Introduction

Pig husbandry has special significance for improving the socio-economic status of the tribal farmers in north eastern India (Kadirvel et al., 2013). This region offers ample scope for piggery development because of the traditional involvement of rural tribal and other weaker sections of the population in pig rearing activities besides their food habits and absence of taboos and stigmas against consumption of pork and pork products. In these areas, pig farmers follow a low to no input pork production system mostly under scavenging conditions, which depends on locally available wild feed sources like plants and of course, a limited amount of kitchen waste (Kumaresan et al., 2009). The state of Assam is the major state in North Eastern region of India. Among the prominent animal husbandry activities in the state, piggery is one. Pig production in Assam is invariably a small-scale, backyard, marketed-oriented enterprise. It is practiced mainly by Scheduled Tribes (ST) and some other backward classes (OBC) to generate income accumulate capital and fulfill socio-cultural obligations. Despite mostly being small-scale phenomenon (generally not more than one to five crossbred pigs), pig production contributes significantly to the livelihood of the majority of pig rearing households. The income from pig sales meets essential household and farming expenses and provides some financial independence to the women in the family (ASRLMS, 2012, Government of Assam). Thus to increase the quality and quantity of meat production in the state, the development of piggery through improved pig rearing practices is the need of the hour. There are very few studies available in the field of pig production in the rural tribal community of Assam. Thus, it has good base for scope and opportunity for farmers for increasing/expanding the pig production operations in the study area. Limited information is available regarding extent of economic contribution through backyard piggery units that may help to the policy makers to formulate suitable breeding and management strategies for improvement in both the quality and quantity of pork production. This study generated an empirical data, which may help further to the researcher and extension experts in formulating and implementing extensive educational programmes for the tribal populace of the region for further enhancement of income for their livelihood security.

Material and Methods

The present study was carried out purposively in selected Dhemaji (Plain Zone) and Karbi Anglong (Hill Zone) districts of Assam due to highest population of schedule tribe families. From each of the selected districts, two blocks (Sissiborgaon and Machkhowa from Dhemaji district and Howraghat and Rongmongwe from Karbi Anglong district) were selected randomly. From each block, five villages and from each village, ten schedule tribe families were selected making a total 200 households comprising backyard piggery from the selected four blocks. One adult member who was actively involved in the management of his/her backyard pig unit was chosen as the respondent of the study. Respondents were interviewed on various identified parameters through an interview schedule. In order to assess the status and success of backyard piggery farming among the tribal families, the income generation through pig husbandry was computed and referred to the contribution of piggery in terms of income (₹) generation of the farmers in the study area in a year. The respondents were then categorized into low, medium and high income groups on the basis of equal intervals between minimum and maximum income achieved by them and scored 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

Results and Discussion

Average Annual Income Generation through Backyard Piggery Unit under Traditional Rearing

Respondents from the study area had an average income of ₹31992 only from backyard piggery under traditional rearing system. 65.00 per cent of the respondents could generate medium level (₹27,701-34,300) of income from their piggery unit followed by 19.50 per cent who could earn at higher level i.e. more than ₹34,300 and rest 15.50 per cent were able to generate at low level from their existing backyard piggery unit. Zone wise also 61 per cent per cent of the respondents in Dhemaji district fell under medium level of income generating category followed by 20.00 percent in lower and 19 per cent under higher level of income category annually. In Karbi Anglong district, however a higher number of respondents (69%) could generate at medium level of income followed by 20.00 per cent having high and only 11.00 per cent respondents could generate income between ₹21,100-27,700 annually from their backyard piggery unit. The mean scores of the income generated by the respondents from two different locales showed significant difference (t=2.361*, P<0.05) (Table 1). Seth (2012) also reported that 61.25 per cent of the respondents had medium level of annual income from piggery. Payeng et al. (2013) mentioned that 75 per cent of respondents had medium (₹ 21,000-31,000) of income from unorganized system of pig farming in Kamrup district of Assam.

Table 1: Distribution of the Respondents According to their Annual Income Generation from a Backyard Piggery

*Significant at 5 per cent level of significance, Figures in parentheses indicate percentage

Economics of Annual Income Generated from Backyard Piggery

The expenditure and income details have been obtained from the respondents on each of the sub items. Table 2 indicates that irrespective of the zones, a family could generate ₹ 42,272 as gross annual income from rearing an average of eight pigs. To earn the amount, the annual expenditure per household was ₹32, 557 in a year on construction of temporary sheds, feeds, piglets, medicines, other miscellaneous expenses including the family labour. Thus, total net annual income from the pig stock was ₹ 9,715 only per year per family. The generation of income was however more when calculation was made by excluding the family labour cost. The annual gross income was found to be ₹ 31, 992 with an average pig stock of 08 animals. Calculating the net income per pig per year per family with labour cost was found to be ₹ 1214 and ₹ 3999 when calculated after excluding the family labour cost. The net annual income generated by respondents that came from Dhemaji district was at higher scale than the respondents from Karbi Anglong, because of different form and stage of selling the pigs and piglets. In Dhemaji district, pigs were reared mostly for breeding purposes although they sold adult live pigs compared to Karbi Anglong district where the pigs were reared mostly for fattening purpose.

Table 2: Annual Income per Family from Backyard Piggery (in ₹)

Per cent contribution of income from backyard pig farming to total annual income

Irrespective of the two different zones, the total average annual income from backyard pig farming was ₹. 9,715 and total average annual household income was ₹. 69,397 when the family labour cost was considered. Thus the per cent contribution of backyard pig farming to the total annual income was 13.99 per cent. Table 3 further revealed that when the family labour charges were excluded, the per cent contribution was 46.09 to the total average annual income. Payeng (2011) and Shyam and Borgohain (2013) also reported that contribution of annual income from pig farming to the annual income from all sources 46.31 and 39.04 per cent in unorganised piggery farming in Kamrup district of Assam. The annual income from backyard piggery contributed about 46.00 per cent to the total annual family income. The continuing increase in the demand for piglets and pork represents a major opportunity for improving livelihood security and increasing incomes. Thus the future of piggery farming appears to be bright in future.

Table 3: Contribution of Income from Backyard Pig Farming to Total Annual Income

Correlation Analysis between Socio-Personal, Economic, Communication and Socio-Psychological Characteristics of Respondents with Income Generation from Backyard Piggery

Table 4 reveals that age of the respondents showed a significant and positive correlation with income from backyard pig rearing (r=0.166, P<0.05). It might be that with increase in age, the farmers gain more knowledge about their piggery enterprise leading to increase in productivity and income. Education was positively and significantly associated with income from piggery (r=0.519, P<0.01). The positive relationship between education and income indicates that higher education lead to gain in knowledge and development of skills to increase the production and income. Family size was positively and significantly related to income generation from piggery farming (r=0.407, P<0.01) which might be due to the fact that with the increase in size of family they could rear more number of pigs as it was easy to manage the pigs due to availability of sufficient manpower to manage the large pig stock. Land holding had positive and highly significant relationship with income generation from pig farming (r=0.407, P<0.01). This might be due to the fact that higher the land holdings, possibility of keeping large herd with better management practices and the farmers can expand their piggery unit leading to more income from their piggery. Experience in pig rearing had positive and significant relationship with income generation from pig farming (r=0.559, P<0.01) leading to the fact that increase in experience in pig rearing, the farmers would be able to adopt the different ways to enhance the production of their piggery unit. The study also depicted positive and highly significant relationship between size of pig stock and income generation from pig farming (r=0.527, P<0.01). It is expected that increase in size of pig stock would fetch more returns. Mass media (r=0.512, P<0.01) and extension agency contact (r=0.519, P<0.01) were positively and significantly related with income generation from pig farming which may be due to the fact that information received either from extension agency or other mass media help the farmers in improving their knowledge and skills which ultimately may lead to more production and benefits from pig farming. Psychological parameters like; innovation proneness (r=0.586, P<0.01) and risk orientation (0.579, P<0.01) of the respondents had positive and significant relationship with income generation from pig farming. It might be justified by the fact that people having high innovation proneness and risk orientation behavior would have been motivated to rear large number of animals resulting in higher returns from it.

Table 4: Correlation Analysis between Socio-Personal, Economic, Communication and Socio Psychological Variables with Income Generation from Backyard Piggery

*Significant at 5 per cent level of significance, **Significant at 1 per cent level of significance

Multiple Regression Analysis between Socio-Personal, Economic, Communication and Socio-Psychological Characteristics of the Respondents with Income Generation from Backyard piggery

Table 5 revealed that the co-efficient of determination (R²) of the selected variables for income from piggery farming was 0.761. It means that 76.10 per cent of total variation in the income from piggery farming was explained by those variables.

Table 5: Multiple Regression Analysis between Socio-Personal, Economic, Communication and Socio-Psychological Characteristics of the Respondents with Income Generation from Backyard piggery

*Significant at 5 per cent level of significance, **Significant at 1 per cent level of significance

Conclusion

The annual income from backyard piggery contributed about 46 per cent to the total annual family income. Thus the region offers ample scope for piggery development because of the traditional involvement of rural tribal population in pig rearing activities. The continuing increase in the demand for piglets and pork represents a major opportunity for improving livelihood security and increasing incomes. Thus the future of piggery farming appears to be bright. Better marketing, improved access to credit and training on improved pig husbandry practices are the key interventions needed to boost the profitability of pig production in the study region.

References

1. ASRLMS report. 2012. A study on contributing and limiting factors relating to pig rearing as a source of income in Assam. pp 1-19. Retrieved from http://www.aslrms.in/downloads/study_report.pdf [10-01-2013].
2. Kadirvel G, Kumaresan A, Das A, Bujarbaruah KM, Venkatasubramaniam, V and Ngachan, SV 2013. Artificial insemination of pigs reared under smallholder production system in north eastern India: success rate, genetic improvement and monetary benefit. Tropical Animal Health and Production 45(2): 679-686.
3. Kumaresan A. Bujarbaruah K.M., Pathak K.A., Das, A. and Bardoloi, R.K. 2009. Integrated resource-driven pig production systems in a mountainous area of Northeast India: production practices and pig performance. Tropical Animal Health and Production 41: 1187-1196.
4. Payeng S. 2011. Economics of pig farming in organized and unorganized systems in Kamrup district of Assam, M.V.Sc. Thesis, Assam Agricultural University, Guwahati, Assam
5. Seth P. 2012. Diffusion and adoption of ‘T&D’ pig innovation. Ph.D. Thesis Deemed University, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, India.
6. Shyam J and Borgohain A. 2013. Motivational factors related to piggery farming in Kamrup district of Assam. Indian Journal of Animal Production and Management 29(1-2): 69-73.