Ecological Indicators 56 (2015) 2330

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

Development and application of an integrated sustainability index for

small-holder dairy farms in Rajasthan, India
Prem Chand a, , Smita Sirohi b , S.K. Sirohi b
a
b

ICAR-Zonal Project Directorate, Zone-VII, Jabalpur 482004, MP, India

ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana, India

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 1 July 2013
Received in revised form 26 February 2015
Accepted 11 March 2015
Keywords:
India
Ecological indicators
Social indicators
Economic indicators
Sustainability of Indian dairy farming
Sustainability index

a b s t r a c t
In agrarian economy of developing nations like India, smallholder dairy production is an important enterprise and its sustainability is vital for ensuring livelihood and nutritional security to the masses. Studies
on methodological aspects of farm sustainability at micro-level are limited, either conned to a particular
dimension of sustainability or based on complex data requirement which is not feasible to obtain in the
context of smallholder dairy farms. This study has developed a multi-attribute farm level sustainability
assessment method encompassing economic, social and ecological dimensions of sustainability and has
applied it to assess the sustainability of dairy farming in north-western part of India. Based on data from
120 dairy farms located in rural area of Jaipur district from the state of Rajasthan, the study computed the
composite Sustainable Dairy Farming Index (SDFI). The overall substantiality status of the smallholder
dairy farms in the study area was not encouraging, implying that it may not be viable for future generation to take up the enterprise. Among the three dimensions of sustainability, the average scores of
ecological dimension were highest followed by the economic and social sustainability scores. Some of
the core attributes like feed productivity, management of animal genetic potential and gender equality
are particularly weak aspects of the dairy production system in India. The direct relationship of economic
sustainability with herd size suggests for farmers with very small herds (one to two) animals, increasing
the number of dairy animals to about ve to six, would be a good strategy to economize on input costs
and generate more marketed surplus of milk.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The issue of sustainability of agriculture came under the spotlight after publication of the Brundtland Commission Report
(WECD, 1987). The sustainability of agricultural system can be evaluated in terms of its ability to maintain certain well-dened level
of performance over time, and enhance the same through linkages with other systems without damaging the ecological integrity
of the system (Jodha, 1991). The FAO (1991) dened sustainable
agriculture very comprehensively as, The management and conservation of resource base and the orientation of technological and
institutional changes in such a manner as to ensure the attended
and continual satisfaction of human need for present and future
generations. Such development is environmentally non-degrading,
technically appropriate, economically viable and socially acceptable.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 7612680807; fax: +91 7612680485.

E-mail address: prem mahala@yahoo.com (P. Chand).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.020
1470-160X/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Although many denitions for sustainable agriculture can be

found in literature, yet there is a broad consensus that a holistic
appraisal of sustainability should integrate its ecological, economic,
and social dimensions (Becker, 1997; Hni et al., 2003; Van Calker
et al., 2006). Accordingly, a more precise operational denition of
sustainability is necessary to work at the farm level. Many publications, pertaining to the sustainability of farms (Andreoni and
Tellarini, 1999; Bonny and Vijayaragavan, 2001), consider an enterprise to be sustainable if its development contributes to societal
sustainability, that is, the farms adopt practices that enable a sustainable use of resources at the societal level. However, in doing
so, they overlook the possibility that an enterprise itself can also
be developed in a sustainable or unsustainable way. Mann and
Gazzarin (2004), therefore, emphasize that at the farm level, the
sustainable development of an enterprise implies that it is managed
in a way that allows the next generation to take it over.
In order to make the concept of agricultural sustainability operational, the development of its indicators is an essential tool. The
total factor productivity (TFP) growth is a widely used indicator
for drawing inferences about the sustainability of the agricultural

24

P. Chand et al. / Ecological Indicators 56 (2015) 2330

system (Ehui and Spencer, 1990; Whitaker and Lalitha, 1993;

Kumar et al., 2004; Kumar and Mittal, 2006). The other indicators considered by the studies for the economic performance
include, cash ow, investments, farm income, etc. (Hni et al., 2003;
Sydorovych and Wossink, 2007); while, the environmental and
social attributes of agricultural sustainability are reected in soil
health, status of water resources, air quality, health condition of
workers, provision of safe food, and several other indicators (Jha,
2004; Girardin et al., 1999; Taylor et al., 1993; Rigby et al., 2000;
Ikerd, 2006).
The micro-studies on agricultural sustainability have largely
focused on the crop production enterprises, while those pertaining to dairy farms are limited, particularly in the context
of small-holder dairy production system prevalent in India and
other developing countries. Most of the studies on dairy enterprise (Berentsen et al., 1998; Van Huylenbroeck et al., 2000; Van
Calker et al., 2004, 2005) have covered only the economic and
environmental aspects of dairy farming, while few (Hni et al.,
2003; Mann and Gazzarin, 2004) have developed models for sustainability assessment of dairy at farm level covering all three
main dimensions of sustainability. Response-Inducing Sustainability Evaluation (RISE) approach developed by Hni et al. (2003)
was used to evaluate Swiss mixed crop and livestock farms and
Chinese dairy farms. Mann and Gazzarin (2004) constructed a composite index to analyze the sustainability of Swiss dairy farms.
In developing countries like India, where dairy farming is characterized by small herds of low producing dairy animals, managed
mostly by family labor, under situation of input and capital constraints, and without any subsidy support from the government;
the attributes of sustainability need to be dened in accordance
with the prevailing bio-physical and socio-economic conditions
in these nations. Therefore, the objectives of this study are: (1)
to select the attributes of economic, social and ecological dimensions of sustainability in the context of small-holder dairy farming
situation in developing countries; (2) to determine the indicators/yardsticks to measure the selected attributes; (3) to delineate
a method to aggregate the various indicators to quantify sustainability and (4) to apply the model for assessing the sustainability of
small-holder dairy farms in India.
Section 2 presents the attribute and indicators selected for sustainability assessment, and the approach adopted for constructing
composite sustainability index. The subsequent sub-section gives a
brief overview of the study area wherein the developed model has
been applied. The third section presents and discusses the results
of the study, followed by the concluding section.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Selection of attributes and indicators of sustainability
The review of literature had explicitly brought out that a holistic approach of sustainability assessment should encompass all
the three dimensions viz. economic, social and ecological aspects.
Within each aspect of sustainability, attributes were identied
and one or more measureable indicators for each attribute were
selected (Table 1). The selection of attributes was based on two
important criterion; one, the ability to measure each attribute on
the farm by means of an indicator and two, the ability of the farmer
and the farm system to inuence the level of the attribute.

2.1.1. Economic indicators

The production of milk is the main economic activity on the dairy
farms. The small-holder dairy farmers market raw milk without
any value addition. Most of the farms do not maintain systematic

Table 1
Attributes and indicators for sustainability assessment of smallholder dairy farms.
Dimension

Attributes

Indicators

Economic

Production costs
Input productivity

Cost of milk production

Labor productivity
Capital productivity
Feed productivity
Family labor income per
capita relative to consumption
expenditure per capita
Women empowerment
measure
Carrying of weight
Sharing of work burden
Off days from work
Proportion of dung
production used for fuel
Enteric methane emissions

Family labor income

Social
Gender equality
Drudgery of work

Ecological

Animal waste
management
Greenhouse gas
emission potential
Maintenance of genetic
potential of animals

Adoption of scientic animal

breeding practices

farm accounts which limit the choice of economic attributes and

indicators.
Production cost reects the protability of dairy enterprise and
ultimately the sustainability of the farm. Higher cost makes the
enterprise less protable, and hence, negatively affects sustainability of dairy farming. In the developing countries, the small-holder
farmers are an unorganized lot with hardly any bargaining power
in ascertaining the farm gate prices of milk. Hence, their ability to
enhance net farm income is limited to controlling the cost of production. Therefore, instead of net farm income, production cost was
taken as an attribute for measuring economic sustainability.
Input productivity indicates the efciency of inputs used for producing milk. Higher productivity means more efcient use of inputs
and therefore, greater economic sustainability of the farm. The indicators used were productivity of three major dairy inputs, viz. labor,
capital and feed.
2.1.2. Social indicators
In developing countries, the dairy farms are mostly managed by
family labor with predominant role of female workforce (NiamirFuller, 1994; Kristjanson et al., 2010). Mann and Gazzarin (2004)
contend that when there is dominance of family farming in an
enterprise that is carried out mostly in the countryside, the income
of the entrepreneurs might be considered as a social indicator, as
a sufcient income is one of the main reasons that farms keep
working and, full their social obligation of living in rural areas
for supplying milk to the urban consumers. The criterion of sufcient income has been taken in relation to prevailing wage rate in
the study area. On somewhat similar lines, Hni et al. (2003) also
considered the relation between labor compensation on the farm
and the minimum regional income to assess the social situation
of family workers and employees. Taking the cue from these studies, the family labor income from dairy (FLI) was therefore, taken
a social attribute. An indicator of its adequacy in per capita terms
has been seen in relation to the average per capita consumption
expenditure in the rural areas. The higher the per capita FLI vis-a-vis
consumption expenditure, greater would be social sustainability of
the enterprise.
As both, male and female workforce is engaged in dairying;
gender equality is an important attribute of social dimension of
sustainability. In patriarchic, highly male-centric social systems
prevalent in most developing countries, when females are making
important contribution to any enterprise, women empowerment
is an obvious indicator of gender equality.
Another important attribute of social sustainability is the extent
of drudgery of work involved in enterprise that is, the conditions

P. Chand et al. / Ecological Indicators 56 (2015) 2330

25

Table 2
Measurement of sustainability indicators.
S. no.

Indicators

Estimation method

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Cost of milk production (INR/L)

Labor productivity (INR/man day)
Capital productivity (%)
Feed productivity (L/kg)
Family labor income per capita relative to
consumption expenditure per capita (%)
Women empowerment measure (score)

7.

Carrying of weight (kg km per person per day)

8.
9.
10.

Sharing of work burden (score)

Off days from work (number)
Proportion of dung production used for fuel (%)

(Gross cost of maintenance of dairy animals value of dung)/milk yield

Value of milk output/labor man days
Net annual income 100/average value of total dairy assets
Quantity of milk produced/dry matter intake
{[Gross income (operating and capital costs)]/family size} 100/regional average
monthly per capita consumption expenditure
Total standardized scores obtained for ve aspects: (i) access to or control over nancial
resources, (ii) participation in domestic decision-making, (iii) educational qualication,
(iv) social participation, (v) accessibility to information
(Weight carried manually distance through which weight carried frequency of activity
per day no. of days in year activity is performed)/(365 number of workers)
Weighted standardized scores for work sharing in (i) feeding, (ii) cleaning and (iii) milking
Number of days in year the main worker takes off from dairy
(Dung for fuel 100)/total dung produced on farm

eij nij

11.

12.

Enteric methane (CH4 )

emissions (kg/L)

Adoption of scientic animal breeding

practices (score)

i
Milk production

where eij and nij are CH4 emission factor and number of animals on farm household,
respectively of ith type of jth category of animal; i is the crossbred, local cows and
buffaloes and j is the lactating and dry
Total standardized scores obtained for adoption of various scientic practices related to
animals breeding and access to related infrastructural facilities

under which labor (particularly physical labor) takes place. On the

smallholder dairy farms in developing countries, where there is
low level of mechanization, on account of limited resources available with the farmers and also small scale of operation; the dairy
activities like bringing green fodder and grasses from eld or common property resources, preparing animal feed, cleaning the sheds,
bathing, servicing of animals, milking of animals, etc. are arduous
in nature, especially when activities involve frequent carrying of
heavy weight. Further, unlike crop production, the dairy activities
are regular, as animals have to be fed and milked at least twice
daily, animal wastes have to be removed from sheds, etc. Thus, the
main workers can hardly afford off days from work.
The three indicators of this attribute that have been taken from
the developing country perspective are, carrying of weight/load by
the workers, sharing of work burden among the number of persons
in each activity involving physical labor and off-days affordable by
main worker. In the context of social sustainability of Swiss dairy
farms, Mann and Gazzarin (2004) have also considered the rst and
the third indicator.

2.1.3. Ecological indicators

The interaction between dairy farming and the environment are
manifold. The goal of a sustainability index is to include the most
signicant environmental impacts of dairy farming and the ones
with the greatest variations between dairy farms. Several ecological/environmental attributes and indicators considered by earlier
studies such as soil health, water quality, ecotoxicity, etc., have vast
data requirement and were not possible to quantify given the data
limitations of farm households. Three attributes, each with one
indicator was therefore operationalized for ecological dimension
of sustainability on smallholder farms.
Animal waste, especially dried cow-dung is extensively used as
fuel on the farm households in developing countries. Cooking with
dung cakes is not only difcult and inefcient but also health hazardous and air polluting (WHO, 2006). However, when dung is used
as manure and applied to the crop, it improves soil texture; checks
soil salinity, alkalinity and erosion. Thus, from an environmental
point the use of dung for manure is favorable for sustainability, and
vice versa when it is used as fuel.
Methane production from the animal systems has assumed signicance from the environmental perspective due to its role as a
green house gas. A lower level of methane emission in relation

to milk produced by dairy animals is desired, for both, production efciency of animals and ecological sustainability. As enteric
fermentation is the major source of methane production in dairy
animals, this indicator of ecological sustainability was captured as
enteric methane emission per kg of milk produced.
The breeding practices followed by the farmers affect the genetic
potential of the animals and hence, have long-run implications
for sustainability of dairy farming. With the use of low quality
germplasm, the productive capacity of animals get progressively
diluted and breeds face degeneration. In recent years, several
breeds have been reduced in number due to neglect and lack
of concentrated breeding efforts. Such a loss of animal genetic
diversity puts in jeopardy the sustainability of animal agriculture
and the ability of the sector to respond to changing environmental conditions. Good breeding practices are, therefore, essential
pre-requisite for bringing genetic improvement of animals and
thereby, improving the productivity and sustainability of animals.
This attribute has not been accounted for in any of the earlier studies, perhaps, because in the developed country, the adoption of
scientic animal breeding practices may be uniform across farms
which is not the case in developing world.

2.2. Measurement of indicators

Based on eld data, the method of estimation of indicators
adopted in this study, as outlined in Table 2 is largely selfexplanatory; however, for further clarity some important points
are specied below:
The gross cost used in indicator 1, includes the operating costs,
capital costs and the opportunity cost (i.e., imputed value of family
labor) of rearing the adult dairy animals. In the computation of feed
productivity, the quantum of intake of various types of feed and
fodder collected from the farm on fresh matter basis was converted
into dry matter based on the percentage dry matter in the feeds
(Ranjhan, 1991). In case of indicator 5, to see how much of the
per capita family labor income is earned from dairy enterprise in
relation to consumption expenditure, the regional (rural Rajasthan)
monthly per capita consumption expenditure was taken from NSSO
(2006).
The ve proxy variables to measure the extent of women
empowerment were formed on the basis of a review of earlier
studies (Kabeer, 1999; Malhotra et al., 2002; Sridevi, 2005). In

26

P. Chand et al. / Ecological Indicators 56 (2015) 2330

accordance with the social situation in rural India, the variables

comprised of one or more items that were given scores; for instance,
the scores for domestic decision making were given on 5-point
scale, =0, if the female respondent is not consulted, =1, if she is
consulted, =2, if everyone decides together, =3, if the respondent
consults others and decide herself and =4, if she decides herself.
The raw scores of each variable were converted to standardized
T-scores (Kurpius and Stafford, 2006) and following the equal
weighting approach of UNDP (1990) for construction of Gender
Empowerment Measure (GEM), a composite measure was computed as weighted sum of the standardized scores of all the ve
variables.
The manual work in dairy activities like frequent carrying of
heavy weight may act as disincentive for continuing dairy in the
longer run, particularly for the educated rural youth. The product of weight (in kg) carried manually by the workers, distance (in
km) through which it was to be carried, daily frequency of activity
and number of days in year the activity was performed was computed for ve major activities, viz. fetching green fodder, feeding,
cleaning and milking of animals and cleansing of shed. The annual
estimates were then converted to daily basis per worker. The sharing of work burden for the listed activities was scored on a 4-point
scale depending on the involvement of the number of workers; =0
for 1, =1 for 2, =2 for 3, =3 for more than 3 workers. The weighted
sum of standardized T-scores was computed to measure this indicator; weights were assigned on the perception of the main worker
about the level of drudgery in the specic dairy activity.
The estimates of enteric methane emissions were based on the
region-specic methane emission factors of lactating and dry adult
female crossbred cows, local cattle and buffaloes. The IPCC (1996)
Tier II approach as applied by Karunanithi et al. (2010) was used to
work out the emission factors.
The congeniality of the animal breeding practices from the point
of view of sustainability was examined based on their adoption by
the farmers, the information of which was collected on the structured survey schedule. On a specied scale, scores were assigned
to each practice depending on its implication for sustainability
the lowest score for worst practice. The weighted average of standardized scores for ve broad group (system of mating, articial
insemination, natural service, other breeding practices and access
to relevant infrastructural facilities) was calculated to get a composite adoption score (maximum obtainable score for each group
was taken as weight).

literature/conventional wisdom (Table 3). The upper threshold (UT)

indicated the ideal state for the variables that had positive relation
with sustainability while the lower threshold (LT) was the minimum desirable or lowest attainable level of the specic indicator.
In case of inverse relationship, the UT was minimum desirable and
LT was best condition.
The scores were assigned as follows:
(i) When indicator has direct link with sustainability
A UT : score = full (maximum); A LT : score = 0
(A LT)
LT < A < UT : score =
maximum score
(UT LT)
A : actual value of the indicator
(ii) When indicator has inverse link with sustainability
A UT : score = 0; A = LT : score = full (maximum)

LT < A < UT : score = maximum score

(A LT)
maximum score
(UT LT)

2.4. Sustainable dairy farming index

Finally, all the aspects of sustainability were weighted in an
overall Sustainable Dairy Farming Index (SDFI), i.e., into an overall gure that indicates farm sustainability. The scores assigned
to all the indicators of a specic dimension were aggregated to
get the total score of each of the three dimensions. To construct
SDFI, a simple approach could be to add up the values of each
dimension. This would, however, neglect the fact that a minimum
of each indicator is necessary to achieve overall sustainability.
It is difcult to imagine that a farm without any economic sustainability would survive even if, full scores on environmental and
social sustainability is obtained. Conversely, an economically and
socially viable farm could not be called sustainable if it caused
major ecological damage. Therefore, the multiplicative approach
was used:SDFI = log(EN SO EC)where SDFI is the Sustainable
Dairy Farming Index, EN is the economic dimension of sustainability, SO is the social dimension of sustainability and, EC is the
ecological dimension of sustainability. The full scores in each aspect
of sustainability would result in a maximum SDFI = 6 under equal
weighting pattern.

2.3. Assigning of weights and scores to indicators

2.5. The model application
The next step in constructing a composite sustainability index is
bringing the heterogeneous indicators to a common denomination
by assigning scores. As there were three dimensions of sustainability, the scores were assigned on a 300-point scale following two
weighting schemes:
(i) Equal weights for each dimension of sustainability, for each
attribute within a dimension, and for each indicator within an
attribute.
(ii) Weights based on expert opinion of 50 subject matter specialists, selected randomly from various research and academic
organizations in India. The weights accorded to economic,
social and ecological dimensions were 46, 30, 24%, respectively. The weights assigned to the attributes and its indictors
were also not equal (Table 3). Accordingly, the maximum score
obtainable in each case was worked out (Table 3). In either
weighting method, the minimum obtainable score was zero.
For each indicator an upper and lower threshold value was identied on the basis of economic logic/scientic evidence/review of

The model was applied to assess the sustainability of dairy farms

in Rajasthan state located in north-western part of India, between
23 4 N to 30 11 N latitude, and 69 21 E to 78 17 E longitude. With
a geographical area of 342.24 thousand square kilometers, as per
the Kppen classication (Kottek et al., 2006), more than half of the
state falls in arid agro-climatic zone and the rest is semi-arid.
The study was based on primary data collected from dairy farms
in four villages (Raisingh Ka Bass, Jaichandpura, Dudhawala and
Nathi Ka Bass) of the state capital Jaipur. The choice of Jaipur as
study area was guided by fact that in Rajasthan state, it is the
highest milk-producing district, has the highest population and
productivity of dominant milk producing species (viz. buffaloes).
A complete enumeration of all households in selected villages was
carried out to ascertain the herd size of dairy animals in the study
area. Although, in comparison to the dairy production system in
developed countries, all were small-holder dairy farms, yet, within
them further categorization was made to examine the relation of
herd size with sustainability. Hence, based on number of dairy animals (both, cow and buffaloes), three herd size categories, small

P. Chand et al. / Ecological Indicators 56 (2015) 2330

27

Table 3
Weights, scores and threshold levels.
Dimension

Attributes

Weights*

Indicators

Weights*

Lower threshold

Upper threshold

Economic
(0100)
(0138)

Production costs
(050)

0.36 (050)

Cost () (050)

0.36 (050)

Average selling prices

of milk

0.64 (088)

Labor (+) (017)

0.20 (027)

Lowest cost of milk

production on sample
farms
Minimum wage rate of
INR 73 per day

Capital (+) (017)

0.21 (029)

Feed (+) (016)

% Expenditure (+)
(033)
Empowerment (+)
(034)
Load () (011)
Work sharing (+)
(011)
Off days (+) (011)

Input productivity
(050)

Social
(0100)
(090)

Family labor Income

(033)
Gender equality (034)
Drudgery of
work (033)

Ecological
(0100)
(072)

0.32 (029)
0.31 (028)
0.37 (033)

0.23 (032)
0.32 (029)

Interest on xed
deposit (9%)
0.45 L/kg of dry matter
0%

Average productivity of
top 10 sample
households
Ideal rate of return on
dairy (20%)
1 L/kg of dry matter
100%

0.31 (028)

100

0.12 (011)
0.12 (011)

5 kg/km
0

25 kg/km
100

0.13 (011)

One day off per month

(12 days)
0%

One day off per week

(52 days)
100%

Minimum methane
emission in study
area = 26.26 g/L of milk
produced
0

Average methane
emission in the study
area = 42 g/L of milk

Animal waste
management (033)
GHG emission
potential (033)

0.46 (033)

Dung for fuel (+) (033)

0.46 (033)

0.24 (017)

Methane () (033)

0.24 (017)

Maintenance of genetic
potential (033)

0.30 (022)

Breeding (+) (033)

0.30 (022)

100

Notes: (i) * based on expert opinion. (ii) Bold gures in parentheses indicate range of obtainable score based on equal weights. (iii) Italics gures in parentheses indicate range
of obtainable score based on expert weights. (iv) + and symbols in parentheses show relationship of the indicator with sustainability dimension.

(12 animals), medium (34) and large (5), were formed using
cumulative square root frequency method. Total number of 120
households was selected as per the probability proportion to number of households in each category. The data were collected from
the selected households through personal interviews on structured and pre-tested survey schedules during agricultural year
20062007 for three seasons viz., summer (March to June), rainy
(July to October) and winter (November to February).

3. Results
3.1. Economic sustainability
The economic sustainability scores showed wide inter-farm
variations, ranging from low level of 1.5 to as high as 79.5 on a
100-point scale (Table 4). The average scores were on the lower
side (27.1); 65% of sample dairy farms scored less than 1/3 of the
maximum obtainable score and merely 6% had high scores (above
2/3 of 100, that is, 66.7). The economic sustainability status of
the dairy farms seemed to improve with the size of the herd, as
was reected in the progressively increasing scores with herd size
category. The average score of small category of farmers (12 animals) was about 7 and 15 point lower than that of medium sized
farms (34 animals) and larger farms (5 animals), respectively.
The percentage concentration of dairy farms in low category of
scores also decreased with the increase in herd size; 75% of small
farms obtained low scores, while the corresponding percentage for
medium and large farms was 61.5 and 48%, respectively. Further,
the inter-farm variations, that were highest for small farm-size category (CV 94.6%), declined with increase in herd-size category. The
trend was broadly similar for scoring on the 138-point scale, based
on weighting system as per the experts opinion.
The poor status of dairy farms from the perspective of economic
dimension of sustainability was primarily due to low productivity
of feed input, and consequently high cost of milk production in relation to the prevailing market price of milk. The average dry matter
intake per animal was about 10 kg per day. With average daily milk

yield of 45 L, the feed productivity was <0.5 L per kg/dry matter

intake, clearly indicating poor feed conversion efciency of dairy
animals (Chand and Sirohi, 2012). The average price of cow and
buffalo milk was INR 10.3/L and 14.0/L (20062007 prices), respectively. On more than dairy farms, the cost of milk production
worked out to be higher than the prices of milk. On an average, the
net returns were only INR 12/L of milk produced on the farm.
Across herd size categories, the relatively better sustainability
status of larger farms was attributable to inter-farm size differentials in labor, capital and milk productivity. With the increase
in number of dairy animals, the labor and capital productivity
increased, as the farms could economize on the usage of these
inputs. There were minor differences in the productivity of dairy
animals across herd-size categories, the larger farmers reared
animals, especially, the crossbred cows with somewhat better productivity level.

3.2. Social sustainability

Unlike the sharp inter-farm variations in economic sustainability, the variability in social sustainability index was of low
magnitude (CV 24%), because the social conditions prevailing in a
small region are unlikely to be much different. The average scores
of this dimension ranged from 33 to 41 across herd size categories
(Table 5). The minimum score obtained was 20.1 and highest 63.5,
indicating that all the sample farms had low or moderate level of
sustainability status.
The higher labor productivity on the larger herds was also manifested in higher per capita family labor income on these farms in
comparison to the smaller ones. The per capita family labor income
was equivalent to nearly 17% of the monthly per capita consumption expenditure in rural Rajasthan. The women empowerment
index averaged to around 50, and did not very much across farms,
in general, indicating not very encouraging condition of women in
the study area (Chand et al., 2011).
The extent of drudgery of work involved in dairy enterprise
was quite high and similar across farms. On an average, a worker

28

P. Chand et al. / Ecological Indicators 56 (2015) 2330

Table 4
Distribution of dairy farms according to level of total economic sustainability scores.
Level of score

Weighting pattern
Equal weights (100-point scale)

Low
Moderate
High
Average score
Range
CV (%)

Experts opinion (138-point scale)

Small (n = 56)

Medium (n = 39)

Large (n = 25)

Overall (n = 120)

Small (n = 56)

Medium (n = 39)

Large (n = 25)

Overall (n = 120)

42 (75.0)
11 (19.6)
3 (5.4)
21.7
1.579.5
93.6

24 (61.5)
15 (38.5)

28.6
3.162.1
65.7

12 (48.0)
9 (36.0)
4 (16.0)
36.7
4.072.6
55.2

78 (65.0)
35 (29.2)
7 (5.8)
27.1
1.579.5
75.7

42 (75.0)
11 (19.6)
3 (5.4)
30.1
2.4114.9
94.9

22 (56.4)
17 (43.6)

39.7
4.686.2
66.3

13 (52.0)
9 (36.0)
3 (12.0)
50.6
6.4101.0
55.1

77 (64.1)
37 (30.9)
6 (5.0)
37.5
2.4114.9
76.3

Note: CV, coefcient of variation.

Figures in parentheses are the percentages of total number of sample farms in respective category.
Low = up to bottom 1/3rd; moderate = middle 1/3rd; high = top 1/3rd.

Table 5
Distribution of dairy farms according to level of total social sustainability scores.
Level of score

Weighting pattern
Equal weights (100-point scale)

Low
Moderate
High
Average score
Range
CV (%)

Experts opinion (90-point scale)

Small (n = 56)

Medium (n = 39)

Large (n = 25)

Overall (n = 120)

Small (n = 56)

Medium (n = 39)

Large (n = 25)

Overall (n = 120)

30 (53.6)
26 (46.4)

33.0
20.150.9
21.2

16 (41.0)
23 (59.0)

36.5
22.163.5
24.7

6 (24.0)
19 (76.0)

40.6
28.960.1
22.2

52 (43.3)
68 (56.7)

35.7
20.163.5
24.0

30 (53.6)
26 (46.4)

29.6
17.946.4
22.4

17 (43.6)
22 (56.4)

32.7
19.256.7
25.8

9 (36.0)
16 (64.0)

36.3
25.153.5
22.4

56 (46.7)
64 (53.3)

32.0
17.556.7
24.8

Note: CV, coefcient of variation in percent.

Figures in parentheses are the percentages of total number of sample farms in respective category.
Low = up to bottom 1/3rd; moderate = middle 1/3rd; high = top 1/3rd.

engaged in dairy activity had to carry a load of about 16 kg km per

day. The work burden for most of the dairy activities were shared
by two or more persons, except of milking, which was generally
done by single person. Men carried out the activities such as selling of milk, involving less drudgery, while the activities involving
more drudgery, like cleaning, bringing fodder, feeding, bathing and
servicing of animals were undertaken by women and the younger
workers. The main worker could afford to take only 17 off-days
from work in a year.
3.3. Ecological sustainability
The average ecological sustainability score was 49.7 (Table 6),
higher than the average scores of earlier two dimensions. Based
on equal weighing approach, most of the households (86.7%) had
moderate level of ecological sustainability, however, based on the
alternate weighting approach, more farms were in high score category than in the moderate level due to differences in relative
weights given to each indicator under the two approaches.
The animal waste management practices in the study area were
quite environmental friendly.1 Dung was mostly used as manure
and only about 27% was burned as fuel. On the smaller herd size, as
average landholding was also small (1.4 ha), relatively lower percentage was used as manure and about one-third was burned as
fuel.
The methane emission in relation to milk production ranged
from 26.3 to 95.2 g/L, with an overall average of 42.8 g/L; which
was quite comparable to the average emission levels in some of
the developed countries like USA (74 g/L) and Netherland (27 g/L).2

1
Expert weighting for animal waste management was 46% as against 33% under
equal weighting approach. Hence, weighted ecological sustainability scores of

farms based on former were higher.

2
Estimates based on enteric methane emission from UNFCCC GHG inventory and
milk production estimates from FAO database for year 2012.

Across herd size categories, as the milk productivity increased

with herd size, the emissions decreased from 44.2 g/L on small, to
40.3 g/L on medium, and further to 39.8 g/L on large farms.
The dairy farmers did not follow scientic animal breeding practices. Around half of the sample farms were indiscriminately mating
their dairy cows and that too, mostly with the scrub bull that had
no specic breed characteristics. The farmers did not have access
to breeding infrastructural facilities. Out of four sample villages,
in only one, the articial insemination center, trained inseminator,
semen, veterinary doctor and village panchayat bull was available
within the village. In the other three, these facilities were available
at distance of around 24 km from villages. There was no availability of liquid nitrogen canes and medicines in any village.
3.4. Composite Sustainable Dairy Farming Index (SDFI)
The indices of each dimension of sustainability are important to
identify the weak aspects and focus on specic ameliorative measures, but a composite index is important for ranking the farms in
order of their sustainability status. Consequent upon the replication
of similar studies over intervals of time and/or regions, such ranking can facilitate an inter-temporal and inter-regional comparison
of sustainability.
In the context of Swiss dairy farms, Mann and Gazzarin (2004)
consider the farms with score of <5 as unsustainable. However, in
the Indian perspective, as per the experts opinion, the dairy farm
with SDFI < 3 were considered as un-sustainable, 3 SDFI < 5 moderately sustainable and SDFI 5 highly sustainable. More than 3/4th
of the farms had SDFI ranging from 3 to 5 and another 1/5th with
SDFI > 5 (Table 7). In general, the higher proportion of large farms
was more sustainable, but even few small farms also had high SDFI.
4. Discussion
The overall sustainability status of the smallholder dairy farms
in the study area was not very encouraging, implying that it may not

P. Chand et al. / Ecological Indicators 56 (2015) 2330

29

Table 6
Distribution of dairy farms according to level of total ecological sustainability scores.
Level of score

Weighting pattern
Equal weights (100-point scale)

Low
Moderate
High
Average score
Range
CV (%)

Experts opinion (72-point scale)

Small (n = 56)

Medium (n = 39)

Large (n = 25)

Overall (n = 120)

Small (n = 56)

Medium (n = 39)

Large (n = 25)

Overall (n = 120)

4 (7.1)
50 (89.3)
2 (3.6)
45.2
11.975.3
27.4

1 (2.6)
33 (84.6)
5 (12.8)
52.9
33.178.4
21.3

21 (84.0)
4 (16.0)
54.9
38.283.5
20.8

5 (4.2)
104 (86.7)
11 (9.1)
49.7
11.983.5
25.2

2 (3.6)
34 (60.7)
20 (37.7)
44.6
14.054.8
16.6

15 (38.5)
24 (61.5)
49.6
39.958.3
8.9

2 (8.0)
23 (92.0)
52.1
41.759.4
7.5

2 (1.7)
51 (42.5)
67 (55.8)
47.8
14.059.4
13.9

Note: CV, coefcient of variation.

Figures in parentheses are the percentages of total number of sample farms in respective category.
Low = up to bottom 1/3rd; moderate = middle 1/3rd; high = top 1/3rd.

Table 7
Distribution of dairy farms based Sustainable Dairy Farming Index (SDFI).
Sustainability
status

Unsustainable
Moderately sustainable
Highly sustainable
Average score
Range
CV (%)

Weighting pattern
Equal weights

Experts opinion

Small (n = 56)

Medium (n = 39)

Large (n = 25)

Overall (n = 120)

Small (n = 56)

Medium (n = 39)

Large (n = 25)

Overall (n = 120)

2 (3.6)
49 (87.5)
5 (8.9)
4.3
2.95.4
14.2

29 (74.4)
10 (25.6)
4.6
3.55.5
10.9

15 (60.0)
10 (40.0)
4.8
3.95.4
9.0

2 (1.7)
93 (77.5)
25 (20.8)
4.5
2.95.5
12.9

50 (89.3)
6 (10.7)
4.4
3.15.3
12.4

28 (71.8)
11 (28.2)
4.7
3.75.4
9.4

15 (60.0)
10 (40.0)
4.9
4.15.4
7.6

93 (77.5)
27 (22.5)
4.6
3.15.4
11.3

Note: CV, coefcient of variation.

Figures in parentheses are the percentages of total number of sample farms in respective category.
Unsustainable: SDFI <3; moderately sustainable: 3 SDFI < 5; highly sustainable 5.

be viable for future generations, say 25 years ahead to take up the

enterprise. A word of caution, however, needs to be sounded here
about the implications of this for intra-family succession. Although,
the probability that in the long run a farm household would continue a production activity which is highly sustainable is more, yet,
intra-family succession would dependent on a large range of factors, including random ones. Hence, a sustainable farm should not
be interpreted as one ready for a willing successor to take over.
Some of the core attributes like feed productivity, management
of animal genetic potential and gender equality are particularly
weak aspects of the dairy production system in India. These three
attributes not only inuence the other attributes but have long
term implications for sustainability. Poor quality of animal feed
resources adversely affects the milk productivity and hence, the
cost of milk production and productivity of other inputs. The
non-adoption of scientic animal breeding practices has serious
implications for long-term productivity potential and health status of dairy animals. Thus, the formulation and dissemination of
the nutritional strategies to improve the digestibility and nutrient
value of the available feed should receive priority for development
of dairy. Also, to improve adoption of breeding practices on scientic lines, development focus is required on the provisioning of
adequate and quality livestock support services.
Women are the main workers in dairy activity. Without the
reduction of their drudgery of work, enhanced control over the
nancial resources and access to information, smallholder dairy
farms will not be socially sustainable. There is a need to develop
operation specic mechanical technologies for smallholder farms
so as to improve efciency of workforce and reduce drudgery.
Self help groups (SHGs) have been key instruments for supporting women empowerment in various parts of India (IFAD, 2010).
More of such institutional arrangements need to be put in place,
specically, for dairy production.
The observed direct relation of SDFI and herd size category can
be attributable to better milk productivity of animals on larger

farms, partially because they had better access to resources. The

average size of the operational land holding was more (3.9 ha) on
farms of large herd size categories, compared to farms with medium
(2.7 ha) and small (1.4 ha) herds. In the changing market environment, the economic sustainability of very small herds is likely to be
under more pressure and hence, increasing their herd of dairy animals to ve to six animals would be a good strategy to economize
on input costs and generate more marketed surplus of milk. Better
management of their animal herd, especially by way of adopting
scientic dairy farming practices, has a scope for improving the
production of smallholders even with their limited land and capital resources. Extension support services tailored to the needs of
the smallholders in particular region, require to be strengthened
for training and educating the farmers.

5. Conclusions
Both, scientic quality of information and stakeholders acceptance in terms of suitability of attributes to the system, and easy
availability of data are important for the development of an effective sustainability assessment tool. This study has developed a
multi-dimensional farm level sustainability assessment model. The
model enables the researchers to be guided by the complex, multiattribute nature of sustainability and reduce it to a simple solution
by concentrating on few most important and most relevant indicators. The selected indicators of the model are suitable for the
small-holder dairy farming and can be a valuable instrument for an
easy assessment of the sustainability of dairy farming in developing countries. In a region, to begin with, a full-scale assessment of
sustainability should be carried out to identify the weak aspects.
Subsequently, the indicators delineating these should be the focus
of stakeholders working on dairy development. The model is hence,
a policy instrument also, for the improvement of sustainability
of a system based on the values of attribute indices. It builds a

30

P. Chand et al. / Ecological Indicators 56 (2015) 2330

foundation for further validation and expansion at farm level for

other agricultural and allied activities.
References
Andreoni, M., Tellarini, V., 1999. Farm sustainability evaluation: methodology and
practice. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 77, 4352.
Becker, B., 1997. Sustainability Assessment: A Review of Values, Concepts, and
Methodological Approaches. Issues in Agriculture Series. CGIAR, Available at
www.worldbank.org/html/cgiar/publications/issues/issues10.pdf
Berentsen, P.B.M., Giesen, G.W.J., Schneiders, M., 1998. Conversion from conventional to biological dairy farming: economic and environmental consequences
at farm level. Biol. Agric. Hortic. 16, 311328.
Bonny, P.B., Vijayaragavan, K., 2001. Adoption of sustainable agricultural practices
by traditional rice grower. J. Trop. Agric. 39, 151156.
Chand, P., Sirohi, S., 2012. District level sustainable livestock production index: tool
for livestock development planning in Rajasthan. Indian J. Agric. Econ. 63 (2),
199212.
Chand, P., Sirohi, S., Rathi, D., 2011. Assessment of women empowerment in dairying: a study of semi-arid Rajasthan. Indian J. Dryland Agric. Res. Dev. 26 (2),
2832.
Ehui, S.K., Spencer, D.S.C., 1990. Measuring the sustainability and economic viability
of tropical farming systems: a model from Sub-Saharan Africa. Agric. Econ. 9,
279296.
FAO, 1991. Sustainable agriculture and rural development in Asia and Pacic. In:
Netherlands Conference on Agriculture and Environment, Regional Development Report No 2, pp. 1519.
Girardin, P., Bockstaller, C., van der Werf, H.M.G., 1999. Indicators: tools to evaluate
the environmental impacts of farming systems. J. Sustain. Agric. 13, 521.
Hni, F., Braga, F., Stmpi, A., Keller, T., Fischer, M., Porsche, H., 2003. RISE, a tool
for holistic sustainability assessment at the farm level. IAMA Int. Food Agribus.
Manag. Rev. 6, 7890.
IFAD, 2010. Empowering Women Through Self-Help Groups. Insight
13,
Available
at
http://www.ifad.org/evaluation/public html/
N.
eksyst/doc/insight/pi/india-13.htm (accessed on 31.08.14).
Ikerd, J., 2006. Economic analysis and multiple impact valuation strategies. In:
Francis, C., Poincelot, R., Bird, G. (Eds.), Developing and Extending Sustainable
Agriculture: A New Social Contract. Haworth Food and Agricultural Products
Press, Binghamton, NY, pp. 109140.
IPCC, 1996. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Reference
Manual, vol. 3. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Switzerland.
Jha, B., 2004. Towards the Measuring the Sustainability of Indian Greenbelt. IEG
Discussion Paper Series No. 88/2004. Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi, India.
Jodha, N.S., 1991. Sustainable agriculture in fragile resource regions: technological
imperative. Econ. Political Wkly. 26 (13), A15A26.
Kabeer, N., 1999. The Conditions and Consequences of Choice: Reections on
the Measurement of Womens Empowerment. UNRISD Discussion Paper No.
108. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD),
Switzerland.
Karunanithi, E., Sirohi, S., Sirohi, S.K., 2010. Indian Dairy Sector and Climate Change:
Baseline Scenario of methane emissions. LAP Lambert Academic Publishing,
Germany, pp. 76.
Kottek, M., Grieser, J., Beck, C., Rudolf, B., Rubel, F., 2006. World map
of KppenGeiger climate classication updated. Meteorol. Z. 15,
259263.
Kristjanson, P., Waters-Bayer, A., Johnson, N., Tipilda, A., Njuki, J., Baltenweck, I.,
Grace, D., MacMillan, S., 2010. Livestock and Womens Livelihoods: A Review of
the Recent Evidence. Discussion Paper No. 20. ILRI., Nairobi, Kenya.

Kumar, P., Mittal, S., 2006. Agricultural productivity trends in India: sustainability
issues. Agric. Econ. Res. Rev. 19, 7188.
Kumar, P., Kumar, A., Mittal, S., 2004. Total factor productivity of crop sector in the
Indo-Gangetic Plain of India: sustainability issues revisited. Indian Econ. Rev. 39
(1), 169201.
Kurpius, S.E.R., Stafford, M.E., 2006. Testing and Measurement: A User-Friendly
Guide. Sage Publications, Inc., New Delhi, India.
Malhotra, A., Schuler, S.R., Boender, C., 2002. Measuring Womens Empowerment as a Variable in International Development. Background Paper Prepared
for the World Bank Workshop on Poverty and Gender: New Perspectives, Available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTGENDER/Resources/
MalhotraSchulerBoender.pdf
Mann, S., Gazzarin, C., 2004. Sustainability indicators for Swiss Dairy Farms and the
general implications for business/government interdependencies. Int. Rev. Adm.
Sci. 70, 111121.
Niamir-Fuller, M., 1994. Women Livestock Managers in the Third World: A Focus on
Technical Issues Related to Gender Roles in Livestock Production. IFAD, Working
Staff Paper 18. IFAD, Rome.
NSSO, 2006. Level and Pattern of Consumer Expenditure: 200405, Report No. 505.
National Sample Survey Organisation, Ministry of Statistics and Programme
Implementation, Govt. of India.
Ranjhan, S.K., 1991. Chemical Composition and Nutritive Value of Indian Feeds and
Feeding of Farm Animals. ICAR, New Delhi.
Rigby, D., Howlett, D., Woodhouse, P., 2000. A Review of Indicators of Agricultural
and Rural Livelihood Sustainability. Centre for Agricultural Food and Resource
Economics (CAFRE), University of Manchester (Working Paper 1) Available at
http://les.man.ac.uk/ses/research/CAFRE/indicators/wp1.pdf
Sridevi, T.O., 2005. Empowerment of Women: A Systematic Analysis. IDF Discussion Paper. India Development Foundation, Gurgaon, Haryana, India, Available
at http://www.idfresearch.org/pdf/0411.pdf
Sydorovych, O., Wossink, A., 2007. Assessing sustainability of agricultural
systems: evidence from a conjoint choice survey. Selected paper prepared for presentation at the Southern Agricultural Economics Association
Annual Meetings, Mobile, Alabama, Available at http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/
bitstream/34889/1/sp07sy02.pdf
Taylor, D., Mohamed, Z., Shamsudin, M., Mohaydin, M., Chiew, E., 1993. Creating
a farmer sustainability index: a Malaysian case study. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 8,
175184.
UNDP, 1990. Human Development Report 1990, United Nations Development Programme. Oxford University Press, New York.
Van Calker,.K.J., Berensten, P.B.M., De Boer, I.M.J., Glesen, G.W.J., Huirne, R.B.M., 2004.
An LP-model to analyse economic and ecological sustainability on Dutch dairy
farms: model presentation and application for experimental farm de Marke.
Agric. Syst. 82, 139160.
Van Calker, K.J., Berensten, P.B.M., Glesen, G.W.J., Huirne, R.B.M., 2005. Identifying
and ranking attributes that determine sustainability in Dutch dairy farming.
Agric. Hum. Values 22, 5363.
Van Calker, K., Berentsen, P., Romero, C., Giesen, G., Huirne, R., 2006. Development
and application of multi-attribute sustainability function for Dutch dairy farming systems. Ecol. Econ. 57, 640658.
Van Huylenbroeck, G., Jacobs, G., Vanrolleghem, P., 2000. A simulation model to
evaluate the impact of environmental programmes on dairy farms. Int. Trans.
Operations Res. 7, 171183.
WECD, 1987. World Commission on Environment and Development Our Common
Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York, pp. 43.
Whitaker, M., Lalitha, S., 1993. Quantifying the Relative Productivity and Sustainability of Alternative Cropping Systems. Progress Report No. 115, Resource
Management Programme, Economics Group. ICRISAT, Patancheru, India.
WHO, 2006. Fuel for Life: Household Energy and Health. World Health Organization.,
Geneva, Switzerland.