Analysing key influences on sheep husbandry practices: A force field analysis

HARIDEEP  VERMA; MADAN  SINGH; SHRUTI; SALAM  PRABEX

doi:10.56093/ijans.v96i7.168653

Authors

HARIDEEP VERMA ICAR-Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, Bareilly 243 122 Uttar Pradesh India
MADAN SINGH ICAR-Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, Bareilly 243 122 Uttar Pradesh India
SHRUTI ICAR-Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, Bareilly 243 122 Uttar Pradesh India
SALAM PRABEX ICAR-Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, Bareilly 243 122 Uttar Pradesh India

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v96i7.168653

Keywords:

Driving forces, Infrastructure development, Livestock productivity, Restraining forces, Socio-economic barriers, Sustainable agriculture

Abstract

The present study employed Kurt Lewin’s Force Field Analysis to assess the driving and restraining forces influencing sheep husbandry practices among beneficiary (BF) and non-beneficiary farmers (NBF) and to examine the influence of interventions under the Farmer FIRST Programme (FFP). Major driving forces among BF farmers included access to improved germplasm, advisory services, training programmes, markets, financial resources, veterinary services, fodder resources, and infrastructure. The analysis revealed that BF farmers had a significantly higher mean rank (33.04) for driving forces than NBF farmers (17.96), indicating that stronger forces favouring the adoption of improved sheep husbandry practices. Conversely, BF farmers recorded a significantly lower mean rank (14.32) for restraining forces than NBF farmers (36.68), suggesting that beneficiaries encountered comparatively fewer barriers in adopting improved practices. Major constraints among NBF farmers included limited access to advisory services, inadequate adoption of improved technologies, and continued reliance on traditional feeding practices. The Mann–Whitney U test revealed significant differences (p < 0.01) between BF and NBF farmers for both driving and restraining forces. The findings demonstrated that targeted programme interventions can strengthen forces conducive to improved sheep husbandry while reducing adoption-related constraints. The study highlighted the importance of sustained institutional support, effective advisory services, capacity building, and improved access to essential resources for promoting sustainable sheep husbandry practices.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Arab-Zozani M, Pezeshki M Z, Khodayari-Zarnaq R and Janati A. 2019. Balancing overuse and underuse in the Iranian healthcare system: a force field theory analysis. Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences 29(2): 231–238. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4314/ejhs.v29i2.10

2. Derbib T and Sinote B. 2025. Determinants of sheep husbandry practice: the case of Mihur Aklil District, Gurage Zone, SNNPR, Ethiopia. Journal of Applied Animal Research 53(1): 248–482. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2025.2489482

3. Devi I, Shinde A K, Kumar A and Sahoo A. 2020. Stall feeding of sheep and goats: An alternative system to traditional grazing on community lands. The Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 90(3): 318–326. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v90i3.102317

4. Diriba L and Kebede T. 2020. Assessments of husbandry practices, major constraints and opportunities of sheep and goat production in Sinana district, bale zone. International Journal of Veterinary Sciences and Animal Husbandry 5(3): 1–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15406/jdvar.2020.09.00283

5. Khalid H. 2014. Sheep rearing practices in sub-tropical zone of Jammu and Kashmir, Doctoral dissertation, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, Uttar Pradesh.

6. Kumar A. 2018. Challenges in adopting modern farming practices by resource poor farmers: a case of eastern Uttar Pradesh. East Anthropol 71(1–2): 15–39.

7. Kumar V, Singh B P, Dutt T, Kumar R and Maousami M. 2014. Perceived constraints and suggestions in adoption of goat husbandry technologies: A study in semi-arid zone of Uttar Pradesh. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 84(8): 897–902. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v84i8.43283

8. Lewin K, 1951. Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers, New York, NY, Basic, Books.

9. Meena L R, Kochewad S A and Kumar D. 2018. Improved technologies for sustaining productivity and profitability of sheep in India-A Review. International Journal of Livestock Research 8(2): 43–55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5455/ijlr.20170518125116

10. Porwal K, Karim S A, Sisodia S L and Singh V K. 2006. Socio- economic survey of sheep farmers in western Rajasthan. The Indian Journal of Small Ruminants 12(1): 74–81.

11. Sahu U K, Kumar B, Khan M H, Baghel M S, Kumar P, Sahu L and Verma H. 2026. Major reproductive disorders in sheep and goats and its management. Indian Farmer 13(2): 50–67.

12. Sasidhar P V K and Suvedi M. 2016. Assessment of core competencies of livestock extension professionals in India. Urbana, IL: USAID-Modernizing Extension and Advisory Services.

13. Shinde A K and Sejian V. 2013. Sheep husbandry under changing climate scenario in India: An overview. Indian Journal of Animal Science 83(10): 998–1008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v83i10.33840

14. Shruti, Sharma J P, Burman R R, Gills R and Bhowmik A. 2021. Semantic differential technique and force field analysis to identify entrepreneurial behaviour and environment respectively between processor and producer. Journal of Community Mobilization and Sustainable Development 16(1): 271–278.

15. Singaravadivelan A, Kumaravelu N, Vijayakumar P and Sivakumar T. 2019. An economic analysis of migratory sheep production system in Tamilnadu, India. Journal of Animal Health and Production 7(2): 58–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.jahp/2019/7.2.58.64

16. Singh B. 1985. Attitude of farmers towards goat and sheep farming. Indian Journal of Extension Education (1): 54–60.

17. Singh D, Kerketta P and Kumar A. 2018. Constraints in goat and sheep husbandry practices in Allahabad district of Uttar Pradesh, India. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry 7(2): 1132–1135.

18. Sudeepkumar N K and Kathiravan G. 2025. Constraints to sustainable sheep farming in Tamil Nadu, India: An ex-post facto analysis. International Journal of Agriculture Extension and Social Development 8(1): 162–166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33545/26180723.2025.v8.i1c.1518

19. Suresh A, Gupta D C and Mann J S. 2008. Constraints in adoption of improved management practices of sheep farming in semi-arid region of Rajasthan. The Indian Journal of Small Ruminants 14(1): 93–98.

20. Suresh L B. 2011. Impact of information and communication technologies on women empowerment in India. Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics 9(4–2011): 17–23.

21. Vasanthi S, Laxmi P J, Reddy S S, and Prasad R M V. 2022. Socio-economic status and constraints faced by shepherds in Telangana. Pharma Innovation 11(11): 1601–1604.