|
|
| The Context |
|
Who?
Targeted at ...
|
The tool is aimed primarily at small scale commercial producers of poultry who keep less than 500 broiler birds per production cycle or 500 laying birds at any particular time. As an adjunct to this target group the tool is also aimed at growers of root crops who may not be poultry producers themselves but who could find a ready market for their crops or crop byproducts amongst such producers. Secondarily the tool is directed to agricultural, livestock and veterinary extension and other advisory personnel (in both the public and private sectors including those NGOs with special interest in and relevant to rural and peri-urban production). As poultry keeping of this nature and at this scale is a particularly suitable enterprise for women and women's groups advisors in cooperative associations or home economics' advisors should also be part of the overall target group. The tool is also designed to provide benefits to consumers of poultry products at the downstream end of the food chain. |
When?
|
The tool can be used at all times of the year as poultry production is a continuous activity. |
Where?
|
Most areas of the tropics and subtropics are eminently suitable for poultry production providing sufficient attention is given to local ecoclimatic conditions and due regard is given to housing designed to overcome or mitigate any negative effects associated with the local environment. Areas of high potential and peri-urban areas near to concentrations of human population that have or are developing high demand for products of animal origin from monogastric animals are a particularly suitable target area. |
| Methods |
The primary target group usually has access to a limited number and a limited quantity of conventional feeds. It may have access to other potential or nonconventional feeds that may also be present in considerable quantities in the local area. But these unconventional feeds may include peculiarities such as lack of uniformity, inconsistent availability as well as the presence of antinutritional factors.
Experiments were undertaken to discover some of these feeds and include them in rations at quite high concentrations. Amongst the feeds tested were cassava products (tested at up to 60 per cent of the ration), cottonseed meal (40 per cent) and palm kernel meal (70 per cent. If toxicological factors were present simple means of detoxification that could be used by small scale producers were developed in order to allow farmers to make maximum use of these feeds.
The objective was to develop feeds that were less costly than conventional commercial compound rations but that did not result in lowered production and thus a higher cost:benefit ratio and to publicize the results so that there was good uptake by small scale producers. |
| |
|
| Resources Required |
At the farm level few resources additional to those already present are required. Seeds or planting material (slips, cuttings natural or created in vitro) of new varieties of root crops would need to be made available to growers and poultry producers. |
| Support |
Support for research from local administrations would be needed so that appropriate varieties of root crops with low levels of antinutritional compounds and that can be easily processed can be created and made available to farmers. In addition to financial support for research additional resources will need to be made available for dissemination and diffusion of the results. Farmers will require assistance from public and private advisory services in order to ensure the technology is correctly transferred and properly used. The extension personnel themselves will need to be trained in the technology. |
| Costs |
Additional financial costs will be concentrated at the research and advisory levels. Very small financial costs may be incurred by farmers if seed or planting material of varieties that are more suitable for livestock feed costs more than traditional varieties. It could be expected, however, that such costs would be recovered directly in a greater quantity of marketable products. For poultry producers the costs of nonconventional feedstuffs should not be any greater than the cereals for which they are substituted but there may be costs for investing in small scale machinery for preparing the roots/tubers for feed. There will also be some nonfinancial costs to poultry producers in time expended if they mix their own rations. |
| Benefits |
Improved production of poultry from feeding alternative feeds will make a positive contribution to increasing the income of small scale poultry producers. This also translates to the producer as a higher and more stable income. More widely correct employment of the tool should lead to more sustainable livelihoods. Maximum use of local feed resources that are not competitive with or less competitive than food for people has beneficial local and global effects as it reduces overall local costs to the environment and contributes to sustainable production of both crops and livestock. More assured supplies of high quality livestock products would improve the diets and the quality of life of consumers. |
| Risks |
There appear to be few risks associated with the use of the technology. |
| Alternatives |
The alternative to using nonconventional non-cereal products in poultry rations is to continue relying on cereals with consequent competition between people and animals for the use of limited resources. |
| Impacts |
The overall impacts are a more sustainable production system at least cost to the environment. Crop farmers will have access to more productive crops and a more diversified market. Poultry producers will have access to feeds not of cereal origin and thus there will be reduced competition. |
| Policy Implications |
The policy implications at national, regional and district levels are that the administrative services promote options that provide support for research and for providing producers with information on the benefits of making more efficient and maximum use of local resources. |
| References and Further Reading |
| Parr WH, Capper BS, Cox DRS, Jewers K, Marter AD, Nichols W, Silvery DR and Wood JF. 1988. The small scale manufacture of animal compound feeds. Bulletin No 9. Natural Resources Institute (ISSN 0952 8245). |
|
| Panigrahi S, Oguntona EB and Roberts BR. 1996. Effects of different drying temperatures on the nutritive value of sweet potato for poultry chicks. British Poultry Science 37: 173-188. |
|
| Panigrahi S, Rickard J, O'Brien GM and Gay C. 1992. Effects of different rates of drying cassava root on its toxicity to broiler chicks. British Poultry Science 33: 1025-1042. |
|
| Williams PEV. 1997. Poultry production and science: future directions in nutrition. World's Poultry Science Journal 53: 33-48. |
|
|