Zoonotic and Veterinary Diseases and Food Safety Concerns

#### **Chapter 12**

### Fascioliasis: A Foodborne Disease of Veterinary and Zoonotic Importance

*Tolulope Ebenezer Atalabi and Omotosho Taiye Lawal*

#### **Abstract**

Fascioliasis is a food-borne neglected disease caused by digenetic trematodes in the genus *Fasciola.* There is a significant increase in the global prevalence of human fascioliasis with a strong correlation with a high infection rate among ruminant definitive hosts. *Fasciola* is a liver fluke with complex life cycle. Fascioliasis is endemic in every continent of the world with the exception of Antarctica. Discharge of the metabolites of liver flukes into the circulatory system of hosts has pathological consequences. Fascioliasis has been diagnosed by parasitological, immunological, and molecular means, and it is being reliably treated chemotherapeutically. The emerging drug-resistant strains of liver flukes have led to the need for vaccine development. Most vaccine candidates were first isolated as native proteins from adult worms. Several of the early antigens, including cathepsin L proteases, Glutathione S-transferase (GST), and fatty acid binding protein (FABP), significantly reduced worm burden, egg output, and liver pathology in cattle and sheep. Climate change, emerging drug resistance, and the development of new parasite strains through hybridization are the current challenges that could potentially alter the epidemiology of fascioliasis soon. Therefore, researchers need to produce promising vaccines that offer maximum protection to farm animals and humans.

**Keywords:** fascioliasis, veterinary, zoonosis, epidemiology, diagnosis, pathology, control, vaccines, Nigeria

#### **1. Introduction**

Fascioliasis is an ancient food-borne neglected zoonotic disease of medical importance caused by some species of macroscopic and leaf-like digenetic trematodes in the genus *Fasciola* [1]. The disease came into public health limelight in 1379 when Jehan De Brie, a French scientist, described the first ever known parasite, *Fasciola hepatica* [2]. In 1874, Professor James McConnell, a pathologist and resident physician in Calcutta, discovered *Clonorchis sinensis,* a Chinese human liver fluke, when he carried out autopsy on the corpse of a 20-year old carpenter [3]. Currently, suspected hybrid species of *F. hepatica* and *F. gigantica* are being investigated to ascertain their true taxonomic status [4].

Since every continent is infested with these trematodes, 180 million people are at risk, while an estimated 2.4 million people living in more than 70 countries of

the world are suffering from the scourge of fascioliasis [1, 5]. Meanwhile, it has been estimated that *F. hepatica* infects over 300 million cattle and 250 million sheep globally and in consonance with *F. gigantica* causes economic loss estimated at USD 3billion annually [6].

Recently, there has been a significant increase in the global prevalence of human fascioliasis [1, 7] with a strong correlation with a high infection rate among ruminant definitive hosts [8].

A broad range of cosmopolitan freshwater snails in the family Limnaeidae are responsible for the transmission of fascioliasis. For instance, *Austropeplea tomentosa, Hinkleyia caperata, Stagnicola corvus, Galba truncatula, Radix rubiginosa,* and *Pseudosuccinea columella*, which are endemic (but not limited) to Australia, North America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and South America, respectively, have been reported previously [9]. Fascioliasis due to *F. gigantica* is predominantly endemic in the lower altitudes of tropical and subtropical parts of the world. Consequently, more cases of the disease are reported in larger part of sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) where suitable snail intermediate hosts naturally inhabit [10–12].

#### **2. Life cycle**

Liver flukes have a complex life cycle with a wide range of mammalian definitive hosts [9]*.* Humans are accidental definitive host of *Fasciola* species [13]. The infective form of this parasite is the metacercariae which, upon infecting man, temporarily settle down in the peritoneal cavity for about 24 hours after burrowing through the wall of the small intestine. Various species of liver flukes have affinity for intrahepatic or extrahepatic biliary tree [14]. At hepatic stage, which is assumed to last for about 6–7 weeks in *F. hepatica* [15], metacercariae invade the parenchyma mechanically through the liver capsule and eventually find their way into the biliary duct; this is the biliary stage. They settle down there, attain maturity, and lay eggs after sexual reproduction [5, 15]. In humans, metacercariae attain maturity within 3–4 months [5].

The number of eggs extruded by each adult worm per day varies from one definitive host to the other. Report has shown that as much as 25,000 eggs, 12,000 eggs, and 2,150 eggs could be extruded in sheep, cow, and black rats, respectively [16, 17]. Elsewhere, it has been reported that an individual liver fluke could extrude about 40,000 eggs per day [9]. These unembryonated eggs are transported in the bile medium to the small intestine, where they mix up with feces [18]. In ruminant definitive hosts, they are passed out in the pasture and undergo a period of embryonation under suitable ambient temperature and humidity.

Since freshwater body is crucial to the development of the larval stages of liver flukes [18], hatching takes place in response to external stimuli of light, temperature, and humidity [9, 19, 20]. The emerging free-swimming ciliated miracidia are genetically configured to locate a suitable Limnaeid snail intermediate host via thin films of water [21], in less than 24 hours through positive chemotactic and phototactic movements [9]. By means of their piercing stylets and proteolytic enzymes, they mechanically invade their snail hosts' body wall and tissues [20, 22] and develop into sporocysts. The sporocysts further metamorphose into mother rediae, which develop into the daughter rediae. The metamorphosis in the snail host culminates in the emergence of cercariae, which are capable of passively infecting suitable vertebrate hosts and humans who drink infested water [18, 23–25]. Relative humidity above 65%, annual rainfall >100 mm, and ambient temperature of between 25 and 30°C have been reported as the factors that are suitable for the growth and shedding of cercariae [26, 27].

*Fascioliasis: A Foodborne Disease of Veterinary and Zoonotic Importance DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.91361*

Finally, the cercariae locate the wet leaves of herbaceous plants by negative geotactic movement, encyst, and metamorphose into metacercariae. When ingested by suitable ruminant definitive hosts during grazing, the cyst is digested by the hosts' enzyme and the metacercariae migrate to the duodenum where they re-encyst [18, 28]. **Figure 1** below shows a summary of the life cycle of liver flukes.

#### **3. Epidemiology of fascioliasis**

#### **3.1 The distribution of fascioliasis**

Fascioliasis is endemic in every continent of the world with the exception of Antarctica (**Figure 1**). The disease is being reported from Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Europe, parts of Latin America, Middle East, and Oceania [29]. High transmission rate of human fascioliasis has been reported from the Andean highlands of Bolivia, Peru, the Nile valley, the Caspean sea basin, East Asia, and South East Asia [30].

In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), fascioliasis has been reported in West Africa [12, 31], East Africa [32], and South African countries [33, 34]. However, it has also been reported in Egypt (outside SSA), North Africa [35, 36].

The distribution of fascioliasis in Nigeria covers every geo-political zone. There have been reports from North West [37, 38], North Central [39, 40], North East [41, 42], South West [43, 44], South South [45, 46] and South East [47, 48].

**Figure 1.** *Life cycle of liver flukes.*

#### **3.2 The ecology and transmission pattern of fascioliasis**

In 1939, Eugene Pavlovsky, a Russian Academician propounded the theory of disease focality, which suggests that some disease-causing organisms (pathogens) naturally occur in specific ecosystems [49, 50]. This implies that the population of the pathogens is an integral part of that natural landscape [51]. Characteristically, pathogens are transmitted in such settings irrespective of the presence of humans. Consequently, humans become accidental definitive hosts when their ecological niche overlaps with suitable hosts from such landscapes and they become infected after establishing contact [52]. Researchers have found out that the epidemiology of fascioliasis has a strong link with the ecology of the settings where the disease is transmitted [30].

Pavlovsky's theory explains why fascioliasis is categorized as a focal infectious disease [29]. It could be transmitted independent of human presence. Drawing analogy from Pavlovsky's theory, there are three important elements that play key roles in the transmission pattern of fascioliasis. These are the snail intermediate hosts, ruminant vertebrate hosts, and humans who are the accidental hosts (see **Figure 2** below).

**Figure 2.**

*Global distribution of fascioliasis. Source: Reprinted from [53].*

The transmission patterns of fascioliasis vary in different epidemiological settings [30]. In the last 20 years, some researchers proposed that the patterns of the disease can be classified as fascioliasis due to influx of immigrants, human endemic/ non-human (animal) endemic areas, native or isolated cases, and the three human degrees of endemicity. The fourth classification is further grouped as hypoendemic [prevalence rate < 1% while Arithmetic Mean Intensity of Infection (AMII) < 50 eggs/gram of feces], mesoendemic [prevalence rate of 1–10% while AMII 50–300 eggs/gram of feces], and hyper-endemic [prevalence rate > 10% while AMII >300 eggs/gram of feces]. In mesoendemic settings, school-age children (SAC) [5–15 years] may have higher prevalence rates while in hyper-endemic settings, SAC usually record higher prevalence rates [54, 55].

#### **3.3 The effects of climate change on fascioliasis transmission**

The role of climate in the ecology of disease-causing organisms cannot be overemphasized. In fact, climate is regarded as a basic concept of ecology. Climate triggers environmental changes [56], which in turn affect the ecosystems where parasites are transmitted, reproduced, and complete their life cycles. Because life

cycles, transmission rates, and pattern *vis a vis* the biology of their intermediate hosts are weather-sensitive, climate change has the capacity to significantly increase the prevalence and intensity of infection with liver flukes [57]. Besides, it could widen the geographical distribution [58] as well as determine the survival and transmission of the infective stage (metacercariae) [56, 59].

#### **3.4 The risk factors of fascioliasis**

Factors that predispose humans and animals to infectious diseases are referred to as risk factors. At different times and locations, many researchers have carried out spatial regression analysis of environmental variables to determine the risk factors of fascioliasis in humans and domestic ruminants. Consequently, significant associations have been described between fascioliasis and streams, wetlands, pastures [60], raising more than five sheep, dog ownership, familiarity with aquatic plants, drinking alfalfa juice, dizzy spells, history of jaundice, peripheral eosinophilia, presence of *Ascaris lumbricoides* eggs in feces [61], seasonal precipitation, temperature, elevation, and several land covers [62].

Meanwhile, gender, age, epidemiological settings (rural, urban, or rural-urban), feeding habit, familial, and social factors have been reported as the major risk factors of fascioliasis among humans [55].

#### *3.4.1 Gender*

In areas that are hyper-endemic for human fascioliasis (e.g., Egypt and Bolivia), females have reportedly recorded higher prevalence and intensity rates [55, 63, 64].

#### *3.4.2 Age*

All age groups have been found to be at risk of infection with fascioliasis but school-age children (5–15 years) have the highest prevalence and intensity [30, 64].

#### *3.4.3 Epidemiological settings (rural, urban, or rural-urban)*

People from low-middle income countries are more likely to suffer from fascioliasis. However, inhabitants from developed countries could be infected when they feed on imported infested plants that elude quarantine measures [30]. During field trips, urban inhabitants could be at a high risk of infection due to fascioliasis [55].

#### *3.4.4 Human feeding habits*

Source of food and water consumed is an important epidemiological factor of human fascioliasis. Uncontrolled markets of vegetables (like carrot, cucumber, cabbage, onions, tomatoes, spinach, etc.) coupled with drinking infested water or beverages/juice made from local plants could predispose humans to infection since liver flukes have affinity for all plants. Reports have also shown that consumption of raw liver plays a vital role in infection transmission [55, 65].

#### **3.5 The prevalence and intensity of fascioliasis in Nigeria**

Information on the prevalence of fascioliasis in Nigeria is more available compared to the intensity of infection: researchers seem to report the former more than the latter. *Fasciola gigantica* has a higher geographical coverage than *F. hepatica* and other helminthes of veterinary importance [38].

#### *Rural Health*

In a recent cross-sectional study conducted in North Central Nigeria where 686 fecal samples were collected from cattle in 11 villages, 110 were found to test positive for the eggs of *F. gigantica*, implying a prevalence of 16% (95% CI: 13–19%) [31]. However, a decade long study (2005–2014) of the prevalence of bovine fascioliasis in the States in that geopolitical zone shows a prevalence of 32.34% (95% CI: 30.28–34.46%) [40].

Meanwhile, a study carried out in South-South Nigeria revealed a fascioliasis prevalence (due to *F. gigantica* and *F. hepatica*) of 44.8 and 36% in cattle and goats, respectively. Intensity of infection showed that for every cattle infected, 8–10 liver flukes were recovered. Conversely, 4–5 flukes were recovered from the liver of every goat infected [45]. A similar study carried out elsewhere in the same zone reported a low prevalence of 5.34% from a total number of 712 randomly sampled cattle [46].

Nevertheless, in the North-East, a fascioliasis (without distinction) prevalence of 28.2% was reported where 262 gall bladders of White Fulani cattle were examined [42]. In a recent longitudinal study carried out in another part of North-East, Nigeria, where 7640 samples of feces and gall bladders were collected from slaughtered cattle, sheep, and goats in seven local government areas, 3092 were positive for the eggs and adults of *F. gigantica* and *F. hepatica*, giving a prevalence of 40.5% [41].

Moreover, a cross-sectional study on bovine fascioliasis in southwestern Nigeria where 905 samples of feces were screened for the eggs and adult of both species shows the predominance of *F. gigantica* (84.38%) over *F. hepatica* (1.56%) with an overall prevalence of 7.07% [44]. Conversely, the report of a longitudinal study conducted between 1994 and 2004 in another part of the zone revealed a prevalence of 2.31% after a total of 1,640,095 cattle were screened [66].

Furthermore, a cross-sectional survey carried out in North-West Nigeria reported a prevalence of 27.68% after fecal and bile samples were examined from 224 cattle [37]. Another cross-sectional survey of slaughtered cattle, sheep, and goats carried out in similar zone reported a prevalence of 29.6% for *F. hepatica* [67].

Finally, a longitudinal study carried out in South-East 8 years ago reported a prevalence of 17.2% after fecal and liver samples from 367 slaughtered sheep were examined for the presence of *F. gigantica* [47]*.* Interestingly, in a more recent study carried out 2 years ago in the same geo-political zone, a prevalence of 16.4% was reported for *F. hepatica* after the liver of 128 slaughtered cattle were examined [48]*.*

The pattern of the prevalence rate of fascioliasis in Nigeria has proven the focal nature of the disease irrespective of the class of ruminant animals examined.

#### **4. Pathology of fascioliasis**

Oriental forms of liver flukes cause cholangiocarcinoma, a type of liver cancer that is peculiar to areas where *Opisthorchis felineus, O. viverrini*, and *Clonorchis sinensis* are endemic [68]. Bile ducts and gall bladders become enlarged when liver flukes establish themselves in these locations in large numbers. Discharge of the metabolites of liver flukes into the circulatory system of hosts has reportedly led to anemia, increased level of serum enzyme concentration, and dysfunction of the thyroid and adrenal glands [69].

#### **5. Diagnosis of fascioliasis**

The parasitological means of examining fecal samples for the presence of liver flukes' eggs is the use of microscope [68]. Eggs become visible after 8–10 weeks post

#### *Fascioliasis: A Foodborne Disease of Veterinary and Zoonotic Importance DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.91361*

infection. This, however, varies from one host species to another. The limitation of this method is that the sensitivity of the Fecal Egg Count (FEC) may be undermined by factors like the age of the host, quantity of water in each fecal sample, and how representative the number of aliquots is per fecal sample examined [70]. Furthermore, a report has shown that in definitive hosts suffering from the acute phase of the disease, adverse effects of fascioliasis become evident much earlier before the pre-patent period [71]. Consequently, at necropsy, quantitative fecal examination and finding the hepatic fluke load will grossly downplay the severity of the disease [69, 72].

Quite a number of relatively cheap antibody detection indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) with high sensitivity and specificity have been developed. Most of these techniques are based on excretory-secretory products and cathepsin L proteases [70, 73].

Increase in parasite-specific IgG (which becomes detectable after 4 weeks post infection) is peculiar to infection with fascioliasis [74]. The limitation of this technique is that after many months of successful treatment, antibodies could remain in serum, giving a false impression that the infection status is positive [70].

Excellent specificity and sensitivity has been reported for a serodiagnostic technique developed in 2011 for human fascioliasis. SeroFluke, as it is called, is a lateral flow test which has fared better compared with ELISA test (MM3-SERO) [70, 75].

Nonetheless, report has shown the superiority of antigen detection to that of antibody in the diagnosis of human fascioliasis. Coproantigens (antigens in fecal samples) are preferred to antigenemia (the presence of antigens in blood) because in the latter, circulating antigens disappear soon in the serum of patients. Besides, most of them appear in form of immune complex which are not freely detectable [76].

Less than a decade ago, a nested-PCR was developed to boost the sensitivity and specificity of current diagnostic techniques with the view that the fascioliasis could be detected in the feces of sheep 2 weeks post infection. This method entails the amplification of a 423 bp fragment of the Cytochrome C Oxidase 1 gene [70, 77]. Interestingly, similar result was achieved a year later in lesser time by amplifying a 292 bp fragment of ITS2 gene [70, 78]. Because molecular diagnosis using PCR is not readily available everywhere and as well undermined by irreproducibility of published methods, loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) has been introduced as an alternative. LAMP has proven to be more specific and sensitive by detecting fascioliasis 1 week post infection in sheep within a much shorter time about 2½ times faster than PCR [70, 79].

#### **6. Control of fascioliasis in Nigeria**

#### **6.1 Chemotherapeutic control**

Chemotherapeutic approach has been in practice in fascioliasis control for 20 years. Based on its effectiveness, it has been predicted that the *status quo* shall be maintained in the future [80, 81]. Epidemiological and meteorological databased treatment with drugs of choice is important for the control of fascioliasis [82]. Such drug categories include: "halogenated phenol (niclofolan, bithionol, hexachlorophene, and nitroxynil); salicylanides (rafoxanide, oxyclozanide, and closantel), benzimidazoles (triclabendazole and albendazole); sulphonamides (clorsulon), and phenoxyalkanes (diamphenethides)" [82, 83]. These drugs differ in their effectiveness against adults and immature liver flukes. However, Triclabendazole (TCZ) has been the preferred drug for treating fascioliasis since 1983 as a result of its high efficacy against the adult and all larval stages of liver flukes [82, 84–86].

The single dose of 10 mg/kg body weight is effective against the adult in the bile ducts and on immature flukes migrating through the liver [80, 85]. However, TCZ resistance has been reported in animals [87, 88] and in humans [89]. Reports have shown that drug resistance could frustrate fascioliasis control programmes [18]. Besides, TCZ is not commercially available because it is solely distributed by Novartis Pharma. Inc. (Basel, Switzerland). Consequently, it is not recommended for mass administration of medicines (MAM) [80, 90]. The unavailability of the drug, specifically to treat fascioliasis, has been reported to result in outbreaks of the disease more than a decade ago [91].

Periodic antihelmintic use at 12–13 week intervals is effective against both mature and immature flukes. By this strategic control measure, intensity of infection with liver flukes significantly reduces over time. In the tropics where incidence of fascioliasis occurs all year round, annual treatment of up to four times is recommended [82, 92].

In Nigeria, some parts have reported seasonal trends in fascioliasis while some Southern parts of the country have reported an all-year-round occurrence [93]. A recent 46- year meta-analysis of the prevalence and distribution of helminthes of veterinary and zoonotic importance in Nigeria has identified failure of control programmes in the area of strategic deworming, snail host control, and adequate sanitation as the reason for the highest pooled prevalence in southwestern Nigeria [38]. Some authorities recommend that cattle be dewormed regularly [94], while others recommend treatment upon onset of clinical fascioliasis. Meanwhile, two or three annual treatments have been proposed: at the start of the rainy season, mid rainy season, and at the start of the dry season [95]. Currently, the anthelminthic drugs in use in Nigeria include: albendazole, nitroxynil, clorsulon and levamisole. However, a report has shown that the drug of choice against fascioliasis (triclabendazole) is not available for use in Nigeria [82].

#### **6.2 Vaccination against fascioliasis**

The emerging drug-resistant strains of liver flukes have led to the need for vaccine development. Despite the immense effort of researchers in this regard, no commercial vaccine is available yet [96]. Cysteine proteases produced by every stage in the life cycle of the liver flukes are common virulence mediators [97], which mediate biological functions like excystment, tissue invasion, and immune evasion [98].

Adult fluke cathepsin L and newly excysted juvenile (NEJ) cathepsin B are the prominent proteolytic enzymes of their respective excretory secretory (ES) materials [97]. Cathepsin L5 and cathepsin B synthesized by *F. hepatica* as well as cathepsin L1 synthesized by *F. gigantica* are promising targets for vaccines against fascioliasis [99–101].

Recombinant protein expression is critical to the assessment of cysteine protein vaccine potential [97]. The yeast expression system has been a useful tool for the functional expression of cathepsin L1 and L2 [102], cathepsin L5, and cathepsin B [101].

A larger part of these vaccine candidates was first isolated as native proteins from adult worm ES products. Several of these early antigens, including cathepsin L proteases, glutathione S-transferase (GST), and fatty acid binding protein (FABP) significantly reduced worm burden, egg output, and liver pathology in cattle and sheep [96, 103].

#### **7. Conclusion**

Fascioliasis has been established as an important foodborne disease of veterinary and zoonotic importance. Climate change, emerging drug resistance, and

*Fascioliasis: A Foodborne Disease of Veterinary and Zoonotic Importance DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.91361*

the development of new parasite strains through hybridization are the current challenges that could potentially alter the epidemiology of the disease in the nearest future [70]. To this end, researchers need to step up their effort to produce promising vaccines that offer maximum protection to farm animals and humans and as well contribute immensely to global elimination of the disease by reducing its prevalence and intensity. Government of countries in the tropics and subtropics should endeavor to provide more funds for researchers.

### **Acknowledgements**

The authors sincerely appreciate the effort of Mr. Osuntuyi Mabayoje Pius who did the art work on the Life Cycle of liver flukes. We extend our gratitude to the World Health Organization for granting us the permission to use the map of the world showing the global distribution of fascioliasis under the request ID 312094.

### **Conflicts of interest**

The authors do not have any conflicts of interest to declare.

### **Author details**

Tolulope Ebenezer Atalabi1 \* and Omotosho Taiye Lawal<sup>2</sup>

1 Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences, Federal University Dutsin-Ma, Dutsin-Ma, Katsina State, Nigeria

2 Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Federal University Dutsin-Ma, Dutsin-Ma, Katsina State, Nigeria

\*Address all correspondence to: ebenezer2k2@gmail.com

© 2020 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

#### **References**

[1] World Health Organization. Foodborne trematode infections: Fascioliasis [Internet]. 2019a. Available from: https://www.who.int/foodborne\_ trematode\_infections/fascioliasis/en/ [Accessed: 04 November 2019]

[2] Hugh-Jones ME, Hubbert WT, Hagstad HV. Chronology of Events in Zoonoses: Recognition, Control, and Prevention. Iowa: Iowa State University Press; 1995. p. 11

[3] Wikivisually. Ascaridida [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https:// wikivisually.com/wiki/Ascaridida [Accessed: 04 November 2019]

[4] Centre for Disease Control. Fasciola [Internet]. 2018a. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/parasites / fasciola/biology.html [Accessed: 04 November 2019]

[5] World Health Organization. Neglected tropical diseases: Fascioliasisinfection with the "Neglected" neglected worms [Internet]. 2019b. Available from: https://www.who.int/ neglected\_ diseases /integrated\_media /integrated\_media\_fascioliasis/en/ [Accessed: 04 November 2019]

[6] Mas-Coma S, Bargues MD, Valero MA. Fascioliasis and other plant-borne trematode zoonoses. International Journal for Parasitology. 2005;**35**:1255-1278

[7] Diyana JNA, Lokman IH, Fazila SHN, Latiffah H, Ibitoye EB, Hazfalinda HN, et al. A retrospective study on bovine fascioliasis in veterinary regional laboratories in Peninsular Malaysia. Journal of Parasitology Research. 2019;**2019**:7903682. DOI: 10.1155/2019/7903682

[8] Ashrafi K, Bargues MD, O'Neill S, Mas-Coma S. Fascioliasis: A worldwide parasitic disease of importance in

travel medicine. Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease. 2014;**12**:636-649

[9] Vázquez AA, Alda P, Lounnas M, Sabourin E, Alba A, Pointier J-P, et al. Lymnaeid snails hosts of *Fasciola hepatica* and *Fasciola gigantica* (Trematoda: Digenea): A worldwide review. Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International. 2018;**13**(62):1-15

[10] Taylor MA, Coop RL, Wall RL. Veterinary Parasitology. 3rd ed. London: John Wiley and Sons Ltd; 2007. p. 874

[11] Abunna F, Asfaw L, Megersa B, Regassa A. Bovine fasciolosis: Coprological, abattoir survey and its economic impact due to liver condemnation at Soddo municipal abattoir, Southern Ethiopia. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 2010;**42**:289-292. DOI: 10.1007/ s11250-009-9419-3

[12] Kelly RF, Mazer S, Hartley C, Hamma SM, Ngwa VN, Nkongho EF, et al. Assessing the performance of a *Fasciola gigantica* serum antibody ELISA to estimate prevalence in cattle in Cameroon. BMC Veterinary Research. 2019;**15**:8

[13] World Health Organization. Zoonosis and veterinary public health: Trematodosis [Internet]. 2019c. Available from: https://www.who.int/ zoonoses/diseases/trematodosis/en/ [Accessed: 16 November 2019]

[14] Moazeni M, Ahmadi A. Controversial aspects of the life cycle of *Fasciola hepatica*. Experimental Parasitology. 2016;**169**:81-89. DOI: 10.1016/j.exppara.2016.07.010

[15] Ishikawa T, Meier-Stephenson V, Heitman SJ. Biliary obstruction caused by the liver fluke, *Fasciola hepatica*.

*Fascioliasis: A Foodborne Disease of Veterinary and Zoonotic Importance DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.91361*

CMAJ. 2016;**188**(7):524-526. DOI: 10.1503 /cmaj.150696

[16] Boray JC. Experimental fascioliasis in Australia. Advances in Parasitology. 1969;**8**:95-210

[17] Valero MA, Panova M, Comes AM, Fons R, Mas-Coma S. Patterns in size and shedding of *Fasciola hepatica* eggs by naturally and experimentally infected murid rodents. The Journal of Parasitology. 2002;**88**(2):308-313

[18] Nyindo M, Lukambagire A-H. Fascioliasis: An ongoing zoonotic trematode infection. BioMed Research International. 2015;**2015**:786195. DOI: 10.1155/2015/786195

[19] Andrews SJ. The life cycle of *Fasciola hepatica*. In: Dalton JP, editor. Fasciolosis. 3rd ed. Wallingford: CABI Publishing; 1999. p. 30

[20] Zhang X-X, Cwiklinski K, Hu R-S, Zheng W-B, Sheng Z-A, Zhang F-K, et al. Complex and dynamic transcriptional changes allow the helminth *Fasciola gigantica* to adjust to its intermediate snail and definitive mammalian hosts. BMC Genomics. 2019;**20**:729. DOI: 10.1186/ s12864-019-6103-5

[21] Sustainable Control of Parasites (SCOPS). Internal parasites: Liver fluke [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https:// www.scops.org.uk/internal-parasites/ liver-fluke/lifecycle/ [Accessed: 18 November 2019]

[22] Graczyk TK, Fried B. Development of *Fasciola hepatica* in the intermediate host. In: Dalton JP, editor. Fasciolosis. CABI Publishing; 1999. pp. 31-46

[23] Rondelaud D, Belfaiza M, Vignoles P, Moncef M, Dreyfuss G. Redial generations of *Fasciola hepatica*: A review. Journal of Helminthology. 2009;**83**:245-254

[24] Valero MA, Perez-Crespo I, Periago MV, Khoubbane M, Mas-Coma S. Fluke egg characteristics for the diagnosis of human and animal fascioliasis by *Fasciola hepatica* and *F. gigantica*. Acta Tropica. 2009;**111**(2):150-159

[25] Carrique-Mas JJ, Bryant JE. A review of foodborne bacterial and parasitic zoonoses in Vietnam. EcoHealth. 2013;**10**(4):465-489

[26] Rahman MH, Begum N, Alim A. Factors for the development of Furcocercus and other cercariae in snails and their release. Bangladesh Veterinarian. 1997;**14**:29

[27] Dodangeh S, Daryani A, Sharif M, Gholami S, Kialashaki E, Moosazadeh M, et al. Freshwater snails as the intermediate host of trematodes in Iran: A systematic review. Epidemiol Health. 2019;**41**:e2019001. DOI: 10.4178/epih.e2019001

[28] Hotez PJ, Savioli L, Fenwick A. Neglected tropical diseases of the middle east and north africa: Review of their prevalence, distribution, and opportunities for control. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2012;**6**(2):e1475

[29] Centre for Disease Control. *Fasciola*: Epidemiology and risk factors [Internet]. 2018b. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/ parasites/fasciola/ epi.html [Accessed: 19 November 2019]

[30] World Health Organization. Foodborne trematode infections: Fascioliasis epidemiology [Internet]. 2019d. Available from: https://www.who.int/ foodborne\_trematode\_infections/ fascioliasis/fascioliasis\_epidemiology/ en/ [Accessed: 19 November 2019]

[31] Elelu N, Ambali A, Coles GC, Eisler MC. Cross-sectional study of *Fasciola gigantica* and other trematode infections of cattle in Edu local government area, Kwara state, North-Central Nigeria. Parasites & Vectors. 2016;**9**:470. DOI: 10.1186/ s13071-016-1737-5

[32] Dida GO, Gelder FB, Anyona DN, Matano A-S, Abuom PO, Adoka SO, et al. Distribution and abundance of schistosomiasis and fascioliasis host snails along the Mara River in Kenya and Tanzania. Infection Ecology & Epidemiology. 2014;**4**:24281. DOI: 10.3402/iee.v4.24281

[33] Mochankana ME, Robertson ID. A retrospective study of the prevalence of bovine fasciolosis at major abattoirs in Botswana. Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research. 2016;**83**(1):a1015. DOI: 10.4102/ojvr.v83i1.1015

[34] Nyirenda SS, Sakala M, Moonde L, Kayesa E, Fandamu P, Banda F, et al. Prevalence of bovine fascioliasis and economic impact associated with liver condemnation in abattoirs in Mongu district of Zambia. BMC Veterinary Research. 2019;**15**:33. DOI: 10.1186/ s12917-019-1777-0

[35] Keiser J, Sayed H, El-Ghanam M, Sabry H, Anani S, El-Wakeel A, et al. Efficacy and safety of Artemether in the treatment of chronic fascioliasis in Egypt: Exploratory phase-2 trials. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2011;**5**(9):e1285. DOI: 10.1371/journal. pntd.0001285

[36] Elshraway NT, Mahmoud WG. Prevalence of fascioliasis (liver flukes) infection in cattle and buffaloes slaughtered at the municipal abattoir of El-Kharga, Egypt. Veterinary World. 2017;**10**(8):914-917. DOI: 10.14202/ vetworld.2017.914-917

[37] Magaji AA, Ibrahim K, Salihu MD, Saulawa MA, Mohammed AA, Musawa AI. Prevalence of fascioliasis in cattle slaughtered in Sokoto Metropolitan Abattoir, Sokoto, Nigeria. Advances in

Epidemiology. 2014;**2014**:247258. DOI: 10.1155/2014/247258

[38] Karshima SN, Maikai B, Kwaga JKP. Helminths of veterinary and zoonotic importance in Nigerian ruminants: A 46-year meta-analysis (1970-2016) of their prevalence and distribution. Infectious Diseases of Poverty. 2018;**7**:52. DOI: 10.1186/ s40249-018-0438-z

[39] Ekong PS, Juryit R, Dika NM, Nguku P, Musenero M. Prevalence and risk factors for zoonotic helminth infection among humans and animals - Jos, Nigeria, 2005-2009. The Pan African Medical Journal. 2012;**12**:6

[40] Yatswako S, Alhaji NB. Survey of bovine fasciolosis burdens in trade cattle slaughtered at abattoirs in north-Central Nigeria: The associated predisposing factors and economic implication. Parasite Epidemiology and Control. 2017;**2**:30-39

[41] Isah UM. Studies on the prevalence of fascioliasis among ruminant animals in northern Bauchi state, North-Eastern Nigeria. Parasite Epidemiology and Control. 2019;**3**:e00090

[42] Shinggu PA, Olufemi OT, Nwuku JA, Baba-Onoja EBT, Iyawa PD. Liver Flukes Egg Infection and Associated Risk Factors in White Fulani Cattle Slaughtered in Wukari, Southern Taraba State, Nigeria. Advances in Preventive Medicine. 2019;**2019**:2671620. 5p. DOI: 10.1155/2019/2671620

[43] Ibironke AA, Fasina FO. Socioeconomic implications of bovine liver rejection in a major abattoir in South-Western Nigeria. Revista de Ciências Agrárias. 2010;**33**:2

[44] Afolabi OJ, Olususi FC. The prevalence of Fascioliasis among slaughtered cattle in Akure, Nigeria. Molecular Pathogens. 2016;**7**(1):1-5. DOI: 10.5376/mp.2016.07.0001

*Fascioliasis: A Foodborne Disease of Veterinary and Zoonotic Importance DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.91361*

[45] Abraham JT, Jude IB. Fascioliasis in cattle and goat slaughtered at Calabar abattoirs. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare. 2014;**4**(18):34-40

[46] Eze NC, Briggs AA. Prevalence of Fascioliasis and histopathology of the liver in cattle slaughtered in Port Harcourt Abbatoir, Rivers state Nigeria. World News of Natural Sciences. 2018;**16**:105-116

[47] Njoku-Tony RF, Okoli GC. Prevalence of fascioliasis among slaughter sheep in selected abattoirs in Imo State, Nigeria. American Journal of Science. 2011;**7**(2):361-366

[48] Anyaegbunam LC, Ajana U. *Fasciola hepatica* infestation in slaughtered cow liver in Eke Uli market abattoir, Ihiala local government area of Anambra State, Nigeria. Tropical Journal of Applied Natural Sciences. 2017;**2**(1):21-24

[49] Malkhazova SM, Mironova VA, Kotova TV, Shartova NV, Orlov DS. Natural-focal diseases: Mapping experience in Russia. International Journal of Health Geographics. 2014;**13**:21. DOI: 10.1186/1476-072X-13-21

[50] Pavlovsky EN. Fundamentals of the theory of natural focality of transmissible human diseases. Zhurnal Obshcheĭ Biologii. 1946;**7**(1):3-33

[51] Korenberg EI. Natural focality of infections: Current problems and prospects of research. The Biological Bulletin. 2010;**37**(7):665-676. DOI: 10.1134/S1062359010070010

[52] Reisen WK. Landscape epidemiology of vector-borne diseases. Annual Review of Entomology. 2010;**55**:461-483. DOI: 10.1146/ annurev-ento-112408-085419

[53] World Health Organization. Foodborne trematode infections [Internet]. 2019e. Available from: https://www.who. int/foodborne\_trematode\_ infections/ en/ [Accessed: 19 November 2019]

[54] Mas-Coma S, Esteban JG, Bargues MD. Epidemiology of human fascioliasis: A review and proposed new classification. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 1999;**77**:340-346

[55] Mas-Coma S, Bargues MD, Valero MA. Human fascioliasis infection sources, their diversity, incidence factors, analytical methods and prevention measures. Parasitology. 2018:1-35. DOI: 10.1017/ S0031182018000914

[56] Mas-Coma S, Valero MA, Bargues MD. Climate change effects on trematodiases, with emphasis on zoonotic fascioliasis and schistosomiasis. Veterinary Parasitology. 2009;**163**:264-280

[57] Houghton JT, Jenkins GJ, Ephraums JJ, editors. Scientific Assessment of Climate Change. Report of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990. p. 357

[58] Lafferty KD, Porter JW, Ford SE. Are diseases increasing in the ocean? Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 2004;**35**:31-54

[59] Cattadori IM, Haydon DT, Hudson PJ. Parasites and climate synchronize red grouse populations. Nature. 2005;**433**:737-741

[60] Olsen A, Frankena K, Bødker R, Toft N, Thamsborg SM, Enemark HL, et al. Prevalence, risk factors and spatial analysis of liver fluke infections in Danish cattle herds. Parasites & Vectors. 2015;**8**:160. DOI: 10.1186/ s13071-015-0773-x

[61] Marcos LA, Maco V, Samalvides F, Terashima A, Espinoza JR, Gotuzzo E. Risk factors for Fasciola hepatica infection in children: A case-control study. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2006;**100**(2):158-166. DOI: 10.1016/j. trstmh.2005.05.016

[62] Rahman AKMA, Islam SKS, Talukder MH, Hassan MK, Dhand NK, Ward MP. Fascioliasis risk factors and space-time clusters in domestic ruminants in Bangladesh. Parasites & Vectors. 2017;**10**:228. DOI: 10.1186/ s13071-017-2168-7

[63] Esteban JG, Flores A, Angles R, Mas-Coma S. High endemicity of human fascioliasis between Lake Titicaca and La Paz valley, Bolivia. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 1999;**93**:151-156

[64] Esteban JG, Gonzalez C, Curtale F, Muñoz-Antoli C, Valero MA, Bargues MD, et al. Hyperendemic fascioliasis associated with schistosomiasis in villages in the Nile Delta of Egypt. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2003;**69**:429-437

[65] Zumaquero-Rios JL, Sarracent-Perez J, Rojas-Garcia R, Rojas-Rivero L, Martinez-Tovilla Y, Valero MA, et al. Fascioliasis and intestinal parasitoses affecting schoolchildren in Atlixco, Puebla State, Mexico: Epidemiology and treatment with nitazoxanide. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2013;**7**(11):e2553

[66] Oladele-Bukola MO, Odetokun IA. Prevalence of bovine fasciolosis at the Ibadan Municipal Abattoir, Nigeria. African Journal of Food Agriculture Nutrition and Development. 2014;**14**(4):9055-9070

[67] Kiran S, Asma'US T. Prevalence of fascioliasis among animals slaughtered at Sokoto state Abattoir. International Journal of Malaria and Tropical Diseases. 2017;**1**(11):059-062

[68] World Health Organization. The management of bloody diarrhoea in young children (unpublished document). Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 1995;**73**(3):397-401

[69] Sharma RL, Godara R, Thilagar MB. Epizootiology, pathogenesis and immunoprophylactic trends to control tropical bubaline fasciolosis: An overview. Journal of Parasitic Diseases. 2011;**35**(1):1-9. DOI: 10.1007/ s12639-011-0025-8

[70] Beesley NJ, Caminade C, Charlier J, Flynn J, Hodgkinson JE, Martinez-Moreno A, et al. Fasciola and fasciolosis in ruminants in Europe: Identifying research needs. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases. 2018;**65**(Suppl 1):199-216. DOI: 10.1111/ tbed.12682

[71] Dixit AK, Pooja D, Sharma RL. Immunodiagnostic/protective role of Cathepsin L cysteine proteinases secreted by Fasciola sp.—A review. Veterinary Parasitology. 2008;**154**:177-184

[72] Garg R, Yadav CL, Kumar RR, Banerjee PS, Vatsya S, Godara R. The epidemiology of fasciolosis in ruminants in different geo-climatic regions of North India. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 2009;**41**:1695-1700

[73] Jezek J, El Ridi R, Salah M, Wagih A, Aziz HW, Tallima H, et al. *Fasciola gigantica* cathepsin L proteinase-based synthetic peptide for immunodiagnosis and prevention of sheep fasciolosis. Biopolymers. 2008;**90**(3):349-357

[74] Martınez-Perez JM, Robles-Perez D, Rojo-Vazquez FA, Martınez-Valladares M. Immunological features of LPS from *Ochrobactrum intermedium* on sheep experimentally infected with *Fasciola hepatica*. Research in Veterinary Science. 2014;**97**:329-332

*Fascioliasis: A Foodborne Disease of Veterinary and Zoonotic Importance DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.91361*

[75] Martınez-Sernandez V, Muino L, Perteguer MJ, Garate T, Mezo M, Gonzalez-Warleta M, et al. Development and evaluation of a new lateral flow immunoassay for serodiagnosis of human fasciolosis. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2011*;***5**:e1376

[76] Sarkari B, Khabisi SA. Immunodiagnosis of human fascioliasis: An update of concepts and performances of the serological assays. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. 2017;**11**(6):OE05-OE10. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2017/26066.10086

[77] Martınez-Perez JM, Robles-Perez D, Rojo-Vazquez FA, Martınez-Valladares M. Comparison of three different techniques to diagnose *Fasciola hepatica* infection in experimentally and naturally infected sheep. Veterinary Parasitology. 2012;**190**:80-86

[78] Robles-Perez D, Martınez-Perez JM, Rojo-Vazquez FA, Martınez-Valladares M. The diagnosis of fasciolosis in feces of sheep by means of a PCR and its application in the detection of anthelmintic resistance in sheep flocks naturally infected. Veterinary Parasitology. 2013;**197**:277-282

[79] Martınez-Valladares M, Rojo-Vazquez FA. Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay for the diagnosis of fasciolosis in sheep and its application under field conditions. Parasites & Vectors. 2016;**9**:73-77

[80] Soliman MFM. Epidemiological review of human and animal fascioliasis in Egypt. Journal of Infection in Developing Countries. 2008;**2**(3):182-189

[81] Fairweather I. Reducing the future threat from (liver) fluke: Realistic prospect or quixotic fantasy? Veterinary Parasitology. 2011;**180**(1-2):133-143. DOI: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2011.05.034

[82] Elelu N, Eisler MC. A review of bovine fasciolosis and other trematode infections in Nigeria. Journal of Helminthology. 2018;**92**(2):128-141. DOI: 10.1017/S0022149X17000402

[83] Fairweather I, Boray JC. Fasciolicides: Efficacy, actions, resistance and its management. The Veterinary Journal. 1999;**158**:81-112

[84] Boray J, Crowfoot P, Strong M, Allison J, Schellenbaum M, Von Orelli M, et al. Treatment of immature and mature *Fasciola hepatica* infections in sheep with triclabendazole. The Veterinary Record. 1983;**113**:315-317

[85] World Health Organization. Report of the WHO Informal Meeting on use of triclabendazole in fascioliasis control [Internet]. 2007. Available from: http:// www.who.int/neglected\_diseases/ preventive chemotherapy/WHO\_CDS\_ NTD\_PCT\_2007.1.pdf [Accessed: 18 December 2019]

[86] Mas-Coma S, Bargues MD, Valero MA. Diagnosis of human fascioliasis by stool and blood techniques: Update for the present global scenario. Parasitology. 2014;**141**:1918-1946

[87] Olaechea F, Lovera V, Larroza M, Raffo V, Cabrera R. Resistance of *Fasciola hepatica* against triclabendazole in cattle in Patagonia (Argentina). Veterinary Parasitology. 2011;**178**(3-4):364-366

[88] Ortiz P, Scarcella S, Cerna C, Rosales C, Cabrera M, Guzman M, et al. Resistance of *Fasciola hepatica* against Triclabendazole in cattle in Cajamarca (Peru): A clinical trial and an *in vivo* efficacy test in sheep. Veterinary Parasitology. 2013;**195**(1-2):118-121. DOI: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2013.01.001

[89] Winkelhagen AJS, Mank T, de Vries PJ, Soetekouw R. Apparent Triclabendazole-resistant human *Fasciola hepatica* infection, the Netherlands. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2012;**18**(6):1028-1029

[90] Keiser J, Utzinger J. Emerging foodborne trematodiasis. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2005;**11**(10):1507-1514

[91] Parkinson M, O'Neill SM, Dalton JP. Endemic human fasciolosis in the Bolivian Altiplano. Epidemiology and Infection. 2007;**135**(4):669-674

[92] Torgerson P, Claxton J. Epidemiology and control. In: Dalton JP, editor. Fasciolosis. 1st ed. Wallingford: CABI Publishing; 1999. pp. 113-149

[93] Gboeloh LB. Seasonal prevalence of *Fasciola gigantica* in slaghter cattle in major abattoirs in port-Harcourt. Advances in Agriculture, Sciences and Engineering Research. 2012;**2**:336-340

[94] Aliyu AA, Ajogi IA, Ajanusi OJ, Reuben RC. Epidemiological studies of *Fasciola gigantica* in cattle in Zaria, Nigeria using coprology and serology. Journal of Public Health. 2014;**6**:85-91

[95] Damwesh SD, Ardo MB. Detection of *Fasciola gigantic* antibodies using Pourquier ELISA kit. Sokoto Journal of Veterinary Sciences. 2013;**11**:43-48

[96] Molina-Hernández V, Mulcahy G, Pérez J, Martínez-Moreno Á, Donnelly S, O'Neill SM, et al. Fasciola hepatica vaccine: We may not be there yet but we're on the right road. Veterinary Parasitology. 2015;**208**(1-2):101-111. DOI: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2015.01.004

[97] Jayaraj R, Piedrafita D, Dynon K, Gramsc R, Spithill TW, Smooker PM. Liver fluke vaccines: Vaccination against fasciolosis by a multivalent vaccine of recombinant stage-specific antigens. Procedia in Vaccinology. 2010;**2**(1):82- 85. DOI: 10.1016/j.provac.2010.03.015

[98] Sajid M, McKerrow JH. Cysteine proteases of parasitic organisms. Molecular and Biochemical Parasitology. 2002;**120**(1):1-21

[99] Grams R, Vichasri-Grams S, Sobhon P, Upatham ES, Viyanant V. Molecular cloning and characterization of cathepsin L encoding genes from *Fasciola gigantica*. Parasitology International. 2001;**50**(2):105-114

[100] Irving JA, Spithill TW, Pike RN, Whisstock JC, Smooker PM. The evolution of enzyme specificity in Fasciola spp. Journal of Molecular Evolution. 2003;**57**(1):1-15

[101] Beckham SA, Law RHP, Smooker PM, Quinsey NS, Caffrey CR, McKerrow JH, et al. Production and processing of a recombinant Fasciola hepatica cathepsin B-like enzyme (FhcatB1) reveals potential processing mechanisms in the parasite. Biological Chemistry. 2006;**387**:1053-1061. DOI: 10.1515/BC.2006.130

[102] Dowd AJ, Smith AM, McGonigle S, Dalton JP. Purification and characterisation of a second cathepsin L proteinase secreted by the parasitic trematode *Fasciola hepatica*. European Journal of Biochemistry. 1994;**223**(1):91-98

[103] Toet H, Piedrafita DM, Spithill TW. Liver fluke vaccines in ruminants: Strategies, progress and future opportunities. International Journal for Parasitology. 2014;**44**(12):915-927. DOI: 10.1016/j. ijpara.2014.07.011

#### **Chapter 13**

### Impact of Covid-19 on Agricultural System and Food Prices: The Case of India

*Pradyot Ranjan Jena, Rajesh Kalli and Purna Chandra Tanti*

#### **Abstract**

The present study focused on evaluating the impact of Covid-19 lockdown on the agriculture system in India. A telephonic interview was conducted with farmers among various states between April to May 2020. A total of 494 farmers participated in the survey identifying the challenges they faced during the lockdown. First, the study has outlined the knowledge and perception of respondents on the Covid-19 virus and second the impact of Covid 19 induced restrictions on the agricultural system and food prices in India has been analyzed. The study classified the impact of lockdown on the agriculture system into four broad classifications - Farm Inputs, Farm Produce and Supply Chain, Agriculture and Allied Activities, Pandemic and Food prices. The detailed analysis across these four dimensions is discussed. Due to the shutdown of many supply routes, the availability of agricultural inputs such as fertilizer and seeds was disrupted, which jeopardized farmers' investment planning. Furthermore, the seasonal migrants who would work in urban areas enter off-season and return to their native villages for farming could not carry it on. Such a rapid chain of events created massive short-run income shortages for small and marginalized farmers across the country. The special economic package for agriculture empowerment announced by the Government of India in the tune of two lakh crore rupees, equivalent to ten per cent of India's GDP, has been the government's first response to deal with this agricultural crisis. Finally, the chapter puts forward policy suggestions to strengthen resource-poor farmers' capabilities plagued with a low-income-low-yield vicious cycle.

**Keywords:** COVID 19, Lockdown, Agriculture Supply Chain, Farmers Income, Food Security, Risk Assessment, Healthcare

#### **1. Introduction**

The impact of the Covid-19 on the global economy is highly devastating. The increased restriction among the nations has disrupted the economic activities causing a significant decline in economic growth [1]. The previous pandemic outbreaks were limited to certain regions (Spanish flu and Ebola). However, the spread of the Covid-19 virus was evidenced in more than 215 countries worldwide [2]. Given its deepening threat to human lives and economies, there is a need to understand the pandemic's impact on different sectors. Agriculture is one such sector that is certain to face the brunt of the crisis [2, 3]. The global trade came to be suspended, causing a threat for most of the agriculture exporting countries. With government interventions in place, the agriculture trade continued to be

#### *Rural Health*

flat during the lockdown. The scenarios of both export and import restrictions on Agri-commodity were evidenced among major economies [4]. Few economies restricted imports to control the spread of the virus. Subsequently, these restrictions were eased for the movement of goods, while prices of staple food crops increased and a fall in prices was noted in high-value agricultural produce. Supply chain disruptions caused an immense impact on the agriculture sector of all the countries [5, 6]. This disruption leads to a decline in the income source of rural livelihood. A shortfall in the movement of agricultural produce increased the food insecurity threat among most of the developing nations.

In India, more than 80% of rural livelihood directly or indirectly depends on the agriculture sector. Food security and self-sufficiency are the main goals of


#### **Table 1.**

*Presents the timeline of events in India due to Covid*−*19 outbreak.*

*Impact of Covid*-*19 on Agricultural System and Food Prices: The Case of India DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98905*

the Indian agriculture. The major problem in India's agriculture sector is the inefficient market system and complex supply chain issues. The movement of crops from production centers to the markets is challenging with increased players in the supply chain [7, 8]. It has been highlighted by researchers repeatedly the need for adequate storage facilities (cold storage and warehouse) and facilitating the movement of food crops without any considerable wastes [5]. The recent COVID 19 pandemics is certain to expose this bottleneck and adds additional stress to the existing crisis in the agriculture sector. The early assessment of the pandemic impact on agriculture looks profound [2, 3, 5–13]. However, disaggregated studies will provide insights for a better policy response. Boosting agricultural productivity and maximizing farm income is the critical pathway policymakers should focus on in the aftermath of the current pandemic. Against this backdrop, the present study evaluates the challenges faced by the agriculture sector for an appropriate policy response. This leads to some important questions- what was the impact of Covid-19 induced lockdowns on agriculture operations? How did it impact in terms of the income from both agriculture and its allied activities? how did the agriculture markets and food prices behave during the pandemic outbreak? The study explores the following questions using a qualitative framework, where farmer respondents are the primary source of information. Globally, restrictions were imposed to avoid the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic. **Table 1** presents the timeline of events in India due to Covid−19 outbreak. In India, a complete lockdown was first initiated from 24 March 2020 to 14 April 2020 and extended till 31 May 2020. By the end of the lockdown, the total reported cases in India were 1,82,143, with casualties of 5164. Due to fewer reported cases and low causalities, the government re-opened the economic activities with guidelines to prevent further outbreaks.

#### **2. Materials and methods**

The Covid-19 induced lockdown has a differential impact on the agriculture system in India. With restricted economic activity, the aggregate demand and supply shrank, causing a ripple effect on employment and income. This prolonged lockdown could become a larger economic crisis, especially in the primary sector of the economy. The agro-based economies found difficult in all the stages, where the availability of inputs (fertilizers, pesticides, labor, and seeds), logistics and supply chain challenges, farm operations, and allied agricultural activities are impacted in various ways. To understand these effects, the study collected information from different regions in the country. The authors focused on the follow-up interviews from the previously available baseline dataset of farmers [14, 15]. Due to the severity of the pandemic and the restriction to travel imposed by the government, field visits were not feasible. Thus, we conducted telephonic interviews with nearly 494 farmers from different states of India. The discussion with the farmers was for the period between April and May 2020. The study administered a pre-structured questionnaire (attached in appendix) involving farmers perception of the Covid-19 pandemic and its impact on farm operations, accessibility to markets, credit availability, other income sources, and support from the government. descriptive statistics Table have been included in the appendix to show the summary of the surveyed household. The study also reviewed major literature focused on the pandemic's impact on agriculture, which includes scientific articles (both quantitative and qualitative), reports from state and national level government agencies, media articles, and reports from various international agencies (World Bank, IMF). In this current situation, there is a need to ameliorate the agriculture sector, which has been lacking for many years; apparently, the direction towards sustainable

development is slow in the Indian context. Against this backdrop, we outline several prima facie challenges and urge to formulate appropriate policy responses for sustainable development in the agriculture sector.

#### **3. Results and discussion**

#### **3.1 The impact of COVID 19 on agricultural operations**

The exposure to digital and social media has created awareness about the Covid-19 pandemic among the rural community. The farmers indicated their knowledge of the pandemic and its likely consequences. They expressed that precautionary measures have been instructed to them by various organizations. However, they noted their limited ability to follow these measures among the rural community. Though the respondents were aware of the precautionary measures such as washing hands using sanitiser, wearing a mask, and social distancing, they did not follow these measures thinking that Covid-19 is only an urban problem. Few farmers reported that hardly 10 to 20% in their villages followed the precautionary measures.

The agriculture sector in India faced an unprecedented challenge during the Covid-19 pandemic outbreak; the study classified four broad concerns highly experienced by the majority of the farmers. Each of these challenges is discussed in the following sections.

#### *3.1.1 Farm inputs*

The agricultural system in India varies due to its large and diversified topographic characteristics, climate, and soil. The onset of monsoon begins at the end of May in southern India. By the end of April, farmers start preparing the land and build inventory for the upcoming Kharif season. The imposed restriction created a shortage of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and seeds in several regions of the country. For instance, districts in the northern interior region of Karnataka faced a huge shortfall in fertilizer, especially urea in May [16]. A similar shortage of inputs was noted in the districts of Maharashtra and Odisha [17, 18]. Several reports also cited that traders stocked up the fertilizers for higher price realization due to the lockdown. The major reason for the unavailability of the fertilizer was the restrictions imposed by the government. More than 50% of the respondents complained that disruption in the supply chain caused unavailability of at least one kind of input (For example Urea, DAP, NPK, Seeds, Sprayers, and others). This shortage also led to delay in cultivation in some regions. Further, farmers reported that even government outlets were shut down due to a shortage of fertilizer availability. Nearly 35% of the respondents expressed that they paid additional money (50 to 80% higher prices) to purchase fertilizer. However, after the initial 21 days of the first phase of lockdown, government announced the relaxation to the farm operation. This helps in building up the inventory related to farm inputs among the farming community. Though the relaxation was provided, the confusion in the implementation process caused jittery among farmers several other inputs.

The credit crunch faced by the farmers was observed from the survey due to a steep decline in agriculture prices and restriction to market access. The burden of cash flow and high labour costs caused additional stress among the farming community. Farmers hold agriculture produce for a shorter period for

#### *Impact of Covid*-*19 on Agricultural System and Food Prices: The Case of India DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98905*

better price realization, while lockdown, procurement in the wholesale market was limited. This caused a glut of agricultural produces among farmers leading to a liquidity crunch to purchase the inputs for the next growing season. In the past, small farmers used to migrate to nearby towns after rabi season to form capital for the upcoming Kharif season. However, with the closure of economic activities, most of the part-time migrant laborers had to return to the villages without enough capital for the next farming season. The return of the full-time migrant workers from the urban locality caused an additional burden among the families without any source of income. Though the availability of the labourers increased in the rural community with the addition of the migrant workers, the employment creation or the farm activities involving labours decreased due to the financial constraint among the large and medium-scale farmers. The mismatch in the wages was also evident, where the migrant workers demanded higher wages. Few of the large-scale farmers reported that they used tractors and machinery due to increased labour wages. Few of the respondents owning large farmland reported that some of the lands were left barren due to increased input cost.

#### *3.1.2 Farm produce and supply chain*

The cropping pattern in India varies among the states. During March and April, rabi crop harvesting will be at its peak among major states. The pandemic outbreak coincided during this time causing a significant effect on farm production. Due to lockdown, farmers could not complete land preparation and provide irrigation on time, which caused a negative impact on crop productivity. The farmers from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar reported that wheat harvesting was in the process and they were worried about the increased restrictions due to the pandemic. Additionally, hailstorms and unseasonal rain destroyed the standing crops like green gram and black gram, where harvesting was delayed due to restriction. The primary survey on farmers in India reported that 24% of the respondents did not harvest due to lockdown-related reasons (price instability and transport cost) [19]. A similar discussion was evident from the present survey, as farmers from northern India reported that harvesting was delayed due to lower prices in the market. Farmers in southern India faced a similar problem in terms of vegetables and fruits. A significant setback was evident in the case of Mango, where harvesting and the pandemic-induced lockdown coincided during the same timeline. Additionally, mango cultivators in southern Indian states were hit drastically due to restricted travel bans, shut down in developed markets (delayed exports), and a shortage of labourers. A significant reduction in the tune of 26% was noted in the arrival of mangoes in the market during 2020–2021 compared to the previous calendar year [20]. Perishable agricultural products were more affected compared to non-perishable goods. Crops such as wheat can be stored, while perishable goods such as vegetables and fruits significantly impacted the pandemic outbreak. Farmers during the interview from all the regions said a significant loss in the cultivation of vegetables. The farmers who cultivate vegetables reported that they were left unharvested in the field due to lower demand, significant fall in the farmgate prices, and lack of market access. The lockdown restricted both interstate and intrastate movement of the vehicles resulting in disruptions in the supply chain of the vegetables and fruits. Further, increased transport charges also played a significant role in the stoppage of vegetables to reach the urban market. Though the government announced few relaxations for the movement for the vegetables in the later stage, ineffective

operations in the vegetable warehouses and the limited procurement from the government caused a significant decline in the arrival of vegetables in the market. Due to low prices and no procurement in the market, farmers dumped their vegetables and fruits on the road [21]. Farmers during our discussion reported that disruption in the supply chain had led to selling the vegetables in the nearby villages, where the market prices were so low that the revenue did not cover the input cost. Furthermore, the export of vegetables and fruits was reduced by 70% in India during March 2020 and May 2021 with increased freight charges by the airline cargo companies [22].

#### *3.1.3 Agriculture and allied activities*

Agricultural allied activities such as horticulture, fishery, forestry, dairy, and floriculture generate additional income for the farming community. As discussed earlier, India is the largest producer and exporter of mango and mango pulp. The food processing industries which process mango were shut down and import was banned by major economies. This created a significant effect on the mango food chain. Similarly, India's milk supply chain, which follows a complex structure with many verticals, was disrupted due to the pandemic outbreak. The procurement by the co-operatives fell due to weak demand for dairy-related products. Moreover, the closure of the restaurants and other businesses (bakery, sweet shops, and tea par-lour) had a significant impact on the dairy industry. Farmers reported that milk was distributed among the neighbors due to weak demand in the village collection center. Farmers indicated their concern about the payment of the loans availed for the dairy business. In most regions of India, farmers avail themselves of financial support from the Self-help groups to initiate dairy farms. This is highly fragmented, where farmers own a minimum of 2–3 cows. This led to a decline in non-farm income from the dairy business and created additional stress for the repayment of the financial support.

Farm laborers who work in construction or small business enterprise in agricultural off-seasons became unemployed due to the lockdown that created an

**Figure 1.** *Pulses WPI.*

*Impact of Covid*-*19 on Agricultural System and Food Prices: The Case of India DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98905*

additional burden on the rural economy. Most of the daily wage laborers reported that the Government financial support was helpful, while few others complained of not getting benefits from the direct benefit transfer scheme initiated by the Government of India. The poultry sector experienced the biggest impact due to the pandemic. The projected estimate shows a loss of INR 22500 crore in the poultry sector [23]. The huge disruption in the farm inputs of poultry was also evidenced and a sharp increase in the prices can be noted due to disruption in the supply chain. Farmers in the telephonic interview stated that rumors about poultry being a source of the spread of coronavirus has declined the prices of the poultry to the

**Figure 2.** *Vegetables WPI.*

**Figure 3.** *Fruits WPI.*

bare minimum in the rural localities. The farmers reported that the whole chicken bird was sold at Rs. 10 (0.14 USD) in the villages. It was observed from the respondents that the small and marginal farmers lost a monthly average income of INR 10000 to 30000.

#### *3.1.4 Pandemic and food prices*

The global food prices of agriculture fell drastically with weak demand [20]. Prices of corn decreased considerably due to a decline in the demand for gasoline [24].

**Figure 4.** *Milk WPI.*

**Figure 5.** *Egg WPI.*

#### *Impact of Covid*-*19 on Agricultural System and Food Prices: The Case of India DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98905*

Similarly, demand and supply fell drastically in the Indian context which led to a fall in the prices of agri-commodities. A decline in mandi prices was evident for most of the products. In most cases, wholesale prices have declined, and retail prices were on an upward trend. This phenomenon of the increased retail price was associated with the imposed restriction and increased transaction cost for the retailers. The daily prices analysis by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), for 22 essential food items indicated that retail food prices rose by 2.3% from March to

**Figure 6.** *Oilseeds WPI.*

**Figure 7.** *Mutton WPI.*

April 13, 2020 [25]. However, on a large-scale price were risen at the end consumer side, farmers saw a steep decline in the farmgate prices. Especially, in the case of vegetables and fruits, which are perishable, the farmgate price declined due to the unavailability of the transport. Farmers from the survey indicated that prices of the vegetables fell more than 50%, where they could not recover the cost of production. Due to the restriction and fewer transport vehicles, the transaction cost increased, which decreased the significant margin for the farmers in

**Figure 8.** *Fish inland WPI.*

**Figure 9.** *Fish marine WPI.*

#### *Impact of Covid*-*19 on Agricultural System and Food Prices: The Case of India DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98905*

vegetables and fruits. The wholesale price index (WPI) showed a rising trend in March and April only for pulses, fruits, milk, and beef due to the procurement by the agriculture marketing board, while in the case of cereals, a decline in WPI and increase in consumer price index (CPI) is noted [20]. This variation in the WPI and CPI was due to disruption in the supply chain and supply-side shocks. The government initiated the necessary movement of the crops from the procurement states and distributed them effectively. The prices of the fruits increased due to

**Figure 10.** *Poultry Chicken.*

**Figure 11.** *Condiments and spices WPI.*

supply chain disruptions, especially, apple and mango. Milk prices were hiked by Rs. 2 to 3 per liter by private dairy organizations [20]. **Figures 1**–**14** presents the Wholesale Price Index (WPI) of thirteen products – Cereals, Pulses, Vegetables, Fruit, Milk, Egg, Oil seeds, Mutton, Condiments and Species, Fish inland, Poultry Chicken, Wheat, and Paddy from January 2019 to April 2021. The WPI of vegetables and eggs fell drastically, where the revival of demand was evidenced post unlocking the lockdown from July 2020. The WPI of the pulses has steadily increased from the time of the pandemic outbreak, i.e., March 2020.

**Figure 12.** *Cereals WPI.*

**Figure 13.** *Paddy WPI.*

*Impact of Covid*-*19 on Agricultural System and Food Prices: The Case of India DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98905*

**Figure 14.** *Wheat WPI.*

#### **4. Review of government assistance during COVID 19 for farmers**

The government relaxed the restrictions imposed due to the pandemic outbreak from April 14, 2020, for the agriculture sector after the first phase of lockdown. Though farming activities were restored in all the states, farmers were unsure about investment decisions due to the unavailability of inputs, price shocks in agro commodities, and liquidity crunch. ICAR (Indian Council of Agriculture Research) issued guidelines for farming activities with physical distance and hygiene standards. The government took several resilient measures to cope up with the current pandemic. Under the public distribution scheme, food grain was freely provided to the families below the poverty line. The scheme was successfully implemented among the states and demonstrated a strong response from the government during the crisis. Nearly 90% of the respondents from the survey indicated that they received food grains free of cost and helped them. Further, the government disbursed nearly Rs. 18253 crores under Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi, each farmer received Rs 6000 per year as minimum income support. Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi was highly recognized among the respondents from the survey. They also indicated that schemes involving Direct Benefit Transfer are beneficial, as they receive money directly to their account. Further, the government announced several measures for the farming community – Rs. 16.3 Lakh-Million package for Agriculture and Allied Sectors as stimulus packages. The fund was allocated to agriculture infrastructure projects at farm-gate and aggregation points. The main aim was to restructure the post-harvesting management infrastructures and maintain an effective value chain. The government also reported that nearly three crore farmers with agricultural loans totalling Rs. 4,22,113 crore availed the benefit of the threemonth loan moratorium announced by the Reserve Bank of India.

To reduce the disruption in the supply chain, the government announced special assistance for the transportation of crops from a surplus area to a deficit area to maintain the availability of food items. The "Kisan Rath" app was launched to connect traders and farmers. The application was developed to facilitate transportation by connecting farmers to traders to sell food grains, especially perishable goods, during the lockdown. The government initiated a special financial package for agri-processing units to strengthen them during the crisis. Kisan Credit Cards (KCC) was issued to provide financial support to farmers at low interest rates. Approximately 25 lakh new KCC beneficiaries were

sanctioned with a loan of Rs 2.5 lakh-Million. Other central agencies also launched rescue measures; for example, the Reserve Bank of India has directed banks to provide crop loans at 2% interest concession for the repayment from the borrowers for the extended period of 31 May 2020. NABARD also extended financial support of Rs. 29500 crores to cooperative banks and RRBs to support the agriculture sector. The government allocated Rs. 40000 crores under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) scheme. MGNREGA is the world's biggest livelihood scheme ensuring the "Right to work" for the rural people. The northern states such as Uttar Pradesh and Bihar saw huge inward migrants due to the suspension of the economic activities among the urban locality. To employ these migrant labourers, the central government announced to allocate a higher proportion of the budgeted money from the MGNREGA to the states with the higher recipient of migrant workers. This would act as additional income for the migrant workers until the economy stabilizes.

#### **5. Conclusion and policy implications**

COVID-19 has plunged the agricultural sector in India into certain vulnerabilities. The findings from the study show that farmers faced operational difficulties in the agriculture system. The disruption in the supply chain induced a significant fall in farmgate prices. Perishable food items, in particular, had a significant negative impact as the restrictions became longer over the months in the second quarter of 2020. Lack of accessibility to selling points of the crops and increased transport rates were the major concern among the farmers. This delay in the sale of agricultural products caused a capital crunch among the farmers to purchase inputs for the upcoming season. The non-availability of the farm inputs compounded this distress among the farming community. The migrant labor increased the burden on the rural livelihoods. In the past, migrant workers supported their families in the rural economy, which was lost due to the subsequent unemployment of these workers in urban areas. The addition of labor in the rural areas has increased in the wages among a few communities and dropped in the wages among a few others.

The lessons from the pandemic can help solve the issues in the agriculture system in India. Market access and better price realization are the long-standing issues in the Indian agriculture sector. Strengthening market access is an immediate policy concern for the governments. Reliable transport and logistics solutions need to be the primary goal to reduce further vulnerabilities in the sector. The government focused on several measures to support the farmers during the crisis. The poor infrastructure in the farm sector needs to be addressed. Being an agriculture-based economy, the cold storage chain and warehouses need to be upgraded, where an efficient cold storage chain network can enhance the market of fresh vegetables and fruits in the international market encouraging exports. Handling the Public Distribution Scheme (PDS) by reducing wastage and proper storage would be highly beneficial. At the same time, extending the financial support that emphasizes agribusiness (cold chain, warehouse, grading and standardization, food processing industries) could make agriculture self resilient. Ensuring employment in the rural areas is an utmost priority, while the MGNREGA needs to be efficiently administered and implemented in the districts with high migrant inflow.

#### **Acknowledgements**

This work is funded by the Indian Council of Social Science Research, Ministry of Education, Government of India, Grant Number (F.No.-02/25/GEN/2017-18/ RP/Major).

*Impact of Covid*-*19 on Agricultural System and Food Prices: The Case of India DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98905*

### **Appendix 1**

#### **Questionnaire**

Farmers during COVID19 Pandemic Lockdown: Fears and perception about their situation in the coming days?


**1. Basic Details.** Name of the Farmer: Social Category: Gen/SC/ST/OBC. Gender: Male/Female. Age: Education. Village: Block: District: Mobile Number: Number of Members in a Family: Primary Income Source: Agriculture/Agriculture Labour/Business/Service/Self Employed. Secondary Income Source: Agriculture/Agriculture Labour/Business/Service/ Self Employed. Annual Family Income: <1 Lakh. Between 1 lakh to 5 lakh >5 Lakh


#### **2. Cropping Details:**

Crop Pattern: Mono/Multiple.


#### **3. Knowledge and Perception on COVID 19.**

Q: Do you know about the Corona Virus Spread in Our Country? (Yes/No/Does not Know).

Q: Are you worried about the Current Pandemic? (Yes/No/Does not Know). If yes, give three reasons for your worry –.


3.

Q: Whether the current Lockdown has an adverse impact on your farming activity? (Yes/No/Does not Know).

Q: If yes, how has it affected? Give three reasons –.

1.

2.

3.

Q. What is the intensity of the effect of the lockdown on your Farming Activity? (Greatly/Moderately/Neutral/No Impact).

Q: Do you feel the decision of lockdown is correct for farmers? (Yes/No).

Q: Are precautionary measures issued by the regulations are followed in your village? (Yes/No).

#### **4. Effect of Lockdown on Agricultural Activities.**

Q: Whether market opening time is overlapping with your farming time? (Yes/No).

Q: Are you in fear to go to the market due to infectious diseases? (Yes/No).

Q: Whether input dealer is charging high price during lock down?

Q: Is there access to agricultural mechanization? (Yes/No).

Q: Are you getting sufficient labour for Farming activities? (yes/No).

Q: Whether labour cost is high during Lockdown? (Yes/No).

Q: Have you started harvesting pulses/cereal (Yes/No).

If No, why not?

Q: Do hail storms and Kala Baisakhi adversely effecting your final crop due to lock down? (Yes/No).

Q: Is there excess harvesting of vegetables but no demand due to Lockdown? (Yes/No).

If yes, what will be your plan to sell them? Please explain.

Q: Whether your crops damaged due to lack of transportation to home? (Yes/No).

Q: Are you facing difficulties with cash in hand for production or labour payment? (Yes/No).

Q: Whether money lenders are charging high interest during Lockdown? (Yes/No).

Q: Whether the harvesting period is getting delayed?

Please explain.

Q: Is there any problem to prepare input seeds for next season? Please explain.

#### **5. Effect on Agribusiness during Lock down.**

Q: where you used to sell your product before lock down? (Local market/ nearest town/ Govt Mandi/Middle man/…).

Q: Where are you selling now your product after lockdown? (Local market/ nearest town/ Govt Mandi/Middle man/……………………).

Q: Is there any changes in the selling price due to lock down? (yes/No).

Q: If yes than what is the price changes? (Increased price/decreased price/

Constant) and by what percentage roughly?

Q: What is the basic problem of selling your product in the market?

a.Not selling at a desirable price

b.not more buyers/ short period of selling time

c.no cold storage to keep the excess product

d.No transport facility to export outside village

e.No government mandi to purchase at desirable rate

Q: What are the Fears of Famers during Lockdown for COVID19?

a.Expecting Increase in Input Price

b.Damage of the perishable product

c.Low price and loss

*Impact of Covid*-*19 on Agricultural System and Food Prices: The Case of India DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98905*

d.Fail to repay the current loan

e.Labour shortage during Harvesting

f. Fail to prepare field for next season

g.Going to loss agricultural labour works

#### **6. Government Aid and support.**

Q: What is the monetary and non-monetary support from Government so far after lockdown?

1.

2.

3.

Q. Are you aware of any schemes that the Government has announced for you after lockdown?

If yes, what are they?

1.

2.

3.

Q: What are the Government Aids provided during Lock down?

**DTI (Direct Transfer of Income in Rs)**

Additional PDS (Public Distribution System) Loan waiver Assured Market Place Govt Sabji Mandi Transport facility Others

### **Appendix 2**

Descriptive Statistics.


Authors Own Creation.

*Rural Health*

#### **Author details**

Pradyot Ranjan Jena1 \*, Rajesh Kalli2 and Purna Chandra Tanti1

1 School of Management, National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Mangalore, Karnataka, India

2 Department of Management Studies, Madanpalle Institute of Technology and Science, Madanpalle, India

\*Address all correspondence to: pradyotjena@nitk.edu.in

© 2021 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

*Impact of Covid*-*19 on Agricultural System and Food Prices: The Case of India DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98905*

#### **References**

[1] Jena Pradyot Ranjan, Majhi R, Kalli R, Managi S, Majhi B. Impact of COVID-19 on GDP of major economies: Application of the artificial neural network forecaster. Economic Analysis and Policy. 2021:69: 324-339.

[2] Deaton BJ, Deaton BJ. Food security and Canada's agricultural system challenged by COVID-19. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2020:1-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ cjag.12227.

[3] Troskie D. Impact of covid-19 on agriculture and food in the western cape. Working document. 2020.

[4] WTO. Export Prohibitions and Restrictions. World Trade Organisation. [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop\_e/ covid19\_e/export\_prohibitions\_ report\_e.pdf. [Accessed: 2021-06-01]

[5] Hobbs JE. Food supply chains during the COVID-19 pandemic. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics.2020:1-6. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1111/cjag.12237.

[6] Richards TJ, Rickard B. COVID-19 impact on fruit and vegetable markets. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2020:1-6. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1111/cjag.12231.

[7] Gray RS. Agriculture, transportation, and the COVID-19 crisis. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2020:1-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ cjag.12235.

[8] Mahendra Dev S, Sengupta R. Covid-19: Impact on the Indian Economy. Working Paper 2020-013.

[9] Barichello R. The COVID-19 Pandemic: Anticipating its Effects on Canada's Agricultural Trade. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics.

2020:219-224. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1111/cjag.12244

[10] Brewin, D. The impact of COVID-19 on the grains and oilseeds sector. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2020:2:185:188. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12239

[11] Hailu, G. Economic thoughts on COVID-19 for Canadian food processors. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 2020:1-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12241

[12] Ker AP. Risk management in Canada's agricultural sector in light of COVID-19. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2020:1-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12232

[13] Richards A, Martin PL. editors Migration, mechanization, and agricultural labor markets in Egypt. In Migration, Mechanization, and Agricultural Labor Markets in Egypt. 2019. DOI: https://doi. org/10.4324/9780429047107.

[14] Khosla S, Jena PR. Can Rural Livelihood Programs Dent Vulnerability to Poverty? Empirical Evidence from an Eastern Indian State, In: Proceedings of the International Seminar on Rural Development in Asia-Pacific Region, NIRDPR, Guwahati, India; August 24-28, 2020; Guwahati

[15] Tanti PC Jena, PR. Adoption of Climate-Smart Technologies in Agriculture: Evidence from an Eastern Indian State. In:31st International Conference of Agricultural Economists (ICAE), 17- 31 August 2021; New Delhi *( forthcoming)*

[16] The Times of India. Shortage of urea troubles farmers hoping to reap a bumper harvest. The Times of India. [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https:// timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/

bengaluru/shortage-of-urea-troublesfarmers-hoping-to-reap-a-bumperharvest/articleshow/77561858.cms. [Accessed: 2021-06-01].

[17] The Indian Express. Farmers complain of urea shortage, state govt says problems in supply. The Indian Express. [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://indianexpress.com/article/ cities/mumbai/farmers-complain-ofurea-shortage-state-govt-saysproblems-in-supply-6506564. [Accessed: 2021-06-01]

[18] The New Indian Express. Farmers struggle with fertilizer shortage; Odisha government remains oblivious. The New Indian Express. [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://www. newindianexpress.com/states/ odisha/2020/aug/17/farmers-strugglewith-fertiliser-shortage-odishagovernment-remainsoblivious-2184364.html. [Accessed: 2021-06-01]

[19] Jaacks Lindsay M, Veluguri D, Serupally R, Roy A, Prabhakaran P, Ramanjaneyulu GV, Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on agricultural production, livelihoods, and food security in India: baseline results of a phone survey. Food security. 2021:1-17.

[20] Ramkumar R. Agriculture and the Covid-19 Pandemic: An Analysis with special reference to India. Review of Agrarian Studies. 2020:10: 2369-2020-1856.

[21] The Hindu. Why do farmers resort to dumping produce? The Hindu. [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/ opinion/why-do-farmers-resort-todumping-produce/article31365453.ece. [Accessed: 2021-06-01].

[22] The Economics Times. Fruit, veggie exports fall 70% during lockdown. The Economic Times.

[Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ news/economy/foreigntrade/ fruitveggieexportsfall70during lockdown/articleshow/75880957. cms?utm\_source= contentofinterest&utm\_medium= text&utm\_campaign=cppst. [Accessed: 2021-06-01].

[23] India Today. Covid-19: With projected losses of Rs 22,500 crore, Indian poultry sector seeks Centre's intervention. India Today. [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://www. indiatoday.in/business/story/covid-19 with-projected-losses-of-rs-22-500 crore-indian-poultry-sector-seekscentre-s-intervent ion-1662872-2020-04-03. [Accessed: 2021-06-01].

[24] Barrons. Corn Prices Could Drop to Their Lowest Levels in More Than a Decade, Hurting Producers. [Internet] Barrons. 2020 Available at: https://www. barrons.com/articles/corn-prices-coulddrop-to-lowest-levels-in-more-than-adecade-51585908001. [Accessed: 2021-06-01]

[25] RBI. Governor's Statement," Reserve Bank of India. [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://www.rbi.org.in/ Scripts/bs\_viewcontent.aspx?Id=3853. [Accessed: 2021-06-01]

Section 10
