Socio-economic Dynamics of Livestock Farmers in the Peri-urban Interface of Guwahati, Assam, India
Dimpal Gogoi *
College of Veterinary Science, Assam Agricultural University, Khanapara, Guwahati, Assam, India.
Leema Bora
College of Veterinary Science, Assam Agricultural University, Khanapara, Guwahati, Assam, India.
Monosri Johari
College of Veterinary Science, Assam Agricultural University, Khanapara, Guwahati, Assam, India.
Janmoni Shyam
College of Veterinary Science, Assam Agricultural University, Khanapara, Guwahati, Assam, India.
Biju Borah
Lakhimpur College of Veterinary Science, Assam Agricultural University, Joyhing, North Lakhimpur, Assam, India.
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
Background: Peri-urban livestock farming occupies a transitional space in which access to urban markets coexists with shrinking agricultural land, changing occupations and uneven access to services. Evidence from Guwahati is limited, although the city is expanding into adjoining rural landscapes.
Aim: The study assessed the socio-economic characteristics of livestock-keeping households in three peri-urban Community Development Blocks (CDBs) of Guwahati, Assam.
Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in Rani, Sonapur and Chandrapur CDBs, all located within approximately 35 km of Guwahati. Four villages were covered in each CDB and 25 eligible livestock farmers were interviewed per village, providing 100 respondents per CDB and 300 overall. Respondents maintained at least two to three livestock and/or a small backyard poultry flock. Because no complete sampling frame of peri-urban livestock keepers was available, respondents were identified through snowball referrals. Data were collected with a structured interview schedule and analysed using frequency, percentage, mean, standard deviation, one-way analysis of variance and critical-difference comparisons.
Results: Respondents had a mean age of 46.34 years and a mean family size of 4.40 members. Agriculture remained the principal occupation, while livestock rearing was commonly secondary. Mean herd size was 2.43 livestock units and did not differ significantly among CDBs. Farming experience (5.63 years), landholding (1.86 acres), mass-media exposure, extension contact and annual income from non-livestock sources differed significantly among locations. Mean annual income from animal husbandry was only ₹12,264 and showed no significant spatial difference, whereas mean annual income from other sources was ₹168,883. Most respondents fell in the middle categories of age, family size, herd size, experience, landholding, media exposure, extension contact and income.
Conclusion: Livestock in the sampled peri-urban households functioned mainly as a supplementary livelihood and household-support enterprise rather than the dominant income source. The results indicate a need for location-specific extension, small-scale feeding and housing options, improved market linkages and explicit inclusion of peri-urban livestock keepers in municipal and rural-development planning.
Keywords: Extension contact, Guwahati, livelihood diversification, livestock farming, peri-urban interface, socio-economic profile