IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v13y2023i8p1552-d1209726.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cotton GinTrash Feeding Amid Feed Scarcity in Sheep and Factors Driving Inclusion in the Yarn Spinning Industrial Cluster of Tamil Nadu, India

Author

Listed:
  • Nagarajan Sri Balaji

    (Veterinary College and Research Institute, Namakkal 637002, India)

  • Subramaniam Ramakrishnan

    (Veterinary College and Research Institute, Namakkal 637002, India)

  • Jaganadhan Muralidharan

    (Mecheri Sheep Research Station, Salem 636451, India)

  • Palanisamy Vasan

    (Veterinary College and Research Institute, Namakkal 637002, India)

  • Aranganoor Kannan Thiruvenkadan

    (Veterinary College and Research Institute, Namakkal 637002, India)

  • Karuppusamy Sivakumar

    (Faculty of Food and Agriculture, The University of the West Indies, St. Augustine 685509, Trinidad and Tobago)

  • Venkatachalam Sankar

    (Mecheri Sheep Research Station, Salem 636451, India)

  • Varadharajan Kumaravel

    (Veterinary College and Research Institute, Namakkal 637002, India)

  • Duraisamy Thirunavukkarasu

    (Veterinary College and Research Institute, Namakkal 637002, India)

Abstract

Cotton gin trash (CGT) is composed of fibre residues, leaves, dust particles, soil, and other materials derived during the ginning and yarn-spinning process in processing industries. In the cotton-spinning industrial clusters, farmers are using CGT as one of the alternative roughage feeds for their sheep, mainly during forage shortages in the summer months. Baseline information on farmers using gin and the factors driving them to choose CGT as a roughage source needs to be identified for future planning regarding the usage of CGT in sheep feeding. Considering the above facts, the present study was undertaken to assess the socio-personal characteristics and managemental practices associated with farmers using cotton gin in the feeding of sheep; also, it was conducted to identify the factors driving the choice of the CGT as the primary source of roughage in the cotton-spinning industry cluster of Tamil Nadu, India. For this, a survey among 80 sheep farmers was carried out using a pre-tested interview schedule. The collected data were analysed using descriptive statistics and logit regression. The results indicated that the majority of male, aged, and large-land farmers were involved in practicing CGT feeding during the summer and also indicated the non-availability of green fodder during the same period of time. The coarse type of CGT is preferred over the fine type of CGT trash in that area due to quality perception and price. The replacement level of CGT as roughage ranged from 33 to 75% of the total roughage requirement per day. About 88% of farmers were highly satisfied with the results of using CGT and they also expressed that the presence of foreign particles and dust was the major problem with using CGT. The choice of CGT as primary roughage among sheep farmers was primarily influenced by selective farming contexts, namely, landholding, access to labour, and the feeding practices of other livestock with cotton gin. Furthermore, research needs to be focused on improving the quality of CGT in the future as it is being utilised largely by sheep farmers.

Suggested Citation

  • Nagarajan Sri Balaji & Subramaniam Ramakrishnan & Jaganadhan Muralidharan & Palanisamy Vasan & Aranganoor Kannan Thiruvenkadan & Karuppusamy Sivakumar & Venkatachalam Sankar & Varadharajan Kumaravel &, 2023. "Cotton GinTrash Feeding Amid Feed Scarcity in Sheep and Factors Driving Inclusion in the Yarn Spinning Industrial Cluster of Tamil Nadu, India," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-14, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:8:p:1552-:d:1209726
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/8/1552/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/8/1552/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Agblevor, F.A. & Cundiff, J.S. & Mingle, C. & Li, W., 2006. "Storage and characterization of cotton gin waste for ethanol production," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 198-216.
    2. Sri Balaji Nagarajan & Subramaniam Ramakrishnan & Jaganathan Muralidharan & Palanisamy Vasan & Karuppusamy Sivakumar & Aranganoor Kannan Thiruvenkadan, 2023. "Effect of Cotton Gin Trash Supplementation as Unconventional Feedstuff on Feed Intake and Production Characteristics of Mecheri Sheep of India," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-16, July.
    3. François J Dessart & Jesús Barreiro-Hurlé & René van Bavel, 2019. "Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: a policy-oriented review," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 417-471.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    2. Mercedes Rodríguez & José Antonio Camacho, 2023. "The importance of agriculture and rural areas for the future in the European Union: An exploration of public opinion," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 69(10), pages 394-403.
    3. Mingyue Li & Jingjing Wang & Kai Chen & Lianbei Wu, 2020. "Willingness and Behaviors of Farmers’ Green Disposal of Pesticide Packaging Waste in Henan, China: A Perceived Value Formation Mechanism Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-18, May.
    4. Meike Weltin & Silke Hüttel, 2023. "Sustainable Intensification Farming as an Enabler for Farm Eco-Efficiency?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(1), pages 315-342, January.
    5. Qianchun Dai & Kequn Cheng, 2022. "What Drives the Adoption of Agricultural Green Production Technologies? An Extension of TAM in Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-18, November.
    6. Kumse, Kaittisak & Suzuki, Nobuhiro & Sato, Takeshi & Demont, Matty, 2021. "The spillover effect of direct competition between marketing cooperatives and private intermediaries: Evidence from the Thai rice value chain," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    7. de Lauwere, Carolien & Slegers, Monique & Meeusen, Marieke, 2022. "The influence of behavioural factors and external conditions on Dutch farmers’ decision making in the transition towards circular agriculture," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    8. Alexandra Doernberg & Annette Piorr & Ingo Zasada & Dirk Wascher & Ulrich Schmutz, 2022. "Sustainability assessment of short food supply chains (SFSC): developing and testing a rapid assessment tool in one African and three European city regions," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(3), pages 885-904, September.
    9. Lapierre, Margaux & Le Velly, Gwenolé & Bougherara, Douadia & Préget, Raphaële & Sauquet, Alexandre, 2023. "Designing agri-environmental schemes to cope with uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    10. Tiéfigué Pierrette Coulibaly & Jianguo Du & Daniel Diakité & Olivier Joseph Abban & Elvis Kouakou, 2021. "A Proposed Conceptual Framework on the Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices: The Role of Network Contact Frequency and Institutional Trust," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-12, February.
    11. Kuhfuss, Laure & Préget, Raphaële & Thoyer, Sophie & de Vries, Frans P. & Hanley, Nick, 2022. "Enhancing spatial coordination in payment for ecosystem services schemes with non-pecuniary preferences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    12. Koiry, Subrata & Huang, Wei, 2023. "Do ecological protection approaches affect total factor productivity change of cropland production in Sweden?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    13. Shang, Linmei & Heckelei, Thomas & Gerullis, Maria K. & Börner, Jan & Rasch, Sebastian, 2021. "Adoption and diffusion of digital farming technologies - integrating farm-level evidence and system interaction," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    14. Shuo Lei & Lu Zhang & Chunfei Hou & Yongwei Han, 2023. "Internet Use, Subjective Well-Being, and Environmentally Friendly Practices in Rural China: An Empirical Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-13, July.
    15. Jane Mills & Hannah Chiswell & Peter Gaskell & Paul Courtney & Beth Brockett & George Cusworth & Matt Lobley, 2021. "Developing Farm-Level Social Indicators for Agri-Environment Schemes: A Focus on the Agents of Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-22, July.
    16. Simpson, Katherine & Armsworth, Paul R. & Dallimer, Martin & Nthambi, Mary & de Vries, Frans P. & Hanley, Nick, 2023. "Improving the ecological and economic performance of agri-environment schemes: Payment by modelled results versus payment for actions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    17. Mercedes Rodríguez & José Antonio Camacho, . "The importance of agriculture and rural areas for the future in the European Union: An exploration of public opinion," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 0.
    18. Kearney, M. & O'Riordan, E.G. & Byrne, N. & Breen, J. & Crosson, P., 2023. "Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in pasture-based dairy-beef production systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    19. Marianne Lefebvre & Jesus Barreiro‐Hurlé & Ciaran Blanchflower & Liesbeth Colen & Laure Kuhfuss & Jens Rommel & Tanja Šumrada & Fabian Thomas & Sophie Thoyer, 2021. "Can Economic Experiments Contribute to a More Effective CAP?," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 20(3), pages 42-49, December.
    20. Robert Huber & Hang Xiong & Kevin Keller & Robert Finger, 2022. "Bridging behavioural factors and standard bio‐economic modelling in an agent‐based modelling framework," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(1), pages 35-63, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:8:p:1552-:d:1209726. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.