1 / 10

MilkIT 2 nd Advisory Council Meeting Almora 18/12/2012

MilkIT 2 nd Advisory Council Meeting Almora 18/12/2012. Group discussions India Thanammal Ravichandran, Nils Teufel. Group 1 – topic & members. C Ravi Shankar Dev Office, Almora (had to leave early). Sonali Bisht INHERE. Arun Nagar Koti DUSS - Aanchal. Kuldeep Thapliyal CHIRAG.

inoke
Télécharger la présentation

MilkIT 2 nd Advisory Council Meeting Almora 18/12/2012

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MilkIT2nd Advisory Council MeetingAlmora 18/12/2012 Group discussions India Thanammal Ravichandran, Nils Teufel

  2. Group 1 – topic & members C Ravi Shankar Dev Office, Almora (had to leave early) Sonali Bisht INHERE Arun Nagar Koti DUSS - Aanchal Kuldeep Thapliyal CHIRAG How can we create ownership of innovation platforms to make them more sustainable?

  3. 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

  4. Group 2 – topic & members Thanammal Ravichandran ILRI GC Pant INHERE SS Samant Ajeeveeka MukulPrakash CHIRAG RS Rawat GBPIHED How can we make dairy innovation platforms more attractive to milk buyers?

  5. 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

  6. Group 3 – topic & members ChitraDhuman AnimHusbDep Sanjay Saxena Ajeeveeka Prem Kumar Forestry Dep JK Bisht VPKAS Nils Teufel ILRI What is the potential of private grasslands for increasing fodder supply and reducing labour requirements and which are the most promising technologies for improvement?

  7. 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 (Grewiaoptiva), Bhanj (?), Mulberry (but no winter fodder), Kathoj (Bauhinia reduca? Indigoferalinnaeus?), Khairwal/Kachan (Bauhinia purpurea), Kachnar (Bauhinia variegata)

  8. Group 3 – results 2 • Suitable perennials • Winter/ high altitude grasses: rye grass (loliumperenne), orchard grass (dactylisglomerata) – but need fertiliser, convincing farmers • Summer grasses: hybrid napier (bajra X napier), napier (planting in rainy season) • Legumes (no fodder during winter): desmodiumtriflorum (sufficient rainfall?), desmodiumuncinatum, seretro? stylosanthes

  9. 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; quercusleucotrichophora, 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

  10. 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

More Related