Livestock Research for Rural Development 18 (12) 2006 Guidelines to authors LRRD News

Citation of this paper

Socio-economic and livestock aspects of different production systems - Indian case study

D Thammi Raju, M Gnana Prakash*, S T Viroji Rao** and M Srinivasa Reddy

Department of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Extension, College of Veterinary Science, Rajendranagar,Hyderabad- 500 030
dtraju@yahoo.com ; srimallampati@yahoo.com
*Department of Animal Genetics and Breeding, College of Veterinary Science, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad
**Dairy Experimental Station, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad- 500 030

Abstract

An ex-post facto research design was adopted to study the socio-economic and livestock aspects of farmers of crop and different animal production systems. The farmers were mostly middle aged with medium to high socio-economic status, illiteracy to primary education, nuclear families of less than 5 members, small land holdings and medium income.

Different production systems had significant relationship with many socio economic indicators. Socio economic indicators were significantly differing among the different production systems.  Mixed Animal Production System was most suited to especially small and marginal farmers. The role played by the Livestock and its inclusion in different developmental programmes is the prime concern for livestock planners and policymakers in India.

Key words: Livestock, livestock production systems, socio economic factors, strategies


Introduction

Indian Economy is agro-based and it provides livelihood to 74% of our rural population. More than 60% of farmers engaged in Agriculture are Landless, Marginal or Small Farmers having an average holding size of 0.39ha for whom the Animal Husbandry is the main source of sustenance. Animal Husbandry plays an important role in the National economy and socio-economic development. The total value of the current output of Livestock Sector is estimated at Rs. 90,000 crores, which is about 8% of Indian GDP.

Many of the rural people in India seek livelihood through Animal Husbandry, Fisheries or similar multiple income earning opportunities apart from Agriculture. Despite the constraints such as low productivity of animals, difficulty in reaching many small animal holders with developed technologies, lack of qualitative and quantitative availability of feeds/ fodders, the Livestock sector registered an impressive growth rate of 4.57% while it was only 2.77% in case of Agriculture during the period of 1980-94

The population explosion, slow pace of development in certain sectors, suitability of different production systems to the existing environment, the preferences by farmers, need to be understood to attain the overall development in Livestock Sector. Hence, an attempt was made to study the socio-economic and Livestock aspects of different production systems as these are the essential factors responsible for the Livestock development and with a view to formulate the relevant strategies for the development of Livestock sector.


Materials and methods

An ex post- facto design was adopted to study the Socio-economic and Livestock aspects of different production systems. Livestock Units were calculated from the farmer's animal possession, as detailed below

A sample of 150 farmers was selected randomly from Peddashapur village of Shamshabad Mandal (Block) of Rangareddy District of Andhra Pradesh. The data pertaining to the respondents were categorised into 4 production systems based on the possession of different 'types' of Livestock Units, as noted below and the Agriculture being the constant occupation in all the systems.

The different socio-economic characteristics such as age, occupation, education, family size, farm holding, income from different sources and other aspects such as number and type of different animals, milk production, marketing, breeding , feeding aspects were studied with the help of a pre - tested schedule developed for the purpose.


Results and discussion

Socio - economic characteristics

The different socio-economic and personal characteristics such as age, socio-economic status , occupation, education, family type and size, land holding, income from different sources. are presented in the Table 1.


Table 1.   Socio-economic and livestock aspects of farmers of different production systems

Sl. No

Particulars

Category

Non
Livestock

Large
Animal

Small
Animal

Mixed
Animal

1

Age

Young  (≤ 30 years)

5 (17.9)

12 (14.6)

2 (25.0)

13 (40.6)

Middle (31- 55 years)

17 (60.7)

55 (67.1)

5 (62.5)

17 (53.1)

Old  (> 55 yrs)

6 (21.4)

15 (18.3)

1 (12.5)

2 (6.3)

2

Socio-Economic Status

Low

4 (14.3)

24 (29.3)

2 (25.0)

4 (12.5)

Medium

10 (35.7)

45 (54.9)

5 (62.5)

14 (43.8)

High

14 (50.0)

13 (15.9)

1 (12.5)

14 (43.8)

3

Occupation

Agriculture

22 (78.6)

72 (87.8)

6 (75.0)

10 (31.3)

Animal Husbandry

0 (0.00)

7 (8.54)

2 (25.0)

16 (50.0)

Service/others

6 (21.4)

3 (3.66)

0 (0.00)

6 (18.8)

4

Education

Illiterate

5 (17.9)

10 (12.2)

4 (50.0)

7 (21.9)

Primary

9 (32.1)

33 (40.2)

2 (25.0)

13 (40.6)

High school

6 (21.4)

26 (31.7)

2 (25.0)

8 (25.0)

Higher Education

8 (28.6)

13 (15.9)

0 (0.00)

4 (12.5)

5

Family -Type

Nuclear

22 (78.6)

72 (87.8)

7 (87.5)

25 (78.1)

Joint

6 (21.4)

10 (12.2)

1 (12.5)

7 (21.9)

6

Family - Size

Up to 5

22 (78.6)

62 (75.6)

6 (75.0)

26 (81.3)

More than 5

6 (21.4)

20 (24.4)

2 (25.0)

6 (18.8)

7

Land Holding

Small

9 (32.1)

39 (47.6)

6 (75.0)

15 (46.9)

Medium

14 (50.0)

26 (31.7)

2 (25.0)

9 (28.1)

Large

5 (17.9)

17 (20.7)

0 (0.00)

8 (25.0)

8

Income - Agriculture

Low

6 (21.4)

25 (30.5)

3 (37.5)

10 (31.3)

Medium

14 (50.0)

45 (54.9)

5 (62.5)

15 (46.9)

High

8 (28.6)

12 (14.6)

0 (0.00)

7 (21.9)

9

Income-Large Ruminants

Low

0 (0.00)

22 (26.8)

0 (0.00)

10 (29.4)

Medium

0 (0.00)

50 (61.0)

0 (0.00)

18 (52.9)

High

0 (0.00)

10 (12.2)

0 (0.00)

6 (17.7)

10

 Income - Small Ruminants

Low

0 (0.00)

0 (0.00)

3 (37.5)

10 (31.3)

Medium

0 (0.00)

0 (0.00)

5 (62.5)

16 (50.0)

High

0 (0.00)

0 (0.00)

0 (0.00)

6 (18.8)

11

Total  Income

Low

8 (28.6)

20 (24.4)

2 (25.0)

9 (28.1)

Medium

12 (42.9)

50 (61.0)

5 (62.5)

17 (53.1)

High

8 (28.6)

12 (14.6)

1 (12.5)

6 (18.8)

12

Breeding aspects

Service - Natural

0 (0.00)

35 (54.7)

0 (0.00)

14 (56.0)

A.I

0 (0.00)

29 (45.3)

0 (0.00)

11 (44.0)

13

Feeding aspects

 ( Means)

Dry fodder fed/day,  Kgs

0

35.5

24.4

43.5

Green Fodder fed/ day, Kgs

0

13.6

9.38

18.3

Grazing Hours/ day

0

7.59

4

6.38

14

Production

 ( Means)

Milk produced/Day/Lts

0

8.52

9.25

8.66

Average Yield/

Day in Lts

0

2.76

1.19

2.54

Milk sold /day / Lts

0

4.26

5.63

5.06

Average Price/ Lt

0

8.44

8.88

9.14

Figures in parenthesis indicate percentages


The major portion of the farmers (53 to 67% ) of different production systems were in the middle age category ( Sastry and Raju 1992; Raju et al 1996).  But 40.63% of farmers of MAPS were in the young age, who realised the importance of MAPS and its relatives advantages over the others.  Medium socio-economic status (Raju et al 1996) was prevailing among the selected farmers (Table 1). Majority of NLPS in which majority ( 50%) were in the high socio-economic category because farmers had more urban contact and engaged in the commercially viable crop enterprises such as floriculture and horticulture.

The main stay of Indian rural population is agriculture with integration of animal husbandry as the major component (Sastry and Raju 1992). But 50% of MAPS had Animal Husbandry as the main occupation, as the combined and interdependent enterprises had more advantageous to a single enterprise/ production activity. Level education varied with the type production system. Illiteracy was more predominant in SAPS, primary education in LAPS, higher education in NLPS. The farmers resorted to various production systems according to their education status, apart from socio economic status, knowledge, tradition. Because the members of SAPS are nomadic and more traditional in nature, their access to education is less. The educated youth prefer other avenues rather than the livestock based production systems.

The typical Indian joint family system disintegrated over a period and now nuclear families with the family size of less than 5 are more predominant, even in the study area. Urbanisation, migration to cites in such of employment, improved access to mass media, government efforts in controlling the birth rate. contributed for the present situation. Small farm holdings are the significant feature found in Indian farming system. The changes in the family system lead further to reduce the average farm size. In the study area many of the respondents of different production system were small farmers (Singh and Pandey 2001), emphasizing that SAPS ( Pratap and Ravishankar 1999) is the main stay of small and medium farmers. But majority of Non Livestock Farming System were medium farmers.

Income generated from different production systems was in the medium range ($229 to $908) but major portion was by agriculture in all types of production systems. The total income from all sources / species indicates that more income generation is seen in MAPS ( $908) (Pratap and Ravishanker 1999), followed by SAPS ($442), LAPS ( $413) and NLPS ($229).The declining share of crop enterprise in the household total income highlights the increasing importance of livestock component in the household economy (Singh and Pandey 2001). In case of mixed animal farming system the proportion of income per annum from livestock (sheep/ goat + bovines) ( $525) is higher than agriculture ($475) (Abate et al 1995, Singh and Pandey 2001). The role played by animal husbandry is very significant and further suggests the viability of mixed animal farming system. The income gained by NLPS was $229 only. Livestock component is very important in any type of farming. Species orientation needs to consider the local farming conditions. The income from other production systems ranged $412 to $908. In Indian smallholder farming system, integration of livestock is the key for success (Singh and Pandey 2001).

Cultivable area was highest among the MAPS ( 7.77 Acres ) followed by SAPS ( 6.09), NLPS ( 4.11) and LAPS ( 3.71) and accordingly, 3.79, 2.18, 2.07, and 1.99 acres was the size of wet land holding, respectively. However, dry land was mostly possessed by SAPS ( 3.94 ac) and MAPS ( 3.73) followed by NLPS ( 2.27) and LAPS( 2.06 ac). This indicates that small ruminants were mostly preferred in the dry land agriculture.

Livestock aspects
Breeding

Natural service was main type of breeding activity observed in LAPS and MAPS and only 44.9% of respondents utilized the Artificial Insemination facility provided by Animal Husbandry department. Shortage of work force, low knowledge, negligence of the farmer is the major reasons attributes for low use of artificial insemination. State Department of Animal Husbandry should try alternate strategies for increased coverage of breedable animals.

Feeding

Natural grazing is the important method of providing the fodder for maintenance and production activities of the animals. It is more so in case of small ruminants. However, shrinkage of grazing lands is the major concern in the study area, leading to under nourishment of animals. Animals of LAPS are fed only 35.4 kg of dry fodder and 13.56 kgs of green fodder per day, while animals of SAPS are fed 2.38 kg of green fodder and mostly they are dependent on grazing for about 7.59 hrs per day. But in MAPS, 43.5 kg of dry fodder,  18.3 kg of Green fodder were provided daily and on an average 8.66 hrs are being spent on grazing, which is essential for growth of Sheep and Goats (Singh and Pandey 2001). The large animals graze for 4.59 hrs in a day.

Milk production

The buffaloes on an average produce 8.52 litres of milk per day and out of which 4.26 litres sold to private vendors for mere $0.2 per litre. The farmers of MAPS producing about 8.66 litres per day and 5.06 litres sold out. Improve the milk production by advocating latest technologies to the farming community; Extension workers should pay attention. Remunerative price by assessing the production cost frequently; necessary steps by concerned authorities of government.

Production systems vs socio-economic characteristics

Significant variables that influence the different production systems are known by correlation coefficients ('r' values) (Table 2). Herd size, large ruminants size, wet and dry land possession , cultivable area and income from agriculture and income from all sources contributed significantly at 1% level. Size of small ruminants and income from large and small ruminants was not significant to different production systems. Extension personnel advocate suitable production systems to the farming community based on these factors.


Table  2.  Relationship between different production systems and socio-economic characters

Sl.No

Items

r values

1

Total Livestock Units

0.53**

2

Large Ruminant Units

0.83**

3

Small Ruminant Units

0.11 NS

4

Family Size

0.19**

5

Wet land

0.27 **

6

Dry Land

0.21 **

7

Total Cultivable Area

034 **

8

Income from Large Ruminants

0.13 NS

9

Income from Small Ruminants

0.27 NS

10

Income from Agriculture

0.29**

11

Total Income

0.41 **

*   Significant at 5% level of probability
** Significant at 1% level of probability


Variation among groups

One-way analysis of variance ( Table:3) found the production systems were differing with respect to total livestock units, large ruminants size, wet land, total cultivable area, income from agriculture and total income at 1% level of probability and dry land possessed at 5% level of probability.


Table 3.  Analysis of variance

Item

df

Mean square

F value

Total Livestock Units

Between Groups

3

802.58

27.46**

With in groups

146

29.22

 

Total

149

 

 

Large Ruminant Livestock Units

Between Groups

3

1261.97

111.43**

With in groups

146

11.33

 

Total

149

 

 

Wet Land

Between Groups

3

30.10

3.85**

With in groups

121

7.81

 

Total

124

 

 

Dry Land

Between Groups

3

27.41

3.06*

With in groups

146

8.97

 

Total

149

 

 

Total Cultivable Area

Between Groups

3

135.08

8.03**

With in groups

146

16.82

 

Total

149

 

 

Income from Agriculture

Between Groups

3

1211285721

4.85**

With in groups

146

249674647.7

 

Total

149

 

 

Total Income

Between Groups

3

565463316

10.31**

With in groups

146

5484001163.5

 

Total

149

 

 

** Significant at 1% level of probability

*   Significant at 5% level of probability



 

Conclusions


References

Abate A, Wakhungu J W and Said A M 1995 Cattle, goats, sheep and camel production on the range: the Kenya experience. Bulletin of Animal Health and Production in Africa, Volume 43(2):145-156.

Pratap S Brithal and Ravishnaker A 1999 Sources of Growth in Livestock sector, Policy Paper, National Centre for Agriculture and Policy Research, New Delhi.

Raju D T, Pochaiah M and Reddy G V K 1996 Profile of respondents rearing crossbred cows, Indian Journal of Dairy Science, Volume XLIX( 4: 230-233.

Sastry N S R and Raju D T 1992 Profile of Livestock keepers to be considered for efficient organisation of extension activities. Journal of Rural Development, Volume 11(6):839-852

Singh H and Pandey S K 2001 Transition in crop- livestock systems in India: some hypothesis. Afro Asian Journal of Rural Development, Volume XXXIV(1): 67-73



Received 12 September 2006; Accepted 8 October 2006; Published 6 December 2006

Go to top