Presented by Sapna Jarial, Harrison Rware, Pamela Pali, Jane Poole and V. Padmakumar at the International Symposium on Agricultural Communication and Sustainable Rural Development, Pantnagar, Uttarkhand, India, 22-24 November 2012.

1. Assessing the potential to change partners’
knowledge, attitude and practices on
sustainable livestock husbandry in India
Presented at an international symposium on Agricultural Communication and Sustainable Rural Development
Pantnagar, Uttarakhand, India, 22-24 November 2012
Sapna Jarial1, Harrison Rware2, Pamela Pali2, Jane Poole2 and V. Padmakumar3
1International Livestock Research Institute, 65/ II Vasant Vihar Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India
2International Livestock Research Institute, P.O. Box 30709-00100, Nairobi, Kenya
3 International Livestock Research Institute, c/o ICRISAT Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India 1

2. Overview of the Presentation
 Introduction
 Methodology
 Results & Discussion
 Conclusion

3. Introduction
‘Enhancing Livelihoods Through Livestock
Uttarakhand
Knowledge Systems’ is an initiative to put
the accumulated knowledge of advanced
Nagaland
livestock research directly to use by
Jharkhand
disadvantaged livestock rearing
communities in rural India.
ELKS provides research support to Sir
Ratan Tata Trust and its development
partners to address Technological,
Institutional and Policy gaps.

4. Knowledge Attitude and Practice
study (KAP) study was conducted
on development partners in
relation to the:
- Production
- management practices,
- service provision
- marketing.

5. Methodology

6. Seventeen participants representing
thirteen ELKS partner organizations
participated in the KAP survey in May,
2011
The KAP questionnaire contained
questions about the background of the
partners including their provision of
services in TATA – ILRI villages and the
KAP section had 3 levels.

7. Knowledge section was sub divided into:
-assessment of knowledge,
-training,
-materials used to train stakeholders, and
-whether the partners trained other
stakeholders;
Attitude section contained questions in four
domains:
-the services partners provided,
-production aspects,
-markets and
-by laws and policies.
Practices section contained information
-about the partners’ promotion of production,
management and market/market chain
practices.

8. Table 1: Background of Sir Ratan Tata Trust and ELKS Partner organisations
State Uttarakhand Districts Pithoragarh, Tehri Garhwal, Chamoli
Organization type Partner Livestock Species Number of partners
Focus
Government 1. Uttarakhand Livestock Development Board (ULDB) Cattle 1
NGO 2. Himmotthan Society (HS) Goat/ 5
cattle/buffalo
3. Mount Valley Development Association (MVDA) Cattle/buffalo/goat
s
4.Himalayan Gram Vikas Samiti (HGVS) Cattle/buffalo
5.Central Himalayan Rural Action Group (CHIRAG) Cattle/buffalo/goat
s
6.Sankalp Samiti Tharali (Sankalp) Goats
State Jharkhand Districts Gumla, Deoghar, Khuntim. Ramgarh
NGO 1.Society for Upliftment of People through People Organization Pigs 4
and Rural Technology (SUPPORT)
2.Network for Enhancement and Enterprises and Development Goats
Support (NEEDS)
3.Nav Bharat Jagriti Kendra (NBJK) Pigs
4.Collectives for Integrated Livelihood Initiatives (SRTT CINI) Pigs
State Nagaland District Mokokchung, Wokha, Kohima, Dimapur
NGO 1.Prodigals’ Home (PH) Pigs 3
2.Sir Ratan Tata Trust – North East Initiative (SRTT – NEI) Pigs
3.Agency for Porcine Foundation and Development of Nagaland Pigs
(APFD)
Source : KAP Survey 2011

9. Results & Discussion

10. Key Findings:
 Few partners were trained and if they were
trained, even fewer trained other partners
including farmers
 The partners had a better knowledge about
production related activities.
 Partners felt that they provided services in a
very un co-ordinated way and they needed
to be more co-ordinated.
 Partners knew less about the value chain
related activities of the livestock they were
mainly dealing with.

11.  Access to services and
technological packages by
smallholder producers was
more constraining than factors
such as CSF and adoption of
clean hygienic practices for pigs,
and shortage of fodder for large
ruminants and goats.
 Less support was provided for
pigs by SUPPORT, cInI and APFD.
 Fewer services were provided
for pigs by partners who mainly
promoted sty feeding.

12.  Partners had neither a positive
nor negative attitude about the
method in which they provide
services.
 A quarter of the partners
promoted the use of cross breeds
for pigs and cattle but none
reported this practice for goats
and buffaloes.
 The widest variety of indigenous
breeds that were promoted by
NEEDS -Jharkhand NGO was for
goats.

13. • The Jersey cross breed (Jersey X HF
cross) was promoted for cattle by HGVS,
ULDB and CHIRAG in Uttarakhand.
• In Jharkhand SUPPORT promoted pig
breeds the Tamworth X Desi breed.
• For pigs SRTT - cInI, APFD promoted the
large black and Hampshire breeds
respectively.

14. Conclusion

15.  The capacity built was limited to livestock production and management
practices for all species except buffaloes.
 Capacities were limited in value chain management aspects (with the
exception of goats) and policy dialogue probably because these aspects
were not the participants’ area of expertise.
 Knowledge about market aspects were perceived to be lower than for
livestock management practices.

16. • Positive attitudes need to be re-enforced in the increased potential for
backyard production for increased incomes and transformation to semi
commercial pig production.
• Partners’ capacities need to be enhanced in animal management aspects (use
and promotion of cross breeds, participation and strengthening value chain
activities).
• Strengthening value chain activities needs to begin with the value chain
analysis by the different stakeholders.

17. Thank you for your attention !
17

18. Better lives through livestock
ilri.org
The presentation has a Creative Commons licence. You are free to re-use or distribute this work, provided credit is given to ILRI.