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 scient