| Subject: | |
| From: | |
| Reply To: | |
| Date: | Fri, 1 Jun 2012 19:27:16 +0530 |
| Content-Type: | multipart/alternative |
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Dear colleagues this is Datta Rangnrkar from India again mailing views and
comments on topics 1 and 3.
*2. The contribution of research to the development of family poultry
production systems.*
· There is very little research, in India, on family poultry
production systems, economics and such related aspects and if there is some
the results are not easily available (not well publicized)*.* Having said
that I must also mention that the major contribution of research has been
to develop ‘low input varieties of birds (synthetics/hybrids)’ that looks
like indigenous bird and needs low inputs.* *These varieties are developed
by breeding farms / research institutes/centers of the Indian Council of
Agri. Research (ICAR) as well as private hatcheries and recommended for
distribution under Government schemes for development of family poultry.
While there are claims that these new birds the real picture will emerge
after the Govt. grants and subsidies are withdrawn.
· Studies on role of family poultry from the perspective of
livelihood systems perspective are lacking. With due apologies let me state
that the ‘usual reductionist approach adopted in research’ does not suit
studies on family poultry and there is need for paradigm change and
adoption of ‘systems and participatory approach’. Results of studies with
such an approach would help in making development of family poultry more
effective.
· While genetic characterization of indigenous fowl is lacking
there is need to take up research related to health aspects on priority.
· As always, the families living in relatively better developed
areas get benefits of research.
· There is need for shift from the conventional ‘Transfer of
Technology’ approach and attempts should be made to assess and prioritize
needs of family poultry and select appropriate technologies. However, the
fact remains that family poultry does not attract much attention (for
funding) in view of low commercial value. A good example is
non-availability of ‘heat resistant or tolerant vaccine’ in India although
in many parts of the country maintaining cold chain is not possible and
hence poor coverage through vaccination of birds maintained by families in
interior rural areas resulting in heavy losses.
· The expertise developed in commercial poultry industry is not
much use for family poultry. However, commercial hatcheries have made good
contribution by developing a dual type/low input bird.
· Any product of research (recommendations or technology) which is
not only technically sound, economically beneficial but also socially
adoptable and not risky would be welcome by family poultry producers. Help
in developing low cost housing based on local material was most welcome by
family producers.
3. *Competing or complementing commercial poultry production systems?*
· Household consumption vs. commercialization of family poultry -
which is best? There is basic flaw in this concept since family poultry has
multiple functions e.g. contribution to family income, nutrition and risk
coverage (an addition is empowerment of women since it is usually managed
by women).
· Family poultry contributes substantially towards protein needs
and in some states of India as much as 50% of poultry production is from
family poultry. However, much of the contribution as protein source is
hidden and not accounted for through conventional surveys carried out since
the families do not keep records of home consumption or for social events.
· As mentioned earlier family poultry does not have problem of
selling the produce – consumers and retailers come to them in most cases.
Families keeping small number of birds – indigenous fowl – under
free-ranging low external input system have a niche market and get higher
price for their produce. In general the family units are most likely to be
competitive in view of low establishment cost and overheads.
· Traditional family poultry units do not compete for food/feed
and are likely to meet food safety and even welfare standards as compared
to commercial intensive system based farms (do not use growth promoters).
· Rising per-capita income is increasing demand for products from
traditional family poultry since people from peri-urban and urban areas are
willing to pay higher price for products having more appealing taste and
flavor.
· It is not proper to compare low external input family poultry
and high external input commercial farms in an ad-hoc manner since each has
place and situations in different regions of a developing country differ.
For example in India there are several pockets where establishing large
commercial farms is not feasible due to some constraints and family poultry
can make substantial contribution to poultry products.
Best wishes.
Datta
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the PoultryDevelopment-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.fao.org/scripts/wa-fao.exe?SUBED1=POULTRYDEVELOPMENT-L
|
|
|