Indian J. Anim. Res., 44 (2) : 118-122, 2010 AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATION CENTRE www.arccjournals.com / indianjournals.com BOTTLENECKS IN LIVESTOCK REARING AMONG DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF TRIBAL FARMERS IN TAMIL NADU N. Meganathan, K.N. Selvakumar, M. Prabu, A. Serma Saravana Pandian and G. Senthil Kumar. Dept. of Animal Husbandary Economics. Madras Veterinary College, Chennai 600007. India ABSTRACT A study was conducted to identify the bottlenecks in tribal livestock rearing in six hilly areas of Tamil Nadu namely Kolli hill in Namakkal district, Yercaud hill in Salem district, Ooty hill in The Nilgiris district, Kodaikanal in Dindigul district, Yelagiri hill in Vellore district and Sitheri hill in Dharmapuri district. The data were collected from 900 tribal farmers which included landless, marginal, small and large categories based on landholdings. The data were analysed by Garett s ranking technique. The study revealed that the major bottlenecks in livestock farming among different categories of tribal farmers were lack of sufficient pasture land, lack of marketing facilities, lack of adequate credit facilities, exploitation by middlemen, non-remunerative price for the livestock products and lack of scientific knowledge. Based on the results of the study, policies related to the pasture land development, organized livestock products marketing, extensive credit facilities and improvement of animal and human resources were suggested for effective development of different categories of tribal livestock farmers. Key words : Tribal farmers Livestock farming Bottlenecks Farmers category INTRODUCTION Tribal farming is a socio-economic symbiosis of crops, livestock production system and manpower. Over the years self-sufficiency and sustainability in crop and animal husbandry have not been achieved among tribal farmers due to fragmented, scattered and undulated landholdings, inadequate irrigation/ nutrient supply, lack of technical knowhow and marketing facilities (Varunika, 2005). The distribution pattern of land holding among the tribal livestock farmers vary from landless to large farmers. A detailed insight into the constraints in tribal livestock farming would be desirable for their removal. Hence, the present study was carried out with the specific objective of analysing the bottlenecks of livestock rearing among different categories of tribal farmers in Tamil Nadu and to suggest suitable policy implications for enhancement of livestock farming thereby improving the tribal livelihood. MATERIAL AND METHODS Ten villages from each hilly areas namely Kolli hill in Namakkal district, Yercaud hill in Salem district, Ooty hill in The Nilgiris district, Kodaikanal in Dindigul district, Yelagiri hill in Vellore district and Sitheri hill in Dharmapuri district which are having high tribal population engaged in livestock farming activities were chosen for the study. Finally 150 tribal farmers were selected from ten villages of each hill through proportionate random sampling method to yield the total sample of 900 tribal farmers in the study area. The data were collected by personal interview method with the use of pre-tested interview schedules. The reference years of this study are 2004-05 and 2005-06. The tribal farmers were classified based on their landholdings as Landless (No land), Marginal farmer (upto 2.5 acres), Small farmer (above 2.5 acres and upto 5 acres) and Large farmer (above 5 acres). Garett s ranking technique was followed to analyse the constraints perceived by the tribal farmers in livestock farming. The farmers were asked to rank the factors that were limiting the livestock production. These order of merit were transformed into units of scores by using the following formula. 100 (R ij 0.50) Per cent position = -------------------------- N j
Where :- R ij - Rank given for the ith factor by the jth individual N j - Number of factors ranked by the jth individual. The percent position is converted into scores by referring to the Table given by Garett and Woodworth (1969). Then for each factor, the scores of the individual respondents were added together and divided by the total number of respondents for whom scores were added. These mean scores for all the factors were arranged in descending order, ranks were given and the most influencing factors were identified. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The bottlenecks in livestock and poultry farming as ranked by the different categories of tribal farmers are presented in Tables 1 to 4. Bottlenecks in Cattle farming among the different farmers category It could be observed from the Table-1 that, in cattle farming, all the categories of tribal farmers (Landless, Marginal, Small and Large farmers) had opined the lack of sufficient pasture land for grazing cattle as the main hurdle in rearing the cattle (with the mean score of 53.84, 51.95, 53.93 and 52.15, respectively). Lack of marketing infrastructure facilities for milk was ranked second with the mean score of 45.55, 50.91, 47.47 and 50.71 for landless, marginal, small and large farmers, respectively, which Vol. 44, No. 2, 2010 119 hampers their initiative to rear cattle. In landless category, the tribal farmers also felt that, delay in disbursement of loan (44.69), high cost of concentrates (42.88), huge capital requirement (40.74) etc., as the other constraints, while, in marginal farmer category, non-remunerative price for milk (48.44), delay in disbursement of loan (40.72), etc. were the other major constraints in the study area. The small farmers perceived nonremunerative price for milk (45.25), huge capital requirement (43.99), delay in disbursement of loan (41.85) etc. as their other major constraints, while, the large farmer category considered huge capital requirement (48.42), non-remunerative price for milk (47.61), unhygienic living conditions (44.16) etc. as the other constraints in cattle farming in the study area. The results of the previous studies undertaken by Kokate et al. (1988), Yadav et al (1995) and Jithendran et al (1998) and Jha (2002) concur with the present findings. Bottlenecks in sheep and goat farming among the different farmers category In case of sheep and goat farming, all the categories of tribal farmers perceived lack of capital/ adequate credit facilities as the first and foremost constraint with the mean score of 59.53, 55.73, 53.76 and 56.53 for landless, marginal, small and large farmer categories respectively. Non availability of required fodder (49.47), lack of labour (48.68), Table 1 : Bottlenecks in Cattle farming among the different farmers category Huge capital requirement 40.74 V 38.56 VI 43.99 IV 48.42 III 43.29 IV High cost of balanced 42.88 IV 39.38 V 39.71 VII 41.99 VII 40.69 VI feed concentrates Unhygienic living conditions 35.18 VIII 33.93 IX 40.18 VI 44.16 V 38.74 VII High cost of animal care 30.19 X 27.65 X 34.08 IX 32.91 X 31.40 X and treatment Unavailability of 31.19 IX 27.06 XI 29.91 XI 32.88 XI 30.14 XI Insurance cover Non-remunerative 29.22 XI 48.44 III 45.25 III 47.61 IV 47.43 III price for the milk Lack of sufficient pastureland 53.84 I 51.95 I 53.93 I 52.15 I 52.55 I Delay in disbursement of loan 44.69 III 40.72 IV 41.85 V 43.27 VI 42.44 V Lack of Marketing 45.55 II 50.91 II 47.47 II 50.71 II 48.90 II infrastructure facilities Inadequate knowledge 36.70 VII 37.73 VII 35.90 VIII 37.56 VIII 36.95 VIII about improved scientific practices Poor productivity 39.27 VI 35.71 VIII 31.26 X 34.24 IX 34.59 IX of native animals
120 INDIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL RESEARCH Table 2 : Bottlenecks in Sheep and Goat farming among the different farmers category Non-availability of required fodder 49.47 II 48.45 V 49.19 IV 48.25 IV 48.17 II Lack of labour 48.68 III 43.21 VII 44.86 VI 41.90 VII 44.53 VI Inadequate credit facilities 59.53 I 55.73 I 53.76 I 56.53 I 53.65 I Higher veterinary expenses 38.21 IX 26.72 X 35.17 IX 36.50 IX 33.17 X Inadequate knowledge about 38.96 VIII 26.23 IX 35.79 VIII 35.02 X 36.13 IX improved scientific practices Exploitation by middlemen 46.92 V 51.93 II 45.69 V 50.63 II 47.89 III Poor bargaining power 44.24 VI 43.18 VIII 50.17 II 40.34 VIII 44.93 V Transportation difficulties 48.23 IV 46.59 VI 49.58 III 46.68 VI 46.99 IV Lack of organized market 41.56 VII 49.03 IV 42.92 VII 46.89 V 44.32 VII Lack of support by the Government 33.68 X 50.17 III 22.62 X 49.26 III 41.31 VIII Table 3 : Bottlenecks in Pig farming among the different farmers category High investment 30.60 X 20.87 XI 36.50 IX 26.28 X 28.92 X High feed cost 24.40 XI 21.40 X 35.25 XI 25.00 XI 27.30 XI Distant market 46.60 VII 43.40 VI 35.35 X 41.22 VI 50.25 V Exploitation by middlemen 70.30 I 62.87 I 68.45 I 55.11 I 63.60 I Non-remunerative price 58.80 II 53.53 II 63.45 II 54.56 II 57.81 II High labour requirement 48.10 V 45.07 V 43.25 V 43.28 V 44.46 VI High disease susceptibility 47.20 VI 35.53 VII 40.65 VI 33.67 VII 38.48 VII Higher veterinary charges 42.50 VIII 32.07 IX 38.45 VIII 27.78 IX 34.52 IX High transportation cost 37.80 IX 35.13 VIII 38.55 VII 29.56 VIII 35.05 VIII Lack of knowledge about 51.30 IV 47.33 III 57.10 IV 44.72 IV 50.32 IV scientific management Poor encouragement from 52.70 III 47.13 IV 57.45 III 49.28 III 51.00 III the Government transportation difficulties (48.23) etc. were considered as the other major constraints in the landless category. The marginal farmer category also evinced exploitation by middlemen (51.93), lack of support by the government (50.17) as the second and third ranked constraints in small ruminant farming. Further, the small farmers expressed poor bargaining power (50.17), transportation difficulties (49.58) as the other constraints while, the large farmers considered, exploitation by middlemen (50.63), lack of support by the government (49.26) as their other major constraints in small ruminants farming in the study area. These findings concur with the previous findings of Jithendran et al (1998) and Mishra (1999). Bottlenecks in pig farming among the different farmers category All the categories of the tribal farmers in the two hills (Kolli and Yelagiri hill) expressed, exploitation by the middlemen as the major constraint with the mean score of 70.30, 62.87, 68.45 and 55.11 followed by non-remunerative price (58.80, 53.53, 63.45 and 54.56) for landless, marginal, small and large farmers, respectively in pig farming. Since, the pigs could not be sold in the villages itself, it needs to be transported to the demand areas for which the farmer depends on the middlemen (who exploits them and offers only lower price for the animals). Poor encouragement from the Government was also one of the important constraint in pig farming as opined by the tribal pig farmers. The results of study of Mishra (1999) matched the results of the present study.
Vol. 44, No. 2, 2010 121 Table 4 : Bottlenecks in Poultry farming among the different farmers category Unhygienic living conditions 52.93 III 53.42 III 53.26 IV 64.59 I 55.88 II Inadequate knowledge about 51.38 IV 49.59 V 55.22 III 55.27 III 52.66 IV improved scientific practices Poor productivity of Desi birds 53.62 II 53.64 II 55.26 II 51.73 IV 52.87 III Lack of marketing infrastructure 55.87 I 56.88 I 55.49 I 58.34 II 55.90 I Non-remunerative 47.11 V 50.10 IV 48.72 VI 46.45 VI 47.68 V price for egg/ birds High susceptibility to diseases 41.24 VI 47.93 VI 48.87 V 50.95 V 47.11 VI Predators 32.67 VIII 28.98 VII 36.57 VII 31.84 VIII 32.28 VII High mortality rate 33.02 VII 24.25 VIII 35.41 VIII 33.00 VII 31.08 VIII Bottlenecks in poultry farming among the different farmers category The sample tribal farmers reared only desi birds in the hills and there was no commercial layer / broiler farming in the study area. All the categories of farmers except large farmer category expressed, lack of marketing infrastructure facilities for the desi birds in the hilly areas as the first major constraint with the mean score of 55.87, 56.88 and 55.49 for landless, marginal and small farmer, respectively in the study area. The poor productivity of desi birds when compared with the improved high yielding eggers was considered as the second major constraint (with a mean score of 53.62, 53.64 and 55.26) by the landless, marginal and small farmer category, while the large farmer category considered unhygienic living conditions (64.59) and lack of marketing infrastructure facilities (58.34) as the first and second major constraint in the poultry farming. Further, the analysis revealed that lack of marketing infrastructure facilities for the eggs/birds as the major constraint (with a mean score of 55.90) followed by unhygienic living conditions (55.88), poor productivity of native breeds (52.87), inadequate knowledge about improved scientific practices (52.66), nonremunerative prices for the products (47.68) and susceptibility to diseases (47.11) etc., as other constraints in poultry farming. CONCLUSION The present study concluded that the major bottlenecks in livestock farming were lack of sufficient pasture land, lack of marketing facilities, lack of adequate credit facilities, exploitation by middlemen and nonremunerative price for the livestock products as faced by tribal farmers. Lack of scientific knowledge about the livestock farming was also observed to be an important constraint among the tribal farmers. Suitable policy implications that are more appropriate for making improvement in the backward condition of the tribal groups are as follows; Allocation of adequate land for fodder cultivation to augment fodder production in the tribal area Establishment of Co-operative societies for organized marketing of livestock products and to culminate the exploitation by middlemen in the livestock products marketing. Concrete efforts should be taken by financial institutions to provide credit facilities at reasonable interest rate to the needy tribal farmers. Tribal human resources should be improved by improving knowledge about scientific management practices and tribal animal resources should be upgraded with the high productive animals/ birds. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors thank the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi for the financial assistance and Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chennai for having permitted to carry out the research project.
122 INDIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL RESEARCH REFERENCES Garett Henry, E. and Woodworth, R.S. (1969). Statistics in Psychology and Education. Vakils, Feffer and Simons Pvt. Ltd., Bombay. p.329. Jha, A.K. (2002). Prioritization of constraints in dairy milk production: A case study. Agricultural Economics Research Review : Conference proceedings : 120-130. Jithendran, K.P., Sharma, O.P., Dawra, R.K., Makkar, H.P.S. and Singh, B. (1998). Survey of animal husbandry practices, bottlenecks in animal production and strategies for improvement : A profile of selected villages in Himachal Pradesh. Envis Bulletin, 6(2) : 24-29. Kokate, K.D. Tyagi, K.C. and Rao, S.V.N. (1988). Factors affecting feeding gaps in local cattle of tribal scenario. Journal of Rural Develop, 7(6) : 709-721. Mishra, J.P. (1999). Agricultural Marketing in tribal areas. Bihar Agric. Marketing, 7(2) : 133-139. Varunika Pal. (2005). Uttaranchal : Constraints in Agriculture Practices and its Future Prospects. Livelihood and Sustainable Development Programme. Central Himalayan Environment Association (CHEA), Uttaranchal. Yadav, D.B. Mali, S.L. and Patil, B.R. (1995). Constraints of dairy enterprise. Indian Agric. Econ 50 (3) : 355.