MilkIT2nd Advisory Council Meeting

Almora 18/12/2012

Group discussionsIndia

Thanammal Ravichandran, Nils Teufel

Group 1 – topic & members

• How can we create ownership of innovation platforms to make them more sustainable?

Kuldeep ThapliyalCHIRAG

Arun Nagar KotiDUSS - Aanchal

Sonali BishtINHERE

C Ravi ShankarDev Office, Almora (had to leave early)

Group 1 - results

• Analysis of stakeholders necessary to ensure that all relevant stakeholders are included in IP.

• Only producers are stable stakeholdersall others change frequently

• Therefore producers should own IPs• IPs should exist at various levels and interact;

representation at higher level (federation)• Semi-formal structure would be ideal (not too much red tape), if

required formalisation (registration) might come later (e.g. to define responsibilities)

• Producer members have to see benefit, then they will ensure stability and sustainability

Group 2 – topic & members

• How can we make dairy innovation platforms more attractive to milk buyers?

RS RawatGBPIHED

Mukul Prakash CHIRAG

Thanammal Ravichandran

ILRISS SamantAjeeveeka

GC PantINHERE

Group 2 - results• Explore local buyers (existing & potential)• Link buyers to credit institutions so that they can give credit to milk

sellers• Don’t only focus on liquid milk (value addition, organic production)

support producers for processing• Consider dung• Help buyers to provide inputs to producers• Support transparency of sales (recording of volume and quality by

producer)• Provide options for dealing with seasonal variation in supply (non-

perishable products, e.g. ghee, sweets)• Support training of buyers to ensure product quality in value chain• Support linking buyers to formal institutions

Group 3 – topic & members

• What is the potential of private grasslands for increasing fodder supply and reducing labour requirements and which are the most promising technologies for improvement?

JK BishtVPKAS

Prem KumarForestry Dep

Sanjay SaxenaAjeeveeka

Chitra DhumanAnim Husb Dep

Nils TeufelILRI

Group 3 – results 1

• First have good analysis of fodder resources (contribution of various land types) and demand (main shortage periods Dec-Feb & Apr-Jun)

• Silvi-pastoral systems provide greatest environmental benefits.

• Suitable multi-purpose trees: Bhimal (Grewia optiva), Bhanj (?), Mulberry (but no winter fodder), Kathoj (Bauhinia reduca? Indigofera linnaeus?), Khairwal/Kachan (Bauhinia purpurea), Kachnar (Bauhinia variegata)

Group 3 – results 2

• Suitable perennials– Winter/ high altitude grasses: rye grass (lolium

perenne), orchard grass (dactylis glomerata) – but need fertiliser, convincing farmers

– Summer grasses: hybrid napier (bajra X napier), napier (planting in rainy season)

– Legumes (no fodder during winter): desmodium triflorum (sufficient rainfall?), desmodium uncinatum, seretro? stylosanthes

Group 3 – results 3• When improving grass-lands protection (fences) is required

(grazing, wild animals), especially for hybrid napier (trees less susceptable)

• At the moment development is focussed only on forest and community land (van panchayat) and mostly on trees (biomass production?)

• Annual yields:– trees (grevia: 2x2m; 1 picking 10-12kg/tree, 2 pickings 14-16kg/tree;

quercus leucotrichophora, pollarded: 140-150 qtl/ha– current grasses: heteropogon (kumaria) & chrysopogon (khumaria) 50-

70 qtl/ha– Improved winter grasses (with water): 300-500 qtl/ha– Summer/rainy season grasses: hybrid napier 800 qtl/ha

Group 3 – results 4

• Current development approach for community land: 200 trees/ha & trenches for collecting water to support grasses

• For private lands: demonstrations, economic analysis, small models

• Also: what options for storage improvement?• IFAD experience: create farmer interest through

demonstration of selling fodder from van panchayat land within community; boundary fencing enabled through MNREGA