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 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.

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. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

* 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.

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

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

*Initial size means size at the first year of production
** 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.

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

* For Layers: Chicks 1 to 8 weeks; Grower 9 to 18 weeks; and Layer 19 and above 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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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