Abstract
The perceived sustainability of goat health technologies was assessed in three different agro-climatic zones in Bihar, India, by selecting two districts from each zone, with a sample of 240 respondents (80 respondents from each agro-climatic zone). The results indicated that the majority of the overall respondents (47.50%) had medium level of perceived sustainability score (27.45–41.26) for use of vaccine technology. About 74% overall farmers had medium level of perceived sustainability score (35.49–41.26) for the use of internal parasitic remedies (deworming) technology, while in the case of use of external parasitic remedies technology about 70% farmers had medium level of perceived sustainability score (38.98–44.03), whereas overall 63% respondents had medium level of perceived sustainability score (36.73–41.97) for use of disinfectant technology. Veterinarian's services as a health technology had medium level of perceived sustainability score (31.05–35.37) by the majority of the overall respondents (62.50%). Chi-square analysis showed a significant relation between perceived sustainability for use of technology like vaccine, disinfectants and different categories of agro-climatic zones, while it was non-significant for the technology like use of internal parasitic remedies, use of external parasitic remedies and use of veterinarian's services. Analysis of results indicated that farmers perceive use of external parasitic remedies technology as highly sustainable while use of vaccine technology as least sustainable.
1. Introduction
The poor man's cow – goat – has tremendous potential to be projected as the ‘Future Animal’ for rural prosperity under the changing agro-geo-climatic conditions and depleting resources. Goat husbandry is one of the important components of the livestock sector in India. There are over 880 million goats around the world, out of which India has over 140.54 million goat population which stands second after China (BAHS Citation2012). Goat population in the country is poised to reach 170 million by 2025 (CIRG 2007). The focus of the people is diverting towards rearing of small animal because of low initial investment and low rearing cost associated with it. Small ruminants are generally reared in rain-fed areas by landless or the resource-poor farmers whose average agricultural holding is either very less (marginal and small farmers) or not sufficient to devote for cultivation of crops (Kumar & Pant Citation2003, Singh et al. Citation2005). Livestock research has generated a number of technologies in the areas of animal breeding, nutrition, health and management. Goat research needs progress rapidly to reach the level of knowledge of other species like cattle or sheep, especially in milk and meat production (Arguello Citation2011). Technological and management options are the only alternatives to accelerate growth in the productivity of goat husbandry, which is low in the traditional system of production due to ignorance of health management. Disease prevention is more economical than treatment and some diseases cannot be treated. In these cases the use of external and internal parasite remedies as well as vaccines as a prophylactic treatment are the most effective means of disease control (Hunter Citation1993). Despite this, the application of many technologies in the field remains limited either due to the lack of awareness or the lack of health care facilities. Incidence of diseases and parasitic infestations are the major constraints to the development of goat enterprise in India. Many useful goat husbandry technologies have been evolved by research system and has been transferred to the field for improving the production and productivity of goat in all agro-climatic zones of the country. Perceived sustainability of the technology may also have a definitive and positive impact on full-scale adoption and productivity of the animal husbandry (Kumar & Tripathi Citation2011). Keeping above point in view, the study was conducted to access perceived sustainability of health technologies by goat farmers in different agro-climatic zones of the state of Bihar, India.
2. Materials and methods
The study was carried out in Bihar state which is comprised of three different agro-climatic zones. To access the real status of perceived sustainability of goat health technologies, two districts were selected from each agro-climatic zone on the basis of highest density of goat population, thus comprising six districts from all three zones of Bihar. From each selected district, two blocks were randomly selected to make a total number of 12 blocks. Two villages selected from each block making a total of 24 villages. The respondents who owned at least five goats were selected randomly. Ten respondents from each village were selected in a way to make a sample size of 240. Perceived sustainability was studied for the use of vaccine, internal parasitic remedies, external parasitic remedies, use of disinfectants and use of veterinarian's services as goat health technologies by using modified sustainability index (Swaminathan Citation1991, Lal Citation2000). The index consists of eight dimensions of sustainability, namely technological appropriability, economic viability, environmental soundness, local adaptability, social acceptability, government policy, cultural compatibility and productivity. The sustainability score was obtained by summing up scores of all the eight dimensions for each of the technology and percentage was computed. The respondents were categorised into three categories, namely low (mean − SD), medium (mean + SD) and high (mean + SD) on the basis of perceived sustainability score. Data were collected by personnel interviews, observation method and from secondary sources using the developed semi-structured interview schedule. In order to get logical interpretation, the data were compiled, tabulated and subjected to appropriate statistical analysis methods by following standard statistical methods described by Snedecor and Cochran (Citation1994).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Perceived sustainability of use of vaccine technology by farmers
Perceived sustainability score of use of vaccine technology shows that majority of the overall respondents (47.50%) had medium level of perceived sustainability score (27.45–41.26) followed by high (>34.57) and low levels (<27.45). Perceived sustainability score for 17.50%, 53.80% and 28.80% farmers of both zone I and zone II had low (<27.48), medium (27.45–41.26) and high (>34.57) scores, respectively, while for zone III, 42.50%, 35% and 22.50% farmers were in low, medium and high score categories, respectively. Chi-square analysis showed a significant relation between perceived sustainability for the use of vaccine technology and different categories of agro-climatic zones.
3.2. Perceived sustainability of use of internal parasitic remedies technology by farmers
The results of perceived sustainability for the use of internal parasitic remedies (deworming) by farmers reveal that the majority of the farmers (74.20%) had medium level of perceived sustainability score ranging from 35.49 to 41.26 followed by 13.30% farmers perceived as low level of sustainability (<35.49 score), and 12.50% perceived it as highly sustainable (>41.26 score) technology (). Same trend was observed for the farmers of zone I and zone II, i.e. medium level of sustainability score was followed by low and high, while medium level of perceived sustainability score was followed by high (>41.26) and low (<35.49) by the 17.50% and 10% farmers of zone III, respectively. There was non-significant relationship between perceived sustainability of internal parasitic remedies and different categories of zones.
Table 1. Distribution of respondents according to perceived sustainability score of health technologies.
3.3. Perceived sustainability of use of external parasitic remedies technology by farmers
Perceived sustainability of use of external parasitic remedies by farmers was analysed and presented in . Pooled sample showed more than 70% respondents had medium level of perceived sustainability score (38.98–44.03) followed by low and high (>44.03) by 14.60% and 13.30% respondents, respectively. The same scenario was found for the farmers of zone I and zone III, i.e. medium category followed by low and high categories. Further among farmers of zone II, 68.80% had medium level of perceived sustainability score followed by high (>44.03) and low (<38.98) scores by 17.50% and 13.80% of farmers, respectively, for use of external parasitic remedies technology. It might be due to the fact that higher knowledge level of farmers of zone II about external parasitic remedies technology led to a higher mean perceived sustainability score. Non-significant relation indicates that farmers had almost a similar perception for use of external parasitic remedies technology among different zones.
3.4. Perceived sustainability of use of disinfectant technology by farmers
It is visible from that more than 70% of the farmers of zone I, 60% farmers of zone II, about 58% farmers of zone III and overall 63% respondents had medium level of perceived sustainability score (36.73–41.97) for use of disinfectant technology. further shows that the majority of farmers of zone I (72.50%) had medium level of perceived sustainability score followed by high (>41.97) and low (<36.73) scores while among farmers of zone II, 60% had medium level of perceived sustainability score (36.73–41.97) was followed by high (>41.97) and low (<36.73) scores by 33.80% and 6.30% farmers, respectively, about disinfectant technologies. Chi-square analysis showed a significant relation between perceived sustainability of use of disinfectants and different agro-climatic zones.
3.5. Perceived sustainability of use of veterinarian's services as technology by farmers
Majority of the overall respondents (62.50%) had medium level of perceived sustainability score (31.05–35.37) followed by low (<31.05) and high (>35.37) level scores by 21.30% and 16.30% of respondents, respectively, for veterinarian's services as a health technology. Perceived sustainability score for 21.30%, 58.80% and 20% farmers of zone I, for 17.50%, 61.30% and 21.30% farmers of zone II and for 25%, 67.50% and 7.50% farmers of zone III was found low (<31.05), medium (31.05–35.37) and high (>35.37), respectively. It might be due to the inaccessibility of veterinary doctors and availability of local untrained personnel's in rural areas which made low perceived sustainability for the use of veterinarian's services as a health technology.
It can be observed from that among the selected technologies the mean perceived sustainability score for the use of external parasitic remedies was 41.50 while for application of disinfectants, use of internal parasitic remedies, use of veterinarian's services and use of vaccination were 39.35, 38.43, 33.21 and 31.01, respectively. It might be due to the fact that farmers prefer to adopt therapeutic interventions to control goat diseases. Apart from this, the lack of input facility, the lack of awareness about preventive health management and inaccessibility of health technology were some of the contributing factors for low level of perceived sustainability score. Provision of good remunerative price for sale of goat, timely availability of health technologies and suitable extension interventions may further improve the adoption rate and perceived sustainability of goat health technology.
4. Conclusion
Majority of the selected goat health technology found medium level of perceived sustainability score. Goat farmers perceive the use of external parasitic remedies technology as highly sustainable while use of vaccine as least sustainable health technology because farmers prefer to adopt therapeutic interventions as compared to preventive measures to control goat diseases.
Acknowledgement
The authors are thankful to Head of Extension Division and Director of IVRI, Izatnagar, for providing necessary facility to carry out the study.
References
- Arguello A. 2011. Trends in goat research – a review. J Appl Anim Res. 39:429–434.10.1080/09712119.2011.637362
- Basic Animal Husbandary Statistics [BAHS]. 2012. Livestock census. part IV:38–61. New Delhi: Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Govt. of India.
- Central Institute for Research on Goat [CIRG]. 1997. Vision-2020: perspective plan: 37. Uttar Pradesh: Makhdoom.
- Hunter P. 1993. Vaccination for the control of stock diseases in Southern Africa. Pretoria: Pamela Hunter-Oberem.
- Kumar S, Pant KP. 2003. Development perspectives of goat rearing in India: status, issues and strategies. Indian J Agric Econ. 58:752–767.
- Kumar R, Tripathi H. 2011. Sustainability of crossbreeding practice perceived by the dairy farmers in mid western plain zone of Uttar Pradesh. J Appl Anim Res. 39:257–260.10.1080/09712119.2011.588411
- Lal N. 2000. Sustainability of animal husbandry technologieas [PhD thesis]. IVRI, Izatnagar, Bareilly, UP.
- Singh VK, Suresh A, Gupta DC, Jakhmola RC. 2005. Common property resources of rural livelihood and small ruminants in India: a review. Indian J Anim Sci. 75:1027–1036.
- Snedecor GW, Cochran WG. 1994. Statistical methods. 9th ed. Iowa State University Press.
- Swaminathan MS. 1991. Towards sustainable agriculture: dimensions and components. New Delhi: Employment News, Nov. 18–24, 1995, XX 34: 32.