Comparative Analysis of Beneficiaries and Non-beneficiaries about Scientific Livestock Farming Practices

Animal husbandry sector is emerging as an important growth engine of the Indian economy. The share of livestock sector in GDP has gradually risen because of the growing demand for livestock products impelled by urbanization and population growth. Livestock sector contributes 4.11% GDP and 25.6% of total Agriculture GDP in India. About 20.5 million people depend upon livestock for their livelihood and it provides employment to about 8.8 % of the population in India (20^th Livestock Census, 2019). Low-cost investments in small-scale livestock keeping such as dairy cow, sheep, goats, poultry offers the opportunities for women not only to increase household income but also to control over it, which helps in reducing gender inequality and empowering women farmers (Millennium Development Goal 3, 2015). Dairy based enterprise has been regarded as an important socio-economic instrument to supplement the income and employment opportunities to the rural women (Ponnusamy et al., 2017). About 69.00 per cent of the labour on livestock farms is provided by women (Patel et al., 2016).

In spite of active involvement of women in livestock activities, they are not given adequate participatory or decision-making power, in the family or society. Thus, Self Help Groups have been recognized as an institutional innovation for rural development and improves collective decision making of women. In the developing world, around 200 million people have found their way into SHGs by 2017 (Greaney et al., 2016). The Women Self Help Groups have played a dynamic role in the socio-economic development (Kumar, 2012). In India, SHGs saving linked with banks are 102.43 lakhs, out of which 88.32 lakhs SHGs are exclusively for women. There are 1.02 crore groups under SHG-Bank Linkage Programme covering 12.4 crore households across India (Government of India, NABARD, 2019). In Punjab, there are around 8647 SHGs, out of that 7396 (85.53%) are exclusively women SHGs (Dhiman and Rani 2014).

Although India has vast resource of livestock but average productivity of livestock is very low attributed to unawareness, low knowledge and adoption of scientific livestock farming practices by the farmers. Improved livestock productivity demands supreme care in feeding, breeding and health practices of animals. The quality of livestock products is affected by the knowledge of the farmer about improved animal management practices (Singh and Gupta, 2015). Hence knowledge becomes a central factor in adoption or non-adoption of recommended livestock practices. In this context, present study was conducted with the objective to assess and compare the knowledge level among beneficiaries of Self Help Groups (SHGs) and non-beneficiaries with respect to feeding, breeding, health care and management practices.

The present study was conducted in Ludhiana district of Punjab during 2018-19. For meeting the objective; 120 beneficiaries and 60 non-beneficiaries were subjected to structured interview schedule. Ludhiana district was purposively selected based on large number of livestock based functional women Self Help Groups. A multistage random sampling procedure was applied. Twenty four (24) SHGs were selected randomly which were successfully functioning for more than 3 years in livestock farming activities in various villages of different blocks of Ludhiana district of Punjab, India. Five (05) SHG women members were selected randomly from each SHG, which make the 120 respondents. Then, in order to find out the impact of SHGs on the beneficiaries, another ‘control’ group of 60 non-SHG women members (treated as ‘Non-beneficiaries’) were selected, randomly, from the same or adjoining SHG villages. Thus, total 120 SHG beneficiaries and 60 non-beneficiaries were selected for the study.

To measure the knowledge level of the respondents, a knowledge test developed by Sah (2005) was used with slight modifications. The knowledge test was administered to the respondents and responses were obtained under multiple choice questions. The scores assigned to the responses were in the range of 0-3. Scoring was done according to the correctness of the response against each item. Knowledge score of individuals in different aspects such as breeding (maximum score 15), feeding (maximum score 13), healthcare (maximum score 11) and management (maximum score 15) were obtained by summing up scores of each item under different aspects. The total score obtained by individual respondent for all the statements was calculated and analyzed with the help of mean and standard deviation and respondents were categorized as low (Below mean-S.D.), medium (mean± S.D.) and high (Above mean+ S.D.) with respect to their knowledge level. The following formula was used to measure the knowledge index.
 

  

Knowledge of respondents about scientific breeding practices
 
Among breeding practices (Table 1), 87.50 per cent of the beneficiaries had medium knowledge on pregnancy diagnosis. Gunaseelan et al., (2018) in a study reported higher level of knowledge on pregnancy diagnosis. Majority (98.33%) of the beneficiaries had medium knowledge on cross breeds. About 67.50 per cent of the beneficiaries possessed medium knowledge on performing AI at right time, respectively. With respect to identification of milch animals in heat, 90.00 per cent of the beneficiaries were observed in medium category. Most of the beneficiaries (59.17%) possessed medium level of knowledge related to inter-calving interval. Regarding ideal time of placental removal, highest number of the beneficiaries (97.50%) had medium knowledge. (Lohakare et al., 2015;  Laldinpuii et al., 2018).



In case of non-beneficiaries, Table 1 revealed that, 78.34 per cent had medium knowledge regarding pregnancy diagnosis. As far as knowledge related to cross breeds of cow / buffalo was concerned, 86.67 per cent had medium level of knowledge. With respect to AI at right time, most of the non-beneficiaries (58.33%) had medium knowledge. About 83.33 per cent of them possessed medium knowledge related to oestrus cycle. Regarding knowledge on inter-calving interval and ideal time of placental removal, medium level of knowledge was reported among 66.67 per cent and 93.33 per cent of non-beneficiaries, respectively. (Lohakare et al., 2015; Laldinpuii et al., 2018).
 
Knowledge of respondents about scientific feeding practices
 
In respect of feeding practices, Table 2 showed that 62.50 per cent beneficiaries and 63.00 percent non-beneficiaries had medium knowledge on accurate time of colostrum feeding to newly-born calf. With respect to practices followed to feed the new-born calf, about 80.00 per cent of beneficiaries and 18.33 per cent of non-beneficiaries had medium level of knowledge. Maximum number of the beneficiaries (97.50%) and non-beneficiaries (75.00%) possessed medium level of knowledge regarding balanced feeding. About additional concentrate feeding, 80.00 per cent and 78.33 per cent of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, respectively were under medium category. About 77.50 per cent and 68.00 per cent of the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, respectively, had medium knowledge on extra amount of concentrate feeding. Similar findings were accounted regarding feeding of additional concentrate to pregnant animals. (Kaur et al., 2017; Bhuyan et al., 2018).



 
Knowledge of respondents about scientific health care practices
 
Regarding health care practices, Table 3 revealed that majority of the beneficiaries (94.17%) and non- beneficiaries (81.67%) had medium level of knowledge on right time for vaccination against the contagious diseases. In case of symptoms of mastitis, about 53.00 per cent beneficiaries possessed medium knowledge while 53.00 per cent of non beneficiaries were under low category. With respect to important symptoms of Hemorrhagic Septicemia, medium knowledge was reported among beneficiaries (89.17%) and non-beneficiaries (71.67%). Maximum number of beneficiaries (92.50%) and non beneficiaries (96.67%) had medium knowledge on symptoms of parasitic infestation. As far as advantages of vaccination was concerned, medium level of knowledge was reported among majority of beneficiaries (80.83%) and non-beneficiaries (91.67%). (Kumar 2015; Singh et al., 2017).


 
Knowledge of respondents about scientific management practices
 
In case of management practices Table 4 illustrated that among beneficiaries, 87.00 per cent and 13.00 per cent had medium and high knowledge, respectively; whereas majority (85.00%) of non-beneficiaries had medium knowledge on suckling of newly-born calf to its mother. About method followed for cleaning milk pail, 93.00 per cent of the beneficiaries and 95.00 per cent of the non-beneficiaries had medium knowledge level. With respect to right time of placental removal, medium level of knowledge was observed among beneficiaries (90.00%) and non-beneficiaries (78.00%). Medium level of knowledge was reported among majority of beneficiaries (95.83%) and non-beneficiaries (90.00%) on age of dehorning in calves. Gunaseelan et al., (2018) reported that majority of respondents had low knowledge followed by medium and high. With respect to dry period, 87.00 per cent beneficiaries and 82.00 non-beneficiaries had medium knowledge. Regarding age of male calf castration, most of the beneficiaries (79.17%) and non-beneficiaries (73.33%) possessed medium level of knowledge.


 
Distribution of respondents on the basis of their knowledge about overall SLFPs
 
A glance of the Table 5 revealed that among beneficiaries, about 58.33 per cent and 65.00 per cent had medium level of knowledge regarding breeding and feeding practices, respectively. Similar finding were observed by Rupeshkumar and Chandawat 2011; Biswas et al., 2012; Gunaseelan et al., 2018). Regarding healthcare and management practices, majority of the respondents; 61.66 per cent and 67.50 per cent, respectively were observed in medium category. These findings are similar to the study of Satyanarayan and Jagadeeswary (2010).



Among non-beneficiaries; 48.33 per cent, 56.67 per cent, 55.00 per cent and 75.00 per cent had medium level of knowledge regarding breeding, feeding, healthcare and management practices, respectively (Table 5). Similar findings were reported related to feeding practices. (Kaur and Rathore 2014; Prajapati et al., 2015; Sharma et al., 2018). Ahirwar et al., (2016) and Kaur et al., (2017) reported the related findings regarding knowledge level of management practices.

As far as overall knowledge about SLFPs was concerned, results in Table 5 showed that among beneficiaries, majority of the respondents (50.00%) were in medium category, followed by high (33.33%) and low (16.67%) category. Such findings are very similar to (Sah 2005; Durgga 2009; Lohakare et al., 2015; Mevada et al., 2018). Whereas in case of non-beneficiaries, majority of them (55.00%) were in medium category, followed by low (31.67%) and high (13.33%) category.  (Mande et al., 2008; Kumar et al., 2011; Sabapara et al., 2014; Kaur et al., 2017).
 
Extent of knowledge among respondents about SLFPs
 
A perusal of Table 6 revealed that management practices were ranked first by the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries with knowledge index 67.40 and 63.33, respectively; followed by feeding practices (rank II) with knowledge index 65.83 and 62.18, respectively. Breeding practices were ranked III by the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries with knowledge index 64.21 and 60.13, respectively. Healthcare practices were ranked last by the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries with knowledge index 48.41 and 41.06. Overall knowledge index was higher in case of beneficiaries (61.46) than that of non-beneficiaries (56.68). Rahman and Gupta (2015).


 
Average differences in knowledge score regarding SLFPs among beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries
 
The calculated ‘Z’ value (Table 7) indicated the significant difference between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries regarding knowledge of scientific livestock farming practices at 1 per cent and 5 per level of significance.



The SHG beneficiaries had more knowledge than the non- beneficiaries in almost all the four categories of scientific livestock farming practices due to frequent extension contact, more exposure through pashupalan melas/kisanmela and timely information provided by SHG developmental organizations. Similar findings were reported by Rahman and Gupta (2015).

Majority of the respondents had medium knowledge about SLFPs. SHG beneficiaries had more knowledge towards SLFPs than non-beneficiaries due to information empowerment of SHG beneficiaries through group activities like trainings, meetings and contacts with change agents. The knowledge level possessed by non-beneficiaries necessitates huge improvement. Participatory cum need based training programmes, demonstrations etc. should be organized to increase the know-how of non-beneficiaries and making them self-reliant. Moreover developmental organizations should make more deliberate efforts to enhance the working efficiency of SHGs.

Authors are grateful to Vice Chancellor, Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Ludhiana, Punjab, India for providing all necessary facilities and help. Support from SHG beneficiaries, non beneficiaries and SHG officials for providing necessary information are duly acknowledged.

All authors declared that they have no conflicts of interest.