Migratory Sheep Farming Practices in Cauvery Delta Zone in Tamil Nadu

org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and non-commercial reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. Ab s t r Ac t


Migratory Sheep Farming Practices in Cauvery Delta Zone in Tamil Nadu
MS Kannadhasan 1 , Mahesh Chander 2* , D Bardhan 3 IntroductIon S heep farming offers diversification opportunities in gaining economic and nutritional benefits for small and limited-resource farmers. Such benefits are adversely affected by small ruminant diseases. For an instance, Peste des Petits ruminants (PPR), a notifiable sheep and goat disease threatens more than 68 per cent of world's small ruminant population (Bardhan et al., 2017). PPR is considered as one of the main constraints in improving the productivity of small ruminants in developing countries and causes heavy economic loss (Thakor et al., 2016). Small ruminants reared in pastoral or nomadic system has high risk for diseases (Sakhare et al., 2019). It poses risk of disease spread from animal to animal. Therefore, management practices followed during migration plays a major role. Furthermore, extension interventions need to be intensified to eradicate small ruminant diseases such as PPR (Chander, 2018). Keeping these in view, the study was carried out with an objective to identify the focus area of extension intervention in educating migratory sheep farmers on scientifically recommended practices.

MAterIAls A n d Methods
Ex-post facto research design was followed to carry out the study in Venganur village located in Mangalur Block, Cuddalore district, Tamil Nadu state. Venganur is an en-route village in sheep migratory route preferred by migratory sheep farmers who mostly depend on Cauvery delta zone for sheep grazing. To accomplish the objective of the study, recommended farming practices were identified. Based upon this, a semi-structured open-ended personal interview schedule on practices adopted during migration was developed for data collection. The response about practices adopted during migration were collected and categorized under on awareness (Aw), non-adoption (NA), symbolic adoption (SA), adoption (A), partial adoption (PA), overadoption (OA) and discontinued (D), rejected (R), introduced (I) and reintroduced (RI) practices.
Thirty migratory sheep farmers who were migrating with sheep in Mangalur block during the study period were purposively selected for data collection. The findings of the personal interview were taken as the problem area for conducting focussed group interview involving seven migratory farmers to understand the participants' viewpoints and cross-check the findings drawn from individual interview. Table 1 gives an overall view about migratory sheep farming in Cauvery delta zone in Tamil Nadu. Table 2 shows the practices adopted during migration of sheep flock by the farmers.

a. General and nutritional management practices
In the migratory flocks, recommended practices were adopted to care pregnant animals and young ones, since they were considered as vital to increase the flock size. Available grazing and agricultural land helped the farmers (73.33%) to provide adequate space during night shelter, but made difficult to protect their animals during extreme weather. Notably, no farmer adopted balanced nutrition and 70.00 per cent did not maintain records in any form.

b. Disease management practices
Partially adoption of quarantine and isolation practices and willingness showed by farmers to adopt vaccination show the scope of bringing migratory sheep disease control programme particularly PPR Control Programme (PPR-CP) by implementing the PPR Global Control and Eradication Strategy (PPR-GCES) by 2030.

c. Marketing management practices
The farmers concerned on health condition of sheep while increasing the flock size through purchase of sheep from outside sources. None of the farmers sought veterinary advocacy while selling their sheep, since they believed that they knew their animals' health condition.

d. Using extension and advisory services
Half of the farmers did not undergo any training programme and other formal extension programmes and nearly twothirds (63.33%) did not make office call to the en-route veterinary institutions, despite their awareness on availing institutional services. Only 30.00 per cent farmers used social media for receiving information on migratory sheep farming. These imply the scope of extension intervention.

e. Migratory route
An overwhelming 83.33 per cent of the farmers collected information on grazing route from other migratory farmers and local farmers. Comparatively more farmers were partially changed their grazing route (43.33%) than time gap while sharing migration route. Equal proportion of farmers (30.00%) did not allow their animals to mingle with sedentary sheep and goats.

f. Disposal of dead animals or aborted foetus
Farmers were more concerned on disposing dead animals and aborted foetuses. Such materials were disposed properly by majority of the farmers (70.00%).

g. Animal insurance
None of the farmers insured their animals. Notably, 40.00 per cent farmers in symbolic adoption stage reveals the scope for disseminating insurance among farmers.

Reasons for varied or lesser adoption of practices by migratory sheep farmers
The focused group interview revealed following as the reasons for their varied adoption level on recommended sheep farming practices during migration.
a. General and nutritional management practices • Adequate space during night shelter in agricultural land helps in manuring.  e. Managing migration route • Information exchanged on grazing route to save time and avoid unnecessary search. • Few days gap between migratory flocks while sharing migration route to get and offer help. • Difficulty in locating an unused, new migration route because of dwindling pasture land and water resource. • Not allowing animals with goats or sedentary / semi-extensive sheep due to control imposed by local villagers is also a reason.
f. Disposal of dead animals or aborted foetus is considered as farmers' responsibility. g. Away from home round the year made difficult to insure animals.

Strategies recommended
• Extended vaccination coverage including migratory sheep • Digitally connecting farmers and stakeholders • Migratory route map to avoid intermingling of animals • Farmers group formation • Engaging farmers for community surveillance of diseases The results help to understand focus area of extension intervention to increase the capacity of the migratory farmers on recommended scientific practices.