Animal and land resource management practices leading to ecological sustainability of smallholder dairy farms in different agro-ecozones of West Bengal, India

THE LATE E K CHAKI; S PAN; A K SANTRA; DURGA CHAURASIA; KIRAN KUMARI; NISHMA SINGH

doi:10.56093/ijans.v85i10.52424

Authors

THE LATE E K CHAKI Associate Professor, West Bengal University of Animal and Fishery Sciences, Kolkata, West Bengal 700 037 India
S PAN Professor and Head, Department of Livestock Production and Management, West Bengal University of Animal and Fishery Sciences, Kolkata, West Bengal 700 037 India
A K SANTRA Professor, Department of Livestock Production and Management, College Of Veterinary Science And Animal Husbandry, Anjora, Durg
DURGA CHAURASIA Assistant Professor, Department of Anatomy, College Of Veterinary Science And Animal Husbandry, Anjora, Durg
KIRAN KUMARI Assistant Professor, Department of Instructional Livestock Farm Complex, College Of Veterinary Science And Animal Husbandry, Anjora, Durg
NISHMA SINGH S.M.S., K.V.K., Rajnandgaon

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v85i10.52424

Keywords:

Ecological pressure, Forest land, Grazing, Herd size, Humid zone, Soil type

Abstract

A study was conducted on the existing animal and land resource management of small holder dairy farms in 3 agro-ecozones of West Bengal. The study revealed that overall average dairy herd size was 5.47 LU in agroecozone I (sub-humid with red and lateritic soils of Purulia) followed by agro-ecozone II [(2.64 LU), warm perhumid with brown and red hill soils and agro-ecozone of Darjeeling], III [(2.63 LU), hot subhumid to humid with alluvial soils of North 24 Parganas]. Proportions of large and medium sized herds were also considerably higher i.e. 58.9 and 30%, respectively, in agro-ecozone I. This showed greater ecological pressure from dairy animals in agro-ecozone I. It was also further revealed that 78.7% of total stock comprising nondescript cattle and buffaloes in agro-ecozone I while farmers, in agro-ecozone II kept crossbred cattle (83.3%) in their herds. Favourable climatic conditions, long term crossbreeding by dairy cooperatives and availability of green fodder might be the reasons of raising higher concentration of crossbred cattle in this agro-ecozone. In agro-ecozone III owing to hot and humid
climatic condition and higher intensity of crop production, farms maintained both nondescript (33%) and crossbred cattle (67%) of total herd strength in low density depending upon their financial capabilities. These animals were
mostly raised on crop residues and byproducts under stall-fed condition thus creating lesser ecological pressures as
compared to those of other 2 zones. It was also further revealed that 100% respondents farms in agro-ecozone I
used pastures and post harvested croplands regularly and 31% used forestlands occasionally or regularly for grazing their stock. Farms in this zone practiced on an average 6.7 h of grazing/day which was much higher than agroecozone II (0.37 h) and agro-ecozone III (1.55 h). The differences in the utilization pattern of different types of
grazing lands between 2 dairying sectors were not remarkable except that use of forest under unorganized sectors
was much higher than organized sector in agro-ecozone I.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bhat P N and Taneja V K. 1998. Sustainable animal production systems in India: Issues and approaches. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 68 (8): 701–12.

Falk B. 2013.The resilient farm and homestead. An innovative permaculture and whole systems design approach. Chelsea Green 61–78.

Magee L, Scerri A, James P, Thom J A, Padgham L, Hickmott S, Deng H and Cahill F. 2013. Reframing social sustainability reporting: Towards an engaged approach. Environment, Development and Sustainability (University of Melbourne). Mangurkar B R. 1998. Livestock and environment. Indian Dairymam 50 (6): 41–45.

Schonhuth M S, Michael S and Kievelitz H T. 1995. Participatory learning approaches – RRA, Participatory Appraisal – An Introductory Guide. Extension Digest 3: 4–10.

Sehgal J L, Mandal D K, Mandal C and Vadivelu S. 1992. Agroecological Regions of India. Technical Bulletin, NBSS, Pub No. 24, 2nd ed. National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi.

Singh R and Raman T. 1994. Sustainable livestock in mountains of Western Himalayan Region – a study in Himachal Pradesh. Agricultural Situation in India. Agro-economic Research Centre, H.P. University, Shimla, India 48 (11): 799–804.

Singh R. 1998. Livestock unit. Essentials of Animal Production and Management. Kanyani Publishers, New Delhi, pp. 453– 54.

Skunmun P, Boonsom J, Kaewsuwan S and Chantalakhana C. 1998. Environmental conditions and resources management in smallholder dairy farms in Thailand I: Production systems and management of resources. Smallholder Milk Production in the Tropics. (Eds) Falvey L and Chantalakhana C. International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.1999.215

Woodhouse P, Howlett D and Rigby D. 2000. Sustainability Indicators for Natural Resource Management & Policy: A framework for research on sustainability indicators for agriculture and rural livelihoods, Working Paper-2, February- 2000. Research Project on ‘The effect of policy on natural resource management and investment by farmers and rural households in east and southern Africa’ (No. R7076CA). Department for International Development, Agricultural and Rural Development Research Institute, South Africa; Development and project Planning Centre, Centre for Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics, Institute for Development Policy and Management, UK; Economic Policy Research Centre, Uganda.