Produced by: Agriculture and Consumer Prote

Title: Project on Livestock Industrialization, Trade and Social-Health-Environment ...

V. Profile of Survey Sample

What do the survey data reveal about the accessibility of the units to infrastructure, information,
assets, technology, environment and marketing? An examination of this question follows.

5.1 Accessibility to Information

Tables 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 summarise the findings about the level of education and experience of the
sample households. One can see from Table 5.1 that only one-fourth of the units reported to having
had any training in agriculture/poultry; and an insignificant proportion of the units had technically
qualified personnel managing the units. An inspection of Table 5.2 shows that at least half of the
sample households had had primary and secondary level education. It is also worth noting in Table
5.3 that about 40 percent of sample units reported to having 10 or more years of experience in
running the poultry units.

5.2 Accessibility to Infrastructure

How are the units placed with respect to their accessibility to urban areas? Are they close to or far
away from an urban area? Similarly, are they close to a residential area? Tables 5.4 and 5.5 help us
open in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API pdfcrowd.com
 to gain some insight into these aspects. First, look at the data in Table 5.4, which indicates that the
distance from the location of the unit to the nearest town is around 7 kms. on average, and that the
average distance to the nearest highway is 42 kms. A glance at the data in Table 5.5 tells us that
more than half of the sample units are close to a residential area. Roughly one-third of the units are
far away from a residential area.

Tables 5.6 and 5.7 report accessibility of the sample units to municipal water, telephone, electricity,
and a computer. Table 5.6 shows that all the sample units surveyed were found to have electricity.
Similarly, most of the units (70 %) have telephone facility. Only a small proportion of the units (12.5
%) reported having access to a computer, and still a smaller percentage have access to a municipal
water supply. As indicated in Table 5.7, for most of the sample units, the main source of water is
bore well.

5.3 Accessibility to Assets

What are the sources of finance fixed as well as working capital for the units surveyed? The answer
to this question is provided in Tables 5.8 and 5.9. Table 5.8 displays the distribution of units drawing
on their own funds, institutional credit, private loans, and Rural Development Programmes for fixed
capital. A glance at this data shows that 80 percent of the sample units drew from their own funds,
about 65 percent reported drawing from institutional agencies, and less than 20 percent depended on
private loans. The proportion of the units that depended on Rural Development Programmes for
credit is shown to be very small. Similarly, Table 5.9 reports the sources of working capital for the
sample units. About half of the units reported to having drawn on institutional credit, while about one-
third drew from their own funds. Less than one-fifth of the units depended on private loans.

5.4 Technology/Production Practices

The age structure of sample units is displayed in Table 5.10. One can say from a casual inspection
of this data that layer units in general are 10 to 15 years old, while broiler units are less than 10 years
old. For example, out of a total of 161 layer units, some 83 fall in the age group of 10 to 15 years and
above. Conversely, 96 broiler units out of a total of 159 fall in the age group of 10 years and below.

open in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API pdfcrowd.com
 Does the survey shed some light on scale of operations? The data documented in Table 5.11 seek to
provide an answer to this query. The table records distribution of units by initial (first year of
production) and present (at the time of survey, October-December 2002) size. An inspection of this
data shows that there has been a gradual shift from small to large-size units, especially among layer
units.

For instance, out of a total 118 small layer units, 74 units that were initially small (i.e., when
production began) are still small; but 44 units that were small initially have managed to become large-
size units at the time of the survey. Conversely, among broiler units only 13 out of a total of 140 units
have managed to grow in size, while the remaining 127 units continue to remain as small units.

Table 5.12 indicates the distribution of units by basic characteristics such as whether the units use
the deep litter or cage system, are proprietorships or partnerships, or are located in rural or urban
areas. An inspection of these data show that the deep litter system is relatively common among
broiler units, while the cage system is popular among layer units. Similarly, proprietorship is the most
common form of industrial organization among all the units 309 out of 320 units are proprietor owned.
Yet another important feature is that virtually all the units are located in rural areas.

What is the mortality rate of birds at various stages? Data arrayed in Table 5.13 help to provide an
answer to this question. For instance, in the case of layers, about 30 percent die at the chick stage,
33 percent at the grower stage, and the rest at layer stages. The overall mortality for layers works out
to be 10 percent. Similarly, for broilers, the overall mortality rate is four percent 40 percent die at the
chick stage, 35 percent at the grower stage, and the rest at the broiler stage.

The average yield of eggs per bird among the sample units is reported in Table 5.14. According to
these data, the average yield of eggs per bird is 289. About 42 percent of units reported an average
yield of 300 eggs per bird, 44.7 percent reported an average yield ranging from 250-299 eggs per
bird, and the rest reported fewer than 250 eggs per bird.

Table 5.15 exhibits data relating to the average number of hired and family workers per unit. An
inspection of these data shows that an average total of 6.1 workers per annum worked on a poultry
unit. Of that total, 60 percent were hired male workers and 25 percent were hired female workers.
open in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API pdfcrowd.com
 The remaining 15 percent were made up of family labour.

5.5 Access to Marketing

Details regarding the sale of output by the sample units to various agencies are reported in Table
5.16. A casual glance at these data shows that the units tend to sell the bulk of their output to
wholesale merchants.

5.6 Environmental Factors

How do the sample units dispose of dead birds? How many of them receive complaints about
environment pollution? How much do they spend on cleaning up the environment? Answers to these
questions follow from Tables 5.17 to 5.19. First, look at Table 5.17. About half of the sample units
responded by saying that they bury dead birds on their own land, while the rest responded that they
dispose of them by incineration or other means. The figures in Table 5.18 illustrate the negative
environmental effects generated by the sample units. About one-third of the layer units and one-tenth
of the broiler units reported having received public complaints. Similarly, about 10 percent of layer
units and two percent of broiler units reported disposing of dead birds on public land.

Instances of sample units spending on pollution abatement are also frequent and is shown in Table
5.19. The data arrayed in this table document that all of the units have been spending on control of
flies, removal of dead birds, and shed cleaning. For example, layer units have been spending Rs. 300
to Rs. 900 per batch to control flies while broiler units have been spending Rs. 100 to 160 for this
type of clean- up.

Table 5.1: Households with Training in Agriculture/Poultry

Category Training in agriculture/poultry (percent) Technically qualified workers (percent)
Layer small 20.3 0
Layer large 43.7 0
Broiler small 21.3 0.8
Broiler large 12.5 0
open in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API pdfcrowd.com
 All Units 26.3 0.3

Notes: i) Small = Less than 10,000 birds.

ii) Large = More than 10,000 birds
Source of Data: Indian Poultry Survey, 2002.

Table 5.2: Distribution of Units by Years of Education of Decisiomaker (Percent of all units)
Category Nil 1-5 years 6-10 years Above 10 years Total
Layer small 0 5.4 58.1 36.5 100.0
Layer large 1.1 3.4 31.0 64.4 100.0
Broiler small 6.3 11.0 41.7 40.9 100.0
Broiler large 0 3.1 42.6 34.4 100.0
All Units 2.8 6.9 44.7 45.6 100.0

Notes: i) Small = Less than 10,000 birds

ii) Large = More than 10,000 birds
Source of Data: Indian Poultry Survey, 2002.

Table 5.3: Distribution of Units by Years of Experience of Decisionmaker in Poultry (Percent of all
units)
Category 1-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years Above 10 years Total
Layer small 2.7 28.4 40.5 28.4 100.0
Layer large 0 14.9 21.8 63.2 100.0
Broiler small 7.9 27.6 32.3 32.3 100.0
Broiler large 3.1 9.4 53.1 34.4 100.0
All Units 4.1 22.5 33.4 40.0 100.0

Notes: i) Small = Less than 10,000 birds

ii) Large = More than 10,000 birds

open in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API pdfcrowd.com
 Source of Data: Indian Poultry Survey, 2002

Table 5.4: Sample Units Accessibility to Urban Areas and Highways (Kms.)
Category Nearest town Main Road (National or State Highway)
Layer small 5.49 74.18
Layer large 11.90 34.93
Broiler small 5.24 33.84
Broiler large 8.84 20.66
All Units 7.47 42.15

Notes: i) Small = Less than 10,000 birds.

ii) Large = More than 10,000 birds
Source of Data: Indian Poultry Survey, 2002.

Table 5.5: Percentage Distribution of Sample Units by Closeness to Residential Area

Category Very close Moderately close Far away Total
Layer small 72.97 4.05 22.97 100

(74)
Layer large 58.62 9.20 32.18 100

(87)
Broiler small 55.12 18.90 25.98 100

(127)
Broiler large 43.75 18.75 37.50 100

(32)
All Units 59.06 12.81 28.13 100

(320)

open in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API pdfcrowd.com
 Notes: i) Small = Less than 10,000 birds.
ii) Large = More than 10,000 birds
iii) Very close <250 mts; moderately close: 250-500 mts; far away > 500 mts.
iv) Figures in parentheses represent sample units
Source of Data: Indian Poultry Survey, 2002

Table 5.6: Percentage of Sample Units with Infrastructure Facilities (Percent of all Units)
Category Municipal water Telephone Electricity Computer
Layer small 1.35 54.05 100.00 0.00
Layer large 1.15 95.40 100.00 41.28
Broiler small 3.15 53.54 100.00 0.79
Broiler large 0.0 96.88 100.00 9.38
All Units 1.88 69.38 100.00 12.50

Notes: i) Small = Less than 10,000 birds.

ii) Large = More than 10,000 birds
Source of Data: Indian Poultry Survey, 2002

Table 5.7: Percentage Distribution of Sample Units by Primary Water Source

Category Bore well Open well Canal/river Municipal tap Purchasing water Total
Layer small 97.30 1.35 0.00 1.35 0.00 100

(74)
Layer large 97.70 1.15 0.00 1.15 0.00 100

(87)
Broiler small 88.19 0.79 0.00 3.15 7.87 100

(127)
Broiler large 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100

open in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API pdfcrowd.com
 (32)
All Units 94.06 0.94 0.00 1.88 3.13 100

(320)

Notes: i) Small = Less than 10,000 birds.

ii) Large = More than 10,000 birds
iii) Figures in parentheses represents sample units
Source of Data: Indian Poultry Survey, 2002.

Table 5.8: Percentage of Units by Source of Funds for Fixed Capital

Category Own funds Institutional credit Private loan Rural Development Programme
Layer small 85.1 71.6 23.0 0.0
Layer large 62.1 87.4 12.6 5.7
Broiler small 92.1 42.5 18.9 2.4
Broiler large 87.5 75.0 15.6 3.1
All units 81.9 64.7 17.8 2.8

* Percentage distribution may not add to 100 because units may be drawing from more
than one source.

Notes: i) Small = Less than 10,000 birds.

ii) Large = More than 10,000 birds
Source of Data: Indian Poultry Survey, 2002.

Table 5.9: Percentage of Units by Source of Funds for Working Capital

Category Own funds Institutional credit Private loan Rural Development Programme
Layer small 24.3 58.1 16.2 1.4
Layer large 28.7 67.8 20.7 0.0
Broiler small 48.0 23.6 16.5 0.0

open in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API pdfcrowd.com
 Broiler large 9.4 65.6 15.6 0.0
All units 33.4 47.8 17.5 0.3

Notes: i) Small = Less than 10,000 birds.

ii) Large = More than 10,000 birds
Source of Data: Indian Poultry Survey, 2002.

Table 5.10: Distribution of Sample Units by Age of Unit

Age in years Layers Broilers Total
Less than 5 years 20 38 58
5 to 10 years 58 58 116
10 to 15 years 29 36 65
Above 15 years 54 27 81
All units 161 159 320

Notes: i) Small = Less than 10,000 birds.

ii) Large = More than 10,000 birds
Source of Data: Indian Poultry Survey, 2002.

Table 5.11: Distribution of Sample Units by Initial* and Present Size**

Present size Layer small Layer large Broiler small Broiler large Total

Initial size
Layer small 74 0 - - 74
Layer large 44 43 - - 87
Broiler small - - 127 0 127
Broiler large - - 13 19 32
All units 118 43 140 19 320

*Initial size means size at the first year of production

open in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API pdfcrowd.com
 ** Present size means size at the time of survey

Notes: i) Small = Less than 10,000 birds.

ii) Large = More than 10,000 birds
Source of Data: Indian Poultry Survey, 2002.

Table 5.12: Distribution of Sample Units by Basic Characteristics

Technology Management Location Type
Category Deep litter Cage Proprietorship Partnership Rural Urban
Layer small 38 36 74 0 74 0
Layer large 1 86 78 9 87 0
Broiler small 127 0 126 1 126 1
Broiler large 32 0 31 1 32 0
All units 198 122 309 11 319 1

Notes: i) Small = Less than 10,000 birds.

ii) Large = More than 10,000 birds.
Source of Data: Indian Poultry Survey, 2002.

Table 5.13: Percentage Distribution of Dead Birds by Stage of Mortality

Category Chick* Grower* Layer/Broiler* Overall*
Layer small 28.2 23.4 48.5 100.0
Layer large 29.8 22.5 47.8 100.0
All layer 29.5 22.6 47.9 100.0
Broiler small 36.9 35.3 27.8 100.0
Broiler large 42.5 35.6 21.9 100.0
All Broiler 39.6 35.4 25.0 100.0

* For Layers: Chicks 1 to 8 weeks; Grower 9 to 18 weeks; and Layer 19 and above
open in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API pdfcrowd.com
 weeks
For Broilers: Chicks 1day to 2 weeks, Grower 3 to 4 weeks, and Broiler 5 weeks and
above.
Notes: i) Small = Less than 10,000 birds.
ii) Large = More than 10,000 birds.
Source of Data: Indian Poultry Survey, 2002.

Table 5.14: Percentage Distribution of Units by Average Yield of Eggs Per Bird
Category Less than 250 250 - 299 300 and above Total Average yield of eggs
Layer small 12.16 45.95 41.89 100 281

(74)
Layer large 13.79 43.68 42.53 100 291

(87)
All Units 13.04 44.72 42.24 100 289

(161)

Notes: i) Small = Less than 10,000 birds.

ii) Large = More than 10,000 birds
iii) Figures in Parentheses represents sample units.
Source of Data: Indian Poultry Survey, 2002.

Table 5.15: Average Number of Hired and Family Workers Per Unit (per annum)
Category Hired male Hired female Family workers Total workers
Layer small 1.3 0.6 0.9 2.8
Layer large 8.4 4.1 1.3 13.7
Broiler small 1.4 0.3 0.9 2.6
Broiler large 5.5 0.8 0.3 6.6
All Units 3.7 1.5 0.9 6.1
open in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API pdfcrowd.com
 Notes: i) Small = Less than 10,000 birds.
ii) Large = More than 10,000 birds
Source of Data: Indian Poultry Survey, 2002.

Table 5.16: Percentage Distribution of Sale of Output to Various Agencies

Category Wholesale merchant Retail merchant Final consumer Contractor (middleman) Total
Layer small 95.5 3.3 0.0 1.2 100.00
Layer large 94.2 5.8 0.0 0.0 100.0
Broiler small 76.1 10.1 2.8 1.5 100.0
Broiler large 83.5 3.7 0.0 0.0 100.0
All Units 94.3 5.3 0.0 0.3 100.0

Notes: i) Small = Less than 10,000 birds.

ii) Large = More than 10,000 birds
Source of Data: Indian Poultry Survey, 2002.

Table 5. 17: Percentage Distribution of Units by Mode and Location of Disposal of Dead Birds
Category Mode Location
Bury Incineration Others Total Own land Public land Others Total
Layer small 67.57 5.41 27.03 100 81.08 2.70 16.22 100

(74) (74)
Layer large 66.67 14.94 18.39 100 79.31 5.75 14.94 100

(87) (87)
Broiler small 30.71 3.15 66.14 100 74.80 1.57 23.62 100

(127) (127)
Broiler large 9.38 9.38 81.25 100 1.88 0.00 88.13 100

(32) (32)
open in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API pdfcrowd.com
 (32) (32)
All units 46.88 7.50 45.63 100 77.19 2.81 20.00 100

(320) (320)

Notes: i) Small = Less than 10,000 birds.

ii) Large = More than 10,000 birds
Figures in parentheses represent number of units.
Source of Data: Indian Poultry Survey, 2002.

Table 5.18: Indications of Environmental Pollution (percent of all units)

Category Receiving Manure not Dead birds disposed on Spending on community for
complaints using fully public land inconvenience
Layer 16.2 0 4.1 1.4
small
Layer 14.9 0 5.8 0
large
Broiler 6.3 1.57 2.4 4.7
small
Broiler 3 0 0 9.4
large

Notes: i) Small = Less than 10,000 birds.

ii) Large = More than 10,000 birds
Source of Data: Indian Poultry Survey, 2002.

Table 5.19: Indications of Environmental Cleaning

Category Control of flies (Rs. per Removal of dead birds (Rs. per Shed cleaning (Rs. per
batch) batch) batch)
Layer 368 191 369
small
Layer large 930 105 700

open in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API pdfcrowd.com
 Broiler 114 58 471
small
Broiler 161 91 583
large

Notes: i) Small = Less than 10,000 birds.

ii) Large = More than 10,000 birds
Source of Data: Indian Poultry Survey, 2002.

open in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API pdfcrowd.com