Integrated Fodder and Livestock Development in Uttarakhand: NGO's Initiatives

Authors

  • Shikhakrati Negi Government Veterinary Hospital, Bardakhan, Dist-Champawat, Uttarakhand
  • B. P. Singh Government Veterinary Hospital, Bardakhan, Dist-Champawat, Uttarakhand
  • Mahesh Chander Division of Extension Education, ICAR- Indian, Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, Uttar Pradesh
  • Afzal Hoque Akand Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Kashmir, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir
  • Ranjana Sachan Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.25175/jrd/2017/v36/i2/116405

Abstract

For years, it has been widely assumed that Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) put significant and positive effects on the economy of poor households in developing nations. The Integrated Fodder&Livestock Development Project (IFLDP) implemented through an NGO named Central Himalayan Rural Action Group (CHIRAG) was selected for the study. The project's prime mandate was livestock and fodder development which had been implemented in a phased manner since 2008 and completed in March 2014. This paper examines the impact of this intervention in terms of animal husbandry practices, production and income in a cluster of villages in Uttarakhand State. For the study, a list of all beneficiaries of the NGO was prepared and a sampling frame with all the beneficiaries of the project in each of the three clusters was drawn. Finally 40 beneficiaries were chosen from each of the clusters by simple random sampling, thereby making a total of 120 respondents. The analysis depicted that the technological empowerment through IFLDP was maximum in case of artificial insemination and fodder preservation practices. Green and dry fodder was also found to be increasing in the villages by the initiatives of the project.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2017-06-01

How to Cite

Negi, S., Singh, B. P., Chander, M., Akand, A. H., & Sachan, R. (2017). Integrated Fodder and Livestock Development in Uttarakhand: NGO’s Initiatives. Journal of Rural Development, 36(2), 231–242. https://doi.org/10.25175/jrd/2017/v36/i2/116405

Issue

Volume 36, Issue 2, April-June 2017

Section

Articles
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

Brown, L. D and Tandon, R (2002), â€Strengthening the Grassroots: Nature and Role of Support Organisations,†Society for Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA), New Delhi.

Butswat, I. S and Choji, G. F (1995),â€Constraints to adoption of Artificial Insemination Technique in Livestock Production in Bauchi LGA,â€Nigerian Journal of Animal Production, 22(1): 28-31.

Danida (2004), â€Farmer Empowerment: Experiences, Lessons Learned and Ways Forward,†Danish Institute of International Studies. URL http://www.neuchateliniative.net/englisk/ FarmerEmpowerment.

Letha, D G (2013), â€Adoption of Dairy Farming Technologies by Livestock Farmers,â€Indian Res J Ext Edu,13(2): 57-61.

Pandey, R. (2007), â€Livestock Fodder Requirements and Household Characteristics in Rural Economy of Hilly Region, Uttarakhand,†ENVIS Bulletin: Himalayan Ecology 19, 2011.

Steinfeld, H, Gerber, P., Wassennar, T, Castel, V Rosales, M., De haan, C (2006),â€Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options,†Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

Thornton, P.K., Kruska, R.L, Henninger, N., Kristjanson, P.M., Reid, R.S., Atieno, F., Odero, A., Ndegwa,T. (2002),â€Mapping Poverty and Livestock in the Developing World,†ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya, p. 124.

Tulachan, P. M and Neupane, A (1999), “Livestock in Mixed Farming Systems of the Hindu Kush-Himalayas:Trends and Sustainability,†Kathmandu:ICIMOD & FAO.

www.uldb.org.ULDB report, 2007.Accesssed on 24 April, 2014.