Adoption of health technologies among goat farmers in different agro-climatic zones of Bihar

Abstract

The extent of adoption of health technologies by goat farmers as preventive and curative measures was assessed in all three different agro-climatic zones of Bihar by selecting two districts from each zone, with the sample of 240 farmers (80 from each zone). The results indicated that overall adoption behaviour (65.42%) was partial in nature. Vaccination was partially adopted by 26.30% farmers, whereas it was 71% for internal parasite remedies, 37.50% for external parasitic remedies, 40% for use of disinfectants, and 50.42% for veterinarian's services. The coefficient of multiple determinations (R²) was found 0.849. The variance ratio (125.85) for adjusted R² was found significant (p < 0.01). The study indicates that farmers prefer to adopt therapeutic interventions as compared to preventive interventions to control goat diseases.

Keywords:

• agro-climatic zones
• adoption
• goat farmer
• health technology
• Veterinarian's services

1. Introduction

Livestock sector plays an important and vital role in providing nutritive food and in supplementing family incomes and generating gainful employment in the rural sector, particularly among the landless, small and marginal farmers. India with 140.54 million goat population stands second after China (BAHS 2012). 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 2011). Goat sector provides subsidiary source of livelihood to the people especially to small and marginal farmers and landless labourers. Technological and management options are the only alternatives to accelerate growth in the productivity of goats, which is low in the traditional system of production. The use of vaccines such as PPR, Enterotoxaemia, FMD and medication technologies for internal as well as external parasites need to be used as recommended for effective prevention of diseases and improved productivity. Disease prevention is more economical than treatment. The usage of veterinary services and medicine technologies remains important for any livestock farmer, as disease and high mortality are major constraints on livestock production and food security (McKinnon 1985). This leads to the major problem that farmers produce below capacity.

Many useful goat husbandry technologies have been evolved by research system and have been transferred to the field for improving the production and productivity of goat sector in all agro-climatic zones of the country. At government level, there is lack of information related to adoption of health technologies especially in goat sector. Keeping above points in view, a study was conducted in different agro-climatic zones of state of Bihar to access extent of adoption of health technologies among goat farmers.

2. Materials and methods

The study was carried out in Bihar state which comprised of three agro-climatic zones. To access the real status of adoption 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. Subsequently, two villages were selected randomly from each block to constitute a total of 24 villages. Ten respondents (who owned at least 5 goats) from each village were selected randomly in a way to make a sample size of 240. Extent of adoption of goat health technologies was studied for vaccination, internal parasitic remedies, external parasitic remedies, disinfectants and veterinarian's services. Data were collected for selected variables keeping in view the objective of the study by personnel interviews, observation method and from secondary sources using the developed semi-structured interview schedule. The adoption level of the technology was measured on three point continuum, full adopter (2), partial adopter (1) and non-adopter (0). 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 (1994).

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Extent of adoption of vaccine technology

The technology of vaccines refers to medicines used to prevent infectious diseases. For this reason, vaccines are exclusively prophylactic medicines. It is apparent from the Table 1 that overall vaccination was partially adopted by 26.30% farmers against disease like FMD only. None of the farmer had adopted PPR, enterotoxaemia and goat pox vaccines. Table 1 further reveals that about 77% of farmers from zone III, 76% from zone I and 67% from zone II had not adopted vaccines technology. Relatively less percent of partial adopter of vaccines technology might be due to the fact that farmers were not aware of preventive health technology (vaccine). Failure of government to supply free of cost vaccine, comparatively higher disease resistance in goat, policy environment like input supply, market, credit, price policies and small flock size might be reasons for non-adoption of vaccines technology by farmers (Dey et al. 2007). The fact that none of the farmers were full adopters of vaccine technology, but only partial adopters indicates that the poor accessibility or availability of veterinary services and suppliers of medication technologies had a negative impact on the adoption and usage of vaccines by the farmers. Pooled sample depicts that adoption index of vaccination technology was 13.12 while it was highest in zone II (16.25) followed by zone I (11.88) and zone III (11.25) (Table 2). Higher adoption index for vaccines technology by farmers of zone II might be due to the fact that their knowledge level related to goat diseases was comparatively higher than the farmers of other zones.

Table 1. Distribution of respondents on the basis of extent of adoption of goat health technologies.

	Zone I (n = 80)			Zone II (n = 80)			Zone III (n = 80)			Overall (N = 240)
Technology	FA	‵PA	NA	FA	‵PA	NA	FA	‵PA	NA	FA	‵PA	NA
Vaccine	0	19 (23.80)	61 (76.30)	0	26 (32.50)	54 (67.50)	0 (0)	18 (22.50)	62 (77.50)	0	63 (26.30)	177 (73.80)
Internal parasitic remedies	8 (10.00)	56 (70.00)	16 (20.00)	5 (6.30)	62 (77.50)	13 (16.30)	6 (7.50)	53 (66.25)	21 (26.25)	19 (7.90)	171 (71.25)	50 (20.83)
External parasitic remedies	9 (11.30)	30 (37.50)	41 (51.25)	4 (5.00)	35 (43.75)	41 (57.25)	7 (8.75)	25 (31.25)	48 (60.00)	20 (8.33)	90 (37.50)	125 (52.08)
Disinfectants	6 (7.50)	32 (40.00)	42 (52.50)	3 (3.80)	41 (51.30)	36 (45.00)	4 (5.00)	23 (28.75)	53 (66.25)	13 (6.70)	96 (40.00)	131 (54.58)
Veterinarian's services	0	38 (47.50)	42 (52.50)	0	39 (48.80)	41 (51.30)	0	30 (37.50)	50 (62.50)	0	121 (50.42)	119 (49.58)

Note: Values in parentheses indicate percentage.

FA, full adopter; PA, partial adopter; NA, non-adopter.

Table 2. Rank order classification of goat health technologies on the basis of extent of adoption.

	Zone I (n = 80)			Zone II (n = 80)			Zone III (n = 80)			Overall (N = 240)
Technology	Score	Rank	Adoption index	Score	Rank	Adoption index	Score	Rank	Adoption index	Score	Rank	Adoption index
Vaccine	19	V	11.88	26	V	16.25	18	V	11.25	63	V	13.12
Internal parasitic remedies	72	I	45.00	72	I	45.00	65	I	40.62	209	I	43.54
External parasitic remedies	48	II	30.00	43	III	26.87	39	II	24.37	130	II	27.08
Disinfectants	44	III	27.50	47	II	29.38	31	III	19.37	122	III	25.42
Veterinarian's services	38	IV	23.75	39	IV	24.37	30	IV	18.75	121	IV	25.20

3.2. Extent of adoption of internal parasitic remedies technology

Internal parasitic remedies (deworming) refers to remedies used to control internal parasites. More than 70% farmers from zones I, zone II and overall respondents had partially adopted internal parasite remedies technology (Table 1). The presence of only 21% non-adopter was an indication that farmers in general have adopted the use of this type of medication reasonably well. However, the fact that about 71% of the farmers were partially adopted the technology indicates that deworming was not used as a preventative medication but rather as a therapeutic one, mainly when the external effects of the internal parasites become visible. Table 1 further explains that only 10% farmers of zone I, 6.30% from zone II and 7.50% farmer from zone III had fully adopted deworming technology. Adoption index of deworming technology was 45 in both zone I and zone II while it was 40.62 in zone III (Table 2). Nayak et al. (1994) reported that adoption gap in deworming was found to be 52.50%. Rao et al. (2008) reported in a study on adoption of sheep husbandry practices in Andhra Pradesh that only 43.2% and 54.6 per cent farmers were following deticking and deworming.

3.3. Extent of adoption of external parasitic remedies technology

The technology of external parasitic remedies refers to the medication used to control external parasites. It is evident from the Table 1 that majority of the overall farmers (37.50%) had partially adopted external parasitic remedies technology followed by more than 50% of farmer who had never adopted this technology and only 8.33% farmers had fully adopted the technology. Among the selected zones, the extent of adoption of technology was higher among farmers of zone II. Relatively higher non-adoption of this technology might be due to the fact that these parasitic infections are not responsible for any mortality in goat. Overall adoption index of external parasitic remedies technology was 27.08 (Table 2).

3.4. Extent of adoption of disinfectants technology

The technology use of disinfectants refers to chemical agent which kills harmful micro-organisms. It is evident from the Table 1 that majority of the overall farmers (40%) had partially adopted the use of disinfectant technology followed by 54.58% of farmers who had never adopted disinfectants technology and only 6.30% farmers who had fully adopted the technology. About 54% respondents from pooled sample had not adopted disinfectants technology. Zone-wise, 66% farmers of zone III followed by 52.50% farmers of zone I and 45% farmers of zone II had not adopted the disinfectants technology. It might be due to the fact that farmers were unaware about economical benefits associated with disinfectants technology and they considers it as extra cost of rearing goats because of their poor economical condition and small flock size. The adoption index for use of disinfectants technology was 29.38 for the farmers of zone II followed by farmers of zone I (27.50) and farmers of zone I (19.37). Overall sample depicts adoption index of 25.42 for use of disinfectants technology (Table 2).

3.5. Extent of adoption of veterinarian's services

The technology of refers to visits to or from a veterinary doctor. None of the respondents from the study area had fully adopted the veterinarian's services (Table 1). Pooled sample showed partial adopter of veterinarian's services (50.42%) were slightly higher in percentage than non-adopters (49.58%). Due to inaccessibility of veterinarian's services, lack of credit facility and high cost of medicines forced farmers to partial adoption of the technology. Majority of the goat farmers (48.80%) of zone II had partially adopted veterinarian's services followed by 47.50% farmers of zone I and 37.50% farmers of zone III. Overall sample depicts adoption index of veterinarian's services as a technology was 25.20 while it was highest in zone II with the index of 24.37 followed by 23.75 for farmers of zone I and lowest in zone III with the index of 18.75 (Table 2).

Pooled sample indicates that internal parasitic remedies with the adoption score of 209 ranked first among selected technologies. Other health technologies like disinfectants, external parasitic remedies, veterinarian's services and vaccination were ranked II (130), III (122), IV (121) and V (63), respectively by overall respondents (Table 2). Irrespective of the zone internal parasitic remedies ranked first and vaccination technology ranked fifth among selected goat health technologies.

3.6. Overall adoption behaviour of the goat farmers

The overall adoption behaviour of the farmers of goat health technologies is presented in the Table 3. It was evident from the Table 3 that majority of the farmers of zone I (63.75%), zone II (71.25%) and zone III (61.25%) were in partial adopter category with index of 17.18–36.56. The mean adoption index was reported highest in zone II with the index of 28.37 while it was lowest in zone III with index of 22.87.

Table 3. Distribution of respondents on the basis of overall adoption behavior.

						Mean adoption index
Category	Adoption index	Zone I (n = 80)	Zone II (n = 80)	Zone III (n = 80)	Overall (N = 240)	Zone I	Zone II	Zone III	Overall
LA	<17.18	22 (27.50)	18 (22.50)	27 (33.75)	67 (27.92)	27.62	28.37	22.87	26.87
PA	17.18–36.56	51 (63.75)	57 (71.25)	49 (61.25)	157 (65.42)
HA	>36.56	7 (13.80)	5 (6.25)	4 (5.00)	16 (6.67)
	Mean ± SD	26.87 ± 9.69

Note: Values in parentheses indicate percentage.

LA, low adopter; PA, partial adopter, HA high adopter.

The overall adoption behaviour (65.42%) was partial in nature; it might be due to the fact that majority of the farmers had low knowledge level, had small flock size, were landless labourers and had low social participation which led to low or partial adoption of health technology. The results indicated that the low socioeconomic status of the farmers and lack of knowledge about the modern medication technology might be the reason that majority of the farmers were not being the high adopters.

3.7. Correlates and multiple regression analysis of farmers' adoption behaviour

Correlation analysis of adoption behaviour indicates that variables namely family education status (p < 0.01), flock size (p < 0.05), extension agency contact (p < 0.01), social participation (p < 0.05), income level (p < 0.01), economic motivation (p < 0.01) and knowledge level of the farmers (p < 0.01) had positive and significant association with the adoption behaviour of the farmers while age, farming experience and land holding had positive but non-significant relation with the adoption behaviour (Table 4). A study in Tanzania confirmed that farmer's adoption of crossbred technology depends positively on their education (Abdulai & Huffman 2005). Berhanu (2002) had reported that farm size of cropland exerts a positive influence on the adoption of improved technologies.

Table 4. Relationship of farmers' adoption behaviour with independent variables.

	Zone I	Zone II	Zone III	Total
Independent variables	Coefficient of correlation (r)
Age	0.054	0.031	0.058	0.049
Family education status	0.126	0.267*	0.246*	0.282**
Farming experience	0.007	0.043	−0.098	0.036
Land holding	0.025	0.115	0.108	0.061
Flock size	0.108	0.178	0.126	0.206*
Extension agency contact	0.268*	0.061	0.041	0.281**
Social participation	0.113	0.313**	0.136	0. 289*
Herd Size	0.055	0.199	−0.024	−0.093
Income	0.263*	0.478**	0.289*	0.238**
Economic motivation	0.936**	0.915**	0.850**	0.893**
Knowledge	0.897**	0.753**	0.947**	0.843**

* Significant at p < 0.05; **Significant at p < 0.01

Regression analysis revealed that family education status, flock size, social participation, extension agency contact, income level, economic motivation and knowledge level of the farmers were the major variables influencing the adoption behaviour of the farmers (Sagar & Dohare 2000). Herd size negatively related to adoption behaviour might be due to the fact that goat farming is considered as occupation of poor farmers and those farmers who had large herd size avoid goat farming in general. The value of adjusted coefficient of multiple determination R ²(0.849) indicates that 84.90% of variation in the adoption behaviour of respondents was due to the combined influence of the independent variables considered in the analysis. The variance ratio (125.85) for adjusted R ² was found significant (p < 0.01) (Table 5).

Table 5. Multiple regression analysis of farmers' adoption behaviour.

	Unstandardized coefficients		Standardized coefficients
Independent variables	B	SE	Beta	t	Sig.
Constant	−0.938	0.281		−3.339	0.001
Age	0.003	0.003	0.024	0.86	0.390
Family education status	0.038	0.072	0.014	0.52	0.603
Family experience	0.003	0.004	0.02	0.753	0.452
Land holding	−0.058	0.052	−0.03	−1.111	0.268
Flock size	0.030	0.010	0.012	0.077	0.939
Extension contact	0.011	0.016	0.018	0.662	0.509
Social participation	0.035	0.017	0.058	0.065	0.431
Herd size	−0.023	0.031	−0.02	−0.745	0.457
Income	0.002	0	0.072	2.719**	0.007
Economic motivation	0.358	0.026	0.607	13.83**	0.001
Knowledge	0.157	0.021	0.334	7.529**	0.001

Note: R² = 0.849, adjusted R² = 0.843, F = 128.851.

** Significant at p < 0.01.

4. Conclusion

Among the selected goat health technologies, adoption level of vaccination technology was least as compared to other goat health technologies which indicate that these farmers prefer to adopt therapeutic interventions to control the goat diseases. These farmers prefer a reactive rather than a proactive health management attitude. To increase production level and productivity from goat sector, it is necessary to create awareness among goat farmers about economic importance of preventive health management and provide health services at their door step.

Acknowledgement

The authors are thankful to the Director, Indian Veterinary Research Institute (IVRI) and Head of Extension Division, IVRI, Izatnagar for providing necessary facility to carry out the study.