Farmers' choice for cost recovery of veterinary services in different livestock holding systems- A case study of India

S Ravikumar, K V R Reddy* and B Sudhakar Rao**

Division of Extension Education, Indian Veterinary Research Institute,Izatnagar-243 122

ravi9681@gmail.com

*Department of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Extension, NTR College of Veterinary Science, Gannavaram, Andhra Pradesh

**Department of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Extension, College of Veterinary Science, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-500 030

(Part of the M.V.Sc Thesis work of the first author)

Abstract

The study was conducted following exploratory research design to analyze the personal, socio-economic and psychological traits of farmers in different livestock holding systems as well as their choice of veterinary services suitable for cost recovery.

The findings revealed that, among breeding services, majority of the livestock holders identified artificial insemination (85.83%) and pregnancy diagnosis (63.33%); among the diagnostic services, laboratory diagnosis (74.17%) and radiography (63.33%); among prophylactic services, deworming (58.33%) and vaccination (83.33%); among the curative services, medical treatment (80.00%), major surgical treatment (93.33%) and gynecological and obstetrical treatment (91.67%) and among the miscellaneous services, distribution of fodder seedlings (76.67%) and round the clock services (78.33%) as suitable for implementation of cost recovery measures. Further analysis revealed that there is a significant difference in the choice of veterinary services suitable for cost recovery among the farmers of different livestock holding systems.

Key words: Cost recovery, livestock holding and veterinary services

Introduction

Until recently in India, the veterinary services have been funded, managed and delivered by public sector outreach personnel with significant subsidies or on free basis. Since the 1990's economic reforms, the government monopoly came under threat as many started questioning the provision of these services with subsidy on economic and efficiency grounds. Further, due to the financial stringency, government veterinary institutions are unable to provide quality livestock services to the endusers at the cutting edge. Hence, cost recovery of veterinary services is considered as one among the other options that can be implemented to decrease the financial as well as administrative burden on scarce public resources. Some of the state animal husbandry departments, referral hospitals of veterinary colleges and dairy cooperatives have now started charging for livestock services. Similarly, some Non Governmental Organizations such as Bharatiya Agro Industries Foundation, J.K Trust, Gayatri Shikshasadan Samsthan etc., have come into existence by providing some veterinary services on cost recovery basis and are found to be more efficient than the Government machinery (Satish and Prem Kumar 1993). But in India, large portion of livestock holders are small, marginal and landless labourers and their ability to pay for the veterinary services is poor. In these circumstances, the research question is whether to bring all the services under cost recovery or opting for rationalization of the delivery of the services. Experiences (Umali et al 1994; FAO 1997; Ahuja et al 2000; Sasidhar and Sontakki 2003) suggested that, for Indian conditions, implementing cost recovery to only some services is advisable keeping in view of the social and equity aspects. But, there is dearth of research conducted at field level with the livestock holders in analyzing their choice of veterinary services for which they would be ready to pay. So, the present study was designed and undertaken with the objective of identifying the choice of veterinary services suitable for cost recovery as indicated by farmers in different livestock holding systems.

Materials and methods

An exploratory research design was adopted to study the profile of farmers in different livestock holding systems as well as their choice veterinary services suitable for cost recovery.

Locale of the study

The study was undertaken in the Andhra Pradesh state of India, which lies between 12°41' and 22°N latitude and 77° and 84°40'E longitude on the globe. The state has 22 veterinary polyclinics, 281veterinary hospitals, 1793 veterinary dispensaries and 2879 rural livestock units with approximately 2600 veterinarians working in the public sector. Out of the 23 districts in the state, Guntur district was selected for the study through lottery method of simple random sampling technique. Guntur district is situated between 15° 45' - 16° 50' North latitude and 79° 12' - 80° 55' East longitude on the globe.Out of the 57 mandals of the district, three mandals namely; Sattenapalle, Bapatla and Narasaraopet were selected randomly at the rate of one from each revenue division of Guntur district. A total of six villages at the rate of two villages from each selected mandal namely; Pedamakkena, Nandigama, Appikatla, Kankatapalem, Pamidipadu and Reddypalem were selected randomly for the study.

Sampling procedure

A total of 120 farmers from different livestock holding systems at the rate of 20 from each village were selected for the study through proportionate random sampling. Herd size was considered as a criterion to categorize the farmers in to different livestock holding systems. Initially, herd size possessed by each livestock farmer in terms of Livestock Units was calculated by the procedure given in the Table 1 (Singh 1998).

Later, a quota of 20 farmers was fixed for each village and, based on herd size, farmers from different livestock holding systems were selected from each village in proportion to their population to the total in the village. Finally, the sample comprised of 38 farmers from small livestock holding system, 51 farmers from medium livestock holding system and 31 farmers from large livestock holding system. The proportionate sampling procedure for selection of the farmers from different livestock holding systems of the selected villages is given in the Table 2.

Data collection

A pre tested and semi structured interview schedule was utilized for data collection. The data collected include personal traits (age, livestock farming experience and educational background), socio-economic traits (annual income, material possession and information seeking behaviour) and psychological traits (innovativeness, economic motivation, achievement motivation and risk orientation) of the livestock farmers. The schedule also included five broad categories of veterinary services (breeding, diagnostic, prophylactic, curative and miscellaneous), which were taken from the job chart of a veterinarian working under public sector. From these listed services, the respondents were asked to identify the services that are suitable for cost recovery.

Data analysis

The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) 11.0 for Windows (SPSS 2001). Descriptive statistical tools like frequencies and percentages were utilized for analyzing the data. The selected traits were classified based on the class interval (inclusive) method. In this method, after obtaining the scores of farmers for each selected trait, range was measured. Based on the range the farmers were classified in to three categories viz., Low, Medium and High. For comparison of the farmers' choice of veterinary services suitable for cost recovery, analysis of variance was used.

Results and discussion

Personal, socio- economic and psychological traits of farmers in different livestock holding systems

Age

From the Table 3, it could be inferred that majority (42.11%) of the small holders belonged to old age group followed by 36.84 per cent in middle age and 21.05 per cent in young age respectively.

Among the medium holders, majority (49.02%) belonged to middle age group followed by 29.42 per cent young age and 21.56 per cent old age respectively. More than half (54.84%) of the large holders belonged to middle age group followed by 35.48 per cent, 9.68 per cent in old and young age categories. The probable reason for such distribution might be that majority of the old farmers have taken up livestock farming as a traditional and subsidiary occupation to agriculture over number of years, whereas, majority of the middle age farmers in the categories of medium and large farmers viewed the livestock farming as a profitable avenue and took up as a commercial venture. Among all, nearly half (46.66%) of the holders belonged to middle age group (Ravikumar 2001 and Sri Haritha 2002) followed by 31.67 per cent old age and 21.67 per cent young age respectively.

Livestock farming experience

Majority (60.53%) of the small holders had low experience in livestock farming followed by 31.58 per cent medium and 7.89 per cent high experience. Majority (62.75%) of the medium holders had low experience followed by 35.29 per cent medium and 1.96 per cent high experience. In case of large holders, majority (48.39%) had medium experience followed by 38.71 per cent low and 12.90 per cent high experience. As a whole, majority (55.83%) had low experience (Reddy 1996 and Ravikumar 2001) in livestock farming followed by 37.50 per cent medium and 6.67 per cent high experience. It might be because majority of the small farmers had taken up livestock farming as a temporary means only when it provides remunerative profits at a particular point of time as against majority of the large farmers who had livestock farming as a main occupation.

Education

Majority (34.21%) of the small holders were illiterate (Ramchand et al 1979 and Rao 1986 ) followed by 28.95 per cent with primary, 18.42 per cent with middle, 13.16 per cent with high and 5.26 per cent with graduation and above level of education. Among the medium holders, majority of them i.e. 33.33 per cent had primary level of education followed by 27.46 per cent illiterate, 23.52 per cent with middle, 7.85 per cent with high and equal number (1.96%) of holders belonged to the categories can read only, can read and write, intermediate and graduation and above level of education. Majority (41.94%) of the large holders had primary level of education followed by 19.36 per cent high, 16.13 per cent illiterate, 12.90 per cent middle, 6.44 per cent intermediate and 3.23 per cent graduation and above level of education.

Among total farmers, majority (34.17%) had primary level of education followed by 26.66 per cent illiterate 19.17 per cent middle, 12.50 per cent high, 3.34 per cent degree and above, 2.5 per cent Intermediate and 0.83 per cent each belonged to the categories of can read only and can read and write level of education.

Material possession

Material possession of the farmers can be attributed to their successful livestock rearing business, which enable them to possess necessary material required for their comfortable living. Majority (78.95%) of the small holders had low material possession followed by 21.05 per cent medium and there were none in the high material possession category. Among the medium holders, majority (62.75%) had medium material possession followed by 29.41 per cent low and 7.84 per cent high material possession. Majority (54.83%) of the large holders had high material possession followed by 32.26 per cent medium and 12.91 per cent low material possession. As a whole, majority (41.67%) had medium material possession (Reddy, 96) followed by 40.83 per cent low and 17.50 per cent high material possession.

Income

Majority (52.63%) of the small holders had low income followed by 47.37 per cent medium and there were none in high-income category. Among the medium holders, majority (50.98%) had medium income followed by 33.33 per cent with small and 15.69 per cent with high income. More than half (64.52%) of the large holders had high income followed by 22.57 per cent with medium and 12.91 per cent with low income. Overall, majority (42.50%) had medium income followed by low (34.16%) and high (23.34%) income groups. Income through agriculture combined with livestock farming might be the reason for the farmers to generate moderate income.

Information seeking behaviour

It is evident from the table 3 that all the small, medium and large holders (100%) belonged to the category of low information seeking behaviour and there were none in the medium and high information seeking behaviour categories. This may be due to their low educational status and lack of awareness of different information sources from which they can obtain the information regarding livestock farming.

Innovativeness

Majority (63.16%) of the small holders belonged to medium level of innovativeness followed by 36.84 per cent low and there were none in the high level of innovativeness. Among medium holders, majority (78.43%) belonged to medium level of innovativeness followed by 11.77 per cent high and 9.80 per cent low level of innovativeness. Majority (67.74%) of the large holders belonged to category of medium innovativeness followed by 29.03 per cent high and 3.23 per cent low level of innovativeness. Among the total holders, majority (70.83%) belonged to medium level of innovativeness (Raju 1991) followed by 16.67 per cent low and 12.50 per cent high level of innovativeness. Low education status, low information seeking behaviour and disinclination to take risk for innovative practices might be the factors contributed for the medium innovativeness of livestock holders.

Economic motivation

Majority (52.63%) of the small holders had medium level of economic motivation (Kumar 1992) followed by 36.84 per cent high and 10.53 per cent low level of economic motivation. Among medium holders, majority (62.75%) had high level of economic motivation followed by 35.29 per cent medium and 1.96 per cent low level of economic motivation. Majority (90.32%) of the large holders had high level of economic motivation followed by 9.68 per cent medium and there were none in the category of low economic motivation. Among the total holders, majority (61.67%) had high level of economic motivation followed by 34.16 per cent medium and 4.17 per cent low level of economic motivation. Small animal units coupled with low profits of the small holders might be the factors for their low economic motivation against large holders.

Achievement motivation

A perusal of table 3 indicates that majority (63.16%) of the small holders belonged to the category of low achievement motivation followed by 18.42 per cent each to the medium and high categories of achievement motivation. Among the medium holders, majority (49.01%) belonged to medium achievement motivation category followed by 27.46 per cent low and 23.53 per cent high category of achievement motivation. Majority (54.84%) of the large holders belonged to medium level of achievement motivation followed by 35.48 per cent high and 9.68 per cent low category of achievement motivation. Among total holders, majority (40.83%) belonged to the medium level of achievement motivation (Reddy 1996) followed by 34.17 per cent low and 25 per cent high category of achievement motivation. Small herd size, low information seeking behaviour and low income might have been the contributing factors for the low achievement motivation of small holders in contrary to the medium and large holders.

Risk orientation

Table 3 showed that majority (52.63%) of the small holders had medium level of risk orientation followed by 26.32 per cent low and 21.05 per cent high level of risk orientation. Among the medium holders, majority (68.63%) had high level of risk orientation followed by 23.53 per cent medium and 7.84 per cent low level of risk orientation. Majority (96.77%) of the large holders had high level of risk orientation followed by 3.23 per cent low and there were none in the medium level of risk orientation. Among all, Majority (60.83%) had high level of risk orientation followed by 26.67 per cent medium and 12.50 per cent low level of risk orientation.

Farmers' choice of veterinary services for cost recovery

Breeding services

Majority (78.95%) of the small holders as seen from the results depicted in Table 4 had identified only artificial insemination (A.I) as suitable for cost recovery, whereas, majority of the medium and large holders identified both A.I (88.24% and 90.32 %) and pregnancy diagnosis (72.55% and 74.19%) respectively as suitable for cost recovery among the breeding services.

An overview of the total sample indicated that majority of the holders had identified both A.I (85.83%) and pregnancy diagnosis (63.33%) as suitable for cost recovery among the breeding services. The probable reason for the small holders who had not identified pregnancy diagnosis as suitable for cost recovery might be the fact that they are unaware of the economic implications of early pregnancy diagnosis of their animals. At the same time, majority of all the three categories of holders identified A.I as suitable for cost recovery (Rajashree 2000).

Diagnostic services

Among the diagnostic services, majority of the small holders identified only laboratory diagnosis (65.79%) as suitable for cost recovery, while, majority of the medium holders had indicated laboratory diagnosis (78.43%) and radiography (60.78%). Majority of the large holders identified all services such as laboratory diagnosis (77.42%), postmortem (80.65%) and radiography (87.10%) as suitable for cost recovery (Rajashree 2000). Among the total farmers in the study area, majority had identified laboratory diagnosis (74.17%) and radiography (63.33%) as suitable for cost recovery. The possible reason for such distribution could be that, majority of the small holders might not be aware of the importance of radiography and postmortem for animals. But, it is not the same in case of large holders, majority of whom are aware of the importance of such services and had their animals insured so that, in the event of death of animals they could avail the services of postmortem.

Prophylactic services

Majority of the small holders identified only vaccination (73.68%) as suitable for cost recovery among prophylactic services, whereas, majority of the medium and large holders identified both deworming (58.82% and 83.87%) and vaccination (74.51% and 90.32%) respectively, as suitable for cost recovery. With respect to the total farmers, majority identified both deworming (58.33%) and vaccination (83.33%) as suitable for cost recovery. Awareness of livestock farmers about the importance of these services in view of the economic losses due to the death of the animals might be the reason for this distribution. But, majority of the small holders opined that, these services are involved in the overall health care of animals, which is a primary concern of any welfare state and hence, such services should not be brought under the cover of user charges.

Curative services

Among the curative services, majority of the small, medium and large holders identified medical treatment (60.53%, 86.27% and 93.55%), major surgical treatment (86.84%,94.12% and 100%) and gynaecological and obstetrical treatment (84.21%, 92.16% and 96.77%) respectively as suitable for cost recovery. An overview of the total sample also indicated that majority of the farmers identified medical treatment (80%), major surgical treatment (93.33%) and gynaecological and obstetrical treatment (91.67%) as suitable for cost recovery (Rajashree 2000).But, most of the farmers have not identified minor surgical treatment as suitable for cost recovery, because, they felt that the input requirement and cost involvement for this service would be very less and hence, should be provided free by Government.

Miscellaneous services

Among the miscellaneous services, majority of the small holders identified distribution of fodder seedlings (60.53%) and round the clock services (60.53%) as suitable for cost recovery, whereas, majority of the medium holders identified distribution of fodder seedlings (80.39%), on-farm consultancy services (52.94%) and round the clock services (82.35%) as suitable for cost recovery.

On the other hand, livestock advisory services (54.84%), supply of publications (51.61%), round the clock services (93.55%), distribution of fodder seedlings (90.32%), on-farm consultancy services (83.87%), issue of health certificate (90.32%) and issue of postmortem certificate (80.65%) were identified by the large holders as suitable for cost recovery. Majority of the small and medium holders identified only those services they felt as important and utilized by them regularly, whereas, majority of the large holders owning commercial livestock enterprises felt that all these services are important and profit oriented when provided with quality. Hence, they identified all these services as suitable for cost recovery. An overview of the total sample indicated that majority of the holders had identified distribution of fodder seedlings (76.67%) and round the clock services (78.33%) as suitable for cost recovery (Rajashree 2000).

Comparison of farmer's choice among different livestock holding systems

Difference in the choice of veterinary services suitable for cost recovery among the farmers of three production systems was obtained by means of Analysis of Variance and critical difference. The details of the analysis of variance and mean difference are depicted in table 5 showed that the 'F' value among the three categories of farmers is significantly different (p<0.01).

Further analysis as presented in table 6 revealed that, there is no difference between the farmers' choice of small and medium livestock holding systems. But, significant difference (p<0.01) was observed between the farmers of small and large livestock holding systems as well as between medium and large livestock holding systems in their choice of veterinary services suitable for privatization.

Large herd size, more annual come, commercial orientation towards livestock farming, high economic motivation, high risk orientation and high achievement motivation might have been the contributing factors for the large farmers to make them significantly different from the other two categories.

Conclusion

• The study revealed low to medium trends in personal, socio-economic traits and medium to high trends in psychological characteristics of farmers in different livestock holding systems. Hence, it is concluded that the government and other related agencies should make efforts to improve the profile of the farmers through planned extension activities along with sincere follow up measures.

• The study also indicated that majority of the farmers in the study area identified only few veterinary services as suitable for cost recovery according to their need and importance. The analysis also clearly indicated that the large holders identified more veterinary services as suitable for cost recovery than the small and medium holders. But, majority of the livestock holders in India belong to marginal, small and medium categories. Hence, rationalization of service delivery is an advisable approach, wherein, the services which provide direct individual benefits viz., production and curative services could be brought under cost recovery, and, services which are of public service type such as prophylactic and extension services could be provided free by Government. Keeping in view of the social and equity aspects, continuation of subsidies for socially and economically disadvantaged communities is also advised. In total, it can be concluded that the Government has to play a welfare role, though it is changing in the context of liberalization and globalization.

References

Ahuja V, George P S, Ray S, Mc Connell K E, Kurup M P G, Gandhi V, Umali-Deininger D and de Haan C 2000 Agricultural services and the poor-case of livestock health and breeding services in India. Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, the World Bank, Washington D C and Swiss agency for Development and cooperation, Bern, Switzerland, pp.148.

FAO 1997 Electronic conference on principles for rational delivery of public and private veterinary services. January to April 1997, Rome. FAO.   www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGA/aagah/Vetr-1/Defaulk.ntml

Kumar R S P 1992 Effectiveness of IRDP dairy complexes on beneficiaries - A study in Ranga Reddy district of Andhra Pradesh. Unpublished M.V.Sc Thesis, Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University, Hyderabad.

Rajashree 2000 Farmers perception on privatizing Animal Husbandry Extension services. M.V.Sc. Thesis (Unpublished), TANUVAS, Chennai.

Raju D T 1991 Constraints in the adoption of crossbred cows in Krishna district of Andhra Pradesh. Unpublished M.V.Sc. Thesis, Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University, Hyderabad.

Rao V M 1986 Some problems of milk producers in a delta village of Andhra Pradesh. Asian Journal of Dairy Science, 5: 71 - 77.

Ravikumar R K 2001 Documentation and assessment of indigenous technical knowledge in animal husbandry practices in Dindigal District of Tamil Nadu state. Unpublished M.V.Sc. Thesis, College of Veterinary Science, Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad.

Ramchand, Sohal T S and Kherde R L 1979 A study on the effectiveness of fodder demonstration conducted in live - lab villages of Dairy Extension Division, NDRI, 4: 4 - 10.

Reddy K V 1996 A critical analysis of dairy production technologies among the dairy farmers of East Godavari District of Andhra Pradesh. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University, Hyderabad.

Sasidhar P V K and Sontakki B S 2003 User charges for Livestock Extension services in India - Some Issues. Paper presented in National seminar on "Responding to changes and challenges: New Roles of Agricultural Extension", February 7-9, 2003, Nagpur (India).

Satish S and Premkumar N 1993 Are NGOs more cost effective than government in livestock delivery? A study of artificial insemination in India, London, Routledge.

Singh R 1998 Essentials of animal production and management. Kalyani Publishers, Ludhiana (India) p.453

Sri Haritha M 2002 Gender Analaysis in Dairy farming activities in Chittoor district of Andhra Pradesh. Unpublished M.V.Sc. (Extension) Thesis, Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad.

Umali D L, Feder G and de Haan C 1994 Animal Health services: Finding the balance between public and private delivery. The World Bank Research Observer, 9 (1): 91-96.