Bangladesh is the highest densely populated country (1015 people per k) globally, with a population of 168.07 million people within the area of 147570 k (BBS, 2019). About 80% of people of this country still live-in villages and are extremely poor. In 2018, 36.5% of the urban and 63.5% of the rural people survived under the poverty line. However, the people of our country are blessed with a variety of livestock resources, of which goat rearing is considered to have potential both for poverty alleviation and food production. For this circumstance, the Govt. and various non-government organizations have promoted poultry and goat rearing to the poor farmers with credit & input support since the 1980s [1]. Bangladesh government has also given particular emphasis and adopted a national program on Black Bengal goats for poor farmers to reduce poverty with targeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) achievement since 2003[2]. Goat rearing is suitable for widespread implementation as it cost less, requires few skills, is highly productive, and can be incorporated into household works [3].

Livestock plays a vital role in the agricultural economy of Bangladesh. The contribution of the livestock sub-sector to the GDP was 2.95%, which was estimated at 17.32% to agricultural GDP (DLS, 2010). According to Bangladesh Economic Review (2006) and DLS (2008), per annual growth rate of 7.23% in GDP in 2004-2005 for livestock was the highest in all sub-sectors [4].

The supply of domestically produced livestock products (Meat, Milk, Eggs) is increased 1.2% annually (DLS, 2000). About 36% of total animal protein comes from livestock products in our everyday life. As an integral part of the agricultural system, livestock directly impacts income generation, poverty alleviation, and nutritional demand. However, domestic livestock production is inadequate to meet the current demand for milk, meat, and eggs and balance people's dietary needs. 

Goat is called the poor man’s cow since it is well recognized as a renewable resource for the poor people and the first farm animals associated with humans in an interdependent relationship for a long time. It proved helpful in humans over the age for productivity, size, and quality.         

In Asia, 71 percent of goats are reared by smallholder farmers. In the case of Bangladesh, out of 2 crore goats, 52 percent were raised by the landless, marginal farmer [5]. In Bangladesh, the average number of goats per farm is 4, equal to Southeast Asian countries, like Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. Forty-one percent of farm income comes from goats in some parts of Bangladesh. Besides, leather is the best export good in Bangladesh that earns 25 crore Taka per year [5].

According to the Department of Livestock Services (2015-2017), 257.66 lakh goats in Bangladesh contribute partly to total livestock meat production (61.52 Lakh Metric Ton). About 45% population in Bangladesh lives under the poverty line, and among total farm households, 36% of people are involved with goat rearing. 

Since a new pandemic, COVID-19, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), started in China in December 2019 and has rapidly spread around the world, it causes a significant impact on every sector as well as livestock. COVID-19 was officially declared in Bangladesh on 11 March 2020. 

Goat farms were considered economically essential activities. It involved a social and economic impact on most sectors, which is difficult to estimate. Appropriate intervention is critical to evaluate the socio-economic impact on the goat production system during the pandemic in the Chittagong district in Bangladesh. 

The study will help to assess the needs of the goat producers and will also help to suggest interventions for better management to increase goat productivity. It will also help us understand small-scale goat farmers' socio-economic condition and their current situation facing the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Materials and Methods

Survey Design and Conduct: A survey method is one of the several methods of data collection. The survey was designed to obtain necessary data on goat rearing. The survey method for the present study involved the following steps.

• Selection of the study area: The study was conducted in Chattogram (Khulshi, Pahartoli, AK khan area). The study was conducted in this area due to this locality's fast-growing small-scale goat farming.

• Study period: The study was conducted between the periods of 1st July 2021 to 30th October 2021

• Sources of data: Data for this study was obtained from smallholder goat farmers who have at least 3-5 goats and have been involved in rearing for the last three years by primary sources. The preliminary data were collected from the production performance, activities, and economic condition of the goat rearing using structured questionnaires. The secondary information was obtained from various sources like the Department of Livestock Service (DLS), Bangladesh.

• Sampling design and sample size: The purposive sampling technique was used in selecting study areas of this research. In total, 30 goat farms were randomly selected where ten farms from each site. 

• Preparation of questionnaire: A questionnaire is critical for a successful survey. The schedule was prepared to maintain relevance with the objectives of the study. Before launching the survey, the questionnaire was pretested and improved accordingly. The preliminary questionnaires were ready before conducting the final field survey. To collect the more purified data of various families, and organized questionnaire was formatted. Thus the schedule developed finally. The following points are taken in mind for making the questionnaire:

• Socioeconomic characteristics of goat farmers.

• Biological information about goats such as the total number of goats, breed of goats, age, kids number, feeding system, morbidity & mortality, etc.

• Cost and return of goat farming.

Data Collection

Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected using the household survey method. A survey schedule was developed and pretested for the study. After that, it was finalized to collect data. A specially structured program was prepared to obtain information on the production of goats. The researcher clearly explained the study’s objectives to the respondent by using local language as far as possible. As a result, the respondents furnished proper responses to the questions and statements without hesitation. Excellent cooperation was received from the respondents and other people in the study area.

Analytical Technique

After data collection, the questionnaires were checked for completeness, cleaned, organized, coded, and then entered into MS-Excel and STATA (Stata 14, Stata Statistical Software, Stata Corporation, College Station, Texas 77845 USA) for analysis. The descriptive, statistical, and econometric methods were used to achieve the objectives.

Table 1: Measurement of Some Important Characteristics of the Respondents

To determine the profitability of per goat per farm production, the following algebraic equation was followed,

Net return/ Profit (π) = TR-TC = - -TFC

Where, TR and TC represent Total Return and Total Cost, respectively.

• Π: Profit/Net return from per goat (Tk);

• Qb: Total unit of selling buck (nos.)

• Pb: Per unit price of selling buck (Tk)

• Qd: Total unit of selling doe (nos.)

• Pb: Per unit price of selling doe (Tk)

• Pc: Per unit price of selling culled goat (Tk)

• Qk: Total unit of selling kid (nos.)

• Pk: Per unit price of selling kid (Tk)

• Xi: Quantity of the concerned ith inputs;

• Pxi: Per unit price of the relevant ith inputs;

• TFC: Total fixed cost involved in production;

• I: 1,2,3,...., n (number of inputs).

Return Estimation

Gross Margin=Total Return-Total Variable Cost=TR-TVC

Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) (Full cost basis) =Total Return / Total Cost= TR/TC

BCR (Cash cost basis) =Total Return / Total Variable Cost=TR/TVC

Cost Estimation

Interest on Operating Capital and Total Variable Cost: The Bank interest rates (4%) were used to estimate the cost of capital they provided and used as working capital. 

• Interest on operating capital= (Operating capital*0.04)/2

• Total Variable Cost (TVC) =Operating capital + Interest on operating capital

• Fixed Cost: The cost of goat houses and equipment was included under fixed cost. 

• Cost of Housing and Equipment: The cost of housing was calculated by considering the depreciation cost of housing. The cost of equipment was expressed as equipment cost, which was calculated by taking into accounts the depreciation cost of equipment.

Depreciation cost on house and equipment was worked out as follows:

Paired t-test was used to compare the mean value of feed cost, selling price per goat, and monthly income of goat farm households before (2019) and during (2020) covid-19 effect.

Hypotheses

The null hypothesis is:

• H0: There is no difference in mean after and before covid-19 effect.

And the alternative hypothesis is:

• H1: There is a difference in mean after and before covid-19 effect.

The test value t formula is with d.f. (n-1).

• n: Sample size

• ¯D:Differences of the values of the pairs of data

• SD: The standard deviation of the differences

The expected value μD is zero if the hypothesis is μD = 0. The confidence interval of the difference in the paired means difference. 

For measuring the problem index of the dairy farmers during the COVID-19 situation, a 4-point Likert Scale was used. The scales were weighted in order of importance from; high = 4, moderate = 3, low = 2, and very low = 1. The respondents were asked to indicate a problem in dairy farming. Ranking of different issues faced by dairy farmers, the frequency of responses from each of the four-point continuum of a specific activity under significant activity was tabulated and multiplied by the concerned score. Then they were added together to get the total score for each particular activity for their ranking.

The problem faced by each respondent was calculated by using the following formula,

        Where, H= High, M=Moderate, L= Low, VL=Very Low

Socio-Economic Characteristics of Goat Farm Owners

Table 2 shows different farmers involved in goat rearing in the selected study area. It reveals that the majority (53.33%) fell into the middle age category (26-40 age group), where 30 percent and 16.67 percent fell into the young and old age category, respectively. About 58 percent of farmers are married, rest are unmarried.

The majority (46.67%) fell into secondary categories at the education level. In the case of family size, 76.67% of families have up to 8 members, where an average of 5 members was dependent. Most (66.67%) of the farmers have no training regarding training. Almost 46.67 % of the observed farm owners' monthly average income level was below taka twenty-five thousand, 36.67% was between taka twenty-six to taka thirty-five thousand, and significantly few owners (16.67%) had more than taka thirty-six thousand. About experiencing goat farming, 73.33%     of     farmers     fell   into  having 3 to 6 years of experience, and 26.67% of the farmers had more than six years of goat farming experience.

General Information of Goat Farms

Table 3 illustrates the average number of goats in the studied farms (n=30) before covid-19 and during covid-19. Before covid-19, the farmers had 8.76% local breed and 8.33% crossbreed.

Which turned 7.61% and 6.74% respectively during the covid-19 situation. In the case of buck, doe, and kid, the percentages were 4.39, 4.76, 3.45, respectively, before covid, which turned into 3.83, 4.31, 2.68 percent during the pandemic. During the maximum pandemic number of local and crossbreed reared by the farms was 22 and 26, where these were lower (18 and 24) before covid-19.

Table 2: Socio-Economic Characteristics of Goat Farm Owners:

Table 3: General Information of Goat Farms

Table4: Feeding Information of Goat Farms (N = 30) Before and During A Covid-19 Pandemic:

Table 5: Prices of Feed Purchased by Farms (N = 30) Before and During the Covid-19 Pandemic

Table6: Mortality And Morbidity Rate of the Goats in the Selected Areas Before and During A Covid-19 Pandemic:

Table 7: Cost and Return of Per Goat Per Month in the Study Areas:

Table 8: Monthly Profitability Per Goat Per Farm in the Study Areas

Table 9: Paired Sample Test

Feeding Information of Goat Farms

Table 4 shows the average quantity (kg) of feed intake by each goat per farm per month before and during covid-19.

The estimated average roughage intake per goat per month was 31.2 kg before covid and significantly less during covid, 17.07 kg. In the case of concentrate feed type before, the covid average amount was 8.21 kg, and during covid, it was 12.97 kg.

It is seen in table 4 that the average price of roughage before covid was about taka 12.42, and during covid, it was taka 15.19. In the case of average concentrate price, before covid was about taka 37.74, and during covid, it was about taka 45.32.

Mortality and Morbidity

The morbidity and mortality rates of the goats in the studied farm (n=30) are in table 6.

During covid-19 mortality rate was about 0.63% which was higher (1.4%) before covid. A similar scenario is was seen in the case of morbidity rate, which was 2.43% during covid and 3.03% before covid. 

Cost And Return Per Goat Per Month in the Study Areas

Table 7 illustrates the total cost and return per goat per month in the selected farms (n = 30).

The total cost consists of feed, labour, treatment, medicine, electricity, water, other fees, interest on operating, and fixed costs. Before covid-19 Total cost per goat per month was about Tk. 1822.26, where it was Tk. 2266.8 during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Table 10: Problem Faced by Goat Farmers During Covid-19 Situation

Table 6 illustrates the total cost and return per goat per month in the selected farms (n = 30). 

The total cost consists of feed, labour, treatment, medicine, electricity, water, others cost, interest on operating expenses, and fixed price. Before covid-19 Total cost per goat per month, it was about Tk. 1822.26, where it was Tk. 2266.8 during the covid-19 pandemic.

Before Covid-19, total variable cost (TVC) and Total fixed cost (TFC) were about taka 1551.79 and 270.47, respectively, 85.17% and 14.83% of the total cost. During covid-19 TVC was about taka 1876.8 (82.80%) and TFC was about taka 390.2 (17.20%) respectively. In terms of total return, before covid, it was about 9356.28 taka per month in which 3750 taka (40.08%) came from selling buck, 536.29 taka (5.73%) from selling doe, 3577.96 takas (38.24%) from selling culled goat and 1491.93 taka (15.95%) from a kid of sale. During covid, it was about 8145.16 taka per goat per month in which 3198.92 taka (39.28%) came from selling buck, 694.89 taka (8.53%) from selling doe, 3084.68 taka (37.87%) from selling culled goat, and 1166.67 taka (14.32%) came from kid of sale.

Monthly Profitability Per Goat Per Farm

Monthly profitability per goat per farm in the studied farms (n=30) was shown in table 8.

Gross margin per farm per goat before and during covid wereTk.7804.39 and Tk.6268.36, respectively. Net return per farm per goat was estimated at Tk.7533.92 and Tk.5878.36 before and during covid, respectively. 

BCR (Benefit-Cost Ratio)

BCR (cash cost basis) was 6.03 in before covid and 4.34 during covid-19 effect. The benefit-cost ratio (total cost basis) was 5.13 before covid and 3.59 during a covid pandemic. It means that goat farming is a profitable business in both periods. But it was better before the covid effect than during the covid-19 pandemic.

In table 9 Paired t-test was used to compare the mean value of monthly income of farm households before and during the covid-19 effect. Table 8 mean value presents the difference between the two situations (before and during covid-19 impact). The p-value is less than 0.001 for the variable, which indicates a significant relationship between the monthly income from goat production before and during covid-19 in the selected farms. The mean value of monthly payment between 2020 and 2019 is -1251.38, indicating a negative impact on profitability and a lower income during the covid-19 scenario. 

Data were collected from 30 respondents about their socio-economic condition related to goat production, including the age of the farmers, family size, dependent members, education, occupation, monthly family income, training, and farming experience. Table 4 indicates that the farmers' highest proportion (53.33%) were in the middle age category, whereas 30% belonged to young age and 16.67% to old age in the study area. The results of this study are similar to Rahman et al. where they reported that 45.3% of farmers were in the middle age category, 16 and 38.7 percent of farmers were in the young and old age category, respectively. Table 1 also shows the average family size of the respondents where the majority (76.67%) of farmers had small-sized families, 13.33% had medium-sized, and 10% had large-sized families. The results of this study were similar to Rahman et al. where they reported that 44% of farmers had small-sized, 38% medium-sized, and 18 farmers sizeable sized families. The average family size of 7.77 respondents in the study area was higher than the national average of 4.9  Among the total respondents, 10% had primary, 46.67% had secondary, and 43.33% had a higher secondary level of education (Table 1). The results of this study are not similar to  where they reported that 20.0% of farmers are illiterate, 40.0%, 30.0%, and 10.0% farmers in primary, secondary, and above the secondary level of education, respectively.

Before covid-19, the farmers had 8.76% local breed and 8.33% crossbreed in their farm, similar to Hassan et al. During covid-19, the average local and cross-species was 7.61 and 6.74. In the case of buck, doe, and kid, the percentages were 4.39, 4.76, 3.45, respectively, before covid, which turned into 3.83, 4.31,2.68 percent during a pandemic. During a maximum pandemic number of local and crossbreed reared by the farms was 22 and 26, where these were lower (18 and 24) before covid-19.

Results indicated that each goat's average quantity of feed intake per month was 31.2 kg in roughage and 8.21 kg in case of concentrate before covid-19. The results also agree with Krik et al. [6] During a pandemic, average intake lessened 17.07 kg in roughage and increased up to 12.97 kg in the case of concentrate. Because of the unavailability of green fodder due to pandemics, farmers had to feed the goats with concentrate providing Arif et al.

Table 4 illustrates the average price (taka) per kg feed before and during covid-19. Before the average pandemic, roughage, including green fodder, was 12.42 taka per kg, and concentrate was 37.74 taka per kg. Almost similar results were found in Afroz, 2007, where the average price of green fodder purchased by farmers was 11.26 taka and concentrate were 5.25 taka. 

The cost of production of goats consisted of variable costs and fixed costs. Under variable costs, the cost of various inputs such as the purchase of goats, feed cost (purchased and home-produced), veterinary charges, repairing of the shed, breeding charges, miscellaneous costs (transport costs for purchase and sale of goats, purchase of feeding and drinking pots, etc.). The fixed costs included depreciation of goat houses and equipment and interest on fixed cost. The value of goats purchased during the year was considered variable costs—the costs of rearing goats presented in Table 3. The monthly average cost incurred for raising goats was Tk 1822.26 before covid-19, similar to Sayeed's findings et al. The monthly average cost per goat was 1627.83 Tk. During covid-19, this cost raised to 2266.8 Tk per goat, 444.54 Tk higher than before the pandemic.

Problems and Suggestion

Problem Faced by Goat Farmers During A Covid-19 Situation: Different problems faced by the dairy farm owners due to the covid-19 effect in the study area and problem indices and ranking order are presented in Table 8. The result revealed that more than half (60%) of the goat farm owners were claimed the problem of high feed cost due to covid-19, and this problem had problem indices of 106 and ranked 1.

Next in rank and problem indices is the lack of credit facility. The wholesale price of goat fall due to covid-19 ranked 3 in the table, and this problem had problem indices of 103. Least claimed problems were inadequate slaughtering facility and lack of storage facilities of feed, and these problems both had problem indices of 55. Besides those problems, some farmers reported individual problems like lack of training facility, poor return from goat, lack of communication during a pandemic, no established supply chain, etc. Ali and Anwar and Hossain et al. found that high feed costs and shortage of animal feed were the most significant problems of the farmers for rearing cattle. Sarker reported that unavailability and high cost of feed, lack of training facilities, disorganized marketing system, and motivation of the farmers were the problems for goat rearing.

Suggestion

To overcome these problems, it is essential to support farmers to continue the production cycle, flourish the market demand and use alternative supply chains to block and tackle the emerging threats facing the goat marketing channels in the crisis period. 

Proper utilization of digital technologies for networking among stakeholders and rapid information sharing, along with the use of other agricultural technologies for hygiene and cost-effective farm management, could help overcome the impacts of any further disaster like Covid-19. For sustainable capacity building, the government could introduce evidence-based strategies to implement goat and livestock development projects that could cover the emerging needs of the future. 

The COVID-19 pandemic highlights that we exist in a global community. From a single city, it spread to 188 countries across the world and infected 30 million people by September 18, 2020. Decades of modeling pandemics predicted potential consequences, but COVID-19's impact on the food supply chain and specifically livestock production were unexpected. A similar effect of the pandemic was found on the goat production system in the studied area. But Goat farming is a great opportunity for the rural people and youth as a means of income generation. Socioeconomic development might be achieved with the help of household goat farming. It would be really very helpful for income generation, women empowerment, and fill up the nutritional gap for the rural family. Socio-economic position on subsidiary occupation, monthly household income, and expenditure, cash in hand, savings with a bank, household assets, number of school-going children, monthly consumption of meat, vegetables, milk and fish, sources of drinking water, condition of latrines, and health status of farmers were improved and the annual cost for treatment is reduced after adopting farming. Since most of the people irrespective of caste and religion prefer goat and meat, their demand is and the price is gone up. To meet up this demand regarding the pandemic situation, reported problems should be taken into concern. In addition to that, the government could develop long-term, sustainable strategies, and projects through multi-sectoral engagement to ensure further capacity building of goat farmers and other stakeholders. 

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank all the farmers who are attended enthusiastically to this study.

Conflict of interest

Authors should declare no conflict of interest.

1. M.R. Islam, M.U. Asaduzzaman and J. Begum, "Women’s role in livestock raising in Bangladesh," Asian Livestock, vol. 17, 1992, pp. 41–45.

2. M.F. Kader, "Khuddra rin pradankari prathistan: Daridra bimusanay pratistanic puji," The Daily Prothom Alo, 2006, February 5.

3. F. Dolberg et al., "Exotic hens under semi scavenging conditions in Bangladesh," Livestock Research for Rural Development, vol. 9, no. 3, 1997.

4. M.N. Uddin et al., "Small scale dairy farming for livelihoods of rural farmers: Constraint and prospect in Bangladesh," Journal of Animal Sciences Advances, vol. 2, no. 6, 2012, pp. 543–550.

5. S.A. Chowdhury, B.K. Sil and S.M.J. Hossain, "Goat production manual," Bangladesh Livestock Research Institute (BLRI) and Department of Livestock Services, Dhaka, 2002, pp. 1341.

6. M. Kirk, "The role of land tenure and property rights in sustainable resource use: The case of Benin," 1996.