Trop Anim Health Prod (2017) 49:641–648
DOI 10.1007/s11250-017-1244-5
REGULAR ARTICLES
Impact of extension interventions in improving livelihood of dairy
farmers of Nadia district of West Bengal, India
Suman Garai 1 & Sanchita Garai 2 & Sanjit Maiti 2 & B. S. Meena 2 & M. K. Ghosh 1 &
Champak Bhakat 1 & T. K. Dutta 1
Received: 18 July 2016 / Accepted: 26 January 2017 / Published online: 11 February 2017
# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017
Abstract Livestock is a one of the major sources of livelihood for most of the small and marginal farmers in India,
particularly for rural households who live in below poverty
line. Extension interventions have long been seen as a key
element for enabling farmers to obtain information and technologies that can improve their livelihoods. It is also recognized that extension is an important factor in promoting dairy
development. Ex-post-facto cause to effect research design
was applied in this study to trace out the impact of extension
interventions in improving knowledge, attitude, adoption towards scientific dairy farming practices and improvement in
milk production of dairy animal and income from dairying
which will be resulted into improved livelihood of rural poor
* Sanchita Garai
sanchita.bckv@gmail.com
in Nadia district of West Bengal, India. Therefore, 60 dairy
farmers of experimental villages who were considered as beneficiaries and 60 dairy farmers of control villages who were
considered as non-beneficiaries were selected as sample for
the study. It was found that beneficiaries had significantly
higher score in all the five components of livelihood improvement with its all sub components, i.e., knowledge, attitude,
adoption of scientific dairy farming practices, milk production
per household per day and monthly income from dairying
except disease control, and marketing component of adoption.
Hence, it may be concluded that extension interventions had a
significant impact on improving livelihood of rural dairy
farmers in Nadia district of West Bengal, India.
Keywords Extension intervention . Livelihood
improvement . Dairy farmer
Suman Garai
garaisuman1991@gmail.com
Introduction
Sanjit Maiti
sanjit.ndri@gmail.com
During the pre-independence era, agriculture was the main
source of livelihood for majority of the rural households in
India. With the increase in population, declining land-man
ratio and increasing mechanization in farm operations, agriculture alone is not able to provide adequate income and employment to meet the needs of the rural households (Singh
2008). The crop-livestock mixed system is one of the most
important characteristics of Indian agrarian economy, wherein
crops and livestock symbiotically contribute to the growth and
sustainability of each other. Livestock is one of the major
sources of livelihood for most of the small and marginal
farmers in India, particularly for rural households who live
in below poverty line. Income from crop production is not
always reliable due to several reasons like inadequate land
holdings, not assured irrigation and non timely supply of
B. S. Meena
bmeena65@gmail.com
M. K. Ghosh
monojghsh@rediffmail.com
Champak Bhakat
bhakat@scientist.com
T. K. Dutta
tkdcirg@gmail.com
1
Eastern Regional Station, ICAR-NDRI, Kalyani,
741235 Nadia, West Bengal, India
2
Division of Dairy Extension, ICAR-NDRI, Karnal 132001, Haryana,
India
642
critical agricultural inputs and credit. Therefore, rural farm
families also maintain different species of livestock for their
livelihood. Although India has the highest livestock population and milk production in the world, but the productivity,
particularly of large ruminants, has always been a matter of
concern. Therefore, to improve productivity, technology generation and dissemination and support services are the most
critical factors which need to be geared up for the success of
any livestock improvement program, particularly dairy husbandry program. It is also further necessary to bring all the
stakeholders engaged in animal husbandry on a common platform for the success of the program. Extension program can
ensure participation of all the stakeholders particularly small
and marginal dairy farmers, women headed families, poor and
weaker sections of the society. It is quite often impossible to
ensure effective transfer of technologies needed for enhancing
the productivity of dairy animals without an effective extension intervention.
In relation to its role in rural livelihoods, agricultural
extension encompasses the entire set of organizations that
support and facilitate people engaged in agricultural production to solve problems and to obtain information, skills,
and technologies to improve their livelihoods and wellbeing (Birner et al. 2006). Since a livelihood comprises
the capabilities, assets and activities required for a means
of living, it appears that agricultural extension intends not
only to increase productivity and income (Anderson and
Feder 2007; Waddington et al. 2010) but also to improve
multifaceted aspects of rural life. Often times, extension
impacts have been associated with improvements in productivity and household income. A worldwide review of
extension services shows that the impact of extension services on rural livelihoods is mixed from very high rates of
return in some cases and negligible achievements in other
cases (Rivera et al. 2001; Anderson and Feder 2007). It is
also widely acknowledged that estimation of extension impact on rural livelihoods is challenging in terms of dealing
with attribution issues and linking cause and effect quantitatively (Anderson and Feder 2007). Therefore, it is conceptualize to assess the impact of organized extension interventions in the livelihood of resource poor dairy
farmers.
Materials and methods
Locale of the study and sampling plan
The present study was purposively conducted at two adopted
villages of Eastern Regional Station (ERS) of ICAR-National
Dairy Research Institute (NDRI), Kalyani, West Bengal,
India, namely Muratipur and Dakkhin Chandamari. These
two villages are situated in the Chakdah Community
Trop Anim Health Prod (2017) 49:641–648
development Block of Nadia district, West Bengal. ERS of
ICAR-NDRI, conducted/arranged different types of extension
activities through their own innovative model of conducting
extension program i.e. Dairy Vikash Kendra (Glimpse of
Dairy Vikash Kendra is presented in box 1) in these two
villages. Therefore, these two villages were considered as
experimental villages and another two nearby villages namely
Alaypur and Iswaripur of Chakdah Community development
Block of Nadia district, West Bengal, also were selected on
the basis of similar socio-economic-cultural background.
These two villages were considered as the control villages.
Hence, four villages were covered under this study. Thirty
dairy farmers were selected randomly from each selected villages. Thus, total sample size of the present study was 120.
Box 1: Dairy Vikash Kendra
Dairy Vikash Kendra of Eastern Regional Station of ICAR-National
Dairy Research Institute was established on January 2014 at Muratipur
village, Chakdah, Nadia with the aim of conducting farming system
research and extension program for the development of small holder
dairying in West Bengal. Following services are provided through
Dairy Vikash Kendra.
• Educate the farmers on latest innovation of dairy science
• Promoting AI in Cattle
• Organizing fertility and veterinary camps
• Providing necessary treatment to the livestock by arranging vaccination
and deworming camps
• Demonstrate fodder crops and latest varieties at farmers’ field
• Promoting green fodder cultivation among the dairy farmers
Research design used
Ex-post-facto cause to effect research design was used in this
study. Ex-post-facto research is a systematic empirical inquiry
in which the scientist does not have direct control of independent variables because of their manifestations have already
occurred or because they are inherently not manipulable. In
ex-post-facto design, the treatment is determined not by manipulation but by selection. According to Mulay and
Sabarathanam (1980), Seltiz et al. (1976) and Ray and
Mondal (2006) ex-post-facto research design are two types
viz. Ex-post-facto cause to effect research design and Expost-facto effect to cause research design. Therefore, to measure the impact of extension interventions in improving livelihood of dairy farmers, ex-post facto cause to effect research
design was used. This situation may be diagrammatically represent in Fig. 1. Here pre-assumed effect, i.e., change in
knowledge, attitude, and adoption of scientific dairy farming
practices, milk production and monthly income from dairying,
is due to cause of various type extension interventions arranged by the Eastern Regional station of ICAR-NDRI
(Table 1). The dairy farmers of experimental villages, i.e.,
Trop Anim Health Prod (2017) 49:641–648
643
Fig. 1 Ex-post-facto cause to
effect research design used to
quantify impact of extension
intervention in improving
livelihood
Dairy Farmers of
Experimental Villages
MATCHED
(Socio-economic and
Socio-cultural
background)
(Beneficiary)
Dairy Farmers of Control
Villages
(Non-Beneficiary)
Presumed Cause
(Extension interventions like
trainings, demonstrations,
exposure visits, extension
literatures, animal health
camps, dairy mela etc.
Presumed Effect
(Knowledge, attitude and
adoption of scientific dairy
farming practices; milk
production and monthly
income from dairying)
Muratipur and Dakkhin Chandamari were considered as the
beneficiary and the dairy farmers of control villages(i.e.,
Alaypur and Iswaripur) were as considered as nonbeneficiary.
Table 1
Presumed Effect
(Knowledge, attitude and
adoption of scientific dairy
farming practices; milk
production and monthly
income from dairying)
Measuring instrument
In the present study, impact of extension interventions was
assessed in terms of improved knowledge, attitude and
Extension interventions conducted in experimental villages during 2013–2016 (up to April) by ERS-ICAR-NDRI, Kalyani, West Bengal
S. No Type of extension intervention
Number
Number of beneficiary
1.
Animal Health or Vety. Camp
18
2.
Front line fodder demonstration (Oat,
20 demonstrations on five fodder crops
maize, Cowpea, SSG, Sorghum)
Azolla demonstration
12
Field visit
3
Dairy Mela
1 (at Muratipur village)
Kishan Sangosthi on campus
5
Dairy education at farmers’ doorstep
12
Extension literature distributed
7 types of extension folders
Awareness camp
5
Extension activities through Dairy Vikash Kendra
AI Facility of dairy animals
225 animals
Mineral mixture distributed
253.5 kg
Treatment of animals (providing medicines) 1457 animals
526 dairy farmers
with 1169 animals
20 farmers’ field
3
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Training program organized
216 participants
33 dairy farmers
200 dairy farmers
60
36 farm family
400 dairy farmers
mass
216 dairy farmers
308 dairy farmers
-
2
31 dairy farmers
(Training-cum demonstration on Azolla production and its use as animal
feeding and training cum demonstration urea treatment of paddy straw)
(Source: Eastern Regional Station of ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Kalyani, West Bengal)
644
adoption of scientific dairy farming practices, increased in
milk production and annual income from dairying.
Knowledge towards scientific dairy farming practices was
measured with the help of knowledge test developed by
Khatik (1994). Attitude towards adoption of scientific dairy
farming was measured by attitude scale developed by Singh
(1994). Adoption of scientific dairy farming practices (including five pillars of scientific dairy farming viz. breeding, feeding, management, disease control and marketing) was quantified by adoption index developed by Sharma & Sohal (1987).
Knowledge test developed by Khatik (1994), attitude scale
developed by Singh (1994), and adoption index developed
by Sharma and Sohal (1987) were suitably modified keeping
in the view of difference of the study area and time frame. To
quantify the impact of extension intervention, two sets of samples, i.e., beneficiary (farmers of experimental villages) and
non-beneficiary (farmers of control villages) were taken into
consideration. Both the samples were drawn from same socioeconomic background and assumed that difference between
the score of beneficiary and non-beneficiary was due to the
extension interventions and it was hypothesized that farmers
of experimental villages were having more knowledge, attitude, adoption towards scientific dairy farming practices as
well as more milk production and income from dairying than
the non-beneficiary. Non-parametric Mann Whitney BU^ test
was applied for the confirmation of the difference of both
beneficiary and non-beneficiary. Two success stories were also documented to ensure the benefits of extension interventions at micro-level.
Results and discussion
Assessment of impact of extension interventions
on knowledge regarding scientific dairy farming practices
Knowledge regarding scientific dairy farming practices
among the both beneficiary and non-beneficiary was assessed
in four aspects of scientific dairy farming practices viz. breeding, feeding, healthcare, and management. It was observed
from Table 2 that mean score of knowledge about scientific
breeding practices of beneficiary farmers of experimental villages and non-beneficiary farmers of control villages were
11.23 ± 0.23 and 8.82 ± 0.19, respectively. The same table also depicts that knowledge on scientific dairy farming practices
of beneficiary farmers was significantly (p < 0.01) higher than
the non-beneficiary farmers. Data presented in the same table
also clearly depicted than mean score of knowledge regarding
feeding practices of beneficiary farmers of experimental villages was significantly (p < 0.01) higher than the nonbeneficiary farmers of control villages. Table 2 also clearly
mentioned that mean scores of knowledge regarding health
care practices of dairy animals of beneficiary farmers and
Trop Anim Health Prod (2017) 49:641–648
non-beneficiary farmers were 10.12 ± 0.26 and 7.62 ± 0.22,
respectively. This result explained that farmers of experimental villages had significantly (p < 0.01) higher knowledge regarding healthcare of dairy animals than the non beneficiary
farmers of control villages. Health related issues of the dairy
animals of experimental villages were regularly intervened by
the Dairy Vikash Kendra. This may be the reason of higher
knowledge of dairy farmers of experimental villages. In case
of knowledge regarding management practice of dairy animals, beneficiary farmers were having significantly
(p < 0.01) higher knowledge than the non-beneficiary farmers.
Like different components of knowledge regarding scientific
dairy farming practices, overall knowledge regarding scientific dairy farming practices possessed by the dairy farmers of
experimental villages was significantly (p < 0.01) higher than
the dairy farmers of non-experimental villages. The results
indicated that extension interventions had a positive impact
in improving knowledge base of the beneficiary farmers.
Beneficiary farmers attended several trainings, awareness
camp, demonstration, read extension literatures etc. and these
may be the reasons of improved knowledge base of beneficiary farmers than non-beneficiary farmers. Sahu et al. (2010)
said that knowledge gain level was high (80%) in training +
demonstration + literature followed by training + demonstration (75%), demonstration (40%), and training (35%) when
training was conducted on vermicompost. The findings of the
present study were in agreement with Sivashankar and Khedgi
(2011) who studied in Sandur taluk of Bellary district in
Karnataka state, covering 100 SHG members to obtain impact
of training program on knowledge level and improvement in
their economic status which indicated that training had a
definite impact on the knowledge level of the respondents.
Kumar et al. (2013) revealed that there was highly significant
difference in the knowledge level of the farmers’ interest
groups of vellore district of Tamilnadu on cattle feed combinations before and after training. Biswas et al. (2008) reported
that there was a significant difference in knowledge of respondents on deworming, artificial insemination and vaccination
as a result of training.
Assessment of impact of extension interventions
on attitude towards adoption of scientific dairy farming
practices
In the present study, attitude towards adoption of scientific
dairy farming practices was conceptualized as the positive
outlook of the dairy farmers towards adoption of scientific
dairy farming practices to improve the status of their own
livelihood. From the Table 3, it was observed that mean score
of attitude towards adoption of scientific dairy farming practices of beneficiary farmers of experimental villages and nonbeneficiary farmers of control villages were 31.93 ± 0.35 and
28.77 ± 0.39, respectively. This result demanded that
Trop Anim Health Prod (2017) 49:641–648
Table 2 Assessment of impact of
extension interventions on
knowledge regarding Scientific
dairy farming practices
645
(Mean ± SE)
Component of
Knowledge
Experimental villages
(n = 60)
Mann Whitney U Statistics
U Statistics
Z value
P value
Breeding
Feeding
11.23 ± 0.23
7.42 ± 0.20
8.82 ± 0.19
5.18 ± 0.21
541
598
−6.71
−6.37
0.000
0.000
Healthcare
10.12 ± 0.26
7.62 ± 0.22
615
−6.30
0.000
Management
Overall Knowledge
5.72 ± 0.16
34.47 ± 0.61
4.23 ± 0.16
25.85 ± 0.57
788
340.50
−5.45
−7.67
0.000
0.000
beneficiary farmers of experimental villages were having significantly (p < 0.01) higher positive attitude towards adoption
of scientific dairy farming practices than non-beneficiary
farmers of control villages. Scientists of the ERS of ICARNDRI used to visit the villages in a regular interval. Therefore,
close contact with technocrats and constant support through
the Dairy Vikash Kendra made the dairy farmers of
experimental villages more confident to adopt scientific
dairy farming practices. These may be the reason of more
positive attitude of the dairy farmers of experimental villages
than their counter parts of control villages. Noor and Dola
(2011) concluded that training had positive impact to the
farmers’ perception and performance. Sharma (2014) reported
that about 15% improvement in the level of attitude of dairy
farm women of Chittoor district of Andhra Pradesh towards
the scientific dairy farming was due to training and other extension program.
Assessment of impact of extension interventions
on adoption of scientific dairy farming practices
Five pillars of scientific dairy farming viz. breeding, feeding,
management, disease control, and marketing were included in
assessment of adoption of scientific dairy farming practices.
Table 4 clearly depicted that adoption of breeding practices by
the beneficiary farmers of experimental villages was significantly (p < 0.01) higher than the non-beneficiary farmers of
control villages. One of the major activities of the Dairy
Vikash Kendra was to provide AI facility to the villagers.
Table 3 Assessment of impact of extension interventions on attitude
towards adoption of scientific dairy farming practices
(Mean ± SE)
Experimental villages (n = 60)
Control villages (n = 60)
Man Whitney U Statistics
Control villages
(n = 60)
U Statistics
Z value
P Value
31.93 ± 0.35
28.77 ± 0.39
766.50
−5.46
0.000
Therefore, ERS of ICAR-NDRI extended AI facility round
the clock to the dairy farmers of experimental villages. This
may be the reason of higher level of adoption of scientific
breeding practices in experimental villages than the control
villages.
Data portrayed in the Table 4 clearly mentioned that mean
scores of adoption regarding feeding practices of dairy animals of beneficiary farmers and non-beneficiary farmers were
5.27 ± 0.19 and 4.20 ± 0.12, respectively. This result also explained that dairy farmers of experimental villages were significantly (p < 0.01) ahead in adoption of the scientific feeding
practices of dairy animal than the non-beneficiary of control
villages. A critical look on the Table 1 clearly explained that a
larger number dairy farmers benefitted through Dairy Vikash
Kendra by getting mineral mixture, training and demonstration on azola, urea treatment of paddy and fodder crops. Due
to these constant and regular interventions, adoption of scientific feeding practices of dairy animal was higher in experimental villages than the non-experimental villages. Sharma
et al. (2014) reported a significant increase in use of mineral
mixture, urea molasses block and concentrate mixture among
the dairy farmers of Kapurthala district, Punjab due to increase
in knowledge after getting training program.
But, in case of adoption of disease control in dairy animals,
there were no significant differentiation between the dairy
farmers of control and experimental villages. The same table
also depicts that among all the components of adoption of
scientific dairy farming practices, disease control measure
was least adopted by the dairy farmers of the both control
and experimental villages. State animal husbandry and veterinary department widely covered vaccination of the dairy animal. Therefore, incidences of diseases of the livestock were
very rare in the Nadia district of West Bengal. Hence, adoption
of diseases control measure was too low. Like disease control
measure, there were no significant differentiation between the
dairy farmers of control and experimental villages in adoption
of marketing practices. The farmers of both villages (control
and experimental) used to sale milk to the milkman (Dudhia)
due to absence of any other means like milk collection centre
of milk cooperative society. Therefore, marketing component
646
Table 4 Assessment of impact of
extension interventions on
adoption of scientific dairy
farming practices
Trop Anim Health Prod (2017) 49:641–648
(Mean ± SE)
Component of
adoption
Experimental villages
(n = 60)
Mann Whitney U Statistics
U Statistics
Z value
P value
Breeding
Feeding
4.47 ± 0.23
5.27 ± 0.19
3.42 ± 0.19
4.20 ± .0.12
1217.00
1087.50
−3.23
−4.55
0.001
0.000
Management
4.65 ± 0.19
2.73 ± 0.21
751.50
−5.78
0.000
Disease control
Marketing
3.95 ± 0.09
4.20 ± 0.09
3.75 ± 0.12
4.00 ± 0.00
1736.00
1650.00
−0.65
−2.27
0.415
0.057
Overall adoption
22.53 ± 0.55
18.10 ± 0.40
672.50
−5.99
0.000
of scientific dairy practices was not widely adopted by the
dairy farmers of both control and experimental villages.
Ellis (1992) in his famous book BAgricultural Policies in
Developing Countries^ argued that during the initial stages of
adoption of new technology in agriculture, essential inputs/
subsidies are justified as front up costs. Hence, providing of
critical inputs in agriculture focused on promoting agricultural
productivity by making adoption of new technologies which
are urgently needed. Therefore, in this present study supply of
essential inputs like AI facility, mineral mixture, and fodder
seeds made available to the beneficiary farmers with an aim to
adopt these technologies. Study also established that beneficiary farmers accepted these technologies which help them to
better production and price for their farm produce.
Assessment of impact of extension interventions on milk
production and income from dairying
As far as improvement in milk production was concerned,
data portrayed in the Table 5 clearly mentioned that average
milk production of dairy animals per household of beneficiary
farmers and non-beneficiary farmers were 9.60 ± 0.56 litres
and 7.00 ± 0.71 litres, respectively. This result proved that
farmers of experimental villages had significantly (p < 0.01)
more milk production of dairy animals per household than the
non beneficiary farmers of control villages due to regular intervention of Dairy Vikash Kendra in experimental villages.
Sharma et al. (2014) reported that the average milk production
Table 5 Assessment of impact of
extension interventions on
production variables, i.e., milk
production and income from
dairying
Control villages
(n = 60)
per animal per day increased from 6.76 to 6.93 litres among
the dairy farmers of Kapurthala district, Punjab to due increase
in knowledge after getting training program. Elias et al. (2013)
reported that extension participation increases farm productivity by about 6% of small holder in highland of Ethiopia.
Farmers of experimental villages were getting treatment,
advice about health care practices for their animals as and
when required from the Dairy Vikash Kendra which increased
knowledge regarding scientific dairy farming practices create
positive attitude towards adoption of scientific dairy farming
practices, adopted more scientific dairy farming practices and
ultimately increased milk production level of dairy animals.
Economic benefits from any enterprise proved its efficacy
and sustainability. Data presented in the Table 5 clearly explained that average monthly income from dairying of beneficiary farmers of experimental villages was significantly
(p < 0.01) higher than non-beneficiary farmers of control villages due to increased in production of their dairy animals.
Dairy farmers of experimental villages were getting superior germplasm through AI, free treatment, advice about
health care practices, critical feed ingredients like mineral
mixture, etc. for their animals from the Dairy Vikash Kendra
which increased knowledge regarding scientific dairy farming
practices followed by create positive attitude towards adoption
of scientific dairy farming practices, adopted more scientific
dairy farming practices and ultimately increased milk
production level of dairy animals and finally income from
dairying. Sharma et al. (2014) reported an increase in net
(Mean ± SE)
Production variables
Milk Production (liter)
Monthly Income from
dairying (Rupees)
(68 INR = 1 USD)
Experimental villages
(n = 60)
Control villages
(n = 60)
Mann Whitney U statistics
U Statistics
Z value
P value
9.60 ± 0.56
7.00 ± 0.71
1050
−3.947
0.000
3057 ± 207
1727 ± 221
651
−6.037
0.000
Trop Anim Health Prod (2017) 49:641–648
profit per animal per year was Rs. 2607.82 (1 USD = 68 INR)
among the dairy farmers of Kapurthala district, Punjab due to
reduction of cost as a result of increase in knowledge and
adoption after getting training program. Rivera et al. (2001)
and Anderson & Feder (2007) also reported increase in farm
income due to organized efforts of extension system.
Success story 1: Smt Kanika Mondal—an exemplary
women dairy farmer of Muratipur village who ensured
her livelihood through dairy farming
Smt. Kanika Mondal, 39 years old, and had no formal schooling, is a woman dairy farmer from Muratipur, Chakdah,
Nadia, West Bengal, and a beneficiary Dairy Vikash Kendra
of ERS of ICAR-NDRI, Kalyani. She had no agricultural land
and her major source of livelihood was dairying. She had total
five dairy animals with two milch animals, one heifer and one
calf on the day of data collection. She actively participated in
different extension interventions from ERS, ICAR-NDRI,
Kalyani like demonstration of azolla prodction, trainingcum-demonstration on urea treatment of paddy straw, field
day, scientists-farmers interaction, dairy mela. She also accepted area specific mineral mixture for dairy animals and
AI facilities for her animals from Dairy Vikash Kendra. She
was also an active member of common interest group named
Mahamaya Mahila Samiti established by ERS, ICAR-NDRI.
She followed advice of balanced ration for her animals. At
present milk production from her cow was 10–12 l/day/cow
and earned Rs. 15,000/-monthly from her own dairy. She
expressed that productivity of her animal substantially increased due to extension interventions conducted by ERS,
ICAR-NDRI as well as Dairy Vikash Kendra and made her
dairy profitable. She also requested to the scientists of ERS of
ICAR-NDRI to help her to enlarge her dairy to ensure better
livelihood of her chlidren.
Success story 2: Shri Mritunjoy Mondal—a successful
dairy farmer from Dakkhin Chandamari village
Shri Mritunjoy Mondal, 60 year old, is a dairy farmer of from
Dakkhin Chandamari village of Chakdah community development block of Nadia district of West Bengal. His major
source of income is crop farming and dairying. He had a herd
size of seven dairy animals with four milch cows and producing 10–15 l/day/animal on the day of data collection. Shri
Mondal took active participation in frontline fodder demonstration, training in vermi compost preparation, training on
clean milk production and demonstration of azolla prodction,
training-cum-demonstration on urea treatment of paddy straw
organized by ERS, ICAR-NDRI. He also actively engaged in
animal health-cum-extension camps oragised for deworming,
vaccination and routine treatment of animal. He was also provided fodder seed and mineral mixture. Shri Mondal adopted
647
vermi compost in his premises and cultivate fodder crops like
maize, sorghum, barseem in his own field. He also availed AI
facility of Dairy Vikash Kendra. He informed that his net
profit from his dairying was Rs. 70,000/-during the last year
which has been substantially increased due to extension interventions of ERS of ICAR-NDRI. He expressed his sincere
thanks to ERS of ICAR-NDRI for opening Dairy Vikash
Kendra in his nearby village and for conducting several extension program in his village which helped and encouraged
him to be a successful dairy farmer.
Conclusions
Findings of the study manifest the impact of extension interventions in improving knowledge, attitude, adoption of scientific dairy farming practices, milk production, and income
from dairying which ultimately leads to the improvement of
livelihood of rural dairy farmers of Nadia district of West
Bengal. It is evident that there was a significant difference
between the beneficiaries (who received facilities through extension interventions for dairy farming) and non-beneficiaries
(dairy farmers of control villages) in all aspects of scientific
dairy farming practices. Therefore, it may be concluded that
systematic extension intervention may not be a panacea to
eradicate poverty from rural livelihood, but, may be a strongest weapon for improving livelihood of millions of rural
masses throughout the world.
Acknowledgements We have a sincere gratitude to the Director,
ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal for providing all the
facilities for this study. We are also thankful to our esteemed dairy farmers
for sharing their views and giving time for the research work.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
References
Anderson, J. R., Feder G., 2007. Handbook of Agricultural Economics,
vol.3. Chapter 44: Agricultural Extension. Edited by Evenson, R.
and Pingali, P. agriculture and Rural Development Department,
World Bank, Washington, DC. pp. 2344 – 2367. doi:10.1016/
S1574-0072(06)03044-1.
Birner, R., Davis, K., Pender, J., Nkonya, E., Anandajayasekeram, P.,
Ekboir, J., Mbabu, A., Spielman, D. J., Horna, D., Benin, S.,
Kisamba-Mugerwa, W., 2006. From best practice to best fit: a
framework for designing and analyzing agricultural advisory services. ISNAR Discussion Paper No.5. Washington, D.C.: IFPRI.
Biswas, S., Sarkar, A., Goswami, A., 2008. Impact of KVK training on
Advance Dairy Farming Practices (AFDPS) in changing knowledge
and attitude of Prani-Bandhu. J. Dairying Foods Home Sci., 27(1):
43–46.
648
Elias, A., Nohmi, M., Yasunobu, K., Ishida, A., 2013. Effect of Agricultural
Extension Program on Smallholders’ Farm Productivity: Evidence
from Three Peasant Associations in the Highlands of Ethiopia,
Journal of Agricultural Science, 5(8).163-181.
Ellis, F., 1992. Agricultural Policies in Developing Countries.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Khatik, G. L., 1994. A study of training needs of tribal dairy farmers in
Rajasthan. Ph.D. Thesis (Unpublished), NDRI, Karnal.
Kumar, B. R., Baskaran, D., Saraswathi, S., Kumar, C. T. A., 2013.
Impact of training program in adoption of cattle feed computation
by farmer interest groups (FIGs) of Tamil Nadu. Tamilnadu J.
Veterinary & Animal Sciences, 9 (4) 264 – 271.
Mulay, S., Sabarathanam, V. E., 1980. Research Methods in Extension
Education. Manasyam, New Delhi.
Noor, K. B. N., Dola, K., 2011. Investigating training impact on farmers
perception and performance. Int. J. Hum. Soc. Sci., 1(6): 145 – 152.
Ray, G. L., Mondal, S., 2006. Research Methods in Social Sciences and
Extension Education. Kalyani Publishers, Ludhiana.
Rivera, W. M., Qamar, M. K., Crowder, L. V., 2001. Agricultural and
Rural Extension Worldwide: Options for Institutional Reform in
Developing Countries. FAO, Rome
Sahu, R. P., Singh, K., Singh, R. J., 2010. Impact of communication
methods on knowledge and adoption of vermin compost technology
Trop Anim Health Prod (2017) 49:641–648
through KVK intervention. Journal of Communication Studies,
28(3) 34–37.
Seltiz, C., Wrightsman, L. S., Cook, S. W., 1976. Research Methods in
social relations. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
Sharma, M., Singh, G., Keshava. 2014. Impact Evaluation of Training
Programmes on Dairy Farming in Punjab State. Indian Res. J. Ext.
Edu. 14 (1): 105–108.
Sharma, R. K., Sohal, T. S., 1987. A scale for measuring adoption of dairy
innovations. Indian J. Ext. Edu. 23(1&2): 68–71.
Singh, B., 2008. Livelihood security: Need for cohesive strategy, paper
published in the Compendium of Abstracts/Papers, prepared on the
occasion of International seminar on Bstrategies for improving livelihood security of rural poor^ held at ICAR research complex, Ela,
Goa, India during September 24 – 27, 2008.
Singh, T., 1994. Multidimensional analysis of dairy farming system in
western dry region, Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, NDRI, Karnal.
Sivashankar N., Khedgi, K., 2011. Influence of trainings on the knowledge level of Self Help Group Members. Stud Home Com Sci. 5(3):
135 – 140.
Waddington, H., Snilstveit, B., White, H., Anderson, J., 2010. The
impact of agricultural extension services. International initiative for impact evaluation. 3ie Synthetic Reviews – SR009,
Protocol, January 2010.