Socio-economic status of the tribal farmers of Meghalaya's aspirational district, Ri Bhoi

Introduction

Meghalaya is a state in North Eastern India known as "the Abode of Clouds." Its boundaries are to the north and east with Assam and to the south and west with Bangladesh. Its total size is 22,429 square kilometres, and its altitude ranges from 60 to 1961 metres above sea level. The state is known for its hilly landscapes, which have undulating grasslands interrupted up by valleys and rivers. Ri-Bhoi district is the aspirational district of Meghalaya, occupies an area of 2448 km² and has a population of 258,840 (Census, 2011) [3] . The district lies between 90°55'15 to 91°16' latitude and 25°40' to 25°21' longitude. It is bounded on the north by Kamrup district and on the East by Jaintia Hills and Karbi Anglong district of Assam and on the West by West Khasi Hills district. This district is characterized by the rugged and irregular land surface, series of hill ranges which gradually sloped towards the north and finally joins the Brahmaputra Valley. About 71% of the total workers in the district are engaged in the agricultural activities and is blessed with abundant natural resources which can support large number of agricultural enterprises such as piggery, poultry, fishery, crop husbandry, horticulture and plantation crops etc. Predominantly, inhabited by Bhois (85%), a Khasi sub-tribe, while rest are Mikir (7%) and others (8%). The district receives an average annual rainfall of 1636.46mm and whole district is divided into two agro-climatic zones namely sub-tropical hilly zone and mild tropical hilly zone. The district is divided into four Community and Rural Development Blocks viz. Umling, Umsning, Bhoirymbong and Jirang which comprises of 579 villages. The population of the Ri-Bhoi district is 2.59 lakhs (male: 132531; female: 126309) with 34.26% decadal growth rate (Census, 2011) [3] . 9.76% (25253) and 90.24% (233587) population lives in the urban and rural areas of Ri-Bhoi district, respectively with population density of 106/Km 2 . Livestock and fisheries have lot of potentials in the state as more than 95% of total population is non-vegetarian. Although eating any form of meat is acceptable in society, pork is preferred above other meats like beef, chicken, and others (Feroze et al., 2010) [6] . It plays an important role in the rural economy by providing work throughout the year, notably to agricultural laborers and small and marginal farmers (Deka et al., 2020) [4] . It has www.extensionjournal.com the potential to overcome poverty and is a source of cash at the time of urgency. The production of livestock and poultry, which has a high nutritive content and is primarily used for human consumption, contributes further to an improvement in the nutritional status of the household's children (Das, 2020) [5] . India has a vast resource of livestock and poultry, which play a vital role in improving the socio-economic conditions of rural masses. There are about 303.76 million bovines (cattle, buffalo, mithun, yak), 74.26 million sheep, 148.88 million goats, 9.06 million pigs, and about 851.81 million poultry (Livestock census, 2019) [13] . However, the number of livestock and poultry population in Meghalaya was 2039103 and 5379532, respectively. Pig (706364), cattle (903570), buffalo (15714), goat (397503), sheep (15679) and goat (397503) comprise the major livestock in the state. The total milk, egg and meat production during the year 2021-22 in Meghalaya was 90,230 tonnes, 1114.62 lakhs no. and 37,300 tonnes, respectively (BAHS, 2022) [2] . Among the livestock rearing practice, pig farming is an integral part of the household livelihoods system in Meghalaya but the domestic production is inadequate to meet the demand for pork. Pork constitutes 11.25% of the meat consumed in the State. However, domestic pork production is inadequate to meet the State's requirements. The annual consumption hovers over 15,000 tonnes of pork, only 13,500 tonnes are produced from live animals slaughtered within the state. 50% of the animals slaughtered within the state are procured from outside the state, indicate 8,250 tonnes shortfall in pork production in the state (GoM, 2020) [7] . Along with crop production, tribal farmers of Meghalaya depend on livestock for their livelihood (Khan et al., 2012) [12] . Livestock production systems are mainly intensive and based on low-cost agro-by-products as nutritional inputs for livestock. In the state majority of the tribal farmers are comprised of landless labourers, small and marginal farmers. It is an integral livelihood support and a source of food for the people of the state as a whole (Tripathi et al., 2019) [20] . Since, detail reports are not available on the socioeconomic status of the tribal farmers inhabiting Ri Bhoi district, Meghalaya. Therefore, the present study designed to ascertain the socioeconomic status of the tribal farmers inhabiting aspirational district, Ri Bhoi, Meghalaya.

Methodology Study area

The current investigation was carried out in Ri Bhoi District covering Umling Block and Umsning Block. Umsning Block lies within the latitude 25.7329°N and longitude 91.8854°E while Umling Block lies within the latitude 25.97335°N and longitude 91.858661°E. From these two blocks, a total of nine villages' viz. Sarikuchi, Lalumpam, Borkhatsari, Nalapara, Borgang, Purangang, Nongagang, Umsawkhwan, and Umbir are covered in the present study. Seven villages (Sarikuchi, Lalumpam, Borkhatsari, Nongagang, Borgang, Purangang, Nalapara) are in the Umling block while two villages (Umsawkhwan, Umbir) in the Umsning block. These villages were selected randomly based on the density of the tribal farmers.

Study period and method

The study was conducted during April'2022 to December'2022. A total number of 100 no. of farmers were selected proportionately for this study. The data was collected through a pre-tested structured questionnaire. Both primary and secondary data were utilized for data collection. The primary data was collected through personal interview by the researchers using questionnaire based survey. The secondary data was collected from various publications, magazines, journal, relevant text books and other sources.

Data analysis

The entire data which was collected was then transformed into normal score for tabulation. Keeping in view the objectives of the study and to draw logical conclusion the statistical tests i.e. frequency, percentage etc. were used for analyzing and interpretation of the data. The variables were categorized as low, medium and high or the term applicable so far on the basis of the score obtained (Kaur et al., 2018) [11] .

Results and Discussion

Socio-economic profile of tribal farmers in Ri Bhoi district, Meghalaya

The socio-economic profiles of the tribal farmers and distribution of farming activities of the respondents of the Ri Bhoi district, Meghalaya are given in Table 1 andTable 2. In the present study, there are more male than female among Umsning Block respondents (56% to 44%), while there are 60% male and 40% female at Umling Block respondents (Table 1). The present finding was in agreement with the findings of Mazumder (2020) [14] , who claimed that 69.4% of the respondents were male in their survey. Additionally, it was observed that in Umsning Block, 52% of the respondents are between the ages of 27 and 38, compared to 40% who are between the ages of 39 and 50 and 8% who are over 51.

In Umling Block, however, only 48% of respondents are between the ages of 27 and 38, 40% belong to the young age group (39-50 years), and 12% belong to the old age group (above 51 years). These findings were comparable to those of Shadap et al. (2017) [18] . From Umsning Block, the majority (44%) of respondents have an education up to the medium level, while 26% have an education up to the secondary level, 20% have an education up to the primary level, 2% have an education up to the higher secondary level, 6% have an education up to the graduate level, and 2% are illiterates. In Umling Block, 40% of respondents have a medium primary education, 28% have a secondary education, 28% have a primary education, 2% have a higher secondary education, and 2% are illiterates. The present findings were in concurrence with Pradeep and John (2022) [16] and Marbaniang and Pasweth (2017) [15] . The majority (68%) of Umsning Block respondents had a medium household size with 4-6 family members, while 16% have a low (1-3 person) or high (7-10 member) household size. The majority of respondents (76%) in Umling Block have a medium household size with 4-6 family members, while 12% have a small household size (1-3 people) and 6% have a large household size (4-6 members). Earlier, similar finding was reported by Hatai and Singh (2019) [8] . The majority of Umsning Block respondents (94%) are Schedule Tribe (ST), 4% are SC (Scheduled Caste), and 2% are Other Backward Class (OBC), whereas Umling Block respondents are 86% ST, 6% SC, and 8% OBC. The majority (68%) of respondents in Umsning Block own land, while 32% do not, whereas 70% of respondents in Umling Block own land and 30% do not. The majorities (60%) of Umsning Block respondents have land holdings of less than one acre, 28% have land between 1-3 acres, and only 12% own land larger than three acres, while in Umling Block, 52% have land holdings of less than one acre, 32% have land between 1-3 acres, and only 16% own land larger than three acres. The result was comparable to that reported by Kath et al. (2019) [10] . It also states that the majority (61%) of respondents rented land less than one acre, 18% leased land between one and three acres, and 22% did not lease any land in Umsing Block. In contrast, in Umling Block, 62% of respondents rented land under one acre, 22% leased land between one and three acres, and 16% did not lease any land. It was also observed that in Umsing Block, 40% of respondents used surface irrigation techniques like canal, minor tanks and traditional water harvesting structure to irrigate their land while 60% did not irrigate and depend on rain. Due to hilly terrain, the main challenge faced by farmers is water scarcity during winter season. To overcome it, they construct low-cost rainwater harvesting structures such as jalkund to collect rainwater for irrigation and other purposes. The majority of Umling Block respondents (52%) used surface irrigation techniques like canal, minor tanks and traditional water harvesting structure to irrigated their land while the remaining 48% depend on rain for irrigation. The present study also reveals that approximately 30% of Umsing Block respondents belong to a farmer group/cooperative society, whereas 70% do not. Whereas in www.extensionjournal.com

Umling Block, 26% are members of a farmer group or cooperative society, while 74% are not. Vekariya et al.

(2016) [21] in a study observed similar findings. The present findings revealed that in Umsning Block, approximately 48% of respondents live in semi-cemented houses, while 14% and 38% reside in uncemented houses. Whereas 40% of Umling Block respondents live in semi-cemented houses, 16% and 44% live in Kuccha and cemented houses, respectively. The present finding is in accordance with the findings of Sancley and Bose (2017) [17] . It was discovered that in Umsning Block, 58% of respondents have a medium yearly income (20000-50000), 24% have a low annual income (< 20000), and 18% have a high annual income (>50000). In Umling Block, 60% of respondents have a medium yearly income (20000-50000), 32% have a poor annual income (<20000), and 8% have a high annual income (>50000) which were consistent with the findings of Hatai and Singh (2019) [8] . Radio, television, agricultural magazines, internet media, and newspapers are used by the majority of Umsning Block respondents (44%) at a medium level, compared to low and high levels of utilization (respectively, 34 and 22%). From the Umling Block, 46% use mass media, including radio, television, agricultural magazines, cyber media, and newspapers, compared to 28% who use low and 26% who use high levels. The present finding was comparable with the findings of Thakan et al.

(2022) [19] . From Umsning Block, around 44% of respondents have a medium level of information source, 46% have a low level, and 10% have received a high level of information. Comparatively, from the Umling Block, 50% of respondents reported having a medium level of information sources, 38% had low levels, and 12% had high levels. Earlier, Vekariya et al. (2016) [21] reported similar reports.

The lists of the respondents' farming activities from the two studied locations are mentioned in Table 2. It demonstrates that 98% of respondents in Umsning Block are involved in agricultural activities such as the production of rice, maize, and other food crops, whereas 90% of respondents in Umling Block are involved in such activities. The occupations of respondent's in both studied areas are depicted in Table 3, Table 4, Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. The majority of respondents in Umling Block (96%) followed by Umsning Block (94%) choose farming as their primary occupation and 6% as their secondary occupation.

Similarly, Kharlukhi and Jha (2021) [9] reported that 87.5% of the respondents from East Khasi Hills and Ri Bhoi districts have farming as their occupation. In Umsning Block, 40% of respondents choose agriculture labour as their primary occupation, with 60% choosing it as their secondary occupation, whereas 36% of respondents choose it as their primary occupation in Umling Block with 64% of them working in a secondary occupation. The majority of respondents in the Umsning Block (90%) engaged in livestock rearing as their primary occupation, and 10% did so as a secondary occupation. In Umling Block, the majority of respondents (80%) had livestock rearing as their primary occupation and 20% had it as a secondary occupation. Additionally, it was noted that in Umsning Block, 18% of respondents work in fishing as their primary occupation, 40% in secondary employment, and 42% do not work in fishing, whereas in Umling Block, 16% of respondents work in fishing as their primary occupation and 36% in secondary employment. 46% do not work in the fishing industry. Only 20% of respondents in the Umsning Block choose to work as petty traders as their primary occupation, 30% do so as a secondary occupation, and 42% do not. Petty trading is the primary occupation of 22% of respondents in Umling Block, the secondary occupation of 28%, and the unemployed occupation of 50% of respondents. While 8% of respondents choose business as their primary occupation and 20% chose it as their secondary occupation in Umsning Block, the majority (72%) of respondents did not pursue business as their occupation. Whereas 4% of respondents in the Umling Block choose business as primary occupation and 24% as secondary occupation, 72% of respondents do not work in the field of business (Bordoloi, 2021) [1] .

Conclusion

It is concluded that Umsning Block has a majority of male respondents, 52% in the middle age group, 44% in the education level, 68% in a medium household size, 94% in the ST category, 60% own land below 1 acre, 40% irrigate their land through different methods. 70% do not belong to any farmer's group or cooperative society, 58% have a medium annual income, 44% have a medium level of mass media usage, and 98% take up agriculture, horticulture, and animal husbandry as their daily activities. The majority of respondents in Umling Block are male and 48% belong to the middle age group with a medium education level. 76% have medium household size and 86% fall under the ST category. 52% of the respondents irrigate their land through different methods. 74% do not belong to any farmer's group or cooperative society and 60% have a medium annual income. 46% have a medium level of mass media usage and 50% have medium source of information utilization. The majority of the respondents take up agriculture, horticulture, and animal husbandry as their daily activities.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementsWe appreciate the funding agency Department of Biotechnology (DBT), Government of India, New Delhi and the Director, ICAR Research Complex for NEH Region, Umiam, Meghalaya, for allowing us to carry out this work as part of the project (OXX5395).

References

1. Bordoloi P. Women in agriculture: An ecological and socio-economic study of Meghalaya, North East India. Biol Forum -Int J. 2021;13(4):532-536.
2. Basic Animal Husbandry Statistics (BAHS). Basic Animal Husbandry Statistics 2022. New Delhi: Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Government of India; 2022. www.extensionjournal.com
3. Deka BC, Singha AK, Parisa D, Amrutha T. Prospect of Northeast agriculture in post-COVID-19 scenario. Umiam (Meghalaya): ICAR-ATARI; 2020.
4. Das A, Raju R, Patnaik NM. Present scenario and role of livestock sector in rural economy of India: A review. Int J Livest Res. 2020;10:23-30.
5. Feroze SM, Raju VT, Singh R, Tripathi AK. Status of livestock sector: A micro study of North Eastern India. Indian J Hill Farming. 2010;23(2):43-51.
6. Government of Meghalaya (GoM). Piggery Mission. Shillong (India): Cooperation Department, Government of Meghalaya; 2020. https://megcooperation.gov.in/piggerymission/Piggery_ Mission_1.pdf
7. Hatai LD, Singh KN. Socio-economic status and benefits of agricultural interventions of tribal farmers in West Garo Hills of Meghalaya, India. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2019;8(8):1554-1563.
8. Kharlukhi C, Jha KK. Entrepreneurial behaviour of horticultural farmers in East Khasi Hills and Ri-Bhoi districts of Meghalaya. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2021;10(4):575-582.
9. Kath K, Rahman S, Das S, Chaudhary J, Goswami R, Tochhawng L, et al. Socio-economic status of Tenyi-vo pig farmers of Nagaland, India. Int J Livest Res. 2019;9(11):196-203.
10. Kaur P, Stoltzfus J, Yellapu V. Descriptive statistics. Int J Acad Med. 2018;4:60-63.
11. Khan MH, Kumar S, Basumatary R, Bharti PK, Kadirvel G, Barman C. Livestock development in Meghalaya: Biodiversity, threat and conservation. Int J Bio-Res Stress Manag. 2012;3(1):122-127.
12. Livestock Census. 20th Livestock Census 2019. New Delhi: Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India; 2019.
13. Mazumder A. Issues in socio-economic development of the farmers with special reference to Mawkyrwat, the South-West Khasi Hills district of Meghalaya in India. Int J Creat Res Thoughts. 2020;8(8):1041-1050.
14. Marbaniang EK, Pasweth D. Demographic characteristics and constraints faced by farmers in West Khasi Hills district. J Krishi Vigyan. 2017;6(1):45-49.
15. Pradeep A, Johns TG. Livelihood status of dairy farmers with a reference to socio-economic analysis in Manipur. Pharma Innov J. 2022;11(9):97-99.
16. Sancley D, Bose DK. Adoption of improved fish farming practices in Ri-Bhoi district of Meghalaya. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2017;6(5):94-96.
17. Shadap FR, Saharia KK, Bora L, Debbarman C, Chakraborty A, Pyrtuh R. Influence of pig farming in livelihood improvement of farmers in Meghalaya. Int J Livest Res. 2017;7(7):261-268.
18. Thakan P, Goyal TC, Singodiya M, Saini P, Choudhary U. Socio-economic and psychological characteristics of dairy farmers of Udaipur district. Pharma Innov J. 2022;11(9):3121-3124.
19. Tripathi AK, Yumnam A, Singh NU, Roy A, Dangi D, Debroy P, et al. Production and consumption pattern of livestock products in Meghalaya and its implications in development of market strategies for the state producers. Indian J Anim Sci. 2019;89(1):113-116.
20. Vekariya SJ, Kumar R, Savsani HH, Kotadiya CR, Chaudhari GM, Chatrabhuji BB. Socio-economic profile of Maldhari dairy farmers of South Saurashtra Region. Young. 2016;17:14-17.