4. Livestock and Livelihood

Livestock Sector in India is extremely livelihood intensive. Traditionally livestock provide the much needed supplementary income to farmers all over India. Next to crop production, animal husbandry is the most important income generating activity in farm households, supplementing livelihood. Over 70 per cent of the rural households keep livestock of one species or the other and earn incomes out of them. A nation wide study by the NCAER: "Impact Evaluation of Operation Flood" in 1999, reported that dairy production - sale of milk alone, accounted for the bulk of the contribution to the household income from livestock. The share of household income from dairy production in different zones of the country and in different land holding categories, are presented in tables along side. Estimated household incomes from the different species of household livestock in 2000 in Orissa are presented in the next table alongside. The averages represent income from the respective species, accruing to households keeping them. None of the species have performed to their full potential, as feed and management conditions prevailing in the Orissa villages are poor. Households usually own a mix of several species and therefore the combined income from livestock per household can be much higher than the species-specific incomes shown. There is immense scope for productivity enhancement and incremental incomes for the farm households from their livestock, with genetic improvement, better feeding and management. On the household economic front, there are many micro studies establishing the impact of dairy production on household income in smallholder production systems. One of the most documented schemes in India on this front is the "intensive mini dairy project" (IMDP) of the Uttar Pradesh Dairy Development Department. This is primarily a rural employment scheme enabling eligible milk producers in dairy cooperative society villages, access to commercial credit for replacing their local milch animals with 2 to 4 cross bred cows or improved milch buffaloes, enabling better household resource utilisation. A comprehensive review of the project (impact study involving over 10000 IMDP units) carried out by the ICCMRT, Lucknow, in 1994, shows that income from dairy production increases dramatically without altering the quantum of income from other sources, in response to introduction of two cross bred cows into the household farm. Markets for livestock produce are all mostly in the traditional and unorganised sector, except for milk. Even in the case of milk only about 15 per cent of the total production is handled by the organised sector. Farmers are however able to sell their produce almost all over the country as the demand for livestock products are high both in the urban and rural areas.

Household Income from Different Sources: Pre & Post IMDP

5. Policy Implications: Watershed Context

5.1 Work Animals and Farm Power

Over the past five decades electrical and mechanical sources of power have largely replaced the work animal as a source of power: particularly for farm operations like pumping and lifting of water (Irrigation), but land operations like tilling, seed drilling and intercultivation still depend on work animals in many states. There had been as a consequence a sharp decline in work animal numbers and an increase in the numbers of tractors and power tillers over the same period: between 1970-'90. This trend however, is not uniform all over the country. There are very wide variations among states in the use of draught animals as farm power source: almost total dependence on draught animals in states like Rajastan, Central & Eastern Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Orissa, Assam, West Bengal, Jammu & Kashmir; partial dependence in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, parts of Gujarat and parts of Maharashtra; and no dependence at all in Kerala, Punjab, Haryana, Western UP, parts of Gujarat, parts Maharashtra.

Draught Animals vs Tractors & Power Tillers

Source: Livestock Census Rounds 1961 to 1992; Abbreviations: Dr. Animals: Draught Animals (working male among cattle and buffalo), Trtrs & Ptlrs: Tractors and Power Tillers.

While energy input per Ha of net sown area has gone up by three times, the share in farm power supply by work animals has come down from 72 per cent in 1961 to less than 23 per cent by 1991. There had however been no commensurate reduction in the numbers of work animals, mainly because of the spatial distribution of the small and tiny land holdings scattered across the country, the farmers' need for absolute control over farm power as a prerequisite for his livelihood and lack of ready access to electrical and mechanical sources of power. Work animal numbers are inextricably linked to the over all bovine numbers. Large bovine population therefore is one of the limiting factors in natural resource management in almost all watersheds.

Share of Farm Power: Man, Animal and Machine 1961-'91

Source: Constructed from Mittal & Shrivastava 1993, Proceedings of the Workshop on Human and Draught Animal Power, Harare 1993 (FAO, Rome). Abbreviations: Sown Area; Power / Ha: Farm Power Input per Ha NSA in Kilowatt; Human: Human Beings; Animal: Draught Animals (working male among cattle and buffalo); Electr & Mechn: Electrical and Mechanical Sources of Power (Tractors, Power Tillers, Pump sets both diesel and electrical).

Farm Power Input: Total & Per Ha NSA 

Source: Constructed from Mittal & Shrivastava 1993, Proceedings of the Workshop on Human and Draught Animal Power, Harare 1993 (FAO, Rome); Abbreviations: NSA: Net Sown Area in mln Ha; Ttl Power: Total Farm Power Input in mln kilowatts for the Net Sown Area. 

Electrical and mechanical sources of power have now started replacing work animals from land operations as well, circumscribing their role in farm power supply. Partial mechanisation and reduction in work animal numbers is a far better option from the environmental point of view, both in the macro as well as micro context: annual fuel consumption for this would only be some 2850 mln litres of diesel or in terms of electrical power some 9450 mln kwh (valued at Rs.32 bln / Rs.19 bln respectively, at 1998 prices.) 8. From the farmers' point of view hiring a tractor for cultivating his land in Kharif and Rabi, offers him a far better economic alternative than having to own, feed and manage a pair of bullocks round the year just for using them for farming only on 60 days (farming season in India is limited to 60 days together during Kharrif and Rabi, particularly so in dryland farming). The average use of work animals reckoned across the country is only some 100 days in a year, together for tilling and transport. 

Farmers' continued dependence on draught animals for farm power is only in those states where access to farm machinery for hiring does not exist. Few among the smallholder group can now afford to own a pair of bullocks, because of the shrinking land holding size. Even though the smallholder group owns some 85 per cent of the work animals in the country, average holding is only 0.72 work-animal per household (or one pair for three households), with extremely wide variations between states. There is overwhelming preference among the farming community for custom hiring of tractors or power tillers for farm operations, if the option exists and if they have constant access to machinery on hire. 

From the environmental angle too, replacing work bullocks with tractors for farm operations is the more desirable option. If India goes in for partial mechanisation in the entire 186 million Ha of the gross cropped area, the number of tractors required will only be less than 2 million (they already exist), for 60 days operation together for the Kharrif and Rabi in a year. The emissions of 2 million tractors used for farm operations over 60 days a year would be far less than the emissions of 60 million work animals that have to be maintained for all the 365 days (even though their use for farm power supply and traction together will only be an average of 100 days per pair over the year).

India's diesel oil consumption currently is some 40-42 million tons annually. If tractors are used for partial mechanisation of farm operations in all the 186 million ha of grossed cropped area, the incremental diesel consumption will only be some 2 - 3million ton. Therefore the argument that partial mechanisation of farm operations using tractors will put enormous strain on the country's fuel supply balance too does not hold good. On the other hand the progressive quantum reduction the move will bring about in the large ruminant numbers will relieve pressure on land for fodder and will enormously increase fodder availability for milk and meat production: making all animal agriculture sustainable. 

Providing alternate sources of farm power is therefore the overriding policy priority in watershed development: this can either be through promotion of lease markets for tractors and other farm machinery to enable richer farmers in the watershed to acquire them (the poorer ones can then share their use), or to promote Agro-service centres in the private or cooperative sector as commercial ventures for hiring out farm machinery to the watershed farming communities. Funding of such ventures should be part of the normal operations of credit institutions in the watershed area, but sensitisation of the institutions would be part of the watershed development task.

The immediate outcome of this policy implementation would be progressively shrinking work animal numbers in the watershed; increasing water and fodder availability to other economically important species of livestock like milch animals and small ruminants; diminishing livestock load on land; and accelerated ecological regeneration. While other species and types of livestock are also critical to natural resource management in watershed areas, work animals are by far the most critical: diminishing dependence on work animals for farm power will drastically bring down the overall bovine population size: a reverse cascade progressively reducing the number of desi cows constantly committed to raising the replacement stock.

5.2 Livestock and Income Generation 

Livestock belonging to all species usually exist in large numbers in all watershed districts and all watershed area villages (with rare exceptions). They constitute the natural resource on base, which village communities depend for supplementary incomes for livelihood support. The predominant farming system in almost all watershed areas is the "mixed crop-livestock farming system" under rain fed conditions, supported with limited irrigation from existing tanks if any, other water bodies forming part of the watershed treatments and in rare cases from open wells or bore wells recharged by watershed treatments. All livestock production takes place within and as a part of the mixed crop-livestock farming systems, even though the complementarity between crops and animals is marginal for some of the species like sheep and goat, as they derive their subsistence entirely from grazing in fallows, tank beds and marginal lands forming the catchment areas.

Livestock in Karnataka Watershed Districts: Nos. in Lakhs

Source: Karnataka State Livestock Census: 1997. Note: Karnataka is cited as an example only for illustration of the mix and pattern. The situation in other states will be more or less similar, with of course variations in the species held and the proportion of each in the population.

Milk production is the most important livestock related economic activity, followed by small ruminant farming for meat animal production. Back yard poultry farming with desi fowls is a very popular economic activity in many watersheds, with the vast majority of village households participating in it. Milch animals and desi fowls are widely owned in the villages, while sheep and goat though owned in large flocks, ownership is confined to a few families in the village, usually the poorer among the marginal farmers. Milch animals are almost entirely owned by the better off segment of the marginal farmers and small farmers, while desi fowls are owned equally by the marginal and the landless. Watershed treatments generally increases crop output and therefore output of crop residues, it improves the soil moisture content, thereby bringing about overall increase in biomass cover of the land, many of them edible to the species normally depending on grazing. 

Livestock Nos in Watershed Villages

Livestock Owning Households Species Wise

Promotion of livestock enterprises in the watershed villages would be a strategic step to encourage wider community participation in watershed management, as 70 to 80 per cent of the household's own livestock and earn a part of their livelihoods from livestock. The development strategy for livestock in watershed areas should be based on major two considerations:

(a) As water from watershed treatments is expensive, it can best be used for high value enterprises like milk (from cattle & Buffalo) / meat production (from intensively stall fed small ruminants like sheep and goat) and cultivated green fodder (as a cash crop for supporting livestock production by sections of the community who either has no land or cannot spare land for fodder production) in the command areas.

(b) As a measure for poverty alleviation among the less endowed sections of the community like the economically and socially weaker sections (ESWS: Women, BPL, SC & ST) enabling them to participate in mainstream livestock production and earn substantial additional incomes.

Options for livestock related income generation activities are: dairy units, fodder cultivation units in command areas as cash crops for community use, stall fed Sheep and / or goat units, as well as desi poultry in backyards. Livestock is generally livelihood intensive and therefore should form part of the watershed interventions for livelihood support. Ideally there should be a basket of livestock related income generating options, enabling communities / individuals to choose from among them what they find advantageous. The prerequisite for promoting these activities in any village should be the formation / presence in the village, of a self-help group (SHG) to sustain and monitor these activities. 

(i) Cattle & Buffalo: Milk Production 
Dairying would indeed be an excellent income generating activity for the weaker sections living in dairy cooperative society (DCS) villages, as marketing of milk, generation of daily cash incomes and supply of all inputs necessary, are assured by the dairy cooperative system. But promotion of dairy units for the very poor should be confined to DCS villages or villages with other assured marketing channels, as it is indeed a high-risk option for the poor and chances of success in other villages are rather grim. The scheme for dairy units should include two milking animals (crossbred cows / milch buffaloes), supplied at six months interval to ensure continued milk production throughout the year and therefore assured liquidity for regular repayment of the loan (financing of dairy units should be through bank loans and subsidies if any under government poverty alleviation schemes). The investments should include two cows supplied one after the other six months apart, materials for an animal shelter, materials for a manger and a chaff cutter (all measures to promote stall feeding). In addition, the participants in the scheme should be traditional farmers or farm labourers with experience in raising livestock and they should be exposed through repeated skill trainings to stall feeding, innovative feeding systems, feed supplements like urea molasses block (UMB) licks and preventive veterinary health care (vaccinations). 

(ii) Small Ruminants: Meat Production 
Sheep and goat constitute the next most important species of livestock in watershed areas, but together they are owned by a small number of the poorer marginal farmers, less than 20 per cent of the total households (seldom by the landless), in fairly large flocks of 10 to 30 in the case of sheep and 4 or 5 in the case of goats (much larger locks in case of transhumant tribals). The land they have is put under food grain crops for family food and the small ruminants they own subsist entirely on grazing. Small ruminants are raised primarily as meat animals, as wool is of very poor quality and meagre in yield (less than Rs.15 per year per animal, in two shearing). 

There is considerable bias against goats singling them out as the species most inimical to environment. The Forest Act prohibits presence of goats in villages along the perimeters of forests. Quite irrationally so: many of the forest herbivores are of the same or allied species and have identical browsing and grazing habits. It can't be anybody's case that wild caprine are environment friendly while their domesticated cousins are branded inimical to nature! There is now enough evidence generated in the country to show that goats are not particularly eco-unfriendly and that there are no grounds to single them out as the root cause of environmental degradation. Cattle account for over 90 per cent of the livestock load on land in "cattle-equivalent" terms and are in fact the most serious threat to ecological balance in India: they cause large scale biomass depletion, denudation of CPRs, massive soil erosion and large scale emission of green house gases. It is therefore essential to disabuse the minds of all concerned of this bias against goats, in order to enable the balanced growth and development of all species of livestock in the watershed areas, according to their livelihood intensity. 

Demand for small ruminants as meat animals is very high and dynamic private marketing channels from the producers to the consumers exist, through a multi-tier middlemen chain and the terms of trade are fair. Production of meat animals too therefore can be a high value option with irrigation. In watershed villages however, two separate approaches are necessary for the small ruminant farmers: (a) one for households owning larger flocks and (b) a different one for those who own less than 10 animals. 

(a) The larger flocks (more than 10) cannot be managed as stall-fed flocks as the numbers are far too many to provide for in terms of home grown fodder. They however get better intake of biomass from grazing, because of the general increase in biomass on account of improved soil moisture under the influence of watershed treatments. They will also receive supplementary feeding of green fodder in small quantities (one kilogram of a tropical grass-legume mix), bought from the high value fodder units in the command area. The small ruminant farmers will also receive chaff cutters and specially designed mangers for small ruminants, to optimise green / dry fodder utilisation, & UMB licks for enhancing nutrient availability from dry fodder and skill training for drenching and spraying against endo / ecto parasites. 

(b) Smaller flocks of less than 10 sheep and / or goat can advantageously be managed as stall-fed flocks. The total feed intake of the small ruminants in terms of dry matter is only 5 per cent of their body weight or 1.25 kg dry matter per animal per day: translated into dry and green fodder this works out to 1.5 kg of dry fodder or 5 kg of green fodder or a combination of 1 kg of dry fodder and 2 kg of green. Increased crop residue output under the influence of irrigation and cultivated green fodder bought from the high value fodder units in the command area, can sustain up to 10 sheep and / or goat completely stall fed. In addition, pods from leguminous trees and shrubs and tamarind tree seeds are excellent supplement feeds for small ruminants and per animal the requirement will only be 300 grams per day. The pods can be collected by the families, soaked overnight in water, crushed and fed to sheep and goat. Feeding of UMB licks would top off the feed requirements of stall fed small ruminants. Treatment of the flocks for ecto / endo parasites will increase the rate of weight gain by some 20 per cent and will reduce the finishing time for the market from 1 year to some 10 months. A flock of six ewes or does give an average of 6 one year olds per year for the market: an income of Rs.6000-7000.

Government policy for productivity enhancement among sheep and goat through crossbreeding them with exotic varieties is fraught with the danger of the sheep / goat populations loosing their inherent sturdiness, vitality and the ability to withstand stress. Unlike cross bred cows, cross bred sheep and goat receive no special management or feed, but are condemned to subsist and survive on grazing alone. All experiments on crossing of small ruminants had met with indifferent results all over India. Cross breeding of sheep has improved wool quality only marginally and quantity, even less. Indian wool quality is inferior, indigenous wool is not apparel quality and can be used only for Druggets, not even for carpets. Cleaned and carded imported apparel quality wool is available for Rs.35 f.o.b Indian Ports, whereas raw Indian wool in primary markets is expected to fetch prices upwards of Rs.35 per kg. Sheep husbandry for wool production is good only for those with very large flocks: small holders can eke out only subsistence from wool. Farmers are wise to these compulsions and therefore balance their output from sheep between wool and mutton. 

As the primary objective of small ruminant farming is meat animal production, cross breeding is not called for at all. Instead the policy should be selective breeding for faster growth and higher body weights: traits for which enormous selection differential exist among indigenous breeds. So selective breeding of indigenous breeds of sheep and goat should be promoted, through capacity building and empowerment of sheep / goat breeders in the watershed area. The Agricultural Universities in the states can provide the technical programme and training of breeders. 

(iii) Backyard Poultry: Meat & Egg Production 
Desi fowl is another species in the watershed villages, with enormous livelihood potential - in villages where fowls are prevalent, nearly all households except those of certain groups for religious reasons, keep desi fowls in backyard units. Desi fowls in the backyard units are free-range birds, foraging for feed and fending for themselves. The households shelter them only for the nights - that too under reed baskets on the house veranda. They need no out of pocket expenses, incur no overheads, make no demands on the meagre resources of the households, but do contribute substantially to the family nutrition and household income. Backyard units belong to the land less and the poorer marginal farmers and the holding size varies between 10 to 20 birds, mostly made up of layers and a couple of cocks. 

The output of the backyard system is table birds, not table eggs. Eggs from the backyard units cannot compete with the mainstream poultry industry: backyard eggs are fertilised eggs and so have very short shelf life. Over half the eggs produced are hatched for raising table chicken. Desi birds are in high demand as table birds and fetch much higher prices than broilers. A ten-hen flock can rise as many as 100 birds for the market per year: an income of over Rs.5000 for the family. Bigger flocks bring in proportionately higher incomes. With candling of eggs and timely vaccination of birds, yields from the backyard units can double, without any additional expenses.

The prerequisites for the backyard system are: (a) a brooding hen, that can sit on eggs for hatching them and (b) a hen with mothering instincts so that she can raise several batches of newly hatched chicks. Brooding and hatching are a continuous process in backyard units as hens tends to brood and hatch after every clutch of egg laying. Exotic birds and their crosses do not have these qualities and so are unfit for the backyard system. The biggest problem facing the backyard poultry system is diseases: almost 60 to 70 per cent of newly hatched chicks are lost to diseases. Timely vaccination can totally reduce mortality due to diseases and can save the entire batch of chicks. Eggs from foraging desi hens are not all fertile as they seldom receive balanced nutrition. So half the eggs set for hatching don't hatch and are spoiled. If farmers are trained in candling of eggs, they can segregate the infertile eggs before setting them for hatching and can use the unhatchable eggs for family food or for sale. Skills in Candling and vaccination can easily be transferred to farmers themselves. The equipment required for candling is just a candle and a paper cone! The impact of these skills: vaccination and candling, if available in the villages, is doubling of the output of the backyard units and doubling of the household incomes from backyard units.

(iv) Skill: Transfers for Livestock Related Income Generating Activities
Small Ruminant Farming: Several skills are needed for the day-to-day management of the small ruminant farming enterprises, all self help solutions that can be handled by the farmers themselves:

(a) The most critical impediment to successful small ruminant farming is parasitic infestations of sheep and goat. Ecto-parasites cause itching and sores all over the body leading to severe stress, loss of body weight, damage to skin and hair / wool, all resulting in considerably lower body weight, poor skin for processing and poor quality wool. Regular insecticide spraying at recommended intervals can completely get rid of the problems and avoidable losses. Farmers can do the spraying themselves, if trained in spraying, safeguards to be observed in choosing the drug and its handling. 

(b) Endo-parasites can be controlled by drenching the animals at recommended intervals with a deworming drug. If trained, farmers can carry out these tasks themselves. 

(c) Training in stall feeding of small ruminants: pod feeding, on farm fodder production, use of Urea molasses block licks for increased nutrient intake and better nutrient availability from poor quality feed stuffs.

(d) Vaccination of small ruminants against diseases

The combined impact of the treatments will be better growth rate and shorter finishing time; and therefore lower costs

Backyard Poultry System: Simple skills to be transferred to the backyard poultry farmers are:

(a) Training in vaccination of Fowls: Farmers hatch several batches of eggs during the year, almost as a continuous activity in their households. The newly hatched chicks need vaccinations against diseases from the day one to day 30, three or four vaccinations against important diseases. No institutional arrangement can satisfy the vaccination need because of the sheer volumes involved and the spatial distribution of the backyard units. Trained farmers can do it themselves. If not vaccinated, nearly half the batch of chicks is lost to diseases. Vaccinations alone can result in doubling of the table bird output and double farm incomes.

(b) Candling of eggs: Eggs of foraging birds are not all fertile because of imbalanced nutrient intake, often as high as half the clutch. If all eggs are set for hatching, half of them do not hatch and are spoiled. If trained in candling, farmers can segregate infertile eggs before they are set for hatching and the segregated eggs can be consumed by the family or sold for table purposes. Candling is a very simple process, needs only a candle and a paper cone; and farmers can easily be trained in this skill. 

(c) Training in Termite Harvesting: Almost all over India, termites are a big problem. If farmers are trained in this traditional practice prevalent in some areas of Tamil Nadu, it becomes an excellent protein supplement for backyard fowls and a good biological control for termites. The process is simple and farmers can be trained easily in this practice.

All skill transfers listed can be arranged in the villages itself, together for a cluster of villages in the watersheds and one Trainer can carry out the training and skill transfers for all micro watersheds in a sub watershed. Ideally, one member of the SHGs in each area / micro watershed, preferably a woman, can be trained in all these skills and he or she can function as the AH Link Worker for the micro watershed.

5.3 Livestock Services
State Departments of Animal Husbandry have very large field institutional networks for delivery of livestock services; all of them manned by government employed Veterinary Professionals and Para-Professionals. The most important among the services that the departments provide are Curative Veterinary Services for all species of animals and Artificial Insemination for cattle and buffalo. Services are provided at the institutions and farmers have to take their animals to the institution for receiving these services. The hospitals and dispensaries have only a token supply of medicines and the animal owner invariably has to procure medicines and consumable for treatments from the local trade. AI Services are so poor that less than 20 per cent result in pregnancy: farmers are required to present their animals repeatedly at the centre for repeat AI Services. And less than 10 per cent of the breeding animals are covered under AI, in almost all states.

Farmers find it extremely difficult to transport their sick animals / cows in heat, to the service institutions, often involving half a day's labour for two. Cows in heat driven along busy thoroughfares often are under stress and stress is anti pregnancy! In actual practice over 75 per cent of the cases treated and artificial inseminations, are home delivered by the veterinarians and paraprofessionals of the department as private arrangements, with service fees charged at market prices. The livestock owners consider these as essential services and have no objection at all to paying for them. The best part of the day however (from 8 in the morning to 5 in the evening) the professionals are required to be present in the institution, severely impinging on their practice and restricting their reach and coverage of farmers. Village communities in watershed areas report that they have restricted access to veterinary and AI services, and irregular home delivery, from the government institutions, as professionals can practice only after office hours.

Veterinary hospitals and dispensaries are an aberration in the livestock services delivery system, perpetuated by the veterinary profession in India; and encountered only in South Asia. Veterinary Hospitals and Dispensaries have no role to play in farm animal practice, as treatment for farm animals have to be delivered animal-side. An animal receives exactly the same treatment unmindful of where it is treated - in the hospital or in the farmers' home, unlike in the case of human medical practice. World over government or private veterinarians deliver services cow-side (home delivered). Hospitals and dispensaries are relevant only for pet animal practice. Allowed to practice full time the same number of professionals in government service can cover five times the number of farmers for services delivery, as they do now. 

The alternative would be to permit the serving veterinarians and paraprofessionals of the department (livestock assistants / livestock inspectors), to become full time mobile practitioners, with their own arrangements for supplies and transport (motor Cycles) for their practices, home delivering both Veterinary and AI services as paid inputs at market prices. Hospitals, dispensaries and other centres would then become redundant and the non-professional staff in them, adjusted elsewhere. The State Governments should make the necessary changes in the legal and regulatory framework to enable them to practice as government servants and to accept fees at market prices, as their incentive and private income. The practices will reduce costs for farmer because of the economy of scale; reduce expenditure for the government on account of saved supply cost, salary savings of a considerable number of non-professional staff in these institutions, establishment costs and the costs of day-to-day management of the widely scattered departmental institutions. 

On a different plane, livestock farmers need constant access to minor veterinary services in the day-to-day management of their household livestock enterprises (skills like vaccinations, deworming, spraying for parasites, candling of eggs etc). These Services do not need the skills of the veterinarian or even of the paraprofessional of the department. In any case such services are beyond the reach of the professionals because of the sheer volume of the work and its spatial distribution. Such skills can be built into a community driven paravet system, involving trained village youth, practising in a cluster of villages, dispensing minor veterinary services and AI, under the supervision of registered veterinary practitioners, as provided for under the Veterinary Council Act. The system has worked well in many states and a model of the system and the training module, developed by the World Bank assisted IWDP States in North India can advantageously be replicated in all watershed areas in all states. The paravet can home deliver minor veterinary services as well as AI services to watershed communities and is the least-cost solution to effective livestock services delivery. The setting up of the system should entirely be left to the communities in watershed areas, the government only reimbursing the initial investment costs (promotional role of governments).

Less than 20 per cent of the cattle in India belong to descript breeds and only some 30 per cent of them are dairy breeds. Replacing the remaining 80 per cent of the nondescript cattle (particularly in watershed areas) with high yielding crossbreds is the challenge and this is not in conflict with the conservation of the descript breeds. On the same plane, grading up non-descript buffaloes commonly found in watershed villages with Murrah Breed is another challenge in the pursuit of productivity enhancement. Higher productivity is the key to reduction in large ruminant populations in watershed villages, a primary requirement for sustainable natural resource management. Cross breeding of nondescript cattle and grading up of nondescript buffaloes with Murrah breed in watershed villages are both dependent on efficient AI services in watershed areas. Government services are undependable and of very poor quality. Therefore setting up of an independent paravet system home delivering AI services, promoted by the watershed communities outside of the government, is a priority policy intervention.

5.4 Production Inputs 

(i) Feeds & Fodder

Increasing livestock numbers and the growing integration of farm households into both input and output markets and the consequent increasing household incomes from livestock, have steadily pushed up the demand for all production inputs and services in the livestock sector: Feeds and Fodder, Veterinary Drugs, Veterinary Pharmaceuticals, Vaccines and Biological agents, Veterinary and AI services, as well as Credit and Insurance. There had also been matching increase in the supply of most of these inputs, except in the case of Feed Concentrates, where critical shortages persist, if demand estimates based on nutritional requirements form the basis for balancing Demand and Supply. 

All livestock production across all species (except the organised poultry industry) depends on crop residues, crop by products and grazing in the common property resources (CPRs). The crop residues commonly available are straws, stalks, stovers, tops and crop thrush; crop by products like brans, husk, chunni, cotton seed, expeller cakes and solvent extraction meals. Grazing accounts for some 30 to 50 per cent of the total dry matter intake of the large ruminants and grazing along with browsing on shrubs and bushes, almost 100 per cent in case of small ruminants. In general, information available on fodder supply lacks accuracy, a great deal. Almost all these estimates were armchair exercises: supply quantities estimated by different groups for more or less the same period differ widely and demand estimates are based exclusively on the nutritional requirements of the different species and their numbers. There had never been any attempt to work out the effective (economic) demand of feeds and fodder, so far. While these estimates portray huge deficits in supply, all species have increased in numbers three to four times in the past five decades and their outputs have gone up three times during the same period. 

Estimated Deficits in Feed & Fodder Supply 1951- 2006

Source: George Jacob1985, Institute of Economic Growth, Estimate of the Policy Advisory Committee MoEF 1993, and Sub-Group on Feed Production Enhancement for the 10th plan, 2001.

The farming community balances the demand-Supply gaps by following a discriminatory feeding regime within their herds, the high yielding animals receive larger quantities and better quality feed stuffs; older and unproductive animals receive the poorest quality and subsistence rations; work animals are raised on dry fodder only, with concentrate supplements during the working season. Home grown / bought out crop residues and grazing on CPRs, are the universal treatments for all animals. There are regional and seasonal variations in the availability of the different feed and fodder and farmers' feeding practices take into account these variations in supply. The aggregates of these actual feeding practices constitute the effective demand for feeds and fodder in the country. 

In the watershed context there are compulsions to balance the demand and supply of feeds and fodder as a prerequisite to sustainable natural resource management. The policy interventions to balance fodder demand and supply would be: 

(i) Rationalisation of the ruminant population size through promotion of partial mechanisation of farm operations, increased productivity through genetic improvement and culling and removal of unproductive animals; 

(ii) Promotion of stall-feeding of ruminants through provision for shelters and community driven deterrence to discourage open grazing; 

(iii) Maximisation of fodder utilisation through provision for feeding mangers, chaff cutters for chopping fodder, enhancing nutrient availability from coarse fodders by urea treatment and feeding of UMB Licks; and 

(iv) Enhancing fodder supply through increased crop residue output, promotion of on-farm fodder production (perennial shrubs and tropical grasses on crop borders, mini kits of fodder cultivars for crop / plot borders).

(ii) Prevention & Control of Diseases

All Livestock in the country are at considerable disease risk and the recurrent ravages of epidemics cause huge losses to the livestock owners and to the country (annually almost 10 per cent of the total annual output value of the livestock sector: some Rs.120 Billion in 2000-'01; and preclusion of Indian livestock products from the world markets)9. The smallholder group owns over 80 per cent of all species of livestock and over 80 per cent of all livestock produce comes from them. Livestock farmers, the poorest of the poor in the country, bear the brunt of these avoidable losses, which sap them of the vitality of their livestock enterprises and render them progressively unviable. Public funds made available to the animal husbandry departments are mostly spent on curative veterinary care: a private good, while preventive veterinary care, a public good, is grossly neglected. Curative veterinary care generates only private benefit to the livestock owner and does not influence the endemicity of diseases; while preventive veterinary care controls diseases, prevents epidemics and generates enormous public good for the entire nation, minimising losses and opening up global market opportunities. Sadly enough, there seems to be no appreciation of this policy imperative in spite of a comprehensive sector review and recommendations to this effect by a high powered Steering Group of the Government of India as early as 1996, much to the misfortune of the Indian livestock farmer.

While comprehensive disease control programmes are clearly beyond the scope of watershed development authorities, preventive veterinary care through the community driven paravets can avoid / minimise losses to the livestock owners within the watershed. This however should not be sporadic vaccinations, but a well orchestrated loss prevention measure together with all zoo-sanitary precautions within the watershed, based on a least cost containment strategy, with costs shared by the community, can benefit all livestock farmers in the watershed reducing their risks and improving their viability. 


5.4 Credit Policy and Access to Credit
A fourth of the smallholder spectrum (the bottom end) in watershed villages lives below the poverty line. They are unable to optimise their existing meagre resource base on account of acute working capital shortage. Institutional Credit is cumbersome and involves elaborate procedural wrangles. Even on the threshold of the 21st century, livestock farmers unfortunately have to depend on the traditional moneylenders for over 50 per cent of their credit needs. Lack of access to good quality credit undermines their potential for livestock production: of the total Rs.530 bln agricultural credit disbursed in 2000-'01, less than 5 per cent (Rs.2.5 bln) was livestock credit, that too for term loans10. There is no provision for cash credit for livestock production, while some Rs.300 bln out of the total agricultural credit, was cash credit for crop production. Even Kisan cards deny the livestock farmer access to credit for livestock inputs, while enabling credit for crop inputs, in his mixed crop-livestock farm! 

Livestock farmers have no umbrella schemes for micro-credit like the RBI promoted MFDF in the NABARD, Joint Action Group of NABARD and SIDBI or the Consortium of the Commercial Banks and the Khadi & Village Industries Board, all for micro-credit for the non-agriculture sectors. Back yard poultry system is the prime candidate for micro-credit in the livestock sector. Access to micro credit in the livestock sector could spectacularly enhance the viability of the backyard poultry system (30 mln marginal farmers and landless households) and perhaps double or treble their output. 

Access to good quality credit would enable millions of marginal farm families living below the poverty line to rapidly rise above the poverty line and move away from subsistence farming and into the market economy, with substantially higher productivity and incomes. Credit in fact is the most important input for the livestock sector in India and in the watershed context access to good quality credit, adequate credit outlay and micro credit are important policy imperatives.