Socio-demographic status of goat farmers
As depicted in Table 1, the present study indicated that majority of the farmers rearing goats were women (72.0%). In accordance with the current findings,
Prank et al., (2023) reported that farmers involved in goat husbandry were female (57.0%) The higher number of female farmers could be due to the fact that men of every household choose to work as daily wagers, whereas women in the household prefer to taking care of the goats as an additional source of income to support their families. Similar findings were reported by other researchers from different regions
(Nandi et al., 2011; Shoshe et al., 2019; Sivachandiran et al., 2020; Panth et al., 2021; Rahman et al., 2022). However, elsewhere some statistics prove otherwise
(Getaneh et al., 2022; Nithiaselvi et al., 2023; Hamadani et al., 2023). As depicted in Table 1, our study indicated that majority of the goat farmers were in the middle age group (52.0%)
i.
e., 30 to 49 years. Similarly,
Salahuddin et al., (2017) and
Nithiaselvi et al., (2023) found large number of middle-aged farmers who were interested in raising goats to support their household. Our findings also conform to several other studies as well
(Nipane et al., 2016; Islam et al., 2018; Shivakumara et al., 2020; Srinivasan and Roopa, 2021;
Rahman et al., 2022). The medium-aged farmers are economically sound and are involved with goat rearing
(Alam et al., 2023). Contrarily, some reports
(Islam et al., 2016b); Shoshe et al., 2019) mention that maximum goat keepers are rather young between 15 to 30 years old. Our results also reveal that highest number of the farmers (58.0%) involved with goat rearing belong to the scheduled tribes.
Alam et al., (2023), stated that all the goat farmers in the Kargil region belong to scheduled tribe (100%) category. The possible reason of higher percentage of schedule tribe farmers in our findings, could be due to the traditional way of life of rearing goat as a source of income for their livelihood. Earlier reports were in conformity
(Tanwar et al., 2008; Singh et al., 2018b) or otherwise
(Singh et al., 2021; Nithiaselvi et al., 2023). However, this distribution mostly depends upon the location of the study area.
Perusal of Table 1 indicated that majority of the farmers (54.0%) associated with goat rearing were of small family size (£ 4), while medium and large family size accounts for 46.0%. In a similar result,
Barman et al., (2017) reported that majority of the goat farmers belong to small-sized family (47.0%) with only 5 members whereas 16.0% were of large family size (>8). Small family size is trending because nuclear type family is increasing with increase in daily expenditure of the household. Conversely,
Nwachukwu and Berekwu (2020) in Nigeria mentioned that 52.0% of goat farmers had a medium family size of 4 to 7 persons and 46.0% were of small family size with 1 to 3 members. Survey data showed that most of the goat owners attained primary education (86.0%) and only 14.0% farmers completed higher studies. Our findings are supported by several researchers, who mentioned that maximum goat farmers achieved primary education from class 1 to 5 standard
(Salahuddin et al., 2017; Islam et al., 2018; Nwachukwu and Berekwu, 2020;
Nithiaselvi et al., 2023). It is believed that no formal education is required for goat rearing. However,
Islam et al., (2016b) and
Singh et al., (2018b) found that more than half of the farmers involved in goat rearing were illiterate. Contrastingly,
Alam et al., (2023) found that the majority of goat farmers are highly educated in Ladakh valley of India.
Rearing system
In the present study, majority of the goat farmers reared goats in an intensive system (51.0%) whereas nearly half of the farmers managed their goats in semi-intensive system (49.0%) of rearing. However,
Prank et al., (2023) revealed that most of the farmers used semi-intensive system (67.3%) for goat rearing but only a few farmers reared goats in an intensive system (8.5%) of rearing while 24.1% farmers practised free range system of rearing in Bangladesh. In the current findings, adoption of intensive systems of rearing by most of the farmers may be due to urbanization and drastic reduction in grazing land in the sampling area. Moreover, majority of the farmers had attended a course in goat training programmes conducted by Govt. aided institutions to initiate intensive system of rearing. This indicated that in regions with limited land resources, farmers opt for intensive systems to make the most of the available land by increasing animal stocking density
(Giller et al., 2021; Mandal et al., 2022; Debbarma et al., 2024). Contrary to our findings, 100% of goats’ farmers used semi-intensive system of goat rearing as reported by
Islam et al., (2016a) and
Shoshe et al., (2019). In rural areas, usually goat farmers let loose their goats unsupervised for grazing and the animals scavenge and subsequently, feed on farm or kitchen wastes (
De Vries, 2008). As depicted in Table 2, 57.0% goat farmers housed their goats on mud floors, 15.0% on brick and concrete cement and the least on bamboo (2.0%) floors. In line with our findings, several studies inferred that majority of the goat keepers constructed their goat shelters with an earthen base
(Nandi et al., 2011; Jana et al., 2014; Kumar et al., 2018; Shoshe et al., 2019; Sharma et al., 2022; Tilahun et al., 2023). However,
Sah et al., (2021) stated that mud floor increased the risk of pneumonia and causes respiratory distress to animals and is unsuitable for small ruminants. Conversely, bamboo floor is known to be beneficial for health of the goats, that often remain dry, relatively easy to clean and does not get messy very readily and has a milder odour
(Prank et al., 2023). The survey data indicated that majority (33.0%) of goat shed were made up of tin-sheets. The second commonly used roofing material were polyethene covered over bamboo truss (29.0%) followed by tiled roofs (27.0), while only few farmers use concrete (9.0%) and asbestos roofing (2.0%). In a similar finding,
Islam et al., (2018) reported that majority of farmers constructed their goat shelter with tin sheet (54.0%) and certain farmers were found to used bamboo-straw as roofing material but only few farmers used coconut or palm leaves for sheltering goats.
Sharma et al., (2022) however revealed that 42.0% farmers used asbestos as roofing material for construction of goat shelter but certain respondents used tin (26.0%) and RCC (18.0%) and only few used thatched roofs (10.0%). In tropical nations, thatch is the most commonly used roofing material for animal housing (
FAO, 2004). In dairy housing, utilising paddy straw as roof insulation reduces thermal radiation and provides a thermo-comfortable environment to the animals, thereby improving milk yield
(Mandal et al., 2018; Mandal et al., 2021).
Perusal of Table 2 shows that majority (63.0%) of the farmers do not vaccinate their goats but few (37.0%) number of goat owners follow immunization of animals, much akin to reports of
Islam et al., (2016a) and
Sivachandiran et al., (2020). Conversely,
Jana et al., (2014) and
Hossain et al., (2015) reported that most of the goat owners vaccinated their animals against common diseases
viz. Goat pox, Peste-des-Petits Ruminants (PPR) and Foot and Mouth disease (FMD). There was a misconception amongst farmers that vaccination might cause health problems and even death of the animals. This could be the possible reason of low rate of vaccination in the present study.
Islam et al., (2018) opined that farmers hold false beliefs about disease prevention, thus they neglected to regularly administer vaccines and seek the advice of veterinarians when they needed technical assistance
(Islam et al., 2018).
Our study revealed that more than half of the farmers (52.0%) used to practice deworming their goats whereas certain sections of farmers (48.0%) do not deworm their goats. Similar reports have been documented by
Hossain et al., (2015) and
Nithiaselvi et al., (2023), who inferred that majority of the goat farmers routinely dewormed their animals but few farmers do not practise deworming of goats.
Islam et al., (2018), on the other hand revealed that 38.67% of goat owners used neither anthelmintics nor any other preventive measures to combat parasitic infestation but some farmers (31.0%) used anthelmintic to deworm their goats regularly.
Prevalence of common diseases
In the current study, we investigated the various reasons for mortality of Black Bengal goats in the sampling area and are presented in Fig 1. Black Bengal goat is generally susceptible to water logging after rains. However, this breed is known to be hardy and have high disease resistance capacity
(Nandi et al., 2011; Shoshe et al., 2019). Lack of proper care and overall poor husbandry practices are responsible for occurrence of diseases in goat. The present survey data revealed that majority of the goats died due to PPR (61.0%) followed by bloat (18.0%) and goat pox (11.0%) whereas dog bite and road accident combined contribute to 10.0% mortality.
Balamurugan et al., (2012) revealed that goats in India has lower incidence of PPR (17.90%). Various factors such as rearing system, housing condition, regionality, vaccination profile and seasonal characteristics were shown to be strongly correlated with the prevalence of PPR in Nigerian sheep and goats as reported by
Victor et al., (2017). Generally, young and female animals fall prey to dog bite. Goats are the most affected species from dog bite as compared to other livestock
(Islam et al., 2016b). In the present study, the reason for mortality of goats due to dog bite could be attributed to densely population of domestic dog in the sampling area and exist in majority of the households which likely contributed to such incidence. Several diseases that are inevitably contracted while raising goats impair farming’s profitability by increasing treatment costs, decreasing productivity and increases mortality in goats.
