Harm de Vries (Venezuela) - Some comments and a few questions on the Semi-scavenging poultry flock model.

Although I have heard before of the programme I am so happy to hear again about this concept. It has never been my direct job description, but sideways I always have been working with improved birds in the scavenging system. I have been confronted with a lot of scepticism, so it is good to hear from the success of the project.

I am convinced the system of scavenging has comparative advantages. The model can be a base to work with at many other places. However, many times there might not be a need to copy the complete model. In several countries, the purchase of day old chicks from a commercial farm can be a good alternative. In Guyana pullets were available on the market, and in Bhutan pullets were made available by the government. My experience in Zambia was, that chick raising executed by government officers was more sustainable. Sometimes they do have more possibilities to cope with the organisational difficulties involved in purchase and marketing.

I expect that this could be the same in some other African countries. And instead of credit also systems of exchange with local poultry could be applied. But for sure, I think that the scavenging system with improved birds implies economic benefits for the poorest of the poor. The most persistent problem with the scavenging system is that the extension service in many countries advises farmers to build nice sheds an keep the chickens confined. If Bill Gates had to pay the salary of all these people, even he would get poor. The mission of this network should be that extension departments get aware of the comparative advantages of improved birds on free range, and that the advantages get lost as soon the birds are confined. Finally, I have a question:
-Are there data available of the egg production of improved layers on free range?

Back

Frands Dolberg (Denmark) - To Harm de Vries question, whether there are data available of the egg production of improved layers on free range? Please have a look at http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd9/3/bang931.htm where you will find the results of a trial comparing 6 exotic lines under semi-scavenging conditions in Bangladesh.

Abdul Jalil Ambar (Bangladesh) - The findings of an applied research in Bangladesh on the performance of different breed combinations under semi-scavenging system (receiving about 30% of feeds from the homestead compound) the egg production of improved layers SONALI (a crossbred between RIR male with Fayoumi female) is 156 eggs in 12 months as against a hybrid layer Lohman Brown that produced 140 eggs only.

Rearing of improved birds on free range was practised in Bangladesh a few years ago. The objective of free range rearing was that the birds would collect feeds available in the homestead compound or backyard. But with the increased number of rural households, the opportunity of poultry birds to collect feeds from the surroundings have decreased and the birds were emaciated due to malnutrition and the egg production was poor.

In the circumstances free range system of rearing of improved birds was discontinued and semi-scavenging (model) system in being practised with the main objective of economic profit through minimising feed cost as compared to confinement. It is to be noted that semi-scavenging system of rearing involves the following conditions:

- Use of appropriate breed because of genetic x environment interaction.
- Involvement of poorest to the poor class people who have no facilities to rear the hybrid stock in confinement.
- Use of low cost accommodation and minimising feed cost with cafeteria system of feeding is advocated.
- Age of the birds should be more than 2 months onwards.

Back

Hans Askov Jensen (Denmark)- When we are talking about the egg yield and improved breeds in the semi-scavenging system we have to reverse our mind. Normally, we measure the efficiency in productive parameters, especially the egg yield. However, in the semi-scavenging system the efficiency is measured in the cost of supplementary feed to produce an egg. It is relatively easy to obtain a high egg yield by providing supplementary feed ad libitum, but often it will not be viable. The efficiency has to be measured as the supplementary feed cost per egg produced, which implies traits related to both the egg yield and scavenging abilities.

A comprehensive trial has been carried out in Bangladesh and, as informed by Jalil Amber, the SONALI hens were superior to e.g. the Lohman hybrids. A similar trial conducted in Malawi, even smaller in size, revealed that the Hy-line breeds (Another hybrid) were superior to both Black Australorps and the local breed. Unfortunately, very little attention has been give to scavenging ability in describing different breeds, even that this may be the most important trait in scavenging and semi-scavenging systems.

Back

Ziauddin Ahmed (Bangladesh) - The word semi-scavenging is used for small poultry flocks under partly controlled management conditions and where the scavenged feed accounts for a substantial part of feed consumed. Under this semi-scavenging system the poultry model production chain (PMPC) has been developed for the target beneficiaries, particularly women in rural areas for their higher income and self- sustained employment.

The poultry model concept was started with a joint effort of DLS and BRAC at field level from early part of 1983 with some support from world food programme (WFP). At the initial stage, intensive vaccination drive against Ranikhet disease and day old chick rearing was introduced through the women beneficiaries. With the growing demand, other support services were gradually introduced as Key rearer, Feed seller, Model rearer and Mini hatchery to transform into poultry model production chain.

Back

Tran Dinh Tu (Vietnam) - Approximately 75% of poultry population is kept in small households with local breeds. The size of chicken herd is about 10-20 chicken per family that consumes mainly locally available feed. The local laying hens produce 70-80 eggs per year. More than 10 indigenous and native poultry breeds have been raised in different parts of Vietnam.

The most popular breed is the Ri, raised in the North and South provinces. They are dual-purpose breeds, slow growing but adapted to scavenging and hot climate. They have high resistance to diseases and parasites. The village chickens obtain feed mostly from their natural environment by scavenging. They also receive supplementary feed usually paddy rice or some commercial concentrate at the end of the day. Supplementary feed varies from 10 - 30% of total daily feed intake depending on the family's economic situation, age of poultry and production stage as well as current market price.

Murray Maclean (Vietnam) - In Cambodia the farmers commonly recognise two types of local chickens, the 'jai' and the 'kok'. The breeds are well adapted to minimal input village scavenging conditions, where nutrition is poor, and parasitic and infectious diseases are common. Cambodian village chickens begin producing eggs at around 6-7 months of age. They begin by going through a laying period of 15-20 days, during which they lay about 11-13 eggs. Village chicken are free range scavengers that are fed supplements, which are primarily energy supplements of white rice or paddy which is usually cast over the ground in the yard of the house. Young chicks may be given a supplement of white rice equivalent to 250 grams/day/10 chicks and that an adult hen with her chicks may be given from 50-250 grams paddy/day. Some farmers give nothing to the chicken from November to April, considering that there is sufficient rice in the rice fields.

Back

Asifo O. Ajuyah (Fiji) - An attraction yet to be exploited by rural farmers is the production of organic poultry meat and eggs which has niche markets in the cities and export potentials to developed countries who will pay premium prices.

In Cambodia, traditional village-level chicken raising is carried out by nearly all-farming families. The emphasis is on meat production for sale and home consumption but eggs are sometimes collected and sold instead being hatched. Very few traditional raising units at village level have been elevated to semi-intensive level.

Based on the paper from Vietnam, apart from providing animal protein, the village chicken seems to have other novel uses i.e., spiritual (yellow feathers), sports (cock fighting) and medicinal (production of tonics). My questions are two fold:
(i) for each type are there same or different breeders and relative importance in terms of commerce.
(ii) major traits or characteristics of the Ac or "tonic breed" and is the efficacy or benefits historical?

Back

Tran Dinh Tu (Vietnam)- To your questions I try to answer as follows:
- Each type of chicken was often produced by the same breeders. Vietnamese farmers were relatively conservative. They wanted to keep their traditions and habits and often lived in isolated community. So in their region there was their own type of chickens. But recently the situation has been changed due to the impact of the market economy. The different breeders can produce the same type of chickens if this type can be sold easily at higher prices.

- Ac chicken is a specific breed raised not only in Vietnam but also in Southern provinces of China. They have white feathers, but black skin and bones and dark meat. They grow slowly, and 6 month old one may be weighted only 300 - 400 gm. Vietnamese people often cook Ac chicken with lotus seeds and some herbs to feed sick or old people as a tonic. Its efficacy is only based on the long time traditional experience and has not been evaluated scientifically.

- There is a less feathered type of chickens in Vietnam (but not featherless as developed in Israel). They grow faster than full feather type, but in general most of Vietnamese people prefer nice yellow-feathered chickens.

Back

Manuel D Sanchez (FAO) - Recognising the invaluable contribution of the poultry model in Bangladesh and its potential applications, with necessary adaptations, to other countries, I would like to recall that there is a great opportunity, yet untapped, in many developing countries to produce local, or "criollo type", eggs and chicken meat.

If I understand correctly, the Bangladesh model is an "industrial type" model structured to involve many stakeholders, including above all small producers, in various steps in the production chain. At the end, the final product can not be physically different from the one coming from industrial production unless it is accompanied by a certification label.

The unique opportunity is to access the unsatisfied growing market of livestock products by offering a different product, the traditional product, still very appreciated (e.g. consumers willing to pay substantially more for it) in a lot of societies due to flavour, appearance, cultural value, etc. but in most places rather absent in modern market outlets.

I was in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, a couple of weeks ago, and I was very pleased to see in one of the largest supermarkets the "ayam kampung" or traditional chicken, nicely packed side by side with the industrial chicken. It looked somehow smaller but much more appealing, with a price about 50% higher than the commercial modern type. I have been trying to get information, yet unsuccessful, on how this traditional product has made through the modern market structure. If any of the conference participants knows something or have any contacts, I would like to hear about it. If we go for this approach, then small producers will not be competing with industrial producers but rather diversifying the offer, with a superior quality product as perceived by many consumers.

In the conference we are discussing the possible application of the Bangladesh model to other situations, however the real issue is, how can we make small producers participants of the local, regional and global market with poultry (and other animal) products. Certainly the proposed model is one option, but only one, there are many other alternatives even with other types or species of poultry (criollo chickens, Muscovy ducks, common ducks, guinea fowl, turkeys, etc.). For me one of the key issues is how to organised market chain, all the way from the producer to the market outlets or large consumers (e.g. restaurants) and for this, the Bangladesh experience and others are very valuable.

Back

Edward Mallorie (Denmark) - Manuel Sanchez of FAO has suggested that producing a traditional product that can be sold at premium prices can help small producers compete with industrial-type commercial production.

In Bangladesh the classic poultry model is based on improved breeds (such as the Sonali). The eggs produced are, as far as I know, considered to be the same as those produced in commercial battery farms and fetch no price premium. However there is a premium for eggs from local (desi) breeds of chicken. Unlike in Britain, there is no premium for the method of production - free range / backyard rather than battery cage. I wonder how the economics of producing fewer, but higher value, eggs from desi hens compares with the improved backyard system.

The growing poultry commercial sector in Bangladesh is putting downward pressure on poultry meat and egg prices. In some areas, especially near markets, back-yard poultry producers are interested in moving up to small commercial units. Although they realise that, compared to the semi-scavenging, the feed cost per hen is higher, more hens mean more profit per day. However it is more than likely that, over time, the commercial poultry sector will concentrate into the hands of a few very large integrated operations. CP of Thailand, the world's fifth largest poultry producer, has recently arrived in Bangladesh. This may ultimately squeeze out the smaller commercial producers. Although the backyard semi-scavenging system is less sensitive to adverse movement in the feed-output price ratio, lower egg and meat prices will mean that backyard production is less effective in generating an income for poor people.

Given this scenario, the future for such small-scale producers may well be in producing traditional products to be sold at premium prices. These producers will need links with premium market sectors and production systems to efficiently produce the right products for this market.

Back

Elwin Turnbull (Australia) - The market in Nepal gives a premium price for village poultry as you have described in Malaysia. It is especially noticeable at festival times and when families have special events such as weddings. There is no government intervention to give this premium. I agree with Manuel Sanchez of FAO and Edward Mallorie that a very useful direction for government and NGO involvement is to provide facilitation for improving marketing and efficient production in the villages. An advantage of working in the villages to find improved market channels and efficiencies is that the small funds that people have for purchasing meat remains in the local area to boost the local economies. That is, it is not attracted out to purchase inputs and pay for company profits off shore. This is very important in cases where some wealth is being generated (either from agriculture or from another sector) because the wealthier one becomes the more meat that is taken into the diet so strengthening the local economy.

This principal of involving local stakeholders to design better ways at the village and district level is being applied in the Third Livestock Development Project by the Department of Livestock Services in Nepal. One of the challenges of the approach is that we as scientists have to develop new skills in working with stakeholders and we have to learn new ways of recognising and integrating the capacities of the community members in villages and districts. This is not an easy journey when we are often more comfortable seeking out and designing technically optimum production system but the Nepal experience is showing that the benefits are there.

Back

Krishna Kaphle (Nepal) - In line with Edward Mallorie, yes the free trade and globalization will have its impact on the small producers, it is just a matter of time. The other question to be asked is what shall be the extent of modification that this model can be stretched to keep its unique identity and at the same time fit to the changing demand of time. I feel a need to create niche market for these traditional products and a marketing channel would be the solution. Psychological advantage of traditional products and the low external input involved are a boon in disguise while at the same time vulnerability to domination by commercialised sector is a challenge. Unless ways are found out to safeguard these traditional products make them competitive or protect their opportunities, wide scale replication of the model and its continuity remains a big question.

Khieu Borin - The premium prices for the traditional product or from local production systems with local breeds exist in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam and it may also happen in somewhere else. The price of local chicken (live weight) is 6000-6500 riels per kg (US$ 1.5-1.65) and 3500 riels per 10 eggs (US$ 0.88) as compare with 3500-4000 riels per kg (US$ 0.89-1.0) and 2500-2800 riels per 10 eggs (US$ 0.63-0.70) of the industrial chickens. The market for the commercial chickens is mainly in restaurants and hotels where foreigners and tourists are staying. However, the products from local chickens are preferred by most of the local population. We must look into ways/strategies to improve the production of the local chickens that will bring better revenue for the rural population.

Back

Nitya Ghotge (India) - I wish to raise the marketing issue. While ideally it may be wonderful that traditionally /"organically " raised products get a premium price in the market, the concern always remains, are the people who raise these birds organised enough to market their products profitably. Secondly will aggressive vertical marketing compromise nutritional security at the poor household level where it is most needed. In India the dairy model has often been criticised for depriving the families of producers milk as all the produce enters the market. Should we not therefore also be considering the strengthening of local markets whereby there is movement and exchange of goods horizontally /laterally as well as vertically.

Thabani Maposha (Zimbabwe) - In Zimbabwe because eggs from village chickens are small they would fetch either an equal or lesser price compared to exotics. They are slightly expensive when sold by vendors at growth points as boiled eggs. The most expensive poultry egg is that of Guinea fowl mainly because its sold and bought for breeding purposes.

Harm de Vries (Venezuela) - Do the eggs from the scavenging system fetch a higher price than the eggs from the commercial farms?

Frands Dolberg (Denmark) -To Harm de Vries above question, I dare not say whether eggs from the scavenging system fetch a higher price than the eggs from the commercial farms, when the eggs are from exotic birds, but when the eggs are from local breeds they do - according to my own observations from several countries. The price difference we found recently in Cambodia was about 50% per egg. It would be interesting to know of more examples.

Back

Frands Dolberg (Denmark) - The core of the model is households with 5 - 10 hens, and that is too few to think of any anaerobic digestion. The appeal of the model is its capacity to reach the very poor, who may have no other animals. I am just back from Cambodia, where I have seen the same. The effect of the model may be better measured by its contribution to increased food security, i.e. by families eating 2 or 3 times a day rather than 1 or 2 times and the greater diversity of the diet. Not necessarily by the households eating more eggs and poultry meat, but through their sale of these products and purchase of other items. Thus one household in Cambodia reported that 1kg live bird could buy them 8 kg rice and they also told me that it was better to sell poultry and buy fish as fish was cheaper. This is important for household, who reported only 3 - 4 months of self-sufficiency in grain. We need much bigger units to make anaerobic digestion a matter of concern, but with bigger units, we would not reach the many poor households.

I do know the biodigesters that Horst refers to as I have followed their evolution and in one case been involved as one of the supervisors of a M.Sc that broke important new ground in Vietnam. You can find a paper on this at http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd9/2/an92.htm. I was happy when in March this year in Vietnam, I was told that more than 20 000 of these digesters have now been sold in that country. I understand that a Vietnamese student is presently working on incorporating duckweed grown on the slurry from these digesters in the diets of semi-scavenging chicken. This work is led by Dr. T.R. Preston http://www.utafoundation.org/

If the work succeeds this is an opportunity to integrate resource-use as Horst mentions. Late 1970-80s I worked much on crop residues for ruminants, mainly cattle. Anyone, who wants to know, can search on my name (Frands Dolberg); www.google.com is one place to do that from.

However, my enthusiasm has always gone down when I - after some time in each case - have found out that there were still a fair number of people left out. In short, our technologies did not reach the poorer sections of the village. This is the problem with the biodigester Horst, so I do not want to insist that people have to use it. It does not make sense for a poor landless woman and her family. For some it may do subsequently, if they begin to invest in larger animals etc. Other families will have other preferences and go other ways. Most (this is at least what I have seen in many cases) will, if they begin to earn something, start to feed their children better and send the children to school (and this is much more likely to happen if the money is in the hands of the mother, which is another advantage of a poultry program). IFPRI studies above indicate this would mean a move in the right direction.

Back

Lylian Rodríguez (UTA Foundation www.utafoundation.org) - Regarding the biodigester in the system, I think it would be an alternative for small-scale farmers and even for landless people. As Frands mentioned it definitely would not be the fist step in the ladder to get out of poverty. A small plastic digester of 2 m long is linked to the toilet as a source of effluent for duckweed or any other plant that can be used for as a supplement for the chickens. 2 m biodigester with plastic of 0.94 diameter has a capacity of 1.4 m3 and it does not use so much land and will bring benefits from the point of view of sanitation and welfare through the use of toilets (I am not sure in Bangladesh but in Vietnam and Cambodia toilets are not very common).

Chicken manure can be used if it is coming from poultry housed in a high pen where there is not use of any thing as a bed (rice husk or residues from wood cleaning) so may be in some cases it would not be feasible to use the manure in the biodigester, but manure and other residues from the poultry can be used to produce larva to feed the chickens even on a very small scale, so integration can be promoted and practise even on a very small scale. Poultry cannot be seen as the unique tool for alleviation of poverty.

Asifo O. Ajuyah (Fiji) - I will presume that it is important for us to look at waste streams from the various enterprises viz. a viz. appropriate procedures to design practical waste management systems. Consequent to the table below (waste output for different species), average flock size of less than 100 birds (high side) and management system (semi-scavenging) in Bangladesh, I don't see how waste could be managed via a biodigester within the following Enterprises 3, 4 and 5. Even within the Government Poultry Farm where parent breeders are raised on deep litter. The characteristic of the waste stream which is usually available at the end of the breeding cycle (72 weeks may be) is not a sustainable feed stock for a biodigester which requires daily input of biological waste.

This and other considerations (C:N ratio, total solids, antibiotics in faecal droppings, etc) might explain why the concept of biodigester as a strategy for waste management is most successful with pigs and other ruminants and not poultry. I am not saying that it is not feasible, for example in Australia where broiler farmers generate large volume of waste a subsidiary and not integrated central waste management plant could be designed (appropriate configuration) to receive feedstock from all poultry farms. However, in Fiji, Philippines and Bangladesh such a system even a scale down version as proposed by a participant would not be practical for small-scale village chicken producers, whose only option may be composting. As a waste management strategy, composting is good for the environment because it precludes the use of inorganic fertilizer the production and use of which is more harmful to humans, the environment - water and air than few scavenging chickens in rural areas.

In fact in rural areas the people, natural vegetation, clean air and scavenging livestock make a better and healthier community than in cities with locked in people and livestock in brick houses, polluted air with no natural vegetation. All that the rural community require is a global outreach program that can reverse the follow of goods and services from urban to rural areas from developed to developing countries, then and only then will there be global economic, social and environmental sustainability.

Table 1. Livestock daily waste.
Parameters                Dairy    Beef    Pig    Poultry
Live wt. (kg)                630    360      60       1.8
Fresh manure (l/day)    47.3    23.1    5.1    0.12

Back

Frands Dolberg (Denmark) - It is interesting to hear about your experiences from Fiji and it is perhaps in situations like yours in Fiji that the biodigester Horst W Doelle (Austria) advocates is in place.

Thabani Maposha (Zimbabwe) - I fully agree with others that it is not worth to put up a biodigester for most of the reasons that have been put forward. My only emotional contribution to this is that remember these chickens spend most of their time scavenging and their droppings (not so many) are all over their SFRB. My question is who collects these for a biodigester? The woman, who is overloaded with house chores that go up to bedtime! To me it is not economical and after all most of the bugs if there are at all die because of exposure to the sun.

Jonathan Bell (Bangladesh) Moderator, Asian Hall

Asifo's last remarks have highlighted a very important asset of the semi-scavenging poultry model: its contribution to the stabilising of the village economy, and thus the slowing of migration to mega cities. Its beauty lies in not only that it can allow poor people, by making use of the scavenging feed resource base, to produce an egg at lower cost than the industrialised system does using only manufactured feed, but also in that it allows them to live in the balanced and human environment of the village, instead of the degrading environment on the margins of cities. In other words, this sort of poverty alleviation model provides not only economic, but also social advantages.

I congratulate the pioneers of the Bangladesh model and I would say among the conditions, which made the work a success is the commitment of the scientists who worked with it. What I am not very sure of is the policy support associated with the model. I see very good prospects for adapting some of its components in the other parts of developing world. More so now has given the effects of liberalisation and globalisation on rural life. I am referring to the growing trend of forming common interest groups in rural areas to address issues best handled collectively such as marketing. In a social setting found in Western Kenya, where we have undertaken a brief study on family chickens I imagine youth groups can easily take up enterprise 1, 2,and 6, whereas women would do best in Enterprise 3 and 4 and men do enterprise 5 (The contribution of Dr. Dr. Ziauddin of May 21, 1:48pm). However, it all has to be a process; the Bangladesh poultry model concept started in 1983.

Back