Livestock Research for Rural Development 19 (11) 2007 Guide for preparation of papers LRRD News

Citation of this paper

Species diversification, livestock production and income of the poor in the Indian State of Andhra Pradesh

S Akter, J Farrington, P Deshingkar, L Rao* and A Freeman**

Overseas Development Institute, London
aktshahe@aol.com
*Overseas Development Institute, India
**International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya

Abstract

This paper investigates the factors associated with private sector smallholder livestock and the associated income of the poor in the Indian States of Andhra Pradesh. The data used are drawn from the Livelihood Options Study led by the Overseas Development Institute, London, specifically the Census Survey 2001/2 and Panel Survey of early 2005. Poorer households depend disproportionally on livestock.

 

Important changes were noted; the average size of any single species declined considerably in the five year period beginning from 1996/7, the number of farms keeping the species rose in the 1996/7 to 2001/2 period but dropped in the recent 2001/2 to 2003/4 period. The poorer households kept fewer small ruminants and poultry in the latter period but richer households kept more. This might suggest that the technology is shifting towards what the better off can afford like the intensive poultry keeping, and that they have better access to certain resources such as crop residues. On the other hand, policies such as the ban on grazing by goats will also have affected the poor more since they rely on open-grazing methods.  Farmers identified shock/stress variables and natural environment as important for the decrease in livestock population. Livestock act as a very real means of smoothing income by allowing debts to be repaid, farm inputs and medical treatment to be purchased, and dowry to be paid. More than 22% of the farmers mentioned disease problems as a cause of the decline in livestock population. This problem needs to be addressed, possibly through public-private partnership arrangements as are being tried in other countries.

Key words: India, poverty,, smallholder livestock, species diversification


Introduction

The livestock sector is valued as one of the main global drivers of agriculture as well as one of the sectors having enormous potential to poverty reduction (FAO 2005, Holmann et al 2005). Its growth in recent years has been high especially in developing countries, where annual growth rates in the last ten years in livestock have been 3.77 percent compared to 2.71 percent in crops and 1.18 percent in non-food commodities. Small scale production, especially by the poor, is heavily dependent on common pool resources (CPRs), the protection of which is very important from environmental perspectives. 

 

Public policies in many countries are directed towards protection resulting in changes in the livestock composition in terms of diversification of species for both large and small ruminants. In the shorter term – when restrictions are most strict - households may become more dependent on crop residues in the face of diminishing accessibility of CPRs in grazing systems (Turton 2000). For this reason, the income of the poor who have less access to crop residues are expected to reduce and the poor are expected to end up with decreased livestock production. However in the longer term, better utilisation of CPRs via e.g. watershed development can generate important fodder resources for cut and carry systems (Farrington and Lobo 1997). This may again enhance the income of the poor from livestock if they could survive until then but may change the composition of species due to the change in the feeding system.

 

This paper investigates the factors associated with livestock keeping, changes on the species composition and how this composition is affecting the income of the poor in the Indian State of Andhra Pradesh. It draws inter alia on arguments and evidence generated during ongoing ODI work (Deshingkar et al 2006).
 

Data and methodology

The data used for this paper were drawn from the Livelihood Options Study led by the Overseas Development Institute, London, specifically the Census Survey 2001/2 and Panel Survey of early 2005. The project carried out several rounds of survey in the State of Andhra Pradesh (AP) comprising a census of 4767 households having household characteristics and asset information and a panel survey of 353 households with more information on changes in the livestock species, reasons for change and contribution on household shock. The census survey was done when drought conditions had just begun and the 2005 round was done at the end of a drought. The survey selected three districts purposively out of twenty-three from three different regions considering the differences in terms of agro-ecological and other characteristics (Farrington et al 2006). The regions were Rayalseema, Coastal Andhra and Telangana, and the selected districts were Chittoor, Krishna and Medak from the respective region. From each district two contrasting villages were chosen, based on a number of different criteria including proximity to urban areas, roads and markets; social and economic indicators of development; absence of factionalism and extremism; coverage by pro-poor programmes etc. The villages in the Chittoor district were Oteripalli (OP) and Voolapadu (VP), in the Krishna district were Kosuru (KO) and Kamalapuram (KA), and in the Medak district were Gummadidala (GU) and Madhwar (MD). 

 

About 40% of the census households were keeping one or more types of livestock species in 2001/2. Of the panel households 52% were raising livestock in 2001/2 but this was 2 percentage points less by 2003/4. The nearer the village from a town in a district (KO and GU), the less intense was the farming; exceptions were the Chittoor district villages, OP (near) and VP (far) having an opposite pattern. VP is situated in the dry part of the district with specialization in sericulture and has more labour market linkages with construction sites.  Over the years, a sharp decline in livestock population was observed in this village due to drought, declining access to CPRs as a result of privatisation of commons, reduction in the mulberry cultivation, foot and mouth disease, and a higher scale of migration and tractorisation. Problems such as drought, privatisation and elite capture of commons were also prevalent in OP but a dairy technology based on stall feeding of crossbred cows was more widely adopted here and so the decline in livestock farming was not as serious as in VP.  

 

Average holding among livestock keeping households was very low in the survey areas; on average number around 22 with a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 10004, and skewed, with around half of them keeping 1-2. In standardised units it was 1 SLU with a range of 0.02-204 (SLU is defined in Table 1. Age/size difference was not taken into account in this standardization due to lack of data). Average size based on livestock keeping households (1845) was 2.4 SLU). Only 0.1% of the households kept more than 18 SLU (6 households out of 4647, they were commercial poultry farms with flock size ranging from 1000 to 10000). 

 

In this study livestock keeping decisions are postulated to depend on household level characteristics, land, income, assets and livelihood diversification and village level factors such as market linkages, access to common pool resources, infrastructure and institutions. Under these premises we used multivariate regression analysis to examine the relationship between livestock keeping and associated factors. Tabular analysis based on univariate income quintile class was applied on panel data to examine the changes in species composition, reasons for the change and contribution to income.

 

Livestock ownership and associated variables

 

We specified the ownership equation taking SLU per adult equivalent as the dependent variable and independent variables as defined in Table 1. Livestock ownership is a type of output variable, so that this equation should be a production function and should ideally include input variables such as feed, veterinary care, housing and extension services. These variables were omitted due to lack of data.


Table 1.  Definition of variables in the function for livestock ownership

Variables

Definition

SLU

Log of standardised livestock unit per adult equivalent. Conversion factors used to calculate SLU are: bullock=buffalo=1, cow=0.7, goat=sheep=0.1, pig=0.4, poultry=duck=0.02.

Income

Log of household net annual income per adult equivalent, conversion factors used to calculate adult equivalent are: males older than 14 years = 1, females older than 14 years = 0.8 and children 14 years or younger = 0.5.

Assets

Total value of assets (other than land and livestock) in Rs. per adult equivalent. It is not in log as the transformation produced insignificant coefficient.

Land

Log of total land owned in acres per adult equivalent.

Schooling

Log of household years of schooling per adult equivalent.

Diversity

Diversification index (Herfindahl-Hirchman index) per adult equivalent1

Species

Dummy variable for households having single species of livestock (1=owner of a single species)2.

Landless

Dummy variable for landless households (1=landless).

Migration

Dummy variable for household member migration (1=yes).

Remittance

Dummy variable for household having remittance income (1=yes).

ST

Dummy variable for scheduled tribes (1=yes).

SC

Dummy variable for scheduled caste (1=yes).

BC

Dummy variable for backward caste (1=yes).

V1-V5

Village dummies: V1=1 for VP, V2=1 for KO, V3=1 for KA, V4=1 for GU, V5=1 for MD

[1] The formula of this index is Di = [1/(aj2)], Di is the livelihood diversity of household i, aj represents the proportional contribution of each livelihood activity j to household i’s overall income. The value of this index ranges from 1 to number of activities taken into account (6 in this case). The higher the value of the index, the greater will be the livelihood diversification. 

2 Keeping of a single species may indicate specialisation, especially where numbers are large. On the other hand, the tendency in semi-subsistence farming may be towards spreading risk by keeping several species.


The model was estimated by ordinary least squares method for the full sample as well as for different quintile groups (estimated models are presented in the Appendix) (Full sample in this case comprises 4556 households, for other households income data were not collected or were missing.). F-tests suggested separate regressions and Hausman test for simultaneity between income and livestock units suggested that the problem was not serious. The independent variables gave highly significant explanations of the variation in ownership per adult equivalent. The log transformation was conducive to the resolution of the unequal variance problem, and to easy interpretation of the results. The elasticities of livestock ownership per adult equivalent for the respective variables are shown in Table 2.


Table 2.  Elasticity of livestock ownership with respect to different variables by quintile groups, Andhra Pradesh 2001/2

Elasticity with respect to

Full sample

Quintiles 1-4

Quintiles 2-5

Quintiles 2-4

Quintiles 3-5

Elasticity

Std. error

Elasticity

Std. error

Elasticity

Std. error

Elasticity

Std.
error

Elasticity

Std. error

Income

0.033*

0.018

0.041

0.026

0.045

0.026

0.079*

0.053

0.017

0.032

Assets

0.012***

0.004

0.009***

0.003

0.014***

0.004

0.011***

0.004

0.014***

0.005

Land

0.094***

0.020

0.070***

0.024

0.086**

0.022

0.058***

0.028

0.106***

0.025

Education

-0.016

0.017

-0.020

0.020

-0.022

0.020

-0.032

0.023

-0.014

0.022

Diversification

0.181***

0.029

0.177***

0.034

0.166***

0.033

0.156***

0.039

0.157***

0.036

*** Significant at 1%, ** significant at 5%, * significant at 10%

Data source: Livelihood options study: Census survey 2001/2


In the semi-subsistence setting income is more dependent on livestock than the other way round. This is shown by the poor performance of the income variable in the estimated equations reported in Table 3.  The income variable was not significant in 3 equations out of 5 estimated. The signs were consistent.

 

The important variables that determine livestock ownership were land, diversification and species (Species, migration and some other variables were measured by dummy variables and so the coefficients were not included in Table 2 but in Table 3). Assets, landlessness and migration were important determinants. Village specific factors had stronger influence on livestock keeping. The status as scheduled caste strongly reduced the ownership.


Table 3.   Determinants of livestock ownership in Andhra Pradesh 2001/2

Variables

All sample

Quintiles 1-4

Quintiles 2-5

Quintiles 2-4

Quintiles 3-5

Coefficient

P value

Coefficient

P value

Coefficient

P value

Coefficient

P value

Coefficient

P value

Constant

-0.458

0.009

-0.520

0.027

-0.549

0.069

-0.826

0.025

-0.280

0.354

Income

0.033

0.087

0.041

0.119

0.045

0.133

0.079

0.085

0.017

0.592

Assets

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.006

0.000

0.005

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.008

Land

0.094

0.000

0.070

0.004

0.086

0.043

0.058

0.000

0.106

0.000

Schooling

-0.016

0.762

-0.020

0.313

-0.022

0.164

-0.032

0.260

-0.014

0.528

Diversity

0.181

0.000

0.177

0.000

0.166

0.000

0.156

0.000

0.157

0.000

Species

-1.520

0.000

-1.650

0.000

-1.467

0.000

-1.618

0.000

-1.355

0.000

Landless

-0.141

0.000

-0.123

0.005

-0.137

0.014

-0.125

0.000

-0.168

0.000

Migration

-0.156

0.000

-0.189

0.000

-0.131

0.001

-0.176

0.005

-0.150

0.005

Remittance

0.057

0.420

0.036

0.687

0.109

0.282

0.105

0.158

0.113

0.159

ST

-0.059

0.500

-0.023

0.784

-0.134

0.343

-0.097

0.149

-0.057

0.609

SC

-0.192

0.000

-0.170

0.000

-0.233

0.000

-0.208

0.000

-0.263

0.000

BC

-0.021

0.595

-0.033

0.380

-0.027

0.268

-0.049

0.454

-0.013

0.739

V1

0.273

0.000

0.318

0.000

0.233

0.002

0.286

0.005

0.204

0.042

V2

0.506

0.000

0.503

0.000

0.473

0.000

0.477

0.000

0.438

0.000

V3

0.197

0.006

0.215

0.008

0.144

0.089

0.160

0.081

0.130

0.184

V4

0.530

0.000

0.545

0.000

0.474

0.000

0.483

0.000

0.452

0.000

V5

0.551

0.000

0.590

0.000

0.585

0.000

0.627

0.000

0.483

0.000

No. of obs

4556

3644

3645

2733

2734

F value (Prob> F)

157.27 (.00)

138.96 (.00)

118.54 (.00)

99.19 (.00)

79.43 (.00)

R2

0.40

0.42

0.38

0.41

0.36

Adj  R2

0.40

0.42

0.38

0.41

0.35

Dependent variable= Log of total livestock unit per adult equivalent

Variables other than dummy variables are normalised by adult equivalent. Income, land, schooling and diversity are expressed in log. The last twelve variables are dummy variables


The variable species was responsible for the most of explanatory power of the models. On an average, households owning a single species had lower numbers of livestock, suggesting that few had specialized, and that the majority pursued risk aversion strategies of keeping several different types of livestock. Qualitative assessment by Deshingkar et al (2006) identified a number of barriers to specialisation, including inadequate input supply. In the 2005 panel survey we noted the increase/decrease in the livestock types and the associated major reasons and will be discussed in the subsequent sections. The size of the species coefficient was higher for the poorer households than the better-off, implying that the poorer were more risk averse.

 

The richer households responded relatively more with respect to land. Poorer households which had migrated member had much less ownership than the richer households with migration. The impact of livelihood diversification on livestock ownership was higher for the poorer households, because poorer households relied more on livestock than the richer to increase local livelihood diversification, but for those migrating, livestock were required only in a few cases such as for hauling carts for sugar cane harvesting, and were otherwise more of a hindrance than a help in diversification through migration.
 

 

Changes in the species composition

 

Over the five year period beginning 1996/7, intensive technology appeared supportive only for chicken/ducks. The maximum number had fallen for almost all species (Table 4).


Table 4.  Average number of livestock owned by species and year, census households, Andhra Pradesh

Species

2001/2

1996-1997

Av. Annual growth

Total N

Owner N

% farming

Max

Meana

Owner N

Max

Meana

Farmb

Meanb

Buffalo

4647

971

20.9

10

2.0

673

20

2.3

7.6

-2.8

Bullock

4647

484

10.4

11

2.0

430

14

2.3

2.4

-2.8

Cow

4647

400

8.6

10

1.9

286

20

2.8

6.9

-7.5

Goat

4647

98

2.1

60

5.7

59

100

10.3

10.7

-11.2

Sheep

4647

108

2.3

100

11.4

85

100

23.0

4.9

-13.1

 Pig

4647

10

0.2

20

6.1

11

150

26.5

-1.9

-25.5

Chicken

4647

807

17.4

10000

41.8

444

5000

79.7

12.7

-12.1

Duck

4647

14

0.3

500

54.4

3

3

2.3

36.1

88.3

Total

4647

1845

39.7

10004

21.9

1267

5004

32.8

7.7

-7.8

a Means are calculated based on the households producing the specific species.

b Assuming r=average annual growth, Y0 is initial value, Yt is final value, t is the time period (5 years in this case) then  r = (Yt/Y0)(1/t) – 1

Data source: Livelihood options study: Census survey 2001/2


Farming density had increased for all types except for pigs. Some of the increase was due to population growth but most of the change in dairy, bovine, goat, poultry and duck might be due to some adaptive mechanism under the changing environment. Most of the farms, in particular the poorer groups diversified the holding by decreasing the size of a single species. The trade off between the ownership of a species and diversification failed to increase in the total herd size, which reduced by about 8% over this period. Thus on an average, the drop in one species at farm level more than offset the rise in other species.

 

Most of the large livestock farms, which increased their total herd size over this period, were relatively richer. (For example, the owner of the maximum number in 2001/2 keeping 10000 poultry and 4 buffaloes was also the maximum keeper five years earlier, holding 5000 poultry and 4 buffaloes. So this farm doubled the poultry holding, and it belonged to the richest quintile. Proportionately more of other relatively larger farms, no matter whether increasing or decreasing their size of holding, belonged to the relatively richer income quintiles, except for those owning goat/sheep). Examining the households having more than 10 heads, we observed that about 44% of the goat rearers in the poorest quintile belonged to this group in comparison to 41% of the goat rearers in the richest quintile. For sheep, the proportion was 65% and 60% respectively. Average sheep holding for the sheep keeping households were double the average goat holding of the goat keeping households. So for sheep, we examined the holding above 15 and found that the proportions for the poorest and the richest quintiles were 45% and 48% respectively. This was due to 3 large sheep holders in the richest group with 40 or more animals. The poorest quintile had a maximum size of 30 and this suggests that similar to poultry, poorer sheep keepers failed to increase the size permitted by the available technology.  

Moving on the panel households re-interviewed in the early 2005 for the 2003/4 stocks, we discovered a different trend to that observed in between 1996/7 and 2001/2. Over these more recent three years both farming density as well as herd size decreased; exceptions were calves, small ruminants and chicken (Table 5).


Table 5.  Average number of livestock owned by species and year, panel households, Andhra Pradesh

Species

Total N

2003/4

Three years ago
(2001/2)

Annual growth (2001/2-2003/4a

Eight years ago (1996/7)

Annual growth 1996/7-2001/2a

Farm N

Max

Av.

Farm N

Max

Av.

Farm

Av

Farm N

Max

Av.

Farm

Av.

Buffalo

353

82

8

2.1

98

14

2.6

-5.8

-6.9

62

20

2.6

9.6

0.0

Cow

353

50

15

1.9

52

30

3.0

-1.3

-14.1

35

10

3.5

8.2

-2.9

Bullock

353

41

3

2.0

56

4

2.2

-9.9

-3.1

51

6

2.1

1.9

0.2

Calves

353

44

6

1.6

19

10

2.7

32.3

-16.0

 

 

 

 

 

Sheep

353

17

50

12.2

17

70

15.2

0.0

-7.1

14

40

15.0

4.0

0.3

Goat

353

16

12

5.4

11

20

7.7

13.3

-11.2

6

10

3.8

12.9

15.1

Chicken

353

64

2000

57.2

71

1000

34.9

-3.4

17.9

54

1000

24.3

5.6

7.5

Pig

353

2

8

6

4

25

10.8

-20.6

-17.8

3

30

12

5.9

-2.2

Total

353

174

2001

25.2

194

1002

17.8

-3.6

12.3

141

1000

14.2

6.6

4.6

a Assuming r=average annual growth, Y0 is initial value, Yt is final value, t is the time period (5 years in this case) then  r = (Yt/Y0)(1/t) – 1.

Data source: Livelihood options study: Census survey 2001/2, Panel survey 2005


A decreasing trend in the farming density, after an increasing trend in the previous period, seems to be mostly due to the bad drought over the three year period. An increase in calf farming and at the same time a decline in buffalo and cow farming indicate that the farms without the possibility of having new calves discontinued farming. This indicates a shift of technology towards stall feeding intensive milk production by fewer farms with improved milch bovines having the capability of giving birth as developed in some of the villages in response to the growing scarcity of open grazing. These milch bovines may be able to produce higher quantity of milk. This is supported by the evidence that out of 82 buffalo farms in 2003/4, 75 farms were selling milk/curd and all of the cow farms in 2003/4 were selling milk/curd.  The decrease in bullock farming may be attributable inter alia to tractorisation to a large extent. 

For chickens, both farming density and flock size increased in the 1996/7 to 2001/2 period but in the more recent period farming density declined with the increase in the average flock size at a higher rate. The increase in flock size on an average was due to a few large poultry farms indicated by the increase in maximum size from 1000 birds to 2000 birds. As discussed earlier, the large farms were mostly wealthier households implying that the better offs benefited more from the change in technology.

 

In the panel sample, the average of total herd size was higher in 2001/2 than in 1996/7, unlike the census. For this sample, the growth of farming was lower than in the census. During the 2001/2 to 2003/4 period, the average herd size grew at a faster rate but the farming density declined. The faster growth in herd size was due to intensive poultry production by a few large farms. The overall change was not statistically significant at the 5% level but in the sample without 3 intensive poultry farms a significant negative trend was found for this period of 2001/2 to 2003/4, corresponding with the census data.

 

The decline in livestock population was spread over a large number of households (52.6% in Table 6).


Table 6.  Percentage distribution of respondents by livestock species reporting increase/decrease/same in Andhra Pradesh 2001/2 to 2003/04

Livestock type

N

Increased

Decreased

Same

Total

Buffaloes

107

18.7

53.3

28.0

100

Cows

64

26.6

51.6

21.9

100

Bullocks

61

9.8

42.6

47.5

100

Calves

47

61.7

14.9

23.4

100

Sheep

22

40.9

50.0

9.1

100

Goats

23

60.9

39.1

0.0

100

Poultry

78

14.1

43.6

42.3

100

Total farms

211

29.9

52.6

17.5

100

Pearson Chi-Square: 86.27*** with df 12.       ***significant at 1%.

Data source: Livelihood Options study: panel survey 2005, ODI


A large proportion of households reported an increase in the number of calves and goats. The increase in farms having calves supports our earlier argument on technical change and these farms were located mostly in the villages of Chittoor district where the privatization of commons as well as long standing drought badly affected the access to CPRs. Households that reported increased goat herds were relatively poorer and mostly located in the poorer villages such as KA and MD. These households might acquire goats as a coping strategy in the face of long standing drought.
 

 

Reasons associated with the change

 

Of the farms which managed to increase livestock, 56% appeared to get access to better markets (Table 7). 


Table 7.  Frequency and percentage distribution of the major reasons for the increase/decrease in livestock number in the last three years in Andhra Pradesh 2001/2 to 2003/4

Major reasons for increase

N

%

Major reasons for decrease

N

%

Better  access to grazing/fodder

10

9.3

Loss of access to grazing/fodder

14

7.7

Better rains

1

0.9

Drought

12

6.6

Improved markets for livestock and/other products

60

56.1

Poor markets for livestock and/or their products

1

0.6

More  labor available

13

12.1

Inadequate labor

17

9.4

Reduced pest/disease problems

1

0.9

Pest/disease problems

39

21.5

Funds from agriculture permitted purchase

10

9.3

Had to sell to cover agriculture shock or stress

12

6.6

Purchased by funds from migration/remittances

7

6.5

Had to sell to cover domestic shock or stress

67

37.0

Bought with loan money

5

4.7

Paying off debts

11

6.1

 

 

 

Others*

8

4.4

Total

107

100

Total

181

100

*Others include lease out, consumption, no self-cultivation, sold to buy other livestock, lack of space and killed by predators.

Data source: Livelihood options study: panel survey 2005, ODI


The next important reason was the access to more labor input followed by access to grazing/fodder. About 7% of the farms reported that they increased their livestock numbers by using the money from migration and remittances. These farms were either marginal or small, were from the poorest 3 quintiles, and from backward castes. This indicates that the use of migration income to invest in livestock enterprise was concentrated in the poorer groups.

 

Domestic shocks or stresses were identified as the most important cause for a decrease in numbers of livestock, followed by pest and disease problems. Other natural/environmental factors such as drought, and loss of CPRs were also identified as important reasons. The loss of access to grazing/fodder resulted both from natural factors like the drought as well as man made factors like CPR related rules and regulations such as the privatization of commons and overgrazing. The literature reported that the restrictions on the use of common grazing areas under the watershed projects in Andhra Pradesh had forced landless livestock owners to sell their stock but landowners benefited by producing more crop residues using improved irrigation facilities due to the project (Turton 2000). Natural/environmental factors altogether were identified a major cause of decrease in the livestock population.

 

About 37% of the farms which experienced a decline in stock, reported the selling of livestock due to domestic shocks or stresses. This involved 39% of the total large ruminant farms and 55% of the total small ruminant farms. Thus, although fewer farms were keeping small ruminants, in terms of buffering function their proportionate contribution was large when we consider the households who keep them.

 

We combined these factors associated with the decrease in livestock into three major groups to carry out an analysis based on income quintiles to find out the situation of the poorer households (Table 8).


Table 8. Frequency and percentage distribution of the households by reasons for decrease in livestock and income quintile in Andhra Pradesh in three years period 2001/2 to 2003/4.

Income quintiles
(Chi2 = 14.15 with 8 df)

Poor natural environmenta

Shock/stress variablesa

Labor, debt and other factorsa

Total

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Poorest

8

23.5

16

47.1

10

29.4

34

100

2

10

30.3

19

57.6

4

12.1

33

100

3

9

27.3

16

48.5

8

24.2

33

100

4

15

40.5

17

45.9

5

13.5

37

100

Richest

22

51.2

11

25.6

10

23.3

43

100

Total

64

35.6

79

43.9

37

20.6

180

100

a. Poor natural environment includes: loss of access to grazing/fodder, drought, pest/disease problems, death due to drought,

Shock/stress variables include: had to sell to cover agriculture shock or stress, had to sell to cover domestic shock or stress, covering of domestic shock and died,

Labour, debt and other factors include: inadequate labor, paying off debts and other.

Data source: Livelihood Options study: panel survey 2005, ODI


All quintiles apart from the richest, identified shock/stress variables as the most important, the richest identifying the poor natural environment as the most important.
 

 

Impact of the change in income of the poor

 

Among the households selected for the panel survey in 2005, a sample of 145 had reported income from livestock in 2001/2 census survey and a sample of 208 reported income from livestock (Table 9) (91 households were common in these samples, others reported livestock income either in 2001/2 or in 2003/4).


Table 9.  Average income share from livestock sources by income quintile in Andhra Pradesh 2001/2 to 2003/4

Income quintiles

2001/2a

2003/4a

2001/2b

2003/4b

2001/2c

2003/4c

Poorest

54.1

64.9

26.3

55.6

13.5

28.6

2

33.2

27.9

19.6

23.5

12.5

15.0

3

32.7

25.0

19.2

22.5

14.2

16.6

4

21.5

13.5

14.2

11.6

10.5

8.5

Richest

10.9

9.5

7.6

8.8

6.2

7.3

Total

26.9

25.0

16.5

22.0

11.4

15.2

N

145

208

236

236

342

342

a The sub sample consists of households reporting livestock income, for 2003/4 the calculation was based on the annual income of the seasonal survey 2001/2 adjusted for 3.5% annual inflation rate as total income was collected only in 2001/2 (Given that income is growing and livelihood diversification is rising, we would expect a further reduction in the share of livestock income if actual income data could have been collected but the calculated high shares for the poorest group in all cases suggest that the dependency of the poorest would still be higher. This is not possible to verify here due to lack of total income data).

b. This sample kept livestock either in 2001/2 or in 2003/4 but some of them were not earning direct/cash income

c. All households (11 households were excluded due to missing total income data).

Data source: Livelihood options study: seasonal survey 2001/2, panel survey 2005, ODI


These households earned about 27% income share in 2001/2 and 25% income share in 2003/4. Thus the livestock share in household income had fallen in three years period but the share in the poorest group had risen indicating an increase in dependency of the poorer on livestock.

 

The proportion of gross income earned by the poorest quintile of a sample of livestock growers was found as high as 65% in 2003/4 and 54% in 2001/2. This sample consists of households reporting cash income from livestock. Out of 208 farmers in 2003/4, 15 in the poorest quintile were earning all of their income from livestock.  Ten households in the poorest quintile reported regular income from livestock in both periods and their average share was as high as 80%. Some of these households are expected to be mobile from one quintile to another in this three year period, but this is not taken into account in this analysis due to absence of total income data for 2003/4. Taking the sample of all livestock keepers, either in 2001/2 or in 2003/4 or in both periods, we find that the average share of livestock income was 17% in 2001/2, increasing to 22% in 2003/4 (This calculation is based on the total income data collected in 2001/2 adjusted for inflation and given the increasing growth situation in India it is possible that the share in 2003/4 would be lower than this calculated figure. The large average share of the poorest group indicates that the share would still be higher than the previous period even if we could consider the increased income in 2003/4). The average share of the households reporting regular income in both periods was almost the same in 2001/2 and 2003/4 and it was about 30% but still the average share was much lower in 2001/2 than in 2003/4 5 Out of 236 households keeping livestock in any or both the periods, 91 households had direct income from this source in both periods, 145 reported income in 2001/2 and 208 reported income in 2003/4 (Out of 236 households keeping livestock in any or both the periods, 91 households had direct income from this source in both periods, 145 reported income in 2001/2 and 208 reported income in 2003/4).


Conclusions and implications


References

De Haan C, van Veen T C, Brandenburg B, Gauthier J, Le Gall F, Mearns R, and Simeon M. 2001 Livestock Development: Implications for Rural Poverty, the Environment, and Global Food Security, The World Bank, Washington, D.C. pp 96. http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2001/12/11/000094946_01112104010387/Rendered/PDF/multi0page.pdf

 

Deshingkar P, Farrington J, Akter S, Rao L, Sharma P, Freeman A, and Reddy J. 2006 Livestock and Poverty reduction in India, International Livestock Research Institute and Overseas Development Institute, Draft Working Paper.

 

FAO 2005 Evaluation of Livestock Production, Policy and Information (Programme 2.1.3), Report of the External Peer Review Panel, FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/009/j4779e/j4779e00.htm

 

Farrington J,  Deshingkar P, Johnson C and  Start D (ed) 2006 Policy Windows and #Livestock Research for Rural Development 19 (11) 2007Livelihood Futures: Prospects for Poverty Reduction in Rural India, Oxford and New Delhi, OUP.

 

Farrington J and Lobo C 1997 Scaling up participatory watershed development in India: lessons from The Indo-German Watershed Development Programme. Natural Resource Perspectives 17. pp 6. http://www.odi.org.uk/NRP/17.html

 

Holmann F, Rivas L, Urbina N, Rivera B, Giraldo L A, Guzman S, Martinez M, Medina A and Ramirez G 2005 The role of livestock in poverty alleviation: An analysis of Colombia. Livestock Research for Rural Development 17 (1). http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd//lrrd17/1/holm17011.htm

 

Turton C. 2000 Enhancing livelihoods through participatory watershed development in India, Working Paper 131, Overseas Development Institute, London. pp 28. http://www.odi.org.uk/publications/wp131.pdf



Received 19 July 2007; Accepted 5 September 2007; Published 1 November 2007

Go to top