azolla pinnata

254 downloads 0 Views 188KB Size Report
No. of farmers having backyard birds ... Group II: Besides grazing in backyard, 0.5-1 kg waste .... any live and capital intensive venture is beyond their capacity.
Veterinary Practitioner Vol. 13 No. 2

December 2012

EVALUATION OF AZOLLA (AZOLLA PINNATA) AS A POULTRY FEED AND ITS ROLE IN POVERTY ALLEVIATION AMONG LANDLESS PEOPLE IN NORTHERN PLAINS OF INDIA R.B. Rai1*, K. Dhama2, T. Damodaran3, Hamid Ali4, Sweta Rai5, Balvir Singh6 and P. Bhatt7 Division of Pathology Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, Uttar Pradesh-243 122, India ABSTRACT The present study was undertaken to evaluate rural poultry as source of livelihood by reducing the feed cost. The evaluation was done in 42 villages in 2 districts of Uttar Pradesh, India. Two strains of poultry viz. Nirbhik (dual purpose) and Shyama (eggs) were evaluated under semi-range system. The Nirbhik birds raised on Azolla pinnata achieved 1810± 12.5 g body weight by 14th week in comparision with non-azolla fed Nirbhik birds which achieved 1270 ± 12.9 g. The net return per 200 chicks in azolla fed group was Rs. 42330±20.4. The Shyama birds raised on azolla produced 197.6±3.2 eggs in 72 weeks in comparision of 138.4±3.1 eggs of nonazolla fed birds. The rural poultry integrated with in situ azolla cultivation was able to provide sustainable livelihood security as well as income for diversifying the livelihood base under infra-structure constraints rural areas. Key words: Azolla (Azolla pinnata), poultry

Introduction The poultry industry is one of the most profitable ventures of agriculture and provides nutritious meat and eggs for human consumption. The shortest incubation period in harvesting the benefits and its ability to adopt in all the climates provide it superiority over the other ventures. In India nearly 30% eggs and 35% meat is produced by the rural poultry production system (Khan, 1996). The situation is more or less similar in other developing countries also. The rapid growth of intensive poultry production system, mainly comprising broilers and layers, is dependent on balance feed, quality germplasm, protected housing and other infra-structural facilities to support the venture. The availability of quality feed at a reasonable cost is a key to successful poultry operation (Basak et al., 2002). FAO programme focuses on increasing the feed base production systems to locally available feed resources in developing countries (Sansoucy, 1993). For sustainability of the venture, it is necessary that the resources are available locally and competition with human food should be minimal. If possible there should be a synergy of activities pertaining to crop and livestock for the purpose (Preston and Murgucitio, 1987). In developing countries the situation is different and needs approaches suiting to their socio-economic penury. The majority of the farmers are resource poor and nearly 80-85% population is either landless or small land holders. In India, the situation is more or less similar and the increasing human population pressure, diminishing cultivable land resources owing to urbanization etc., lack of initial capital resources, monopolistic marketing network and lack of awareness make situation more complex (Rai et al., 2011). The situation is worse with the 1

landless and marginal farmers as they are dependent on the earnings from the meager land available or the wages earned as agricultural workers in the locality. To address the situation for providing sustainable livelihood security and alleviating the poverty level of the families various interventions were made. Rural poultry production system comprises open range, semi-range and deep litter system of rearing in backyards. While deep litter system requires external inputs, the open range and semi-range systems do not require external inputs. Under intensive system nearly 60-65% of recurring expenditure goes for the feed itself. Furthermore, for producing one kg poultry meat under intensive system it is estimated that about 200 litres of water is required, and 4 kg green house gases are produced. The resource poor farmers are unable to raise the initial capital costs of housing, equipments and chicks besides the risk involved. The use of Azolla as a feed resource for pigs and poultry had been tested with favourable results by us and many workers (Castillo et al. 1981; Basak et al., 2002; Alalade and Iyayi, 2006; Singh and Subudhi, 1978). It is a free- floating fresh water fern belonging to the family Azollaceae. It grows naturally in stagnant water. Anabaena azollae, living in the cavity of Azolla leaf, can fix high amount of atmospheric dinitrogen due to the presence of symbolic algae in the leaves (Becking, 1979). Azolla grow luxuriously between 15-250 C temperatures and is rich in protein and the total crude protein content vary from 22-30% (Basak et al., 2002). The other constituents in Azolla are minerals, chlorophyll, carotinoids, amino acids, vitamins etc. Boyd (1968), Subudhi and Singh (1977) and Maurice et al. (1984) reported that inclusion of aquatic plants at low levels in poultry diets had shown better

Principal Scientist and P.I. NAIP-3 Project and corresponding author e-mail: [email protected] Senior Scientist, 3 Senior Scientist, C.S.S.R.I.-R.R.S., Lucknow (U.P.) 4 Senior Research Fellow, 5,6 Research Associate, Division of Pathology, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, Uttar Pradesh-243 122, India 7 Assistant Professor, Veterinary Clinics, College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand - 263 145, India 250 2

Veterinary Practitioner Vol. 13 No. 2

December 2012

Table1: Status of annual income (Rupees) from sampled population

Barabanki Trivediganj Haidergarh

Status Land less farmers (0-0.1 ha land) Marginal farm ers (0.1-1 ha) Small farm ers (1-3 ha) No. of farmers having backyard birds No. of farmers Aware (a) Rural poultry production (b) Commercial broiler production tech.

14000.45 25900.45 50400.12 -

13500.20 24400.82 49058.55 -

2 -

2 1

Raebareli Lalganj Sareni & Tera 16000.08 15000.15 29100.25 27850.50 52000.00 51400.00 1 -

Average annual income 14606 26809 50711 -

2 -

Table 2: Effect of Azolla feeding on body weight of Nirbhik strain

Group Group I (n = 18) Group II (n = 18) Group III (n = 18)

Body weight at 8 week (g) 782  10.8

Body weight at 14 week 1270  12.9

Pooled mortality at th 14 week (%) 7.01

803  11.3

1581  11.8

5.2

839  11.7

1810  12.5

4.98

N = Number of farmers monitored Table 3: Effect of Azolla feeding on egg production of Shyama strain

Group

Group I (n = 6) Group II (n = 6) Group III (n = 8)

Total egg production at 40 week 39.1 4.2

Total egg production at 72 weeks (No. of birds recorded) 138.4 3.1 (206)

Pooled mortality at th 14 week (%)

42.3 2.4

161.24.6 (215)

15.2

48.6  2.9

197.6  3.2 (221)

15.1

16.9

N = Number of farmers monitored

performance, especially when they supply part of the total protein. The cost of cultivation of Azolla is negligible and thus the expenditure towards feed is saved by resource poor farmers. The present study was undertaken to evaluate Azolla pinnata as sole feed supplement to poultry under rural poultry production system (open range and semi-range) and its role in poverty alleviation and creating sustainable livelihood security to landless and marginal land holder families. Materials and Methods The present study was undertaken in villages of Barabanki and Raebareli districts of U.P., India as an intervention under the World Bank funded National Agricultural Innovation Project of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. The research project is being implemented in 2 clusters in each district comprising 10-12 villages in each cluster to develop practical models of sustainable livelihood security focusing the rural families.

Base line survey: Base line survey covering 15% of households in each cluster was conducted during April-July, 2009 i.e. beginning of the project using random stratified sampling method for knowing status of livelihood and resources in rural areas under investigation. Azolla cultivation: Azolla pinnata was cultivated in small pits of 4 x 2 x 0.2 m (L x W x D) dimensions and in village ponds. The pits floor was covered with polythene sheets and about 2 kg fresh cow dung and 60-70 g single super phosphate was mixed in a bucket of water and poured in the pit. The pits were filled with fresh water and about half kg of fresh Azolla was inoculated in the pit by spreading on the surface. The pits were made near the shelter of the poultry. The water was replaced at monthly intervals. Poultry rearing: Small shelters of approximately 8 x 4 x 4 feet were constructed by farmers using mud. Asbestos sheet was used as roof. One side of the shelter was made of chicken wire mesh and a door of wire mesh in wooden frame was 251

Veterinary Practitioner Vol. 13 No. 2

December 2012

Fig.1: Showing wellness due to poultry feed Azolla (Azolla pinnata) among landless poultry farmers

made in the other side of shelter. Day old chicks of dual purpose strains of poultry, Nirbhik and Shyama, targeting for growth and egg production, respectively, were provided to the farmers in batches of 50 chicks at interval of 21-35 days to a total of 200 chicks in the year. The chicks were fed either chick mesh or finely grinded wheat for 7-10 days and were allowed to graze onward. Evaluation of azolla as sole feed: In the field conditions and existing situations of non-availability of sufficient grazing space and concentrate ration, the evaluation of azolla as sole feed resource was evaluated. For the purpose 3 groups of farmers were identified as: Group I: No supplementary feeding; only grazing in backyard was practiced. Group II: Besides grazing in backyard, 0.5-1 kg waste grain per 50 birds per day was supplemented. Group III: Azolla pinnata (ad lib.) was provided to the birds and it was the main feed during grazing. The birds were monitored for mortality and body weight at 8th and 14th week. Economic evaluation for livelihood security: Farmers in all the three groups were monitored for their cash input cost, cash return, utilization pattern of returns and sustainance which is vital for livelihood security.

Results and Discussion Base line survey: The data of 42 villages of Barabanki and Raebareli districts of U.P., India, surveyed for initial economic status of the rural farmers are presented in the Table 1. The average family size across the clusters was 7.1. The average income varied to ‘ 14606, 26809 and 50711 per annum for landless, marginal and small farmers, respectively. The major source of livelihood for landless families was working as agricultural laborers, hawkers or as helpers in nearby village market shops. The major livelihood source for marginal and small farmers was agricultural produce i.e. wheat, paddy, pulses, oilseeds and rearing of bovines. None of the farmers out of 42 villages were having any backyard bird but few occasionally reared 1-5 birds whenever they got for family use. Only 7 farmers were aware with the rural poultry production technology and one with commercial broiler production. Azolla cultivation: The northern India has 3 distinct seasons viz., summer, rainy and winter season. The temperature during summer reaches 44-45 o C and during winter months may drop to 2-3oC as lowest peak. The growth of Azolla pinnata was optimum for 9-10 months but decrease was seen during mid December to January and June months. In peak season when the ideal temperature was available (15-30o C), 7-8 kg fresh fern was harvested per week from 252

Veterinary Practitioner Vol. 13 No. 2

each pit. The birds of the Group III were fed the fern and average consumption varied from 30-90 g/day/bird. Farmers fed the Azolla daily in the morning and afternoon. Effect on growth: The growth rate of Nirbhik strain is given in the Table 2 for all the 3 groups. The body weight gain in Azolla fed group was 1.81 kg at 14th week (tender meat stage) compared to 1.58 kg in Group-II (grain supplementation) and 1.27 kg of Group-I (without any supplementation). The mortality varied between 4.98 to 7.01%. The causes of mortality were predation, pneumonia and salmonellosis. In one batch under group 1, one farmer suffered chick mortality due to IBD which claimed 24 deaths out of 50 chicks supplied. Evaluation of return and livelihood: The farmers sold the birds in the local market gradually. Though a total of 604 farmers were covered under the interventions but data of 18 farmers in each group was compiled and monitored. The price of live birds in local market varied between Rs.100-150/kg depending on the season. Almost 90% farmers sold Nirbhik strain birds when they attained body weight between 1.5 -2 kg and realized the cash. However, farmers provided with Shyama strain retained nearly 50% of the available total female birds for egg laying but sold the males and about 50% female birds also to fulfill their domestic needs. The egg laying birds available with farmers in the 3 groups were monitored for egg production status and effect of Azolla feeding. The results are presented in the Table 3. The GroupIII birds produced 197.6 eggs which was comparatively much lower in Group-II (161.2) and Group-I (138.4 eggs). The cost of chicks irrespective of strain was Rs.10/- each. The cost of shelter was Rs. 452.5± 6.5 per farmers. The labor cost was not assessed as it was by family itself. The cost of single super phosphate, which was purchased, was Rs. 4/kg. thus, each pit required cash input cost of Rs. 44/- per annum and produced approximately 300 kg fresh Azolla per annum. The average income per bird sold was between Rs. 150210 depending on weight and season. The mortality up to 72 weeks was between 15.1-16.9 and the main reasons reported were predation, pneumonia, septicaemia, salmonellosis and colibacillosis. The income received from 200 birds reared by farmers also varied. The highest average income was realized from Azolla fed Nirbihik birds which was Rs. 42,330± 20.4 compared to non-supplemented group (Rs.26938±10.3) and partially supplemented group (Rs.35892 ±12.4) In the villages under investigation 30.26% population is landless followed by marginal (38.16%) and small farmers (26.98%). The average family size of 7.1 with average annual family income of Rs.14000.45 of landless population is a complex situation and a major challenge to develop sustainable on farm models for their livelihood security. Even the annual income of small land holders Rs. 26809 of marginal and Rs. 50711 of small farmers are not sufficient to cater the need of the families such as good education for children nutritional and health security. The existing models available need capital investment which is not available with these resource poor farmers. Even a small size broiler farm with capacity of 250-500 chicks needs investment in the range of Rs. 50,000-80,000/-. The estimated feed cost under deep litter system is 60-65% of total recurring expenditure. In the present study integration of Azolla in situ cultivation

December 2012

and feeding to birds under semi-range saved the feed cost by more than 80%. The higher growth rate, as also reported by many workers (Castillo et al., 1981; Basak et al., 2002; Alalade and Iyayi, 2006; Singh and Subudhi, 1978) due to higher crude protein content (above 22%), minerals and vitamins available in the fern containing Azolla were able to meet the major requirement of the body, and grazing in the backyard supplemented with other amino acids and nutrients. The nonAzolla fed group showed lower growth rate and egg production and, thus, the advantage of Azolla is fully established. The reports are in conformity with other workers (Basak et al., 2002). The smaller leaf size of Azolla pinnata is suitable for intake by the chicks as well as grower/adults. The livelihood security of such resource poor farmers is real challenge. They lack resources to initiate any venture besides the technical knowledge. The fear of risk involved with any live and capital intensive venture is beyond their capacity. The rural poultry production commonly in form of open range system can only provide subsidiary income where as small unit of deep litter system results in poor profits margin due to high feed cost and its non-availability in the vicinity. In this scenario the present approach proved a viable venture. The in situ azolla cultivation at negligible cost was able to sustain the growth which was near to the standard parameters of the strains under farm conditions. In the present study out of 604 farmers, 52 upgraded their venture into deep litter broiler production besides continuance of the present system in the subsequent years which yielded about Rs. 6000-10000/ per cycle of 250-400 broiler chick units. A few farmers gradually constructed/renovated their own houses, purchased lactating cows/buffalo for milk, also started goatery unit from the earnings in which this integration of poultry with azolla played major roll. Almost all farmers increased their rural poultry intake from initial 50 chicks to 150-300 per batch within 6 months though the data of separate units are not included in the present report. The most significant result was capacity building and coming out of vicious cycle of poverty. Some of the landless families restarted sending their children to school again which was discontinued due to economic reasons. The present study is suggestive of a viable on farm model of rural poultry integrated with in situ Azolla cultivation and feeding where the initial capital for taking up the desired activities for sustainable livelihood security can be generated. Simultaneously, it can serve itself as source of sustainable livelihood security, besides assuring nutritional and health security. Rural poultry production system, particularly semirange based technology, can be a viable tool for poverty alleviation among landless and small land holder masses. This does not require higher level of technical competence. Acknowledgement Authors are thankful to National Agricultural Innovation Project (NAIP) Project, ICAR, New Delhi for financial support and Director, IVRI for providing necessary research facilities to carry out the present research work. References Alalade, O.A. and Iyayi, E.A. (2006) International J. of Poultry Sci. 5:137-141. Basak,B. et al. (2002) International J. of Poultry Sci. 1:29-34. 253

Veterinary Practitioner Vol. 13 No. 2 Becking, J.H. (1979) Environmental requirement of Azolla for the use of tropical rice production. In: Nitrogen and Rice. International Rice Research Institute, Los Banos, Leguna, Philippines, pp. 345-374. Boyd, C.E. (1968) Economic Botany. 22:359-365. Castillo, L.S. et al. (1981) Exploratory studies on Azolla and fermented ricehulls in broiler diets. College, Leguna (Philippines), pp. 6. Khan, A.G. (1996) Indigenous poultry and strategies for improving sus tainable rural poultry produc tion in India. Indian Farming. 46:19-24. Maurice, D.V. et al. (1984) Poultry Sci. 63:317-323. Preston, T.R. and Margueitio, E. (1987) Trees and shrub legumes as protein sources for livestock. In Forage legumes

December 2012 and other loc al protein s ourc es as s ubs titute for important protein meals. D. W almsley (ed.), CTA, W ageningen and CARDI, Trinidad, pp. 94-104. Rai, R.B. et al. (2011) Livestock based specialized integrated fa rmin g s y s tem for liv elihood s ec urit y an d s e lf em ploy ment in Is land ec os y s te m. Lead paper in International conference on tropical islands ecosystem, March, 23-26, Port Blair. Sansoucy, R. (1993) The FAO program for better utilization of local resources in developing countries. In Proc. 7 t h W orld Conf erenc e Animal Produc tion. E dmonton, Canada, pp. 77-80. Singh, P.K. and Subudhi, B.P.R. (1978) Indian Farming. 27:3739. Subudhi, B.P.R. and Singh, P.K. (1977) Poultry Sci. 57:378-380.

254