Return on investment from livestock micro-enterprise in rural areas of Punjab (Pakistan)

Herald Journal of Agriculture and Food Science Research Vol. 2 (6), pp. 185-193 December, 2013 Available online http://www.heraldjournals.org/hjafsr/archive.htm Copyright (c) 2013 Herald International Research Journals ISSN : 2350 2193 Full Length Research Paper Return on investment from livestock micro-enterprise in rural areas of Punjab (Pakistan) National School of Public Policy. Lahore,Pakistan E- mail: seemiwaheed@hotmail.com; lime.green.544@gmail.com Seemi Waheed Received September 7, 2013 Accepted November 24, 2013 For landless poor livestock micro enterprise is a sustainable livelihood. Landless poor live in rural and sub-rural area and source of income is both non-farm (daily-wages) and farm (livestock). Landless poor invest in livestock because they see positive return on investment. The paper, using net present worth technique estimates the return on investment of livestock micro enterprise with one buffalo. During a lactating life of a buffalo, which is on an average nine years, five calves are produced. This concludes that a single buffalo, with given moderate veterinary services, provides sustainable livelihood with positive net present worth (NPW). Therefore micro loans, can be directed to landless poor, with more focus on livestock micro loan. The study suggests rural support programme increase the size of particular type of loan according to the regional socio-economic characteristics. Keyword: livestock, micro loans, landless, poor sustained livelihood. INTRODUCTION In the subcontinent livestock, along with farming major and minor crops, is one of the important sources of food and livelihood of rural households. It accounts for 36.2percent of the agriculture sector s output and 11 to GDP (Pakistan Livestock Census 2006). For landless, sharecroppers and small farmers it is even more significant source of food and nutrition and income generation. It is a symbol of prestige and prosperity of rural household. Around 30-35 million rural population in Pakistan, engaged in raising livestock, derives 35 of rural income. In Punjab, the main source of milk is buffalo, and cow. Consumers, however, prefer buffalo milk to cow, because of its taste, colour and fat contents. Milk production in Pakistan has increased from 19 million tonnes in 2004 to 21million tonnes in 2008 (faostat.fao.org/sites/569/desktop/default.aspx?accesse d on 23-7-2010). This increase was mainly due to increase in the number of animals and not animal productivity, as yield per animal remained almost constant. In Punjab, there are three main varieties of buffaloes, which are nilli, ravi and kundi. Nilli and Ravi are hardly pedigree animal and commonly found as mixed breed. The milk productivity of impure breed is 2500 liters in a lactation period (Bilal, Suleman and Raziq, 2006). Buffalo contributes about 68 milk, followed by cattle (27) and sheep/goat/camel (5). These breeds mainly live in Lahore, Sheikhupura, Faisalabad, Okara, Sahiwal, Multan, Bahawalpur and Bahwalnagar. Cows and buffaloes of impure breed are available at cheaper price and are therefore, accessible to landless farmers, providing milk for own consumption and sale. Seventy per cent of milk comes from buffaloes and cows. 71 and 94 percent buffaloes and cows respectively are found in a herd of 1-2 animals. 43 and 42 per cent, households keep cows and buffaloes respectively in a herd of 1-2 (Annexure 1). This is a sizeable potential market for micro loans. Rural landless generally keep 1-2 animal herd. Being landless, they have to purchase feed, though green roughage is almost freely available in communal grazing in rural areas. All rural households rear livestock; however, its concentration is more in the canal-irrigated areas, in South Punjab and North Sindh where fodder, wheat and rice crop are extensively grown. The milk market comprises 98 informal sector and 2 formal sector. The milk market is variegated. It comprises of variety of milk producers, like milkmen (gawalas) supplying milk to individual households, milk shops and packaged milk market (Annexure-2). The quality of milk supplied by all producers generally is not fit for human consumption. The gawalas add water to increase the

186. Herald J. Agric. Food Sci. Res. quantity of milk and detergent as preservative. There are milk producers, though not manyin the market who supply unadulterated milk. The market for such suppliers is restricted because of competition from the packaged milk companies, who are not willing to purchase this milk at Rs.65/litre. Collection price by milk companies is Rs. 25-30/litre(all prices are for the year 2011). The price of packaged milk is Rs. 85/litre Punjab Rural Support Program (PRSP), a micro organization, in addition to its undertaking in the whole of the province, is operative in the canal-irrigated areas as well. Investment in livestock from microloans is almost fifty percent and majority of those acquiring loans are landless or small farmers. The rural landless and poor households purchase milking animal like buffalo, cow, goat or sheep by either saving or borrowing because estimated future gains from investment (net present worth) in milking animal are positive. Micro loans therefore are extremely important for small farmers and landless, because it gives impetus to a sustainable livelihood and income. It is a means to reduce rural poverty and bring rural poor in the mainstream agrobased economic activity like milk production and dairy products. Objectives It is argued in the paper that accessibility to microloans for livestock micro-enterprise provides livelihood to rural poor, as the net present worth (NPW) of this economic activity is positive. The paper therefore estimates NPW of one buffalo under two scenarios. It also conducts sensitivity analysis and concludes that in both the, risk and normal, situations NPW is positive. The paper is arranged in the following sections. Section two will give review of the literature. Section three will explain the methods and data sources. Section four will analyze PRSP microloan data, that majority loans are invested in livestock micro enterprise by poor landless. Section five will give results and discussion of estimation NPW and sensitivity analysis and Section six will give conclusions and policy recommendations. Review of literature In rural economy of Pakistan, poverty is increasing because of decreasing ownership of land, land fragmentation, lack of access to social services such as education, health, and non-availability of loans to small farmers and rural people. One source of farm income for rural landless and poor, however, is investment in livestock micro enterprise, either through informal borrowings or savings or microloans if available. Studies suggest that there is an inverse relationship between farm size and livestock. Small farms consistently have more animals per unit of land than large farms (Gryseels, 1988; and Glenn, 1988). The research exhibited that income from livestock farming is distributed more evenly, than the income from land or agriculture. In India, for example, landless households, that represent 27 percent of all rural households, own between 2 and 10 percent of all cattle and buffalo (Singh, 1990). Shah (1991) reported Nilli-Ravi as the best dairy breed in the world with a maximum milk production potential of 5000 litres per lactation period of 305 days followed by Kundi breed with a maximum-potential of 3500 litres. The focus in the paper is on milk production and breed. Adams (1996) uses panel and time series data and disaggregates sources of rural income inequality in Pakistan. The study also decomposes sources of livestock income inequality. The study shows that income from male and female animals has a differential impact on income distribution. While livestock income from male animals (male buffalo and bullock) has a negative impact on income distribution, livestock income from one female animal (local cow) is very important to the poor and has a positive effect onincome distribution. Various studies (Chaudhry, Ahmed and Chaudhry M. 1999; IqbalMuzaffar and Ahmed Munir, 1999)look at increase in milk productivity and find this increase due to the increase in number of animals, feed, fodder and roughages (inputs) and progress of technology. Fiftyseven percent of the total increase in livestock production is due to increased number of animals rather than raised productivity per animal. While improvements in roughages, fodder and feed account for 21 of total increase in livestock production. The paper only focuses on milk production and availability of animal, but does not state if the increase in number of animals is due to the positive gains from the investment in livestock. The paper (IqbalMuzaffar and Ahmed Munir, 1999) concludes by identifying three types of constraints in milk production efficiency. These are nutritional, support services and market and policy constraints. Unequal distribution of land is the main determinant of rural poverty, therefore for landless the main source of income is non-farm income and livestock. Studies (Mustafa Gill and Azid 2000; Anwar, Qureshi, and Ali2004) suggest to improve income by rationalization of land distribution and enhance micro out-reach to rural poor. The paper, however, is silent on the use of microloan and its main emphasis is on determinants of rural poverty. Garcia, Mahmood and Emme (2003) selected four farm types. These were rural landless household with one buffalo, household possessing 3 ha land with three buffalos, a rural farm having 6 ha land owning 10 buffalos and peri-urban landless near major city (Lahore) possessing 10 animals (cows and buffalos). The study is based on the field survey of these farm types selected mainly in Punjab. The study concludes that type 1 farm requires policies assistance and intervention without

Waheed 187 market distortion. Type one farm constitutes 40 of the livestock farm. These farms are vulnerable to high mortality rate of animals which can be reduced by low cost technology intervention like vaccines and artificial insemination. The study however acknowledges the economic importance of livestock for landless and poor. Anriquez and Valdes (2006) address six determinants of farm income, which include education, farm operation size, land ownership, family size, surface water and. According to the study there is a positive correlation of livestock income to farm income, however there is also a positive correlation of education to nonfarm income. Land size and other variables are more positively related. Elasticity, with respect to formal is not statistically significant, but using total available it gives a positive yield and has elasticity (.059) which is statistically significant. The study notes, Formal is larger source of funding for agriculture borrowing (p 298). Small farmers are ill connected to the formal, and more to informal, which is expensive. Small farmer can benefit from formal, which has less interest rate compared to informal. The study however, does not mention microloans for investment in livestock micro enterprise and future benefits. Afridi (et. al) (2009) use the data for small, medium and large farms in Northern Areas of Pakistan estimating total revenue, net revenue and return to scale applying Cobb-Douglas production and ordinary least square econometric model. The determinants for livestock production comprised family size, animal unit, and total feed used and labour days. Total revenues included milk, wool, farmyard manure and young stock. Net revenue excluded labour cost. This method of estimating revenue does not take into account inflation and depreciation like NPW discounting technique. The NPW is a better method of computing returns from investment in livestock. Data Collection and Methods The lactating period of a buffalo is 305 days in a year, and nine years (prime period) is the average lactating life period. Calving interval of a buffalo is 528 days, age at first calf is 24-36 months, gestation period is 308-318 days (www.pakdairyinfo.com accessed on 20.10.2011). Young stock is added during the entire lactating life. Farmyard manure is used as a fuel as well. After milk production declines, the animal is sold for slaughtering. All parts of animal, such as hooves, horns, hide visceral organs are all sold in market. The average current retail price (2011) of fresh pure milk is Rs. 65litre, which is less than the packaged milk. A good milking buffalo cost Rs. 90,000-100,000on an average (www.mypets.pk/pet/ accessed on 23.10.2011). Green roughage is declining due to preference of big farmers to grow cash crop, therefore the high demand for it put upward pressure on prices. The price of dry roughage is Rs.400-500 per 40/kg. Concentrate (cotton seed cakes) costs Rs.40/kg, millet costs Rs.80/40 kg, and corn Rs. 300/ 40 kg. Total cost on feed comes to Rs. 300-350 per day per animal, however this cost declines as the number of animals increases (www.alibaba.com/products/fo/cattlefeed/cid 11304...pk html accessed on 23.10.2011).Livestock micro-entrepreneur with 1-2 animal herd employs own family labour. Average daily milk produced by one buffalo at minimum is eight litres per day. In a herd of two buffaloes, one will be lactating, and two would be lactating in a herd of three. The data on input and output was obtained from the feed market and milk market respectively in Multan, Sialkot, Lahor and Sheikhupura and from livestock and dairy farms operating under Livestock and Dairy Development Department, Punjab Government; and confirmed from various websites It may be noted that PRSP operates in these regions as well and input prices are relevant to the analysis of return on milk fromits perspective. Annual operation and maintenance (O&M) cost is Rs. 110,000. The input and output prices for NPW are current prices. METHODS NPW of investment in a herd of 1-2 buffaloes is estimated, which can provide continuous income to landless poor household. NPW is discounted cash flow measure of project worth. It is the present worth of incremental cash flow (income) stream generated by investment. In financial analysis it is the present worth of income stream accruing to individual or entity from whose point of view the analysis is undertaken. Calculation of present worth requires determination of appropriate discount rate. The commonly followed technique for calculation of incremental net benefit stream is that it includes return on capital and return to capital (From the gross benefit what is left after payment of O&M cost is return on capital. Return to capital is compensation for use of resources invested in project. This residual is net benefit stream. For details see Gittinger, Economic Analysis of Agriculture Project, 1984 pg: 313-333.) Incremental net benefit streams takes account of interest rate on and inflation. Discount rate or discount factor (DF) used is 12 percent which is the interest rate at which the State Bank of Pakistan lends money to the banks..the discount rate or interest rate gives the marginal cost of money (Gittinger, 1984). Mathematically it is presented as below: t=n Bt - Ct t = 1 ----------- (1+i) t It assumed that there is an acceptable level of veterinary

188. Herald J. Agric. Food Sci. Res. Scenario 1: Dies in Y1 Buffalo purchased in year 1(Y1) Scenario 2: Dies in Y3, and has a female or male calf In year6 the calf matures Figure 1: Two Scenarios of Assumption 1 Services along with traditional animal husbandry practices. Animal feed is, relatively, easily available in rural areas especially green roughage. It is further assumed that increase in milk production is due to increase in investment in livestock by rural poor as they foresee positive net present worth and invest micro loan in this economic enterprise. Estimation of NPW and sensitivity analysis of an enterprise is important because it helps understand risk and return on and sustained livelihood and income. A calculation of NPW is undertaken by estimating gross capital cost, and operation and maintenance (O&M) cost for each year of a nine-year livestock micro enterprise, using 12 per cent discount rate. This gives present worth of yearly cost. The income (value of incremental production (VIP)) is also estimated, and then discounted at 12percent. This gives present worth (PW) of yearly income. The difference of discounted gross cost and VIP on yearly basis for a period of nine years for one buffalo is calculated. It is assumed that small farmers and landless poor will invest in one buffalo (livestock micro enterprise) by borrowing from PRSP and own savings. This buffalo will survive for nine years and at the end of ninth year a herd of six animals will be created, three of which will be buffaloes, a female calf and two bulls. It is assumed that there is adequate veterinary service, feed, and fodder available. case may be. Figure 1 depicts assumption one. In case of 20 percent increase in the price of feed and fodder, the micro entrepreneur will increase the price of milk accordingly. Demand for milk is relatively inelastic, therefore, with the increase in price of feed and fodder the demand is not likely to reduce. Livestock Micro enterprise of Rural Micro borrowers Livestock ownership is an asset, investment and savings for rural poor. Landless and small farmers engage in livestock micro enterprise because of their knowledge and familiarity with livestock market, its related input markets and risks. This investment, therefore, is most attractive for income generation and savings. Rural, poor and small farmers, generally, borrow and save to invest in livestock. The access to formal financial institutions is constrained by social values, religious beliefs and general apprehension of the intricate procedures of financial in situations. Very poor households share investment in livestock micro enterprise. In a shared investment, two poor save and purchase a female calf (buffalo or cow) and one of the better-off partners rears the calf. On attaining maturity, either the animal is sold and proportionate profits shared, or the milk is shared. The preference, generally, is to sell animal and share profits. There are, Sensitivity Analysis therefore, potential borrowers who would like to have access to micro borrowing services (Annual Report The sensitivity analysis of livestock microenterprise is undertaken on two assumptions. One is the sudden death of the purchased buffalo in year one. This would jeopardize the whole project. The second assumption is 20 percent increase in the price of feed and fodder. In the case of first assumption, there could be two scenarios. Scenario one is the sudden death of buffalo in year one. In that case there will be no future cash flows, unless the micro entrepreneur starts saving and borrows from friends and family because microloans will not be available unless he repays the previous loan. This would be extremely difficult and economic conditions may further worsen. The second scenario is that buffalo dies in the third year of nine-year lactating period. In that case there would be either one female or male calf, which can PRSP, 2004) The PRSP gives loan for four production activities. These are livestock, agri-input, enterprise and Small Infrastructure Investment Enterprise (SIIE). According to the PRSP data large majority of loans are given to poor households and to a lesser extent to very poor households. Annexure-2 exhibits the regional variations in borrowing for production activities. Microloans for livestock are highest in Multan, Sahiwal and Lahore Regions and are lowest for Sialkot, Faisalabad and Gujranwala Regions. It is reflective of the nature and scope of economic activities in the respective regions. Sialkot, Faisalabad and Gujranwala Regions are known for small and large-scale manufacturing in sports goods, textile and engineering, therefore enterprise microloans lactate in year three or can be sold in year two as the for small-scale manufacturing are highest in these

Waheed 189 Table 1. Lactation and Gestation life of single buffalo A three years old buffalo purchased in Year 1 (Y1) Y1 lactation period Y2 gestation period Y3 lactation period f. calf (a) Y4 gestation period Y5 lactation period m. calf (b) f. calf (a) gestation period m. calf (c) Y5 f.calf in Y7 Year (Y) Y6 gestation period Y7 lactation period Y8 gestation period Y9 lactation period f. calf (d), m. calf (b) born in Y4 sold m. calf (c) sold and a buffalo purchased m. calf (e) Buffalo (Y1) sold, f.calf (d) gestation period f. calf (f) Year(Y) male calf (m.calf) female calf (f.calf) regions. Multan, Sahiwal and Lahore regions have milk dairy and food production; therefore, livestock microloans are highest in these regions. In Multan Region, during the six years period (2004-2010), microloans for livestock averaged 75. For Sahiwal and Lahore, the microloans for livestock were above 50. Microloans for livestock in Multan Region continued to increase from 2004 to 2010, while agri-input and enterprise loans declined. Data for Sahiwal Region shows similar pattern. For Lahore Region microloans for livestock and enterprise remained almost the same for six years. It also shows greater ruralised a region, the greater the proclivity for livestock loans. It, therefore, shows the poor households are not only driven by cultural and dominant economic activity, but they also foresee return on investment in livestock. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Estimation of net present worth (NPW) of each type of business activity for which PRSP provides loan is important because it enables understanding risk and return on and sustained livelihood and income. The micro loans of PRSP covers around 10 cost of a buffalo and the remaining 90 is contributed by the borrower from own savings and borrowings from friends and relatives(annual Report, 2004). Table 1 shows the lactating and gestation life of a buffalo. There are equal chances of birth of a female and male calf. In year one (Y1) a buffalo aged three years was purchased by a landless rural poor household employing family labour. It was purchased for Rs. 100,000. It was in the lactating period in Y1. In Y2 it was in gestation period and a female calf (f.calf) (a) was born. The lactation and gestation periods alternate and in Y4 a male calf (m. calf)is born. In Y5 f.calf (a) matures into a buffalo and gestates to am.calf (c). In Y5 there are two buffaloes and two male animals (b & c ) F.calf (a) would gestate in Y7 for a f.calf. In Y9 there will be four buffaloes, one calf and a bull. One of these buffaloes is purchased by selling one of the bulls. The buffalo at the start of year 1 (Y1) is sold in year nine, after completing its lactating life. A herd of five is created in nine years period. Estimation of NPW In the first year buffalo is purchased at the cost of Rs. 100,000. The annual operation and maintenance (O&M) cost is Rs. 144,000 including family labour. The annual revenue (value of incremental production) is Rs. 187,000. The cost and benefits are separately discounted at 12 and then netted-out. The gross cost column 4 (Table 2) is higher in first year. It reduces in the second year because the buffalo s milk reduces due to gestation. The intake of concentrates decreases for the same reason. In the third, fourth and fifth year the O&M cost remains the same. It increases in sixth year onwards because more animal are from sixth year onward increased due to the

190. Herald J. Agric. Food Sci. Res. Table 2. NPW Discounting the Cash flow (Incremental net benefit stream) for one Buffalo Year Incremental Cost D F @ 12 PW @ 12 Value of Incremental Production DF @ 12 PW @ 12 Capital cost Inputs(O&M) Gross (gross benefit)* 1 0.1 0.144 0.244 0.893 0.218 0.1872 0.893 0.16717 2 0 0.072 0.072 0.797 0.057 0.0936 0.797 0.074599 3 0 0.144 0.09 0.712 0.064 0.1872 0.712 0.133286 4 0 0.144 0.09 0.636 0.057 0.0936 0.636 0.05953 5 0 0.144 0.09 0.567 0.051 0.1872 0.567 0.106142 6 0 0.148 0.148 0.507 0.075 0.237 0.507 0.120159 7 0 0.148 0.148 0.452 0.067 0.237 0.452 0.107124 8 0 0.148 0.148 0.404 0.060 0.33 0.404 0.13332 9 0 0.158 0.158 0.361 0.057 0.33 0.361 0.11913 Total 0.590 1.02046 NPW @ 12 Rs. 0.431 Table 3. Sensitivity Analysis of Milk Production with one Buffalo Capital cost inputs(o&m) Gross (gross benefit) 1 0.1 0.144 0.244 0.893 0.218 0.1872 0.893 0.1671696 2 0 0.072 0.072 0.797 0.057 0.0936 0.797 0.0745992 3 0 0.072 0.072 0.712 0.051 0 0.712 0 4 0 0.072 0.072 0.636 0.046 0 0.636 0 5 0 0.072 0.072 0.567 0.041 0 0.567 0 6 0 0.144 0.144 0.507 0.073 0.1872 0.507 0.0949104 7 0 0.144 0.144 0.452 0.065 0.0936 0.452 0.0423072 8 0 0.144 0.144 0.404 0.058 0.1872 0.404 0.0756288 9 0 0.144 0.144 0.361 0.052 0.0936 0.361 0.0337896 Total 0.551 0.764813 NPW @ 12 Rs. 0.214 same reason. The estimated NPW is.431 (Table 2). It is positive and shows that this economic activity generates positive benefits. The criterion for selection of project is that to choose all independent projects ( Independent projects are not mutually exclusive; mutually exclusive projects are of a kind that implementing one necessarily precludes implementing another. Gittinger (1984) (p. 322) for investment, which has zero or greater value of NPW when discounted at the opportunity cost of capital. For a poor household in rural and semi-urban areas of Multan, Sahiwal and Lahore regions, it is a most attractive investment, which has low capital cost, involves family labour and meets nutritional requirements of a family. Sensitivity analysis There were two assumptions made at the beginning of the paper as depicted in Figure 1, stating if the buffalo purchased at the cost of Rs. 100,000 dies. This argument was built on two scenarios. In the first scenario the buffalo dies in the first year leading to the worsened economic situation of a household. In the second scenario buffalo dies in Y3 but it has given birth to either af. calf or a m.calf. In case of a female calf the returns would be positive. Table 3, Column 2 gives capital cost and Column 3shows O&M cost which is discounted at 12. Column 7 gives value of incremental production, which turns to zero in Y3 due to the death of buffalo, but

Waheed 191 in Y7 the revenues are generated if af.calf matures after three years. The estimated NPW in this scenario turns positive with an estimated value of.214. It is almost half of the estimated NPW in Table 3. However, if the calf gestated in Y2 was am calf the NPW would be negative, severely affecting economic viability of livestock enterprise and livelihood and income of household. CONCLUSIONS Investment in livestock micro enterprise generally has a positive NPW, It is also positively sensitive because it can sustain minor shocks and risks. The results show the resilience of investment and ability to adjust to sudden shock in livestock micro enterprise. It is to be noted, that female calf improves income distribution better than the male calf. PRSP provides micro around 10-15 of the cost of buffalo. The NPW derived from microloan is thus only 10-15 percent; 85-90percent is due to own borrowings and savings.poor landless household would invest in this economic activity despite little technical support from micro finance organizations. It may be mentioned that the livestock enterprise is an additional economic activity of a landless household in rural and semi-rural household as the household members areemployed in non-farm livelihood. The data on shows that borrowers in Multan, Sahiwal and Lahore regions invested largely in livestock (Annexure 2).The pattern of microloans by PRSP suggests that borrowing is dependent on the socioeconomic environment as the patterns of borrowings for production activities reflect the economic activity in the regions. It is therefore, suggested that micro finance organizations need to devise policy that understands and caters to the regional investment climate for that particular economic activity. Loans size for livestock should be realistic. It may be at least quarter of the total investment in an animal. Besides, livestock advisory service should be provided for better livestock rearing to reduce risks. The concern for sustainable livelihood in rural areas means less migration to urban areas and less rural and urban poverty. Rural poverty drives people out of villages in search of employment. In order to make livestock microenterprise a viable economic entity, there is a need for more commitment from the livestock and dairy development department and PRSP to facilitate to ensure advisory service to households having a herd of 1-2 animal, which are almost 40. These households require support in three essential areas: 1). microloans for capital and working capital requirement, 2). organizing milk collection for households with 1-2 animals and 3). livestock veterinary and advisory services. It is also suggested that PRSP must undertake NPW for all production activities for which micro is provided. This will enhance the ability of MFO to make comparative analysis of different productive activities in sustainable livelihood. This will also help MFO to understand return from each activity. So that it is able to determine return from investment which is crucial to sustainability of MFO. REFERENCES Adams H, Richard J (1996).Livestock Income, male/female Animals and Inequality in Rural Pakistan Discussion Paper 21 IFPRI, Washington D.C Afridi SG,Ishaq M, Ahmad S (2009). Estimation of Costs and Returns and Factor Productivity in Livestock Enterprise in Northern Areas, Pakistan Pakistan Journal of Life and Social Sciences 7 (1) pp. 43-51 (accessed on 29-1-10) Annual Report, Punjab Rural Support Programme, 2004 Anriquez G, Valdes A (2006). Determinants of Farm Revenue in Pakistan, PDR, 45:2 281-301 AnwarT, Qureshi KS, AliH (2004). Landlessness and Rural Poverty in Pakistan, PDR 43: 4 (winter) 855 874 (27-8-10) Arif GM,BilqueesF (2007). Chronic and Transitory Poverty in Pakistan:Evidence from a LongitudinalHouseholdSurvey,PDR, 46: 2 (summer) pp. 111 127 (accessed 27-8-10) BilalM Q, SulemanM,RaziqA (2006). Buffalo: Black gold of Pakistan, Livestock Research for Rural Development 18 (9) (accessed on 25-8-10) ChaudharyGM, Ahmad M,Chaudhary MG (1999). Growth of livestock Production in Pakistan: an Analysis PDR, 38:4 Part II Winter pp. 605-614. delasson A (1981). A socioeconomic study of the Hanaspur village, Noakhali,Bangladesh. Centre for Development Research, Copenhagen, Denmark. Garcia MH (2003).A Review of Milk production in Pakistan with particular emphasis on Small-scale Producers, Working Paper 3, Prpoor Livestock Policy Initiative, FAO Gittinger JP (1984).Economic Analysis of Agriculture Projects, Economic Development Institute, Washington D. C. World Bank Glenn J (1988).Livestock production in North Africa and the Middle East: Problemsand perspectives. World Bank Discussion Paper 39. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Gryseels G (1988).The role of livestock on mixed smallholder farms in the Ethiopian highlands: A case study from the Baso and WorenoWereda near DebreBerhan.Ph.D. dissertation, Agricultural University, Wageningen, the Netherlands IqbalM, Ahmed M (1999). An Assessment of livestock production potential in Pakistan: implications for livestock sector policy PDR 38:4 Part II, retrieved 27/ 4/ 09 Mustafa K, Gill AZ,AzidT (2000). NGOs, Micro-finance and Poverty Alleviation:Experience of the Rural Poor in Pakistan PDR, 39: 4 Part II (winter) pp. 771 792 (accessed 27-8-10) ShahSK (1991).Buffaloes of Pakistan, Islamabad: Pakistan Agricultural ResearchCouncil Singh I (1990).The Great Ascent: The Rural Poor in South Asia. Baltimore, Md., U.S.A.: Johns Hopkins University Press www.pakdairyinfo.com accessed on 20.10.2011 www.mypets.pk/pet/ accessed on 23.10.2011 www.alibaba.com/products/fo/cattle-feed/cid...pk html accessed on 23.10.2011

192. Herald J. Agric. Food Sci. Res. Annexure 1. Herd profile of livestock in Pakistan (Thousand Numbers) Cattle Buffalo Herd Size Number of Number of animalsnumber of households Number of animals households 1-2 2668 (43.1) 4405 (14.9) 2545 (42.5) 4.293 (15.7) 3-4 1700 (27.5) 5.939 (20.1) 1655 (27.6) 5.770 (21.1) 5-6 836 (13.5) 4.556 (15.4) 801 (13.4) 4.364 (16.0) 7-10 619 (10.0) 5.063 (17.2) 626 (10.4) 5.096 (18.6) 11-15 207 (3.4) 2.598 (8.8) 218 (3.6) 2.734 (10.0) 16-20 70 (1.1) 1.234 (4.2) 75 (1.3) 1.331 (4.9) 21-30 46 (0.7) 1.132 (3.8) 44 (0.7) 1.081 (4.0) 31-50 24 (0.4) 0.923 (3.1) 20 (0.3) 0.764 (2.8) >50 18 (0.3) 3.708 (12.5) 12 (0.2) 1.902 (6.9) Total 6188 (100) 29.558 (100) 5996 (100.0) 27.335(100) Source: Pakistan Livestock Census 2006 Annexure 2. Simplified Diagram of flow channels for Milk Pakistan Formal Sector 2 Share Dairy Farmer Informal Sector 98 Share Milk Collection Agency Gawalla (Milk Man) Milk Collector Milk Processing Plant Distributor / Retailer Retailer Consumer Source: Strategy Development in Milk Production and Distribution (SMEDA Report, 2000)

Waheed 193 Annexure 3. Percentage Credit given by PRSP for Production Activities Faisalabad: Credit Wise Percentage 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Productio n borrowers borrowers borrowe rs borrowe rs borrowe rs borrowers Livestock 40 40 43 41 56.08 56 61.15 62 73 52 49 49 Agri-inputs 25 25.5 25.06 28 12.42 13 7.57 7 23 16 22 21 Enterprise 35 34 32.04 31 31.49 31 31.26 31 4.56 32 30 30 SIIE 0.3 0.03 0.11 0.1 0 0 0 0 Gujranwala: Credit Wise Percentage Livestock 36.2 35.5 32 31 36 35 31.5 32 17.4 16.5 18 16 Agri-inputs 22.5 25.5 25.4 26 19.5 19 20 19 11 10 10.3 9 Enterprise 39 37 42 42 45 45 49 49 72 73 72 72 SIIE 2.3 2 0.82 0.8 0.21 0.2 0.001 0.01 Lahore : Credit Wise Percentage Livestock 53.2 52.5 52.05 50 54.5 53 61 60 50.26 48 52.13 50.3 Agri-inputs 8 9 10.15 11 10.12 10.2 4.52 4.5 11 11 10.23 10.1 Enterprise 39 38 38 38 35.35 36 34.52 36 39 41 38 39.5 SIIE 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nil 0 0 0 Multan : Credit Wise Percentage Livestock 56.29 57 60 60 74.4 75.2 85 85.5 86 86.4 79.3 80 Agri-inputs 40 39.3 36.05 36 24 23.2 14.4 13.6 13.4 12.6 19.08 18.7 Enterprise 3.61 3.5 4.21 4 1.46 1.4 0.83 0.85 0.89 0.95 1.57 1.7 SIIE 0.21 0.21 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 Nil 0 0 0 Sahiwal : Credit Wise Percentage Livestock 57 57.4 62 62.3 70.7 70.2 77 76 79.3 78.4 87 86.3 Agri-inputs 26.3 25.6 20.04 19 10 9.4 5.24 5 5.54 5.4 4 4 Enterprise 17 17 18.13 18.4 19.4 20.3 18 19 15.14 16.2 9.3 10 SIIE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nil 0 0 0 Sialkot : Credit Wise Percentage 22.3 Livestock 4 22.3 17.05 17.7 24.37 25 31 30.1 18.07 17.5 12.5 12.1 Agri-inputs 34.2 36 30.48 30.4 18.46 17.5 13 12.1 19.19 18 25.27 24 Enterprise 43 41.4 52.45 52 57 57.3 56.49 57.7 63 64.7 62.14 64.2 SIIE 0.47 0.5 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.2 0 0 Nil 0 0 0 Source: PRSP MIS data