The document summarizes a study on the dissemination of ILRI-CSISA concentrate feed in two districts in Bihar, India. It found that 20% of farmers who participated in ILRI trials and trainings were continuing to feed the promoted concentrate feed, compared to only 6% of non-participating farmers. The main sources of information about the feed for non-participants were neighbors (53 farmers) and ILRI field staff (10 farmers). Participating farmers shared information about preparing the ILRI feed with over 1,200 other farmers both within and outside their villages. Knowledge about concentrate feeds improved after the ILRI intervention, though further awareness and training efforts are still needed to increase adoption rates.

1. Braja Swain and Nils Teufel, ILRI
Dissemination of ILRI-CSISA concentrate feed:
A study of Samastipur and Muzaffarpur
Brainstorming Session on Improving Dairy Animals Productivity through
efficient Feed and Fodder Interventions in Bihar, Patna, India, 25 July 2014

2. Background
Livestock sector is an integral part of the socio-economic development of
the Indian as well as Bihar economy as whole.
Small-holder producers have found it difficult to transform their livestock
production from a subsistence-oriented side activity to a profitable
commercial venture.
Feed alone accounts more than 60% of the total management cost of
dairy animals.
 From 2011 ILRI has been promoting the balanced concentrate feed to
improve the milk yield
Two blocks (Samastipur and Muzafarpur) were selected.
400 hundred farmers participated in ILRI-CSISA feeding trials or trainings
Frequent trainings and demonstrations have been conducted in two
blocks.
20 dairy farmers were trained at NDRI, Karnal to act as Local Resource
Persons (LRP).

3. Objectives
 Identify the farmers adopting and not adopting ILRI-
CSISA concentrate feed.
 Identify the non-trial/training farmers who have
heard about ILRI-CSISA feed and their sources of
information.
 Farmers responses towards ILRI-CSISA feed

4. Data and Methods
•Two blocks
•Samastipur
•Muzafarpur
•Total 360 HHs
•Participants (Trial/training): -160
•Non-participants : - 200
•Stratified random sampling
•Simple tabulation

5. Results: Adoption of ILRI-CSISA promoted feed and sources
Indicators Participants Non-participants
Number 160 200
Number of farmers Knows about
ILRI-CSISA promoted feed
160 55
Number of farmers continuing 30 11
Sources of information of ILRI-CSISA promoted feed by informed non-participants
Heard from neighbours 53
Heard from relatives 3
Heard from local services 0
Heard from ILRI-CSISA field guy 10
Heard from SHG 2

6. Dissemination of ILRI-CSISA promoted feed
technologies to other farmers [no. of farmers reached]
Technologies Within village Outside village Total
Nutritional
requirements
213 109 322
Chopping straw 25 17 42
Feeding wheat bhusa 72 28 100
Feeding maize stover 10 5 15
About ILRI-CSISA feed 846 460 1306
How to preparing ILRI-
CSISA feed 704 456 1160

7. Reasons for adopting and not adopting ILRI_CSISA promoted
feed
Reasons for adopting ILRI-CSISA
promoted Tech.
% farmers out
of adopters
Reason for not adopting
ILRI-CSISA promoted Tech.
% farmers out of
informed non-
adopters
Low cost technology 27 High cost technology 60
Easy to follow 39 Difficult to prepare 51
Can prepared local available
resource
83 Resources not
available locally
27
Increase milk yield 93 No change in milk
yield
21
Improved animal health 98 No change in animal
health
17
Low labour requirement 29 High requirement of
labour
44

8. Market availability (timely availability) across participant and non-
participant farmers [% farmers]
Participants
(n=160)
Non-participants
(n=200)
Total
(n=360)
Green fodder 67 (63) 80 (60.2) 75 (61)
Brans 96 (96) 91 (90) 93 (95)
Oils cakes 97 (97) 91 (96) 94 (97)
Compound feed 99 (97) 95 (97) 97 (97)
Mineral mixture 95 (94) 90 (94) 93 (94)
Veterinary Service 98 (98) 94 (97) 96 (98)
Credit 96 (81) 93 (79) 94 (80)
Formal Dairy Market 98 (98) 94 (98) 96 (98)
Informal Dairy
Market
56 (81) 49 (88) 52 (85)

9. Farmer’s knowledge before and after intervention
Subjects
Participants Non-participants Total
Before int-
vention
After inter-
vention
Before int-
vention
After inter-
vention
Before int-
vention
After inter-
vention
breeding
Average Improved Poor Improved Average Improved
feed management Average No change Average No change Average No change
nutrition needs for cattle Average No change Average Improved Poor Improved
maize Stover feeding Average No change Average No change Average No change
wheat straw feeding Average No change Average No change Average No change
detect quality of dry fodder Average No change Average No change Average No change
growing green fodder Average Improved Poor Improved Average Improved
feeding oil cakes Average Improved Average No change Average Improved
feeding balanced feed Average Improved Average Improved Average Improved
preparing balanced feed Poor Improved Poor Improved Poor Improved
feeding mineral mixture Poor Improved Poor Improved Poor Improved
how to increase milk yield Average Improved Poor Improved Average Improved
deworming/vaccination Average Improved Poor Improved Average Improved
treat common diseases Average No change Poor No change Average No change

10. Conclusion
20% of participants farmers are feeding the ILRI-CSISA
promoted feed while only 6% non-participants feeding this.
Out of non-participants sample farmers 28% farmers have
heard about ILRI-CSISA promoted feed
Neighbours are main source of dissemination of technology
followed by project field staff
Participant farmers have shared the information on how to
prepare the ILRI-CSISA promoted feed among more than
1200 farmers.
Knowledge on concentrate feed has improved after
intervention
Nevertheless, awareness of and training on balanced feeds
among farmers should be further improved to increase
adoption