Thank you Dr Sunil Gamage. I agree with your comment. Multi-age flocks are a key characteristic of village poultry production and enables the flock to better respond to a number of challenges, including disease outbreaks. Once flock sizes increase, owners must decide whether they should increase the offtake of birds or provide supplementary feed. It would advisable to research the ecological consequences of providing supplementary feed, especially where the supplementary feed is not readily available in the local area. Kind regards, Robyn On 6 June 2012 14:50, Sunil Gamage <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Dear Dr Sujit Nayak > > In Sri Lanka the land holdings of recipient are limited. Therefore, I > found that by providing such families with a flock of birds with > different adult body sizes gave a better production (with scavnging > only) than a unform size flock of birds such as Giriraj and Vanaraj. > This is due to the limitation of the feed resource base and th body > maintenance requiements. Plase refer Guneratne SP and Roberts paper > on feed resource base. > > With kind regards > > Sunil Gamage > > Please note that I have two email addresses [log in to unmask] and > [log in to unmask] - > > Thank you > > Sunil Gamage > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Sujit Nayak <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 09:40:01 +0530 > Subject: National level program in India for family poultry > To: [log in to unmask] > > Dear Coordinators and friends, > > > I am Sujit Nayak, a veterinarian with veterinary immunology as my > specialization (P.G.) working in the Department of Animal Husbandry, > Dairying & Fisheries, Government of India as Assistant Commissioner. I > am associated with the national Rural / family poultry development > program implemented by the Central Government across the country for > BPL (below Poverty Line) beneficiaries. Government of India (GoI), at > the apex level, is mainly concerned with policy, planning and program > formulation/ implementation. However, this is family poultry > development program is among the few directly beneficiary-oriented > programs being implemented by GoI. This scheme component aims at > supporting BPL beneficiary families with tapering assistance, wherein > 4-week old chicks, suitable for rearing in the backyard, reared at the > ‘mother units’ are further distributed to them in three batches of 20, > 15 and 10 birds. Further, to raise the birds in a bio-secure manner, a > provision of Rs. 750/- per beneficiary for night-shelter etc. is made > in the scheme. > > > > I would like to share some of my experiences and opinions (the views > are exclusively mine). I would also like to agree with Dr. Datta > Rangnekar regarding the lack of field level impacts/ participatory > research in the country. > > > > 1. The contribution of research to the development of family > poultry production systems. > > > > I believe, research is sin qua none for the development of family > poultry production systems. It may have started initially with the > careful study of the environment and requirement of birds under harsh > village conditions, their ability to protect themselves from > predators, little or no input requirement, and the social aspect of > poultry keeping and how it was traded or consumed for benefit (all > these have been covered mostly during previous e-conferences). > > > > Therefore the research aspects have not only been confined to > development of the suitable bird but their nutrition, participatory > research in human-poultry keeping interactions, their methods of > disposal (self-consumption, bartering, trading etc.). Though very > difficult to quantify and reduction into measurable parameters, > scientists across the world have actually found ingenious ways to > measure benefits which include buying of better amenities due to > supplementary income, growth of children in the house keeping poultry/ > piggery (as they presumably received more nutrition etc). > > > > Government of India (GoI) accordingly tied up with the Indian Council > of Agricultural Research-ICAR (which is the nodal Research agency) and > has, over the years developed and promoted low-input technology birds > suitable for survival at farmers’ doorstep e.g. CARI (Central Avian > Research Institute under ICAR) – Nirbheek (Asil x Naked neck), > Shyama, Debendra, UPCARI, HITCARI ( Aseel x CARI Red); Project > Directorate on Poultry also under ICAR -Vanaraja, Gramapriya etc. > Central Poultry Development Organizations under GoI have also > developed Kalinga brown, Chhabro, Colored crosses (Kaveri) etc. > Besides many veterinary universities have also developed these birds > as follows: > > a) Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University, Rajendranegar, Hyderabad > (Tirupati) which has developed Rajasri > > b) Karnataka Veterinary, Animal & Fisheries Sciences University, > (KVAFSU) which has developed Swarnadhara, Raja- II, Giriraja, Girirani > c) Kerala Agricultural University, Mannuthy which has developed > Gramslakhmi, Gramrshree, Krishipriya > > d) Tamil Nadu University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences > (TANUVAS) which has developed Nandanam 99 > > > > Some private organizations have also seen the business opportunity in > this area and have developed and marketed such birds like M/s Kegg > farms, New Delhi: Kuroiler ; Dr. Yashwant Agritech Pvt. Ltd.; Jalgaon, > Maharashtra: Satpuda Desi and M/s Indbro Research and Breeding Farm > Ltd., Hyderabad: Rainbow Rooster > > > > A lot of research and studies have also been made in studying the > economics / benefits as stated earlier and the model of night shelter > etc. > > However, I would like to learn if there are any epidemiological models > and simple formats designed for monitoring at a macro level to assess > the IMPACT in measurable terms of such programs specially in case of a > nation-wide program. > > > > 2. The development for livelihoods through family poultry - > cost and opportunities. > > > > Again, drawing from the national program, I would like to share that > so far in 3 years more than Rs. 67 crore has been released in 21 > States covering over 3 lakh BPL families. > > > > Considering At this stage considering even one fourth (25%) success > rate or say, successful implementation as envisaged – around 75,000 > families have benefitted. This comes to the following: > > § If Rs. 6000 annual benefit/ beneficiary is considered already Rs. > 45 crore / year accrued > > § Invaluable protein/ nutrition to family > > § Subsistence – relief from extreme poverty > > > > However alongwith the opportunities, comes the threats such as > biosecurity risks (the implementing States/ agencies are asked to > implement the same away from intensive poultry production areas, night > shelter is provided for biosecurity to some extent) and diseases. As > the commercial/ industrial sector is also very much developed, the > risks for incidences of diseases in the backyard jeopardizing the > exports is always looming large. Compartmentalization top some extent > is attempted in the commercial sector to sort out the trade > implications. > > > > 3. Competing or complementing commercial poultry production > systems? > > Whereas it is evident that family poultry system so far is meant for > subsistence and no surplus production requiring organized marketing is > envisaged, there is no question of competition. Slowly however, > private industry is evincing interest in this sector and it may not be > long before this unorganized sector will also come under the ambit of > semi-commercialized system. > > > > As far as complementing is concerned, initially private sector was > least interested as there was little commercial interest in remote > areas. Therefore, commercial industry had no issues as far as their > paths did not cross. Private commercial industry does not atleast > criticize the Government program on family poultry, but with the food > safety concerns, quality assurance norms, stringent export > requirements etc., it is imperative that a more ingenious approach to > either keep these two subsectors segregated or any other measures to > enable them to co-exist has to be thought of. > > > > Regards, > > > > Sujit Nayak > > ######################################################################## > > To unsubscribe from the PoultryDevelopment-L list, click the following > link: > > https://listserv.fao.org/cgi-bin/wa?TICKET=NzM0Njg5IGRlZWdvQFNMVE5FVC5MSyBQT1VMVFJZREVWRUxPUE1FTlQtTHmpgFI0YzOa&c=SIGNOFF > > ######################################################################## > > To unsubscribe from the PoultryDevelopment-L list, click the following > link: > > https://listserv.fao.org/cgi-bin/wa?TICKET=NzM0NjkxIHJvYnluLmFsZGVyc0BHTUFJTC5DT00gUE9VTFRSWURFVkVMT1BNRU5ULUwgII%2Bc%2FhdsdjwO&c=SIGNOFF > -- Robyn Alders (Tel: +61-2-48402035; Mobile: +61-467-603370) * Director, International Rural Poultry Centre, KYEEMA Foundation. http://www.kyeemafoundation.org * Honorary Associate Professor, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Australia * Adjunct Associate Professor, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, Tufts University, USA. ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the PoultryDevelopment-L list, click the following link: &*TICKET_URL(PoultryDevelopment-L,SIGNOFF);