Introduction

There are about 3.34 million sheep in Bangladesh [1]. Bangladesh is a sub-tropical country, favorable for sheep rearing, as they can be maintained under rural conditions because of their ability to adapt to harsh environment, poor management and feeding practices. Native sheep are extremely resistant to infectious diseases including PPR [2]. Sheep rearing is directly involved with poverty alleviation, employment generation and good quality nutrients supply. Soon, it will be apparent that sheep could be an important healthy meat producing animal of the country. Sheep rearing are practicing throughout the country, but higher concentration is found in the Barind region of Rajshahi and Rangpur division of Bangladesh, Jamuna river basin, Coastal region of Noakhali and some char lands of Cox’s bazar. As human population is increasing day by day in the Barind region of the country, the access of rural families to land, capital, and labor diminishes while opportunities for income from off-farm activities become scant. As a result, households are often forced to enter small ruminants rearing and face consumption and income shocks [3]. In these situations, where there are absent to access industrial and secured beneficial agricultural facilities, formal financial and insurance institutions, small ruminants are “easy to cash” assets [4]. Small ruminants are also important in a diversification strategy that aims to reduce market and climatic risks and optimize the use of available resources [5]. In Barind region of Bangladesh, the roles of small ruminants in the livelihoods of rural households have not been comprehensively investigated. The objectives of this study were designed to assess the role of sheep in the food production systems of this region, examine their advantages and disadvantages, analyze the constraints limiting their further contribution to the welfare of small farm/low income rural producers, prescribe measures for overcoming these constraints and make recommendations related to potential donor involvement in support of the development of sheep production. To achieve these objectives, at first the socio-demographic study at the targeted area was done.

Materials and Methods

Study area

The study was carried out in Barind region of Rajshahi district in Bangladesh. Among the rural activities, rain fed agriculture (51.33%) is the most important, followed by livestock keeping (13%) and off-farm activities (3%). Poultry, goat, sheep and cattle were the main livestock species kept. The Barind tract lies in the monsoon region of the summer dominant hemisphere. The climate of the area is generally warm and humid. This region has already been designated as draught prone. The average temperature ranges from 25°C to 45°C in the hottest season and 5°C to 15°C in the coolest season with an average relative humidity of 75%. The research area was located between 24°.18ʹ and 24°.36ʹ North latitude and between 88°.17ʹ and 88°.43ʹ East longitude.

Data collection

Data were collected through a prescribed questionnaire. One hundred and fifty farmers were randomly investigated to select thirty farmers in each of the upazilas as sampling frame of whole farmers of mentioned two upazilas of 35 villages. This list was updated in conjunction with the local authorities, people’s representatives, officers and field worker of livestock department on the basis of all criteria necessary for conducting good practices of sheep rearing. Out of 150 respondents there were 28 sheep owners. All of sheep rearers were interviewed comprehensively about sheep management. Collected data was coded after ending of data collection and then compiled, tabulated and analyzed through SPSS-v-23 computer package program.

Results and Discussion

Age status: The figure 1 shows that the respondents were classified into three categories, such as young age (up to 30 years), middle age (31-50 years) and old age (above 50 years). The findings indicate that the highest proportion (56%) of the farmers studied was in the middle-aged category (56%) compared to belonging to young (17.33 %) and old (26.67%) aged categories. The results of this study were almost similar with Rahman Z [6] where they reported that 45.3%, 16% and 38.7% farmers were in middle aged, young and old aged category respectively. Particularly the middle aged farmers were well experienced and more acquainted with the sheep production.

Education status: The respondents were classified into five categories, such as Illiterate, Class 1-5, Class 6-10, SSC and above SSC on the basis of their level of education shown in Fig. 2. Among the total respondents Illiterate, Class 1-5, Class 6-10, SSC and above SSC were 25%, 32%, 17%, 19% and 7%, respectively. Findings indicated that majority of the farmers (57%) belonged to Class 1-10. The results of this study were near to similar with Begum et al. [7]. Where they reported that 20.0% farmers were illiterate, 40%, 30% and 10% farmers were primary, secondary and above secondary level respectively.

Sex, marital and religion status: Table 1shows that most of the respondents were female (63%). Among female, majority (63%) were belonged to middle aged group. Female farmers were more prone to livestock rearing. Highest proportion (91.33%) of the respondents was married and rest (8.67%) was unmarried. Among them 138 (92%) were Muslims and rest were Christian. The impact of religion on sheep rearing was not observed.

Family members and income generating information: The household size of respondents ranged from 2 to 8 numbers. On the basis of their household size the families were classified into three categories; small (up to 3 members), medium (5-7 members) and large (above 7 members). Data of Table 2 shows that the majority (46%) of the farmers had medium sized family, 41% small and 13% in large sized. Siddiki M et al. [8] observed average household size were small (43%), medium (37%) and large (20%). These finding was almost similar with the present study. The average family size (4.44) of the respondents in study area was lower than that of the national average of 4.9 [9]. In that area earnings from outside homestead work are considered as real contribution to the family and Considering this concept average earning members per family were 1.64 and 1.48 in Godagari and Paba upazila respectively.

Land status: According to ownership of land the respondents were classified into four categories; marginal (<1acre), small (1-3 acre), medium (>3-8 acre) and large (>9 acre). Table 3 shows that the most of farmers (81%) were in marginal class which was also a representative of typical land size of Bangladesh. About 18% farmers were in small and 1% was in medium category. In the observation of Hassan et al. [10] 40% farmers were in small class that was markedly higher than this study. Rahim et al. [11] observed that land size of marginal, small and medium class was 17%, 53% and 30% respectively. These findings differed a lot to the present study.

Livestock Ownership: Table 4 shows that owning of cattle (70.67%) and goat (45.33%) of the respondents was higher than sheep (18.67%). Because cattle and goat were not affected by any ethnic, religious or cultural restrictions but the no. of sheep (12.61) per family was higher than goat (4.94) and cattle (3.74). All sheep keepers were marginal farmer. Notion is that, unlike cattle and goat, keeping sheep did not require high capital and special feed. In addition to cultural factors, sheep was less popular and thus less numerous than goats because of negative publicity of taste and quality of their meat.

Occupation: Total respondents were classified into nine categories. Figure 3 shows that the major category 98 (65.33%) of the respondents were belong to agriculture with small livestock farming. There were 2 (1.33%) businessmen and 12 (8%) labors. The results of this study were more or less similar with Ahmed et al. [4] where they reported that 70 % farmers were involved in agriculture. In another study Siddiki et al. [8] reported that 60% farmers were engaged in agriculture with livestock rearing but 40% farmers reared only livestock.

Saving, loan and training: Figure 4 shows that about all of the respondents had no saving to protect scarcity. Most of the farmers (91.33%) were not accessed loan (Figure 5) from any Public or private organization because of involving small scale rearing and owning insufficient permanent assets to mortgage. So, accessing loan facilities may be an important tool to expand rearing scale and to able improved technologies. Training experience is an important factor which enhances the level of knowledge and improves skill on various aspects of agricultural technologies. Figure 6 shows that only 6.67% respondents received three to seven days long training in Livestock Office or Youth development office at upazila on cattle and poultry rearing. Rest 93.33% were untrained on livestock rearing.

Recording production parameters: Record keeping is an important tool to verify the status of production trend of animals. The study shows that though only 28.57% farmers used to record few parameters, 71.43% of them ignored it completely. Hossain et al. [12] showed that only 3% farmers kept records. In spite of being an important factor only 7.14% sheep farmers weighed their sheep and rest (92.86%) did not. Majority of them (82.14%) did not use any technique to identify their sheep.

Shearing, de-worming, weaning and collection of wool: All sheep rearers practiced shearing their sheep by traditional means after winter and before onset of monsoon. Majority sheep owners (71.43%) did not ingest/inject anthelmentic to control worm. Table 6 shows that 13 (46.43%) sheep rearers continued weaning and remaining (53.57%) did not. Only 17.86% farmers collected wool because of low price and inadequate market facilities of it.

Health care: Table 7 shows that about 64% farmers did not offer milk replacer to their lamb. All sheep owners practiced castration of male lamb by open method to rear them for meat purpose. Most of the sheep keepers (71.43%) practiced vaccination to control PPR.

Sheep feeds: Considering a compound stomach animal, Sheep feeds were classified into two categories; roughage and concentrate. All respondents mentioned that leaves of different trees were available for sheep rearing in the study area. Table 8 shows that Majority sheep farmers (71.43%) did not purchase feed to offer their sheep. Only 17.86% and 10.71% sheep farmers supplied 1% and 1.5% concentrate feed respectively to their sheep as live weight basis by purchasing from local market.

Rearing pattern of sheep: Most of the farmers (82.14%) reared sheep in separate house which had been cleaned by all of them once in everyday. It has been observed that two types of sheep were reared by the respondents; local and Garole crossed. About 64% rearer used to rear both types sheep.

Types and cleaning of sheep shelter: Most of the sheep owners (46.43%) provided tin-shed and bamboo (35.71%) made shelter to their sheep. Remaining keepers used mud made (10.71%) and half-building (7.15%) shed respectively. Mainly the floor of shelters (89.29%) was muddy and rests were made of bricks. Sweeping was the main way to clean the sheep shelter. Twenty three respondents (82.14%) cleaned their sheep shelter only by sweeping and remaining five (17.86%) by using water with antiseptic solution (pottassium permanganate, Dettol, savelon etc.).

Source of collection sheep: Figure 10 shows 23 (82.14%) respondents informed that the main source of collecting sheep was local market. Other sources (10.72%) were neighbor farm and traders (7.14%).

Income from sheep rearing: In Barind areas sheep did not emphasize as income generating activity. For this reason, minimum return obtained through sheep keeping. Generally keepers eat sheep meat only at festival of Eid-ul Azha. Average 1.36 sheep were consumed by each owner yearly. About 14026 taka was earned by sheep selling of each rearer yearly.

Conclusion

From the study, it reveals that all sheep farmers in Barind areas were marginal in type and they used traditional extensive sheep rearing. Barind sheep were gentle, capable on simple grazing of natural feed without or little bit concentrate supplementation and easy to handle even to a woman. Sheep farmers were less educated, untrained, savings less, miserable life leaded people. They did not offer environment friendly shelter to their sheep. Most of them did not capable and habited to proper vaccination, treatment and deworming. The yearly earning from sheep rearing per farmer was only 14026 taka. All the farmers mentioned about abundant market facility of sheep. So, adopting improved technologies through training and awareness and minimizing reviled constraints, sheep rearing might be a valuable instrument of women empowerment, availing education facilities, improved livelihood and after all the source of improved and safe animal protein.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thanks to the respondents of Barind areas, project personnel to help and attend in interviewing and to have information. Heartiest gratitude to funding organization; Krishi Gobeshona Foundation (KGF) for financial support of the Project- “Validation of good practices of on farm lamb production Systems.”

References

1. Zohara F, Azizunnesa, Islam F, Alam GS, Bari FY (2014) Reproductive Performances of Indigenous Ewes in Bangladesh 7.
2. Haque A, Ali CS, Ahmad N, Sawad HA (1988) Studies on the reproductive efficiency in Kajli sheep. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture (Pakistan).
3. Abiassi E (2002) Exchange rate adjustment, food security and welfare of small-scale farmers in southern Benin. A computable household model analysis. Weikersheim: Margraf Verlag 39.
4. Ahmed T, Hashem MA, Khan M, Rahman MF, Hossain MM (2010) Factors related to small scale cattle fattening in rural areas of Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of Animal Science 39: 116-124.
5. Valdivia C, M Nolan (1996) Sociological and economic analysis of small ruminant production systems. Annual Report 9596.
6. RAHMAN Z (2012) Cattle fattening program in dinajpur district of Bangladesh.
7. Begum M, Hossain MM, Khan M, Rahman M (2007) Cattle fattening practices of selected farmers in Panchagarh district. Bangladesh Journal of Animal Science 36: 62-72.
8. Siddiki M, Armin MR, Kabir A, Faruque MO (2015) Socio-economic status of buffalo farmers and the performances of buffaloes at Lalpur Upozila of Natore district in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of Animal Science 44: 157-165.
9. Pocketbook S (2008) Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. Ministry of Planning, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. Dhaka.
10. Hassan M, M Talukder (2011) Comparative performance of different regional native sheep in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Veterinarian 28: 85-95.
11. Rahim M, Hossain MA, Rahman MA, Amin MR, Hossain MM (2018) Socio-economic status of buffalo farmers and the management practices of buffaloes in plain land of subornachar upazila in Bangladesh. Progressive Agriculture 29: 158-167.
12. Hossain M, Hossain MM, Hashem MA, Bhuiyan KJ (2016) Organic beef cattle production pattern at Shahjadpurupazilla of Sirajgonj district in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of Animal Science 45: 25-30.