Sustainability of crossbreeding practice perceived by the dairy farmers in Midwestern plain zone of Uttar Pradesh

Abstract

The data were collected from 120 cattle owning households hailing from 12 villages (50% Bharatiya Agro Industries Foundation [BAIF] covered and 50% non-BAIF covered) of Bareilly district on perceived sustainability of crossbreeding technology on 14 dimensions. The study revealed that 73.33% beneficiaries perceived crossbreeding as highly sustainable practice. Significant mean differences were found between the perception of the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries with respect to all its 14 dimensions of sustainability of crossbreeding. Pooled sample showed that more than 50% respondents achieved high perceived sustainability score followed by about 31 and 16% who fell under medium and low sustainability scores, respectively, with respect to crossbreeding. Socio-personal and production performance related variables showed a positive and highly significant (P<0.01) relationship with perceived sustainability of crossbreeding practice. Appropriate extension interventions are required to enhance the perception regarding sustainability of crossbreeding practices among non-beneficiaries to adopt the artificial insemination technology.

Keywords:

• BAIF
• crossbreeding
• dairy farmers
• productivity
• sustainability

Introduction

Livestock research has generated a number of technologies in the areas of animal breeding, nutrition, health and management. Crossbreeding in dairy animals through artificial insemination (AI) is one amongst them. Adoption of these technologies among the dairy farmers has remained limited and sporadic, may be due to perceived unsustainability, less profitability, relatively less advantageous, high cost of rearing, high susceptibility to diseases, lack of skill, lack of developed leadership, absence of basic amenities and incentive, etc., in their micro situations perceived by farmers (Wagh and Patange 2003; Agarwal et al. 2007; Rao and Rani 2007; Salem and Khemiri 2008; Satyanarayana 2008). Realising the problems of the farmers and non-availability of superior quality services, Bharatiya Agro Industries Foundation (BAIF) designed a unique model of cattle development which provides door-to-door services using frozen semen technology. Thus appropriateness of crossbreeding was studied in terms of its sustainability among the beneficiaries of BAIF and non-beneficiaries over its various dimensions so that the potential of this technology could be explored for full adoption for maximum output. High technological appropriability, economic feasibility, local adaptability, efficient use of resources and productivity, etc., are some of the major dimensions that contribute towards sustainability of crossbreeding interventions which has been explored in the study.

Materials and methods

The present study has been conducted purposively in two blocks, namely, Bhojipura and Damkhoda of Bareilly district which fall under Midwestern plain zone of Uttar Pradesh, due to existence of cattle breeding interventions under the BAIF programme. From each of the selected two blocks, three villages, having a maximum number of beneficiaries of the BAIF were selected. (Beneficiaries were those farm families who have benefited from cattle breeding interventions of BAIF for the last five years preceding the survey, and have been practicing AI in their dairy animals). In addition, three more villages where no or minimum cattle breeding intervention have been introduced, were selected at an appropriate distance from the benefited villages in order to eliminate any direct or indirect overflow of influence of BAIF's cattle breeding interventions. (Non-beneficiaries were not concerned for the cattle breeding interventions of BAIF). Data were collected through personal interview schedule incorporating all relevant dimensions of sustainability. Interaction dialogue, secondary sources as well as observations were the other techniques of data collection. The index developed by Swaminathan (1991) as modified by Lal (2000) consisted of 14 dimensions used to measure the sustainability. These dimensions were: technological appropriability, economic feasibility, economic viability, environmental soundness, temporal stability, local adaptability, resources use efficiency, social acceptability and social sustainability, political tacitness, administrative manageability, cultural desirability, renewability, equity and productivity. Fourteen dimensions were also taken individually to study the sustainability of crossbreeding practice after categorising each of them into low, medium and high categories on the basis of minimum and maximum scores achieved by the respondents. The total sustainability score was obtained by summing up scores of all the 14 dimensions for each of the respondents.

Results and discussion

Majority of the beneficiaries (73.33%) perceived crossbreeding as highly sustainable practice (Table 1). Easy accessibility, low cost and constant results with their expectations were the important contributing factors perceived by the beneficiaries with respect to the sustainability of the crossbreeding practice. Yadav et al. (2008) also found that sustainability of AI was significantly lower in Bihar than Haryana, may be due to lack of proper facilities of AI (like quality semen, storage facility for semen, veterinary hospital, etc.). Majority of scientists however, perceived it highly sustainable under rural conditions. Significant mean differences were found between the perception of the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries with respect to various dimensions of sustainability of crossbreeding (Table 2). Differences were more in case of local adaptability, technological appropriability, economic feasibility, social acceptability and productivity and less in the case of political tacitness, resources use efficiency and renewability.

Table 1.  Distribution of respondents according to their overall perceived sustainability score for crossbreeding practices.

Perceived sustainability of crossbreeding (score)	Beneficiary% (n=60)	Non-beneficiary% (n=60)
Low (up to 105)	6.67	26.67
Medium (105–210)	20.00	43.33
High (>210)	73.33	30.00

Table 2.  Difference in the mean values of dimensions of sustainability of crossbreeding between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries.

	Perceived sustainability score
Dimensions of sustainability^a	Maximum score	Beneficiaries	Non-beneficiaries
Technological appropriability	30	20.60	14.36
Economic feasibility	25	19.73	12.30
Economic viability	20	15.86	10.46
Environmental soundness	25	18.08	10.36
Temporal stability	20	13.16	7.33
Local adaptability	25	17.23	10.86
Resources use efficiency	20	13.63	7.00
Social acceptability and social sustainability	20	12.43	8.73
Political tacitness	30	21.33	13.80
Administrative manageability	20	12.05	9.43
Cultural desirability	15	9.53	7.40
Renewability	25	15.06	8.06
Equity	20	11.83	8.93
Productivity	20	18.16	8.66
^aAll dimensions were higher in beneficiary group (P<0.01).

Correlation denoted that except age and herd size, all other selected variables of beneficiaries showed a positive and highly significant (P<0.01) relationship with perceived sustainability of the crossbreeding practice (Table 3). It revealed that most of the variables having positive and significant relationship influenced on sustainability of the crossbreeding practices. Economic motivation and milk disposal behaviour indicated the capability of beneficiaries for better care and management of a dairy unit. Interestingly, a non-significant relation with herd size indicated that crossbreeding practices might be sustainable in a small herd size of higher productive animals. Socio-personal and economic variables among the non-beneficiaries like family education status, economic motivation, land holding (P<0.01) and information seeking behaviour (P<0.05) showed a positive and significant relation with sustainability of the crossbreeding practices. Findings of Saran et al. (2000) supported the view that land holding had positive relation with the adoption of AI, while results are not supportive to the findings of the study conducted by Sawarkar et al. (2001) who reported a negative but significant relationship between size of land holding and the extent of adoption of AI practices in Wardha district. Intervention of crossbreeding specially for small and marginal farmers increased annual income and employment generation from dairy husbandry and ensured livelihood security for them. The results confirmed the objective of BAIF of improving the economic status of rural poor through cattle breeding interventions among beneficiaries by generating income and employment. Rao and Rani (2007) in a study emphasised the need for upgrading the technology for the production of quality milk and milk products in India. Technology upgradation plays an important role in the sustainability of the dairy sector; employment and income in rural areas thus requires immediate action on the part of dairy entrepreneurs. Though adoption of crossbreeding was found low among non-beneficiaries still they could increase income and employment from dairy enterprise by adopting other cattle breeding interventions of Government and NGO's other than BAIF and could increase in herd size and marketing of milk.

Table 3.  Correlation analysis between socio-personal and economic variables with perceived sustainability of crossbreeding practice.

	Correlation coefficient (r)
Socio-personal and economic variables	Beneficiaries	Non-beneficiaries
Age	0.02^NS	0.01^NS
Family education status	0.51**	0.20*
Economic motivation	0.32**	0.28**
Herd size	0.04^NS	0.02^NS
Land holding	0.32**	0.26**
Information seeking behaviour	0.35**	0.19*
Income generation	0.76**	0.34**
Employment generation	0.68**	0.28**
*Significant at 5% level of significance, **significant at 1% level of significance, and ^NSnon-significant.

Except the average age at first calving and the average calving interval, all other variables had positive and significant relationship with sustainability of crossbreeding practices perceived by all farmers (Table 4). Productive herd size among the beneficiaries considerably increased the milk yield resulting in increased milk consumption and milk marketed with the aim of earning more income as well as nutritional security. This phenomena improved sustainability of the crossbreeding practice. Increase in the average age at first calving (year) and the average calving interval (month) had a negative relationship with the perceived sustainability because these were responsible for a decrease in the production age of animals. Despite the fact that most of the non-beneficiaries had not adopted crossbreeding at their farm, they had a favourable attitude and achieved a high sustainability score and established positive and significant correlation of sustainability of crossbreeding with production parameters. Most of the non-beneficiaries were rearing low producing desi animals, had higher age at first calving and long calving interval with low milk production, consumption and marketing (Table 4). Pathania and Vashist (2004) revealed a quantum improvement in the average calving interval and in milk yield per day of upgraded cows over time. Economic parameters such as age at first calving, calving interval, lactation yield, lactation length, dry period and milk yield were in favour of crossbreds as compared to native cattle (Singh 2006). Millogo et al. (2008) also reported that crossbred cows were related to higher daily milk yield.

Table 4.  Correlation analysis between productions performance related variables with the perceived sustainability of crossbreeding practice.

	Correlation coefficient (r)
Productions performance variables	Beneficiaries	Non-beneficiaries
Average age at first calving	−0.54**	−0.08^NS
Average lactation length	0.74**	0.28**
Average lactation yield	0.64**	0.32**
Average calving interval	−0.34**	0.02^NS
Average per day milk yield	0.62**	0.34**
Milk consumption/year	0.32**	0.26**
Milk marketed/year	0.68**	0.21^*
*Significant at 5% level of significance, **significant at 1% level of significance, and ^NSnon-significant.

Among non-beneficiaries, perception of sustainability of crossbreeding technology was found to be low over various dimensions as compared to the beneficiaries. This alarming gap appears to be an impediment for adoption of crossbreeding technologies. The appropriate extension interventions are required to be made so that the difference in the perception on sustainability between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries can be minimised. Once perception is improved, the likelihood of the adoption of crossbreeding technology may be improved.