Analysis of Small ruminant market system in different agro-climatic zones of Southern India

This study examines the marketing system of small ruminants in three different agro-climatic zones of Karnataka in India. Multistage random sampling technique was used to select 60 small ruminant farmers from three viz. Bijapur (Arid zone), Gulbarga (Semi-arid zone) and Udupi (Coastal zone) district of Karnataka state. A structured questionnaire which had earlier been subject to face validity and has a reliability coefficient of 0.87 was used to collect data from the samples respondents. Data was analysed using statistical package for social science (SPSS).The results of the study revealed that marketing of small ruminants is haphazard in the study areas. Majority of the respondents (85%) sold their animal when they needed cash for home consumption followed by to pay off loan (28.3%) was the main reason to sell their animals. Important marketing channels were relatives and friends, local markets and village collectors. Farmers gave different reasons for selling their animals through different channels. Majority of the farmers used relatives and friends as one of the marketing channels. Most of farmers also felt that there was a difference in the price offered by village collectors and the price they were getting in the livestock markets. And a few of them were of the opinion that village collectors were not reliable in marketing. Price of the animals was establishing based on the body confirmation of the animal. Study also revealed that injured animals fetch less value than the healthy animals.


Materials and Methods
facilities coupled with distress sale are the major reasons for not receiving fair price for their animals by Small ruminants (i.e.sheep and goats) make a the farmers (BAIF 2008, Porwal et al 2006).very valuable contribution to the poor in the rural Keeping in view the above, the present study areas.Their importance is indicating by various was conducted to provide a better understanding of functional contributions (meat, milk, fibre, skin etc), marketing systems for small ruminants in different socio-economic relevance and stability to farming agro-climatic zones of Karnataka state of India.systems (Rangnekar 2006).Small ruminants contribute enormously towards promotion of livelihood security and as an insurance cover to cope with crop failures The study was conducted in Karnataka state of particularly for rural landless, small and marginal India.Three districts selected in such a way that each male /female farmers (Pasha 2000, Misra 2005).Goat district represented an agro-climatic zone.Selected farming is also increasingly being taken up by peridistricts were Bijapur (represented arid zone), Gulbarga urban poor population due to easy market access and (represented semi-arid zone) and Udupi (represented as a source of nutritional security for the household coastal zone).Multistage sampling procedure was (Pollot and Wilson 2009).The profitability of small used to select sixty small ruminant farmers.Twenty ruminant farming depends upon the effective farmers were selected from each district.The data marketing of the products.But, in India, marketing of were obtained from the farmers by the investigator sheep and goats is unorganized and involves various with the help of a structured interview schedule.The middlemen, unnecessary transportation and death of data were scrutinized, collated and analyzed using animals during transportation.Lack of awareness of SPSS-11.0 software.markets, pricing structure, unorganized marketing

Results and Discussion
animals to pay their children's school fees.Surplus animals have also forced few farmers (11.6 %) to sell The results in Table-1 indicated that majority of their animals because of difficulty in management.the respondents were nuclear family type (75%), about Pankaj and Singh (2008) found that the main reason 76.6% were having 3-7 family member, while 31.6 % for selling goats in India was urgent need of money. of respondents were illiterate and about 45% respon-The similar findings also reported by Gemeda at al dents were marginal farmers who had less than 2.5 2005, that the major reasons of sheep and goat sold acres of land.Majority of the farmers 53.3% having include: school expenses for children, purchase of low level of experience in small ruminant farming farm inputs (fertilizer, seed, farm items) and purchase while majority 55% of responders having small size of of food, expenses for health and to pay back credit flock (2-9 animals).In case of total annual income 46.1%,37.5%, 31.3%, 28.1%, respectively.Farmers 55% of farmers belong to medium income group (INR sell their small ruminants as savings at time of crop 24,667-37,332) whereas, income concerned from failure or drought (Workneh et al 2003, Tsedeke 2007 small ruminants only 46.6 % farmers earned INR and Getahun 2008).Small ruminants are also sold for 1300-5866 annually and belong to low level of income cash generation purpose (Endashew 2007, Tsedeke group. 2007), where uncertainly of rainfall is observed, women and children are involved in owning and Reasons to sell: The only readily available asset for keeping small ruminants for immediate income marginal and landless farmers for selling animals to generation (Abule 1998) reported in their respective meet any immediate household expenditure was sheep study area.and goats.Farmers were asked to offer reasons for sale Table 2 also shows that in all the three agro of their animals.Table-2 points out that majority of the climatic zone need of cash for home consumption was respondents (85%) sold their animals when they the main reason to sell the animals, followed by paying needed cash for home consumption followed by to pay children's school fees and repaying loan.In semi-arid off loan (28.4%).A few respondents (25%) sold their Reasons to sell through particular marketing and coastal zone 10 percent respondents sold because channels: Farmers were asked to specify the reasons of surplus animals.However, in arid zone repaying for selling their animals through a particular channel.loan was second priority followed by paying children's It could be noticed from the table 2 that to sell through school fees and surplus number.Though majority of village collectors maximum respondents (79.4%) the sheep and goats sold were male animals, farmers reported easy and fast followed by collection from were retaining female stock to develop the flock.
house (53.8%), advance payment (27%) and Marketing Channels used: A perusal of table 2 availability of credit (10.2%) as main reasons to sell indicates that about 90 per cent of respondents used their animals.relatives and friends as one of the marketing channels.
Respondents from semi-arid zone (27.2%) and Farmers sold their animals to relatives and friends arid zone (6.6%) reported availability of credit as one when they get extra premium.Village collectors were of the reasons.However, none from coastal zone one of the major channels for about 65 per cent of the respondents quoted this reason.The role of brokers in respondents.According to Solomon (2006), these marketing small ruminants in the area has two views; types of traders participate in trading business at the one group describes them favorably as they facilitate time of high margins (New Year, and religious transaction between buyers and sellers while others festivals).Lack of markets close to their village might see them as problems in marketing as they are the ones be the main reason for this.These village collectors who mainly decide on the price.In agreement with this inturn sold these animals to nearby slaughter house or report, the role of brokers was also described by other most of the times they themselves own a slaughter reports (Endeshaw 2007 andTsedeke 2007).house.Around 50 per cent of the respondents sold their Remunerative price that the farmers get for their animals was given top reason for selling animals animals through market.These were unorganized markets and many times middlemen get maximum through market by majority of the respondents (80%).
For selling their animals to relatives and friends, benefit than the producers.Region wise also relatives respondents offered several reasons.Advance payment and friends were the major marketing channel as a reason was reported by 33.3 percent of respondents followed by village collectors and local markets.followed by easy and fast (29.6%), remunerative price This might be because of fewer prices offered by village (25.9%), personal dealing (18.5%), correct price deter-collectors when they come to villages for collecting mination (16.6%), collection from house (16.6%) and animals.It is also evident from the Table-3 that majority availability of credit 7.4 percent. of the respondents (60%) reported that the village collectors were not reliable in price determination.Market plan: Farmers were asked whether they have Few respondents opined that in some instances village any marketing plan, if yes to what extent they plan.collectors gave false information about actual current Table-2 shows that majority of the respondents (53.3%) market price and also they undervalue the animals as did not have any market plan.The possible reason of they are expert in judging the body weight of animals.this may that farmers are not aware about the market The availability of small ruminants for religious plan or and they are not business oriented.Majority of celebrations is absolutely necessary; therefore the the farmers in India, keeping small ruminants for their demand and price for sheep and goats towards the Idul livelihood and meet out the routine expenditure.
Adha celebration increases dramatically (Djajanegara Price estimation: It is also evident from the Table-2 and Chaniago 1988).According to Panin and Mahabile that estimation of price of the animals while marketing (1997), Moslems' preference for sheep meat is a crucial was mainly based on the body condition as reported by factor for rearing sheep.Reasons for the preference of majority of the respondents (46.6%).This was followed sheep could be related to a preference for fat meat by both body condition and market demand (38.3%) (Thys and Wilson 1996).In Pakistan, Rodriguez et al and market demand alone (15%).Body condition (1995) also found that farmers felt that they were not in includes healthiness of the animal, body configura-a position to bargain efficiently, because of the frequent tion, average weight according to age, etc.This was in need of selling small ruminants for urgent cash agreement with Ogola et al 2010 who found that the requirements.Farmers also complained that there was price was higher than that of indigenous goats, but no marketing information available to them.The only lower than that of the exotic parent stock.The variation information they receive is via the village collectors. in the sales value was an indication of poor record For poultry products the government releases information keeping, lack of an organized market, or market on product prices on a regular basis.Such information organization with no standards.More male animals should also be made available to small ruminant were sold compared to females, and farmers incurred keepers.Maybe in the future, modern communication no cost during sale.About 86.6% of the goats sold technologies could be helpful in this.Marketing were less than one year old, implying a shortage of the practices would depend on the feeding mode.It would dairy goats in the market or a quick need for cash and be more interesting for breeders, to sell live animals in also with Alam (2000) who found that landless and the case of kids reared at pasture whereas for the others resource constrained farmers sold their goats at an in the form of entire carcasses if a grading system is early age, and with low market weight as they largely used (Alexandre et al 2009).depended on income from them Declining a selling price and ending up in not selling: Farmers were asked if they have ever Difference in price of animals and reliability of village collectors:  shows that there was declined the offer for their animals citing less value difference between price of animals in market and and ended up in not selling.They were asked to price offered by village collectors.About 77 per cent respond to this question only against those channels respondents reported that there was difference.which they used.It can be observed from Table-3 that Regionwise also similar type of responses were found.cent percent of the farmers who sold their animals to