Assessment of awareness and adoption of vaccination practices among goat farmers and its impact on the occurrence of Peste des Petits Ruminants (PPR) foot hill region of Jammu

Introduction

Small ruminant production plays a crucial role in sustaining rural livelihoods, particularly among smallholder and landless farmers in developing countries like India. Goats, due to their adaptability, short generation interval and low input requirements, serve as an important source of income, nutrition and financial security for marginal farming communities (Devendra, 2013; Kumar et al., 2019) [9,19] . In India, goat farming significantly contributes to the livestock sector by providing meat, milk and employment opportunities, especially in arid and semi-arid regions where crop production is uncertain (DAHD, 2022). Among the various constraints affecting goat productivity, infectious diseases remain a major challenge. One of the most devastating diseases is Peste des Petits Ruminants (PPR), a highly contagious transboundary viral disease caused by a morbillivirus belonging to the family Paramyxoviridae (Banyard et al., 2010) [3] . The disease is characterized by fever, erosive stomatitis, diarrhea, pneumonia and high mortality rates, particularly in young and immunologically naïve animals (Diallo, 2003; OIE, 2021) [10,30] . PPR has been reported widely across Asia and Africa, causing substantial economic losses due to mortality, reduced productivity and trade restrictions (FAO, 2015) [13] . Vaccination is widely recognized as the most effective and economical strategy for the prevention and control of PPR. The availability of safe and potent live attenuated vaccines has made it possible to significantly reduce disease incidence when adequate coverage is achieved (Singh et al., 2004; Mariner et al., 2016) [26,21] . In line with global eradication efforts led by Food and Agriculture Organization and World Organisation for Animal Health, India has implemented mass vaccination programs targeting small ruminants to eliminate PPR by 2030 (FAO & OIE, 2015) [12] . However, despite the availability of vaccines, outbreaks continue to occur in many regions, indicating gaps in vaccination coverage and implementation. A critical factor influencing the success of vaccination programs is the level of awareness and adoption among farmers. Awareness regarding disease transmission, clinical signs and preventive measures directly affects farmers' willingness to vaccinate their animals (Kumar et al., 2020) [16] . Similarly, adoption of vaccination practices is influenced by multiple socio-economic and institutional factors, including access to veterinary services, cost of vaccination, education level and extension support (Rathod et al., 2012) [23] . Low awareness and partial adoption often result in inadequate herd immunity, thereby facilitating the persistence and spread of the virus within flocks. There is a need to establish a clear linkage between farmers' vaccination behavior and the actual occurrence of PPR in the field. While several studies have documented seroprevalence and epidemiology of PPR, limited research has focused on integrating socio-behavioral aspects such as awareness and adoption with disease occurrence (Balamurugan et al., 2014) [1] . Understanding this relationship is essential for designing effective intervention strategies, improving vaccination coverage and strengthening disease control programs. Therefore, the present study aims to assess the awareness and adoption of vaccination practices among goat farmers and to evaluate their impact on the occurrence of PPR. The findings of this study are expected to provide valuable insights for policymakers, veterinarians and extension agencies to enhance disease control strategies and move towards the successful eradication of PPR.

Materials and Methods

Experimental procedure

The overall experimental procedure of the present study has been presented table .1 Collection of data and information regarding PPR awareness and other managemental practices was done by interview method. Sample and data collection were done in rural areas of the above three districts from nomadic as well as small and marginal farmers.

Designing Questionnaire

A predesigned questionnaire was prepared for the interview of the farmers regarding their awareness, attitude and practices regarding the disease. The entire questionnaire was sectioned into three groups. Group I was based on managemental conditions of the goat rearing. It includes system of rearing (free range/semi-intensive/intensive) herd size, members of the herd, feeding management, browsing areas, migration status of the animal etc. Group II contains information regarding farmer and his awareness regarding peste des petits ruminants and related diseases. In section III the health managemental practices were taken into consideration which includes quarantine measures, sick animal isolation, deworming of the animal, vaccination status of the animal, other infections (bacterial/parasitic/fungal), veterinary services etc.

Data collection and interview process

A total was 250 farmers were selected for the interview process with 90 samples from Jammu, 85 samples from Kathua and 75 Samples from Samba district. The questions in the questionnaire were asked to the farmers in their local language (mainly dogri) and the response was recorded in English. The person who mostly takes care of the animals was typically the one chosen for the interview, but wherever it was required, other pertinent family members' opinions were also included. All the standard and scientific terms were explained to the farmers in an easy language. The interview gathered data on the age, sex, education level, primary farming enterprise, and family size of the farmers, as well as information on the goat breed and herd sizes, common and prevalent diseases, management practices (housing, feeding, breeding, healthcare), awareness of PPR and rinderpest, the animal's vaccination status and other topics.

Statistical analysis

The data collected from interview through questionnaire was entered into MS Excel sheets. SPSS software was utilized for descriptive analysis of managemental variables. Univariate analysis of variance was used to assess impact of managemental practices on the animal's health parameters (Snedecor, & Cochran, 1994) [27] .

Results

Distribution of breeds in the study area

In this study the two breeds viz. Beetal and Bakarwali were taken into consideration. The percentage of Beetal breeds among the study population in Jammu, Kathua and Samba were observed to be 62.2%, 55.3% and 65.3% respectively whereas the percentage of Bakarwali breeds in the study area were 37.8%, 44.7% and 34.7% respectively. The distribution of breeds over the three districts are shown in the following graph figure 1.

Frequency distribution of breed and herd size in the survey

The overall population of Bakarwali and Beetal breeds in combined three districts were 39.2% (98/250) and 60.4% (152/250) respectively. The overall sample size was divided into three groups based on the number of animals present in a herd reared by a single farmer. The three groups included large sized herd having more than 30 animals, medium sized herd having 10 to 30 animals and small size herd with less than 10 animals. The percentage of large, medium and small sized herd owned by the farmers were 7.6% (19/250), 29.2% (73/250) and 63.2% (158/250) respectively. The frequency distribution is depicted in the following graph figure 2.

Frequency distribution of goat production system

It was observed that most of the farmers in the study were rearing goats along with other livestock species. Out of 250 goats, 75.6% (189/250) were reared in mixed farming while the rest 24.4% (61/250) were individually reared. This study also revealed that 65.6% (164/250) of the goats were reared under semi-intensive system of production with only 34.4% (86/250) goats being reared under free range system. The migration status of the animal noticed however was only 3.2% (8/250) and most of the goats 98.6% (242/250) were having no history of migration as shown in figure 3.

3.4.

Rearing system of management of goats in three districts of Jammu region (Jammu, Kathua and Samba) Goats were managed under three systems of namely free range, semi-intensive and intensive systems. However, only two types of production systems were observed which were followed by the farmers i.e., free range and semiintensive farming system. It was also observed that majority of the farmers in the study area used semi-intensive form of rearing system. The percentage of semi-intensive farming in Jammu, Kathua and Samba observed were 61.1%, 63.5% and 73.3% respectively while the percentage of free-range system of management followed by the farmers observed were 38.9%, 36.5% and 26.7% for Jammu, Kathua and Samba respectively. The total samples from each district were 90, 85 and 75 respectively for Jammu, Kathua and Samba districts.

The graph showing the management of goats under different rearing systems are shown in figure 4.

Feeding systems used in different herd sizes in Jammu region

There were three types of feeding management systems followed in Jammu region namely grazing, stall feeding and combination of both stall fed and grazing system. The graph here depicts that the grazing combined with stall fed type of feeding system was the most common in all three types of herd (large, medium and small sized). In large sized herd the percentage of grazing, stall fed and combined grazing along with stall fed system were 73.7%, 1.3% and 5.3% respectively in overall 19 sample size. In small sized herd the percentage of grazing, stall fed and combined grazing along with stall fed system were 67.1%, 19.2% and 96.8% respectively and in small herd it was observed to be 1.9%, 21.1% and 13.7% respectively figure 5.

Feeding systems used in three districts of Jammu region

In the present study feeding systems which were used in the three districts were observed. It was noticed that in Jammu region, among feeding management, grazing combined with stall feeding was mostly practiced which was observed as 61.1% whereas the rate of practicing of grazing and stall feeding was 18.9% and 20%, respectively. In Kathua district, the pattern of feeding management including grazing, stall feeding and both systems were 34.1%, 2.4%, 63.5%, respectively out of the total of 85 samples. Similarly, the most preferred management system used in Samba district was grazing along with stall feeding 73.3% and 26.7% grazing out of the total 75 samples. The graph depicting the frequency of feeding systems in three districts of Jammu region is shown in

Discussion

The [8,2] . The relatively better recognition of clinical signs resembling rinderpest may be attributed to earlier national eradication campaigns, which created residual awareness in farming communities (FAO, 2015) [13] .

Vaccination remains the most effective strategy for controlling PPR however, adoption rates were found to be suboptimal in the present study. This aligns with previous reports indicating that socio-economic constraints, lack of access to veterinary services and insufficient extension support reduce vaccination uptake (Singh et al., 2019; Kumar et al., 2021) [25,17] . Farmers often perceive vaccination as unnecessary unless disease outbreaks occur, reflecting a reactive rather than preventive approach to animal health management. Furthermore, irregular vaccination coverage can lead to the persistence of susceptible animal populations, thereby facilitating viral circulation within herds (Diallo et al., 2007) [11] .

The study also highlighted that parasitic infestations were highly prevalent alongside PPR, indicating poor overall herd health management. Chronic parasitic infections, particularly gastrointestinal parasites and coccidiosis, are known to suppress immune function and increase susceptibility to infectious diseases (Kumar et al., 2014; Taylor et al., 2016) [15, 28] . The low adoption of routine deworming practices observed in medium and large herds suggests a lack of structured herd health programs. This co-existence of parasitic burden and viral diseases underscores the need for integrated disease management strategies rather than focusing on single diseases.

Another important finding was the poor implementation of biosecurity measures, including quarantine, isolation of sick animals and farm sanitation. These practices are essential components of disease prevention but are often neglected due to lack of awareness or perceived inconvenience (OIE, 2019) [29] . Similar gaps in biosecurity adoption have been documented in small ruminant production systems across developing countries, where traditional management practices dominate (Rathore et al., 2010; Chauhan et al., 2018) [24,7] . The absence of these preventive measures significantly increases the risk of disease introduction and spread within herds.

The study further revealed that only a small proportion of farmers relied on qualified veterinarians, while the majority depended on paraveterinarians or self-medication. This trend reflects both the limited availability and accessibility of veterinary services, especially in remote areas. Despite India's relatively strong veterinary infrastructure, the ratio of veterinarians to livestock population remains inadequate, leading to gaps in service delivery (Bardhan et al., 2015; DAHD, 2022) [4, ] . In such situations, farmers often resort to unregulated use of veterinary drugs, which may result in improper dosage, drug resistance and treatment failure (Kumar and Gupta, 2018) [18] . Distance to veterinary facilities and associated costs were also identified as significant determinants influencing farmers' health management decisions. [22,20] . Additionally, the easy availability of veterinary drugs without prescription encourages irrational drug use, further complicating disease control efforts (Chauhan et al., 2016) [6] . From a broader perspective, the findings emphasize that knowledge gaps, limited extension services and inadequate veterinary access collectively hinder the effectiveness of PPR control programs. The global eradication strategy for PPR, led by FAO and OIE, highlights the importance of achieving at least 70% vaccination coverage along with strong surveillance and farmer awareness to successfully eliminate the disease (FAO & OIE, 2015) [12] . Without addressing these sociotechnical constraints, vaccination programs alone may not yield the desired outcomes. Therefore, the study strongly advocates for strengthening veterinary extension services and farmer education programs. Awareness campaigns should focus not only on PPR but also on overall herd health management, including deworming, vaccination and biosecurity practices. Participatory approaches involving farmer groups, local leaders, and community-based animal health workers can enhance the adoption of recommended practices (Catley et al., 2012) [5] . Additionally, mobile veterinary clinics and digital advisory platforms can improve accessibility of services in remote areas.

Conclusion

It is concluded that goat farmers have limited awareness regarding the economic importance and severity of Peste des petits ruminants (PPR). Knowledge about disease transmission, early symptoms and preventive measures was inadequate, leading to delayed action and increased disease risk. Adoption of essential health management practices such as vaccination, deworming, quarantine, isolation of sick animals and farm sanitation was also found to be low. This poor adoption is influenced by limited access to veterinary services, lack of extension support and financial and technical constraints. Farmers often depend on informal treatment practices, which may reduce the effectiveness of disease control.

Conflict of Interest Not available

Financial Support

References

1. Balamurugan V, Saravanan P, Sen A, Rajak KK, Venkatesan G, Krishnamoorthy P, et al. Prevalence of PPR in India. VirusDisease. 2014;25(1):85-92.
2. Balamurugan V, Saravanan P, Sen A, Rajak KK, Venkatesan G, Krishnamoorthy P, et al. Prevalence of peste des petits ruminants in India: A review. VirusDisease. 2014;25(3):307-313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13337-014-0213-3
3. Banyard AC, Parida S, Batten C, Oura C, Kwiatek O, Libeau G. Global distribution of peste des petits ruminants virus and prospects for improved diagnosis and control. Journal of General Virology. 2010;91:28852897.
4. Bardhan D, Kumar S, Singh RK. Delivery of animal healthcare services in India: An economic analysis. Agricultural Economics Research Review. 2015;28(1):127-134.
5. Catley A, Alders RG, Wood JLN. Participatory epidemiology: Approaches, methods, experiences. Veterinary Journal. 2012;191(2):151-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2011.03.010
6. Chauhan A, Patel SJ, Patel AM. Drug usage pattern in livestock: A field study. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences. 2016;86(5):597-600.
7. Chauhan A, Patel SJ, Patel AM. Constraints in adoption of scientific livestock practices. Indian Journal of Extension Education. 2018;54(3):45-50.
8. Chukwudi IC, Okoli IC, Ezeokonkwo RC. Risk factors associated with peste des petits ruminants in small ruminants in Southeast Nigeria. Veterinary World. 2020;13(4):678-684. https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2020.678-684
9. Devendra C. Investments on pro-poor development projects on goats. Small Ruminant Research. 2013;109:20-36.
10. Diallo A. Control of PPR. Small Ruminant Research. 2003;51:215-225.
11. Diallo A, Minet C, Le Goff C, Berhe G, Albina E, Libeau G, et al. The threat of peste des petits ruminants: Progress in vaccine development and control. Vaccine. 2007;25(30):5591-5597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2007.02.013
12. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). Global strategy for the control and eradication of PPR. Rome/Paris; 2015.
13. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Peste des petits ruminants global eradication programme. Rome: FAO; 2015.
14. Garg MK, Mohanta RK. Veterinary service delivery system in rural India: An overview. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences. 2012;82(9):1059-1064.
15. Kumar N, Maherchandani S, Kashyap SK, Singh SV, Sharma S, Chaubey KK, et al. Peste des petits ruminants virus infection of small ruminants: A comprehensive review. Virus Research. 2014;185:70-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2014.02.005
16. Kumar R, Singh B, Chauhan A. Farmers' awareness and adoption of animal health practices. Indian Journal of Extension Education. 2020;56:45-50.
17. Kumar R, Singh P, Singh V. Adoption of vaccination practices among small ruminant farmers in India. Indian Journal of Animal Research. 2021;55(4):456-460. https://doi.org/10.18805/IJAR.B-4123
18. Kumar S, Gupta J. Irrational use of veterinary drugs in livestock production systems. Indian Journal of Veterinary Medicine. 2018;38(1):12-16.
19. Kumar S, Kumar A, Parappurathu S. Goat farming in India: Status and future. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences. 2019;89:123-132.
20. Malsawmdawngliana, Rahman S. Access to veterinary services and its impact on livestock farming. Indian Journal of Extension Education. 2016;52(1-2):84-88.
21. Mariner JC, Jones BA, Rich KM, Thevasagayam S, Anderson J, Jeggo M, et al. The opportunity to eradicate PPR. Veterinary Record. 2016;179(1):10-11.
22. Mirajkar PP, Sudeepkumar NK, Chauhan NB. Factors influencing utilization of veterinary services by livestock owners. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education. 2011;11(3):78-82.
23. Rathod P, Nikam TR, Landge S, Hatey A, Vajreshwari S. Farmers' perception about animal disease management. Veterinary World. 2012;5(7):423-426.
24. Rathore RS, Singh R, Kachwaha RN. Adoption of improved animal husbandry practices by livestock farmers. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences. 2010;80(8):798-801.
25. Singh B, Prasad S, Verma MR. Constraints in adoption of vaccination in small ruminants. Indian Journal of Small Ruminants. 2019;25(2):234-238.
26. Singh RP, Sreenivasa BP, Dhar P, Shah LC, Bandyopadhyay SK. Development of PPR vaccine. Veterinary Microbiology. 2004;98:223-230.
27. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG. Statistical methods. 8th ed. Iowa State University Press; 1994.
28. Taylor MA, Coop RL, Wall RL. Veterinary parasitology. 4th ed. Wiley Blackwell; 2016.
29. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). Biosecurity procedures in small ruminant production systems. Paris: OIE; 2019.
30. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). Peste des petits ruminants (PPR). Terrestrial Manual; 2021.