AJAS - Research · PDF filelisted some socio-economic factors affecting poultry ... Broiler chicken ... and livability is presented in Table 6

INTRODUCTION..................................................In India broiler farming has emerged as an encouraging

enterprise for rural people especially for small farmers,landless labours, educated unemployed and also for bigentrepreneurs maintaining birds on a large scale (Singh etal., 2010). Research extension is needed to boost poultryfarming (Adebayo and Adeola, 2005). Thomas et al. (2004)listed some socio-economic factors affecting poultryfarmers. Coimbatore district in Tamil Nadu is one of themajor broiler pockets in India having about 15,000 farmswith a total population of about 30 million birds. Own farmswere wholly maintained by the farmers whereas in contractfarming, the farm owners manage the broilers up to marketage and get a fixed price according the Feed Conversion Ratio(FCR) (Prabakaran,2000). However, not many studies have

been conducted to know the socio-economic aspects ofbroiler farmers which are the important indicators tounderstand the status and the needs of the broiler industryand the production performance of commercial broilersunder different managemental practices to recommend thesuitable system for optimum production performance.Therefore, a field study in the year 2012 was undertaken tostudy different socio-economic aspects of broiler farmersand production performance of commercial broilers in termsof age at marketing, body weight at marketing, liveabilityand feed efficiency under various systems of rearing anddifferent managemental practices.

The result of this study will be useful for farmers andresearchers to identify the problems and the remedies onfeeding, management and marketing related to broiler

HIND INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Study on socio-economic status and effect of variousmanagemental practices on the production performance ofcommercial broilers

GANESH HEGDE

ABSTRACT...... A field study was carried out to record socio-economic status of the broiler farmers,various farming practices followed and effect of managemental parameters on production performance ofcommercial broilers in Coimbatore district of Tamil Nadu. The study was conducted in 108 broiler farmsin three categories such as small, medium and large farms having a total population 8,00,000 birds using astandard questionnaire. Data were statistically analyzed. The results indicated that significantly highernumber of farmers were educated up to school level, had broiler farming as their main occupation, broilerfarming experience of more than 5 years, had their farms less than 50 meters from human dwellings, farmlabour was performed by the family members, sanitized the drinking water. The age at marketing andliveability was not affected by any of the management practices whereas the body weight was more inHubbard strain of birds. Feed efficiency was better in large farms having more than 4000 birds.

KEYWORDS...... Field study, Socio-economic status, Managemental practices, Production performance,Broiler chicken

HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE - Hegde, Ganesh (2013). Study on socio-economic status and effect of various managementalpractices on the production performance of commercial broilers. Asian J. Animal Sci., 8(2) : 92-99.

ARTICLE CHRONICLE - Received : 12.09.2013; Revised : 23.10.2013; Accepted : 15.11.2013

RESEARCH ARTICLE

THE ASIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE

TheAJAS Volume 8 | Issue 2 | December, 2013 | 92-99

Author for Correspondence -

GANESH HEGDEVeterinary Dispensary, Salkani,Sirsi, UTTARA KANNADA(KARNATAKA) INDIAEmail: [email protected]

93Hind Institute of Science and Technology

Asian. J. Animal Sci., 8(2), Dec., 2013 :

production. The findings may therefore indicate somevaluable information for proper management of broiler inrural area.

RESEARCH FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS...........The study was conducted in Coimbatore broiler belt in

Tamil Nadu during the year 2012. The information collectedfrom 108 broiler farms having a total population of 8,00,000birds which were in continuous operation for more than oneyear, with proper records and response of the farmer to oralenquiries were utilized for the study. The data collected fromfarmers were recorded in the questionnaire which wasspecially designed for this purpose. The questionnaireincluded socio-economic data such as literacy level, mainoccupation, broiler farming experience, distance of the farmfrom human dwellings, labour utilization pattern, watersanitation, manure utilization pattern, farm expansion plans,marketing and constraints faced by the farmers. Themanagemental parameters studied were type of ownership(own and contract), farm size ( small, medium and large),type of roof (thatch, tile, asbestos sheet), type of floor(mud or cement), system of rearing (all in all out, batch),strain of broilers (Hubbard, Hubchix or Vencobb) and typeof feed used (commercial, own or a mixture of both). In farmsize category, farms having less than 1499 birds wereconsidered as small farms, farms having 1500-3999 birdswere considered as medium farms and farms having morethan 4000 birds were considered as large farms. The outcomeof the study was reflected as age at marketing, body weightat marketing, feed efficiency and liveability. The data weresubjected to statistical analysis by employing least squaremethod of Harvey (1975) and means were compared usingDuncan’s Multiple Regression as corrected by Kramer(1956). Effect of significant managemental parameters andthe interaction effects were studied.

RESEARCH FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS...........The results of the present study are summarized and

tabulated (Table 1-5). Analysis of variance of the data onage at marketing, body weight at marketing, feed efficiencyand livability is presented in Table 6.

Socio-economic parameters :The socio-economic parameters are summarized and

tabulated in Table 1 and 2.

Literacy level :The literacy level among the broiler farmers was higher

significantly (p< 0.01) in own farms. As the farm sizeincreased the literacy level also increased. Most of the smallfarmers were uneducated. Majority of the medium and largefarmers were having education up to school level. In all

GANESH HEGDE

92-99

94Hind Institute of Science and TechnologyAsian. J. Animal Sci., 8(2), Dec., 2013 :

significantly higher (p< 0.01) farmers were educated up toschool level. This is in concurrence with Singh et al. (2010)who observed that the size of the farm increased with theincrease in the educational status. Prasad et al. (2007)observed that greater percentage of non-contract farmershad college education compared to contract farmers.

Main occupation :Significantly higher farmers (p< 0.01) irrespective of

the farm size, had broiler farming as their main occupation.Prasad et al. (2007) observed that 60 per cent of the broilerfarmers were engaged in agriculture.

Broiler farming experience :Significantly higher number of farmers (p< 0.05) had

the broiler farming experience around five years.

Distance from human dwellings :The study revealed that majority of the farms (p< 0.01)

were located within 50 meters from the nearest humandwelling. This is contrary to the recommendation of Kalita(1994) and North and Bell (1990) who advocated a minimumdistance of 100 meters.

Labour utilization pattern :All the farming operations were performed by the

family members of the farmer in significantly higher numberof the farms (p< 0.01). Similar observation was made bySafiullah and Mani (1991). The services of hired labours wereutilized in large farms to a significant level (p< 0.01). Largefarmers employed hired labourers at the rate of about onelabourer per 5000 birds.

Water sanitation :Majority of the farmers (p< 0.01) sanitized the water,

bleaching powder was used for this purpose. This is inconcurrence with the observations of Muruganandan (1993).Sanitation was increasingly done as the farm size increasedas well as in contract farms rather than own farms. This wasdue to the awareness created regarding water hygiene by theintegrators.

Manure utilization pattern :Significantly higher number of farmers (p< 0.05) sold

the poultry manure. Small farmers utilized it for their ownagricultural purpose. The reason being the manure producedwas less. Similar observations were made by Gengaraj (1991)and Prasanna (1991).

Farm expansion plans :Less number of the farmers were interested in farm

expansion. Majority of the farmers were of the opinion that

STUDY ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS & EFFECT OF VARIOUS MANAGEMENTAL PRACTICES ON THE PRODUCTION PERFORMANCE OF COMMERCIAL BROILERS

92-99



they were not getting adequate returns from broiler farming.It was observed in this study that smaller farmers were nolonger able to survive in the industry, which was reflected bytheir disinterest to expand the farm capacity. However,medium sized farmers were interested in expansion sincethey seem to have understood that profit lies in bigger flocksizes. All the farmers were tending towards broilerintegration by the way of contract farming.

Marketing :Those farmers under the contract farming had no

marketing problem. The farmers could get maximum returnsin direct marketing. However, only small and mediumfarmers could follow direct marketing. Large farmersfollowed their own direct marketing channel. Thulasi et al.(1988) and Rosario (1996) found that wholesaler dominatedthe marketing channel. Prasanna (1991) suggested directmarketing for optimum profits. Bhat (1991) observed thatmonopoly of the middlemen was the major problem in broilermarketing. Wholesale, retailing, direct marketing or thecombination of these types of marketing were followed.However, due to marketing problems broiler integration wasin operation in Coimbatore.

Constraints :Major constraints faced by the farmers were marketing,

frequent price fluctuation, low profits, diseases, poor qualityfeed, water and chicks, water scarcity, heat stress and labourproblems. Similar observations were made by Nagashekaret al. (1998). Gengaraj (1991) observed constraints like highcost of inputs and poor chick and feed quality. However, inthis study, 25.85 per cent of the farmers had few complaintsbecause of their small scale of operation with no muchexpectation.

Managemental parameters :The managemental parameters are summarized and

tabulated in Table 3 and 4.

Farm buildings :The study revealed that majority of the farms (74.07%)

were located within 50 m from the nearest human dwelling,which is contrary to the recommendation of North and Bell(1990) and Kalita (1994) who advocated a minimum distanceof 100 m. All farms were well connected with good roadsfor transport. All the broiler farms had their orientationtowards East West direction as recommended by North andBell (1990) which helped effective cross ventilation,prevented direct sunlight and rain into the house. The averagelength of the house was 32.20 m which increased with thefarm size. Average height on sides was 2.64 m with averagewidth of 6.3 m which was comparable to that recommended

GANESH HEGDE

92-99


by North and Bell (1990). The construction co-efficient,which is the indicator of the efficiency of land utilization,ranged from 0.55 to 34.43. Only in 3.72 per cent of the farms,it was in the range of 25-35, as advised by Narahari (1996).Low construction co-efficient indicated that more land wasutilized for agricultural activities i.e., mixed farming. Mudflooring was popular (81.48% of the farms) than cementflooring. However, Prasanna (1991) observed many farmswith cement floor in his study covering the broiler farms allover Tamil Nadu. Cement floor was seen in large farms, whicheased disinfection and were rodent proof. Tiled roof wasobserved in majority of the farms (67.59%) followed bythatched (25%) and asbestos roof (7.41%), which weremainly seen in medium, small and large farms. These roofingmaterials were also advocated by Sreenivasaiah (1987). Tileand thatch were cheaper and affordable to the small andmedium farmers, compared to high cost of asbestos roof.All farms were open sided. Height of the sidewall rangedbetween 0.17-1.0 m. In 67.39 per cent of the farms, theheight was below 0.3 m, which was comparable to thatrecommended by Kalita (1994) in deep littered houses aseffective wind barrier. The overhang length ranged between0.3 - 0.9 m. However, Narahari (1996) recommended ahigher range of values at 1.0 - 1.65 m. Lengthier overhangprevented entry of direct sunlight and rain water into the shed.

Housing details :The batch size in the broiler farms ranged from 400 to

30,600 birds. However, Prasanna (1991) recorded that abatch size varied between 150 to 2500 birds. All in - all outsystem of rearing was practiced by 55.56 per cent of thefarms, which was mainly observed in small and medium sizedcontract farms. However, many large farmers and ownfarmers had batch system of rearing, which increasednumber of batches raised per year, increased margin of profitand easy marketing. Similar observation was made byGengaraj (1991). All the farmers reared their birds in deeplitter system. This could be attributed to the economy of theoperation. The floor space given per bird after 4 weeks ofage was 930 cm2, which was similar to the observation madeby Muruganandan (1993) and Prasanna (1991). Almost allfarms were well ventilated. Farmers were well aware of thestandards of floor space and importance of ventilation.Groundnut shell was the popular litter material followed bypaddy husk, spread to a thickness of about 5 cm, litter wasbetter managed in large and own farms. This is in concurrencewith the observation of Javar Hussain (1989).The batchinterval ranged from 8 to 30 days with an average of 15 days(Table 2). This is comparable to the recommendations ofNarahari (1996). Batch interval was more in contract farms(17 days) than in own farms (13 days). Charcoal broodingwas more popular (75% of the farms) followed by both


92-99



Table 5 : Influence of different managemental parameters on age at marketing, body weight at marketing, feed efficiency and liveability incommercial broilers

Mean ± S.E.Sr. No. Parameter Factor N Age at

marketing (days)Body weight atmarketing (kg)

Feedefficiency

Livability(%)

Own 54 48.59±0.53 1.95±0.03 2.14±0.01 93.84±0.221. Ownership

Contract 54 47.59±0.42 1.90±0.02 2.13±0.01 94.19±0.24

Small 12 49.08±1.03 1.90±0.06 2.16±0.01a 93.79±0.30

Medium 45 47.76±0.49 1.94±0.03 2.16±0.01 a 93.8±0.18

2. Farm size

Large 51 48.10±0.52 1.92±0.03 2.-11 ±0.01b 94.25±0.30

Thatch 28 48.64±0.66 1.96±0.03 2.15±0.01 93.98±0.24

Tile 72 47.74±0.41 1.91 ±0.02 2.13±0.01 93.92±0.22

3. Roof type

Asbestos 8 49.00±1.67 1,96±0.08 2.11 ±0.03 95.00±0.39

Mud 89 48.40±0.25 1.93±0.02 2.13±0.01 93.93±0.194. Floor type

Cement 19 46.47±1.00 1.90±0.05 2.12±0.02 94.53tO.25

All in - all out 61 47.48±0.42 1.90±0.02 2.13±0.01 94.12±0.215. System of rearing

Batch 47 48.83±0.56 1.95±0.03 2.13±0.01 93.88±0.26

Strain 1 42 47.62±0.52 1.99±0.03a 2.13±0.01 94.08±0.22

Strain 2 18 46.72±1.02 1.84±0.05b 2.13±0.02 94.13±0.30

6. Strain

Strain 3 48 48.96±0.53 1.90±0.03b 2.14±0.01 93.90±0.30

Commercial 84 48.08±0.38 1.92±0.02 2.13±0.01 b 94.00±0.19

Own 5 48.20±1.11 1.90±0.07 2.08±0.06 b 94.30±0.62

7. Type of feed

Both 19 47.95±1.00 1,95±0.07 2.17±0.02a 94.04±0.36

Overall 108 48.06±0.35 1.92±0.02 2.13±0.01 94.00±0.16

charcoal and electrical brooding and electrical broodingalone. Charcoal was cheaper and easily available, hence usedby small and medium farmers. Chick density per brooderwas about 500 chicks with an average floor space of 0.0452m2 in the first week. However, Deaton et al. (1981) statedthat a floor space of 0.019 - 0.028 m2 would be sufficient.About 77.78 per cent of the farmers used commercial feed.Broiler concentrate was purchased and mixed with specifiedamount of maize mash to prepare feed by 17.59 per cent ofthe farmers. Rest of the farmers who owned large farmsmixed the feed on their own. Own feed mixing wasrecommended by Prasanna (1991) for optimum benefits.Majority of the farmers (67.50 %) used bore well water,followed by open well. A few farms purchased water for theirfarm activities. As noted by Narahari (1996) automatic,trough, basin and pan and jar type waterers were used at therate of one plastic automatic waterer per 100 birds. Majorityof the farmers sanitized the water using bleaching powder.This was increasingly done as the farm size increased as wellas in contract farms. Fluorescent lamp was used as a lightsource in all farms. A 24 hr lighting programme was followedto get quicker body weight as observed by Prasanna (1991).Fluorescent tubes were more durable, consumed lesselectricity though initial investment is high.

Production parameters :Influence of different managemental parameters on age

at marketing, body weight at marketing, feed efficiency and

liveability in commercial broilers are given in Table 5.Interaction effects of some managemental parameters onbody weight at marketing, age at marketing, and liveability incommercial broilers are given in Table 6.

Age at marketing :The average age at marketing was 48.06±0.35 days.

Sheriff et al. (1988) stated similar market age during theirstudy on cost and profit in broiler production. The analysisof the data obtained in the present study indicated that,no single managemental practice was found tosignificantly (P>0.05) affecting the age at marketing. Themarket age is greatly dependent on the market price. Thisfinding is also in accordance with observations made byMahapatra et al. (1990) who reported that the marketingage is a local phenomena, greatly depended on body weight,consumer preference, purchasing power and furtherprocessing. However, the age at marketing wassignificantly (P>0.05) higher in the interaction betweenHubbard strain and both type of feed (i.e., commercialfeed up to 4 weeks of age and protein concentrate plusmaize mixed thereafter).

Body weight at marketing :Average body weight at marketing was 1.92±0.02 kg.

Significantly higher body weight (p<0.01) was seen withHubbard. A body weight of 1.9 to 2.3 kg at 49 days of ageobserved by Kalita (1994) is comparable to the present

GANESH HEGDE

92-99


observation. Prasanna (1991) observed significant variation inbody weight of different strains he studied. Hubbard strain birdsshowed significantly better performance (p< 0.05) with bothtypes of feed. This finding is according with that of Prasanna(1991) who reported that better body weight gain was observedin farms using own feed than company feed. However, the bodyweight at marketing was significantly (p>0.05) higher in theinteraction between strains and both type of feed.

Feed efficiency :The overall mean feed efficiency was 2.13±0.01. It was

significantly better (p>0.05) in farms using both type offeed and large farms. The finding of this study was inaccordance with the results of Sekar (1983) who stated thatbetter broiler farm economy index was seen in large farms.In contrary to the findings of the present study, this might bedue to strain variations. Prabakaran (2003) found the averagefeed efficiency of 2.02 in contract farming at the age of 7weeks and a body weight of 2.1kg.

Liveability :None of the managemental practices significantly

affected liveability. The average liveability was 94.00±0.16

Table 6 : Interaction effects of some managemental parameters on body weight at marketing, age at marketing, and liveability incommercial broilers

Interaction Factors N Interaction effectsMean±S.E. % C.V.

Hubbard x Commercial feed 37 1.98±0.02bcd 7.26

Hubbard x Own feed 1 2.10±0.00acd -

Hubbard x Both feed 4 2.23±0.12a 10.62

Hubchix x Commercial feed 8 1.89±0.06bcd 9.15

Hubchix x Own feed 2 1.80±0.01bcd 7.86

1.

1.

Strain

x type of feed

on weight at

marketing

Hubchix x Both feed 8 1.80±0.08d 12.60

Cobb x Commercial feed 39 1.91±0.03bcd 8.99

Cobb x Own feed 2 1.90±0.10acd 7.44

Cobb x Both feed 7 1.97±0.11bcd 15.14

Hubbard x Commercial feed 37 47.03±0.50bcd 6.43

Hubbard x Own feed 1 50.00±0.00ac -

Hubbard x Both feed 4 52.50±1.44 a 5.55

Hubchix x Commercial feed 8 48.50±1.70ad 9.92

Hubchix x Own feed 2 47.50±2.50ab 7.44

2. Strain

x Type of feed

on age at marketing

Hubchix x Both feed 8 44.75±1.24bc . 7.81

Cobb x Commercial feed 39 49.00±0.55a 6.96

Cobb x Own feed 2 48.00±2.00 ab 5.89

Cobb x Both feed 7 49.00±1.23 ad 6.67

Own x Hubbard 18 94.22+0.21c 0. 7

Own x Hubchix 15 94.43±0.22b 0.89

Own x Cobb 21 93.10±0.48e 2.37

Contract x Hubbard 24 93.98±0.36d 1.87

Contract x Hubchix 3 93.00+1.53e 2.84

3. Ownership

x strain on

livability

Contract x Cobb 27 94.52+0.33a 1.80Note :- Means bearing at least one common superscript in each type of interactions do not differ significantly

per cent. This observation is comparable to that of Prasanna(1991) who stated that less mortality in farms havingasbestos roofs. This might be as a result of better sanitationand disinfection. Further, this is supported by the results ofSekar (1983) and Sheriff et al.(1988) who stated that theliveability rate of 94.8 per cent. However, the interactionbetween contract farms with Cobb strain showedsignificantly (p>0.05) high liveability. The interactionbetween contract farms and Hubchix strain and showedsignificantly (p>0.05) low liveability.

Conclusion :The results of the present study indicated that the

broiler houses were situated around 50 m from humandwellings and connected by good roads for transport. Farmorientation was towards east west direction. The averagelength and width of the house was 32.20 m and 2.64 m. Theconstruction co-efficient 0.55 to 34.43. The floor wascement floor and tiled roof in majority of the farms. Allfarms were open sided. Height of the sidewall and theoverhang length ranged between 0.17 m - 1.0 m and 0.3 m- 0.9 m, respectively. All in - all out system of rearing waspracticed. Birds were reared in deep litter system. The floor


92-99



space given per bird after 4 weeks of age was 930 cm2. Allfarms were well ventilated, groundnut shell was the popularlitter material spread to a thickness of about 5 cm. Theaverage batch interval was 15 days. Brooding was done usingcharcoal. Bore well water was the major water source. Pasticautomatic drinkers were used. Fluorescent lamp was used asa light source for a 24 hr lighting programme. The farmers

using a mixture of both commercial and own feed mixingwith Hubbard strain reared the birds for a longer period. Bodyweight at marketing was higher in farms using a mixture ofboth commercial and own feed and having Hubbard strain.Feed efficiency was higher in large farms having more than4000 birds using a mixture of both commercial and own feed.Liveability was higher in contract farms rearing Cobb strain.

LITERATURE CITED..........................................Adebayo, O.O. and Adeola, R.G. (2005). Research extension is needed to boost poultry farming. J. Human Ecol., 181(1): 39-41.

Bhat,G.A.(1991).Problems of marketing poultry and poultry products. Poult. Guide, 27(3): 37.

Deaton, J.W., Reece, F.N., Mc Naughton, J.L. and Lott, B.D.(1981). Effect of brooding density on broiler performance. Poult. Sci., 60 (4) :730-732.

Devender Singh, Sharma, R.K. and Singh, Balwan, (2010).Adoption of feeding practices by broiler farmers of Haryana. Indian. J. Anim. Res.,44(1): 36 – 39.

Gengaraj, S. (1991).A study on package of practices adopted and economic appraisal of layer farms in Tamil Nadu. MVSc. Thesis, Tamil NaduVeterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chennai, T.N. (INDIA).

Harvey, W.R. (1975). Least square analysis. USDA-Science and Education Administration- Agricultural Research, NEWYORK.

Javar, Hussain (1989). Management of litter in deep litter system. Poult. Punch., 6(2):147.

Kalita, K.P. (1994). Package of practices on successful broiler production. Poult. Advisor, 27(4): 51-72.

Kramer, C.Y. (1956). Extension of multiple range tests to group means with unequal numbers of replicated. Biometircs, 12 (3): 307 -310.

Mahapatra, C.M., Mahapatra, S.C. and Verma, S.S. (1990). Effect of different dietary protein and energy levels and age of broilers on meatquality. Abstract presented in 13th Annual Poultry Conference and Symposium of Poultry Science Association, Parel, Mumbai (M.S.) INDIA.

Muruganandan, B.(1993). Influence of system of rearing on production performance of commercial layers.Ph.D.Thesis, Tamil Nadu Veterinaryand Animal Sciences University,Chennai,T.N. INDIA.

Nagashekar,K., Raghuram, P. and Satyanarayana,G.(1998). Constraints in poultry farming. Poult.Guide., 25(8): 17-24.

Narahari, D. (1996). Commercial broiler production. Emkay Publications, NEW DELHI, INDIA.

North, M.O. and Bell, D.D.(1990). Commercial chicken production manual. Van Nostrand Reinhold, NEW YORK, USA.

Prabakaran, R. (2003). Good practices in planning an management of integrated broiler production in South Asia. FAO Animal production andhealth paper. p.18.

Prasanna, G. (1991). A study on package of practices adopted and economic appraisal of broiler farms in Tamil Nadu. MVSc. Thesis. Tamil NaduUniversity of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Chennai,T.N. (INDIA), pp. 101-115.

Prabakaran, R. (2000). Integrated system of broiler production. Proc. 20th Annual Conf. and Symp. Indian Poult. Sci. Asso. Tamil NaduVeterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chennai,T.N. (INDIA), p.137.

Prasad, K.V.,Vara Reddy, P.V.V.,Satyanarayana Rao, K., Sarjan Ram and Raghu, P. (2007). A study on the socio-economic characteristics ofcontract and non-contract broiler farmers. Indian J. Poult.Sci., 42(8): 179-182.

Rosario, K.J.(1996). Bangalore’s booming broiler business. Poult. International, 35 (7): 24-25.

Safiullah, A.M. and Mani, K. (1991). Managing labour force in poultry farm. Poult. Punch., 7(3):57-58.

Sekar, T. P. (1983). Some package of practices adopted and economics of broiler farming in and around Madras. MVSc. Thesis. Tamil NaduAgricultural University. Coimbatore, T.N. (INDIA).

Sheriff, F.R., Kumanan, K. and Thangaraj, T.M. (1988). Cost and profit in broiler production. Cheiron., 17:207-211.

Sreenivasaiah, P.V. (1987). Scientific poultry production. IBH Prakashana, Bengaluru (KARNATAKA) INDIA.

Thomas, D.G., Ravindran, V., Thomas, D.V., Camden, B.J., Cottam, Y.H., Morel, P.C.H. and Cook, C.J. (2004) Socio-economic factorsaffecting poultry farmers. New Zealand Veterinary J.,52( 2):76-81.

Thulasi, G., Prabaharan, R., James, D.J. and Jeyagopal, R. (1988). Marketing channels and price spread for broiler chicken in Madras city. Poult.Guide, 25(5): 21-24.

GANESH HEGDE

92-99

Documents

AJAS - Research · PDF filelisted some socio-economic factors affecting poultry ... Broiler chicken ... and livability is presented in Table 6