Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

Research Article

Why Cultivation of Azolla as Cattle F eed Not Sustainable? Feed


J.Tamizhkumaran1 and S.V.N.Rao2 Rajiv Gandhi College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Kurumbapet, Puducherry A study on azolla cultivation was conducted in the coastal areas of the Villupuram district of Tamilnadu to analyse the reasons for adoption and non adoption of azolla cultivation by the dairy farmers. The local NGO (REAL) promoted azolla cultivation to reduce the cost of milk production in six adopted villages in this district. The NGO has selected a total of 100 dairy farmers to cultivate and feed azolla to their cattle. Initially these selected farmers were given training on azolla cultivation and feeding azolla to cattle. All these trained dairy farmers were given azolla seeds and this project was continued for one year. Data collected from 47 of these farmers revealed that azolla cultivation is not sustainable as it was built around subsidies and not on the basis of the felt needs of the dairy farmers. Keywords: Azolla, Azolla Cultivation, Adoption and Cattle Feed

INTRODUCTION he demand for milk and milk products in India is creating new potential in the profitability of dairy farming as an occupation. At the same time, there is a substantial decline in fodder availability. (Pillai et al. , 2002). The area under forest and grasslands is decreasing, largely due to the introduction of high yielding dwarf varieties of cereals. In addition the area under food crops is also declining owing to urbanization and industrialization. The shortage of fodder due to ever decreasing area under cereals and fodder crops is getting compensated with increased use of commercial cattle feed, resulting in increased costs of milk production (Reddy, 2007). Several attempts have been made to find alternate sources of cattle feed. Azolla is considered as the most economic and efficient feed substitute and a sustainable feed for livestock. It is a potential source of nitrogen and thereby a potential feed ingredient for livestock (Lumpkin, 1984; Pannerker, 1988). Azolla Azolla pinnata is a small aquatic floating fern that lives in symbiosis with the nitrogen fixing blue-green algae; it has a high nitrogen fixing ability (Ventura, et al. 1992). It grows naturally
1

in stagnant water of drains, canals, ponds, rivers, marshy lands (Becking, 1979). Azolla can be used in animal feed and it is a potential feed ingredient for broilers; it is an income generating crop (INDG, 2006 and Singh and Subudhi, 1978). Azolla is easily propagated but requires abundant standing water, relative humidity of 85-90%, pH of 4.5-6.5, salinity of between 90-150 mg/L and adequate phosphorus for its nutritional needs. It is labour intensive, grows fast. Azolla doubles its weight in 3-5 days. From a start of 1t/ha, it can reach a fresh weight of 15-20 t/ha in about 20 days (Khan, 1983). Azolla is rich in protein. On a dry weight basis, it contains 25 - 35 percent protein, 10 - 15 percent minerals and 7 - 10 percent of amino acids, bio-active substances and bio-polymers. The carbohydrate and fat content of azolla is very low. Its nutrient composition makes it a highly efficient and effective feed for livestock (VK-NARDEP, 2010) METHODOLOGY The NGO (REAL) promoted azolla cultivation among 100 selected dairy farmers spread in six villages of Villupuram district in Tamil nadu by imparting training on azolla cultivation and also by awarding incentives in terms of supply of azolla seeds, cash for construction of azolla tank

Teaching Assistant, Department of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Extension, Rajiv Gandhi College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Kurumbapet, Puducherry - 605009.. E-mail: docjtk@gmail.com 2 Professor and Head , Department of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Extension, Rajiv Gandhi College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Kurumbapet, Puducherry - 605009. E-mail: svnrao1953@gmail.com 2012-056 Received:May 2012; Accepted:July 2012

348

Why Cultivation of Azolla as Cattle Feed Not Sustainable?

and for purchase of cows. For purposes of this study, the necessary data were collected from a randomly selected sample of 47 dairy farmers spread in four of these adopted villages. All these respondents underwent training on azolla cultivation given by the NGO. With the help of the project co-ordinator, rapport was build up by the investigator with the sample dairy farmers. The investigator personally interviewed all of them individually with an interview schedule designed for this purpose. Interview schedules were prepared separately for adopters, non adopters and those who discontinued azolla cultivation. The data obtained were tabulated and analysed for assessing the reasons for adoption, non adoption and discontinuance of azolla cultivation. The same are presented and discussed. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The findings are presented in a sequential order of profile, reasons for adoption, rejection and discontinuance. Profile of the respondents The profile of the respondents is depicted in Table 1 and described under age, occupation, family size, herd size, experience in cattle rearing, milk production, income through dairying and family income. Age : Majority of the farmers (about 43 %) were middle aged whereas 16 were less than 40 years old and the rest were old people Occupation : All the respondents owned cattle the primary criterion for including them as beneficiaries by the NGO. Dairy farming hence was either a primary (only for 4 respondents) or secondary occupation for them. The most dominant occupation was agricultural labour as about 60 per cent of the respondents depend on it for their livelihood. Family size : A good majority of 24 respondents had a medium sized family of 4 to 5 members and only 1 respondent had a big family of more than 6 members. Herd size: About 60 % of the respondents owned 1-3 cows and there were only seven respondents who owned more than 4 cows. Interestingly 12 people were not having cows but got loan from the NGO for purchase of cows. None of these 12 farmers were rearing cows at the time of

interview as they had sold their cows or lost through death. However, it was observed that these respondents were repaying their loans availed from the NGO. Experience in cattle rearing : Majority of the respondents had experience in rearing cattle which range between 10 to 20 years. There were as many as 19 respondents who had less than 10 years of experience in cattle rearing Milk production: About 60 % of the respondents had a daily household milk production of at least 6 litres. It is obvious that there were 12 respondents whose household milk production is zero as they do not possess any dairy cow at the time of interview. Dairy income : With respect to dairy income majority of the respondents (45 %) were getting income ranging from Rs. 2001-4000. Whereas, 21 % of the respondents were deriving more than Rs.4000/- per month from dairy farming. For about 28 % of the respondents there was no income from dairy farming as they were not rearing cows. Family income : A majority of 43 had an income above 2000 rupees per month and only 4 farmers had an income of less than 2000 per month. The profile of the respondents clearly showed that the NGO did select middle aged cattle owners who depend upon few cattle (1 to 3) they own and that too resource poor people. Categories of respondents based on adoption The decision to apply an innovation and to continue its use is called adoption (Van den Ban and Hawkins, 1996). The process of adoption depends upon a number of factors such as the technology itself, the farmer, the extension agency and the infrastructural facilities (Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971). This study focuses on adoption of azolla cultivation as an alternative source of cattle feed to reduce cost of milk production. The respondents were categorised into adopters those who were cultivating azolla and feeding to their cattle at the time of interview; Non adopters - those who neither cultivated azolla nor fed to their cattle; and discontinued - those who cultivated azolla and fed to their cattle initially and later stopped cultivating as well as feeding azolla to their cattle. The reasons

349

Indian J. Dairy Sci. 65(4), 2012

J.Tamizhkumaran and S.V.N.Rao

Table 1. Profile of the respondents N= 47 Sl.No. 01 Variable Age Below 40 years 41 to 50 years 51 & above Occupation Agricultural labour Other Labour Agriculture Cattle rearing Others (business, tailor, sweeper etc.) Family size Small ( 1 to 3) Medium ( 4 & 5) Large ( 6 & above) Herd size Nil Small ( 1 to 3) Medium ( 4 & above) Experience in cattle rearing ( in years) Low ( Less than 10) Medium ( 11 to 20 ) High ( 21 & above) Av. Milk Production per day ( in litres) Nil Low ( 1 to 5) Medium ( 6 to 10 ) High ( 11 & above) Dairy income (Rs. Per month) No income Low ( Less than Rs.2000) Medium ( Rs.2001 to 4000) High ( Rs. 4000 & above) Family income Low ( Less than Rs.2000) Medium ( Rs.2001 to 4000) High ( Rs. 4000 & above) 16 20 11 16 12 05 04 10 22 24 01 12 28 07 19 26 02 13 06 21 07 13 03 21 10 04 41 02 34.0 42.5 23.5 34.0 26.0 11.0 08.0 21.0 47.0 51.0 02.0 26.0 59.0 15.0 40.0 55.0 05.0 28.0 12.0 45.0 15.0 28.0 06.0 45.0 21.0 08.0 87.0 05.0 Categories Frequency %

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

for differential adoption behaviour of the respondents were discussed below: Reasons for adoption, discontinuance and rejection Out of the total 47 respondents who attended the training on azolla cultivation, about 64 % of them only adopted azolla cultivation whereas the rest 36% did not adopt it for various reasons. However, at the time of interviewing the respondents it was observed that these 64 % of the adopters have discontinued the practice of cultivation of azolla. This means at present not a single respondent in these selected villages was cultivating azolla, the fact confirmed by the NGO.

Table 2 : Categorisation of respondents based on adoption N= 47 S.No 1. 2. 3. 4. Categories Adopters Non adopters Total Discontinued Continuous adopters f 30 17 47 30 0 % 63.8 36.2 100.0 63.8 0

Reasons for differential adoption behaviour of the respondents were ascertained and the same were presented below: Reasons for adoption Majority of the respondents (83 %) adopted azolla

350

Why Cultivation of Azolla as Cattle Feed Not Sustainable?

cultivation mainly because the NGO has advanced loans for azolla tank construction and supplied azolla seeds free of cost (Table 3). Other reasons specified by the adopters were the NGO insisted on cultivating azolla and organised training programme for the beneficiaries. The respondents indicated that they developed interest in azolla cultivation after attending the training given by the NGO. Once the project was terminated the cultivation of azolla was almost stopped by the dairy farmers. Incidentally, there was no diffusion affect in these adopted villages as none of the dairy farmers (other than beneficiaries of the project) adopted this practice. Reasons for discontinuing Azolla cultivation: Although the azolla cultivation was taken up by about 64 % respondents initially, they discontinued it later for a variety of reasons. Most prominent among them were azolla dried due to excess heat ( study area is hot and humid being in the coast), cows were disposed off and hence no need to cultivate azolla, insects destroyed azolla, non availability of family labour to maintain the tank, rain water washed away the tank, very poor growth of azolla etc. There were instances where the tank was destroyed or broken by children while playing. Ironically

all those who adopted initially discontinued azolla cultivation and not a single cattle owner is cultivating continuously in any of the adopted villages of the NGO. This is a typical case where the change agency (NGO) awarded loans and free seeds to the beneficiaries to increase the rate of adoption of azolla cultivation. Rogers (2003) argued that "Although incentives increase the quantity of adopters of an innovation, the quality of such adoption decisions may be relatively low, thus limiting the intended consequences of adoption". Azolla cultivation is not the technology needed by the beneficiaries and it was promoted by the NGO for their intended reasons of reducing the cost of milk production. It was interesting to note that many respondents didn't reduce the concentrate feeding when they were feeding azolla to their cows, thereby defeated the purpose of reducing cost on concentrate feeding. The respondents adopted azolla cultivation basically to obtain the loans for purchase of inputs and to get free supply of seeds. There was relatively less motivation for them to continue later and all the adopters discontinued it for the above mentioned reasons. In addition the respondents consider it as a laborious process of maintaining

Table 3. Reasons for adopting Azolla cultivation N= 30* Sl.no 1. 2. 3. 4. Reasons NGO gave loan for tank construction and supplied azolla seeds free of cost NGO insisted to cultivate azolla Developed interest to cultivate azolla after attending the training To reduce the cost of feed No 25 05 04 02 % 83.3 16.6 13.3 6.6

* multiple responses Table 4. Reasons for discontinuing Azolla cultivation N=30* Sl.no 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. * Reasons Poor growth of Azolla due to excess heat Labour related issues like laborious nature, lack of family labour Sold the cow/ cow died Insect destroyed azolla Rain water washed away azolla Tank broken / destroyed Scarcity of water Cow refused to consume azolla Removed tank to extend house multiple responses No 08 07 04 04 03 03 02 01 01 % 26.6 23.3 13.3 13.3 10.0 10.0 6.6 3.3 3.3

351

Indian J. Dairy Sci. 65(4), 2012

J.Tamizhkumaran and S.V.N.Rao

Table 5 : Reasons for not adopting Azolla cultivation S.No 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Categories No cow NGO didn't give loan No one to maintain tank No place to grow azolla Scarcity of water Afraid to feed azolla to cows Total f 6 5 2 2 1 1 17 % 35.3 29.4 11.7 11.7 5.9 5.9 100

of place to construct the tank and scarcity of water. Research is being done to develop feed technologies to reduce the cost of milk production which ultimately benefit the dairy farmers. Azolla as a feed ingredient is one such technology evolved by the researchers to benefit the dairy farmers but it did not find favour with the dairy farmers. This led to technology driven extension, where the message takes precedence over the problem (Roling, 1988). Technology adoption could be enhanced through proper matching of problems with possible technological solutions, which necessitates screening of technologies ( Rao, et al 1995). In the present case the NGO azolla neither screened the available technologies (including azolla as cattle feed) to reduce cost of milk production nor matched the problem with the technological solutions which ultimately resulted in discontinuance of technologies. Azolla cultivations turned out to be inappropriate at least for the 100 diary farmers selected by the NGO. This was very well emphasised by The Asian Development Bank (ADB 1993) based on a study on policies and strategies for livestock improvement in developing countries concluded that the primary policy failure was promotion of inappropriate technology. CONCLUSIONS A study on adoption of azolla cultivation was conducted in coastal regions of Villupuram district of Tamil Nadu where the azolla was introduced as a micro enterprise to reduce the cost of milk production for the dairy farmers. REAL an NGO promoted azolla cultivation among the dairy farmers by giving training to 100 selected dairy farmers in six of their adopted villages. The trainees were given subsidy to construct the azolla tank and azolla seeds were provided free of cost to them. A total of 47 farmers who attended training from four of the adopted villages were interviewed to collect the required data. The results showed that 30 respondents adopted the practice of azolla cultivation and feeding to their cattle mainly because of the loans and subsidies awarded by the agency. These adopters of technology also discontinued mainly because of poor growth of azolla which in turn was due to excess heat, insect attack and lack of attention by the family members. The main reasons for the respondents not practicing azolla cultivation

the azolla tank which requires the attention of a family member. As a technology it has got few positive aspects like low initial cost, simple and compatible with the existing norms of the society but it fails to demonstrate the farmers on aspects like profitability and observability of results. Similar results were observed by Rao et al., (1993) who reported that many dairy farmers failed to appreciate the contribution of urea treated straw to increase milk production or saving concentrate, the finding that ultimately led to the discontinuance of the technology. There were very few respondents who were interested in cultivating azolla again but they could not as they were not able to get azolla seeds. The NGO which supplied the seeds to them earlier do not have parent stock to supply seeds to the interested farmers. It is also clear from the study that the azolla cultivation by the respondents was totally depending upon the extent to which the NGO was supporting them with loans and subsidies. Sustainability of such practices was at stake as the adoption was built around the subsidies instead of the felt needs of the farmers. Reasons for not adopting Azolla cultivation There were 17 respondents who did not cultivate azolla even after participating in the training programme on azolla cultivation and these are classified as non adopters of azolla. Out of them 6 respondents did not adopt because they did not purchase cows although the loans were advanced to them for this purpose. Although the loan was utilised for purposes other than cattle purchase, they were found repaying the loans taken from the NGO. Similarly there were 5 respondents who did not cultivate azolla because they did not get loans from the NGO for purchase of cows. Other reasons for non adoption were lack of family labour to maintain the tank, lack

352

Why Cultivation of Azolla as Cattle Feed Not Sustainable?

were; not owning cows, not convinced of the benefits of azolla feeding to the cattle and lack of place to construct the tank. Based on the findings it is concluded that the practice of cultivating and feeding of azolla to animals could not be sustained as the adoption was built around the subsidies instead of the felt needs of the farmers. REFERENCES
ADB (Asian Development Bank). 1993. Policies and Strategies for Livestock Development, Regional Seminar on Policies and Strategies for Livestock Development, Manila, Philippines, 18-22 January 1993. ADB (Asian Development Bank), Manila, Philippines. Becking JH. 1979. Environmental requirements of Azolla for the use of tropical rice production. In: Nitrogen and Rice. International Rice Research Institute. Los Banos. Leguna, phillipines , pp 345-374 De Boer AJ and Singh CB. 1995. The farming systems research approach to agricultural research and development: An international and historical perspective. In: Singh C.B., Rao S.V.N. and Jain D.K. (eds), Farming System Research for Improving Livestock Production and Crop Utilisation. National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, India. pp. 1-7. INDG. 2006 Azolla - As a Livestock Feed, Indian development gateway http://www.indg.in/agriculture/ animalhusbandary/azolla-as-livestock-feed accessed on 20.08.2010. Khan M M. 1983. A primer on Azolla Production and Utilization in Agriculture, UPLB, PCARRD and SEARCA, Los Banos, http://ressources.ciheam.org/ om/ pdf/c58/03400078.pdf accessed on 11.05.2011. Lumpkin, T. A., 1984. Assessing the potential for Azolla use in the humid tropics. International Rice Commission News, 33:30- 33. Pannaerker S. 1988. Azolla as a livestock and poultry feed. Livestock Adviser, 13:22-26. Pillai KP, Premalatha S and Rajamony S. 2002 "AZOLLA - A sustainable feed substitute for livestock"

published in LEISA India, Volume 4 number 1, website www.leisa.info. Accessed on 03.03.2011 Rao SVN, Jain DK, Sampath KT and Joshi AL. 1995. Problem Identification and Screening of Technologies. In: Singh C.B., Rao S.V.N and Jain D.K. (eds), Farming Systems Research for Improving Livestock Production and Crop Utilisation. National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, India. pp. 54-63. Rao SVN, Singh CB, Amrith kumar MN and Gahlot OP. 1993 Urea Treatment Of Straw- An Extensionist's Point Of View, feeding of ruminants on fibrous crop residues , proceedings of an International Workshop held at the National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal (Haryana- India) February 4-8, 1991 Reddy GR 2007 Azolla - a sustainable feed substitute for livestock, Rural Development Organisation, Andhra Pradesh, India, www.karmayog.org accessed on 20.08.2010. Rogers EM. 1995 Diffusion of innovations, 4th ed. Free press, New York. Rogers E M and Shoemaker F F. (1971). Communication of Innovations: A crosscultural Approach, Second Edition, New York, The Free Press, Collier Macmillian Publishing Co. Inc. Rling Niels. 1988, Extension Science Information System in Agriculture Development, Cambridge University Press , New York. Singh PK and Subudhi BPR. 1978. Utilization of Azolla in poultry feed. Indian Farming, 27:37-39. Van den ban AW and Hawkins. 1996 Agriculture Extension, 2nd edition, Blackwell Science, Australia. Ventura W, Watanabe I and Mascarina GB. 1992 Mineralization of Azolla and Its availability to Wetland Rice II: Fertilizer Effect And Nitrogen Uptake by Rice From Different Species of Azolla with Varying Nitrogen Contents Soil Sci. Plant Nutrition 38(3): 505-516 VK-NARDEP. 2010 Azolla Backyard Cultivation: Innovation and Ecological significance, http:// vknardep.org/services/sustainable-agriculture/81azolla-for-the-rescue.html accessed on 11.05.2011.

353

Indian J. Dairy Sci. 65(4), 2012

Вам также может понравиться