Improving the livelihood of landless and marginal farmers through sheep rearing in rainfed agro-ecosystem of India

A K Misra, K V Subrahmanyam, M Vijoy Sankar Babu*, T Y Reddy*, B Shivarudrappa** and Y S Ramakrishna

Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Santoshnagar, Hyderabad, AP, India
*Agricultural Research Station, Acharya NG Ranga Agricultural University Anantapur, AP, India
**BAIF Institute for Rural Development -Karnataka, Jadcherla, Mahabubnagar, AP, India
akmishra@crida.ernet.in

Abstract

Small ruminants are essential component of rainfed farming systems in semi-arid India. Two models of sheep rearing, lamb fattening and breed multiplication were promoted as a source of income generation and self-employment for the poor and landless households in clusters of two/three selected villages in Mahabubnagar and Anantapur districts of Andhra Pradesh and Tumkur district of Karnataka, India. Salaha Samithi (farmers advisory committee) facilitated implementation and monitoring of intervention. The core principle of the process was active, decision-making involvement of people at all stages of technology development with technical input and facilitation by project staff. Exposure visits and dialogue are used as a guiding principle, involving open discussion among farmers, NGO workers and researchers.

The lamb fattening sheep unit represents a very reasonable livelihood option for agricultural labourers as it require less resources and not demand very specialized skills. The breeding unit, which requires the part time involvement of the farmer, or his family member, provides a very stable and attractive additional income source for small and marginal farmers without affecting their main occupation.

Key words: Agro-ecosystem, India, livelihood, poor, sheep rearing

Introduction

Rainfed agro-ecosystem has a distinct place in Indian Agriculture, occupying 67% of the cultivated area, contributing 44% of the food grains and supporting 40% of the human and 65% of the livestock population (Venkareswarlu 2005). The farming systems in rainfed areas are quite diverse with a variety of crops and cropping systems, agroforestry and livestock production. Rearing of sheep and goats plays an important role in the economy of India in general and sustainable livelihood of poor people of rainfed agro-ecosystem in particular, because of inherent risk involved in the crop farming due to uncertainty of rainfall and occurrence of recurrent droughts (Pasha 2000, Misra 2005). They are raised mainly for meat, milk, and skin and providing a flexible financial reserve (social security) in bad crop years for the rural population (Sastri 1997; Puskur et al 2004). Contribution of these species to the rural economy is estimated at Rs. 240 million per annum (Sharma 2004). Together, they produce about 0.7 million tonne of meat, which is about 15 % of the total meat production in the country. About 5 million families in India are engaged in various activities relating to rearing of small ruminants (sheep and goats). The flocks of small ruminants provide gainful employment of 184 to 437 man-days per annum depending upon the size of the flock. Irrespective of the flock size women and children contribute to labour force to the extent of about 90%, according to an official estimate (Sharma 2004).

In most of the drylands and hill regions, livestock farming is a major player as more than 70 % of family income is derived from livestock (GOI 2002). Under watershed development programmes, rearing of sheep and goat is promoted as an income generating activity for landless and poor people, because increasing income of poor has an immediate and direct impact on poverty. Farmers of rainfed dry regions prefer rearing of small ruminants because: (1) they are less expensive to purchase and require minimal inputs and maintenance costs; (2) they are less susceptible to stress due to adverse changes in climatic conditions (e.g. drought); and (3) they have a relatively high reproduction rate and are easy to dispose off.

Technologies to improve livestock productivity and its contribution to the livelihoods of the rural poor do exist, however, the rate of adoption of livestock-related technologies in smallholder mixed farming systems worldwide is consistently low (Francis and Sibanda 2001; Parthasarthy Rao et al 2005). In order to solve this problem, approaches that guarantee effective linkages among researchers, NGOs, extension workers, decision-makers and farmers, who have a complex knowledge base and widely dispersed expertise, are needed (Misra et al 1997; Conner et al 1998; Reddy et al 2005). The challenge is to develop novel mechanism to provide smallholders with livestock, either through credit loans or through projects to help farmers who have production capacity but lack the resources to buy the animals (Holmann et al 2005). Livestock keeping enables poor and landless farmers to earn income using common-property resources (World Bank 1999; Turner 2004). In some situations, the livestock ladder may allow the poor to progress from modest livestock holdings, such as a few poultry, to acquiring sheep and goats or even cattle (ILRI 2003). Livestock production provides a constant flow of income and reduces the vulnerability of agricultural production (Holmann et al 2005). Rearing of small ruminants is more profitable with assured and constant income (Misra et al 2000). The poorest of poor often do not keep animals, but they would likely do so should this become possible. The expanding market for livestock products offers an opportunity for augmenting their income, even for those who do not have access to land and capital resources (FAO 2000). In order to promote sheep rearing as a source of income generation and self employment for the poor and landless households, including widows, two models of sheep rearing, (i) lamb fattening (ii) breed multiplication, were tried to evolve a practical model for replication elsewhere and to identify the potentials and constraints of wider uptake of sheep as a livelihood enterprise.

Methodology

The DFID-NRSP project entitled "Enabling rural poor for better livelihoods through improved natural resource management in SAT India" is implemented in clusters of two/three selected villages in Mahabubnagar and Anantapur districts of Andhra Pradesh and Tumkur district of Karnataka with a aim to improve the livelihoods of poor people, who are largely dependent on natural resources. The characteristics and cropping systems of selected clusters are summarized in Table 1.

An 'open door policy' was adopted for the selection of household for sheep rearing, implying that all interested poor households in the community were free to participate in them. Salaha Samithi(farmers advisory committee) facilitated implementation and monitoring of intervention. The core principle of the process was active, decision-making involvement of people at all stages of technology development with technical input and facilitation by project staff. Exposure visits and dialogue are used as a guiding principle, involving open discussion among farmers, NGO workers and researchers. Emphasis was placed on farmer-led, farmer-to-farmer extension, with volunteer farmers serving as resource persons.

The project staff approached the poor and landless people and asked them to choose different alternatives for uplifting their standard of living during Salaha Samithi meetings and group discussions. The options offered to them were: sheep rearing, goat rearing, poultry farming, nursery raising, vermin-composting, depending upon caste and social customs. The majority of the poor people selected sheep rearing for improving their livelihood mainly because of easy maintenance and availability of ready-made market round the year. Sheep were preferred over goats as they could graze on the dry grass, twigs and crop residues even during peak summer months. Further, people preferred local breed as they are more resistant to diseases compared to crossbreds.

Based on a decision taken in the Salaha Samithi meeting, sheep units of 4-5 sheep in Mahabubanagar and Tumkur for breed improvement and multiplication purpose and units of 3 (later reduced to 2) lambs in Anantapur for fattening purpose were given to improve the livelihoods. The project had planned for all lamb units to have minimum of 5 animals but the Anantapur farmers pointed out that they were not certain of accessing sufficient fodder for 5 lambs, neither did they have the labour resources to herd the sheep. With 3 lambs, they thought they would be able to take them with them to graze while they were working as daily agricultural wage labour. They later decided that they could not manage more than 2 lambs under this system and this became the size of their fattening unit .

The conditions for provision of sheep agreed with the Salaha Samithi and intending sheep owners were:

• The animals should be bought from the local market.
  
  
• The owners should rear them with care and responsibility.
  
  
• The owners should supply feed using local feed resources as advised by the project staff during lean period.
  
  
• The animals should not be sold or slaughtered before lambing in case of multiplication or before attaining the body weight of 20 kg in case of fattening.
  
  
• The owners should inform the project staff before sale or slaughter of the animals and in case of any illness or theft.
  
  
• The field staff would supervises the activity and arranges insurance of animals and should collaborate with the owners.

Apart from this, a focused PRA was conducted and diagnostic survey was made in order to have an idea about the sheep production system prevalent in the cluster. Relevant secondary information related to the study area was also collected from published and unpublished sources based on discussion with key stakeholders to supplement the primary data collected from selected households.

The survey was conducted on a pre-tested structured questionnaire to assess the impact of sheep rearing on the livelihood of poor and marginal farmers during February-March 2005. The information collected in the survey included data on household demographics, land ownership, livelihood activities, sheep rearing practices and major constraints faced by the farmers, etc. The data collected in the survey were analysed using MS Excel sheet. Descriptive statistics namely frequencies, mean and percentage were used to determine relationships between variables.

Results and discussion

Socio-economic characteristic of sheep rearing participants

The important demographic characteristics of sheep rearing participants are presented in Table 2.

There are striking differences in the sources of livelihoods across different clusters. Almost 100 percent of poor households in Tumkur cluster were wage earners/farm laborers, whereas about 38 percent of household in Anantapur cluster had other livelihood options. In Mahabubnagar cluster about 1/4^th of households are engaged in crop production and rearing of small ruminants. About 70% of the landless poor in overall work as agriculture labour. The main reason that forced them to work as labourer is poverty. Lack of credit worthiness, confidence and know-how may be other reasons. In the villages, the landless poor obtain jobs during the crop season only. Approximately 40 percent of the poor people migrate in search of work to other places, preferably to nearby city/towns. In the majority of cases only male members of the family migrate from the village and provide livelihood to other family members. The age structure of households indicates that the average age of head of household was lower in Anantapur cluster than other clusters. About 55-75 percent of the population was in the middle age group. The majority of households were illiterate, however, the education level was slightly higher in the Tumkur cluster. Education plays an important role in the adoption of innovations/new technologies, and young farmers are expected to be early adopters.

Traditional sheep production system

Sheep farmers obtain forage from a combination of crop residues, private land and common gazing land. Thus, a sheep rearer obtains benefits from both common lands and framers' filed. In Anantapur and Mahabubnagar cluster, some farmers graze their animals on forestland sometimes illegally, as community managed forests ban grazing to regenerate the woody vegetation and also prevent the mishappening of fire. Grazing in common forests and pasture was estimated to account for 31% of livestock feed in India (World Bank 1999). Farmers' cultivated lands become common grazing lands for poor peoples' animals after harvesting the crop. Grazing norms do exist, but lack of institutional support and the disintegration of community management structures have contributed to the uncontrolled and illegal grazing on common lands. In Mahabubnagar district, fallow lands contribute 25-51 percent of total dry matter requirement for livestock through free grazing (ISPA 1997). The owners also migrate along with their sheep flocks in search of grazing lands during summer. Some farmers harvest the grasses from forests and common lands during winter season and store this grass for several months and use it to tide over the dry season, when forage scarcity tends to be most acute. Thus more research is needed to understand the extent of grazing on private/forest land and the implications for herders' livelihoods and sustainability.

In a few cases old members of the family, who are unable to go for labour and are having no other opportunity cost, generally look after the sheep. They themselves opt and prefer to take animals for grazing because they feel that they can accomplish this task while going for collection of fuel wood, as they can not perform heavy work. Families also think that grazing of animal is an appropriate productive activity for old people. Slowly and slowly it is becoming the social norm. In some cases, people who are going to work as agricultural labour, bring the sheep along with them and tether them in the field for grazing and also offer the weeds or tree leaves that are available in the private lands where they are working. The study conducted by World Bank (1999) in India reveals that labour input required in the traditional farming systems for livestock keeping is of low quality and often not skilled. In such framework, livestock maintenance is often relegated to those persons in the labour force whose opportunity cost is low. The bulk of chores related to care and management of livestock in household fall on the shoulders of the women, children and old people (Misra et al 2000).

Assessment of sheep rearing intervention

The Salaha Samithi proposed 10 - 40 percent contribution of total cost from the participating farmers, on a sliding scale based on the owner's capacity to pay. In Mahabubnagar and Tumkur the contribution was 10 percent whereas in Anantapur it was 40 percent. The contribution became a part of the revolving fund managed by the Salaha Samithi .

The performance of the sheep breeding units of Mahabubnagar and Tumkur cluster is presented in Table 3.

Performance of the sheep-breeding unit was better in Mahabubnagar cluster than Tumkur. This may be due to the availability of more grazing and common lands in Mahabubnagar. Farmers in both the clusters are selling lambs at an early age due to necessity of money required to meet the household expenditure. Almost all sheep in Tumkur cluster are sold in local market, whereas in Mahabubnagar cluster 60 percent farmers sold sheep within the village itself. The location of marketing had significant influence on earnings of the farmers.

The number of lamb units given in Anantapur cluster and their performance is mentioned in Table 4.

In Anantapur cluster, the 16 participants in 2003 increased to 55 in 2004. The individuals are selling the sheep after 4-5 months of rearing/grazing and again purchasing the sheep with the balanced amount after repaying the loan to the Salaha Samithi. Gross profit per lamb ranges from Rs.628-922 with an average of Rs. 751. Four cycles of lamb fattening are completed. It is interesting to mention that in Anantapur cluster, all poor families are covered under this intervention and now every individual in the group has a minimum income of Rs. 4,000 per year only from lamb rearing as subsidiary livelihood interventions. Results have shown that the contribution of sheep rearing to family income ranges between 20-35 percent with an average of 25 percent.

After realizing the economic benefit, many families from the forward community in Anantapur and Mahabubnagar are coming forward to take a loan from the Salaha Samithi to start sheep rearing. Experience showed that support either in the form of funding or stock animals are good tools in starting the livelihood programme. In addition, basic knowledge of sheep keeping should be provided directly. Through sheep rearing, the poor increased their income, improved the nutrition of the family, the stability of the households and their self-reliance. Rearing of sheep by women for improving their economic status created an immense interest among other people.

Conclusions and recommendations

The lamb fattening sheep unit represents a very reasonable livelihood option for agricultural labourers as it require less resources and not demand very specialized skills. The breeding unit, which requires the part time involvement of the farmer, or his family member, provides a very stable and attractive additional income source for small and marginal farmers without affecting their main occupation. Some specific points emerging from this intervention are:

• Training institutions (particularly those for watershed development) should organize training for rural poor women in small ruminant production technologies and its importance for income generation.
  
  
• Efforts should be made by both research and development institutions to link up rural poor/women with funding agencies.
  
  
• Rearing sheep requires less resource and is appropriate where capital is scarce.
  
  
• Sheep rearing can provide part time self-employment without affecting the main occupation for small and marginal farmers.
  
  
• Sheep rearing is an enterprise that does not demand very special skills compared to other agricultural enterprises.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the farmers and project staff for their active participation in the research programme. The article is an outcome of the NRSP Project R 8979 funded by the Department for International Development (DFID), UK. The views expressed are not necessarily those of DFID.

References

Conner J R, Hamilton W T, Sheehy D P, Smith J W and Kreuter U P 1998 Grassland based livestock production in Temperate zones. World Animal Review 90: 6-13 http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/W8600T/w8600t03.htm

FAO 2000 Agriculture Towards 2015/30. Technical Interim Report, April 2000. Economic and Social Department, FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=//docrep/004/y3557e/y3557e00.htm

Francis J and Sibanda S 2001 Participatory action research experience in smallholder farming in Zimbabwe. Livestock Research for Rural Development. (13) 3: http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd13/3/fran133.htm

Government of India 2002 Report of the working group on Animal Husbandry and Dairying for the tenth five year plan (2002-2007). Working Group Sr. No. 42/2001. Planning Commission, Government of India, New Delhi, India.

Holmann F, Rivas L, Urbina N, Rivera B, Giraldo L A, Guzman S, Martinez M, Medina A and Ramirez G 2005 The role of livestock in poverty alleviation: An analysis of Colombia. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 17, Article #11.Retrieved March 23, 2005, from http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd17/1/holm17011.htm

ILRI 2003 Livestock, a pathway out of poverty: ILRI strategy to 2010. International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi. http://www.ilri.org/Strategic/Strategy2010.pdf

ISPA 1997 Livestock feeding situation in Andhra Pradesh: Options for improvement. Report No.22/97. Indo-Swiss Project, Andhra Pradesh, India

Misra A K 2005 Contingency planning for feeding and management of livestock during drought. In: K D Sharma and K S Ramasastri (Editors) Drought Management.Allied Publishers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. pp 276-286

Misra A K, Dwivedi P N, Upadhyay V S, Bhag Mal and Dhanoa M S 1997 Socio-economic analysis of livestock production in smallholder rain-fed farming systems in India. Proceedings of an International Conference on Food, Land and Livelihood, KARI, Narobi, Kenya, Jan. 27-30, pp.157-158

Misra A K, Reddy B M K, Rekha M S, Reddy G S and Singh H P 2000 Sheep and goat farming in rainfed areas: Constraints and options for improvement on smallholder production systems. In: Thomas C K and Sastri N S R (Editors): Smallholder livestock production in developing courtiers. KAU, Thrissaur, pp. 133-144

Parthasarthy Rao P, Brithal P S and Ndjeunaga J 2005 Crop-Livestock Economies in the Semi-arid Tropics: Facts, Trends and Outlook. Patencheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India. ICRISAT. 68pp

Pasha S M 2000 Economy and ecological dimensions of livestock economy. Commonwealth publishers, New Delhi.

Puskur R, Bouma J and Scott C 2004 Sustainable livestock production in semi-arid watersheds. Economic and Political weekly, 31 July 2004:3477-3483

Reddy G S, Reddy B M K, Misra A K, Prabhakar M and Sambrajyam A 2005 TAR-IVLP: On-farm assessment and refinement of technologies in Southern Telangana Zone of Andhra Pradesh. NATP. Central Research Institute for Dryalnd Agriculture, Hyderabd, India. 54pp

Sastri N S R 1997 Livestock feeding situation in Andhra Pradesh: Options for improvement. Report No. 22/97, Indo-Swiss Project, Andhra Pradesh.

Sharma A B 2004 Centre giving final touches to livestock policy. Financial Express. 27 December 2004.

Turner R L 2004 Livestock production and rural poor in Andhra Pradesh and Orissa States, India. Pro-poor Livestock Policy Initiative Working Paper No. 9. FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/projects/en/pplpi/docarc/wp9.pdf

Venkareswarlu B 2005 Completion Report: Production System Research 1999-2004. Rainfed Agro-Ecosystem, National agricultural Technology Project. Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad. 202P

World Bank 1999 India: Livestock Sector review: Enhancing growth and development. The World Bank and Allied Publishers: New Delhi.

Received 13 January 2006; Accepted 28 January 2006; Published 11 May 2006

Go to top