1.1 LAND
Preamble: Nearly 25% area of the earth is land. Man uses land for dwelling, agriculture, industry, communication and other gains that can meet her/ his needs. Land provides dwelling space, shelter, grazing/ hunting ground for live-stock or other animals. The land from equator to polar region, have wide variation within them in terms of temperature, proximity to water, soil type, drainage, vegetation, height from sea level, other geophysical condition. Some regions being disaster prone or scarce in natural resources are unfit for human habitation. Domestic animal population follows the human habitation pattern.

By one estimate growth rate of population between 1985 and 2010 in urban areas of developing countries is estimated to be 3.4% as against 0.8% in rural areas. Consequently the percentage of urban population is expected rise from the present 30% level (31.2%) to more than 46% (46.2%)*.

* Dimentions of need, 1994-95: An atlas of Food & Agriculture (FAO) Pp.21,34,35

Urbanisation does not only exert pressure on land, but would also increase the urban food demand. Consequently there would be pressure to produce more with less/ no land.

1.1.2 The perspective of Animal production of the west: 85% of the federal land in US is grazed by live-stock. Meat animals play an important role as meat is the staple food there. It is alleged that extensive grazing would result in desertification of the grassland and spread growth of exotic plants. This happens as the grasslands are no more natural, but are nurtured ones. When animals are stall fed grain based concentrates, though production rises vertically and factor productivity tends to be favourable, large nitrogen rich patches are created in the animal waste deposits in the western ranches/ lagoons. Adoption of stall feeding of animals in large numbers is also considered to produce a Green house effect due to methane released in large volume. Use of Growth hormones and antibiotics in large quantity to maximize (not optimize) production is another point raised against the animal production system of the west. The residues of animal waste spread through intensive production have already been identified in drinking water. 

Live-stock wastes from the animals fed on concentrates contain harmful quantities of chemicals. In U.S. animal waste produced is 130 times more than the human waste. Soil change and displacement of wild life, cruelty issues are being raised against beef, pork, chickens production. [www.api4animals.org/doc.asp]

1.1.3 INDIA: its animals, population and land
India holds nearly one billion land mammals and birds (including live-stock, other domestic animals, ferals, wild life, laboratory animals/ birds). India's human population has crossed the billionth mark already and is distributed unevenly in 36 political units called the States/ Union Territories which in turn are spread among 85 regions. The geophysical conditions of these regions, the food habits and socio-economic condition of the people vary widely, and so do the density of human population and distribution & density of animals, as also the pattern of animal rearing.

Population: 97.46% of the population of India is distributed among 15 states with the rest of the 17 states/ UT's holding a very small chunk, numerically. Density of population too vary Pondicherry is leading the list [1642 persons/ sq. Km.] and Arunachal Pradesh tailing the list [10 persons/ sq. Km.] 

Land distribution in India: 30% of India's rural population is landless. As per National Sample Survey (NSS) 1981-82, 56% land holders were marginal holders and 19.3% small holders. NSS 1991-92 indicates that marginal farmers have increased to 62.8% and small holders reduced to 17.8%. Interestingly, the marginal holders own only 15.6% of the land in the country with larger land holders owning nearly 84% of the operational area of agricultural land. There had been a steady decrease in the size of land holdings per person. 

Table 1. Livestock population in India and World-1995 (In Million)

Animal distribution: A very interesting observation derived from the data published by the statistics division of the Dept. Animal husbandry Government of India is that out of nearly 800 million livestock of India, 90%are distributed within 13 to 15 States/UT of the country. 90% 0f the cattle, buffalo, goat and sheep population are distributed in 11 states of India, while . 90-91% of poultry and pigs are concentrated in13 and 15 states respectively.

Animal population is high in states like Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, U.P. Gujarat, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Assam, Rajasthan, J&K. Other regions too have relevant animal species. We have an approx. length of 8041 Km. coastline for marine fishery in India; it covers 3726 villages. Fishery (inland and marine) dominate in states like, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Orissa, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal. Inland fish is high in A.P, Assam, Bihar, MadhyaPradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, T.N, U.P.& West Bengal. 

Table 2. LIVE-STOCK POPULATION OF INDIA AND THAT OF ANDHRA PRDESH (in millions)

Table 2. LIVE-STOCK POPULATION OF INDIA AND THAT OF ANDHRA PRDESH (in millions)

1.1.4 Land use of India 
India has little more than 300 Million (M.) hectares of land (reporting) area, though the geographical area is 329 M. Of this, roughly 46.8% is used for cropping. Only 37.4% of the cropped land area is irrigated, the rest being rain fed ie. dependant on weather. 86.62% of cropped area is being used consistently for food grain production alone. 40% of the food grain cultivating areas are irrigated. 

Availability of land is influenced by per capita land holding, it distribution, geophysical conditions, agro-climate, land use and usability.

By 1994 there were some 500 million landless people in rural areas of developing countries; over 900 million if farmers with little land are added in. In India 30% of the rural population is landless. There had been a steady decrease in the size of land holdings per person.

DISASTER: One reason for uneven distribution of population is the habitability of a region. 25 of the 35 States/Union Territories prone to some disaster or the other. Experience show, that vulnerability and the impact of disaster are more on the economically as well as socially marginalised sections of the community. The rich and the affordable section of the community opt out of disaster prone regions, leaving the weaker sections to dwell there. This section, by and large depends on animals, for livelihood. The management of animals in disaster has not received the attention it deserves. In the Andhra Pradesh cyclone of November 14-20 during 1977, we lost 2,30,146 cattle, 3,44,056 other livestock as against 8,515 human lives. Similarly in Orissa cyclone of June 4, 1982 there had been 11,468 cattle lost against 243 human deaths (loss of other animal is not projected). Earthquakes have comparatively lesser impact on animals; but in Uttarkashi earthquake 3100 cattle heads were lost against 770 human deaths; between 1953-1990 we lost 1,02,905 cattle against 1532 human lives. In 1999 Orissa cyclone 10,000 humans and 5,00,000 animals died.

1.1.5 USE OF LAND AND ANIMAL HUSBADRY IN INDIA
Animal Husbandry system in India is essentially a vocation of millions of small holders who raise animals on crop residues (CR) and common property resources (CPR). As the system is not grain based, it does not put animals to compete with man for food. Behind this system is a time tested conventional animal rearing and a large array of indigenous breeds of domestic and semi-domestic animals living in an absolute harmony with man and nature. (Dr. C.M.Singh)
*As per data available in 1994-95, India had 87 Million Tons (MT) of wheat straw, 2.7 MT maize cobs and 89.5 MT of sugar cane bagasse. 

Unlike the west which has large grasslands earmarked for animal rearing, India is left with only a 11.3 million hectares of permanent pasture. Less than 4% of cultivable land is used for fodder. The total production of maze, a major component of compounded animal feed, is less than 9 million Tons (MT). Maze is a food grain and its diversion as animal feed would result in the animals competing with man for food. Furthermore, the biome for maze is limited in India.

PERMANENT PASUTRE IN INDIA AND IN SOME OTHER COUNTRIES
Brazil - 18.6 Million Hectares
S. Africa - 81.3 Million Hectares
U.K. - 11.0 Million Hectares
U.S.A. - 239.0 Million Hectares
China - 400.0 Million Hectares
India - 11.3 Million Hectares

LAND REQUIREMENT AND THE NUMBER OF LIVE-STOCK IN INDIA
It would appear from the data that India has proportionately large animal population in relation to the pasture it has. At times it was alleged that the goat population of India is much more than any country can afford and that the goats are detrimental to India's ecosystem/ environment. But it was soon found that such a fear is not based on facts. The fact remains that for generations the country had been rearing live-stock including goats with no evidence of desertification or depletion of environment attributable to the steady growth in the number and overall production of goats. Goats in India are not always reared in large flocks. Goats in backyard or dairy goat rearing is common in India. 

The animal rearing pattern varies with the consumer preference for animal products. While the west has a priority for meat animals and animals producing low fat milk, the Indian consumer consumes less of meat and prefers milk rich in fat. They retain their dairy animals for at least 10-15 lactations and use their male calves as work animals. With the consumer preferences, the systems of selection and management too vary widely. Under the circumstances one can not develop policies based on scientific information obtained from and relevant to the west. A meticulous study of animal profile, farmers' profile, community profile, market profile, health profile, resource profile would be needed before any live-stock policy is finalized. India has 30 recognised breeds of cattle, 15 breeds of buffaloes, 42 breeds of sheep, 20 of goats, 8 of horses, many ponies, donkeys and innumerable ethnic breeds of dogs. Our own breeds of poultry (18 breeds are recorded ) and other livestock had been used for evolving some of the worlds best utility animals. India has many uncharacterised breeds of animals, being reared by the animal owners in remote regions. 

[Of late, an attempt has been made to put on record nearly 130 of our livestock breeds which hitherto evaded the attention of our policy makers and planners.]

Though the degree of involvement varies from region to region, on an average sixty percent of labour for livestock rearing in India is provided by women and more than 90% of work related to care of animals is rendered by womenfolk of the family. As high as 70% of livestock in India is owned by 67% of small, marginal and landless farmers. This fact points towards the scope of animal husbandry in a pro-poor program. A major chunk of live-stock farmers in India living themselves on edge, produce milk, meat, eggs etc. often at a cost that is unimaginably low. Factor productivity and cost effectiveness of animal production of each region of India may have to be meticulously studied before any inference is drawn on the conventional systems of animal husbandry of India.

CONCLUSION: It can be seen that in India one can not envisage a development program involving increased land use or use of grain; both these are in short supply. Therefore such programs may prove unsustainable in the long run. One has to study the current animal husbandry pattern that is essentially an endeavor of the small holders and run on a low input- low output system. India produces 80 Million Tons (MT) of milk through a system where the major stake holder is the small holder and the system is conventional. To plan a proper intervention, one has to take into account the animal profile vis-à-vis the community profile in each region. Similarly one has to study the production system of other live-stock species as well. Any proposal or intervention aimed at development or poverty alleviation would prove sustainable only if we base it on our natural resources including the capacity of our stake holders. It is well said that, "If favours given are beyond the capacity of the receiver, it is as good as not given."