PART IV Noakhali

8/3/2019 PART IV Noakhali

1/36

PART II: Findings and Discussion on Farming Systems by FFS Farmers

The impact of the FFS is analyzed in relation to five major farming sub-systems, namely (i)indigenous poultry rearing, (ii) vegetable gardening, (iii) aquaculture, (iv) rearing of small

ruminants (goats and sheep), (v) rearing of large ruminants, both cattle-fattening and dairying,

and in relation to nutrition, health and hygiene. The findings in relation to each sub-system arepresented sequentially before drawing together the overall picture of impact and reviewing the

FFS participants views of the FFS and service delivery through the CBOs.

4.1 Poultry Rearing

The FFS Module on Poultry Rearing consists of 6-7 Learning Sessions, focusing on poultryhousing, including the separation of chickens and ducks, broody hen management, including

removal of the chicks from the broody hen, feed management and disease prevention. The latter

subject focuses on the main diseases affecting chickens and the number and timing of

vaccination. It is not expected that FFS participants know how to vaccinate themselves, sinceRFLDC has trained Poultry Workers through the CBO. It is expected that the Poultry Workers

attend the session on disease prevention.

Prior to FFS intervention, 81.4% of the FFS participants were engaged in poultry rearing. After

intervention, the proportion had increased to 97.1% indicating that the learning sessions were

found to be highly relevant to the resource-poor farmers of the Greater Noakhali region.

4.1.1 Analysis by Agro-ecological Zone

Among the Noakhali FFS participants, the knowledge related to these issues in poultry rearingwas generally very good, with an index of 2-5-2.7 on almost all learning points in each of the

four main agro-ecologies (Table 1). Only in the Tripura hills did the index fall below 2.5 and

even here it was above the satisfactory level The only exception to this pattern related to


2/36

even here it was above the satisfactory level The only exception to this pattern related to

Tables 3 and 4 are further evidence of this problem. Table 3 shows that only 35% of 93% of

respondents answering the question said that they had received support in vaccination services or

veterinary medicines from the CBOs, only slightly more than the proportion receiving furthertraining and the distribution of chicks and ducklings through the use of the refreshment funds

under the FFS.

Table 4 on the other hand shows the outstanding problems of poultry rearing identified by

respondents. Altogether almost half (48%) of the respondents answering this question said that

they had a problem and of that group 55% claimed that the biggest problem was disease and afurther 31% talked of crisis in obtaining vaccination and veterinary medicines. It is interesting to

note that there is a difference between the responses of the rather more developed areas in theflash flood zone and the waterlogged area on the one hand and the char lands and the hills on the

other. In the former cases, only one-third of respondents mentioned disease as a problem and inthe waterlogged area, shortage of vaccine was more frequent. However, in the char lands and the

hills, the proportion of respondents mentioning disease rises to over two-thirds and many fewer

mention the problem of vaccination. For this group, poultry disease is common and there may belimited perception of even the availability of vaccination services. It may also be noted that 17%

of respondents mentioned that predation (wild animals) was a problem, mainly in the

waterlogged area and in Hatiya.

These problems may also explain the relatively modest increase in the number of broody hens

and ducks being kept by the average household. Before taking part in the FFS the average

number of broody hens ranged from 1.9 (irrigated area) 2.6 (coastal chars); at the time of thesurvey, the numbers had increased to 3.5 3.8, with the biggest increase in the Tripura Hills and

the smallest in the coastal chars. The equivalent figures for ducks were: before FFS participation

0.9 (Tripura Hills) -3.8 (coastal chars); after participation, 1.9 (Tripura Hills) 7.9 (isolatedchars). The greatest increase was in the isolated chars (Hatiya) with 122%, the smallest in the

coastal chars (20%).


3/36

4.1.2 Analysis by Cycle

Apart from the analysis by AEZ, we have examined the performance of the FFS by Cycle. Twopossible hypotheses lie behind this analysis. The first is that the impact of the FFS learning may

increase over time with the growing confidence of the farmers; thus the performance of the

participants in Cycle 1 should be better than those who have recently completed the FFS in Cycle4. The second, partly conversely, is that the quality of the FFS learning process has increased in

the later cycles when the Local Facilitators have gained more confidence and the FFS curriculum

has slowly improved with experience.

Tables 5 and 6 examine these hypotheses. Table 5 suggests that the first hypothesis may bepartly true, since it shows that the knowledge of the learning points and indeed adoption of the

improved technologies contained therein appears to be higher amongst participants involved inthe first two cycles. This is true of all learning points except for the issue of disease prevention

and vaccination, on which the adoption of participants in Cycle 1 is the lowest. This may be

interpreted as indicating that the CBO services on which vaccination depends were not fullydeveloped when these participants were involved in the FFS. By contrast, the lowest adoption

scores were recorded in Cycle 4; not only is this Cycle the most recent round of FFS, but it is

also the Cycle where the Project sought to expand the FFS most dramatically expressed in thelargest sample size. Arguably, therefore, the Project may have sacrificed a degree of quality in

going for quantity.

On the other hand, Table 6 does not exhibit the same pattern. Although the greatestimprovements in the various indicators in seen in Cycle 1, the smallest improvement is exhibited

in Cycle 2. Close scrutiny of this data, however, shows a further interesting feature. For almost

all indicators, Cycle 2 has the highest scores before the participation in FFS so that the smallerimprovement relates largely to this and may indicate that farmer selection in this Cycle towards

the poorer households may not have been so stringent as in the other Cycles.


4/36

Table 1. Average score knowledge and adoption on major learning points of poultry rearing (Poor-1, Moderate-2and Adequate-3)

Major Learning Points

SRC-A (Waterlog)

N=270

SRC-B (Irrigated),

N= 270

SRC-C (Coastal),

N=250

SRC-D (Isolated

Char), N=180 SRC-E (Hills), N=30 All (N=1000)

Average Score Average Score Average Score Average Score Average Score Average Score

Knowledge Adoption Knowledge Adoption Knowledge Adoption Knowledge Adoption Knowledge Adoption Knowledge Adoption

Poultry Housing 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.6 2.3 2.2 2.0 2.5 2.4Poultry Feed Management 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.7 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.2 2.0 2.5 2.4

Broody Hen Management 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.6 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.4

Separation of Chick 2.6 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.2 2.8 2.7 2.3 2.1 2.6 2.3

Rear duck and chickenseparately

2.6 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.6 2.3 2.3 1.9 2.5 2.4

Vaccination 2.2 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.9 2.3 2.0 1.8 1.7 2.1 2.0

Poultry Disease &

Prevention2.0 1.9 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.7 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.8 2.1 1.9

Table 2. Production and income changes before and after FFS on poultry rearing by SRC

DescriptionSRC-A (N=270) SRC-B (N=270) SRC-C(N=250) SRC-D(N=180) SRC-E(N=30) All (N=1000)

B A Ch B A Ch B A Ch B A Ch B A Ch Before,

n=814

After,

n=971

Change

% % % % % %

Nos. of Broody hen (avg) 2.3 3.5 52 1.9 3.5 84 2.6 3.8 46 2.2 3.8 70 2.0 3.8 94 2.27 3.8 67

Nos. of Duck (avg) 3.4 5.2 52 1.6 3.2 104 3.8 4.5 20 3.6 7.9 122 0.9 1.9 104 2.94 4.88 66

Yearly Egg Consumption (nos) 173 318 84 127 257 102 215 327 52 322 810 152 106 256 142 196 390 99

Yearly Egg Sale ( nos) 98 275 181 64 194 203 195 249 28 342 867 154 35 108 209 155 348 125

Yearly Meat Consumption (Tk) 1177 2365 101 1104 2673 142 1728 2991 73 2028 4573 125 1029 1917 86 1443 2989 107

Yearly Meat Sale (TK) 772 1610 109 822 2246 173 1412 2536 80 1510 4075 170 776 1670 115 1078 2459 128

Gross Income 3306 7535 128 2881 7622 165 5190 8981 73 6858 18710 173 2510 5771 130 4276 9138 114

Yearly Expenses (Tk) 827 1511 83 704 1479 110 563 1017 81 703 2320 230 360 315 -13 692 1445 109

Yearly Net Income (Tk) 2479 6024 143 2177 6143 182 4627 7964 72 6155 16390 166 2150 5456 154 3584 7693 115

Mortality Rte Decrease 42 37 37 31 32 37

Table 2.a: Range of Income Changes of Poultry rearing by SRC


5/36

Income Changes SRC-A (N=270) SRC-B (N=270) SRC-C(N=250) SRC-D(N=180) SRC-E(N=30) All (N=1000)

n=239 n=255 n=211 N=173 n=22 n=896

Up to 50% 11 11 19 6 10 11

50%-99% 17 18 24 16 13 19

100% & above 72 71 57 78 77 70

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 3. Support / input received from CBO on poultry rearing.

SRC-A N=270 SRC-B, N= 270 SRC-C, N=250 SRC-D, N=180 SRC-E, N=30 All (N=1000)

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Response 266 99 252 93 237 95 148 82 27 90 930 93

No support 15 6 6 2 56 24 14 9 3 11 94 10

Vaccine and medicine 80 30 128 51 81 34 36 24 4 15 329 35

Feed 66 25 75 30 26 11 11 7 0 0 178 19

Training/ Advice 79 30 148 59 13 5 28 19 6 22 274 29

Chick/ Duckling 153 58 54 21 91 38 9 6 10 37 317 34

Input (Case, Pot, Housing materials ) 19 7 41 16 13 5 103 70 7 26 183 20Percentages of different types of support are based on numbers of responses

Table 4. Type of problems faced on poultry rearing.


No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Response 256 95 266 99 214 86 178 99 25 83 939 94

Problem 90 35 133 50 102 48 109 61 20 80 454 48

Of which

Disease 51 34 47 36 69 68 71 65 13 65 251 55

Vaccine and Medicine crisis 24 27 58 44 21 21 29 27 11 55 143 31

Feed crisis 4 5 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 0 8 2Lack Vaccinator 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 0

Steal 3 3 27 20 5 5 0 0 0 0 35 8

Wild animal 7 8 40 30 10 10 19 17 1 5 77 17

Natural disaster 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

Lack of Land 1 1 0 0 2 2 1 1 0 0 4 1

Crisis of breeder 2 2 1 1 4 4 0 0 0 0 7 2

Percentage of different types of problem are based on numbers of households stating they had problems

Table 5. Average score Knowledge and adoption on major learning points of poultry rearing from FFS (Poor-1, Moderate-2and Adequate-3) by cycle


6/36


Cycle-1, N=62 Cycle-, N=120 Cycle-3, N=323 Cycle-4, N=495 All (N=1000)

Ave. Score Ave. Score Ave. Score Ave. Score Ave. Score

Knowledg

e Adoption

Knowledg

e Adoption

Knowledg

e Adoption

Knowledg

e Adoption

Knowledg

e Adoption

Poultry Housing 2.6 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.4

Poultry Feed Management 2.6 2.5 2.7 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.4Broody Hen Management 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.4

Separation of Chick 2.7 2.5 2.6 2.2 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.6 2.3

Rear duck and chicken separately 2.7 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.4

Vaccination 2.1 1.9 2.2 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.0

Poultry Disease & Prevention 1.9 1.8 2.2 1.8 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9 2.1 1.9

Table 6. Production and income changes before and after FFS on poultry rearing by cycle

Description

Cycle-1, N=62 Cycle-2, N=120 Cycle-3, N=323 Cycle-4, N=495 All (N=1000)

Before After Change

Before After Change

Before After Change

Before After Change Before,

n=814After,n=971

Change

% % % % %

Nos. of Broody hen (Avg) 2 3.37 69 2.4 4 67 2.22 3.46 56 2.3 4.05 76 2.27 3.8 67

Nos. of Duck (Avg) 2.56 5.14 101 5.2 7.3 40 2.66 4.48 68 2.62 4.52 73 2.94 4.88 66

Yearly Egg Consumption (nos) 205 442 116 276 445 61 185 375 103 183 381 108 196 390 99

Yearly Egg Sale ( nos) 129 360 179 299 430 44 125 338 170 143 334 134 155 348 125

Yearly Meat Consumption (Tk) 1361 3266 140 1645 3297 100 1492 3066 105 1372 2829 106 1443 2989 107

Yearly Meat Sale (TK) 873 2564 194 1355 2620 93 1180 2389 102 971 2452 153 1078 2459 128

Gross Income3904 9840 152 5875

1029

275 4222 9020 114 3972 8854 123 4276 9138 114

Yearly Expenses (Tk) 760 761 0 750 1542 106 755 1674 122 628 1343 114 692 1445 109

Yearly Net Income (Tk) 3144 9079 189 5125 8750 71 3467 7346 112 3344 7511 125 3584 7693 115

Mortality Rate Decrease 37 35 41 34 37

Table 6a: Range of Income Changes of poultry rearing by Cycle

Income Changes Cycle-1, N=62 Cycle-2, N=120 Cycle-3, N=323 Cycle-4, N=495 All (N=1000)

n=54 n=102 n=292 n=448 n=896

Up to 50% 4 13 14 11 11

50%-99% 15 26 18 18 19

100% above 81 61 68 71 70

Total 100 100 100 100 100


7/36


8/36

4.2 Vegetable Gardening

The Vegetable Gardening Module in the RFLDC FFS consisted of between 7-9 Learning Sessions:Species selection (which vegetables to grow) and land preparation; Seedbed preparation; Seed selection

and germination; Sowing and transplanting; Fertilization, especially composting; Insect and pest

management (IPM for vegetables); Disease control; and Seed Preservation. Most participants in the FFS

had already had a degree of experience in vegetable gardening (82.5%); the proportion of households

engaged in this enterprise after FFS learning once again increased significantly (to 96.7%) so that almost

all households were following this practice after their learning experience.

4.2.1 Analysis by Agro-ecological Zone

As with poultry rearing, the knowledge of the learning points in vegetable gardening was generally

encouraging, with some learning sessions like seedbed preparation and organic fertilization exhibiting

scores of 2.6 and adoption of these practices was almost as high (Table 7). The only exception to this

situation was amongst the small sample of farmers in the Tripura Hills, where issues of communication

and the appropriateness of the technologies led to scores of only 1.9-2.1 for the same learning points.

Almost in parallel with the poultry modules, the sessions scoring lowest across the board were those on

insect and pest management and disease control, with a notable exception in the latter case in the isolatedchars in Hatiya. Again this pattern is reflected in the responses to the questions on support from the CBOs

and continuing problems of vegetables cultivation. Table 10 shows that, of the 36% of respondents who

indicated that they still had problems in vegetable cultivation, fully 51% indicated that there main

problems related to insects and disease. It may be noted that this was the dominant problem in almost all

the agro-ecologies, but especially in the char lands (70% of respondents) and in the hills (83%). The only

exception was in Hatiya where 51% said there main problem was natural disaster and another 17% water

crisis, clearly relating to the impact of such events as Cyclone Aila. In the waterlogged area, it is also

notable, but not surprising, that 27% of respondents mentioned shortage of land for vegetable cultivation.

As Table 9 indicates, moreover, the support from the CBOs has been concentrated in the supply of quality

seeds through the refreshment funds (84% of all respondents) and to some extent tree saplings and verylittle in the direction of agricultural chemicals.


9/36

Table 7. Average score Knowledge and adoption on major learning points Vegetable gardening from FFS (Poor-1, Moderate-2 and Adequate-3)

Major Learning Points SRC-A N=270 SRC-B, N= 270 SRC-C, N=250 SRC-D, N=180 SRC-E, N=30 All (N=1000)


Knowledge Adoption Knowledge Adoption Knowledge Adoption Knowledge Adoption Knowledge Adoption Knowledge Adoption

Species Selection and Land Preparation 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.1 2.9 1.8 2.3 2.2

Seedbed and Pit Preparation 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.1 1.8 2.6 2.5

Quality Seed and Germination Test 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.5 2.2 1.8 1.7 2.3 2.2

Use of Organic Fertilizer 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.1 1.9 1.5 2.4 2.3

Use of Inorganic fertilizer 2.3 2 2.1 2 2 1.9 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.6 2.1 1.9

Insect & Pest Management (ICP+IPM) 2.2 2 2.1 2 2 1.9 2.4 2.1 1.6 1.6 2.1 2.0

Sowing & Transplant systems 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.2 1.9 1.6 2.4 2.2

Disease Control 2.1 2 2 2 1.9 1.7 2.1 1.9 1.6 1.5 2.0 1.9

Seed Preservation 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 2 2 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.8

Table 8: Changes in Production and Consumption of and Income from Vegetables by SRC

SRC-A (N=270) SRC-B (N=270) SRC-C(N=250) SRC-D(N=180) SRC-E(N=30) All (N=1000)

Vegetable B A % B A % B A % B A % B A %Before

n=825

After

n=967%

Consumption (Tk) 1873 3635 94 1584 3042 92 1424 2951 107 2656 5347 101 1778 3620 104 1824 3617 98

Sales (Tk) 927 2187 136 1023 2650 159 639 2169 240 1517 4437 192 1273 2897 127 1000 2738 174

Gross Income 2800 5822 108 2607 5691 118 2063 5120 148 4173 9783 134 3052 6517 114 2824 6355 125

Production (Kg) 280 451 49 261 407 56 206 366 77 417 699 67 305 465 53 282 454 61Expenses (Tk.) 802 1395 74 723 1211 67 330 751 128 823 1968 139 518 1448 180 660 1284 95

Net Income 1998 4427 122 1884 4480 138 1733 4369 152 3350 7816 133 2533 5368 100 2164 5071 134

Table 8a: Range of Income Changes of Vegetable gardening by SRC


10/36


n=243 n=249 n=237 n=169 n=26 n=924

Up to 50% 16 15 8 15 38 14

50%-99% 23 30 22 25 15 25

100% & above 61 55 70 60 47 61

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 9. Support / input received from CBO on Vegetable gardening by FFS members


No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Response 258 96 256 95 240 96 175 97 25 83 954 95

Medicine 0 0 3 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 6 1

Seed 219 85 191 75 199 83 170 97 19 76 798 84

Training/ Advice 71 28 129 50 16 7 32 18 11 44 259 27

Plant (Tree) 45 17 20 8 50 21 9 5 2 8 126 13

Input (Fertilizer) 6 2 26 10 9 4 29 17 1 4 71 7

Table 10. Type of problems faced on Vegetable gardening.


No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Response 233 86 257 95 208 83 176 98 23 77 897 90

Problem faced 45 19 103 40 82 39 91 52 6 26 327 36

Area of problems

Insect and Disease 16 36 59 57 58 71 28 31 5 83 166 51

Medicine crisis 0 0 1 1 4 5 2 2 0 0 7 2

Seed crisis 3 7 14 14 10 12 2 2 1 17 30 9Input crisis 0 0 3 3 0 0 4 4 0 0 7 2

Shortage of land 7 16 28 27 6 7 3 3 0 0 44 13

Natural disaster (Draught ness /

Flood)10 22 2 2 2 2 46 51 0 0 60 18

Water crisis 9 20 2 2 5 6 17 19 0 0 33 10

Marketing 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1

Table 11. Average score Knowledge and adoption on major learning points of Vegetable gardening from FFS (Poor-1, Moderate-2and Adequate-3) by Cycle


11/36




Knowledge Adoption Knowledge Adoption Knowledge Adoption Knowledge Adoption Knowledge Adopt ion

Species Selection and Land preparation 2.44 2.29 2.56 2.34 2.34 2.23 2.26 2.13 2.3 2.2

Seedbed and pit preparation 2.74 2.68 2.77 2.73 2.61 2.47 2.53 2.37 2.6 2.5

Quality Seed and Germination test 2.45 2.44 2.51 2.35 2.34 2.26 2.28 2.16 2.3 2.2

Use of organic fertilizer 2.60 2.52 2.63 2.58 2.44 2.35 2.38 2.22 2.4 2.3

Use of inorganic fertilizer 2.06 1.92 2.29 2.01 2.08 1.97 2.07 1.89 2.1 1.9

Insect & pest Management (ICP+IPM) 2.16 1.97 2.33 2.07 2.14 1.99 2.07 1.94 2.1 2.0

Sowing & Transplant systems 2.47 2.23 2.62 2.43 2.37 2.23 2.34 2.20 2.4 2.2

Disease control 1.98 1.89 2.10 1.91 2.02 1.91 1.98 1.87 2.0 1.9

Seed Preservation 1.98 1.79 1.96 1.91 1.98 1.93 1.86 1.79 1.9 1.8

Table 12: Production, Consumption and Income Changes of Vegetable gardening.


Vegetable Before After % Before After % Before After % Before After % Before(n=825)

After(n=967)

%

Consumption (Tk) 1812 3797 110 2266 4125 82 1887 3801 101 1674 3347 100 1824 3617 98

Sales (Tk) 927 2564 177 1114 3600 223 814 2563 215 1103 2662 141 1000 2738 174

Gross Income (Tk) 2739 6361 132 3380 7725 129 2701 6364 136 2777 6009 116 2824 6355 125

Production (kg) 274 454 66 338 552 63 270 455 68 278 429 55 245 336 61

Expenses (Tk.) 627 1544 146 708 1582 123 640 1368 114 665 1121 69 660 1284 94

Net Income 2112 4817 128 2672 6143 130 2061 4996 142 2112 4888 131 2164 5071 134

Table 12a: Range of Income Changes of Vegetable gardening by Cycle


n=57 n=113 n=301 n=453 n=924Up to 50% 16 13 11 17 14

50%-99% 16 24 28 24 25

100% above 68 63 61 59 61

Total 100 100 100 100 100


12/36


13/36

4.3.2 Analysis by Cycle

The analysis by cycle shows for aquaculture shows a rather different pattern from those forpoultry and vegetable gardening. Although once again the scores for knowledge and adoption

were much better in the early cycles than in Cycle 4, where some of the adoption scores drop to

as low as 1.5, the impact in terms of production and income improvement is rather greater inthe later cycles. Arguably, this may reflect farmer selection and possibly the greater

concentration of the FFS in the poorer char land areas in these later cycles. The increase in

production and consumption in these later cycles was rather encouraging and in Cycle 3 and 4the net income from aquaculture increased by over 100%, in line with the targets in the logical

framework.


14/36

Table 13. Average score Knowledge and adoption on major learning points Aquaculture from FFS (Poor-1, Moderate-2and Adequate-3) by SRC

Major Learning Points SRC-A N=270 SRC-B, N= 270 SRC-C, N=250 SRC-D, N=180 SRC-E, N=30 All (N=1000)


Knowled

ge

Adopti

on

Knowled

ge

Adopti

on

Knowled

ge

Adopti

on

Knowled

ge

Adopti

on

Knowled

ge

Adopti

on

Knowled

ge

Adopti

onPond Preparation (Nursery ) 2.4 1.8 2.3 1.6 2.5 2.1 2.5 2.0 0.9 0.7 2.4 1.8

Stocking Mix 2.2 1.7 2.0 1.5 2.1 1.9 2.0 1.7 0.7 0.6 2.0 1.6

Stocking Density 2.0 1.6 2.0 1.5 2.0 1.7 2.2 1.8 0.7 0.6 2.0 1.6

Feed Management 2.1 1.6 2.1 1.5 2.2 2.1 2.1 1.7 1.0 0.7 2.1 1.7

Risk and hazard 2.0 1.6 1.9 1.5 1.8 1.5 2.0 1.6 0.8 0.6 1.9 1.5

Harvesting and Marketing 2.1 1.6 1.9 1.5 1.8 1.7 1.9 1.5 0.8 0.6 1.9 1.6

Table 14.a: Range of Income Changes ofPoly-culture without prawn by SRCIncome Changes SRC-A (N=270) SRC-B (N=270) SRC-C(N=250) SRC-D(N=180) SRC-E(N=30) All (N=1000)

n=117 n=129 n=184 N=58 n=3 n=491

Up to 50% 19 28 30 17 0 25

50%-99% 15 20 15 8 33 16

100% & above 66 52 55 75 67 59

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 14 Production, Consumption and Income Changes of Poly-culture without prawn by SRC

SRC-A (N=270) SRC-B (N=270) SRC-C(N=250) SRC-D(N=180) SRC-E(N=30) All (N=1000)

Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change Before After ChangeNo. of farmers 114 136 19 114 141 24 183 207 13 31 70 126 3 5 67 445 559 26

Area (Deci) 15 18 15 16 19 12 17 17 0 15 17 11 12 18 44 16 17 6

Sale (Taka) 5984 9250 55 2225 3663 65 2167 3307 53 1797 5272 193 1000 920 -8 3126 5067 62

Consumption (Taka) 4772 13510 183 3820 6087 59 3642 5188 42 3545 6026 70 4167 10940 163 3974 7596 91

Production (Kg) 149 308 106 84 132 57 81 115 42 74 153 106 72 160 123 99 171 74

Gross Income 10757 22760 112 6045 9750 61 5809 8495 46 5342 11298 111 5167 11860 130 7100 12663 78

Expenses 4249 4376 3 2003 3428 71 1497 2532 69 1585 2265 43 1833 1440 -21 2340 3163 35

Net Income 6507 18384 183 4042 6322 56 4312 5963 38 3756 9033 140 3333 10420 213 4760 9500 100


15/36

Table 15 Production and income from Carp-poly Culture with Prawn by SRC

SRC-A, (N=270) SRC-B, (N=270) SRC-C, (N=250) SRC-D, (N=180) All (N=970)

B P % B P % B P % B P % B P %

Nos. of HH 2 7 250 2 5 150 2 1 -50 48 48 0 54 61 13

Avg. Water Area (deci) 30 48 60 60 39 -35 57 14 -75 13 13 0 17 19 12Production (Kg.) 390 589 51 284 356 25 20 50 150 38 74 95 60 177 195

Consumption (Kg) 140 92 -34 170 178 5 9 20 122 32 39 22 40 56 40

Net Income (Taka) 31650

3635

7 15 18000

2350

0 31 1500 4000 167 2575 5418

11

0 4183

1042

8 149

Table 16. Support / input received from CBO on Fish culture


No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Response 146 54 179 66 214 86 114 63 6 20 659 65.9

Support Received 78 53 132 74 111 52 74 61 5 83 400 58

Medicine 0 0 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 1

Feed 6 8 21 16 5 5 2 3 0 0 34 9

Training/ Advice 51 65 113 86 10 9 41 55 4 80 219 55

Carp fingerling /PL 18 23 6 5 94 85 31 42 0 0 149 37

Input (Fertilizer, Chun) 12 15 42 32 11 10 5 7 0 0 70 18

Marketing 3 4 5 4 0 0 0 0 1 20 9 2


16/36

Table 17. Type of problem faced on Fish culture


No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Response

13

9 51 179 66 190 76 113 63 6 20 627 63

Problem Faced 14 10 59 33 68 36 69 61 0 0 210 34Type of problems

Disease 3 21 2 3 35 51 33 48 0 0 73 35

Carp fingerling /PL 2 14 13 22 17 25 4 6 0 0 36 17

Feed crisis 1 7 3 5 4 6 2 3 0 0 10 5

Theft 0 0 25 42 1 1 0 0 0 0 26 12

Financial 1 7 3 5 1 1 2 3 0 0 7 3

Pond crisis 0 0 9 15 1 1 2 3 0 0 12 6

Natural disaster (Draught ness / Flood) 5 36 22 37 5 7 16 28 0 0 48 23

Decrease water level 3 21 3 5 7 10 13 19 0 0 26 12

Table 18. Average score Knowledge and adoption on major learning points of Aquaculture from FFS (Poor-1, Moderate-2and Adequate-3) by Cycle




Knowle

dge

Adoption Knowledg

e

Adoption Knowledg

e

Adoption Knowledg

e

Adoption Knowledg

e

Adoption

Pond Preparation(Nursery ) 2.6 2.0 2.6 2.1 2.4 1.9 2.2 1.7 2.4 1.8

Stocking considering of Spices 2.2 2.0 2.2 1.9 2.1 1.7 1.9 1.5 2.0 1.6

Stocking considering of no. 2.2 2.0 2.1 1.8 2.0 1.7 1.9 1.5 2.0 1.6Feed Management 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.0 2.2 1.7 2.0 1.6 2.1 1.7

Risk and hazard 2.0 1.6 2.0 1.7 2.0 1.6 1.8 1.4 1.9 1.5

Harvesting and Marketing 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.9 1.6 1.8 1.5 1.9 1.6


17/36

Table 19 Production, Consumption and Income Changes of Carp-poly culture without prawn by Cycle


Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change

No. of farmers 34 38 12 71 78 10 147 191 30 193 252 31 445 559 26

Area (Deci) 17 27 60 19 21 8 16 16 -2 16 16 3 16 17 6

Sale (Taka) 4813 6165 28 4207 6062 44 2828 6177 118 2659 3753 41 3126 5067 62

Consumption (Taka) 4021 5750 43 4836 8732 81 3613 5716 58 3924 8948 128 3974 7596 91

Production (Kg) 123 161 31 126 200 59 89 161 80 91 172 88 99 171 74

Gross Income 8834 11915 35 9043 14794 64 6440 11893 85 6583 12700 93 7100 12663 78

Expenses 2774 5340 93 3102 4431 43 2563 2920 14 1814 2626 45 2340 3163 35

Net Income 6061 6576 8 5941 10363 74 3877 8972 131 4769 10074 111 4760 9500 100

Table 19a: Range of Income Changes of Carp-poly culture without prawn by Cycle


n=29 n=73 n=175 n=214 n=491

Up to 50% 30 28 20 27 25

50%-99% 28 15 17 14 16

100% & above 42 57 63 59 59

Total 100 100 100 100 100

Table 20 Production and income from Carp poly Culture with Prawn by Cycle

Cycle -1, N=62 Cycle -2, N=120 Cycle-3, N=323 Cycle -4, N=495 All (N=1000)

Nos. of HH 6 10 67 7 9 29 8 9 13 32 33 3 54 61 13Avg. Water Area (deci) 15 19 27 12 12 0 14 15 7 17 23 35 17 19 12

Production (Kg.) 46 79 72 50 66 32 55 81 47 70 172 146 60 177 195

Consumption (Kg) 23 33 43 30 28 -7 36 53 47 46 54 17 40 56 40

Net Income (Taka) 3091 7440 141 3142 6016 91 5083 7074 39 5080 13254 161 4183 10428 149


18/36

4.4. Livestock Rearing

Livestock rearing in the FFS actually consists of three different sub-systems: rearing of small ruminants,goats and sheep, the latter being a particular activity in parts of the char lands in Noakhali; cattle

fattening, usually oriented towards sale at festivals, especially Eid-ul-Azha; and dairying. However, in the

FFS, the learning sessions for all of these sub-systems were rather similar and in the analysis all have

been linked together into a single table (Table 21). A total of seven learning sessions were included:

species selection, house management, feed management, deworming, vaccination and disease control and

artificial insemination. Although in Noakhali FFS there was no specific session on artificial insemination,

this was included and answered on the basis of general experience. Also it should be noted that these

modules were only introduced in Cycle 3 of the FFS in Noakhali in line with the growing confidence of

the field teams in the FFS process, but also when the expansion of the numbers of FFS began to take off.

4.4.1 Analysis by Agro-ecology

In general, the knowledge and adoption scores for livestock rearing were rather lower than for the other

systems. Only in the waterlogged area and in Hatiya did the scores for any of the learning points reach

over two and this was not achieved anywhere for the vaccination, disease control and artificial

insemination sessions. The artificial insemination scores were the lowest, falling to less than 1.5 in the

waterlogged area and in the Tripura Hills. Once again this situation is likely to reflect the lack of servicesfor either vaccination/disease control or artificial insemination; notably the adoption scores for AIT

reached only a high of 1.35 in Hatiya, possibly because of the presence of BRAC AI volunteers, and fell

to only 1.18 in the flash flood area. In general adoption scores were lower, best at around 1.7 in Hatiya

and 1.6 in the waterlogged area, but rather low in the flash flood are and the hills. This situation may

reflect the fact that these are systems in which practice takes place over a longer period of 12-13 months

in the case of goats and sheep and over two years for dairy cattle; thus uptake of improved practices may

also be delayed and may be difficult to sustain.

The relatively low scores in livestock rearing do not seem to be linked to a major incidence of problems.

Of the 49% of respondents (n486) answering this question, only 144 stated that they had problems inrearing of small and large ruminants. As might be expected the dominant problem as with poultry

centered on disease (28% of those with problems) vaccination (22%) and the lack of vaccinators (6%)


19/36

increase of over 300% and the numbers of goats reared had also shot up from just 142 to 568 (400%

increase. All agro-ecologies showed a significant upturn, with the number of families rearing going up

six-fold in the char lands and the number of goats by a similar proportion in the waterlogged lands. Goatrearing was absent in the Tripura hills sample prior to the FFS, but has begun to make a contribution to

the economy since. However, this is not reflected in the improvement in income from goat rearing to datewhich increased overall by only 42% and not at all in the flash flood area and in the chars. The highest

improvement was in Hatiya where net income from goats more than doubled to Tk5,100 per year.

Cattle fattening is also seen by RFLDC as having good potentials for improving the livelihood of the

resource poor farmers. Purchase of a small cow (usually a bull calf) for a Tk3000-4000 and fattening this

up for a period of 3-6 months prior to sale at Eid can yield a return of over 400% with little of no

investment in supplementary feed. The popularity of the enterprise is indeed reflected in the fact that thenumber of households rearing since the FFS has increased by over 400% and the actual numbers of cattle

by an even greater amount. The biggest increases are in the char lands as might be expected and in the

Tripura hills where this enterprise was almost absent previously. However, just as with goat rearing, this

is not reflected in the impact in terms of financial returns. There has only been a 34% improvement in net

income from this activity, although this figure is much greater in Hatiya and in the hills. This may relate

partly to the fact that the survey was conducted in May-June before the time of sale at Eid. However,

production costs have been held stable or even declined under the FFS technology so that the

improvement in net income is better than in gross income.

Dairy cattle farming has not been a major thrust in the FFS in Noakhali, although, as stated above, many

of the learning points are just as important for dairy cattle as they are for goats and for cattle fattening.This fact may be reflected in the relatively smaller expansion of the enterprise recorded in the survey,

with the numbers of households going up from 14% to 28.7% after the FFS and the numbers of dairy

cattle only doubling. Moreover milk production only increased by some 43% and not at all in the flash

flood zone. There have been good increases in the waterlogged area and in Hatiya, but, interestingly the

biggest increase has been in the hills where milk production has been constrained by the perception of

lack of market. Both milk consumption and sales in this small sample have increased significantly sincethe start-up of FFS and gross and net incomes from milk has increased by over 100% in the hills, the

waterlogged lands and in Hatiya.


20/36

However, a similar pattern is not observed in the case of cattle fattening (Table 30). Although, as we have

seen, this has expanded dramatically, the best performance in economic terms was achieved by farmers in

Cycle 1 amongst whom the number of rearers increased by 443%, the number of cattle fattened by 622%and the net returns by 174%. By contrast in Cycle 3, although the numbers of farmers involved and the

numbers of cattle also increased dramatically, the net return only increased by 16% and the increase ininvolvement in Cycle 4 was least among the four cycles. Once again this may be partly a reflection of the

timing of the survey, which took place before the Eid-ul-Azha festival and therefore before the benefits of

cattle fattening had been translated into improved income.

Turning to dairy farming (Table 31), it is even less likely that the changes can be attributed to the FFS

since dairy farming was not central to the FFS curriculum as previously stated. Thus it may be observed

that the numbers of farmers engaged in dairying and the expansion of numbers of cows increased most inCycle 1 and least in Cycle 4; on the other hand, the improvement in net returns was greatest amongst

farmers in Cycle 3 at over 200% from the baseline. Once again the pattern is not clear and seems to

suggest general trends towards greater involvement in dairy farming in general, regardless of the FFS,


21/36

Table 21. Average score Knowledge and adoption on major learning points Beef Fettering, Milking cow and Goat/Sheep rearing from FFS (Poor-1, Moderate-2 and Adequate-3)

Major Learning Points SRC-A, N=225 SRC-B,N=236 SRC-C,N=177 SRC-D, N=150 SRC-E, N=30 All, N=818


Knowledge Adoption Knowledge Adoption Knowledge Adoption Knowledge Adoption Knowledge Adoption Knowledge AdoptionSpecies selection 1.89 1.4 1.98 1.62 1.72 1.51 2.00 1.59 1.63 1.33 1.89 1.53

House Management 1.98 1.5 2.25 1.68 2.04 1.68 2.22 1.88 1.63 1.50 2.10 1.65

Feed Management 1.97 1.4 2.19 1.66 1.98 1.56 2.01 1.65 1.70 1.53 2.03 1.57

Warm 1.88 1.5 2.09 1.60 1.60 1.50 2.05 1.69 1.43 1.37 1.89 1.55

Vaccination 1.71 1.3 1.81 1.55 1.55 1.40 1.95 1.65 1.47 1.30 1.74 1.47

Disease control 1.68 1.3 1.96 1.58 1.53 1.20 1.90 1.71 1.60 1.37 1.76 1.44

Artificial Insemination 1.56 1.2 1.44 1.22 1.53 1.25 1.69 1.35 1.37 1.27 1.54 1.24

Table 22. Support / input received from CBO on Livestock.


No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Response 103 38 150 56 147 59 86 48 14 47 500 50

Received support 58 56 96 64 16 11 38 44 7 50 215 43

Vaccine and Medicine 12 21 42 44 9 56 8 21 0 0 71 33

Feed 9 16 6 6 5 31 0 0 0 0 20 9

Training/ Advice 37 64 69 72 6 37 29 76 7 100 148 69

species goat 4 7 1 1 1 6 2 5 0 0 8 4

Input 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Marketing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 23. Type of problem faced on Livestock.


22/36


No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Response 91 34 149 55 142 57 87 48 17 57 486 49

Problem Faced 21 30 69 87 18 15 24 38 12 70 144 43

Disease 5 24 10 14 6 33 15 63 5 42 41 28

Vaccine and Medicine crisis 2 10 19 28 5 38 3 13 2 17 31 22

Feed crisis 1 5 17 25 1 6 3 13 0 0 22 15

Vaccinator crisis 0 0 4 6 2 11 0 0 2 17 8 6

Steal /Social 0 0 2 3 3 18 0 0 1 8 6 4

Financial 5 24 1 1 0 0 1 4 0 0 7 5

Natural disaster 1 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1

Land crisis 2 10 19 28 1 6 1 4 0 0 23 16

Wild animal 5 24 5 7 1 6 1 4 5 42 17 12

Table 24 : Production and Income Changes before and after FFS of Goat Rearing by SRC

Description SRC-A N=270 SRC-B, N= 270 SRC-C, N=250 SRC-D, N=180 SRC-E, N=30 All (N=1000)Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change

No. of HH 16 52 225 7 26 271 8 49 513 29 72 148 4 60 203 238

Nos. of Animal 44 162 268 10 60 500 22 106 382 66 234 255 6 142 568 300

Average Cost (Tk.) 1,700 1,652 -3 971 2,471 154 1525 1551 2 1103 1210 10 1500 1303 1573 21

Gross Return 6,300 6,210 -1 2886 6,786 106 4,038 4,137 2 3372 6310 87 3375 4185 5656 35

Net Income 4,600 4,558 -1 1,914 3,486 82 2513 2586 3 2270 5100 124 1875 2882 4,084 4

Table 24 a: Range of Income Changes of Goat Rearing by SRC


n=48 n=23 n=44 N=71 n=4 n=190Up to 50% 2 9 0 7 0 4

50%-99% 2 4 2 6 0 4

100% & above 96 87 98 87 100 92

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 25: Production and Income Changes before and after FFS of Sheep Rearing by SRC

Description SRC-A N=270 SRC-B, N= 270 SRC-C, N=250 SRC-D, N=180 SRC-E, N=30 All (N=1000)


23/36

No. of HH 2 6 200

Nos of Animal 5 20 300

Average Cost

(Tk.) 1500

154

1 3

Gross Return 8400

806

6 -4Net Income

Table 26: Production and income changes before and after FFS on Beef Fattening by SRC


Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change

% % % % % %

No. of HH 24 83 246 29 99 241 9 115 1178 23 80 248 1 13 1200 86 390 353

Nos. of Animal 44 138 214 37 143 286 15 197 1213 48 200 317 3 22 633 147 700 376

Average Cost (Tk.) 12,508 11,848 -5 10,500 11,315 8 14,111 14,304 1 8,480 10,033 18 21,000 18,077 -14 10,881 12,272 13

Gross Return 22,833 22,887 0 19,786 22,178 12 21,222 23,959 13 26,420 42,794 62 30,000 42,385 41 22,470 27,757 24

Net Income 10,325 11,039 7 9,286 10,863 17 7,111 9,655 36 17,940 32,761 83 9,000 24,308 170 11,589 15,484 34

Table 26a: Range of Income Changes of Beef Fattening by SRC


n=74 n=84 n=91 n=78 n=11 n=338

Up to 50% 3 1 0 5 0 2

50%-99% 0 5 2 4 0 3

100% & above 97 94 98 91 100 95

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 27 Production and income changes before and after FFS on Milking Cow Rearing by SRC


Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change


24/36

% % % % % %

No. of HH 32 47 47 38 74 95 18 73 306 46 84 83 5 9 80 139 287 106

Nos. of Milking Cow 39 54 38 40 97 143 25 111 344 57 132 132 6 9 50 167 403 141

Yearly Milk Sale (Kg.) 280 275 -2 219 399 82 340 413 22 178 390 120 52 119 129 229 371 62

Yearly Milk Consumption (kg) 142 134 -5 136 206 51 158 151 -4 208 229 10 74 216 192 162 187 16

Yearly Milk Production (kg) 422 409 -3 356 605 70 498 564 13 386 620 61 126 335 166 391 558 43Yearly gross Income (TK) 12,647 16,364 29 10,669 24,199 127 14,933 22,575 51 11,568 24,789 114 3,780 13,400 254 11,726 22,337 90

Yearly Expenses (Tk) 6,894 8,273 20 6,566 11,807 80 3,389 4,769 41 2,266 4,104 81 3,460 5,078 47 4,695 6,972 49

Yearly Net Income (Tk) 5,753 8,091 41 4,103 12,393 202 11,544 17,806 54 9,303 20,685 122 320 8,322 2501 7,031 15,365 119

Table 27a: Range of Income Changes of Milking Cow by SRC


n=30 n=58 n=72 N=79 n=7 n=246

Up to 50% 13 7 6 4 0 6

50%-99% 13 3 6 16 14 10

100% & above 74 90 88 80 86 84Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 28. Average score Knowledge and adoption on major learning points Beef Fattening, Milking cow and

Goat/Sheep rearing from FFS (Poor-1, Moderate-2and Adequate-3) by Cycle


Cycle-3, N=323 Cycle-4, N=495 All (N=818)

Ave. Score Ave. Score Ave. Score

Knowledge Adoption Knowledge Adoption Knowledge Adoption

Species selection 1.84 1.59 1.92 1.49 1.89 1.53

House Management 2.07 1.69 2.12 1.63 2.10 1.65

Feed Management 2.01 1.63 2.04 1.54 2.03 1.57

Warm 1.89 1.62 1.90 1.51 1.89 1.55

Vaccination 1.69 1.48 1.77 1.46 1.74 1.47

Disease control 1.70 1.46 1.81 1.43 1.76 1.44

Artificial Insemination 1.59 1.35 1.50 1.17 1.54 1.24

Table 29. Production and income changes before and after FFS on Goat rearing by Cycle

Description Cycle-1 (N=62) Cycle-2 (N=120) Cycle-3 (N=323) Cycle-4 (N=495) All (N=1000)


25/36


No. of HH 5 20 300 8 29 263 13 60 362 34 94 176 60 203 238

Nos. of Animal 11 51 364 22 87 295 19 158 732 90 272 202 142 568 300

Average Cost (Tk.) 2,580 1,403 -46 1,685 2,088 24 988 1,686 71 1,146 1,378 20 1,303 1,573 21

Gross Return 5,840 5,705 -2 4,900 6,786 38 3,115 5,215 67 4,182 5,579 33 4,185 5,656 35

Net Income 3,260 4,303 32 3,215 4,698 46 2,127 3,530 66 3,037 4,201 38 2,882 4,084 42

Table 29a: Range of Income Changes on Goat Rearing by Cycle


n=18 n=27 n=56 n=89 n=190

Up to 50% 0 0 5 5 4

50%-99% 0 4 0 7 4

100% above 100 96 95 88 92

Total 100 100 100 99 100

Table 30. Production and income changes before and after FFS on Beef Fattening by Cycle

Description Cycle-1 (N=62) Cycle-2 (N=120) Cycle-3 (N=323) Cycle-4 (N=495) All


% % %

No. of HH 7 31 343 8 51 538 22 127 477 49 181 269 86 390 353

Nos. of Animal 9 56 522 15 106 607 35 225 543 88 313 256 147 700 376

Average Cost (Tk.) 7,714 12,165 58 14,413 14,167 -2 8,482 13,463 59 11,834 10,922 -8 10,881 12,272 13

Gross Return 12,000 23,919 99 32,000 31,114 -3 19,027 25,674 35 23,955 28,929 21 22,470 27,757 24

Net Income 4,286 11,755 174 17,588 16,947 -4 10,545 12,211 16 12,121 18,008 49 11,589 15,484 34

Table 30a: Range of Income Changes of Beef Fattening by Cycle


n=27 n=41 n=111 n=159 n=338

Up to 50% 0 2 1 3 2

50%-99% 0 0 2 5 3


26/36

100% above 100 98 97 92 95

Total 100 100 100 100 100

Table 31. Production and income changes before and after FFS on Milking Cow Rearing by Cycle

Description Cycle-1 (N=62) Cycle-2 (N=120) Cycle-3 (N=323) Cycle-4 (N=495) All (N=1000)

Before After

Chang

e Before After

Chang

e Before After

Chang

e Before After

Chang

e Before After Change

% % % % %

No. of HH 10 24 140 25 54 116 36 80 122 68 129 90 139 287 106

Nos. of Milking Cow (avg) 13 38 192 28 74 164 44 109 148 82 182 122 167 403 141

Yearly Milk Sale (Kg.)

36

9

39

8 8

28

4

37

0 30

18

3

40

1 120

21

3

34

8 64

22

9

37

1 62

Yearly Milk Consumption (kg)

12

0

15

6 30

13

9

17

1 23

11

9

17

4 46

19

8

20

8 5

16

1

18

7 16

Yearly Milk Production (kg)

48

9

55

3 13

42

3

54

1 28

30

2

57

5 91

41

1

55

6 35

39

0

55

8 43

Yearly gross Income (TK)

14,67

0

22,13

3 51

12,67

6

21,64

3 71

9,04

6

23,01

2 154

12,33

3

22,24

7 80

11,71

1

22,33

7 91

Yearly Expenses (Tk)

5,23

0

6,72

3 29

3,90

9

5,43

6 39

4,41

9

8,50

6 92

5,05

1

6,71

1 33

4,69

5

6,97

2 49

Yearly Net Income (Tk)

9,44

0

15,41

0 63

8,76

7

16,20

6 85

4,62

6

14,50

6 214

7,28

1

15,53

6 113

7,01

6

15,36

5 119

Table 31a: Production, Consumption and Income Changes of Milking Cow


n=22 n=49 n=62 n=113 n=246

Up to 50% 5 2 5 9 650%-99% 9 12 10 9 10

100% above 86 86 85 82 84

Total 100 100 100 100 100


27/36


28/36

aquaculture and in cow and goat purchase appears to be in Hatiya, while the greatest proportion

of households investing in poultry (probably ducks) is in the waterlogged area. On the other

hand, the largest percentage of households using money for repaying loans is in the charlands,while both here and in Hatiya there are significant minorities who use the money for house

repair, probably reflecting the effects of bad weather/cyclones. Very few households in the hills

use their earnings for childrens educational probably reflecting the lack of physical access toschool facilities.

4.5.3 Impact on health and hygiene

From Cycle 5, nutrition, health and hygiene issues were incorporated into the Farmer FieldSchool following hire of a specialist consultant team for this purpose. Four learning sessions

were incorporated dealing with understanding of the need for a balanced diet, the specific needsof vulnerable groups such as small children, pregnant and lactating women and adolescent girls,

the importance of health and hygiene on nutrition and the importance of proper, hygienic food

preparation. As formal FFS sessions, these topics were not included up to Cycle 4 so that it isdifficult at this point to attribute improvements in the situation to the FFS as such. Moreover, it

may be assumed that other projects in the area were operating in the field of heath and hygiene

parallel to RFLDC; in the area of water supply and sanitation, for example, Danidas own WaterSupply and Sanitation Programme (WSSP) is to be found in several areas of Noakhali operating

either directly through DPHE, through the NGO Forum or via the HYSAWA fund through the

Union Parishad.

These facts should be bone in mind in assessing Table 35, which shows the changes which have

taken place amongst the FFS groups in the survey across a range of nine variables, five of them

relating to water supply and sanitation, three to food preparation and preservation and one to theuse of improved stoves. The table shows widespread improvements across the board particularly

in the food preservation and in the use of improved stoves, albeit the latter as been from very low

levels. Again encouragingly, the changes are most marked in the poorest areas: in the Tripura


29/36

Table 32: Overall change in income levels by zone

Description

SRC-A (N=270) SRC-B (N=270) SRC-C(N=250)

Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change

Average St. Dev. Average St. Dev. % Average St. Dev. Average St. Dev. % Average St. Dev. Average St. Dev. %

Poultry 2477 2461 6028 5043 143 2220 2416 6146 5773 177 4616 6363 7967 4848 73

Vegetable 1991 2823 4427 5205 122 1967 3014 4557 5163 132 1581 2357 3973 4596 151

Aquaculture 2757 9554 6310 33574 129 1809 3870 3387 7803 87 3192 4546 5122 6473 60

Aquaculture with prawn 234 3515 943 13126 303 133 1546 435 3238 227 12 190 16 253 33

Aquaculture total 2991 7253 142 1942 3822 97 3204 5138 60

Milking Cow 681 3794 1408 4051 107 570 2644 3433 11823 502 831 4166 5600 10092 574

Beef Fattening 917 4199 3393 7464 270 997 3835 3983 9236 299 256 2178 4441 10704 1635

Goat Rearing 272 1457 878 2704 223 50 363 335 1480 570 80 505 506 1755 533

Livestock total 1870 5679 204 1617 7751 379 1167 10547 804

Total 9329 23387 151 7746 22276 188 10568 27625 161

Table 32 Continued

Description

SRC-D(N=180) SRC-E(N=30) All (N=1000)

Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change

Average St. Dev. Average St. Dev. % Average St. Dev. Average St. Dev. % Average St. Dev. Average St. Dev. %

Poultry 6146 5060 16631 9676 171 2156 2761 5461 5133 153 3593 4522 8436 7391 135

Vegetable 3522 3913 7815 6844 122 2533 3765 5368 6585 112 2174 3094 4987 5588 129

Aquaculture 647 1932 3512 11719 443 333 1116 1736 6854 421 2154 5947 4583 18922 113

Aquaculture with prawn 686 686 1445 1445 111 226 225 636 636 181

Aquaculture total 1333 4957 272 333 1736 421 2380 5219 119

Milking Cow 2377 8883 10732 24613 351 53 1502 2496 5195 4609 975 4974 4998 18527 413Beef Fattening 2291 7219 14560 23817 536 300 1643 10533 19242 3411 1002 4445 6038 14010 503

Goat 365 1112 2040 3314 459 250 762 173 953 829 2383 379

Livestock total 5033 27332 443 353 13279 3662 2150 11865 452

Total 16034 56735 254 5375 25844 381 10297 30507 196

Table 33: Proportion of all households by additional income uses and


30/36

average spending

HH HH %Amount/H

H

Amount

%

Family consumption 881 88 7694 42

Children Educational 470 47 1409 8

Medical Treatment 510 51 1385 7

Agriculture 394 39 1910 10

Land/Pond lease 109 11 1038 6

Poultry Purchase 147 15 308 2

Cow /Goat Purchase 126 13 1066 6

Business purpose 165 17 443 2

Savings 60 6 452 2

Loan Refund 90 9 493 3

House repair 93 9 678 4

Others 77 8 1600 9

Overall average amount 18476


31/36


32/36

Table 35: Health and Hygiene

Description SRC-A (N=270) SRC-B (N=270) SRC-C(N=250)

Before Afte

r

Change % Before Afte

r


r

Change %

Hand wash with soap or ash before taking food 104 186 79 128 226 77 65 121 86Hand wash with soap or ash after deviation 108 190 76 114 224 96 89 124 39

Drinking Safe water 118 175 48 172 228 33 102 123 21

Uses Safe water 65 158 143 80 181 126 71 115 62

Using sanitary latrine 113 175 55 149 219 47 64 115 80

Washing vegetable before slice 27 130 381 30 183 510 12 104 767

Adapt hygienic cooking process 40 140 250 34 176 418 14 61 336

Food preserve 94 145 54 49 139 184 43 71 65

Uses Environment friendly burner 2 14 600 9 17 89 1 7 600

Table 35 continuedDescription SRC-D(N=180) SRC-E(N=30) All(N=1000)

Before Afte

r


r

Change % Before After Change %

Hand wash with soap or ash before taking food 48 149 210 7 30 329 352 712 102

Hand wash with soap or ash after deviation 53 150 183 5 28 460 369 716 94

Drinking Safe water 118 151 28 24 29 21 534 706 32

Uses Safe water 62 116 87 12 22 83 290 592 104

Using sanitary latrine 66 129 95 15 25 67 407 663 63

Washing vegetable before slice 11 135 1127 0 20 100 80 572 615

Adapt hygienic cooking process 9 61 578 3 17 467 100 455 355

Food preserve 8 35 338 2 7 250 196 397 103Uses Environment friendly burner 1 3 200 0 1 100 13 42 223


33/36

4.6 Views on FFS and CBOs

The final section of investigation in the study relates to the participants views of FFS and ofCBOs as the main organizers of the FFS, as well their ideas on possible expansion of the FFS to

other fields.

Table 36 shows that the overwhelming majority (98%) of respondents see the FFS as superior to

other training approaches, mainly because of the emphasis on learning by doing (30% of all

respondents based upon single responses, but rising to 44% in the waterlogged area) andquality/nature of the trainer/training system (a further 24%). This was ranked highest amongst

the small sample in the Tripura Hills. In some ways overlapping with both these answers is thereference to the participatory learning approach by a further 16% of respondents; the proportion

again increased to 26% in the waterlogged area. 15% of respondents gave the answer that theFFS covers a range of topics, clearly contrasting with the typical single topic transfer of

technology approaches commonly used in group training by government line departments and

most NGOs. The percentages answering in this way increased in the chars, Hatiya and theTripura Hills.

Another measure of the value of the FFS is found in the question to respondents about organicspread within the community. Almost 60% of the respondent group as a whole said that non-FFS

members had come to them to seek advice; this group claimed that an average of over 6 persons

had sought such advice. Most (53.6%) said they had offered such advice to other farmers, with

each case claiming an average of 4.63 persons contacted. The greatest proportions by zone ineach case appear to have been in the waterlogged area and in Hatiya (Table 37)

Table 38 addresses the issue of sustainability in asking respondents what they would do to

sustain the FFS experience (not necessarily the FFS which is seen as a training mode, not as aninstitution) after the withdrawal of Project support. The 83% of respondents answering this

question came up with three major responses:


34/36

obligations of membership onerous at this stage. On the other hand it may be encouraging that

40% of respondents are or would like to be members.


35/36

Table 36: Whether FFS learning method is better in comparison to others and why?


No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Positive Response 266 99 265 98 242 97 172 96 27 90 972 97

No Response 4 1 5 2 8 3 8 5 3 10 38 4

Trainer / Training/System 88 33 43 16 40 17 47 27 11 41 229 24Participatory learning process 28 11 69 26 22 9 32 19 4 15 155 16

Learning by doing /Demonstrate 82 31 117 44 54 22 39 23 4 15 296 30

Follow the method we are change our income

and livelihood so this is good system15 6 9 3 46 19 17 10 2 7 89 9

Learning various item 19 7 27 10 57 24 41 24 6 22 150 15

Increase production by follow the system 10 4 0 0 21 9 2 1 0 0 33 3

No comment 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 4 0

Got Several type of advice 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Table 37: Spread to Indirect Beneficiaries


No. Average No.

Averag

e No.

Averag

e No. Average No. Average No. Average

Non-FFS members come to FFS members for advice 110 6.5 190 7 139 5 140 6 8 4 587 6.15

FFS members willing give advice to others 105 6 184 4 109 4 129 5 9 4 536 4.63

Table 38: After project support how can the FFS experience be sustained?


No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Response 240 89 254 94 178 71 132 73 22 73 826 83

Not Response 30 11 16 6 72 29 48 27 8 27 174 17

Continue group communication 94 39 77 30 58 33 46 35 11 50 286 35communication with LF 8 3 21 8 4 2 12 9 4 18 49 6

communication with CBO 68 28 54 21 10 6 31 23 1 5 164 20

Adapted Prior experience 64 27 83 33 81 46 38 29 2 9 268 32

According my ability I will try 3 1 1 0 8 4 7 5 2 9 21 3

Create new organization 3 1 1 0 10 6 2 2 0 0 16 2

Till now no thinking about FFS 1 0 16 6 4 2 0 0 1 5 22 3

Dont know 1 0 2 1 5 3 3 2 0 0 11 1


36/36

Table 39: Interest in CBO Membership


No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

FFS members already also CBO members 46 17 16 6 34 14 9 5 0 0 105 11

FFS members interested in becoming CBO members 68 25 47 17 125 50 49 27 0 0 289 29

PART IV Noakhali

Documents