Study on socio-demographic profile and constraints faced by livestock farmers in relation to control of zoonotic diseases in the state of Tripura, India

Introduction

The small, hilly state of Tripura can be found in the extreme southern region of northeast India. It borders Assam, Bangladesh, and Mizoram. Bangladesh encircles Tripura on the north, south, and west. According to 20th livestock census, the total livestock population in Tripura is 13.18 Lakh, total number of cattle in the State is 7.39 Lakh and total Poultry in the State is 41.68 Lakh. The word 'Zoonosis' (Pleural: Zoonoses) was introduced by Rudolf Virchow in 1880 to include collectively the diseases shared in nature by man and animals. Later WHO in 1959 defined that Zoonoses are "those diseases and infections which are naturally transmitted between vertebrate animals and man". Zoonoses include only those infections where there is either a proof or strong circumstantial evidence for transmission between animals and man either through contaminated food, the environment, vectors like flies or ticks, or direct co ntact between people and diseased animals. Zoonotic diseases have historically significantly influenced human evolution, particularly among civilizations and societies that domesticated and raised animals for sustenance and apparel. According to FAO, Zoonotic diseases incidence is common, they represent 60 percent of infectious diseases in humans. They have significant impact on the health of livestock (and therefore on food security), the health of wild animals, public health and economies. Anthrax, plague, brucellosis, influenza, bovine tuberculosis, leptospirosis, salmonellosis, spotted fever caused by Rickettsiae, rabies, several common arthropod-borne viral infections (arboviral infection), certain parasitic diseases, particularly cysticercosis, hydatid www.extensionjournal.com disease, trypanosomiasis, and toxoplasmosis, are examples of the traditional zoonotic diseases that still need special attention. Not all zoonotic illnesses that are disregarded in endemic environments are. Zoonotic diseases have a significant negative influence on livestock farmers' livelihoods by impairing their health and lowering the quantity and quality of animal products, which results in significant financial losses. One significant factor influencing the risk of zoonotic illnesses in both rural and urban regions is poverty. A comprehensive initiative was launched by WHO to manage rabies in India (WHO, 2015). As a result of this initiative, the economic impact of rabies in India has significantly decreased. If a similar initiative were executed for illnesses like leptospirosis and brucellosis, the financial losses associated with these diseases in terms of both human and animal health could also be reduced. To effectively carry out such a program, gaining insights into public knowledge, awareness, and animal husbandry practices may serve as valuable tools in executing a disease awareness and control initiative (Mosalagae et al. 2011) [6] . In this backdrop fact, the study was conducted to find out the Socio-economic, & Constraints faced by livestock farmers in relation to zoonotic disease in the state of Tripura, India.

Materials and Methods

The present research encompassed the entire state of Tripura. According to the agro-climatic conditions, Tripura has been divided into four specific agro-climatic zones: the Mild Tropical Plain high hill zone, like as the Mid Tropical plain high hill zone, the Mild Tropical Plain mid hill zone, and the Mild Tropical Plain mid to high zone. One district from each agro-climatic zone was randomly selected, and from each district a total of 25 livestock farmers were chosen randomly. In this process total one hundred numbers of livestock farmers were selected for the study. Every farmer was interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire. This study was conducted in Tripura from March to October 2025. The participants were interviewed to door to door visit and their responses were collected accordingly in relation to their socio-demographic profile and constraints faced regarding control of zoonotic diseases. Suitable statistical test like frequency and percentage analysis were done to illustrate different variables. For the data analysis, IBM-SPSS version 21.0 was used for the study.

Results and Discussion

Distribution of livestock farmers according to Sociodemographic profile in different agro-climatic zones

The research was concerned to find out the different socio demographic profile of the study. According from the table -1, a significant portion of the respondents from agroclimatic zones 1, 2, 3, and 4 were male (64%), while female farmers represented (36%), highlighting a male dominance in farming practices in Tripura. Comparable results were noted by Mir and Bhat (2020) [5] , who found that livestock rearing is a domain primarily occupied by men and is sensitive to gender issues. Most farmers followed Hinduism (75%) and followed by Christianity (23%), suggesting religious diversity with Hindu predominance. Another study was done by Yasobant et al. (2021) revealed that majority (82.4%) belong to the Hindu religion. Same Patel and Saxena (2019) [10] found that 89% of respondents were Hindu. A majority of respondents belonged to the general caste (62%), followed by Scheduled Tribe (25%) and Scheduled Caste (12%), indicating social heterogeneity. Most farmers were middle-aged group 26-50 years (69%), followed by elderly (26%), indicating that farming activities are largely managed by experienced age groups. Similar findings were observed by Aung et al. (2021) [2] observed that 75% were above 40 years of age. A large proportion of respondents (71%) belonged to small families, suggesting manageable household size among the farming community. The majority of farmers had education up to middle school level (43%), followed by primary education (28%), while only (6%) had graduate-level education, indicating moderate educational attainment. Phu et al. (2025) [11] through his study revealed that half of the participants had primary education or lower literacy (25.3% illiterate; 27.2% primary education), while 28.7% and 18.8% had secondary and higher education. Almost all respondents were married (96%), reflecting family-oriented household structures in the study area. Namusisi et al. (2021) [7] observed that the majority (80.8%) were married. Cultivation (24%) and business (21%) were the major occupations, followed by service (15%) and labour work (14%), indicating occupational diversity among farmers, like Ahmed et al. (2023) [1] through his study revealed that majority of the respondents were non-employees (30%), Employed (25%), House wife (23.8%) and self-employed (21.3%). Agriculture and business were the dominant income sources (32% each), followed by service (18%) and labour work (13%), highlighting mixed livelihood patterns. The herd size ranged from very small holdings (0.0001) to as high as 14 animals (according to Cattle equivalents ratio, NAS -1961), showing the presence of both marginal and relatively larger livestock farmers in the study area. Hundal et al. (2016) [3] noted that 79.6% of the farmers in the chosen population were small-scale farmers with a herd size of 10 or fewer. The annual family income of the farmers was low (78%) and medium (19%) indicating a modest economic status among the respondents. Rajkumar et al. (2016) [12] indicates that the majority of the participants are small-scale farmers, and their monthly earnings were below Rs. 10,000. Most farmers clustered between education scores of 2.89-5.77, indicating that the majority belonged to families with middle to secondary level education. A considerable proportion of respondents (62%) had no farming experience, 33% had 1-20 years farming experience. Most of the respondents from agro-climatic zones in Tripura (99%) livestock Farmers not have radios because nowadays, most people get their news and information from TV and mobile phones. Livestock farmers (98%) not have laptop and washing machine because of high cost same (99% and 100%) farmers don't have AC, microwave and iPhone because of more costly. 50% only livestock farmers in Tripura have bike for easy transportation and 50% farmers not have bike. 93% farmers not have Car only 7% have car. 69% not have bicycle only 31% have bicycle because those don't have bike they used bicycle only. Overall study found that the respondents were predominantly middle-aged, moderately educated farmers with small family sizes and diversified livelihoods, providing a relevant base for assessing awareness and impact of veterinary extension services to control of zoonotic disease prevention. www.extensionjournal.com

Constraints faced by farmers in relation to control of zoonotic diseases of Tripura, India

An overwhelming majority (96%) of livestock farmers faced constraints due to the absence of quarantine facilities, limiting proper isolation and control of infected animals. Most respondents (92%) perceived diagnostic tool as expensive, highlighting economic barriers to timely disease control. Similar types of the study were found from Iversen et al. (2010) [4] identified that Farmers discovered a number of external barriers s including lack of knowledge and both cultural and economic pressure from society and industry. A large proportion of farmers (85%) reported lack of proper waste disposal as a constraint, increasing environmental and public health risks. More than four-fifths of the respondents (82%) experienced misunderstanding regarding biosecurity measure, indicating serious knowledge gaps. Nearly twothirds of the respondents (63%) were reluctant to to change traditional farming practices, reflecting behavioral resistance. More than half of the farmers (56%) reported misconceptions regarding zoonotic diseases transmission, contributing to improper practices. Over half of the respondents (54%) perceived zoonotic diseases as complex disease regulation, making them difficult to understand and manage. Nearly half of the farmers (49%) reported lack of insurance as a constraint, increasing financial vulnerability during disease outbreaks. About 48% of respondents relied on traditional beliefs and cultural practices, which may hinder adoption of scientific disease control measures. More than two-fifths (43%) experienced delays in government response veterinary or extension services, affecting timely disease management. Like, Shekhawat et al. (2024) [13] found that a heterogeneous array of obstacles exists, encompassing insufficient awareness among agricultural producers, inadequate governmental assistance, and challenges related to prompt identification. About 42% of farmers faced constraints related to lack of adequate livestock housing, affecting management decisions. More than one-fourth (28%) reported lack of loan as a constraint in disease prevention practices. About (26%) of respondents faced shortages of clean water, limiting hygiene and biosecurity practices. Where as Ngoshe et al. (2023) [9] observed that the most significant challenges identified include water scarcity, limited grazing land, livestock theft, and restrictions on animal movement, and animal diseases as the most significant challenges they faced regarding animal production. One-fifth of the farmers (20%) reported high cost of medicines as a constraint in treating zoonotic diseases. About 17% of respondents identified general economic loss due to mortality as a limiting factor in adopting preventive measures

References

1. Ahmed ZA, Salah HM, Mohamed MOS, Mio JB. Public health awareness status of zoonotic diseases in Mogadishu-Somalia. American Journal of Aquaculture and Animal Science. 2023;2(1):7-12.
2. Aung EEP, Htun NMM, Soe PP. Impact of health education on preventive measures of rabies among primary school teachers in Mandalay, Myanmar. International Journal of Community Medicine and Public Health. 2021;8:1558-1564.
3. Hundal JS, Sodhi SS, Gupta A, Singh J, Chahal US. Awareness, knowledge, and risks of zoonotic diseases among livestock farmers in Punjab. Veterinary World. 2016;9(2):186-191.
4. Iversen JE, Cook AJC, Watson E, Nielen M, Larkin L, Wooldridge M, et al. Perceptions, circumstances and motivators that influence implementation of zoonotic control programs on cattle farms. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 2010;93:276-285.
5. Mir I, Bhat AH. Knowledge and risks of zoonotic diseases among livestock farmers in Budgam district of Kashmir Valley, India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2020;9(4):29242934.
6. Mosalagae D, Pfukenyi DM, Matope G. Milk producers' awareness of milk-borne zoonoses in selected smallholder and commercial dairy farms of Zimbabwe. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 2011;43:733-739.
7. Namusisi S, Mahero M, Travis D, Pelican K, Robertson C, Mugisha L. A descriptive study of zoonotic disease risk at the human-wildlife interface in a biodiversity hot spot in South Western Uganda. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2021;15(1):e0008633.
8. National accounts statistics 1961. Cattle equivalents different categories of livestock. New Delhi: Central Statistical Organisation; 1961.
9. Ngoshe YB, Etter E, Gomez-Vazquez JP, Thompson PN. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of communal livestock farmers regarding animal health and zoonoses in far northern KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023;20:511-520.
10. Patel K, Saxena D. Self-reported selected zoonotic diseases among animal handlers in urban Ahmedabad, India. Veterinary World. 2019;12(1):176-182.
11. Phu TG, Hung TG. The socioeconomic characteristics influencing knowledge, attitudes, and practices in toxocariasis prevention among the adult Khmer population in Tra Vinh province, Vietnam. Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Medicine. 2025;18(12):541550.
12. Rajkumar K, Bhattacharya A, David S, Hari Balaji S, Hariharan R, Jayakumar M, et al. Socio-demographic www.extensionjournal.com study on extent of knowledge, awareness, attitude, and risks of zoonotic diseases among livestock owners in Puducherry region. Veterinary World. 2016;9(9):10181024.
13. Shekhawat SS, Tanwar M, Bishnoi P. A comprehensive study on the management of avian influenza outbreaks in poultry farms: Perspectives of veterinary practitioners in Rajasthan. Veterinary Practitioner. 2024;25(1):146-150.
14. World Health Organization. Zoonoses. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015.
15. Yasobanta S, Bruchhausen W, Saxena D, Memon FZ, Falkenberg T. Health system contact and awareness of zoonotic diseases: Can it serve as one health entry point in the urban community of Ahmedabad, India? Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine. 2021;94:259-269.
16. 20th livestock census. New Delhi: Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Government of India; 2019.