Training impact on poultry farmers of South Andaman Islands and comparative performance evaluation of pure and cross breeds of Nicobari fowl

N C Choudhuri*,* , G Paul*, A Kundu**, M S Kundu**, R N Chatterjee** and S Chand**

* Section of Environmental Physiology, Department of Physiology, University of Kalyani, Kalyani -741235, West Bengal, India
gpaul.kalyani@rediffmail.com
** Division of Animal Science, Central Agricultural Research Institute, Port Blair, Andaman

Abstract

The present study was undertaken to evaluate the cross Nicobari fowl under backyard system of management and training impact on trained poultry farmers of South Andaman Islands. A total of 465 farmers and farm women were given practical training for poultry farming practices during the year 2006 to 2009. Out of 465 farmers and farm women, only 247 farmers adopted the backyard poultry farming practices. Average rate of adoption was 53.1%.  A total of 190 Black Nicobari, 130  White Nicobari grower bird,  446 Nishibari birds, 542 Nicorock bird and 3000 Vanaraja chicks were supplied at the age of 8 week of age to the trained farmers in different villages for rearing under backyard system for enhancement of the family income. Out of these birds a sample of 55 Black Nicobari, 84 White Nicobari, 55 Nishibari, 124 Nicorock and 64 Vanaraja grower birds were utilized for the present study.

The results revealed lower body weight at 8^th week age in the present study compared to the earlier literature report. However, higher body weight at maturity recorded in the present study may be due to cross breeding with Black rock bird. The earliest maturity was observed in Nishibari bird (179 days) followed by White Nicobari (183) and Black Nicobari (186), but Nicorock matured late (189) among all the genetic groups. This might be due to genetic acquisition as a result of crossing. The annual egg production under backyard system was 153 (in number) for White Nicobari, 146 for Black Nicobari, 142 for Nicorock and 164 for Nishibari bird. For evaluation of growth and production traits under intensive condition a study was conducted.  Fifty six Nicorock, twenty five Nishibari, thirty nine White Nicobari and fifty Black Nicobari birds were studied for measurement of their growth and production traits under intensive deep litter management system. The Growth traits measured were body weight (g) at day old, 4^th, 8^th and 20^th week of age and weight at maturity. Age at first egg (days), annual egg production (number) and mortality (percent) at growing stage and laying stage were also measured. Significantly difference was observed in body weight in 20^th week of age for White Nicobari, Nishibari and Black Nicobari, but Nicorock bird showed higher body weight among the genetic stock studied. The weight at sexual maturity (WASM) also differed significantly and the highest WASM was observed in Nicorock (1382 ±14.31gm) followed by Nishibari, Black Nicobari and White Nicobari respectively.  As a result of impact of training the average rate of adoption of poultry farming from the year 2006 to 2009 was 53.11%.  The survey result revealed that normally the flock size ranged between 5to 20 and also the result revealed that house wife (30%) seemed to be responsible for family poultry production right from rearing of chicks to sale of eggs followed by the cultivars (26%).

Keywords: back yard, deep litter, Nicorock, Nishibari, Vanaraja

Introduction

Poultry farming in India in the present decades have made a remarkable progress among the commercial poultry farmers. It achieved 4^th in egg production and 18^th in broiler production in the world (Singh and Jilani 2005). This achievement was due to tremendous efforts of research on breeding, feeding, housing management and disease prevention. Layer and broiler production under modern technologies need high expenditure which is very difficult to adopt for the rural farmers of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Few resource rich farmers are involved in this venture. Some rural youth also running their farm and earning a handsome amount with contractual basis and solely depend upon the resource rich farmer. Hence, another way to meet out the increasing demand of egg and chicken in rural areas and to boost up the economic condition of the farmer is to adopt backyard poultry farming utilizing suitable locally available adaptable poultry birds. However, quite a good number of people are keeping birds in their backyard to meet the family demand but the birds they generally keep are indigenous, nondescript, genetically poor and uneconomic.      

In Andaman and Nicobar Islands total poultry population is 6.14 lacs out of which 1.27 lacs belong to improved varieties (Kundu 2008). There is a shortage of egg and chicken in this Island though very large population of birds is available. Due to psychological reason as well as texture and color of yolk of the egg the rural people prefer desi brown color egg. The indigenous birds are also ecofriendly, easy to manage and lives on locally available feed resources and kitchen waste. The price of egg and chicken also fetch double than the eggs and meat of exotic breed. About 89% of rural livestock households rear poultry and the average number per household is 6.8 (Selvam 2004).  For rural women it is an important source of cash income (Saleque and Mustafa 2003).  Scavenging poultry birds normally maintained by women, sometimes contribute as much as 80 percent of annual income to households (Anon 2001). 

Considering the higher feed cost of the commercial layer farming, backyard farming with poultry breeds of relatively better egg production capability and disease tolerant was found to be more economically viable option for the farmers in these islands.

Nicobari fowl an endangered indigenous poultry germplasm available in AandN group of Islands produces about 128-142 eggs/annum under free range condition and attained a body weight of 1392 gm in 184 days (Ahlawat et al 2001).

Therefore it was hypothesized that rearing of improved Nicobari fowl and its crosses under backyard farming will improve the nutritional and socio economic status of the farming community through higher egg production and profitability. Recently Vanaraja birds have also been introduced in these islands for rearing under backyard system.

Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) survey revealed several constraints faced by the poultry farmer of this Island, viz. non availability of suitable breed of poultry for backyard and sudden mortality of the local birds etc. Krishi Vigyan Kendra(KVK) of Central Agricultural Research Institute, Port Blair started to conduct the training programme since 1994 to upgrade the knowledge regarding poultry farming and to motivate the farmers to adopt poultry farming with improved Nicobari bird which were developed by the Animal Science Division of Central Agricultural Research Institute,  to the trained farmers for upliftment of the rural people and to increase the production of egg and meat in the rural areas of Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

The productivity of the Nicobari fowl is better than the other indigenous fowl at the Institute level. The limited information is available about the productivity of this fowl particularly cross Nicobari fowl in the village level.  In order to know the knowledge level and different constraints faced by the trained farmers to achieve optimum production from the Nicobari birds and their crosses as well as other introduced one, the present investigation was undertaken.

Materials and methods 

Training programme conducted for farmers

A total number of 465 farmers of 10 villages of South Andaman were given practical training on poultry farming which was conducted by the Krishi Vigyan Kendra of Central Agricultural Research Institute, Port Blair. The training was imparted on skill development regarding backyard poultry production, care of the newly hatched chicks, better housing and feeding, control of internal and external parasites and diseases, selection and storage of eggs for better hatchability, hatching of eggs, development of linkages with local veterinary dispensary etc. The farmers were trained to work for vertical expansion of the backyard poultry production system taking into account of the limited resources of the farmers to keep the operational cost to minimum.

Status of trained poultry farmers

The study was conducted in different villages of South Andaman namely Chouldari, Port mort, Namunaghar, Mithakhari, Indranagar, Lal pahad, Guptapara, Sipighat, Garacharma and Bathubasti. A survey Proforma was developed comprising general information, back ground of the farmers such as their age, education, occupation, annual income, land holding, sex, marital status and family size. Poultry farming practices like Status of housing, feeding and, watering .Deworming schedule of backyard poultry birds were also included. Various constraints like Knowledge of feeding, cost of feed, economic condition of the farmers, skill development regarding management, skill development for disease identification and marketing were also studied. Fifty farmers and farm women from ten villages of South Andaman were randomly selected for this study.

Distribution of birds

A total of 190 Black Nicobari, 130  White Nicobari grower bird,  446 Nishibari birds, 542 Nicorock bird and 3000 Vanaraja chicks at 8 week of age were supplied to the trained farmers in different villages during 2006 to 2009 for rearing under backyard to observe their adaptation and evaluation at farmers field under backyard condition. Out of these birds 55 Black Nicobari, 84 White Nicobari, 55 Nishibari, 124 Nicorock and 64 Vanaraja grower birds were randomly selected for the study. Previously the birds were reared in Animal Science Division of Central Agricultural Research Institute under deep litter condition. Farmers were advised to rear the birds in confined condition with concentrated feed for few days and after that slowly released in backyard condition to adapt them in open range system.  The birds full filled their nutritional requirement for maintenance and production by searching and consuming feed around the household through grazing. The feed consumed (supplemental feed) varied from 12-25 g /bird/day. During grazing the birds used to take insects, pests, wild seeds, grains, grasses and other vegetations.

Traits studied

Growth, production and reproductive traits and mortality (%) at different periods in backyard and intensive system were recorded for individual birds. Growth traits measured were body weight at 8^th, 12th and, 20th week of age and weight at sexual maturity (WASM). Age at first egg (in days) and annual egg production (in number) were also measured along with mortality percent during growing and laying under backyard system of rearing.

Result and discussion 

Training of farmers and its impact

A total of 465 farmers and farm women were given practical training for poultry farming practices in the year 2006 to 2009. Out of 465 farmers and farm women, only 247 farmers had adopted the backyard poultry farming practices. Rate of adoption was higher in the year 2006 (56.7%) where as the rate of adoption was lowest in the year 2008(50.3%). Average rate of adoption from the year 2006 to 2009 was 53.1% (Table 1).

Trainees’ profiles

Data obtained from the 50 respondents revealed that house wife (30%) seemed to be responsible for family poultry production right from rearing of chicks to sale of eggs followed by the cultivars (26%). However when respondent were classified on the basis of sex it seemed to be an arena of women (82%) (Table 2). This is in agreement with the observation of Rangnekar (1992). Normally the flock size ranged between 5to 20. The respondents opined that increasing the flock size also increased the income but non keeping a larger flock size of birds were due the fear of mortality and loss of the entire flock in the event of disease outbreak and difficult to maintain using family labourer and resources.

The table 3 represented the source of technical information of the farmers collected during survey. The data have been compiled. During this survey the respondent expressed that they got the information mostly from the radio followed by television among the mass media group. However at institutional level Government agencies and Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Central Agricultural Research Institute played vital role to disseminate the scientific knowledge among the poultry keeper followed by panchyat members. At the personal level neighbours were the main source of information. This observation is in agreement with the earlier observation of Kadian and Kumar (2000).

It was observed that the most of the respondents constructed the poultry shed with locally available materials, mostly the arecanut stumps and woods located near the house with a raised platform above 2-3 feet from the ground. The floor space per adult bird was found to be adequate (0.8to 1 sq ft.) in majority cases (72%) of the farms. However it was interesting to note that about 28 respondents did not provide any shelter to the birds even at night. These birds normally stayed on the branches of the trees at night (Table 4).

Singh and Jilani (2005) also reported no proper housing and non cage rearing of poultry by the Garhwal Himalayas farmers. Majority of the poultry owners in the present study reared 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 in agreement with the findings of Berte (1987), Aklobessi (1990), Dana (1998) and Saha (2003).

All the poultry owners reared the birds in backyard / free-range system. 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, maize etc. to their birds. It was observed from the study that home made feed was used by 39 farmers and 11 farmers left their birds to take feed through scavenging only. These findings are in agreement with the findings of Singh and Johari (1990).

Constraints faced by the backyard poultry farmers

Different constraints faced by the farmers during backyard poultry farming were also studied and presented in Table 5. Perusal of the data revealed that high cost of the feed in the local market was the major constraint for rearing of poultry birds followed by availability of improved birds for backyard system, high cost of day old chicks and non availability of timely veterinary facilities. The other important constraints perceived by the farmers were lack of scientific knowledge about feeding and management of the birds, credit facilities and sudden outbreak of diseases. The above findings are in conformity with Prakash et al (2003) and Singh et al (2000a).

Attitude of farmers towards various aspects of poultry farming

Attitude on various aspects of poultry farming has been observed and presented in table 6. Perusal of the data revealed that 100 percent farmers agreed for the necessity of poultry farming in scientific way. 86% of farmers opined positive about poultry rearing to be managed by family members. 70% of the farmers were in favor of getting adequate finance for poultry farming. 88% farmers said that easy marketing was available in local area. 88 percent farmers realized the poultry farming as a profitable venture.

Awareness about backyard poultry farming among the farming community

To see the awareness about poultry farming and knowledge gain after training programme, 10 questions were asked to the trained farmers and the results have been presented in table 7.  Regarding productive life span of bird 18 percent answered wright and 82 percent answered wrong. Regarding egg weight 74 percent answered wright and 26 percent answered wrong. Regarding the question about first lay in poultry 82 percent answered wright and 18 percent answered wrong. For color of egg, 84 percent answered wright. The question of number of eggs laid /Year/bird was only answered by 22 percent of respondent as correct. Regarding breeding aspect they have poor knowledge and only 14 percent answered wright. For the body weight of bird the farmers had medium knowledge and 48 percent answered wright. Regarding hatching of egg the farmers are awer about of this and 74 percent answered wright.

The knowledge of farmers regarding the questions like productive life span of poultry, no. of eggs laid/year/bird and no. of hen per cock was not sufficient as answered negatively by 82%, 78% and 86% of the respondents respectively.

Livestock holding capacity of the farmers in selected villages of South Andaman       

The trained farmers were categorized according to type of animal and herd size into three groups. The findings revealed that majority of the farmers reared poultry birds. 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.  Hence, under the present scenario rural poultry can offer an excellent avenue of employment and generation of income for livelihood. The present survey also studied the composition of livestock and poultry per house hold and revealed the poultry keeping as 41.5%, goat keeping as 18.8% and cattle keeping as 21.9%.  It is inferred from the study that poultry farming is preferable to the farmer. It may be due to its less requirement of floor space, easy to rear and manage with less investment as well as higher margin of profit.

Evaluation of growth and production traits under backyard condition

A total of 312 birds comprising of one hundred eighteen Nicorock, fifty five Nishibari, eighty four White Nicobari and fifty five Black Nicobari were evaluated under field condition for their various growth and production traits.  A perusal of table 9 revealed that at 8^th week of age body weight differed significantly among the genetic groups. Nicorock showed highest body weight at all the ages of measurements (8^th, 12^th, 20^th week of age as well as at sexual maturity). Nicorock bird showed the highest body weight (494 ± 18.62) followed by Nishibari (410  ± 7.47), Black Nicobari (409  ± 7.72) and White Nicobari (404 ± 5.98) at 8^th week age. The body weight of Black Nicobari at 12 week of age recorded higher (611 ± 19.36) than Nishibari (607 ±12.61) and White Nicobari (563 ± 13.41) but lower than Nicorock (678 ± 14.33).  The weight of sexual maturity differed significantly among the genetic stock studied and ASM was higher in Nicorock (1484 ±24.72gm) than Nishibari, Black Nicobari and White Nicobari respectively.

The results showed that the body weight at 8^th week age was lower in present study than the earlier report. Singh et al (2000b) who observed the 8^th week body weight of a strain cross of White Leghorn as 503.75 gm.

The weight at sexual maturity of WLH x WN cross reared under deep litter system was observed by Ahlawat et al (2002) as 1255 ±2.51gm. However, higher body weight at maturity recorded in the present study may be due to crossing with Black Rock bird.        

Nishibari bird matured earliest (179 days) followed by White Nicobari(183) and Black Nicobari(186) but Nicorock matured late (189) among all the genetic groups. This may be due to genetic composition introduced due to the crossing. However Ahlawat et al (2002) reported earlier sexual maturity (142.74 ±2.51) in cross of WLH x WN as compared to other crosses. This may be due to the breed characteristics and system of rearing (deep litter system).

The annual egg production under backyard system was 153 (in number) for White Nicobari, 146 for Black Nicobari, 142 for Nicorock and 164  for Nishibai bird which were lower than the earlier observation reported by Chatterjee and Yadav (2003) who recorded the annual egg production of 157±7.0 for Black Nicobari and 162±7.0 for White Nicobari. This may be due to system of rearing or difference in management practices.

Mortality percentage

A total of 312 birds comprising of one hundred eighteen Nicorock, fifty five Nishibari, eighty four White Nicobari and fifty five Black Nicobari birds were studied for their mortality pattern during growing and laying stage under backyard farming system.

A perusal of the table 9 showed that highest mortality was observed during growing period. The respective mean mortality (%) during growing period and laying period were 18.00±1.53 and 4.67±0.67 for White Nicobari, 17.67±0.67 and 4.67±0.33   for Black Nicobari, 10.29±2.12 and 3.43±0.78 for Nicorock and 22.75±5.22 and 6.00±0.82 for Nishibari bird. In the present study it was observed that the mortality percentage was highest during growing and laying stage in case of Nishibari bird which is the product of White Nicobari and White Leghorn and lowest for Nico rock.

The laying period mortality in case of Nicobari fowl and cross Nicobari fowl was lower in the present study than the earlier report of Padhi et al (2001). They reported the mortality percentage during laying period under intensive management system was 14 and 16 percent for Naked Neck and Frizzle fowl respectively. Chatterjee and Yadav (2002) reported mortality of Nicobari fowl during brooding, growing and laying stage was 24.65, 13.15 and 7.94 percent respectively. The growing period mortality was higher and the laying period mortality was lower in the present study compared to the earlier study of Chatterjee and Yadav (2002). 

Evaluation of growth and production traits under intensive condition

A total of 170 birds comprising of fifty six Nicorock, twenty five Nishibari, thirty nine White Nicobari and fifty Black Nicobari birds were evaluated under intensive condition for their various growth and production traits. 

The Growth traits measured were body weight (g) at day old, 4^th, 8^th   and 20^th week of age and weight at maturity. Age at first egg (days), annual egg production (number) and mortality (percent) at growing stage and laying stage were also measured. A perusal of table-10 revealed that all the growth performance traits, annual egg production and mortality % at growing stage differed significantly among the genetic groups except body weight at 20^th week of age and mortality % at laying stage. Nicorock bird excelled in all growth traits among the genetic groups studied.       

The results showed that the body weight at 8^th week age was lower in present study than the earlier report of Singh et al (2000b) who observed the 8^th week body weight of a strain cross of White Leghorn as 503.75 gm.

The weight at sexual maturity of WLH x WN cross reared under deep litter system was 1254.84 ±2.51gm as observed by Ahlawat et al (2002). However, higher body weight at maturity recorded in the present study might be due to cross breeding with Black Rock bird

Nishibari bird matured earliest (176 ±0.45days) followed by White Nicobari (178 ±0.48) and Black Nicobari (183 ±0.29) but   Nicorock matured late (186 ±0.41) among all the genetic groups studied. This may be due to genetic composition introduced as a result of the crossing. However, Ahlawat et al (2002) reported earlier sexual maturity (142.74 ±2.51) in cross of WLH x WN as compared to other crosses. This may be due to breed characteristics and system of rearing (deep litter system).

The annual egg production under intensive system was 154 ±0.48 (in number) for White Nicobari, 148 ±0.39 for Black Nicobari, 142 ±0.34 for Nicorock and 166 ±0.35 for Nishibari bird which were lower than the earlier observation of Chatterjee  et al (2003) who recorded the annual egg production of 157±7.0 for Black Nicobari and 162±7.0 for White Nicobari fowl. This difference may be due to system of rearing or different in management practices.

Acknowledgement 

The authors are grateful to Dr. R.C. Srivastava, Director, Central Agricultural Research Institute, Port Blair for granting permission and providing all facilities to complete the study successfully. The Authors thankful to  Head, Division of Animal Science, CARI, port Blair for help and support from the Division, full cooperation and sincere advice throughout the period of study and Controlling Officer and all officers and staff of  KVK-CARI for help and cooperation. The authors are thankful to the farmers, farm women and rural youth of South Andaman villages whose cooperation made present study possible.

References 

Ahlawat S P S, Jai Sunder, Padhi M K, Kundu  A, Chatterjee R N, Saha S K, Jeyakumar S, Yadav  S P and Rai RB  2002  Comparative performance of various crosses of Nicobari fowl with White leghorn. In proceedings of the National Workshop: Characterization and conservation of indigenous poultry germplasm 26-27^th February at CARI Port Blair.

Ahlawat S P S, Padhi M K, Senani S, Kundu A, Saha S K, Yadav  S P , Chatterjee R N and Jeyakumar S  2001 Nicobari fowl: A presious endangered poultry germplasm of Aand N Islands. Symposium on Biodiversity  Vis-vis resources exploitation:  introspection, 23-24^th April at Central Agricultural Research Institute, Port Blair. Journal of Andaman Science Association 17 Article182 ,Abs.2.94.

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

Anon  2001 Reort on Scavanging poultry. Information gathered jointly by Bharatiya Agro –Industrial foundation (BAIF). Department of Animal Husbandry (Gujarat, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu). TNUVASandSAC.

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. Dakar, Sénégal. 4.

Chatterjee  R N and Yadav  S P  2002 Annual progress report (technical) of NATP on Animal Genetic Resources Biodiversity.

Chatterjee R N and Yadav S P  2003 Breed descriptor of Nicobari fowl. Annual progress report on National Agricultural Technology project on Animal Genetic Resource Biodiversity,Proceedings, NBAGR,Karnal.

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.

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

Kadian K S and Kumar Ram  2000 Multivariate Analysis of information seeking pattern of Diary farmers of Himachal Pradesh. Indian Journal of Dairy Sciences. Indian Journal of Dairy Sciences 53 (5): 375-380

Kundu A 2008 Fish cum quail farming in bay Islands. Training manual on Development of better management practice for integrated farming system. Sponsored by National Fisheries Development Board, Hyderabad. 56-59. 

Padhi M K,  Ahlawat  S P S, Saha S K and Rai R B  2001 Production performance of Naked Neck, Frizzle fowl and their crossbred with synthetic broiler in Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Indian Journal of Poultry Science. 36: 93-94.

Prakash N, Kumar R and Pal PP  2003 Backyard poultry in Meghalaya. Indian Journal of Animal. Sciences  73: 459-461.

Rangnekar S D 1992 Women in livestock production in rural India. Proceedings, 6^th AAAP Animal Science Congress, 23-28 November, Bangkok, Thailand.

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.

Saleque A Md and Shams M 2003 Landless women and poultry : The BRAC model in Bangladesh. http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/documents/frg/conf96pdf/saleque.pdf

Selvam S 2004 An economic analysis of free range poultry rearing by rural women. Indian Journal of Poultry Sciences, 39 (1): 75-77.

Singh C B and Jilani M H 2005 Backyard poultry farming in Garhwal Himalayas. Indian Journal of Poultry Sciences 40 (2): 195-198.

Singh D P and Johari D C 1990 Kadaknath the native fowl needs to be conserved. Indian Farming 39 (12) 29-32.

Singh C B, Sharna M L and Singh V 2000a Proc. International Conference held in Thrissur (Kerala), India on “Small holder livestock production systems in developing countries and challenges” Indian Journal of Poultry Sciences 40 (2): 195-198.

Singh P K, Singh H N, Singh P K and Chatterjee R N 2000b Inheritance of growth traits in young  chickens. Indian Medical Journal 24: 7-10

Received 26 February 2010; Accepted 24 June 2010; Published 1 August 2010

Go to top