See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/306044834

A study on milk producing farmer’s perception towards komul with special

reference to kolardist, Karnataka.

Article  in  International Journal of Advanced Research · July 2016

DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/1017

CITATIONS READS

0 192

2 authors:

R.Kiran Reddy Vara Prasad

Madanapalle Institute of Technology & Science Madanapalle Institute of Technology & Science
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS    3 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Marketing, Branding View project

Demonitisation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Vara Prasad on 27 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISSN 2320-5407 International Journal of Advanced Research (2016), Volume 4, Issue 7, 1082-1092

Journal homepage:http://www.journalijar.com INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

Journal DOI:10.21474/IJAR01 OF ADVANCED RESEARCH

RESEARCH ARTICLE

A study on milk producing farmer’s perception towards komul with special reference to kolardist,
Karnataka.
*
R. Kiran Reddy1 and Dr. R. Vara Prasad2.
1. Student, Department of Management Studies, Madanapalle Institute of Technology and Science, Madanapalle.
2. Assistant Professor, Department of Management Studies, Madanapalle Institute of Technology and Science,
Madanapalle.

Manuscript Info Abstract

Manuscript History: The paper makes an attempt to examine the milk producer’sperception
towards Kolar Dist. Cooperative Milk Producer's Societies Union
Received: 15 May 2016
Final Accepted: 16 June 2016
Ltd., (KOMUL) with the help of an empirical study conducted in three
Published Online: July 2016 selected taluks of Kolar district of Karnataka. The findings clearly show that
the production of milk varies from age, experience and education. The
Key words: present study also identified the services rendered by KOMUL on
Milk Producing farmers, disseminating modern technology and knowledge among its members
cooperative societies, KOMUL through regular training, extension services, method demonstrations, field
trials, provision of animal health care facilities, free supply of fodder. As a
*Corresponding Author result the knowledge level of farmers connected with cooperative society
differs to a great extent from that of the non-members.
R. Kiran Reddy.
Copy Right, IJAR, 2016,. All rights reserved.

Introduction:-
Dairy sector plays an important role in India’s socio-economic development, and constitutes an important segment
of the rural economy. Dairy industry provides livelihood to millions of homes in villages, ensuring supply of quality
milk and milk products to people in both urban and rural areas. Indian dairy industry has been growing rapidly
keeping pace with increase in milk consumption. This sector also plays significant role in supplementing family
incomes and generating gainful employment in the rural sector, particularly among the landless laborers, small and
marginal farmers and women, besides providing nutritional food to millions of people at equitable price.

India with 204 million cows and 84 million buffaloes has the largest population of cattle in the world. Milk
production gives employment to 70 million dairy farmers. In terms of total production, India ranks first with a
production of 78 million tons annually. Besides, it is one of the largest producer as well as consumer of dairy
products. Due to their rich nutritional qualities, the consumption of dairy products has been growing exponentially
in the country.

Though India is the largest milk producer in the world no Indian dairy made it to the top twenty, because of highly
unorganized nature of the Indian dairy industry and also because it is driven by cooperatives and not companies.
Indian organized dairy industry is largely, packed milk market. Packed milk captures two-third of the organized
dairy market in India. Whereas value-added products accounts for one-fifth of the organized dairy market in India.
"This trend is epitomized by most of the leading dairy players in India. This is the reason for low realization per liter
of milk handled by organized players in India. However, we see a trend of shift towards value-added products which
will be 30 per cent of the organized dairy market in next five years. This will help improve the realization and the
margins for the dairy players."

1082
ISSN 2320-5407 International Journal of Advanced Research (2016), Volume 4, Issue 7, 1082-1092

It is evident from the statistics that the dairy industry is playing an important role in providing employment to
millions of people in India leading us to focus on understanding the various problems faced by the milk producing
farmer and for this purpose farmers who are actively engaged in supplying milk to KOMUL would be the best
source of information who can reflect the overall population across south India.

Need for the study:-

India is one of the world’s largest milk producer and consumer. Dairy industry in Indiais the second largest
employment provider, helping the rural hose hold to earn their daily bread. Majority of the Indian milk producing
farmers take up milk production parallel to the main stream agriculture. Farmers in rural India are limited to formal
education and experience lot of challenges to achieve excellence in milk farming where as their counterparts in the
western nations have access to education and technology help.

This present paper provides an insight to understand the various challenges the milk producing farmers are going
through and the feasibility measures taken by the KOMUL co-operative milk society.

Objectives of the study:-

 To study the impact of milk producing farmersdemographic factors on their milk production.
 To study the various services rendered by KOMUL dairy towards milk producing farmers.
 To analyze the satisfaction level of milk producing farmers towards KOMUL dairy.

Hypotheses:-
 H1: There is no significant relationship between the milk producing farmer gender with respect to quantity of
milk produced.
 H2: There is no significant relationship between the milk producing farmer age with respect to quantity of milk
produced.
 H3: There is no significant relationship between the milk producing farmer education with respect to quantity of
milk produced.
 H4: There is no significant difference between the satisfaction levels of milk producing farmers with respect to
KOMUL dairy.
 H5: There is a significant relation between the subsidy and quality of feed provided by KOMUL.

Review of Literature:-
D. S. Thakur’s, (1975), Analysis on progress of milk societies, milk unions and the impact of milk co-operatives on
the economic conditions of rural people including the weaker sections in the Gujarat was remarkable in terms of
increasing number of milk societies; total membership, share 30 capital, reserve fund, net profit, milk collected and
transactions were made since their inception.

Researcher also indicated the impact of technical inputs disbursed by milk co-operatives on production and
marketed surplus of milk, adoption of improved agricultural inputs and the annual income of the milk producers.
Milk production per animal and marketed surplus is a little higher in the experimental villages than in the control
villages. In experimental villages, the use of improved agricultural input and total incomes are found to be higher.
The marketed surplus of milk is higher in the case of the weaker sections compared to the medium and large farmers
in general seems to be too obvious a conclusion.

Singh, K. and Das. V. M. (1980), they conducted a study on impact of operational flood at the village level and
found that the proportion of animals in milk to total milk animals was higher in the co-operative villages than in the
control villages. The average household income from all sources was substantially higher in the co-operative
villages than non-operative villages; however, the distribution of income from milk did not show any trend. The
study further observed that the average employment of family labour in milk production was marketed higher in the
co-operative villages than in the control villages. The awareness of scientific animal health care and improved
feeding practices of respondents of co-operative village are more than control villages

Kherde, R. L. and Subramaniom, R. (1980), Studied the impact of milk marketing through dairy co-operatives
and found significant increase in the milk production in the co-operative villages whereas there was decline in the
duration of age at first calving, calving interval, dry period and mortality rate in buffaloes. The net income of the

1083
ISSN 2320-5407 International Journal of Advanced Research (2016), Volume 4, Issue 7, 1082-1092

milk producers increased under co-operative villages probably due to efficient and assured milk marketing through
co-operatives. Employment days generated per farm in co-operative villages were more than non-co-operative
villages.

Singh, M. et al. (1985),conducted a study on operational efficiency of U.P. milk co-operatives and found that the
services like veterinary aid, cattle feed and marketing facilities were insufficient. Input services like artificial
insemination (AI), pregnancy diagnosis, balance cattle feed and vaccination against communicable disease have
appositive bearing on the efficiency of milk cooperatives. And concluded that the communication system should be
made strong for quick transmission of latest technology, technical know-how pertaining to dairy as well as input
services should be strengthened in the state to attain desired efficiency of milk co-operative societies

K. Rajendran and SamarenduMohanty (2004) “Dairy Co-operatives and Milk Marketing in India: Constraints
and Opportunities”, in this study it is pointed out that the Operation Flood and dairy co-operatives emerged in India
as the largest rural employment scheme, enabling the modernization of the dairy sector to a level from where it can
take off to meet not only the country’s demand for milk and milk products but can also exploit global market
opportunities. This study reviews the existing status of milk marketing and dairy co-operatives in India and provides
recommendations to meet future challenges.

The results of the study indicate that 80 percent of the milk produced by the rural producer is handled by an
unorganized sector and the remaining 20 percent is handled by an organized sector. It is found that the dairy co-
operatives play a vital role in alleviating rural poverty by augmenting rural milk production and marketing.
Involvement of intermediaries; lack of bargaining power by the producers; and lack of infrastructure facilities for
collection, storage, transportation, and processing are the major constraints which affect the prices received by
producers in milk marketing. Milk quality, product development, infrastructure support development, and global
marketing are found to be future challenges of India’s milk marketing.

R B; Dayal, Rekha (2004) “Economic Analysis of Production and Marketing of Milk in Central Region of Uttar
Pradesh” The study examines the economics of production and marketing of milk in the state of Uttar Pradesh.
Linear and log-linear functions were used to work out the estimates of factors affecting marketed surplus of milk
both for the private and cooperative systems. The results of the study indicate that the feed and fodder cost was the
most important item of the total maintenance cost accounting for 55 to 65 per cent of the total cost in Zone I and 51
to 66 per cent in Zone II. The net profit per day of a milch buffalo was very low due to the higher maintenance cost

Varaprasad, R., & Rao, K. V. (2014) Consumer Perception and Satisfaction with Branded Milk and Milk
Products.This study examines the brand awareness of branded milk and milk products and consumers reasons for
preferring a particular brand. As majority of the branded milk are produced by either private companies or
cooperative societies, this study has resulted in customer’s preference towards cooperative societies branded milk.

Sources of data:-
Primary data:-
Primary data has been collected from 150 milk producing farmers fromthree selected taluks (Mulbagal, Bangarpet
and Kolar) of Kolar District using convenience sampling method.

Secondary data:-
Secondary Data was collected through various websites, Journals, Books etc.

Sample design:
1. Sampling Frame: Those who sell milk to different co-operative societies in Kolar District.
2. Sampling Unit: Producers who sell milk to KOMUL (3 Taluks) from each taluk 150 members.
3. Sample size: 450
4. Sampling Method: Convenience sampling

Statistical tools used:-

 SPSS 20 has been used to draw the results.
 Chi-square method was adopted to draw inferences based on the questionnaire.
 ANOVA technique was used to analyze the data.

1084
ISSN 2320-5407 International Journal of Advanced Research (2016), Volume 4, Issue 7, 1082-1092

 Descriptive statistics technique was used to analyze the data.

Scope of the study:-

 The present study is undertaken in the Kolar district of Karnataka. The geographical area of this district is
surrounded with agricultural farms and hills. The major occupation of the people of this district is agriculture.
The present study has analyzed the perception of milk producing farmers in this district.
 The present study is undertaken in the three taluks of Kolar district of Karnataka. In each taluk 150 samples are
collected from the milk producing farmers to know their perception towards KOMUL.

Limitations of the study:-

The following are the limitations of the study
 The study is confined only to Kolar district of Karnataka.
 Time limit was one of the main constraints.
 It was assumed that the information provided by respondents are true in nature.

Data Analysis and Interpretation:-

Table – 1:-Gender
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid MALE 375 83.3 83.3 83.3
FEMALE 75 16.7 16.7 100.0
Total 450 100.0 100.0
Source: Field Survey
Inference: It can be seen from the above table that, an overwhelming majority of 83.3 percent of the respondents are
male and only 16.7 percent of the respondents are female.

Table - 2:-AGE
Age
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 20-39 YEARS 102 22.7 22.7 22.7
40-59 YEARS 254 56.4 56.4 79.1
60-79 YESARS 93 20.7 20.7 99.8
ABOVE 80 1 .2 .2 100.0
YEARS
Total 450 100.0 100.0
Source: Field Survey
Inference: It can be examined from the above table that, a majority (56.4percent) of the respondents are in the age
group of 40 to 59 years, followed by 22.7 percent are in the age group of 20 to 39 years, 20.7 percent of the
respondents are in the age group of 60 to 79 years. Whereas 0.2 per cent of the respondents are above 80 years of
age.

Table – 3:-Education
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid SSC 130 28.9 28.9 28.9
secondary education 158 35.1 35.1 64.0
UG 34 7.6 7.6 71.6
PG 1 .2 .2 71.8
Illiterate 127 28.2 28.2 100.0
Total 450 100.0 100.0
Source: Field Survey
Inference: It can be interpreted from the above table that, a majority of the respondents (35.1 percent) are having
Secondary Education, followed by 28.9 percent with SSC qualification followed by illiterates with 28.2 per cent and
as many as 7.6% are Under-graduates.

1085
ISSN 2320-5407 International Journal of Advanced Research (2016), Volume 4, Issue 7, 1082-1092

Table - 4:- Marital Status

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Vali MARRIED 422 93.8 93.8 93.8
d UN MARRIED 28 6.2 6.2 100.0
Total 450 100.0 100.0
Source: Field Survey
Inference: It can be interpreted from the above table that, a majority of the respondents 93.8% are married and 6.2%
of the respondents are unmarried.

Table - 5:-How many number of milking cattle do you own

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid up to 2 211 46.9 46.9 46.9
3-5 185 41.1 41.1 88.0
above 5 54 12.0 12.0 100.0
Total 450 100.0 100.0
Source: Field Survey
Inference: It can be interpreted from the above table that 46.9% of the respondents are having 1 to 2 milking cattle,
where as 41.1% are having 3-5 milking cattle and only 12.0% are having above 5 milking cattle.

Table - 6:-Number of Liters of milk procured per day

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Less than5liters 88 19.5 19.5 19.5
5 to 10liters 160 35.4 35.4 54.9
10 to 15liters 120 26.5 26.5 81.4
15 to 20liters 84 18.6 18.6 100.0
Total 452 100.0 100.0
Source: Field Survey
Inference: It can be interpreted from the above table that 35.4% cattle is producing 5 to 10 liters, 26.5% cattle is
producing 10 to 15 liters where as 19.5% cattle is producing less than 5 liters.

Table - 7:- Feed required per day

How much feed do your cows require per day
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 2 kg 37 8.2 8.2 8.2
4 kg 108 24.0 24.0 32.2
6 kg 96 21.3 21.3 53.6
above 6 kg 209 46.4 46.4 100.0
Total 450 100.0 100.0
Inference: The above table details about the feed required for a day, 8.2% need 2kg per day, 24% need 4kg per day,
21.3% need 6kg per day and 46.4% are need above 6kg per day.

Table – 8:-Supplying feed by KOMUL

Is KOMUL supplying feed?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Yes 441 98.0 98.0 98.0
No 9 2.0 2.0 100.0
Total 450 100.0 100.0
Inference: The above table infers that 98% of respondents said KOMUL is supplying feed and remaining 2% said
they will not supply feed.

1086
ISSN 2320-5407 International Journal of Advanced Research (2016), Volume 4, Issue 7, 1082-1092

Table - 9:- Subsidy provided by KOMUL

'Yes', what is the % of subsidy KOMUL is providing?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid N/A 298 66.2 66.2 66.2
20% 29 6.4 6.4 72.7
5% 123 27.3 27.3 100.0
Total 450 100.0 100.0
Inference: It is inferred from the above table that 66.2% are not aware of subsidy, 6.4% of the respondents said that
they are receiving 20% subsidy and 27.3% responded that only 5% subsidy is provided.

Table - 10:-Satisfied with subsidy and quality of feed

Are you satisfied with the subsidy and quality of feedprovided by KOMUL?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Yes 353 78.4 78.4 78.4
No 97 21.6 21.6 100.0
Total 450 100.0 100.0
Inference: The above table indicates that 78.4% are satisfied with the subsidy whereas 21.6 not satisfied with the
subsidy provided.

Table - 11:-Veterinary services provided by KOMUL

Is KOMUL providing veterinary services?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Yes 450 100.0 100.0 100.0
Inference: 100% of respondents said that KOMUL is providing veterinary services.

Table - 12:- How many times does KOMUL provide veterinary services in a year
If 'YES', how many times in a year
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid < 3 times 60 13.3 13.3 13.3
3-6 times 99 22.0 22.0 35.3
6-9 times 11 2.4 2.4 37.8
every month 3 .7 .7 38.4
Based on necessity 277 61.6 61.6 100.0
Total 450 100.0 100.0
Inference:13.3% responded that 3 times in a year, 22% responded that 3-6 times in a year, 2.4% responded that 6-9
times in a year, 0.7% responded that every month they will receive services and 61.6 responded that based on
necessity they will receive veterinary services.

Table - 13:- Training programs provided by KOMUL

Is KOMUL providing training programs?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Yes 166 36.9 36.9 36.9
No 284 63.1 63.1 100.0
Total 450 100.0 100.0
Inference:From the above table it is inferred that 36.9% said that training programs are providedwhereas 63.1%
responded that training programs are not provided by KOMUL.

Table - 14:- Training programs are really helpful

If 'YES' are the training programs really helpful in increasing the productivity
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid N/A 284 63.1 63.1 63.1
Yes 164 36.4 36.4 99.6
No 2 .4 .4 100.0
Total 450 100.0 100.0

1087
ISSN 2320-5407 International Journal of Advanced Research (2016), Volume 4, Issue 7, 1082-1092

Inference: From the above table it is inferred that 63.1% said N/A, 36.4% said it is helpful in improving
productivity and only 0.4% said it is not helpful for productivity.

Table - 15:- Insurance to your Cow/Buffalo

Do you have insurance to your cow/Buffalo?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Yes 140 31.1 31.1 31.1
No 310 68.9 68.9 100.0
Total 450 100.0 100.0
Inference: From the above table it is inferred that 31.1% have insured their cow/buffalo and 68.9% have not insured
their cow/buffalo.

Table -16:- Insurance services provided by KOMUL

If 'YES', KOMUL is providing any insurance services?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid N/A 310 68.9 68.9 68.9
Yes 122 27.1 27.1 96.0
No 18 4.0 4.0 100.0
Total 450 100.0 100.0
Inference: The above table denotes that 68.9% said N/A, 27.1% said yes and 4% saidNO.

Table - 17:- Dairy equipment’s provided by KOMUL

Is KOMUL providing any dairy equipment?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Yes 151 33.6 33.6 33.6
No 299 66.4 66.4 100.0
Total 450 100.0 100.0
Inference: The above table denotes that 33.6% have received dairy equipment and only 66.4% have not received
any dairy equipment.

Table - 18:- Subsidy provided by KOMUL

If 'YES', how much percentage of subsidy KOMUL is providing to you
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 20% 25 5.6 5.6 5.6
25% 19 4.2 4.2 9.8
50% 105 23.3 23.3 33.1
N/A 301 66.9 66.9 100.0
Total 450 100.0 100.0
Inference:From the above table it is inferred that varied subsidies are provided, 5.6% of the respondents are
receiving 20%, 4.2% are receiving 25%, 23.3% are receiving 50% and 66.9% are N/A.

Table - 19:-Remuneration paidby KOMUL per Liter

How much remuneration KOMUL is paying per Liter
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 20 3 .7 .7 .7
22 385 85.6 85.6 86.2
24 3 .7 .7 86.9
26 59 13.1 13.1 100.0
Total 450 100.0 100.0
Inference:The above table denotes that, 0.7% are paid Rs. 20 per liter, 85.6% are paid Rs. 22 per liter, 0.7% are paid
Rs. 24 per liter and 13.1% are paid Rs. 26 per liter.

1088
ISSN 2320-5407 International Journal of Advanced Research (2016), Volume 4, Issue 7, 1082-1092

Table - 20:- Satisfied with KOMUL's remuneration

Are you satisfied with KOMUL's remuneration?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Yes 301 66.9 66.9 66.9
No 149 33.1 33.1 100.0
Total 450 100.0 100.0
Inference: The above table indicates that only 6.9% are satisfied whereas 33.1% are not satisfied.

Table - 21:- Satisfied with the overall services provided by the KOMUL
Are you satisfied with the overall services provided by the KOMUL?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Yes 372 82.7 82.7 82.7
No 78 17.3 17.3 100.0
Total 450 100.0 100.0
Inference:The above table helps us to understand that82.7% respondents are satisfied whereas only 17.3% are not
satisfied with the services provided by KOMUL.

Table - 22:- Loans provided by KOMUL to purchase milk producing cows

Is KOMUL providing loans to purchase milk producing cows?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Yes 164 36.4 36.4 36.4
No 286 63.6 63.6 100.0
Total 450 100.0 100.0
Inference: From the above table it is inferred that 36.4% of the farmers are receiving loans whereas 63.6%
respondents said that they have not receiving any loan from KOMUL
Hypothesis Test:
H0: There is no relationship between the milk producing farmer’s gender with respect to quantity of milk produced.
H1: There is relationship between the milk producing farmer’s gender with respect toquantity of milk produced.

Table - 23:- Gender * Number of Liters Cross tabulation

Gender * 1. No.of liters produced per day: Crosstabulation
Count No.of liters produced per day: Total
< 5 liters 5-10 liters 10-15 liters > 15 liters
Gender MALE 80 126 102 67 375
FEMALE 8 33 17 17 75
Total 88 159 119 84 450

Table 23.1:- Chi-Square Tests for Gender and No.of Liters

Chi-Square Tests
Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 6.807a 3 .078
Likelihood Ratio 7.263 3 .064
N of Valid Cases 450
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 14.00.
Inference: Here the hypothesis H0 is failed to be rejected because the p value is more than 0.05.
H0: There is no relationship between the milk producing farmer’s age with respect to quantity of milk produced.
H1: There is relationship between the milk producing farmer’s age with respect to quantity of milk produced.

1089
ISSN 2320-5407 International Journal of Advanced Research (2016), Volume 4, Issue 7, 1082-1092

Table -24:- Age * Number of Liters Cross tabulation

Age * 1. No.of liters produced per day: Cross tabulation
Count No.of liters produced per day: Total
< 5 liters 5-10 liters 10-15 liters > 15 liters
Age 20-39 YEARS 11 33 30 28 102
40-59 YEARS 41 92 72 49 254
60-79 YESARS 35 34 17 7 93
ABOVE 80 YEARS 1 0 0 0 1
Total 88 159 119 84 450

Table – 24.1:- Chi-Square Tests for Age and No.of Liters

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 39.020a 9 .000
Likelihood Ratio 37.265 9 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 30.112 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 450
a. 4 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .19.
Inference: Here the hypothesis H0 is rejected because the p value is less than 0.05.
H0: There is no relationship between the milk producing farmers education with respect to quantity of milk
produced.
H1: There is relationship between the milk producing farmers and education with respect to quantity of milk
produced.

Table - 25:- Educational Qualification * Number of Liters Cross tabulation

Education * 1. No.of liters produced per day: Cross tabulation
Count No.of liters produced per day: Total
< 5 liters 5-10 liters 10-15 liters > 15 liters
SSC 26 46 32 26 130
Secondary 21 57 49 31 158
education
UG 1 8 14 11 34
PG 0 1 0 0 1
Illiterate 40 47 24 16 127
Total 88 159 119 84 450

Table – 25.1:-Educational Qualification * Number of Liters Cross tabulation

Chi-Square Tests
Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 33.594a 12 .001
Likelihood Ratio 35.216 12 .000
N of Valid Cases 450
a. 4 cells (20.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .19.
Inference: Here the hypothesis H0 is rejected because the p value is less than 0.05.
ANOVA:
H0: There is no significant difference between the satisfaction levels of milk producing farmers with respect to
KOMUL.
H1: There is significant difference between the satisfaction level and milk producing farmers with respect to
KOMUL.

1090
ISSN 2320-5407 International Journal of Advanced Research (2016), Volume 4, Issue 7, 1082-1092

Table – 26:- Satisfied with the overall services provided by the KOMUL
Are you satisfied with the overall services provided by the KOMUL?
ANOVA
Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups .123 1 .123 .853 .356
Within Groups 64.357 448 .144
Total 64.480 449
Inference: Here the hypothesis H0 is failed to be rejected because the p value is greater than 0.05.
H0: There is significant relation between the subsidy and quality of feed provided by KOMUL.
H1: There is no significant relation between the subsidy and quality of feed provided by KOMUL.

Table -27:- ANOVA

Are you satisfied with the subsidy and quality of feed provided by KOMUL?
Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 1.062 1 1.062 6.339 .012
Within Groups 75.029 448 .167
Total 76.091 449
Inference: Here the hypothesis H0 is failed to reject because the p value is greater than 0.05.

Findings:-
1. Milk producing farmers with an age group of 40-49 are able to yield more milk compared to other age groups.
2. 28.2% of the farmers are illiterates and 28.9% of farmers have secondary school education.
3. Farmers with secondary school education are able to yield more milk.
4. The information regarding subsidies is not available with the milk producing farmers.
5. According to the survey there is a difference in services provided by KOMUL from place to place.
6. The milk producing farmers are facing problems in attending training programs conducting by KOMUL as the
training programs are provided in Bangalore.
7. Most of the respondents said that the Government of Karnataka is paying a subsidy of Rs. 4 as an addition to the
price paid by KOMUL (Rs. 22). Overall each farmer is paidRs. 26 (Including Rs.4+Rs.22) which has brought
more satisfaction towards KOMUL.
8. In some villages there are no insurance services and in some villages there is a difference in premium.
9. Most of the milk producing farmers are satisfied with the veterinary services provided by the KOMUL.
10. There is a quality difference in feed supplying by KOMUL from place to place.
11. In some places it is found that the illiterate farmers are not aware of the insurance and the benefits from insuring
their cattle.

Conclusion:-
“A study on milk producing farmer’s perception towards KOMUL with special reference to Kolar District,
Karnataka”is a research work envisioned to explore the impact of organized cooperative societyon improving milk
producing farmer’s standard of living and therefore contributing to the overall economic and regional development.

India being the world leader in milk production is embarking a volatile journey of balancing between quality and
quantity of milk in contrast to world standards, in this scenario the role of cooperative societies is undeniably
momentous. Though the primary objective of cooperative societies is to procure and distribute quality milk their role
is extensive in reaching out to the rural and urban inhabitants stimulating to take up milk farming as core or optional
employment by providing financial and materialistic support as and when needed.

It is observed that farmers with minimum education level are able to yield more milk than others, so it is suggested
that apart from regular services cooperative societies should consider running evening schools for villagers as part of
their CSR program. It is also observed that majority of the farmers are still adopting traditional methods of milching,
an issue which need to be focused and to adopt automation changes in milk yielding process to improve quality and
quantity of milching.

It is indubitable that KOMUL is successful in extending its services to the deepest villages of Karnataka. As
identified through this study there are few expectations that need to be met by komul, if the cooperative societies

1091
 ISSN 2320-5407 International Journal of Advanced Research (2016), Volume 4, Issue 7, 1082-1092

across India can reach out to these milk producing farmers and address their concerns then certainly India is going to
shine bright in the world of milk production.

This study will help us to understand the perception of milk producing farmers towards KOMUL one of India’s best
and growing cooperative society, in spite of the societies efforts to serve the milk producing farmers there are few
apprehensions like subsidies, diary equipment’s and fodder etc., which needs emphasis to promote milk farming.

References:
a) Acharya, R.M. (1992), Problems and prospects for dairying in India, in Growth of Indian Agriculture – Issues
and Policies, Dept. of Economics and Sociology, PAU, Ludhiana.
b) Patel, R.K. (1993), “Present status and promise of dairying in India”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics,
Vol.XI.VIII, No.1, Jan-Mar.
c) No Indian dairy among world's top 20, Unorganised market, co-ops stunt local industry, August 19, 2015 Last
Updated at 22:34 IST, Business Standard
d) P.T.Gangasagare and L.M.Karanjkar.(2009) They work on “Status of milk Production and economic profile of
dairy farmers in the Marathwada region of Maharashtra”
e) Durgga Rani V. And Subhadra M.R. (2009) carried out research on “Training needs of farm women in dairy
farming”
f) Shivakumar K. Radder and S.K. Bhanj,(2011)They work on “ Perceptions of Dairy Farmers of Gadag district in
northwestern part of Karnataka state, India regarding Clean Milk Production”.
g) Dr R.D. Deshmukh,(2012) He work on “ Dairy farming in India”,India is a country of farming.
h) Thakur D.S. (1975), Impact of Dairy Development through milk cooperatives A case study of Gujarat. Indian
Journal of Agricultural Economics Vol. XXX (3) Sept. P. 83.
i) Sing K. and Das V.M. (1980), Impact of Operational flood – I at village level, (memeo) Institute of Rural
Management, Anand, Aug.P.2.
j) Kherde R.L. and Subramaniam R. (1980), "Impact of Milk Marketing through Dairy Co-operative; The Indian
Dairy man, Vol.I. 38 August P. 404.
k) Singh M, Verma D.S. and Yadava S.P. (1985), Analysis of Operational Efficiency structure of U.P. milk co-
operatives in Indian co-operative Review, Vol XXII (4) August P. 397.
l) Kumar, V., Wankhede, K. G., &Gena, H. C. (2015). Role of Cooperatives in Improving Livelihood of Farmers
on Sustainable Basis. American Journal of Educational Research, 3(10), 1258-1266.
m) Varaprasad, R., & Rao, K. V. (2014). Consumer Perception and Satisfaction with Branded Milk and Milk
Products. International Journal of Applied Services Marketing Perspectives, 3(2), 1023.

1092

View publication stats