Backyard poultry farming in Bareilly district of Uttar Pradesh, India: an analysis

M K Mandal, N Khandekar* and P Khandekar**

Division of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Extension, Faculty of Veterinary Sciences and Animal Husbandry
SKUAST-J, R S Pura, Jammu
*Division of Extension Education, IIHR, Bangalore
**Division of Extension Education, IVRI, Izatnagar
malayjammu@yahoo.com

Abstract

Since time immemorial backyard poultry farming has played an important role to meet the domestic as well as socio-cultural needs of the rural people. However, the traditional poultry farming in villages has suffered in the wake of commercialization in the recent years. Thus, the present study had been conceptualized with the overall objective to search out the existing status of backyard poultry farming and identify the constraints perceived by poultry owners in Bareilly district of Uttar Pradesh, India.

The study was conducted in randomly selected fifteen villages of three sub-regions of Bareilly district of Uttar Pradesh. Data were collected through a structured interview schedule from 240 respondents i.e. 80 each from the three sub-regions.

The analysis of data revealed that respondents were predominantly young, had low level of education, belonged to Muslim religion and were from the general caste category, with medium sized nuclear family. Agricultural labour was the major occupation; they had marginal land and medium livestock holding with more than 6 years of poultry farming experience.

The average flock size was 5 birds and they reared birds in free-range/backyard system with little supplementary feeding. The production level was very low. Natural hatching was the main source of chicks. No systematic care was taken with regard to the diseases and vaccination of the birds was also not carried out in any of the villages surveyed. Direct marketing was prevalent in the study area although middlemen also existed. The major constraints identified were high incidence of poultry diseases, lack of suitable germ-plasm and attack by predators.

Key words: Backyard, constraints, rural poultry

Introduction

In India poultry farming under backyard system is as old as its civilization. Randhawa (1946) reported that number of terracotta have been discovered from Mohenzo-daro and Harappa, which indicated that, the people domesticated number of birds and the domestic fowl (Gallus gallus domesticus) originated in India and its ancestor's, the red jungle fowl (Gallus gallus) is still found in Northern India from Kashmir to Assam and in Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Orissa, Visakhapatnam and parts of Godavari district of Andhra Pradesh. He also reported that the Indus valley people kept the fowl only for sports, and that its breeding for flesh occurred later.

Poultry farming is possible in widely different agro-climatic environment (National Commission on Agriculture 1976), as the fowl possesses marked physiological adaptability. Requirement of small space, low capital investment, quick return from outlay and well distributed turn over throughout the year make poultry farming remunerative in both rural and urban areas. The rearing of poultry provides an excellent opportunity for gainful employment to idle or unemployed members of rural communities. Additionally, chicken meat consumption is a significant protein source which helps to cover the nutritional needs of the rural population.

Backyard poultry farming (BYPF) by and large is a low input or no input venture and is characterized by indigenous night shelter (Berte 1987, Aklobessi 1990, Nkodia 1990, Singh and Johari 1990, Upindi 1990, Zoungrana and Slenders 1992, Dana 1998, Saha 2003), scavenging system (Kabatange and Katule 1989, Kassambara 1989, Musharaf 1989, Andrews 1990, Houadfi 1990, Lul 1990, Mbugua 1990, Okot 1990, Raveloson 1990), with little supplementary feeding (Singh and Johari 1990, Dipeolu et al 1996, Rangnekar and Rangnekar 1996, Dana 1998, Saha 2003), natural hatching of chicks (Singh and Pani 1986, Van Veluw 1987, Saha 2003), poor productivity of birds (AACMC 1984, Rao and Thomas 1984, Balaraman and Kaul 1985, Singh and Pani 1986, Berte 1987, Okada et al 1987, Musharaf 1989, Smith 1990, Abebe 1992, Agbede et al 1995, Rashid et al 1995), local marketing (Rehman 1995, Dana 1998, Saha 2003) and no health care practice (Dana 1998, Saha 2003).

Recently, the traditional poultry farming in villages, which was the primary source of animal protein, and supplementary income for more than 50 percent of the population of this country, has suffered in the wake of commercialization Singh(2000). One must remember that the cheapest egg and poultry is one which is produced in the backyard or semi-scavenging system. Consequently, due to the changing rural scenario BYPF has taken a back seat and unless we lay down a sound strategy, it would be impossible to revive this age old practice which is an important tool for nutritional security. Therefore, an appropriate strategy is necessary in BYPF for hitting two birds with one stone. Firstly, this would help alleviate the nutritional status of the rural people and secondly, we could have our stress-free, harmful residue free birds.

Every country is unique in itself, and so is the case of India. Extension principle has always highlighted the fact that every region and community is different from others. Lack of understanding of village chicken production system makes it difficult to design and implement poultry based development programme that benefit rural people (Gueye 1997, Pedersen 2002). Therefore, the strategy for rural Indian has to be worked out critically which can be modified and improved to fit the different regions of our country.

In view of the above, the present study was an attempt to search out the existing status of backyard poultry farming and identify the constraints perceived by poultry owners in Bareilly district of Uttar Pradesh, India.

Materials and methods

Locale of the study

The District: Bareilly

The study was conducted in three Sub-regions of Bareilly district of Uttar Pradesh, India. Bareilly is one of the western Tarai districts of the state of Uttar Pradesh. Geographically, it is situated between latitude 28^o 10' N and 28^o 54'N and longitude 78^o 58'E and 79^o 47'E.

The sub-regions

According to the soil and geographical condition the Bareilly district has been divided into three sub-regions, viz., North, Middle and South.

Sub-region-I

The sub-region-I is situated in the north and north-east of the district covering Bhadpura, Shergarh, Damkhoda, Baheri, Nawabganj and Bhojipura blocks. Being adjacent to the hill district of Nainital/Udhamsingh Nagar, the climate of the sub-region is colder and humid with very fertile land (Table 1).

Sub-Region-II

The sub-region-II is situated in the centre of the district covering Bhojipura, Bithri-Chainpur, Kyara, Fatehganj (West) and Meerganj blocks. The  climate is less colder and the land is plain. The soil is largely loamy suitable for all crops. The water table is high and the land is fully irrigated (Table 2).

Sub-Region-III

The sub-region-III is situated in the south and south-east part of the district covering Ramnagar, Alampur-Jafrabad, Majhgaon, Faridpur and Bhuta blocks. The first three blocks are situated in the south of Ramganga river, while the later two on the north-east of the river. The soil is largely loamy and alluvial and suitable for all crops (Table 3).

Sampling procedure

Selection of villages

Five villages were selected randomly from each sub-region of Bareilly district. Thus, a total of 15 villages were selected for the study.

Selection of respondents

Initially, an exhaustive list of poultry owners was prepared from the selected villages where rural poultry farming is being practiced. Then from each sub-region 80 poultry owners were selected on the basis of random proportionate sampling (RPS) method. Thus, the final sample comprised of 15 villages and 240 respondents. The name of the selected villages and distribution of respondents is presented in Table 4

Data collection and analysis

The process of data collection essentially involves the ways and means of approaching and gaining access to different sources of information in order to fulfill the objective of the study. The process also involves rapport building with local people, which enables them to express themselves and generate information reliably and in a relaxed atmosphere.

Keeping in view the objectives of the study, a structured interview schedule was developed for the purpose of data collection. The schedule was initially pre-tested in the actual field situation at a place other than the locale of the present study. On the basis of experience gained through pre-testing appropriate modifications were made accordingly in the construction and sequence of questions. In order to get logical interpretation, the data were compiled, tabulated and subjected to appropriate statistical analysis methods like frequency distribution, percentage, mean and standard deviation.

Results and discussion

Profile of respondents

Age

The backyard poultry owners according to their age were categorized into three groups, i.e., young, middle and old. The data presented in Table 5 reveals that majority of the poultry owners (63.75%) belonged to young age group, while 19.58 per cent poultry owners were from middle age group and 16.67 per cent hailed from the old age group.

The result of the present study indicates that majority of the respondents' belonged to young age group. Saha (2003) also reported similar findings. The fact that backyard poultry farmers are mostly from the young age group is conducive to the requirement, since, the younger age group respondents will be more malleable to change. Somasekharan (1980) opined that the scientific orientation of farmers is one of the most important socio-psychological factors influencing adoption of dairy husbandry technologies and it is but obvious that in today's world of modernization the younger generation will obviously have more scientific orientation and consequently, adopt more number of technologies

Education

Education is one of the important factors which accelerates growth and development of any enterprise. Education results in changes in overall behaviour, since, it is the process of imparting or acquiring knowledge and habit through instruction or study. It can be observed from the Table 5 that majority of the poultry owners (47.50%) were illiterate, followed by 25.83 per cent who could read and write and 16.67 per cent were in primary category. Only 6.25 per cent respondents were educated upto middle and mere 3.75 per cent poultry owners were educated above high school level.

It is indicated from the present study that majority of the backyard poultry farmers have a low level of education. Therefore, in order to popularize the BYPF there is a need for making more efforts to motivate the respondents to adopt the newer technologies. The gap in the knowledge has to be bridged through providing training.

Religion

Religion is the human response to the apprehension of something of power which is supernatural and supersensory. The religious beliefs, forms of worship, objects of worship, and ceremonies of the people can influence any type of farming system. A perusal of Table 5 shows that majority of the poultry owners (55%) belonged to Muslim religion, followed by 45 per cent of the respondents belonging to Hindu religion. None of the poultry owner belonged to Christian or Sikh religion.

Caste

The findings in the Table 5 shows that majority of the respondents (57.50%) belonged to general caste, followed by 21.67 per cent from schedule caste and 12.50 per cent from schedule tribe category. Only 8.33 per cent poultry owners belonged to other backward caste.

The result shows that the BYPF was prevalent in Muslim households and among the schedule caste, schedule tribe and other backward caste in the Hindu households. The findings reiterate the fact that poultry farming is confined to only a section of the society. This brings to light the orthodox value system of our country which impedes the progress of mankind in general and of rural people in particular. As pointed out by Dr. M S Swaminathan, India now needs to have a campaign for achieving nutritional security and if the rural population stick to the old tradition of caste related occupation this would most definitely hamper the progress.

Family size

The role of the poultry owners in a family largely depends on the type and size of the family. The time available with the members of the household largely depends on the number of members as well as the type of family. It is clear from the Table 5 that majority of the respondents (73.75%) had a medium family size. About 15.83 per cent poultry owners had small family size and only 10.42 per cent fell in the category of large family size.

Family type

Table 5 reveals that majority of the poultry owners (92.92%) belonged to nuclear family, whereas, only 7.08 per cent belonged to joint family. It is evident from the findings of the study that majority of the respondents had a medium family size and were from the nuclear family, which is similar to the findings of Saha (2003). In such circumstances, the women folk of the household can easily take up BYPF as it is an enterprise with low demand on time and labour.

Occupation

A cursory look at Table 5 indicates that majority of the poultry owners (52.92%) were labourer. Agriculture provided occupational livelihood to 22.50 per cent poultry owners, whereas, 14.58 per cent respondents earned through animal husbandry. Service and business provided occupational livelihood to 2.92 and 7.08 per cent families, respectively.

The findings of the study further shows that backyard poultry farming was found to be a subsidiary occupation for all the respondents. The findings are in consonance with the findings of Rehman (1995), Swain and Mohanty (1996), Iqbaluddin (1998), Panda and Nanda (2000) and Saha (2003). Thus, this enterprise could prove to be an excellent source of income during the lean periods. It could provide gainful employment to the family members and utilize the barren and fallow land available with the farmers. In most of the cases in the present study, the families had more than one occupation for their source of income. The earnings from all sources of income were, however, pooled in the family.

Land holding

Indian agriculture is an economic symbiosis of crop and livestock production and cattle is its foundation. Animal husbandry has also been considered to be an excellent subsidiary occupation for the small and marginal farmers and landless labourers of rural India. A perusal of Table 5 points out that 27.08 per cent of the poultry owners had no land. The majority of the respondents (47.92%) possessed less than 1 hectare of land and belonged to marginal farmers' category while 20 per cent of the families had (1-2) hectare of land and fell in the small farmers' category. Only 5 per cent poultry owners were having more than 2 hectare of land and belonged to large farmers' category.

Herd size

The rural poultry owners were categorized according to their herd size into three groups, viz., small, medium and large. The findings in the Table 5 reveals that majority of the poultry owners (70%) had medium herd size, followed by 17.5 and 12.5 per cent respondents with small and large herd size, respectively. Fakhruddin (1996) also pointed out that livestock rearing is a multifarious activity particularly in rural areas, providing off-season work with steady income round the year. Livestock are the corner stone of rural prosperity and in general are important for the people's wealth, health, enjoyment, amusement and general happiness. By and large, the rural people have few bovines which bring in additional income and is as well a status symbol. The study shows that all the respondents kept some livestock and majority of them had a medium herd size. Since, diversification is the need of the hour, thus, given the present scenario rural poultry can offer an excellent avenue of employment.

Information source utilization

The different sources of information influence the knowledge, attitude and perceptions of the individual towards any farming system. The present research findings amply show the role of various sources for popularizing the BYPF. The rank given by rural poultry owners to the different sources of information utilized is presented in Table 6.

The Table indicates that majority of the respondents (97.92%) gave first preference to neighbours, followed by feriwala (85.42%), relatives (40.42%), veterinary doctors (13.33%), radio (7.08%), television (6.25%) and newspaper (5.00%). The findings of the present study were corresponded to the finding of Dana (1998). Therefore, in case of BYPF the role of middlemen (Feriwala/village vendors) is an important one. Firstly, since BYPF is generally practiced by the resource poor farmers who by and large belong to lower income strata and seemingly, cannot afford the transportation cost. Secondly, each farmer rears (4-5) birds on an average and thus, they do not seek the proper germ-plasm outside the village and thirdly, it is the women folk who are involved in BYPF and hence, it becomes imperative that the produce reaches their doorstep as she hardly ever steps out of the village. The middlemen who bring birds on a cycle are sort after; to provide the villagers the much needed birds. Hence, it can be concluded from the present study that the role of feriwala should be reinforced rather than scorned and ignored.

General Information about backyard poultry farming

Poultry farming experience

A cursory look at Table 7 shows that majority of the poultry owners (47.92%) had been rearing poultry for more than 6 years, followed by 32.50 per cent and 13.33 per cent with 5-6 years and 3-4 years of poultry farming experience, respectively.

Only 6.25 per cent poultry owners replied that they had been rearing poultry for less than 3 years. These findings are in consonance with the findings of Saha (2003) who reported similar findings. It is therefore, evident that, poultry farming under the backyard system also follows a cyclic trend like the intensive system. There is a general tendency to discontinue backyard poultry farming (BYPF) whenever heavy losses are incurred. However, after a gap of time people tend to forget the past and once again plunge into the enterprise. Thus, the findings of the present study can be suitably explained as a trend under phenomenon.

Training

All the poultry owners did not receive any training in BYPF. The poor production of village birds is a fact which reflects the poor knowledge of the rural people. This needs to be rectified.

Flock size

The study showed that all the respondents reared coloured non-descript birds, which are readily available at their doorstep. The data presented in Table 7 indicates that majority of the respondents (72.92%) had a medium flock size, followed by 16.67 per cent with a large flock size. Only 10.41 per cent poultry owners had a small flock size. The average flock size reported in the study area was 4.69 birds which are contrary to the findings of Dana (1998), Panda and Nanda (2000) and Saha (2003). This, However is justified as the population density in the villages of Uttar Pradesh is much more as compared to other states. Moreover, the households in general do not have kitchen gardens since they are concentrated at one place. It has been reported by Singh (2000) that the number of birds to be kept in the backyard system should be decided on the basis of the location of the house with specific reference to the availability of scavenging materials in the vicinity of the house.

Housing

Systems of poultry rearing

A perusal of the Table 8 shows that all the poultry owners reared the birds in backyard/free-range system. In this system, the birds receive housing only in the form of night shelter and they are allowed to scavenge by themselves in the surroundings during day time. None of the respondent followed the semi-intensive or intensive system of poultry farming.

Night shelter

Although, majority of the poultry owners were rearing the birds in backyard/free-range system but they made necessary arrangement for night shelter of the birds to protect them from predators which is similar to the findings of Berte (1987), Aklobessi (1990), Dana (1998) and Saha (2003). It can be seen from the Table 8 that majority of the poultry owners (97.50%) constructed separated house for birds, whereas, only 2.50 per cent respondents reported that birds shared the same house with the owner.

Type of poultry houses

It is clear from Table 8 that majority of the poultry owners (89.58%) kept the birds in kachha house prepared by using locally available materials viz., wood, mud, broken bricks, tiles, wire net, whereas, 10.42 per cent respondent kept the birds in pucca house. Few respondents were also housed the chicks separately in order to avoid huddling and consequent death. The average length, breath and height of the poultry house were 4ft., 3.5ft and 2.5, respectively. Such houses are easy to clean and facilitate frequent removal of droppings thus reducing susceptibility to diseases and parasites. Katie (1990) opined that proper housing must not only provide an environment that moderates environmental impact but must provide adequate ventilation for birds to lay eggs, as well as to feed and sleep in comfort and security. Thus, construction of proper housing using cheap, durable, locally available resources and skills can go along way in improving village chicken production (Kusina and Kusina 1999).

Litter materials

A perusal of Table 8 shows that majority of the respondents (93.75%) did not provide any litter material for their birds, whereas, only 6.25 per cent poultry owners provided litter material.

Kinds of litter material

The respondents who did use litter material, all the respondents used wheat bhusa, however, 86.67 per cent poultry owners also used rice husk. About 80.00 per cent respondents additionally used straw and 20.00 percent poultry owners used dry leaves, gunny bags as litter material. The respondents reported that, they managed the litter by stirring it at regular intervals and the wet litter if any was removed and replaced by new dry litter. Nobody used disinfectants for cleaning coops.

Feeding

Feeding materials for scavenging

All the poultry owners reared the birds in backyard / free-range system. Under this system, they released the birds early in the morning and left the birds for scavenging in the surroundings of the house, village alleys, gardens, fields etc. from where they fulfill their requirement of feed. During scavenging, the birds generally fed on kitchen waste, earthworms, grasshoppers, ants green grasses, leafy vegetables, seeds etc. In addition to scavenging, all the poultry owners offered a handful of broken wheat rice bajra, maize etc.to their birds. These findings are similar to the findings of Singh and Johari (1990), Sonaiya (1990), Bessei (1993), Dana (1998) and Saha (2003).

Watering system

The source of drinking water was the open drain and stagnant water which are in consonance with the findings of Okot (1990), Sall (1990), Dana (1998) and Saha (2003). However, all the poultry owners provided water to birds but its frequency varied from season to season. During summer, they supplied water to birds 3-4 times/day, while in winter it was provided only 1-2 times/ day in a container kept in courtyard.

Breeding and Production

Source of chicks

It can be seen from the Table 9 that, all the respondents get chicks by natural hatching at home. Dana (1998) and Saha (2003) in unison have reported the similar findings. About 40 per cent of the respondents also purchased chicks from feriwala and only 10 per cent of the poultry owners purchased from Govt. hatcheries.

Natural hatching

All the poultry owners reported that natural hatching was the main source of chicks where desi broody hens were used as natural incubator. Housewives were engaged for caring of broody hens by providing them nesting place, food and water till hatching. The nesting place was generally located in isolated dark corner of the house to avoid any disturbance. It is provided with sufficient litter and bedding material. It was further reported that, generally (8-10) eggs were set under each broody hen and after 21 days, chicks were hatched out. House wives claimed hatchability of 60-65 per cent. After hatching, the chicks were generally removed on the second or third day from the broody hens and allowed to scavenge with their mother.

Egg production

A perusal of Table 10 shows the production performance of non-descript flock. The birds lay eggs in clutches. The 'clutch' is the period of successive days on which the eggs are laid without any break. Each clutch is followed by rest period, varying from one to more than one day.

The average age at first laying was 7.6 months. The weight of eggs ranged from 35 to 40 gm. All the poultry farmers reported that the average egg production per hen per year was 50, which is similar to the findings of Dipeolu et al (1996), Panda and Nanda (2000) and Dana (1998). The average body weight and age at the time of disposal of bird was (1.5-2) kg and (70-80) weeks, respectively. Buldgen et al (1992) suggested that in addition to genetic effects, this low production could be improved and doubled without any detrimental effect on hatchability through rational feeding. In general, well-fed chicken have high growth rates and are very fertile and less prone to diseases and parasites (Dessie and Ogle 1996).

Health Care

Treatment of birds

The rural poultry owners were not much bothered about diseases aspect of the birds, Table 11 clearly shows that, all the respondents treated their sick birds by themselves, while; only 4.58 and 1.67 per cent consulted ojha (local expert) and veterinary doctor, respectively.

Diseases of birds

The study revealed that mortality rate in desi birds due to Ranikhet disease was highest, followed by Fowl pox, Coccidiosis, respiratory problems and other miscellaneous diseases, which corresponds with the findings of Mohanty (1987), Horst (1988), Dana (1998) and Saha (2003).The study also shows that, the death rate was high in chicks followed by growers and adult birds and diseases contributed markedly to high flock mortalities recorded during rainy season. These results are in agreement with reports from other developing countries(Buldgen et al 1992, Kitalyi 1998, Wilson1979, Minga et al 1989). Dessie and Ogle (1996) recommended that diseases spread faster in large flocks compared to smaller flocks. High disease levels were probably due to exposure of chickens to the natural environment, interaction of different entities, within and among flock contacts during scavenging, uncontrolled introduction of new stocks, contacts through exchange or sale of live chickens or movement between households and villages(Mapiye and Sibanda 2005)

Vaccination of birds

All the poultry owners did not know the importance of vaccination and had never vaccinated their birds.

Marketing

Marketing of eggs and birds

The findings in Table 12 reveals that majority of the poultry owners(85%) did not sell the eggs and used them for domestic consumption, whereas, only 15 per cent respondents sold the surplus eggs. However, with regard to selling of birds' majority of the poultry owners (90%) sold birds and only 10 per cent respondents did not sell birds.

Selling price of eggs and birds

The average selling price of desi eggs was Rs.2.75 per egg, whereas, in case of birds the average selling price was Rs.120 when it attained a body weight of about (1.5-2)kg. All the poultry owners reported that, the price of eggs and birds varied according to season and religious festivals (Holy, Moharrum etc). Consistent to the findings of Rangnekar and Rangnekar (1996), Dana (1998) and Saha (2003) it is apparent that desi birds or look alike of desi birds definitely fetch more prices both for eggs as well as meat.

Marketing channels of eggs and birds

The data presented in the Table 13 clearly shows that majority of the poultry owners (88.89%) marketed the eggs at own home, followed by consumers' doorstep (69.44%) and village shopkeepers (55.56%). Only, 8.33 per cent and 5.56 poultry owners stated that they sold the eggs to feriwala and at village market, respectively.

An almost similar picture can be seen in marketing channels of birds (Table 14), where, majority of the poultry owners (94.41%) sold birds at home, followed by consumers' doorstep (59.26%), village shopkeepers (55.09%), feriwala (4.17%) and village market (3.70%).

Constraints in rural poultry farming

The constraints as perceived by the rural poultry owners were recorded in the schedule prepared for the purpose of the study. The rank position of the constraints was decided on the basis of frequency distribution against each constraint.

A cursory look at Table 15 reveals that mortality due to high incidence of disease was the major constraint which was reported by all the respondents, followed by, lack of suitable germ-plasm (91.25%), attack of predators (86.67%), hatching mortality (75.00%), lack of financial support (67.50%) and high cost of inputs/chicks (54.56%).

Inadequate knowledge, shortage of space, complaints by neighbourers and hygiene menace was also reported as constraints by 19.17, 18.75, 19.58 and 24.17 per cent of the poultry owners, respectively.These findings are in consonance with the findings of Singh (1994), Sasaki (1996), Alexander (1998), Dana (1998) and Saha (2003). In order to overcome the constraints there is a need for creating awareness, providing knowledge and proper planning and implementation of strategies for backyard poultry farming.

Conclusion

References

Abebe H 1992 Terminal Report on the comparative evaluation of native chicken in the Harare administrative region and their crosses with the single White Leghorn. Mimeographed Report, Alemaya University of Agriculture, pp. 22.

Agbede G B, Teguia A and Manjeli Y 1995 Survey on traditional poultry production in Cameroon. Tropicultura, 13(1): 22-24.

Aklobessi K K 1990 Smallholder rural poultry production in Togo. In: CTA Seminar Proceedings, Smallholder Rural Poultry Production, Thessaloniki, Greece, 2: 237-242.

Alexander D J 1998 Historical aspect. In: Newcastle disease (Ed. Alexander, D.J.) Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp. 1-10.

Andrews P 1990 Rural poultry development in the Gambia. In: CTA Seminar Proceedings, Smallholder Rural Poultry Production, Thessaloniki, Greece, 2: 81-85.

Australian Agricultural Consulting and Management Company (AACMC) 1984 Livestock Sub-sector Review, Volume 1, Annexure 3.

Balaraman S and Kaul P N 1985 Adoption of improved practices by traditional fisherman in Kerala. Indian Journal of Extension Education, 21(3 and 4): 80-88.

Berte D 1987 L'aviculture au Burkina Faso: epidémiologie et prophylaxie des maladies infectieuses aviaires majeures: bilan et perspectives. Thèse E.I.S.M.V. No. 4, Dakar, Sénégal.

Bessei W 1993 Lessons from field experience on the development of poultry production. Strategies for sustainable animal agriculture in developing countries. Proceedings of the FAO expert consultation, Rome, Italy, 10-14 December 1990. http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/T0582E/T0582E25.htm

Buldgen A, Detimmerman F, Sall B and Compère R 1992 Etude des paramètres démogrpahiques et zootechniques de la poule locale du bassin arachidier sénégalais. Revue d'élevage et de médecine vétérinaire des pays tropicaux, 45(3-4):341-347.

Dana S S 1998 Animal husbandry practices among Santal and Lodha tribes of Medinipur district of West Bengal. Ph.D. Thesis, Division of Extension Education, IVRI, Izatnagar.

Dessie T and Ogle B 1996 Studies on poultry production systems in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, MSc thesis, department of Animal Nutrition and management.

Dipeolu M A, Eruvbetine D and Williams T J 1996 Indigenous chicken rearing under village conditions. International Journal of Animal Sciences, 11(1): 63-67.

Fakhruddin 1996 The livestock and poultry wealth. NBS Publishers and Distributors, Bikaner.

Gueye E E 1997 Diseases in village chickens: control through ethno-veterinary medicines. ILEIA Newsletter, 13: 20-21.

Horst P 1988 Native fowl as reservoir for genomes and major genes with direct and indirect effects on productive adaptability. Proceedings of XVIII World's Poultry Congress. Nagoya, Japan, pp. 99-105.

Houadfi M 1990 Rapport sur la production avicole et problèmes liés aux élevages traditionnels au Maroc. In: CTA Seminar Proceedings, Smallholder Rural Poultry Production, Thessaloniki, Greece, 2: 161-171.

Iqbaluddin 1998 Poultry production through rural development. Scientific proceedings of second Pan Commonwealth Veterinary Conference, Volume 1, Bangalore, India.

Kabatange M A and Katule A M 1989 Rural poultry production systems in Tanzania. In: Proceedings of an International Workshop on Rural Poultry Development in Africa (Sonaiya E B editor), 13-16 November 1989, Ile-Ife, Nigeria, pp. 171-176.

Kassambara I 1989 La production avicole au Mali : problemes et perspectives : In: Proceedings of an International Workshop on Rural Poultry Development in Africa (Sonaiya E B editor), 13-16 November 1989, Ile-Ife, Nigeria, pp. 149-150.

Katie T 1990 Free ranging village chicken, Farming Press Books. Ipswich, UK

Kitalyi A J 1998 Village chicken production system in rural Africa; household food security and gender issues. FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/W8989E/W8989E00.htm#TOC

Kusina J F and Kusina N T 1999 Feasibility study of agricultural and household activities as they relate ti livestock production in Guruve District of Mashonaland central province with emphasis on village chicken production . Household Agricultural Support Programme Report, Harare, Zimbabwe.

Lul S A 1990 Smallholder rural poultry production in the Somalia Democratic Republic. In: CTA Seminar Proceedings, Smallholder Rural Poultry Production, Thessaloniki, Greece, 2: 207-214.

Mapiye C and Sibanda S 2005 Constraints and opportunities of village chicken production systems in the small holder sector of Rushinga district of Zimbabwe. Livestock research for Rural Development 17(10) 2005 http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd17/10/mapi17115.htm

Mbugua P N 1990 Rural small-holder poultry production in Kenya. In: CTA Seminar Procedings, Smallholder Rural Poultry Production, Thessaloniki, Greece, 2: 119-131

Minga U M, Katule A, Maeda T and Musasa J 1989 Potential and problems of the traditional chicken industry in Tanzania. In proceeding of the 7^th Tanzania Veterinary Association Scientific Conference, p. 207-215.

Mohanty G 1987 Poultry health programme for rural poultry development. Paper presented at the FAO expert consultation on rural poultry development in Asia, Dhaka, 23-28 March 1987, cited by Bessei 1988. ????

Musharaf N A 1989 Rural poultry production in Sudan. In: Proceedings of an International Workshop on Rural Poultry Development in Africa (Sonaiya E.B editor), 13-16 November 1989, Ile-Ife, Nigeria, pp. 160-165.

National Commission on Agriculture 1976 Report Government of India. Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, New Delhi, Part VII (Animal Husbandry).

Nkodia E 1990 Situation de I'élevage rural des volailles par les petits fermiers en République Populaire du Congo. In: CTA Seminar Proceedings, Smallholder Rural Poultry Production, Thesaloniki, Greece, 2: 71-77.

Okada I, Maeda Y, Ota K, Namikawa T, Amano T and Kurosawa Y 1987 Genetical studies on breed difference of the native chickens in Bangladesh. In: Genetic Studies on Breed Difference of the Native Domestic Animal in Bangladesh, Part, 2, Hiroshima University, pp. 11-26.

Okot M W 1990 A cooperative approach to small-holder poultry production in Uganda. In: CTA Seminar Proceedings, Smallholder Rural Poultry Production, Thessaloniki, Greece, 2: 249-253.

Panda B K and Nanda S K 2000 Some observation on tribal poultry keeping in Orissa state. Paper presented in XX annual conference and symposium of Indian Poultry Science Association, 'Challenges to Poultry Industry in the New Millennium', 12-14 October, Chennai, pp. 188.

Pedersen C V 2002 Production of semi-scavenging chickens in Zimbabwe, Ph D Thesis, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark

Randhawa M S 1946 Role of domesticated animals in Indian history. Science and Culture, Volume XII, No. 1.

Rangnekar D and Rangnekar S 1996 Traditional poultry production system - A need for fresh look from rural development perspective. XX World's Poultry Congress, New Delhi, 2-5 Sept., pp. 405-408.

Rao G V and Thomas P C 1984 The breed characteristics of Kadaknath breed of indigenous chicken. Avian Research, 68(1 and 2): 55-57.

Rashid N, Barua A and Bulbul S M 1995 A study on the performance of Khaki Campbell, Desi and Khaki, Campbell X Desi ducks with and without extra feeding under rural conditon of Bangladesh. Asian-Australiasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 8: 375-378.

Raveloson C 1990 Situation et contraintes de I'aviculture villageoise à Madagascar In: CTA Seminar Proceedings, Smallholder Rural Poultry Produciton, Thessaloniki, Greece, 2: 135-138.

Rehman S 1995 A study of social and economic aspects of livestock owning Gujjar and Bakarwal tribe of Jammu and Kashmir. Ph.D. Thesis, Division of Extension Education, IVRI, Izatnagar.

Saha D 2003 Status of rural poultry production in North 24 Parganas district of West Bengal. M.V.Sc. Thesis, Division of Extension Education, IVRI, Izatnagar.

Sall B 1990 Contribution à l'étude des possibilités d'amélioration de la production en aviculture traditionnelle: mesure du potentiel de la race locale et des produits d'un croisement améliorateur. Travail de fin d'Etudes d'Ingenieur Agronome, INDR, Thies,Sénégal.

Sasaki M 1996 Policies and strategies of rural poultry development with particular references to Asian developing countries. In: Proceedings of XX World's Poultry Congress, Vol. III, New Delhi, 2-5 September 1996.

Singh H 1994 Prospects for broiler integration. In: Indian poultry industry year book 1994 (editor) Gupta, S.K. Bata Barka Nath Printers, New Delhi, pp. 221-225.

Singh D P 2000 Thrills and challenges for backyard poultry production. In: Proceedings of recent advances in rural poultry farming, October 7-16, CARI, Izatnagar.

Singh D P and Johari D C 1990 Kadaknath the native fowl needs to be conserved. Indian Farming, March 1990, pp. 29-32.

Singh DP and Pani P K 1986 Aseel's background and foreground. Poultry Guide, Feb. 1986, pp. 53-60.

Smith A J 1990 Poultry - Tropical Agriculturist Series. CTA, Macmillan Publishers, London, pp. 179-184.

Somasekharan A P 1980 Factors influencing adoption of selected animal husbandry practices by milk producers. M.V.Sc. Thesis, Department of Extension, Trichur, Kerala.

Sonaiya E B 1990 Poultry husbandry in small rural farms. Entwicklung-landicher Raumn, 4: 3-6.

Swain P and Mohanty T 1996 Poultry farming: A means for self-employment. Poultry Guide, 33(12): 71-73.

Upindi B G 1990 Smallholder rural poultry production in Malawi, In: CTA Seminar Proceedings, Smallholder Rural Poultry Production, Thessaloniki, Greece, 2: 141-146.

van Veluw K 1987 Traditional poultry keeping in Northern Ghana ILEIA Newsletter 3:12-13.

Wilson R T 1979 Studies on the livestock of Southern Darfur, Sudan. VII: Production of poultry under simulated traditional conditions. Tropical Animal Health Production, 11:143-150

Zoungrana B and Slenders G 1992 Burkina Faso: poultry in the backyard. ILEIA Newsletter, 8: 17.

Received 29 March 2006; Accepted 15 April 2006; Published 3 August 2006

Go to top