Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników
2011 | 53 | 2 |
Tytuł artykułu

Forestry’s contribution to livestock feed in Uttarakhand, India: a quantitative assessment of volume and economic value

Treść / Zawartość
Warianty tytułu
Języki publikacji
Livestock sector forms an important livelihood activity for farmers, through supporting agriculture and supplementing income in India. The lack of availability of sufficient feed is one of the major limiting factors for better productivity of livestock. The feed are of two types as roughages (high in crude fibrous material) available at public forest, farm lands, etc. and concentrates (high in nutrients and mixture of oil, coarse grain, and cereals). The general degradation of forest reduces the fodder availability, severely. Therefore, improving forest condition may provide pathways for sustainability of both, livestock and forest. This may be addressed through sustainable forest management, which requires scientific inputs and may be shifting of some demand of locals to other resources. This requires huge amount from government. Presently, livestock sector is part of the Agriculture and Allied Activities sector in the accounting system of India, and therefore, all related shares and expenditure is part of the component. This results into under allocation for the actual shares of forestry contribution to livestock, in the Forestry and Logging sector. This occurs primarily, due to the lack of scientific information on the share and value of fodder from forest. This study has been undertaken to estimate the share and economic value of forests derived livestock feed. Primary data has been collected as per pretested questionnaire from 316 randomly selected households engaged in livestock rearing from 66 villages distributed across the Uttarakhand, India. Information pertaining to the fodder to livestock from all sources and socio-economic attributes were collected from each household to understand the feed consumption behavior of livestock. The feed sources were classified in forests, other than forests and market. The shares and economic value of livestock feed derived from different sources has been estimated for all livestock. The prices of various feeds were either collected directly from market or estimated through non market valuation techniques based on two scenarios (contingent valuation and ratio of dry and green matter basis of 0.40). The average proportion of feed quantity consumed by livestock was 58% from forests, 39% from other than forests and 3% from markets for hilly region. It was 97% from other than forests and 3% from markets for plain region. For hilly region, the proportion of economic value varies from 40– 41% for forest; 40– 41% for agriculture and 18– 20% from market. The total value of forest fodder was Rs 4811 millions in scenario 1 and Rs 5209 millions in scenario 2 for the Uttarakhand. The study concludes and recommends that these proportions may be utilized to allocate the appropriate share of livestock feed into Forestry and Logging sector, which may results into the realistic share of the sector.
Opis fizyczny
  • Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education, Dehradun, Utterakhand, 248006 India
  • Anonymous. 2005. 17th Indian Livestock Census All India Summary Report. Min. of Agri., Depa. of Ani. Hus. & Dairying. New Delhi.
  • Bajracharya B. 1999. Sustainable soil management with reference to livestock production systems. ICIMOD, Katmandu.
  • Bakshi M.P.S., Wadhwa M. 2004. Evaluation of forest tree leaves of semi-hilly arid region as livestock feed. Asian Australian Journal of Animal Science, 17, 777– 783.
  • Carson R. 2000. Contingent Valuation – A user’s guide”. Environmental Science and Technology, 34(8), 1413– 1418.
  • Champion H.G., Seth S.K. 1968. A revised survey of forest types of India. Manager of Publications, Government of India, Delhi.
  • Delgado C., Rosegrant M., Steinfeld H., Ehui S., Courbois C. 1999. Livestock to 2020: The next food revolution. Discussion paper 28. IFPRI, Washington.
  • Devendra C., Thomas D., Jabbar M.A., Zerbini E. 2000. Improvement of Livestock Production in Crop–Animal Systems in Agro-ecological Zones of South Asia. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya, pp. 117.
  • Franklin S.E. 2001. Remote sensing for sustainable forests management. Pub. Lewis Publishers Washington, D.C., pp. 75.
  • G.B. Pant University. 1980. Integrated natural and human resource planning and management in the hills of U.P.’Pantnagar: Progress report of subproject: Study of Grassland and Livestock Resources Management in the Kumaun Hills. Pant Nagar, India.
  • Måren I.E., Vetaas O.R. 2007. Does Regulated Land Use Allow Regeneration of Keystone Forest Species in the Annapurna Conservation Area, Central Himalaya? Mountain Research and Development, 27(4), 345– 351.
  • Neill O’ J., Spash L.C. 2000. Environmental valuation in Europe. Conceptions of value in environmental decision making. Policy research brief, 4, 3– 18.
  • Pandey R. 2010. Quantitative estimation of livestock feed from forest in Uttaranchal Himalayas. Final report (Unpublished), CSO, New Delhi.
  • Planning Commission. 2000. Draft report of the working group on animal husbandry and dairying for five-year plan 2002– 2007. Planning Commission, Govt. of India, New Delhi.
  • Planning Commission. 2006. Report of the working group on animal husbandry and dairying: 11th Five Year Plan (2007– 2012). Planning Commission, Govt. of India, New Delhi.
  • Pratap S.B. 2002. Technological echotecnological change in India’s livestock subsector: Evidence and issues. In: Birthal, P. and Parthasarathy Rao (ed.): Technology options for sustainable livestock production in India (eds.: P. Birthal,R. Parthasarathy). Proceedings of the Workshop on Documentation, Adoption, and Impact of Livestock Technologies in India, 18– 19 Jan 2001, ICRISAT-Patancheru, India, pp. 220.
  • Rajesh K. 2009. Ratio of dry and green biomass of some plants of Uttarakhand. Personal Communication, FSI, Dehradun.
  • Reddy Y.V.R.; Reddy M.J.; Hemlata B., Ramakrishna Y.S. 2006. Economic Evaluation of Dairy Farming in Rural India. Agrotech Publishing Academy, Udaipur, pp. 191.
  • Sati V.P. 2006. Forest Resource Management in Mountain Regions: A Case for the Pindar Basin of Uttaranchal Himalaya. Lyonia, 11(1), 75– 84.
  • Singh SP. 1998. Chronic disturbance, a principal cause of environmental degradation in developing countries. Environmental Conservation, 25(1), 1– 2.
  • Singh N., Sundriyal R.C. 2009. Fuelwood, fodder consumption and deficit pattern in central Himalayan village. Nature and Science, 7(4), 85– 88.
  • Singh R.1999. Smallholder Dairy Farming Initiatives: Success and Failure of Milk Cooperatives in the HKH. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Livestock in Mountain/Highland Production Systems: Research and Development Challenges into the Next Millennium, 7– 10 December 1999, Pokhara, Nepal.
  • Singh V., Naik D.G. 1987. Fodder resources of central Himalaya. In. Pangtey, Y.P.S. and Joshi, S.C. (Ed.) Western Himalaya (eds.: Y.P.S. Pangtey, S.C. Joshi), Vol. I (Environment). Shri. Almora Publication, Almora, pp. 223.
  • Steinfeld H.; Gerber P.; Wassenaar T.; Castel V.; Rosales M., Haan C. 2006. Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental issues and options. FAO, Rome, Italy.
  • Tripathi R.S. 1999. Economics of buffalo milk production in Indian Central Himalaya. Inter. Journal of Animal Science, 14, 101– 108.
  • Tulachan P.M., Jabbar M.A., Saleem M.A.M. 2002 Smallholder Dairy in Mixed Farming Systems of the Hindu Kush – Himalayas. ICIMOD, Kathmandu, Nepal.
  • UFD. 2006. Uttaranchal Forest Statistics 2005– 2006. Uttarakhand Forest Department, Dehradun.
  • Yang W.Y. 1971. Methods of Farm Management Investigation. Agricultural Development Paper No. 8. Rome: FAO.
Typ dokumentu
Identyfikator YADDA
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.