Animal Health and Breeding Services in Gujarat:
A Profile of Service Providers
Vinod Ahuja
Paper prepared for Phase I of the study on
“Impact of Commercialization on Poor: Case of Livestock Services in India”
sponsored by
The World Bank and the Swiss Agency for Development and Co-operation
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT
AHMEDABAD
1999
ii
CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. Scope,Coverage and the Sampling plan.
3. A Profile of Providers
3.1. Animals Served
3.2. Fee Structure
3.2.1. Artificial Insemination
3.2.2. Veterinary care
3.3. Staffing Pattern
4. Direct Cost of Service Provision
4.1.1. Salaries and benefits
4.1.2. Material Costs
4.1.3. Other operating costs
4.2. Average Investment
4.3. Total Cost
5. Revenues
6. Direct Subsidy
7. Some Indicators of Service Quality
8. Insights from User Survey
8.1. Average expenses for AI and Veterinary Care
8.2. The time costs
8.3. The satisfaction level
9. Summary
i
LIST OF TABLES
Table No
Title
Page No
3.1
Type of services available at the sample units.
6
3.2
Average number of AI performed at the sample units.
7
3.3
Annual average of cases attended by veteriarians,1998.
9
3.4
Average fee schedule for private veterinary practitioners.
11
3.5
Staffing pattern of livestock services centres in Gujarat.
12
4.1
Average salaries of skilled personnel across various types of providers.
13
Material cost by type of service and provider.
17
4.3
Direct cost of providing livestock services.
19
4.4
Non-material direct costs of providing livestock services.
19
5.1
Mean value of physical assets held by livestock service providers.
20
6.1
Total revenue generated by livestock service providers.
22
7.1
Direct subsidy for livestock services in Gujarat.
23
4.2
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No
Title
2.1
Distribution of total livestock population acros district of Gujarat, 1992.
2.2
Distribution of sample across districts.
3.1
Average fee prescribed by the co-operative unions-general sickness & injury
4.1
Material cost per animal by type of service.
4.2
Break-up of the material cost by type of service.
5.1
Share of Land, Building & equipments in total investment.
7.1
Mean conception rates for cows & Buffaloes.
7.2
Average number of follow-up visits required.
8.1
Profile of respondents from user.
iii
Page No
Animal Health and Breeding Services in Gujarat:
A Profile of Service Providers
Vinod Ahuja*
1.0 Introduction
In response to the concerns about the adverse distributional impacts of
commercialization of agricultural services on poor in the wake of ongoing economic reforms in
India, the World Bank, in collaboration with Swiss Agency for Development and Co-operation
(SDC) and the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad initiated a study to investigate the
potential impact of cost recovery/privatization of livestock health and breeding services on poor.
Given the fact that nearly 60 percent of India’s bovine population is on small and marginal
farms, it is important that the distributional impacts be adequately examined before any
commercialization efforts are launched in this direction. This study was initiated with the
objective of examining whether access by the poor is affected by commercialization and/or
privatization, and the degree to which farmers are willing to pay for these services and for
improved delivery.
Three states, Gujarat, Rajasthan and Kerala, which have already implemented different
degrees of cost recovery and/or privatization for delivery of these services were selected for this
study. Since little information exists on the operational aspects of livestock service provision in
India, it was considered important to develop adequate understanding of the supply side of
these services before going for impact evaluation. The first phase of the study, therefore, looked
1
at the supply side of service provision1. Essentially the objective of this phase were to assess
ground realities about the supply of livestock services and to gain some insights into the relative
operational performance of various providers – government, co-operatives, non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), and private entrepreneurs. This report summarizes the findings of phase I
from Gujarat2.
The time and resources available to us were not adequate to come-up with rigorous
measures of economic efficiency. Nevertheless, in view of the scarcity of information on the
provision of these services, it was considered important to develop a profile of service providers
in each of the study states. In Gujarat, we selected 28 different service providers and collected
detailed information on their functioning using a structured questionnaire. The information
contained in the questionnaire included
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
nature of services provided,
catchment area
animals served (disaggregated by type of service)
some indicators of effectiveness
type of clientele
availability of alternative providers in the catchment area
details on the staff working at these units
capital assets
operating costs
fee structure, and
perceptions and impressions
*
Vinod Ahuja is a faculty member at the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. He is also the
principal investigator and co-ordinator for this study.
1
The preliminary findings of the phase I were discussed with representatives from SDC, the World Bank,
veterinary pharmaceutical industry, the Government of India (GOI), the state governments, and the nongovernmental organizations in a small workshop in Ahmedabad in October 1998.
2
The results for Kerala and Rajasthan are summarized in separate reports. In addition, a combined report
synthesizing the results from all three states is also available.
2
In addition to surveying the service providers, a rapid and quick survey of about 55
users was also undertaken. The main objective of this survey was to cross-check the validity of
data collected from service providers as well as to get a quick assessment of users’ perceptions
about the quality of service.
2.0 Scope, Coverage and the Sampling design
There is significant diversity in the composition of livestock population within and across
states of India. We have not attempted to cover all possible types of livestock and livestock
services. This study focused on cattle and buffaloes. On the services side, the focus was on
veterinary (curative health and vaccination) and artificial insemination services.
The main providers of livestock services in the state of Gujarat are state animal husbandry
departments, District Co-operative unions, Bharatiya Agro Industries Foundation (BAIF), and
some private veterinarians. The animal husbandry departments provide services through
veterinary dispensaries, Artificial Insemination centres and sub-centres, veterinary polyclinics,
and first aid veterinary care centres. Except in the case of emergencies, all services are provided
at the centre. The co-operative unions utilize the network of primary milk co-operative societies
at the village level to get information about the sick animals and then send their doctors from the
central facility. The farmers may receive the service either at the doorstep or at the primary cooperative society at the village level. Artificial insemination services are also available at most
primary co-operative societies at the village level. BAIF provides AI service at farmers’ homes
or fields.
3
The units were purposely selected to ensure adequate representation of (i) different types of
providers, and (ii) areas with high and low livestock density. Of the total 19 districts in Gujarat,
the sample was drawn from 7 districts: Mahesana, Rajkot, Surendranagar, Panchmahals,
Kheda, Surat, and Vadodara. In Mahesana and Kheda districts, co-operative unions are very
strong. These districts, combined together, contribute over a quarter of total milk production in
Gujarat although they account for only about 12-13 percent of total cattle and buffalo
population. Panchmahal, on the other hand, contributes only 5 percent of total milk production
although this district is home to about 11 percent of bovine population (Figure 2.1). Private
2500
Figure 2.1: Distribution of total livestock population across district of Gujarat,
1992
2000
1500
1000
500
0
veterinarians are active in the districts of Rajkot and Mahesana. Rajkot and Surendranagar
were included in the sample to get some representation of service providers in Saurashtra region
of Gujarat as well as to enhance the number of private veterinarians in the sample. BAIF is more
active in Surat and Vadodara. Therefore, these two districts were also included in the sample.
Figure 2.2 gives the distribution of sample across districts. The 28 units included 10 government
providers, 7 co-operatives, 6 private veterinarians, and 5 units run by BAIF.
4
Before we turn to an analysis of the data collected in the survey, it needs to emphasized
Surat/Vadodara
Panchmahals
Kheda
Rajkot/
Surendranagar
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Mahesana
Number of providers included in the sample
Figure 2.2: Distribution of sample across districts
that the statistics presented in this report are not representative of Gujarat state. The sample is
not only small but also very purposive. Nevertheless, the statistics suffice to provide important
insights into the operational performance of veterinary and AI centres in relation to the coverage
and cost of services.
3.0 A profile of providers
A break-up of the type of services available at various units included in the sample is
presented in Table 3.1. In most Government units, both AI and veterinary care services are
available. As can be seen from Table 3.1, of the 10 government units included in the sample, 9
were providing both AI and veterinary care services. Only one unit reported providing only
health services. BAIF, on the other hand, is operating mainly the AI centres where no veterinary
services are provided. Five out of six BAIF units reported providing only AI service. One unit
reported providing limited veterinary services such as vaccination in addition to AI.
5
Private activity in the provision of AI service is extremely limited. Five out of six private
practitioners reported providing only veterinary services. Only one private veterinarian reported
providing both AI and veterinary
Table 3.1 : Type of Services Available at
the sample Units
Provider type Type of services provided
AI
Vet care Both
Government
0
1
9
Co-operative
2
3
2
BAIF
5
0
1
Private
0
5
1
care services. Finally, co-operatives
are
providing
both
AI
and
veterinary services although the
degree of veterinary care available
varies across units. Within the units
where veterinary care is available, 2 units were providing limited health services such as
vaccination whereas the full range of veterinary services was available at the remaining 3 units.
In addition to these services, most units were also providing extension advice to the farmers on
a regular basis. The nature of extension services included advise on preventive health care, post
natal care of newborn and the mother, advise about sanitation and hygiene, diet restriction of
sick animals, feeding and nutrition, advise about proper timing of AI and so on. The government
units also organized village level infertility and surgical camps where vaccination, castration and
other veterinary services were provided. Co-operative units and private practitioners were not
organizing any infertility or surgical camps.
3.1 Animals Served
The number of animals served by various types of providers in a year for health and
breeding services are given in Tables 3.2 and 3.3. As is evident from Table 3.2, there is
6
significant variation in the service profile of different providers. On the AI side, BAIF units were
handling maximum number of AI cases per unit followed by Government and co-operative units.
This was despite the fact that a large number of BAIF centres are located in relatively remote
areas with little awareness about the potential of AI. One of the reasons why BAIF units were
covering large number of cases was because they are making the service available at farmers’
homes. Government services, on the other hand, are available at the centre. Thus, the farmer
must incur additional cost (including time cost) of bringing the animal to the centre. The cooperative services, on the other hand, are available at the farmer’s field as well as at the primary
co-operative society at the village level. But, for availing the service at home, the farmers are
required to pay significantly higher fee. It is also interesting to observe that the composition of
animals inseminated by co-operative units is skewed towards buffaloes. Out of total cattle and
buffaloes inseminated at BAIF and Government units, less than 50 percent were buffaloes.
Comparable figure for co-operative units was over 65 percent. That is simply because cooperative movement is strongest in districts with relatively heavy concentration of buffaloes. For
example, Mahesana and Kheda together account for about a quarter of total buffalo population
in Gujarat, and of the total AI done by co-operatives in 1997, 88% were in Kheda amd
Mahesana.
Table3.2 : Average number of AI performed at the sample units
Provider type
Cows
Buffaloes
Total
BAIF
415 (53.7)*
357 (46.3)
772 (100)
Government
348 (50.2)
345 (49.8)
693 (100)
Co-operative
174 (34.2)
334 (65.8)
508 (100)
* Figures in parentheses are percentages to total.
7
On the veterinary side, the situation is somewhat different. Within the units included in
the sample, co-operative units were attending high numbers of general sickness, gynecological
and vaccination cases when compared to their public sector counterparts. Co-operative units,
on average, attended over 5000 cases of general sickness, injury, deworming, surgery and
gynecological problems in a year. Comparable figure for government and private units was
2300 and 1500 respectively. On per doctor basis, however, there is not much difference
between the government and co-operative units3. Both government and co-operative units
attended some 1900 cases (excluding vaccinations) per doctor per year. In addition the
government units attended about 2500 cases of HS and FMD vaccinations at the centre as well
as in the field camps. Number of vaccinations performed by the co-operative units was around
650 per centre. Private veterinarians included in the sample covered about 1700 cases of
veterinary care and 870 cases of vaccination.
Finally, an important feature that distinguished government service from other units was
their stationary nature. While over 80 percent of co-operative, BAIF and private cases were
attended at farmers’ homes, the extent of home service in the government units was less that 20
percent.
3
In Gujarat, the government doctors are permitted to do private practice after office hours within
the prescribed guidelines. We attempted to obtain information on the extent of private practice but it was
not always possible to get reliable picture of the private practice due to the unwillingness of respondents to
8
3.2 Fee structure
3.2.1 Artificial Insemination
Artificial insemination services provided by BAIF are completely free. No charge is
levied on the livestock owner either for materials or for the service. At the government units the
prescribed fee (including materials and service) for AI is Rs.5 and there is no variation across
regions/districts of Gujarat. Co-operative unions provide AI services through primary cooperative societies and the fee varies between Rs. 5 and 35. For the AI done by trained
inseminators at the primary co-operative societies, farmers generally pay Rs. 5. If, however, the
insemination is done be a veterinarian from the district co-operative union, charges tend to be
somewhat higher.
Table 3.3: Annual average of cases attended by veterinarians: 1998
Private
Government
Co-operative
Institutional
Private
General Sickness
At the Centre
157
1613
0
0
At home
662
27
212
4220
Injury
38
43
6
29
Deworming
143
301
0
56
Surgery
46
42
5
63
Gynecological Problems
At the Centre
108
260
8
At home
368
15
42
1204
Vaccination
HS
689
5529
0
1889
FMD
287
655
0
2094
Other
0
28
0
16
Surgical camp
0
177
0
54
Infertility camp
0
643
0
665
provide sufficient details. The number pf cases reported under private practice by government doctors in
Table 3.3 are, in all likelihood, serious underestimates of the extent of the private practice.
9
Small ruminants
120
262
0
187
3.2.2 Veterinary care
Health services provided at government veterinary dispensaries were free until
1996 when a nominal fee (between Rs. 2 and Rs. 5) per visit at the centre was introduced. The
prescribed fee for emergency home visits during office hours was same but the farmer was
required to bear the transportation cost for the veterinarian. The prescribed fee structure is not
differentiated by type of service4.
Co-operative unions provide services for a fee which varies significantly across
districts (Figure 3.1). Some co-operative unions also have differentiated fee structure. For
example, the standard fee charged by Panchmahal dairy is Rs. 55 per visit. However, for visits
requiring surgical procedures, farmers are required to pay up to Rs.120 per visit.
Rs./visit
60 Figure 3.1 Average fee prescribed by the co-operative
unions -- general sickness and injury
50
40
30
20
10
0
Kheda
Vadodara
Mahesana
Panchmahals
District
4
Actual fee paid by the service users, specially for home visits, can be several times more than the
prescribed fee. We discuss the actual costs incurred by the users in section 9.0.
10
The fee for private practitioners tends
Table 3.4 : Average Fee Schedule for Private
Veterinary Practitioners
Type of visit
Fee per visit (Rupees)
At the clinic
At home
General sickness
41
72
Injury
27
46
Deworming
22
34
Surgery
107
150
General gyn problem
29
58
Prolapse
88
122
Dystokia
120
190
FMD vaccination
15
23
to be differentiated according to the type of
service (Table 3.4). For example, a general
sickness, injury or deworming visit by a private
veterinarian costs between Rs.35 and Rs.75
whereas, a dystokia case can cost as high as
Rs.200 or more.
3.3. Staffing Pattern
There is considerable variation in the staffing pattern of units across different type of
providers. Private veterinarians either work alone or hire temporary help on a part time basis for
cleaning and sweeping of office. In general, private veterinarians do not employ any technical
assistants. All private veterinarians included in the sample had completed university education in
veterinary science and had about 2 years of experience.
Staff strength of co-operative and government units varies with the range of services
available at the centre. The units which are providing AI and limited veterinary care, there is
generally one technical person supported by one or two semi-skilled/unskilled helpers. The
technical person generally holds a diploma in animal health and artificial insemination. The
veterinary dispensaries and polyclinics have more staff (Table 3.5). There is very little difference
in the educational and technical qualifications of staff across providers. In most cases,
veterinarians (or veterinary officers) have completed university education in veterinary science
11
whereasd the para-veterinarians (livestock inspectors) have completed diploma in veterinary
care.
Table 3.5: Staffing Pattern of Livestock Service Centres in Gujarat
Type of facility
Number of personnel in the units run by
BAIF
Government Co-operative
Private
AI Centres/Vet sub-centres
1
1-2
1-2
.
Veterinary dispensaries
.
2-4
2–4
1–2
Veterinary polyclinics
.
4 - 13
4 - 10
.
4.0 Direct Cost of Service Provision
Total cost of providing livestock services can be classified into (i) material cost, and (ii)
the distribution cost. Accounting of material cost is relatively straightforward. The distribution
costs, which include costs of administration and supervision, can be very difficult to isolate due
to the centralized nature of many operations include administration, supervision and procurement
as well as multi-output nature of the production function. For this reason, we focused only on
the direct cost which included salaries and benefits of the staff employed at the unit, the cost of
materials, and direct operating costs5.
4.1 Salaries and Benefits
Salaries constitute a significant proportion of the direct cost of service provision. Among
the units covered in this study, the contribution of salaries to total cost at the unit level varied
from 80 percent in case of government units to about 40 percent in case of units run by BAIF.
12
Given the fact that Government veterinarians and para-veterinarians are paid more than twice
their counterparts in co-operative or BAIF units (Table 4.1), this is not surprising. Further
analysis of salaries and benefits is provided in section 4.3.
Table 4.1: Average Salaries of Skilled Personnel Across Various Types of Providers
(Rupees/month)
Government
Co-operatives
BAIF
Average gross salary of
Veterinary Officer/
Para-veterinarian/ trained
Veterinarian
inseminator/ livestock inspector
11,630
5,990
5,473
2,450
--
2,625
4.2 Material Costs
Material costs include the cost of drugs and medical supplies, vaccines, AI doses, liquid
nitrogen and other such consumables. On average the contribution of material cost to total direct
cost varied between about 10 percent in case of government units to over 25 percent in case of
co-operative and BAIF units. Material cost per animal by type of service is given in Figure 4.1.
Total material cost for AI varies between Rs. 25 per animal (in case of co-operatives) to about
Rs.32 (in case of government). At least part of this variation is due to the quality of semen used
in AI.
5
These include the cost of electricity, phone, vehicles, stationary and the rent for the premises from which
the unit is operating.
13
Figure 4.1: Material cost per animal by type
of service
40
35
30
Rupees
25
20
15
10
5
0
BAIF
Co-operatives
Government
AI
Vet care
Private
Vaccination
In case of veterinary care (including vaccination) the material cost is lowest in case of
government units. That is because the government units are supplied a fixed annual quota of
drugs and medical supplies which is grossly insufficient for meeting the requirements of the
units6. Private veterinarians incurred highest material costs and these were fully recovered from
the users.
Direct comparison of the material cost across various types of providers can be
misleading, however. The material costs will clearly vary with the range of available services.
The units which are providing only the AI and vaccination services, for example, are likely to
have lower material costs than those which are providing full range of veterinary services. To
gain some idea into the composition of material costs, we divided the material costs into three
components – cost of vaccines, AI related material costs such as AI doses and liquid nitrogen
and veterinary care costs such as proprietory drugs and medical supplies. The break-up is given
6
Our discussions with the veterinary officers indicated that the supplied quota of drugs is barely sufficient
to cover 25 percent of the animals attended at a typical veterinary dispensaries. When the supplies are
exhausted, the livestock owners are required to purchase drugs and other supplies from the market.
14
in figure 4.2. For the private veterinarians, and the co-operative units, the costs of drugs
(excluding vaccines) and other medical supplies constitute the main component of total material
cost which explains, at least in part, the high material cost for veterinary care in case of private
and co-operative units. In case of government units there is somewhat even spread of material
cost across vaccines, drugs and supplies and AI related materials (such as AI doses and liquid
nitrogen). That combined with the fact that there is fixed quota (approximately Rs.20,000 per
veterinary dispensary) for drugs and supplies, results into lower overall material cost for
government units. On per animal basis, the material cost borne by the government works out at
about Rs 15 for AI, Rs.5.0 for drugs and medical supplies and Rs 2.5 for vaccines (Table 4.2).
Actual material cost of treatment is much higher than is captured in these statistics, and the
difference is paid by the service users.
Figure 4.2: Break-up of the material cost by type of service
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Vaccinatio
n
Veterinary
care
50%
40%
AI
30%
20%
10%
0%
BAIF
Co-operatives
4.3 Total Direct Cost
15
Government
Private
Total direct costs7 include the material cost, direct operating costs, and salaries and
benefits. Since we do not have adequate information to disaggregate the salaries and the
operating cost by the type of service, total direct cost is estimated only at the unit level. The
estimates for total direct cost are presented in Table 4.3.
Total direct cost per animal works out to be within the range of Rs.35 and Rs.50. For
BAIF, which is providing AI and vaccination services at home, the cost is highest. A significant
component of this is accounted by the operating cost – mainly fuel and maintenance for the
vehicles. Similar is the case for private providers. In case of co-operatives, the share of
operating cost is low but partly it is because, the vehicles are maintained centrally and the units
are not required to bear the maintenance cost.
7
Direct cost here refers to the sum of salaries, material cost and direct operating cost. Since only the
recurring component of the operating cost is included here, the actual cost is expected to be higher than the
direct cost estimates presented in this report.
16
Table 4.2: Material cost by type of service and provider
Provider type
Total Material Cost incurred in the
sample units
Total Animals Served
Material cost per animal
AI
Veterinary
care
Vaccination
AI
Veterinary
care
Vaccination
AI
Veterinary
care
Vaccination
Government
130,966
233,705
147,504
8,951
46,736
58732
14.6
5.0
2.51
Cooperatives
63,160
766,830
81,140
2279
36127
21438
27.7
21.2
3.78
BAIF
80354
--
24000
3302
0
5495
24.3
--
4.37
Private
9900
295292
19600
210
8205
4879
47.1
36.0
4.02
17
Provider type
Government
Table 4.3 : Direct cost of providing livestock services
Total
Total
Salaries
Total
Total
material
operating
and Direct Cost
Animals
cost
cost
benefits
Served
512205
271590
2810364
3856816
98947
(13.3)*
(7.0)
(79.7)
(100.0)
CoOperatives
BAIF
911130
137450
1324800
2668280
(34.1)
(5.2)
(49.6)
(100.0)
104354
113903
157476
439856
(23.7)
(25.9)
(35.8)
(100.0)
Private
324792
133170
9600
467562
(69.5)
(28.5)
(2.0)
(100.0)
* Figures in parentheses are percentages to total direct cost.
Direct cost
per animal
39.0
59844
44.6
8797
50.0
13294
35.2
For the government units, the cost per animal works out to be around Rs.40 per animal.
Clearly this does not capture the total direct cost of providing livestock services. A number of
functions such as administration and supervision are handled centrally, the cost of which is not
accounted here. Also, as pointed out in the preceding sections, the material cost presented here
seriously underestimates the actual cost of drugs and supplies used in the treatment. Due to
these reasons, it is perhaps more meaningful to compare non-material direct cost per animal.
These are presented in Table 4.4. The non-material direct cost is highest for the government
units, followed by BAIF, co-operatives and private service providers8.
Table 4.4: Non-material direct costs of providing livestock services
Provider type
Government
Co-Operatives
BAIF
Total Operating
cost
Salaries and
benefits
Total
271590
137450
113903
2810364
1324800
157476
3081954
1462250
271379
8
Total Animals Non material direct
Served cost per animal
98947
59844
8797
31.3
24.4
30.1
Once again, a note of caution is in order. No provision is made for salary of the veterinarian in case of
private entrepreneur and the net return is treated as the return to his labor. Even if we treat this as a
component of cost, however, total cost in case of private entrepreneurs will be the lowest among all types of
service providers.
19
Private
5.0 Capital Stock
133170
9600
142770
13294
10.7
The survey attempted to build an inventory of land, building, furniture and equipment to
assess the value of investment in the units providing these services. In addition to the physical
inventory, the respondents were asked to provide their best estimate of the value of each of the
items in the inventory. Sum of the estimated value is taken as the best estimate of the value of
investment. Table 5.1 presents the mean and standard deviation of total investment by provider
type.
The mean value of the investment is highest in government units – more than twice as
much in the co-operative units and more than five times than in private units. Also, the within
group variation in the investment level is highest amongst the government units followed by cooperatives, BAIF and the private units. This is, however, a natural consequence of the fact that
government is operating an entire range of facilities whereas others agencies are providing more
specialized services. What is worth pointing out though that a large proportion of investment in
government units is accounted by the value of land and buildings – 87 percent. The comparable
figures for co-operatives, and private providers are 68 and 20 percent. Over 50 percent of total
investment in government units is accounted by the value of land. The furniture and equipment
account for a mere 13 percent of total investment in government units (Figure 5.1).
Table 5.1: Mean value of physical assets held by livestock service providers
Mean
124212
171904
303509
659607
Private
BAIF
Co-operative
Government
20
Std. Deviation
24171
43426
168904
534296
Building
Land
Equipme
nt &
furniture
Equipme
nt &
furniture
BAIF
Private
Equipme
nt &
furniture
Equipme
nt &
furniture
Building
Building
Land
Land
Government
Co-operatives
Figure5.1 : Share of Land, Buildings and Equipment in Total Investment
6.0 Revenues
The only source of revenue for the service units has been the fees collected from the
users. Since BAIF did not charge the users, the revenues for BAIF units are naturally zero. In
case of government units, there is no accounting for the revenue generated as part of private
practice. As noted before, the respondents were unwilling to provide detailed information on
their private practice. The revenues generated by government, private and co-operatives are
presented in Table 6.1.
21
Table 6.1: Total Revenues Generated by Livestock Service Providers
Provider type
Total revenues
Total number of animals served
Revenue per
generated
animal served
(Rupees)
AI
Vet
Vaccination
Government
187901.7
7489
36182
55276
1.89
Co-operative
1479640
2279
36127
21438
24.72
Private
591135
210
8205
4879
44.46
For all the 10 units included in the sample, the combined annual revenues were less than
Rs.200,000. This was less than 15 percent of the combined revenues generated by 7 cooperative units. On a per animal basis the revenues generated by the government units were less
than Rs.2 per animal. Per animal revenue by co-operative units and private veterinarians, on the
other hand, is approximately Rs.25 and Rs.45, respectively.
7.0 Direct Subsidy
22
The direct subsidy in this report corresponds to the difference between direct receipts
and total direct costs. Total direct costs are same as reported in Table 4.3. It needs to
recognised that there are indirect costs (opportunity cost of the value of investment, centrally
operated supervision and administration and so on) which are not accounted here. Thus the
actual subsidy component is likely to be much higher.
On a per animal basis, the direct subsidy for government works out to be around Rs 37
(Table 7.1). Since BAIF is not charging any fee for its services, subsidy per animal is the same
as the estimated cost per animal – about Rs.50.00. For co-operative units, the average subsidy
works out to be about Rs.20 per animal.
Provider type
Table 7.1: Direct Subsidy For Livestock Services in Gujarat
Total revenues
Total
Total Direct Total
generated
direct cost Subsidy
animals
(Rupees)
served
Direct
subsidy per
animal
Government
187901.7
3856816
3668914
98947
37.1
Co-operative
1479640
2668280
1188640
59844
19.8
Private
591135
467562
(- )123573
13294
9.30
BAIF
0
439856
439856
8797
50.0
(-) denotes net profit.
8.0 Some Indicators of Service Quality
23
The discussion in the preceding sections has provided important insights into the
operational performance of AI and veterinary care units across various service providers.
However, the discussion has benn based purely on quantitative measures of output and cost. To
put the discussion in proper perspective, some indication of service quality is essential. Within
the context of livestock services, it is widely known that there is significant variation in the quality
of services available from different providers. In order to get some sense of this variation, we
asked the respondents to provide an estimate of the number of follow-up visits required for
different veterinary care interventions and the conception rate for artificial insemination at that
centre. While these are not perfect measures of service quality, they do reveal some magnitude
and direction of variation in service quality.
Figures 8.1 and 8.2 summarise the mean conception rates and the follow-up visits for
certain interventions for different type of providers. In case of AI the conception rate at BAIF
centres is the highest – approximately 60 percent for cows and 50 percent in buffaloes. In case
of government units, on the other hand, the conception rate is below 45 percent for cows and
below 40 percent in case of buffaloes. Somewhat similar picture emerges when we compare the
required follow-up visits across providers. The government units reported requiring maximum
number of follow-up visits for almost all different types of visits – general sickness, injury and
surgery. Private veterinarians on the other hand required the least follow-up visits.
70.0
60.0
Figure 8.1: Mean Conception rates for cows and buffaloes
Cows
59.7
Buffaloes
51.0
50.0
46.3
(Pe
rce 40.0
nt)
30.0
42.7
42.3
37.5
20.0
10.0
24
0.0
BAIF
Co-operatives
Government
Figure 8.2: Average number of follow-up visits required
7.0
6.0
5.0
Government
Co-operatives
Private
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
9.0 Insights from the
General sickness
Injury
Surgery
User Survey
As noted earlier, the provider survey was complimented with a rapid and quick survey
of service users in order to crosscheck the validity of the responses received from the providers
and to get some idea of user perceptions about the quality of the service. Although the user
sample was not drawn randomly, it was ensured that all groups were adequately represented.
The profile of the respondents for the user survey is given in figure 8.1.
Figure 9.1: Profile of respondents from user
survey
100%
80%
Large farmers
60%
Medium farmers
40%
Small farmers
Marginal farmers
20%
Landless
0%
Govt Private
NGO
Co-operative
9.1 Average expenses for AI and Veterinary Care
25
Figure 9.2 presents average expenses incurred by the livestock owners per visit of AI
Figure 9.2: Average expenses for AI
and Veterinary Care
120
and veterinary care. For AI, the farmers, on
100
average paid about Rs.25 per insemination from a
co-operative or a government unit. However,
(Ru 80
pee 60
s)
40
there is large variation around this mean. While
Govt doctor
Private doctor
Co-opeartive Union
BAIF
20
0
some received the service for free, others paid upto Rs.80 or so
AI
Vet care
for one insemination. Also, we did not find any relationship between land owned or the number
of animals owned (as crude measure of wealth) and the charges paid for AI. Small and marginal
farmers were paying as much for receiving the service as their large counterparts and none of
them expressed dissatisfaction with the cost.
Time costs are highest in co-operatives
Total time spent per
veterinary visit
200
150
100
50
0
Co-op
Government
Private
Figure 9.3: Small and Marginal Farmers are Paying as much as Large Farmers
Cos 90
t
Per 80
AI 70
visi 60
t
50
(Ru 40
pee 30
s)
20
10
0
Cos
t
Per
AI
Visi
t
(Ru
pee
s)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Number of Animals Owned by the Household
0
10
20
Land Holding(Acres)
26
30
The expenses incurred for veterinary visits were much higher. On average, one visit by a
private veterinarian costed around Rs.110.00. Comparable figure for co-operative and
government doctors were about Rs. 55.00 and Rs. 100.00 respectively. What is interesting to
observe is that although the fee actually charged by co-operative doctors were within the range
prescribed by the district co-operative unions, the fee charged by the government doctors was
several times more than what is prescribed. The prescribed fee structure for private practice by
the government doctors, is extremely difficult to enforce and it is not uncommon for the
government doctors to engage in private practice even during the office hours. That private
practice by government doctors is quite widespread is, at least in part, supported by the fact
that average expenses per veterinary visit by a government doctor is almost equal to that by a
private doctor. Again, there is no relationship between the expenses incurred and the number of
animals owned or the size of land holding of the household.
Figure 9.4: Small and Marginal Farmers are Paying as much as Large Farmers
Co
300
st
Per
250
Visdoc
tor
it
200
of (Ru
Vetpee150
eri s)
nar 100
y
50
Co
st 80
Per 70
AI 60
Vis 50
it
40
(Ru
pee 30
s) 20
10
0
0
0
5
10
15
20
Land Holding(Acres)
0
25
9.2 The Time Costs
27
10
20
30
40
50
Number of Animals Owned by the Household
On average it takes about an hour for a
120
100
typical user to receive AI service. This includes
the time between when the contact is first made
with the provider and the time when the service is
Minutes
80
60
40
20
actually received. For the service received at the
centre, this will include the time taken in walking/
0
Average time
spent per AI visit
Average time
spent per
veterinary visit
transporting the animal to the centre, the waiting
time and the actual time taken in providing the service. For home visits, this covers the time
between the time the message is sent to the inseminator and the time when the animal is actually
inseminated. For veterinary care the comparable figure is about 2 hours. The time taken is
highest in case of co-operatives – about three hours, and lowest in case of private veterinarians
– about one hour. Time taken by the government doctor is about 1 hour 30 minutes.
9.3 The Satisfaction Level
A large number of users in the sample expressed satisfaction with access, quality and
Figure 8.1: Proportion of respondents expressing various levels of satisfaction with the quality and cost of livestock services
Overall satisfaction with quality of AI service
Overall satisfaction with quality of Veterinary
service
Highly
Satisfied
31%
Satisfied
62%
Highly
Satisfied
29%
Not at all
Satisfied
7%
Satisfied
63%
Overall satisfaction with the cost of AI service
Overall satisfaction with the cost of Veterinary
service
Highly
Satisfied
57%
Satisfied
32%
Not at all
Satisfied
8%
Highly
Satisfied
26%
Not at all
Satisfied
11%
28
Satisfied
59%
Not at all
Satisfied
15%
the cost of both AI and veterinary services (Figure 8.1). However, there were some revealing
differences in the expressed satisfaction level across different provider types (Figure 8.2). A
large number of users who had received services from co-operative doctors were dis-satisfied
with one aspect of the service – the time taken in delivering the service because of the
centralized nature of operations. None of the clients of the private veterinarians expressed any
dissatisfaction. A large number of clients of government doctors also expressed overall
satisfaction with the quality of the service. That clearly suggests that the government doctors in
Gujarat are well qualified and are delivering good quality services. However, whether this is
being done in official or in private capacity is an open question.
Figure 8.2: Proportion of respondents expressing satisfaction with the quality veterinary services disaggregated by provider type
Highly
Satisfied
60%
Highly
Satisfied
31%
Satisfied
58%
Not at all
Satisfied
11%
Government
Satisfied
40%
Private
Satisfied
11%
Not at all
Satisfied
89%
Co-operatives
29
Figure 8.3: Proportion of respondents expressing satisfaction with the cost of A62veterinary services disaggregated by provider type
Satisfied
55%
Government
Highly
Satisfied
25%
Highly
Satisfied
17%
Not at all
Satisfied
28%
Satisfied
65%
Not at all
Satisfied
10%
Private
Highly
Satisfied
25%
Not at all
Satisfied
10%
Satisfied
65%
Co-operatives
Summary
This study has presented a profile of livestock service (AI and curative veterinary
services) providers in the state of Gujarat. The findings are based on a survey of 28 different
service providers and approximately 55 service users. The sample was drawn purposely to
ensure adequate representation of (i) different types of providers, and (ii) areas with high and
low livestock density. Of the total 19 districts in Gujarat, the sample was drawn from 7 districts:
30
Mahesana, Rajkot, Surendranagar, Panchmahals, Kheda, Surat, and Vadodara. Main findings
are summarized below
1. The main providers of livestock services in the state of Gujarat are state animal husbandry
departments, Co-operative unions, Bharatiya Agro Industries Foundation (BAIF), and some
private veterinarians. The animal husbandry departments provide services through veterinary
dispensaries, Artificial Insemination centres and sub-centres, veterinary polyclinics, and first aid
veterinary care centres. Except in the case of emergencies, all services are provided at the
centre. The co-operative unions utilize the network of primary milk co-operative societies at the
village level to get information about the sick animals and then send their doctors from the
central facility. The farmers may receive the service either at the doorstep or at the primary cooperative society at the village level. BAIF provides AI service at farmers’ homes or fields.
2. Most Government units included in the sample were providing both AI and veterinary care
services. BAIF, on the other hand, is operating mainly the AI centres. Private activity in the
provision of AI service is extremely limited and co-operatives are providing both AI and
veterinary services although the degree of veterinary care available varies across units. In
addition, most units were also providing extension advice to the farmers on a regular basis. The
government units also organize village level infertility and surgical camps where vaccination,
castration and other veterinary services were provided. Co-operative units and private
practitioners do not organize any infertility or surgical camps.
3. There is significant variation in the service profile of different providers. On the AI side,
BAIF units were handling maximum number of AI cases per unit followed by Government and
co-operative units. On the veterinary side, the co-operative units were attending high numbers
31
of general sickness, gynecological and vaccination cases when compared to their public sector
counterparts. On per doctor basis, however, there is not much difference between the
government and co-operative units. An important feature that distinguished government service
from other units was their stationary nature. While over 80 percent of co-operative, BAIF and
private cases were attended at farmers’ homes, the extent of home service in the government
units was less that 20 percent.
4. Artificial insemination services provided by BAIF are completely free. At the government
units the prescribed fee for AI is Rs.5. Co-operative unions provide AI services through
primary co-operative societies and the fee varies between Rs. 5 and 35. For the AI done by
trained inseminators at the primary co-operative societies, farmers generally pay Rs. 5. If,
however, the insemination is done be a veterinarian from the district co-operative union, charges
tend to be somewhat higher.
5. Health services provided at government veterinary dispensaries were free until 1996 when a
nominal fee (between Rs. 2 and Rs. 5) per visit at the centre was introduced. The prescribed
fee for emergency home visits during office hours was same but the farmer was required to bear
the transportation cost for the veterinarian. The prescribed fee structure is not differentiated by
type of service. Co-operative unions provide services for a fee which varies significantly across
districts. Some co-operative unions also have differentiated fee structure. The fee for private
practitioners tends to be differentiated according to the type of service.
6. Salaries constitute a significant proportion of the direct cost of service provision. Among the
units covered in this study, the contribution of salaries to total cost at the unit level varied from
32
80 percent in case of government units to about 40 percent in case of units run by BAIF. On
average the contribution of material cost to total direct cost varied between about 10 percent in
case of government units to over 25 percent in case of co-operative and BAIF units. Total
material cost for AI varies between Rs. 25 per animal (in case of co-operatives) to about Rs.32
(in case of government).
7. In case of veterinary care (including vaccination) the material cost is lowest in case of
government units. That is because the government units are supplied a fixed annual quota of
drugs and medical supplies which is not adequate for the animals treated at the centre. Private
veterinarians incurred highest material costs and these were fully recovered from the users.
8. Total direct cost per animal works out to be within the range of Rs.35 and Rs.50. For
BAIF, which is providing AI and vaccination services at home, the cost is highest. A significant
component of this is accounted by the operating cost – mainly fuel and maintenance for the
vehicles. Similar is the case for private providers. In case of co-operatives, the share of
operating cost is low but partly it is because, the vehicles are maintained centrally and the units
are not required to bear the maintenance cost. For the government units, the cost per animal
works out to be around Rs.40 per animal. But since a number of functions such as
administration and supervision are handled centrally, which are not accounted here, this does
not capture the total direct cost of providing livestock services.
9. On a per animal basis the revenues generated by the government units were less than Rs.2
per animal. Per animal revenue by co-operative units and private veterinarians, on the other
hand, is approximately Rs.25 and Rs.45, respectively.
33
10. On a per animal basis, the direct subsidy for government works out to be around Rs 37.
Since BAIF is not charging any fee for its services, subsidy per animal is the same as the
estimated cost per animal – about Rs.50.00. For co-operative units, the average subsidy works
out to be about Rs.20 per animal.
11. The mean conception rates are highest for the inseminations done by BAIF and lowest for
those done by government units. The picture for the required follow-up visits for veterinary care
is much the same. The government units reported requiring maximum number of follow-up visits
for almost all different types of visits – general sickness, injury and surgery. Private veterinarians
on the other hand required the least follow-up visits.
12.
On average, the farmers paid about Rs.25 per insemination from a co-operative or a
government unit. There is no relationship between land owned or the number of animals owned
(as crude measure of wealth) and the charges paid for AI. The expenses incurred for veterinary
visits were much higher. On average, one visit by a private veterinarian costed around
Rs.110.00. Comparable figure for co-operative and government doctors were about Rs. 55.00
and Rs. 100.00 respectively.
13.
The fee actually charged by co-operative doctors were within the range prescribed by the
district co-operative unions. But, for home visits, the government doctors were charging several
times more than what was prescribed. Private practice by government doctors is quite
widespread.
14. A large number of users in the sample expressed satisfaction with access, quality and the
cost of both AI and veterinary services. However, there were some revealing differences in the
expressed satisfaction level across different provider types. A large number of users who had
34
received services from co-operative doctors were dis-satisfied with one aspect of the service –
the time taken in delivering the service. None of the clients of the private veterinarians expressed
any dissatisfaction. A large number of clients of government doctors also expressed overall
satisfaction with the quality of the service. That clearly suggests that the government doctors in
Gujarat are well qualified and are delivering good quality services. However, whether this is
being done in official or in private capacity is an open question.
35