to analyze the socio-personal, socio-economic, communication and psychological characteristics of sheep farmers about improved sheep management practices in zone Ic of Rajasthan

Introduction

Sheep play a vital role in the socio-economic and cultural livelihoods of rural households in India, as they are an important category of small ruminants. Sheep rearing has been practiced since ancient times and is widely regarded as a profession with considerable commercial potential. Owing to their small body size, ease of management, high reproductive efficiency, early sexual maturity, low input requirements, minimal initial investment and relatively simple marketing channels, sheep farming is extensively practiced across the world. These characteristics make sheep rearing more advantageous for rural populations compared to large ruminants such as cattle and buffaloes. Sheep Farming has traditionally been one of the most important elements of the agro-economic system of the Rajasthan state and more than 80.00 per cent rural families keep livestock in the state. Rajasthan earns annually remarkable revenue from wool, mutton and other products from sheep. Cost effective economy and less expensive housing, feeding practices make the sheep farming economic viable proposition for the poor farmers. Sheep farming has a long-standing tradition in Rajasthan, India's largest state, which is predominantly arid and semi-arid and includes a substantial portion of the Thar Desert. More than 80 per cent of rural households in the state are engaged in animal husbandry. Rajasthan possesses a substantial livestock population of 56.8 million, accounting for 11.27 per cent of India's total livestock population of 535.78 million, thereby ranking second in the country. The livestock sector contributes approximately 10.21 per cent to the state's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). According to the 2012 Livestock Census, the sheep population in Rajasthan increased by 14.13 per cent, constituting nearly 13.8 per cent of the state's total livestock population (Anonymous, 2021) [2] . Rajasthan ranks first in the country in terms of camel and goat populations, second in buffalo and total livestock population, third in horses, and fourth in sheep population. As per the 20th Livestock Cens (2019), India had 74.26 million sheep, of which Rajasthan accounted for 7.9 million, ranking among the leading states after Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, and Karnataka

Materials and Methods

Due to the wide diversity in agro-climatic conditions across Rajasthan and to address location-specific agricultural www.extensionjournal.com research needs, the state has been classified into ten agroclimatic zones. Among these, the Hyper Arid Partially Irrigated Western Plain Zone (Ic) was selected for the research study. This zone comprises the districts of Bikaner, Jaisalmer and parts of Churu. Out of these, the districts of Bikaner and Jaisalmer were purposively selected because they possess the highest sheep population within this agroclimatic zone. For the study, three tehsils from each selected district were purposively chosen based on their larger sheep population. Thus, a total of six tehsils were selected from the two districts. Further, five villages from each selected tehsil were chosen on the basis of having the highest sheep population. Consequently, thirty villages were selected from the six tehsils of Bikaner and Jaisalmer districts. In consultation with concerned local authorities, a comprehensive list of sheep farmers having a minimum of five years of experience in sheep husbandry was prepared from the selected villages. These farmers constituted the sampling frame for the study. From this frame, a total of 300 sheep farmers were selected as respondents.

Preparation of interview schedule and data collection

An interview schedule was carefully developed to collect relevant and reliable information from sheep farmers, keeping the objectives of the study in view. The schedule consisted of both open-ended and closed-ended questions, all framed in a clear, simple and direct manner. Prior to final data collection, the interview schedule was pre-tested with 10 sheep farmers to assess its clarity and suitability. Based on the results of the pre-test, necessary corrections and modifications were made. Data for the study were collected through face-to-face personal interviews with the selected sheep farmers using the finalized interview schedule. After each interview, the data sheets were thoroughly checked and verified to ensure that the responses were accurately and completely recorded.

Data tabulation and analysis

After completing data collection, all the data were compiled, coded and then tabulated for the processing. Local units were converted into standard units. Different statistical methods were used like included frequency, percentage, mean, mean percent score, standard deviation, rank correlation, formulation of null and alternative hypotheses. To analyze the data, the SPSS statistics 16.0 program and excel were used. [30] , Kumari et al. (2014) [16] , Shirsat et al. (2019) [26] , Kadagi et al. (2020) [13] and Chopra et al. (2022) [7] . The sheep farmers were divided into four categories based on their caste as Scheduled Tribes (ST), Scheduled Caste (SC), Other Backward Class (OBC) and General. The data presented in Table 2 reveled that the overall majority i.e., 40.34 per cent of sheep farmers belonged to OBC caste, followed by 29.33 per cent of sheep farmers who belonged to general caste, 27.33 per cent belonged to SC caste and only 03.00 per cent of sheep farmers belonged to ST caste categories. Thus, it was concluded that majority of the sheep farmers belonged to OBC caste category. The caste data in Table 2 further showed according to district wise, majority (38.67 per cent) of sheep farmers of Jaisalmer and Bikaner districts (42.00 per cent) belonged to OBC caste. The possible reasons that OBC sheep farmers are having good education, awareness, economic incentives, big community network and local adaptation. The findings are in conformity with the findings of Rajanna et al. (2011) [22] , Rajanna et al. (2012) [21] , Singh et al. (2013) [28] , Rao (2013a) [24] , Sridhar (2017) [29] , Ramesh (2017) [23] , Guruprasad et al. (2019) [11] and Kadagi et al. (2020) [13] who reported that most of the farmers belonged to OBC (other backward class) category. Schools and colleges in these regions may be few, far between and under-resourced, making regular attendance challenging and families engaged in subsistence farming might not afford school fees, uniforms, or educational materials. The results were in conformity with Dejen (2010) [9] , Patil et al. (2012) [18] , Rajanna et al. (2012) [21] , Kumari, N. (2014) [16] , Arpana et al. (2016) [3] , Ramesh (2017) [23] , Sridhar (2017) [29] , Chappa et al. (2018) [6] , Shirsat et al.

Results and Discussion

Socio-economic information of the sheep farmers

Data of the

(2019) [26] and Islam et al. (2021) [12] . The respondents were divided into two categories namely nuclear family and joint family. The data presented in Table 2 reveals that out of 300 sheep farmers most of the farmers were belonged to the joint family (58.00 per cent) followed by respondents who belonged to nuclear family (42.00 per cent). A close observation of findings in Table 2 further shows that majority (70.00 per cent) of sheep farmers of Jaisalmer district belonged to joint family whereas, majority (54.00 per cent) of respondents of Bikaner district belonged to nuclear family. It might be due to the reason that the joint family system provides a robust economic unit capable of pooling resources, labour and skill, which was crucial in managing agricultural activities, handle the diverse and labor-intensive tasks such as grazing man, ploughing, sowing and harvesting of crops for sheep fodder. The findings are in line with the research study conducted by, Patil et al. (2012) [18] , Guruprasad et al. (2019) [11] and Singh et al. (2020) [27] . On the basis of type of house sheep farmers were classified into three categories viz. kutcha house, pucca house and mixed house (kutcha+pucca). The frequencies were counted and converted into percentage. The data are presented in the Table 2. The data presented in Table 2 showed that the overall majority (51.00 per cent) of sheep farmers of selected districts lived in pucca house, whereas 25.33 per cent lived in mixed house and remaining (23.67 per cent) lived in kutcha house. A close inspection of data further indicated that majority of respondents of Jaisalmer (49.33 per cent) and Bikaner district (52.67 per cent) lived in pucca house. It might be due to the reason that the shift to pucca houses reflect an improvement in the economic condition of many rural sheep farmers. Government initiatives, subsidies, schemes, rural housing funds and rural development programme (PMAY) have facilitated to access better housing conditions. The findings are in consistent with the finding of Rajanna et al. (2012) [21] , Arpana et al.

(2016) [3] and Sridhar (2017) [29] . On the basis of size of land holding sheep farmers were categorised as landless, marginal farmers, small farmers, www.extensionjournal.com semi-medium farmers, medium farmers and large farmers.

The data presented in Table 3 shows that the overall majority (42.00 per cent) of sheep farmers selected districts had marginal land holding, followed by small (18.33 per cent), semi-medium (17.67 per cent), landless (14.33 per cent), large (05.00 per cent) and possessed medium land holding (02.67 per cent). A perusal of data shown in Table 3 reveals that in Jaisalmer district majority (40.00 per cent) of sheep farmers had marginal land holding, and in Bikaner district most of sheep farmers (44.00 per cent) had marginal land holding. It might be because of the fact that in the present time land holding is being declined trend continuously due to fragmentation of land, economic limitation of farmers often restricts their ability to purchase. Findings of Rajanna et al. (2012) [21] , Patil et al. (2012) [18] , Sudhakarrao (2012) [30] , Choudhary et al. (2013), Shirsat et al. (2019) [26] , Gupta et al. (2020) [10] , Sharma (2021) [25] and Islam et al. (2021) [12] ). It might be due to the specific reasons that all sheep farmers belonged to rural background so sheep rearing is the main source of their family income and also additional income from agriculture and livestock has probably contributed to increase in their total annual income. Similar conclusions were also recorded by the Rao (2013a) [24] , Ramesh (2017) [23] , Shirsat, (2018) [26] , Guruprasad et al. (2019) [11] , Gupta et al. (2020) [10] , Sharma (2021) [25] and Channappa et al. (2021) [5] who also found that respondents had medium level of income. 3 showed that most of the respondents of selected districts i.e. 24.00 per cent were engaged in agriculture+livestock for earing income, followed by 23.34 per cent engaged in livestock farming, 20.33 per cent in agriculture+sheep rearing, 15.00 per cent in sheep rearing, 09.00 per cent in labour+sheep rearing, 03.00 per cent in sheep rearing+business/ self-employment and remaining 01.00 per cent were engaged in sheep rearing+service. A fine look at the data in Table 3 further indicated that majority of sheep farmers 28.65 per cent were engaged in agriculture+sheep rearing in Jaisalmer district and majority in Bikaner district (34.64 per cent) were engaged in agriculture+livestock. It might be due to the reason that the rural sheep farmers often engage in both agriculture and livestock activities to establish a more resilient and sustainable farming system. The results of the research study are in conformity with the findings of Arya and Chander (2009) [4] , Kamal et al. (2012) [14] , Sudhakarrao, (2012) [30] , who also found that respondents had agriculture+livestock occupation. On the basis of number of sheep possessed by the respondents, they were divided into three categories i.e., small flock size (<50 sheep), medium flock size (51-100 sheep) and large flock size (>100 sheep). The data presented in the Table 3 shows that most of the sheep farmers of selected districts i.e. 42.00 per cent to have medium flock size (51 to 100 sheep) followed by 33.67 per cent large flock size (>100 sheep) and remaining 24. 33 per cent sheep respondents have small flock size (<50 sheep). The data in Table 3 further revealed that majority (43.33 per cent) of sheep farmers in Jaisalmer district have large flock size (>100 sheep) whereas, majority of sheep farmers in Bikaner district have (43.33 per cent) medium flock size (51-100 sheep). On the basis of herd size of animals possessed by sheep farmers, they were categorized into three group viz., small herd size (less than 20 animals), medium herd size (from 20 to 50 animals) and large herd size (more than 50 animals). The results presented in the Table 3 indicate that out of total 300 respondents 55.00 per cent of sheep farmers reported to have medium herd size (20 to 50 animals) while, 25.34 per cent of the respondents reported to have large herd size (more than 50 animals) followed by 19.66 per cent respondents found to have small herd size (less than 20 animals). Further glance at the data in the Table 3 showed that 56.00 per cent of Jaisalmer district sheep farmers and 54.00 per cent of Bikaner district sheep farmers were having medium herd size. Presented finding are supported with the results of studies conducted by Patel et al. (2013) [17] and Sharma, (2021) [25] who also found that majority of farmer possessed medium herd size. To classify the sheep farmers on the basis of sources of purchase of animals, they were categorised into six grouped namely local market/ village market, tehsil/district market, animal market/animal fair, government breed farm, friends and relatives and any other farmers. A perusal of data showed in Table 3 reveal that out of total 300 respondents, overall majority purchased animals at local market/ village market (32.24 per cent) followed by 27.29 per cent, 20.24 per cent, 16. 47 per cent and 02.24 per cent from friends and relatives, any other farmers, tehsil/district market and animal market/animal fair. Only 01.53 per cent purchase form government breed farm. A close exploration of results in the Table 3 further indicated that 29.41 per cent of sheep farmers purchase animals from friends and relatives in Jaisalmer whereas, 36.32 per cent of sheep farmers purchase animal form local market/village market in Bikaner district. These observations are in agreement with the findings of Suresh et al. (2008) [31] , Pokharkar (2013) [19] and Shirsat et al. (2019) [26] who concluded that sheep farmers sold sheep products mainly to village agent or middlemen who had regular contact with the sheep farmers. 01 01.17 01 00.61 00 00.00 00 00.00 00 00.00 05 03.08 00 00.00 00 00.00

Out of state market 00 00.00 00 00.00 00 00.00 00 00.00 00 00.00 00 00.00 00 00.00 00 00.00 Relatives/friends 38 44.70 33 20.37 00 00.00 00 00.00 00 00.00 00 00.00 0 00.00 00 00.00 00 00.00 00 00.00

Out of state market 00 00.00 00 00.00 00 00.00 00 00.00 0 00.00 00 00.00 00 00.00 00 00.00 Relatives/friends 14 38.88 14 20.28

Social participation

Data presented in Table 3 reveal that the based on mean and standard deviation, sheep farmers were classified into four categories viz. none participation, member of one organization, member of more than one organization and office holder & wide public leader. The data given in Table 3 reveal that out of 300 respondents, majority (68.33%) of sheep farmers were having no social participation, whereas 24.67 per cent were member of one organization, 04.33 per cent were member of more than one organization and only 02.67 per cent sheep respondents were office holder & wide public leader. A close exploration of data in the Table 3 further indicated that in Jaisalmer district majority (70.67 per cent) of sheep farmers not having social participation and Bikaner district majority (66.00 per cent) of sheep farmers not having social participation. These finding are supported by Kumari (2014) [16] who also found that majority of farmers not having social participation. [14] , Venkatachalapathy et al. (2020) [32] and Islam et al. (2021) [12] who also found that majority of farmers not attended any training programme. [26] , Choudhary (2021), Sharma (2021) [25] and Channappa et al. (2021) [5] who also found that majority of farmers were reported having medium level of extension contact. [26] , Choudhary (2021), Sharma (2021) [25] and Channappa et al. (2021) [5] who also found that majority of farmers were reported having medium level of extension contact. www.extensionjournal.com [25] who also found that majority of farmers were found medium level of mass media utilization. [22] , Rao (2013b) [24] and Shirsat et al. (2019) [26] who also found that majority of farmers were in medium level of experience in sheep rearing. [20] , Channappa et al. (2021) [5] , Sreedhara (2021) and Kumar et al. (2022) [15] . [20] , Patel et al. (2014) [17] , Vishwakarma et al.

(2017) [33] and Choudhary (2021) reported that majority of farmers were having medium level of innovativeness.

Classification of sheep farmers according to their Innovativeness

References

1. Anonymous. Economic survey: role of livestock in Indian economy. New Delhi: Government of India; 2021. www.extensionjournal.com
2. Arpana BC, Kondepudi N, Shanmukh SK. A study on socio-economic status of Bandur sheep rearing farmers in Mandya district, Karnataka. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science. 2016;5(2):153-160.
3. Arya HPS, Chander M. Goat production by landless and small-scale farmers in North Indian plains. In: Proceedings of the Seventeenth Symposium of the International Farming Systems Association; Lake Buena Vista, Florida, USA; 2009.
4. Channappa, Shashidhar KK, Goudappa SB, Basavaraj H, Sreedhara JN. Profile characteristics and their relationship with sheep management practices in Raichur district of Kalyana Karnataka, India. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2021;10(12):2034-2040.
5. Chappa H, Sundaram SM, Sivakumar T, Venkataramanan R. Socio-economic status, husbandry practices followed and constraints faced by Madras Red sheep farmers in Kanchipuram district. Indian Journal of Veterinary and Animal Science Research. 2018;47(4):1400-1415.
6. Chopra G, Tetarwal GM, Kakraliya AL, Serawat RK, Kumar D. Socio-economic status of sheep farmers in Tonk district of Rajasthan. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2022;11(1):929-932.
7. Choudary PV, Ekambaram B, Prakash GM, Rajanna N. Socio-economic characteristics and marketing attributes of Macherla brown sheep farmers. Indian Journal of Production and Management. 2013;29(1-2):96-101.
8. Dejen A. Phenotypic characterization of indigenous sheep types in Kaffa and Bench-Maji zones of Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples Region. Dire Dawa: Alemaya University; 2010.
9. Gupta R, Singh K, Bhadauria P, Jadoun YS. Socioeconomic characteristics and extension intervention of livestock farmers in Jalandhar district of Punjab, India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2020;9(7):3722-3731.
10. Guruprasad R, Rajeshwari YB, Siddeswara NC, Kumar NS, Rudrappa SM, Sumitra BM. Socio-economic profile of sheep farmers and flock size in different agroclimatic zones of Hassan district. International Journal of Agriculture Sciences. 2019;11(3):7853-7856.
11. Islam SS, Hasan MS, Ghosh N, Islam MS, Islam MM. Prospects and problems of indigenous sheep production in south-western coastal regions of Bangladesh. Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2021;16(1):54-66.
12. Kadagi M, Kammar MR, Arjun RS, Ashoka P. Impact of sheep and goat rearing skill training on knowledge gain and adoption of technologies. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2020;9(4):2144-2151.
13. Kamal MM, Mondal SK, Islam SS, Islam MS. Present status of goat rearing in three selected upazilas of Khulna district. Journal of Rural Development. 2012;37(2):43-62.
14. Kumar V, Goyal TC, Kumar R, Punjabi NK. Study on achievement motivation and risk orientation among dairy entrepreneurs and its relation with socioeconomic and psychological characteristics. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2022;6:1741-1744.
15. Kumari N. Study on status and constraints of goat rearing in and around Ranchi district. Ranchi: Birsa Agricultural University; 2014.
16. Patel P, Patel MM, Badodia SK, Sharma P. Entrepreneurial behaviour of dairy farmers. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education. 2014;14(2):46-49.
17. Patil DS, Meena HR, Tripathi HS, Kumar A, Singh DP. Socio-economic profile of sheep reared Dhangar pastoralists of Maharashtra. Indian Journal of Recent Advances in Agriculture. 2012;1(3):84-91.
18. Pokharkar AP. Critical study of Dhangar (pastoralist) community in Western Maharashtra. Nagpur: Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University; 2013.
19. Raina V, Bhushan B, Bakshi P, Khajuria S. Entrepreneurial behaviour of dairy farmers. Journal of Animal Research. 2016;6(5):947-953.
20. Rajanna N, Mahender MD, Thammiraju T, Raghunandan D, Nagalakshimi, Sreenivasarao D. Socio-economic status and flock management practices of sheep farmers in Telangana region of Andhra Pradesh. Veterinary Research Journal. 2012;5(2):37-40.
21. Rajanna N, Mahender N, Raghunandan TD, Rao DS, Nagalakshmi D. Field evaluation of management practices and performance of sheep in Telangana region of Andhra Pradesh. Tirupati: Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University; 2011.
22. Ramesh UR. A study on drug misuse among sheep rearers of Mahabubnagar district of Telangana. Hyderabad: P.V. Narsimha Rao Telangana Veterinary University; 2017.
23. Sharma S. Impact of attracting and retaining youth in agriculture (ARYA) project on goat and poultry farming in Banswara district of Rajasthan. Udaipur: Rajasthan College of Agriculture; 2021.
24. Shirsat SG, Kolhe SR, Nande MP, Khanvilkar AV, Sgende TC. Socio-economic status and sheep husbandry practices of migratory shepherds in Western Maharashtra. International Journal of Pure and Applied Bioscience. 2019;7(2):2320-7051.
25. Singh B, Meena KC, Indoria D, Meena GS. Adoption of improved sheep rearing practices in eastern Rajasthan, India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2020;9(5):271277.
26. Singh MK, Dixit AK, Roy AK, Singh SK. Goat rearing: a pathway for sustainable livelihood security in Bundelkhand region. Agricultural Economics Research Review. 2013;26:79-88.
27. Sridhar K. A study on temporal changes of Deccani sheep rearing in Mahabubnagar district of Telangana state. Hyderabad: P.V. Narsimha Rao Telangana Veterinary University; 2017.
28. Sudhakarrao DR. Adoption of goat management practices by goat keepers in Nagpur district. Akola: Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth; 2012.
29. Suresh A, Gupta DC, Mann JS. Farmers' management practices and economics of sheep farming in eastern semi-arid region of Rajasthan. Indian Journal of Small www.extensionjournal.com Ruminants. 2008;14(2):236-242.
30. Venkatachalapathy RT, Saifudeen SM, Savanth VV, Lasna S, Pramod S. Socio-economic status and rearing practices of tribal goat farmers in Attappadi hills of Kerala. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2020;9(7):1341-1347.
31. Vishwakarma P, Naberia S, Khare NK. Socio-personal, psychological and communicational attributes of dairy farmers in Jabalpur district of MP, India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2017;6(11):1542-1544.