in year 2002 attracted large investments in milk marketing and processing, free market- ing of horticultural produce will attract a lot of investments in horticultural processing and value chains.
Demand side factors and technology are highly favourable for horticulture revolution at small farms. What is needed is policy support for market liberalization, producers organizations and process- ing. These requires action both by the states and the Central govt. The onus for freeing market for horticultural produce rests with the states while sup- port of Central government is crucial for promoting producers’ organizations (for ex. Small Farmers Agribusiness Consortium (SFAC)) and fruits and vegetable processing.
GROWTH IN HORTICULTURE IN THE RECENT PAST #
India is the second largest producer of horti- culture crops, just behind China. The year 2015-
16 marks the fourth straight years of horticulture production outstripping food grains output (284 MT against 253 MT). The horticulture boom is spread across the country, and not limited to the erstwhile food grains-based green revolution states like Pun- jab, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh.
Another positive factor for horticulture is that since fruits and vegetables are mostly grown by mar- ginal and small farmers, the resource-poor farmers are likely to have benefitted most from the growth in horticulture sector. And this sector has thrived
even without a minimum support price (MSP) to cushion it.
Livestock in Indian Economy #
India’s livestock sector is one of the largest in the world. It has 56.7% of world’s buffaloes, 12.5% cattle, 20.4% small ruminants, 2.4% camel, 1.4%
equine, 1.5% pigs and 3.1% poultry. In 2010-11 livestock generated outputs worth Rs 2075 billion (at 2004-05 prices) which comprised 4% of the GDP and 26% of the agricultural GDP. The total output worth was higher than the value of food grains.
Animal husbandry is an integral component of Indian agriculture supporting livelihood of more than two-thirds of the rural population. Animals provide nutrient-rich food products, draught power, dung as organic manure and domestic fuel, hides & skin, and are a regular source of cash income for rural households. They are natural capital, which can be easily reproduced to act as a living bank with offspring as interest, and an insurance against income shocks of crop failure and natural calamities.
Transformation of the utility of livestock #
Driven by the structural changes in agriculture and food consumption patterns, the utility of live- stock has been undergoing a steady transformation. The non-food functions of livestock are becoming weaker. Importance of livestock as source of ‘draught power’ has declined considerably due to mechanization of agricultural operations and declin- ing farm size. Use of dung manure is increasingly being replaced by chemical fertilizers.
On the other hand, their importance as a source of quality food has increased. Sustained income and economic growth, a fast-growing urban population, burgeoning middle-income class, changing life- styles, increasing proportion of women in workforce, improvements in transportation and storage practices and rise of supermarkets especially in cities and towns are fuelling rapid increase in consumption of animal food products. Between 1983 and 2004, the share of animal products in the total food expendi- ture increased from 21.8% to 25.0% in urban areas and from 16.1% to 21.4% in rural areas.
Despite significant increases in livestock pro- duction, per capita consumption of milk (69 kg) and
meat (3.7 kg) in 2007 has been much lower against corresponding world averages of 85 and 40 kg.
Demand for animal food products is responsive to income changes, and is expected to increase in future. Between 1991-92 and 2008-09, India’s per capita income grew at an annual rate of 4.8% and urban population at a rate of 2.5%.These trends are likely to continue. By the end of 12th Plan demand, for milk is expected to increase to 141 million tons and for meat, eggs and fish together to15.8 million tons. Global market for animal products is expand- ing fast, and is an opportunity for India to improve its participation in global market.
Growth of Livestock Sector #
Livestock sector grew at an annual rate of 5.3% during 1980s, 3.9% during 1990s and 3.6% during 2000s. Despite deceleration, growth in livestock sec- tor remained about 1.5 times larger than in the crop sector which implies its critical role in cushioning agricultural growth.
Distribution of Livestock #
Distribution of livestock is more equitable than that of land. In 2003 marginal farm households (1.0h hectare of land) who comprised 48% of the rural households controlled more than half of country’s cattle and buffalo and two-thirds of small animals and poultry as against 24% of land. Between 1991- 92and 2002-03 their share in land area increased by 9 percentage points and in different livestock species by 10-25 percentage points.
Livestock as a source of livelihood #
Livestock has been an important source of live- lihood for small farmers. They contributed about 16% to their income, more so in states like Gujarat (24.4%), Haryana (24.2%), Punjab (20.2%) and
Bihar (18.7%).
The agricultural sector engages about 55% of the total working population and about 70% of the rural labour force. Livestock employed 8.8% of the agricultural work force albeit it varied widely from 3% in North-Eastern states to 40-48% in Punjab and Haryana. Animal husbandry promotes gender equity. More than three-fourth of the labour demand in livestock production is met by women. The share
of women employment in livestock sector is around 90% in Punjab and Haryana where dairying is a prominent activity and animals are stall fed.
The distribution patterns of income and employ- ment shows that small farm households hold more opportunities in livestock production. The growth in livestock sector is demand-driven, inclusive and pro-poor. Incidence of rural poverty is less in states like Punjab, Haryana, Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Gujarat, and Rajasthan where live- stock accounts for a sizeable share of agricultural income as well as employment. Empirical evidences from India as well as from many other developing countries suggests that livestock development has been an important route for the poor households to escape poverty.
Livestock rearing is a key livelihood and risk mitigation strategy for small and marginal farmers, particularly across the rain-fed regions of India. Significance of Livestock rearing for providing non-farm employment and income in rural areas are described below:
- Meat and fishing: The production of a useful form of dietary protein, energy and income source i.e. having a huge export potential.
- Dairy Products: Mammalian livestock can be used as a source of milk, which can in turn easily be processed into other dairy products, such as yogurt, cheese, butter, ice cream, kefir, and kumis. Using livestock for this purpose can often yield several times the food energy of slaughtering the animal outright.
- Fiber Livestock: It produces a range of fiber/ textiles. For example, sheep and goats pro- duce wool and mohair; cows, deer, and sheep skins can be made into leather; and bones, hooves and horns of livestock can be used.
- Fertilizer: Manure can be spread on fields to increase crop yields. This is an important reason why historically, plant and animal domestication have been intimately linked. Manure is also used to make plaster for walls and floors, and can be used as a fuel for fires. The blood and bones of animals are also used as fertilizer.
- Labour Animals: such as horses, donkey, and yaks can be used for mechanical energy. Prior to steam power, livestock were the only available source of non-human labour. They are still used for this purpose in many places of the world, including ploughing fields (drafting), transporting goods, and military functions.
- Land management: The grazing of livestock is sometimes used as a way to control weeds and undergrowth. For example, in areas prone to wild fires, goats and sheep are set to graze on dry scrub which removes combustible material and reduces the risk of fires.
Livestock Resources #
India is:
- World’s highest livestock owner at about
512.05 million
- First in the total buffalo population in the world – 105.3 million buffaloes
- Second in the population of cattle and goats-
140.5 million goats
- Second largest poultry market in the world – production of 63 billion eggs and 649 million poultry meat.
- Third in the population of sheep (72 millions)
- Fifth in the population of ducks and chicken
- Tenth in camel population in the world.
CONTRIBUTION OF LIVESTOCK TO PEOPLE #
The livestock provides food and non-food items to the people.
Food: The livestock provides food items such as Milk, Meat and Eggs for human consumption. India is number one milk producer in the world. It is producing about 156 million tonnes of milk in a year (2015-16). Similarly it is producing about
74.75 billions of eggs, 8.89 million tonnes of meat in a year. The value of milk group and meat group at current prices was Rs 4,06,035 crores in 2013-14.
Fibre and skins: The livestock also contributes to the production of wool, hair, hides, and pelts.
Leather is the most important product which has a very high export potential. India is producing about
47.9 million Kg of wool per annum.
Draft: Bullocks are the back bone of Indian agriculture. Despite lots of advancements in the use of mechanical power in Indian agricultural opera- tions, the Indian farmer especially in rural areas still depend upon bullocks for various agricultural opera- tions. The bullocks are saving a lot of fuel which is a necessary input for using mechanical power like tractors, combine harvesters etc. Pack animals like camels, horses, donkeys, ponies, mules etc are being extensively used to transport goods in different parts of the country in addition to bullocks. In situations like hilly terrains mules and ponies serve as the only alternative to transport goods. Similarly, the army has to depend upon these animals to transport various items in high areas of high altitude.
Dung and other animal waste materials: Dung and other animal wastes serve as very good farm yard manure and the value of it is worth several crores of rupees. In addition it is also used as fuel (bio gas, dung cakes), and for construction as poor man’s cement (dung).
Storage: Livestock are considered as “moving banks” because of their potentiality to dispose off during emergencies. They serve as capital and in cases of landless agricultural labourers many time it is the only capital resource they possess. Livestock serve as an asset and in case of emergencies they serve as guarantee for availing loans from the local sources such as money lenders in the villages.
Weed control: Livestock are also used as Bio- logical control of brush, plants and weeds.
Cultural: Livestock offers security to the own- ers and also add to their self esteem especially when they are owning prized animals such as pedigreed bulls, dogs and high yielding cows/ buffaloes etc.
Sports/recreation: People also use the animals like cocks, rams, bulls etc for competition and sports. Despite ban on these animal competitions the cock fights, ram fights and bull fights (jalli kattu) are quite common during festive seasons.
Companion animals: Dogs are known for their faithfulness and are being used as companions since time immemorial. When the nuclear families are
increasing in number and the old parents are forced to lead solitary life the dogs, cats are providing the needed company to the latter thus making them lead a comfortable life.
ROLE OF LIVESTOCK IN FARMERS’ ECONOMY #
The livestock plays an important role in the economy of farmers. The farmers in India maintain mixed farming system i.e. a combination of crop and livestock where the output of one enterprise becomes the input of another enterprise thereby realize the resource efficiency. The livestock serve the farmers in different ways.
Income: Livestock is a source of subsidiary income for many families in India especially the resource poor who maintain few heads of animals. Cows and buffaloes provides regular income to the livestock farmers through sale of milk. Animals like sheep and goat serve as sources of income during emergencies to meet exigencies like marriages, treat- ment of sick persons, children education, repair of houses etc. The animals also serve as moving banks and assets which provide economic security to the owners.
Employment: A large number of people in India being less literate and unskilled depend upon agriculture for their livelihoods. But agriculture being seasonal in nature could provide employment for a maximum of 180 days in a year. The land less and less land people depend upon livestock for utilizing their labour during lean agricultural season.
Food: The livestock products such as milk, meat and eggs are an important source of animal protein to the members of the livestock owners.
Social security: The animals offer social secu- rity to the owners in terms of their status in the society. The families especially the landless which own animals are better placed than those who do not. Gifting of animals during marriages is a very common phenomenon in different parts of the country. Rearing of animals is a part of the Indian culture. Animals are used for various socio religious functions. Cows for house warming ceremonies; rams, bucks and chicken for sacrifice during festive seasons; Bulls and Cows are worshipped during
various religious functions. Many owners develop attachment to their animals.
Draft: The bullocks are the back bone of Indian agriculture. The farmers especially the marginal and small depend upon bullocks for ploughing, carting and transport of both inputs and outputs.
Dung: In rural areas dung is used for several purposes which include fuel (dung cakes), fertilizer (farm yard manure), and plastering material (poor man’s cement).
Challenges #
Nonetheless, there are number of socio-economic and environmental challenges that need to be over- come through appropriate policies, technologies and strategies in order to harness the pro-poor potential of livestock.
Improving productivity in a huge population of low-producing animals is one of the major chal- lenges. The average annual milk yield of Indian cattle is 1172 kg which is only about 50% of the global average, and much less than in New Zealand (3343 kg), Australia (5600 kg), UK (7101 kg), US (9332 kg) and Israel (10214 kg). Likewise the meat yield of most species is 20-60% lower than the world average.
The growth in milk production decelerated from 4.4% during 1990s to 3.9% during 2000s. There remains a huge gap between the potential and the realized yields in Indian livestock. Only 27-75% of the dairy animal potential yield is realized in dif- ferent regions of the country because of constraints related to feeding, breeding, health and management. Output worth Rs 283 billion (at 2003 prices), which was equivalent to 25% of the value of milk produced in 2002, was lost due to these constraints. Feed and fodder scarcity is identified as the most limiting con- straint accounting for half of the total loss, followed by problems in breeding and reproduction (21%) and in health (18%).
Crossbreeding of indigenous species with exotic stocks to enhance genetic potential of different spe- cies has been successful only to a limited extent. Limited AI (Artificial Insemination) services owing to deficiency in quality germ plasm, infrastructure and technical manpower coupled with poor con-
ception rate following artificial insemination have been the major impediments. After more than three decades of crossbreeding, the crossbred population is only 16.6% in cattle, 21.5% in pigs and 5.2% in sheep.
Livestock derive major part of their energy requirement from agricultural by products and res- idues. Hardly 5% of the cropped area is utilized to grow fodder. India is deficit in dry fodder by 11%, green fodder by 35% and concentrates feed by 28%. The common grazing lands too have been deteriorating quantitatively and qualitatively.
Frequent outbreaks of diseases like FMD, BQ, PPR, Influenza etc. continue to affect livestock health and productivity. India has about 55000 veterinary institutions including poly clinics, hospitals, dis- pensaries and centers. Veterinary and animal health services are largely in the public sector domain and remain poor.
India’s huge population of ruminants remains a major source of greenhouse gases adding to global warming. Reducing greenhouse gases through mit- igation and adaptation strategies will be a major challenge.
The sector will also come under significant adjustment pressure to the emerging market forces. Though globalization will create avenues for increased participation in international trade, stringent food safety and quality norms would be required.
Livestock sector did not receive the policy and financial attention it deserved. The sector received only about 12% of the total public expenditure on agriculture and allied sectors, which is disproportion- ately lesser than its contribution to agricultural GDP. The sector too has been neglected by the financial institutions. The share of livestock in the total agri- cultural credit has hardly ever exceeded 4% in the total (short-term, medium-term and long-term). The institutional mechanisms to protect animals against risk are not strong enough. Currently, only 6% of the animal heads (excluding poultry) are provided insurance cover. Livestock extension has remained grossly neglected in the past. Only about 5% of the farm households in India access information on livestock technology. These indicate an apathetic
outreach of the financial and information delivery systems.
Access to markets is critical to speed up commer- cialization of livestock production. Lack of access to markets may act as a disincentive to farmers to adopt improved technologies and quality inputs. Except for poultry products and to some extent for milk, markets for livestock and livestock products are underdeveloped, irregular, uncertain and lack transparency. Further these are often dominated by informal market intermediaries who exploit the producers.
Likewise, slaughtering facilities are too inade- quate. About half of the total meat production comes
from un-registered, make-shift slaughter houses. Marketing and transaction costs of livestock prod- ucts are high taking 15-20% of the sale price.
What can be done? #
- Promoting scientific rearing of livestock.
- Institutional Financing and insurance support to the sector.
- Training of farmers in animal rearing.
- Adopting the best practices followed in the world.
- Encouraging and supporting farmers to take up animal rearing.
