NAAS Score 2020

                   5.36

UserOnline

Free counters!

Previous Next

Adoption Behavior of Improved Pig Production Technology in Meghalaya of India

S. K. Das S. K. Baisya
Vol 2(2), 111-121
DOI-

It was revealed that in Meghalaya most of the farmers were low and partial adopter of pig production technology (PPT). It may be concluded that cost of technology is one of the important criteria for adoption of improved pig husbandry among the farmers. Since housing, feeding and health management practices of pig cost high hence majority of the farmers adopted pig production technology at partial and low level. It reflected from the study that education status of farmer and training received by the farmers from SAU and ICAR institute had significant effect on adoption behaviour of respondents. If farmers are educated, they are confident to adopt any new technology. At the same time if farmers get training and other kind of exposure, they can take decision for the adoption of any new technology. It was also found that education, annual income and training exposure were significantly and positively correlated with adoption level of pig production technology. It was also observed that old aged farmer adopted pig production technology mostly and farmers having long experience of piggery adopted this new technology at high level. The farmers having rich economic condition were able to take any risk of adopting new technology and therefore economically sound farmers adopted this technology at high level. So, social characteristics of the farmers go a long way to influence the adoption of pig production technology and it is necessary to get an insight about the adoption behavior of farmer before development and dissemination of any technology.


Keywords : Pig Production Technology Meghalaya Adoption Level

Introduction

Livestock contributes about 40 % to the GNP. Hence it constitutes the backbone of Indian Agriculture. Livestock currently employs about 8 % of the India’s work force and has been growing during the last two decades at an annual rate of 4.5 % in comparison to 2.2 % in Agriculture sector. It provides more self-employment opportunities for the socially backward and tribal people including rural woman. In areas where agriculture is impossible as in the deserts and hilly region livestock is able to survive and solve food problem. Livestock sector is one among the few growth sectors in India, which is directly linked with the livelihood of more than 70 % of rural population. Moreover India has great potentiality to export animal products. Meghalaya is tribal dominated hill state in Eastern Himalayan Region. The pig is the animal of priority in this state. The pig population in this region is higher than national level. 100 % of the people in Meghalaya are pork eater and obviously demand for pork in this state is very high. It is estimated that to meet the demand of pork for this region pig population is to be increased by 1.64 million. In this region local pig of Meghalaya, Nagaland, Assam is available. Besides that crossbred pig and exotic pigs such as Hampshire, Large Black, and Saddle Back are also available for the development of piggery. So, there is golden opportunity for development of commercial large-scale piggery and backyard small-scale piggery in Meghalaya. There is a need to identify the factors that contribute positively to the adoption of new livestock technologies as well as those that represent main constraints for the adoption process (Nell et al 1998).  So, this study was done to find the adoption behavior of pig production technology in different districts of Meghalaya.

Materials and Methods

Three villages one from each district were selected at random , such as Mawriang village from East Khasi Hill district, Saiden village from Ribhoi district and Mawlasnai village from West Khasi Hill district. Ten farmers from each village, in total thirty farmers were selected from three villages. Demonstration and training of farmers were conducted. Farmers constructed concrete house with concrete floor, wall and GI sheet roof for keeping pig. Afterwards one unit of crossbred pig consisting of one male and two females was given to each and every farmer. They provided vegetables grown in their kitchen garden, household offal, local grass and concentrate mash feed consisted of rice bran, rice polish, GNC, fish meal, vitamin and mineral mixture. Pig production technology was consisting of improved package of practices for housing, breeding, feeding, health care and management for economic production of pork, bristle and manure. In order to ascertain extent of adoption of improved technology, the responses of farmers were collected on five selected practices. The score was assigned for the adoption of each of the practices in the following way:

Adoption Pattern Score
Non-adoption 0
Low Adoption 1
Partial Adoption 2
High Adoption 3

The total score for a farmer is obtained by summing up the score obtained on each practices. The adoption level of the farmer was measured by making use of adoption index developed.

Adoption Index = Respondent’s total score x 100 / Total possible score

Depending upon the extent of adoption of improved technologies the respondents were categorized as follows:

1) Low adopters (up to 33%),

2) Partial adopters (34 – 66%) and

3) High adopters (67-100%).

The study was carried out with nine independent variables and one dependent variable (Adoption of improved technologies on piggery) of the pig farmers. Age, education level, family size, main occupation, herd size, sex, annual income, farming experience, training received were independent variables selected for the study. Statistical analysis was done with the help of SPSS 10.0 package.

Results and Discussion

It was revealed that in Meghalaya most of the farmers were low and partial adopter of pig production technology (PPT). It was observed that equal percent of farmers (36.67 %) adopted improved pig rearing practices partially and lowly. While only 26.66 % farmers were high adopter of pig production technology (Table -1). In contrast to present findings in Meghalaya, Rahman (2007) reported that 51 % farmers were partial adopter of pig production technology in Mizoram.

It was revealed that improved housing of pig production technology was adopted by 20 % farmer at high level, 36.67 % farmers at partial and low level equally. 6.66 % did not adopt this practice at all due to high cost involvement in housing of pig (Table – 2). Rahman (2007) reported that majority of farmers adopted housing at low level. Majority of farmers (66.67%) adopted feeding practices partially, while 20 % adopted at high level and 13.33 % at low level. In contrast to present finding Rahman (2007) indicated that majority of farmers adopted feeding at low level. On the contrary majority of farmers (46.67%) adopted breeding practices at low level. Very high percent of low adopter of breeding practices was due to lack of facility and lack of awareness in that area. Only 3 % farmers adopted highly and 36.67 % adopted technology partially. Non adoption of the practices was observed by around 13.33 % farmers.  Rahman (2007) reported that 8 % farmers adopted breeding at high level. Similarly majority of farmers (40 %) adopted improved health practices at low level; while 13.33 % adopted highly and 36.67 % adopted partially. 10 % farmers did not adopt these practices at all. Rahman (2007) reported high level of adoption in the health care in contrast to present finding. Regarding adoption of general management practices, no farmer adopted this at high level, 36.67 % farmers adopted partially, 23.33 % at low level and 40 % farmers were non adopter of this practices. In contrast to present findings Rahman (2007) reported that 50 % farmers adopted PPT related to general management practices partially.

It was observed that there was no significant difference in adoption index between the villages; however adoption level of PPT was highest in Mawriang village of East Khasi Hill district (Table – 3). Education of farmer had significant (P < 0.05) effect on the adoption behaviour of pig farmers. It was observed that adoption index was significantly higher among the farmers having qualification upto secondary and higher secondary level than the farmer with primary level education. It indicated that qualified farmers were confident enough to adopt new package of practices. Herd size of farmer had highly significant (P < 0.01) influence on the adoption behaviour of farmer. Adoption index was significantly higher in farmers who had large number of pigs i.e. above seven than the farmers having five to seven pigs and the farmers having only four numbers of pigs. It indicated that the farmers who had more number of pigs showed more inclination to adopt improved package of pig production. Income level of farmers had also highly significant (P < 0.01) influence on the adoption behaviour of farmer. It was observed that the adoption index of farmers whose annual income was more than Rs 10000 /- was significantly higher than the farmers having annual income Rs 5000 -10000 /- and below Rs 5000 /-.It was also seen that richest farmer adopted improved pig practices at high level. It appeared that farmers who were economically sound could take the risk of adopting any new technology rather than the farmers having low income.  Training had highly significant (P < 0.01) effect on the adoption behaviour of farmer for the adoption of PPT. Adaptation index was significantly higher in the farmers who had undertaken training on PPT than that of the farmers who had not taken any training or had not received any exposure on PPT. Age of farmer had no significant effect on the adoption level of farmer. However adoption index of old farmers was highest indicating that old farmers were experienced about the improved package of pig production. This finding was in agreement with the findings of Adesehinwa et al (2003) who reported that higher adoption of pig farming was among the old farmers of age group 51 – 60 years. Sex had no significant influence on the adoption behaviour of farmer. However it was observed that female (50.27 %) farmers were better adopter of PPT than male farmer (47.07 %). The reason was that in Meghalaya society was dominated by women and they were more educated than males. Therefore female farmers were more prone to adopt PPT. In one study at Nigeria it was reported by Adesehinwa et al (2003) that the pig farming was a male dominated enterprise. Oni and Yusuf (1999) also experienced the same view that majority of male farmers were adopter of pig farming technology. Occupation had no significant effect on the adoption behaviour of farmer for PPT. However, farmers whose main occupation was service rather than agriculture and business adopted PPT more intensely due to the reason, in service there is fixed source of income whereas in other groups there is uncertainty in income. Hence farmers whose main profession is Table-1 : Overall adoption level of pig farmers for pig production technology

SL No

Level of Adoption

Score Index

Frequency of farmers

% of adoption

1

Low Adopter

Upto 33 %

11

36.67

2

Partial Adopter

34 – 66 %

11

36.67

3

High Adopter

67 – 100 %

8

26.66

Table-2: Practice wise distribution of farmers according to extent of adoption :-

SL No

Technology / Improved Practices

Level of Adoption

Frequency of farmers

% of farmers

1

Housing

High

Partial

Low

Non adoption

6

11

11

2

20.00

36.67

36.67

6.66

2

Feeding

High

Partial

Low

Non adoption

6

20

4

0

20.00

66.67

13.33

0.00

3

Breeding

High

Partial

Low

Non adoption

1

11

14

4

3.33

36.67

46.67

13.33

4

Health Care

High

Partial

Low

Non adoption

4

11

12

3

13.33

36.67

40.00

10.00

5

General Management

High

Partial

Low

Non adoption

0

11

7

12

0.00

36.67

23.33

40.00

Table-3: Influence of different socio economic factors on the adoption behaviour of farmers:-

SL No

Parameters

Adoption Index (AI)

F Value

Mean ± SE (N)

1

Village

Mawriang

Saiden

Mawlankhar

63.50 ± 13.44 (13)

41.53 ± 4.39 (12)

52.00 ± 10.43 (5)

1.312 NS

2

Age

Young (< 30 years)

Middle Age (30 – 50 years)

Old (> 50 years)

42.71 ± 4.77 (7)

50.07 ± 5.70 (14)

51.11 ± 7.98 (9)

0.389 NS

3

Sex

Male

Female

47.07 ± 4.46 (15)

50.27 ± 5.98 (15)

0.184 NS

4

Education

Primary (upto V)

Secondary (VI – X)

Higher Secondary (XI and above)

39.07 b ± 4.53 (14)

56.38 a ± 5.94 (13)

60.00 a ± 4.04 (3)

3.548 *

5

Occupation

Agriculture

Business

Others

42.71 ± 3.92 (17)

53.38 ± 8.76 (8)

61.40 ± 9.21 (5)

2.112 NS

6

Family Size

Small (4 heads)

Medium (5 – 7 heads)

Large (above 7 heads)

36.29 ± 4.02 (7)

53.92 ± 5.60 (12)

50.82 ± 7.07 (11)

1.904 NS

7

Herd Size

Small (4 pigs)

Medium (5 – 7 pigs)

Large (above 7 pigs)

34.29 b ± 4.16 (7)

40.73 b ± 4.44 (11)

64.33 a ± 5.36 (12)

10.279 **

8

Farming Experience

< 5 years

5 – 10 years

> 10 years

40.86 ± 5.15 (7)

45.87 ± 5.42 (15)

60.75 ± 7.03 (8)

2.300 NS

9

Annual Income

< 5000/-

5000 – 10000/-

> 10000/-

34.11 b ± 3.56 (9)

40.00 b ± 3.79 (10)

68.45 a ± 4.86 (11)

19.853 **

10

Training Received

Yes

No

58.20 a ± 4.76 (15)

39.13 b ± 4.52 (15)

8.445 **

Figures having different superscripts in a column differ significantly (P < 0.05)

Table-4. Correlation of adoption of pig production technology with different factors

Sl No

Factors

Correlation Coefficient (r)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Age

Sex

Family Size

Education

Main Occupation

Herd Size

Farming Experience

Annual Income

Training Received

0.147

0.081

– 0.038

          0.431 *

       0.367 *

       0.624 **

     0.361

       0.721* *

  0.481 **

service, they were confident enough to adopt PPT, because for piggery initial investment for housing and purchasing animals was very high. These findings contradicted with the findings of Adesehinwa et al (2003) as they reported that farming community was mostly involved in piggery. Family size had no significant influence on the adoption behaviour of farmer regarding improved pig rearing practices. However, farmers whose family members were 5 – 7, adopted PPT mostly. Farming Experience also had no significant effect on the adoption behaviour of farmer for PPT. But it was found that farmers who had experienced of more than ten years about the pig rearing practices were highest adopter of technology and farmers with least experience adopted PPT at lowest level. Similar to present findings, Adesehinwa et al (2003) also reported that majority of pig farmers had 11-15 years experience.

Correlation coefficient was determined between different socioeconomic factors of farmers and adoption index of farmer for PPT which was delineated in Table-4. It was observed that education and occupation were significantly (P < 0.05) and positively correlated with the adoption index of farmer which indicated that with the increase of education level and occupation level adoption level of farmers also increased. In another way it can be said that higher education of farmers helped to take decision and influenced adoption level. This findings was corroborated with the findings of Haque and Ray (1983), Motamed and Singh (2003) and Rahman (2007). Herd size, annual income of farmers and training required were highly significantly (P < 0.01) and positively correlated with the adoption behavior of farmers. So, it can be inferred that with the increase of herd size ie number of pigs in the herd, annual income of farmers and the exposure of training, adoption level of PPT was also increased. Rahman (2007) reported the same view that farmers having large number of pigs adopted improved technologies. However, age, sex, family size and farming experience of farmer were positively and non significantly correlated with the adoption behavior of farmers in respect of PPT. But in contrast to present findings Rahman (2007) found significantly negative correlation between age and adoption level. He also reported significantly positive correlation between farming experience and adoption level. In conformity with the present finding Rahman (2007) indicated highly significant and positive correlation between training received and adoption index of improved pig practices. So, training and exposure to new package of practices might have stimulated farmers to adopt pig production technology.

Acknowledgement

Authors were thankful to Director ICAR Research Complex for NEH Region, Barapani and Head of the division for providing necessary facilities to carry out the research.

References

Adesehinwa A O K, Makinde G E O and Oladele O I . 2003. Socio economic characteristics of pig farmers as determinant of pig feeding pattern in Oyo state, Nigeria. Livestock Research for Rural Development. 15 (12)

Haque A and Ray G C 1983 Factors Related to the Adoption of Recommended Species of Fish in Composite Fish Culture. Indian Journal of Extension Education XIX (1 and 2): 74-83

Motamed M K and Singh B 2003 Correlation of Adoption of Improved Sericulture Practices. Indian Journal of Extension Education XXXIX (1 and 2):51-57.

Nell W T, Schalkwyk van H D, Sanden J H, Schwalbach L and Bester C J 1998 Adoption of Veterinary Surgeon Service by Sheep and Goat Farmers in Qwaqwa, Agrekon, 37 (4):418-434.

Oni OA and Yusuf S A 1999 The effect of farmer,s socio economic characteristics on livestock production in Ibadan metropolis. In Proc. 4 th Conference Anim. Sci. Nig. IITA, Ibadan, P. 245-246.

Rahman S 2007 Adoption of improved technologies by the pig farmers of Aizal district of Mizoram, India. Livestock Research for Rural Development. 19 (1) .

Full Text Read : 1501 Downloads : 0
Previous Next

Open Access Policy

Close