Presented by Nils Teufel at the 1st MilkIT India Advisory Council Meeting, Dehradun, India, 1 June 2012

1. This is based on the presentation given at the advisory council
meeting, but block selection data and conclusions have been
updated based on new milk procurement data.
Notes on plenary and group discussions have also been added.
MilkIT in India
Background, current
status and outlook
1st Advisory Council Meeting
Dehradun 01/06/2012
Nils Teufel

2. Topics
• Background
– ILRI’s activities in South Asia
– History of the MilkIT proposal
– Major structure
• Current status
– Collaboration with Ajeeveeka/IFAD
– Selection of sites & partners
– Detailed work-plans
– Preparations for implementation
• Outlook
– Next activities in 2012
– Plans for 2013
01/06/2012 2/35

3. Background – ILRI in South Asia
• Feed improvements (fodder, food-feed
crops, processing)
• Market development
• Work on innovation
01/06/2012 3/35

4. Background – History of MilkIT
• Fodder Innovation Project/
Fodder Adoption Project
• OPEC dairy feeding & marketing project
• EU/IFAD call
01/06/2012 4/35

5. Background – major structure
• Institutional strengthening
– Value chain assessments
– Stakeholder involvement
– Innovation platforms for improved dairy marketing
• Productivity improvements
– Feed assessments
– Technology matching
– Innovation platforms for productivity improvements
focussing on feeding
• Knowledge sharing
– Communication outputs
– Meetings between partners, stakeholders, countries
01/06/2012 5/35

6. Status – Collaboration Ajeeveeka
• IFAD aim of linking loan programmes to grants
• Building on base laid by ULIPH
• Alignment with development of ILSP
– Site selection
– M&E framework (base-line survey)
– Support for value chain activities
• Comparison with Tanzania
01/06/2012 6/35

7. Status – Site selection, districts
Districts
IFAD
• Ajeeveeka
HARKIDUN
PUROLA
CHHOLMI
GANGOTRI
0
UTTARKASHI
activity
JADAR PUROLA BHATWARI IFAD_ILSP
RAJGARHI
TIUNA BHATWARI
HATAR
RAJGARHI
CHAKRATA BADRINATH
DUNDA
"
CHAKRATA CHAURANGI KHAL JOSHIMATH
• Either
BHARKOT
DUNDA
PRATAPNAGAR OKHIMATH
JOSHIMATH
RUDRAPRAYAGOKHIMATH
VIKASNAGAR
PRATAPNAGAR BHATWARI
CHAMOLI
TEHRI GHANSYALI CHAMOLI
Kumaon or
TEHRI GARHWAL
"
TILWARA POKHRI
DEHRA DUN
"
CHAMOLI
DEVAPRAYAG
"
DEHRA DUN KARNAPRAYAG MUNSYARI
"
SRINAGAR
PHURKIYA
NARENDRANAGARDEVAPRAYAG DHARCHULA
Garhwal
RISHIKESH
"
PAURI KARNAPRAYAG THARALI MUNSYARI
THALISAIN
PITHORAGARH
KAPKOT
BAIJRO BAGESHWAR
"
ROORKEEROORKEEHARIDWAR GARHWAL BAGESHWAR
• Mid-hills
DHARCHULA
LANSDOWNE
HARIDWAR LANSDOWNE RANIKHET
"
DIDIHAT
LAKSAR KOTDWARA DHUMAKOT DIDIHAT
BHIKIYASAIN
ALMORA RANIKHET GANGOLIHAT
ALMORA PITHORAGARH
• Dairy
"
"
RAMNAGAR
NAINI TAL
"
CHAMPAWAT
KASHIPUR
dynamics
NAINI TAL
"
CHAMPAWAT
KASHIPUR HALDWANI
HALDWANI
UDHAM SINGH NAGAR
KICHHA SITARGANJ KHATIMA
"
SITARGANJ
KHATIMA
01/06/2012 7/35

8. Status – Partners 1
• Which type of partners (December workshop)?
HIMMOTHAN
IFAD
INHERE
LCM (Loke chetna manch)
CHIRAG
CHEA
01/06/2012 8/20

9. Status – Partners 2
• Medium NGO with
– local experience and
– capacity for research
– INHERE in Almora
• Would new federations be a more sustainable
structure?
– Bageshwar – Chamoli?
– CHIRAG in Bageshwar
01/06/2012 9/20

10. Status, block selection - ILSP
Partner
activities
01/06/2012 10/35

11. Status, block selection,
intensified livestock
BuffFem/BovFem % CbFem/BovFem %
45 3.0
40
35 2.5
30 2.0
25
20 1.5
15 1.0
10
5 0.5
0 0.0
01/06/2012 11/35

12. Status, block selection,
conclusion
• Bageshwar
– Chirag only active in Bageshwar block
– Dairy development indicators (milk
procurement, forest share) also support Bageshwar
block
• Almora
– Chaukutia excluded: high forest & irrigation
– Syaldeh excluded: low milk procurement
– Bhikyasen and Sult both possible – more data
01/06/2012
required 12/35

13. Status, site selection, clusters
• Bageshwar block –
Chirag is active in two clusters
– Kathpuryachina
– Dewaldar
• Bhikyasen & Sult –
Inhere has links to both blocks
– Cluster overviews for Bhikyasen & Sult
01/06/2012 13/35

14. Status, site selection, sub-clusters
• Village census at cluster level
• Classification of sub-clusters by milk marketing
(formal/informal)
• Defined by field facilitator reach (4-6 villages)
• Base for feed innovation platform?
• Dairy innovation platform at cluster level?
• Control sites within cluster?
01/06/2012 14/35

15. Preparations for implementation
• Office
• Secondary data collection
• Local contacts
• Detailed work-plans
• Partner agreements
• Value chain assessment tools
01/06/2012 15/35

16. Outlook – activities 2012
(work plan)
Steps Topics Tools Time
Site selection Block data for cluster Secondary data June
Cluster data for sub-cluster Village census June
Characterisation Villages Village survey July
Value chains VCA September
Development Actor mapping August
Feeding & feed gaps FEAST October
Innovation Dairy market platform formed October
Feeding platform formed November
Market interventions identified December
Feed interventions identified January ‘13
01/06/2012 16/35

17. Outlook – activities 2013
Steps Topics Tools Time
Innovation Intervention trials round 1 Jan-Apr
Intervention trials round 2 May-Aug
Moving on Scaling-up of interventions Jul-Oct
Platform sustainability Sep-Nov
Documentation Reports Sep-Nov
Publicity Workshops Sep-Nov
Demonstrations
Media
Impact assessment Oct-Nov
01/06/2012 17/35

18. Thank You!
01/06/2012 18/35

19. • Notes on plenary and group discussions during
the meeting
01/06/2012 19/35

20. Discussion on presentation - 1
• What is the meaning of “innovation platform”?
– It’s about to bringing together experiences of a variety of stakeholders on
– dairy marketing, feed support , knowledge sharing and innovation/change
– regarding how to test & adapt these innovations.
– Innovation platforms are not only a discussion forum and not just an
extension activity.
• What will be the project output in Dec 2013 and who will receive it?
– As a research project, papers and reports will be major outputs, with IFAD
being the first recipient.
– Research outputs will be aligned with the demands of donors and partners.
– Documentation of processes and results will enable global and local use.
– Documentation of establishment and success/failure of innovation
platforms will be a major output. Induced changes will be a main indicator.
• What will be language of dissemination?
– Main audience will be institutions. Therefore, first language will be English.
– However, for local institutions documents in Hindi will also be prepared.
01/06/2012 20/35

21. Discussion on presentation - 2
• What will be done to reduce livestock impact on forests?
– Feed requirements, current sources & opportunities will be assessed
with FEAST
– General land-use change will not be a focus of MilkIT because of its
short duration
– More efficient use of existing resources will probably emphasise farm
products and labour efficiency (reducing forest use)
– Himmothan has already experience with introducing winter fodder.
Forest use has already decreased.
• How can MilkIT improve green fodder supply when the project is
only 20 months and most green fodder comes from trees which
yield only after 3-5years?
– MilkIT will prioritise technologies (with the help of Techfit) which yield
fast effects (no planting campaigns, no focus on breed improvement).
– More efficient use of existing feeds will be focus (supplementation,
chopping) and wider use of under-utilised resources (grass-lands).
01/06/2012 21/35

22. Discussion on presentation - 3
• How will feed-related problems be identified? How will local capacity &
willingness for adoption be considered?
– Innovation platforms will improve communication.
– Specific tools (e.g. Techfit) will enable efficient discussion.
• What will be main project indicators, milk yield?
– Milk yield will be important, but profitability and labour returns will also be
main indicators.
– Improved productivity will decrease pressure on forests.
• How will other aspects of productivity be considered (breed, health) and
who will be doing this?
– Within the project period no major breed improvement effects can be
expected.
– But we know that local cows are being replaced with buffaloes.
– Feed improvements offer greater effect in improved animals with less labour.
– Where health issues are important we include local institutions in platform.
01/06/2012 22/35

23. Discussion on presentation - 4
• How will the variation between households and animals be
considered?
– MilkIT will only target groups (e.g. SHGs), not individual
households/animals
– At the platform level discussions will have to consider for which type
of households/animals technologies are suitable.
– When documenting effects we will have to collect household/animal
data.
• How is MilkIT going to compete with strong local dairy
organisations?
– We will map which institutions are working on which issues.
– The innovation platforms will bring all relevant and willing actors
together as a complementary activity.
– We are aware that compared to local institutions MilkIT will only show
a brief appearance and cannot compete.
01/06/2012 23/35

24. Group discussions
1. Innovation platforms:
– “How can innovation platforms support development and
dissemination of new technologies for dairy development?”
– Himmothan, GBPIHED, Elks, AHD
2. Marketing constraints:
– “What are you most interested in for overcoming institutional
and marketing constraints in the dairy sector?”
– Aanchal, Ajeeveeka, ULDB, Chirag
3. Feeding constraints:
– “What should MilkIT produce to help with improving
productivity of dairy animals among small holders through
better feeding, breeding & health?”
– GBPUAT, FD, VPKAS
01/06/2012 24/35

25. Grp 1: Innovation platforms
M. Chauhan R.S. Rawat S. Jarial
R.S. Negi R.C. Rajaguru
01/06/2012 25/35

26. Grp1 Innovation platforms
Most important
• Value of innovation platforms
– Contribute by bringing in technologies, pilot them, scale it up
– By creating platform at different levels, knowledge sharing at right levels
– By creating awareness, demonstration wider audience, feedback, knowledge
documentation
– Difficulties & risk:
– Sustainability, ownership, scope
– Compendium of successful experiences
– Malavika: Ownership for sustainability (who owns)
– Negi: What about the costs for maintaining platform
– Malavika: which scale?
block level officers/ paravets/ ext. workers don’t talk to each other, maybe that
would be useful
– NGOs do talk to each other
– Padma: what is the actual income contribution of milk, what can actually be
improved through more milk
01/06/2012 26/35

27. Additional input
on innovation platforms (later)
• Padma: expand the innovation platforms to include
other actors who work in different fields (e.g.
breeding, health, small ruminants etc.). Offer the
platform as a useful and efficient approach to get
collaboration & knowledge exchange going.
• Malavika: Support communication between local
government officials and practitioners. They have
only few opportunities for exchange.
01/06/2012 27/35

28. Grp 2: Inst. & mrktng constraints
Atul Shah
Pankaj Kumar
Pawan Kumar
A.K. Negi
01/06/2012 28/35

29. Grp 2: Institutional constraints
• Baseline survey Most important
– Market research (Milk production groups)
• demand/supply gap
• production, status/potential
Tiwari: consider own consumption requirements (nutritional security)
Others: but we are just talking about selling surplus
• Awareness of group formation
– Benefits
– Approach (evaluation of form of organisational structure)
– Business plan (economics of group activities for sustainability)
Malavika: Use federations to market more products.
Pawan: Develop a variety of successful business models; MilkIT can bring
together knowledge of successful innovations, compendium (specific examples)
– Marketing
– Incentives
• Capacity building
– NGOS can be roped in
01/06/2012 29/35

30. Grp2: Marketing constraints
• Infrastructure Most important
– cold-storage/chain
– collection points (suggestions for linking remote villages)
• Value addition (Amul example)
(Lepcha: think of cheese as in Sikkim)
(Malavika: Minimum amount is so low that any processing is
difficult, starting dairies with 50l/d) as soon as area is
increased, transport becomes too expensive)
• Pricing (amount, quality)
• Identification of markets
• Collection process
• Standardisation
• Up-scaling
01/06/2012 30/35

31. Grp 3: Feed constraints
V. Padmakumar J.K. Bisht S.T.S. Lepcha
T. Ravichandran T.P. Tiwari
01/06/2012 31/35

32. Grp 3: Feed constraints
• Feeding Most important
– Choice of fodder
• For lean period (Apr-Jun, Dec-Feb)
• Fodder trees (Bhimal, oak)
• Perennial grasses (broom, napier, congo)
– Dual purpose crops: wheat, barley, paddy (suitability), depends on area
– Use of weeds (Natal grass?)
– Improvement of existing feeds
• Urea treatment, UMB, suppl green fodder, concentrates, suppl with area specific minerals
– Reduce wastage/feeding
– Fodder banks (Negi: GoU is putting fodder banks in each block)
• Breeding
– cross-breeding
– red. calving interval
– red. AFC
• Health
– Deworming, ext. parasites
– Promotion of EVM (ethnoveterinary system)
– Vaccination (FMD, HS) (Negi: cold chain); Negi: improve evidence-based veterinary services,
not effectively targeted, also information links (helpline).
01/06/2012 32/35

33. Chairman’s conclusions
• In livestock development
consider 3 types
– Milk animals (5l milk/d)
– Tea animals (1l milk/d)
– Dung animals (no milk/d)
01/06/2012 33/35