Abstract
The study was undertaken to determine the contribution of indigenous goat and chicken farming on livelihood of the rural people. To fulfill the objectives of the study, tabular as well as the functional analyses were used. A total of 300 households were purposively selected to conduct the study of which 80 goat farmers from Bhaluka Upazila of Mymensingh district and 220 chicken farmers from Jhinaigati Upazila of Sherpur district were taken. In each sites 50.0% farmers were selected from UNEP-ĞEF project households and other 50.0% from non-project households. Evidence showed that an average 3.65
and 2.95 goat was found per project and non-project households, respectively. Semi-intensive system
was practiced by 90.0% project and 77.5% non-project households. Fifty percent project and 25.0% non- project households had separate house for goat. About 15.0% project and 7.5% non-project households used purchased feed. Free grazing was common type of feeding in both project and non-project households. Ninety percent project and 100.0% non-project households used hired bucks for breeding.
Hundred percent project and 85.0% non-project households practiced controlled breeding. All project household had training on goat rearing whereas none of the non-project households had such training. Vaccination and de-worming were practiced by 100.0% project and 55.0% and 80.0% non-project households, respectively. In case of chicken, on average 15.13 and 10.89 chickens were found per project and non-project households, respectively. Scavenging system was practiced by 96.36% project and 100% non-project households, respectively. About 55.45% project and 35.0% non-project households had separate housing for chicken. Home supplied feed was provided by 39.0% project and 52.73% non- project households. In case of chicken, 100% project and non-project households practiced uncontrolled breeding method. In project households, 98.18% had training whereas it was 1.82% in non-project households. Vaccination and de-worming were practiced by 74.55% and 45.45% of the project farms while, in the case of the non-project farms 1.82% and 4.55% households, respectively followed such practices. The annual costs of goat production per project household were Tk. 4780.86, Tk. 883.24, and Tk. 705.79 on full cost, variable cost and cash cost basis and that were Tk. 3865.10, Tk. 550.72 and Tk. 403.93 in case of non-project households respectively. The net return were found Tk. 3768.39, Tk. 7666.01, Tk. 7843.46 and undiscounted benefit cost ratios were found 1.79, 9.68 and 12.11 per project household that were Tk. 1420.53, Tk. 4734.91, Tk. 4881.70 and 1.37, 9.60 and 13.09 in non-project households, respectively over full, variable and cash cost basis. The estimated co-efficient of human labour, treatment, market toll and goat number were positive and significant either at 1% or 5% or 10% level in project households. Regression estimates indicated that, in non-project households, the cо- efficient of treatment and transportation were positive and significant at 5% and 1% level. The annual
costs of chicken rearing per project household were Tk. 2276.19, Tk. 830.14, and Tk. 483.43 and per non- project household it were Tk. 1549.79, Tk. 604.29 and Tk. 214.62, respectively on full, variable and cash cost basis. Net returns were found Tk. 4184.87, Tk. 5630.92, Tk. 5977.63 and undiscounted benefit cost
ratios were 1.84, 6.78 and 12.37 per project that were Tk. 2649.87, Tk. 3595.37, Tk. 3985.03 ąnd 1.71, 5.95 and 18.57, respectively per non-project households on full, variable and cash cost basis. The estimated co-efficient of housing, labour, feed, equipment, transportation and bird number were positive and significant at 1% level in project households. In case of non-project households, the estimated co-efficient of housing, labour, market toll and age were positive and significant at 5% and 1% level. Contributions from goat rearing were estimated 50.66% in cash form and 49.34% in non-cash form in project households and 56.68% in cash form and 43.32% in non-cash for non-project households. The highest cash contribution was spent in education (18.36%) in project households and asset purchase (16.90%) in
of
non-project households. Human, social, physical, financial and natural capital were increased by 68.5%, 55.5%, 12.55, 30.0% and 51.88% of the project households and 40.5%, 41.0%, 11.9%, 23.12% and 38.75% the non-project households, respectively through indigenous goat rearing. The contributions of chicken
were found 65.19% in cash mode and 34.81% in non-cash mode in project households that were 62.36% cash mode and 37.64 in non cash mode in non-project households. The highest cash contribution from chicken rearing were used in food purpose (28.30%) and (26.05%), respectively in both the project and non-project households. Human, social, physical, financial and natural capital were increased by 61.82%, 53.64%, 8.36%, 41.52% and 41.82% project and 52.18%, 40.30%, 6.00%, 31.82% and 32.73% non- project households, respectively through indigenous chicken farming. The study concludes that there is knowledge gap and absent of adequate improved and scientific facilities in the study areas. As such better level of goat and chicken production are often hampered. The indigenous goat and chicken production requires less space and investment. Virtually this can play an important role in improving the livelihood of the rural people. Finally, the study recommended that the locally available superior breed should be selected for breeding and conservation of superior genetic materials. In addition, concerned authorities should ensure the supply of necessary vaccines and adequate training for the goat and chicken growing farmers in order to enhance the level of productivity.