Consumption and Valuation of Livestock Fodder under Different Forest Types of Himalayas, India

 

Rajiv Pandey

Scientist

Climate Change Division. Indian Council of Forestry Research & Education. Dehradun, INDIA

 

Abstract

The forest feed to livestock either through collection of tree leaves and grasses or by grazing has significant contribution to the rural households. However, this contribution of forests is overlooked and neither accounted in developmental perspectives nor included into System of National Accounts (SNA). This is primarily due to lack of quantitative information on forest contribution for livestock feed.

The present study addresses the issue by capturing the relevant primary information by household survey through pretested questionnaire from 316 randomly selected households engaged in livestock rearing. These households were distributed across 66 villages in the all five forest types of Uttarakhand state, India. The questionnaire contains household attributes, livestock composition, livestock feedstuffs derived from market, forest and non-forest areas. The market and non market approach was used to estimate the price of various livestock feedstuffs used for feeding purposes. The livestock population was defined in terms of adult cattle units (ACU) as per standard definition.

The distribution of ACUs per households ranges from 4 to 5 units in the region. The total feedstuff from various sources consumed by one ACU (standard unit of livestock) was 22.27 Kg in Himalayan Moist Temperate Forest; 23.32 Kg in Sub-Tropical Pine Forest; 34.74 Kg in Tropical Dry Deciduous Forest; 22.50 Kg in Tropical Moist Deciduous Forest and 21.60 Kg in Sub-Alpine and Alpine Forest. Proportion wise, the share of non forest, forest and market was 45, 52, & 3; 38, 60 & 2; 97, 0 & 3; 44, 53 & 3 and 30, 68 & 3, in various forest types, respectively. The value of this feedstuffs for the livestock on per ACU was up to Rupees (Rs.) 100 for the livestock reared except for plain areas, where forest share was miniscule. Proportion of value for non forest, forest and market was 47, 32 & 21; 41, 43 & 16; 78, 0 & 22; 48, 34 & 18 and 31, 51 & 18 for the five forest types, respectively.

It is apparent that forest contributes significantly for livestock sector and has implications for policy planning for formulation of public policy for poverty alleviation and strongly advocate for inclusion of forest contribution in SNA.

Key words: Forest biomass; forest feed; ACU; rural livelihood; green accounting

 

Consumo e Avaliação da Alimentação do Gado em Diferentes Tipos de Floresta dos Himalaias, Índia

Sumário

A contribuição da floresta para a alimentação do gado, seja utilizando folhas de árvores e herbáceas seja pelo pastoreio, é significativa para os agregados familiares rurais. No entanto, esta contribuição das florestas é ignorada, não sendo tida em conta nas propostas de desenvolvimento nem no Sistema Nacional de Contas (SNA). Este facto deve-se sobretudo à falta de informação quantitativa relativa a esta contribuição.

O presente estudo debruça-se sobre este assunto, apresentando informação relevante obtida através de um inquérito efetuado a 316 agregados familiares, selecionados ao acaso, e que se dedicam à criação de gado. Estes agregados familiares distribuíram-se por 66 aldeias incluídas nos 5 tipos de floresta do estado de Uttarakhand, Índia. Este questionário inclui a caracterização dos agregados familiares, a composição dos efetivos pecuários e da sua alimentação, quer adquirida no mercado quer proveniente de áreas florestais e não florestais. Optou-se pela caracterização em mercado e não mercado como forma de calcular o preço das várias componentes da alimentação do gado. A população de efetivos pecuários foi definida em ACU (unidades de gado adulto) segundo a definição estabelecida.

Na região, as ACU variam entre 4 e 5 unidades por agregado familiar. Calculou-se que a alimentação de uma ACU era de 22,27 kg na floresta húmida dos Himalaias; 23,32 kg na floresta de pinhal subtropical; 34,74 na floresta seca de folhosas; 22,50 kg na floresta húmida de folhosas; e 21,60 kg na floresta subalpina e alpina. A percentagem da alimentação relativa a não floresta, floresta e mercado foi de 45, 52, & 3; 38, 60 & 2; 97, 0 & 3; 44, 53 & 3 e 30, 68 & 3, para os vários tipos de floresta, respetivamente. O valor, por ACU, da alimentação para o gado elevava-se a 100 Rupias exceto nas zonas de planície, em que a percentagem de floresta era mínima. Em proporção, o valor para não floresta, floresta e mercado foi de 47, 32 & 21; 41, 43 & 16; 78, 0 & 22; 48, 34 & 18 e 30, 51 & 18, respetivamente, para os 5 tipos de floresta.

É clarificada a contribuição significativa da floresta para o sector pecuário, e este facto deve ter implicações na formulação de políticas públicas para a mitigação da pobreza e recomenda-se vivamente a inclusão da contribuição da floresta no Sistema Nacional de Contas.

Palavras-chave: Biomassa florestal; alimentação; unidade de gado adulto (ACU); rendimento rural; contabilidade verde

 

Consommation et Évaluation de l'Alimentation du Bétail dans Différents Types de Forêt des Himalaya, Inde

Résumé

La contribution de la forêt pour l'alimentation du bétail, que ce soit en utilisant des feuilles d'arbres et d'herbacés ou le pâturage, est significative pour les familles rurales. Pourtant, cette contribution est ignorée, n'étant pas reconnue ni dans les propositions de développement ni dans le système de comptabilité nationale. Ce fait est dû surtout à l'absence de données quantitatives sur ce sujet.

Cette étude aborde la question, en présentant le résultat d'un questionnaire auprès de 316 familles, sélectionnées au hasard, qui s'occupent à l'élevage du bétail. Ces familles se distribuent en 66 villages, situés dans les 5 types de forêt de l'état d'Uttarakhand, Inde. Ce questionnaire comprend les caractéristiques des familles, la composition du bétail et de son alimentation, soit-elle acquise au marché ou provenant des zones forestières et non-forestières. On a opté pour classer l'alimentation du bétail en marché  et non marché afin de calculer le prix de ces différentes composantes. Le bétail a été classé en ACU (unités de bétail adulte) selon la définition en vigueur.

Dans cette région, les ACU varient entre 4 et 5 unités par famille. On a calculé que l'alimentation d'une ACU était de 22.27 kg dans la forêt humide des Himalaya; de 23.32 kg dans la forêt subtropicale de pins; de 34.74 dans la forêt sèche de feuillus; de 22.50 kg dans la forêt humide de feuillus; et de 21.60 kg dans la forêt subalpine et alpine. Pour l'alimentation du bétail, la proportion entre non forêt, forêt et marché fut de 45, 52, & 3; 38, 60 & 2; 97, 0 & 3; 44, 53 & 3 e 30, 68 & 3, respectivement, concernant les différents types de forêt. La valeur de l’alimentation du bétail, par ACU, est de 100 Roupies, sauf dans les zones plaines, ayant très peu de forêt. Pour les 5 types de forêt considérés, la proportion entre  non forêt, forêt et marché fut de 47, 32 & 21; 41, 43 & 16; 78, 0 & 22; 48, 34 & 18 e 30, 51 & 18, respectivement.

La contribution significative de la forêt dans l'alimentation du bétail devient indéniable, ce qui devrait être pris en considération lors de la formulation des politiques publiques contre la pauvreté, et nous recommandons vivement l'inclusion de cette contribution dans le système de comptabilité nationale.

Mots clés: Biomasse forestière; alimentation forestière; unités de bétail adulte (ACU); revenu rural; comptabilité verte

 

Introduction

Livestock sector is socially and politically very significant. It accounts for 40 percent gross domestic products and employs 1.3 billion people and creates livelihood for one billion of the world's poor (STEINFELD et al., 2006). It forms an important occupation for most of the farmers (SINGH, 1995), supporting agriculture in the form of critical inputs in rural India (ASHISH, 1979), contributing to the health and nutrition of the household.

Livestock supplement 20 percent of household cash income in hills, without taking home consumption of livestock products into account (TULACHAN and NEUPANE, 1999). However, largely, livestock production are mainly for subsistence rather than commercial purposes in areas, where subsistence and low input production prevails and demand for animal origin food products is low (STEINFELD et al., 2006). However, the growing human population, increasing income, and urbanization have increased many folds the importance of animal origin food products due to high demand in developing countries (DELGADO et al., 1999). This is instrumental for increased livestock productivity. However, sustained livestock production may be achieved with quality breed, application of technology and adequate quality feed provisions. In India, the shortage of feed is one of the major limiting factors for better productivity of livestock sector (PRATAP, 2002). This situation is very critical for the livestock of the hilly region (PANDEY and MISHRA, 2008).

Feed resources production in terms of crop residue is 393 million tonnes with additional green fodder of 503 million tonnes in the country with increase in area under fodder cultivation up to 4.60% in recent years (PLANNING COMMISSION, 2006). On average, 58% of total fodder biomass was extracted from CPRs and 42% was cultivated on private cropland in India for livestock consumption (TULACHAN et al., 2002).

Livestock feedstuff is differentiated into roughage (high in crude fibrous material), such as grass from pastures and crop residues, and feed concentrate, such as grains or oilseeds. In rural India, main feed resources include native grasslands, cultivated fodders and trees from private and public forest, crop residues, agro-industrial by-products, and non-conventional feed resources (DEVENDRA et al., 2000). However, forests are major source of the feed and fodder for livestock of forest dependent communities (PLANNING COMMISSION, 2006).

In hills, fodder trees, shrubs and grazing in the forests are the main sources for the livestock feed including use of agricultural residue (SINGH and SUNDRIYAL, 2009). In the mid-hill of Himalayas, about 30-50% of total animal feed mainly grass and tree fodder is from forests and grasslands (SINGH and NAIK, 1987; BAJRACHARYA, 1999). As per another study, approximately, two-thirds to three-fourth of the fodder requirement are met from the forest in mid hills and 26-43% in the lower hill (SINGH, 1999). Interestingly, it has also been reported that dairy cattle are also dependent on forest resources particularly in the Himalayas (TULACHAN et al., 2002). This trend depends on the requirement and availability of resource stock within the forests, which differs with forest types. Therefore, separate evaluation of fodder contribution in different forest types may provide better insight about the contributions of these forest types.

Contrary to this, productivity and carrying capacity of forests and pastures are declining due to excess pressure and anthropogenic causes (KHANDURI et al., 2002). It has direct impact for sustained productivity of livestock and in turn on agricultural lands. Therefore, proper consideration is required for the sustainability of forests and livestock. This can be addressed by enhancing the forest productivity through proper conservation and effective management. This can be achieved through implementation of various schemes and programmes, which requires huge budget. Therefore sufficient allocation of budget from the federal government would be needed under the respective sectors of SNA (PANDEY and MISHRA, 2008). 

The lack of mechanism to estimate the value of forest fodder coupled with non-existence of market for these products in rural areas and free rider problem for forest resources by the villagers restrict the actual realization of value of the extracted fodder. This leads to low value, inadequate financing and less budget allocation in forestry sector, as the planning and financial allocation are done in quid pro quo manner. This adversely affects to the forestry sector and resulted into low performance in managing available forest resources characterizes the existing pricing policy and institutional failures in this sector (NEILL and SPASH, 2000). Economic externalities should be built into prices by selective taxing of and/or fees for resource use, inputs and wastes, including direct incentives, if needed (STEINFELD et al., 2006). Therefore, economic valuation of fodder through scientific method may act as an instrument for incorporation of livestock forest feed contribution into relevant sector of SNA, which is till recently not accounted at all.

Therefore, this study has been undertaken to assess the economic value of livestock feed under different forest types with the respective consumption pattern for policy formulation to address the problems and prospects of livestock feed and conserving the forests.

 

Study area

The study was conducted in the state of Uttarakhand (28'44'' N to 31'28'' N latitude and 77'35'' E to 81'01'' E longitude) of India. The total geographical area of the state is 53.485 Km². The entire state of Uttarakhand is part of the Himalayan ranges, apart from the Terai region in the Shivalik foothills. The state has six forest types (Figure 1). These are Tropical Dry Deciduous Forests (Plain Region), Tropical Moist Deciduous forests, Sub-tropical Pine forests, Himalayan Moist Temperate forests, Himalayan Dry Temperate forests, Sub Alpine and Alpine forests (all five from Hilly Region) (CHAMPION and SETH, 1968). Himalayan Dry Temperate forest has negligible area. The zone wise classifications are elaborated below:

 

Figure 1 - Forest Types of Uttarakhand

 

   1. Tropical- Subtropical zone: This zone is dominated by the deciduous types. Sal is the most predominant species found up to elevation of 1300 m. The other prominent species are Acacia catechu (khair), Bombax ceiba (semal), Cassia fistula (kanju), Dalbergia sissoo (sissoo), and Adina cordifolia (haldu) etc.

   2. Sub Tropical-Temperate Zone: The sub tropical to temperate pine forest (with Pinus roxburghii (chir pine) as the dominant tree) and sub-tropical to temperate shrubs dominate at elevations varying between 900m and 2100m.

   3. Temperate-Sub Alpine zone: It extends generally between 1500 to 3300m and contains mixed coniferous forest of Cedrus deodara (deodar), Abies pindrow (fir), Picea smithiana (spruce) and Betula utilis (birch).

   4. Alpine Zone: It extends up to 4200m. In the upper reaches, smaller bushes and alpine pastures can be observed, beyond which there is no vegetation.

Most of the forests of the state fall under Gair van (54.20%); moderate dense forest (27%); open forest (11.30%) and very dense forest (7.50%) (UFD, 2006). This region is traditionally associated with livestock mixed cropping farming system for social and economic considerations. It has 1.63% of the country's geographical area with total population of 8.48 million in 2001 (0.83% of the country's population). The population comprises of 74.33% from rural and 25.67% from urban with a density of 159 persons per Km². Human inhabitants are found up to an altitude of 3500 m above sea level; however, the zone between 1200 – 2000 m, is densely populated. Uttarakhand shares 1.18% of cattle, 1.25% of buffaloes, 0.48% of sheep, 0.93% of goats and 0.24% of pig population of the country. The total livestock population on adult cattle units (ACU) basis is 4278877.31 (LIVESTOCK CENSUS, 2005; PANDEY, 2010). The ACU is defined as: one cow = one ACU, young stock of buffalo/cow = 0.75 ACU and sheep or goat = 0.15 ACU (YANG, 1971) and one buffalo = 1.50 ACU (G.B. PANT UNIVERSITY, 1980).

 

Methods

To understand the consumption behavior, the feed status for all categories of livestock was collected from the five strata of the state based on forest types (Figure 1). Primary data has been collected as per pretested questionnaire from 364 randomly selected households, who rear livestock from 66 villages distributed across various forest types of Uttrakhand. The stratification criterion i.e. forest types were based on close linkage between forest fodder availability, production and livestock rearing. The livestock include oxen, cows, young cows and buffaloes, cows not calved, male buffaloes, buffaloes not calved, goat and sheep. Information pertaining to the fodder utilization from various sources for grasses, tree leaves, minerals etc., and socio-economic attributes were also collected from each household. These sources were categorized into three i.e. non forests, forests and market.

The consumption quantity and value estimates of livestock feed derived or obtained from various sources were estimated. Proportional share for all sources were also estimated.

 

Economic Value and Rate of Various Products of Livestock Feed

The price of various feed products for livestock consumption was necessary to estimate the share and proportionate value for all sources. The household procured tree leaves, grasses and some dried products from forests against their labor; crop residue and grasses from agriculture; and salt, husk, gur, minerals either in crude or in mixture etc. from market. The average price value in rupee of products received from market was estimated based on the collected prices of these products at various locations across the state from the respective markets. The value of agricultural products was estimated based on the information received from villagers through their judgment, which was derived from imperfect market at village level. These imprecise markets function either directly in terms of money or indirectly through exchange of some products or services. It was also observed during the survey that grass is being sold a number of places particular during lean period at the price range from Rs. 4 to 8 per Kg including transportation cost. This forms the basis of average per unit cost of grass. The value of forest derived products i.e. tree leaves was estimated based on contingent valuation, as market for these products were not functional in these areas (CARSON, 2000).

Willingness to pay (WTP) in terms of rupee value or labor work time or in both ways were noted against the derived forest fodder particularly tree products through questionnaire. The respondents were explained the issue of valuation with consideration of hypothetical market and requested to assign value for the forest derived products. The closed ended question was asked for valuation through bidding process. The bid value for both the value in rupee and labor time was assigned as per pilot study. The labor time was converted to rupee value based on standard rate of government of India for area B, (Uttarakhand falls under area B). It deemed fit keeping in view of tree lopping practices for fodder extraction, which required untrained man power. It is Rs. 169 per man, days of eight hours, as per Labor Commissioner, Uttarakhand vide letter No. 4807-08/4-01/07 dated 03-09-2009.

 

Result and discussions

The main composition of livestock population in the state was cows, buffaloes, goats and oxen. The average number of livestock per household was 1.58 cows, 0.97 buffaloes; 1.36 goats and 1.16 oxen. The productivity was very low, as revealed by the respondents with average milk production of 1.92 liter milk per cow and 2.32 liter per buffalo. Goats were reared mainly for sacrifice purposes during festivals (male) or to supplement their income during adverse financial constraints. In fact, these are unproductive, keeping in view of production economics; however their role is very pertinent to agriculture cultivation, particularly through composting. The cause of low productivity was revealed to be seasonal fluctuation in fodder availability and financial constraints besides poor breed.

The proportion of household devoid of cow was 24%. Sixty four percent households owned up to two cows while only 12% owned more than 2 cows. Buffalo was not reared by 46% of the households due to stall feeding nature, which is costly affaire to these households and 45% households owned upto two buffaloes while only 9% of the households owned more than two buffaloes. Goat was not reared by 68% of the households, keeping in view of the poor social status determined through this. However, only 9% households owned up to four goats, while 23% of the households reared more than two goats. About 59% of the households owned a pair of oxen, while 39% had none, and 2% of the households owned more than two oxen. Oxen are being used for ploughing the agricultural field. The larger proportion of livestock was indigenous. The indigenous livestock is regarded better suited for the hilly condition, due to its adaptability and resistance to diseases and low cost of maintenance, in comparison to hybrid livestock, as revealed by the respondent during the survey. Moreover the price of hybrid cattle is high and generally beyond the reach to majority of the villagers.

Majority of the households (98%) revealed that they visit forest and non forest area or both daily, for fodder collection. During rainy season fodder was collected even more than twice a day, and during severe cold it was on every alternate day especially in high altitude zone. The womenfolk were mostly involved in the collection of fodder and sometimes accompanied by children. The time spent ranged from one to more than five hours at one trip with distance travelled for the collection varying from 1 to more than 5 Km. The fodder comprises mostly of grasses and tree fodder.

The collection of fodder comprises of small bundles called Phula. The sources of fodder also change from season to season as villagers prefer to collect fodder from the easily accessible area such as non forest areas including private land and forests. During rainy season, lots of grasses are available at private lands and grasslands, while during winter season forest are the only resort for green fodder in the form of tree leaves. Nearly 67% households reported that they collect fodder from their private lands too. They frequently visited to grassland (63%) and forest (83%). Fifteen percent households buy fodder i.e. grasses and straws from the other sources during severe scarcity.

Table 1 contains the quantity (in Kg) of livestock feed obtained from different sources in different forest types. These are grain, crushed pulses, husk, gram gur, oilseeds and cake, bran and salt from market; dry fodder and green fodder from non forest area and tree fodder, grasses and dry fodder from forests. The dry fodder from non forest area was straw and dry grasses collected from agriculture farms. The green fodder from forest include tree foliage and shrubs, however the dry fodder from forests contain the dried grasses. The proportion of feed quantity for different sources is also estimated. It shows that forest was main source for feed in hilly region; however non forest was prevalent source in plain region of the state (Table 1).

 

Table 1 - Quantity (in Kg) of livestock feed per ACU derived from various sources for rearing in different Forest Types in Uttarakhand State

 

The average quantity consumed per day by the one ACU was 22.42 Kg with 13.01 Kg from forests, 8.81 Kg from non forests areas and 0.60 Kg from market for the hilly region. In plain, average quantity consumed per day by the one ACU was 34.74 Kg with 0.02 Kg from forests, 33.62 Kg from non forests area primarily from agriculture field and 1.09 Kg from market. The high value of fodder quantity for plain region was due to low or non availability of goat and sheep, which consume less than the cows and other large livestock besides high proportion of dried fodder mixed with liquid concentrate. The distribution of ACUs per households ranges from 4 to 5 units in the region. The total feedstuff from various sources consumed by one ACU (standard unit of livestock) was 22.27 Kg in Himalayan Moist Temperate Forest; 23.32 Kg in Sub-Tropical Pine Forest; 34.74 Kg in Tropical Dry Deciduous Forest; and 22.50 Kg in Tropical Moist Deciduous Forest and 21.60 Kg in Sub-Alpine and Alpine Forest. Proportion wise, the share of non forest, forest and market was 45, 52, & 3; 38, 60 & 2; 97, 0 & 3; 44, 53 & 3 and 30, 68 & 3, in various forest types, respectively (Table 1).

The price of these livestock feed was obtained from different areas and average was estimated based on the data collected from various locations, where these commodities enter into market mechanism (Table 2). However, the concept of conversion of green to dry weight basis was considered keeping in view of fibrous nature of the forest feed particularly herbs and foliages. The ratio of 33% was considered for dry to green weight of herb and grasses and accordingly price of dry grasses was estimated by multiplying the weight with the green grass price. The WTP for forest fodder which include grasses and tree fodder was estimated through contingent valuation. This was with the premises that the households obtained grasses as well as tree foliages from forests (Table 2).

 

Table 2 - Price (in Rs.) of livestock feed on per day basis for adult cattle units (ACU) derived from various sources for rearing in various Forest Types (Appro. 1 $ = Rs. 45)

 

Table 2 contains the price of different livestock feed stuffs with daily intake price for each commodity received from different sources on adult cattle unit basis. The total value in rupee terms for an ACU ranges from Rs. 95 to 100 per day. The forestry sector contribution ranges from 32 to 51% and non forestry contribution ranges from 30 to 48% in hilly region i.e. forest dominant region. Based on that, the proportion of value for non forest, forest and market was 47, 32 & 21; 41, 43 & 16; 78, 0 & 22; 48, 34 & 18 and 31, 51 & 18 percent for the five forest types, respectively. The contribution of forests for hilly region was 40%, for non forests 41% with market share of 18%. The value share for state was 27% for forests, 54% for non forests and 20% for market (Table 2).

 

Conclusion

Based on the study, the forest contribution to the livestock of state was 20.32 million tonnes (with 40% share) with the value of Rs. 4815.65 million (with 26% share). It provides ratio and rates for adjustment of share into SNA and may explore the dimensions on economy-environment relationships. It can also be deduced that feed scarcity may be addressed for roughage and concentrate by enhancing the productivity of common property resources (CPRs) i.e. forests and grazing lands through conservation and management to these resources, which requires various inputs including huge budgetary provisions. Therefore these proportion may be utilized to allocate the livestock feed value under the component of Forestry Sector. This may ultimately increase the outlay of the sector, which can facilitate for conservation and enhancement of the present conditions of forests.

In true sense, it results aggressively for the mixed farming system as their productivity depends primarily on the inputs derived from forests, therefore continued depletion of forest resources in the long run will severely affect the returns from agriculture, thus compromise the welfare of already deprived households. This inflates the already existing disparity among the society at a large and may severely affect the social cohesion in the society. Therefore, basic strategy for development must revolve around the restoration of the degraded vegetative cover and protection of available resources with the potential to grow further. Unless this is taken into consideration, nothing else that is being attempted for development (such as soil conservation, new cropping practices, orchards, roads etc) will alter the present trend of decay (IVES and MESSERLI, 1989).

This result has implications for policy planning for formulation of public policy for poverty alleviation as livestock sector is integral part of rural developmental programmes and for inclusion of forest contribution under forestry sector in SNA. The opportunities for this transition depend on the relative value of the productive potential and consumption, compared with its potential for other provision of developments.

 

References

ASHISH, M., 1979. Agriculture economy of Kumaon Hills: Threat of an ecological disaster. Economic and Political Weekly 23: 1058-60.         [ Links ]

BAJRACHARYA, B., 1999. Sustainable soil management with reference to livestock production systems. ICIMOD, Katmandu.         [ Links ]

CARSON, R., 2000. Contingent valuation – A user's guide. Environmental Science and Technology 34(8): 1413-1418.         [ Links ]

CHAMPION, H.G., SETH, S.K., 1968. A revised survey of forest types of India. Manager of Publications, Government of India, Delhi.         [ Links ]

DELGADO, C., ROSEGRANT, M., STEINFELD, H., EHUI, S., COURBOIS, C., 1999. Livestock to 2020: The next food revolution. Discussion paper 28. IFPRI, Washington.         [ Links ]

DEVENDRA, C., THOMAS D., JABBAR M.A., ZERBINI, E., 2000. Improvement of livestock production in crop–animal systems in agro-ecological zones of South Asia. ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya, 117 pp.         [ Links ]

FSI, 2009. State of forest report 2009. Forest Survey of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, Dehra Dun, India.         [ Links ]

G.B. PANT UNIVERSITY, 1980. Integrated natural and human resource planning and management in the hills of U.P, Pantnagar: Progress report of sub-project: Study of grassland and livestock resources management in the Kumaun Hills. Pant Nagar University, Pant Nagar, India.         [ Links ]

IVES, J.D., MESSERLY, B., 1989. The Himalayan dilemma: Reconciling development and conservation. Routledge, London. 324 pp.         [ Links ]

KHANDURI, V.P., SHARMA, C.M., GHILDIYAL, S.K., PUSPWAN, K.S., 2002. Forest composition in relation to socio-economic status of people at three high altitudinal villages of a part of Garhwal Himalayas. Indian Forester 128(12): 1335-1345.         [ Links ]

LIVESTOCK CENSUS, 2005. 17^th Indian Livestock Census All India Summary Report. Min. of Agri., Dept. of Ani. Hus. & Dairying. New Delhi.         [ Links ]

NEILL, O'J., SPASH, L.C., 2000. Environmental valuation in Europe. Conceptions of value in environmental decision making. Policy research brief 4: 3-18.         [ Links ]

PANDEY, R., 2010. Quantitative estimation of livestock feed from forest in Uttaranchal Himalayas. Final report (Unpublished), CSO, New Delhi.         [ Links ]

PANDEY, R., MISHRA, A., 2008. Estimates of livestock feed from forest for integration into System of National Accounts – A case study of lower Himalayas. Journal of National Income and Wealth 30(2): 84-92.         [ Links ]

PLANNING COMMISSION, 2006. Report of the working group on animal husbandry and dairying: 11^th Five Year Plan (2007-2012). Planning Commission, Govt. of India, New Delhi.         [ Links ]

PRATAP, S.B., 2002. Technological echotecno-logical change in India's livestock subsector: Evidence and issues. In: BIRTHAL, P. and PARTHASARATHY RAO (ed.): Technology options for sustainable livestock production in India: Proceedings of the Workshop on Documentation, Adoption, and Impact of Livestock Technologies in India, 18–19 Jan 2001, ICRISAT-Patancheru, India. 220 pp.         [ Links ]

SINGH, N., SUNDRIYAL, R.C., 2009. Fuelwood, fodder consumption and deficit pattern in central Himalayan village. Nature and Science 7(4): 85-88.         [ Links ]

SINGH, R., 1999. Smallholder dairy farming initiatives: Success and failure of milk cooperatives in the HKH. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Livestock in Mountain/Highland Production Systems: Research and Development Challenges into the Next Millennium, 7-10 December 1999, Pokhara, Nepal.         [ Links ]

SINGH, V., 1995. Technology for forage production in hills of Kumaon. In: New Vistas in Forage Production (ed.): HARZRA, C.R and MISRI BIMAL. AICRPF (IGFRI). Publication Information Directorate, New Delhi, pp. 197-202.         [ Links ]

SINGH, V., NAIK, D.G., 1987. Fodder resources of central Himalaya. In. Western Himalaya, Vol. I (Environment) (Ed.): PANGTEY, Y.P.S. and JOSHI, S.C. SHRI. Almora Publication, Almora. 223 pp.         [ Links ]

STEINFELD, H., GERBER, P., WASSENAAR, T., CASTEL, V., ROSALES, M., HAAN, C., 2006. Livestock's long shadow: Environmental issues and options. FAO, Rome, Italy.         [ Links ]

TULACHAN, P.M., JABBAR, M.A., SALEEM, M.A.M., 2002. Smallholder dairy in mixed farming systems of the Hindu Kush – Himalayas. ICIMOD, Kathmandu, Nepal.         [ Links ]

TULACHAN, P.M., NEUPANE, A., 1999. Livestock in mixed farming systems of the Hindu Kush-Himalayas: Trends and sustainability. ICIMOD & FAO, Kathmandu.         [ Links ]

UFD, 2006. Uttaranchal forest statistics 2005-2006. Uttarakhand Forest Department, Dehradun.         [ Links ]

YANG, W.Y., 1971. Methods of farm management investigation. Agricultural Development Paper nº 8. FAO, Rome.         [ Links ]

 

Acknowledgement

The author acknowledges the contribution of anonymous referee for valuable inputs. The financial support of Central Statistical Organisation, New Delhi, is dully acknowledged.

 

Entregue para publicação em Outubro de 2010

Aceite para publicação em Novembro de 2011