How to cite: Shelly, M., Verma, H., Singh, J., Chawla, P., & Bedi, J. (2019). Effectiveness of Specialized Poultry Farming Trainings. International Journal of Livestock Research, 9(10), 163-169. doi: 10.5455/ijlr.20190105024135

Introduction

To understand the true significance of the livestock sector, it needs to be viewed as a sector linked with the livelihood of millions of rural households (over 70%), who depend on livestock farming for supplementary income (Kurup, 2002). Livestock in India is kept mainly by the small landholders and the landless that constitute bulk of the rural population (Birthal et al., 2002). The progress in this sector will result in a more balanced development of rural economy (Sharma et al., 2003). Among livestock, poultry farming has assumed great significance due to high nutritional value of poultry products and their continuously increasing demand. Egg production increased substantially from 82929 million in 2015-16 to 88139 million in 2016-17 with a growth rate of 6.3 %. The per capita availability reached at 60 eggs per annum in the year 2016-17 from 66 eggs per year from previous year 2015-16. Meat production from poultry increased from 3263.81 thousand tonnes in 2015-16 to 3463.65 thousand tonnes in 2016-17 (BAHS, 2017). Realizing the importance of livestock to national economy, GADVASU was established at Ludhiana, Punjab and corresponding universities in other states of the country specially dedicated to animal husbandry and veterinary sciences were established. Training and capacity building have had a major role to play in livestock sector. Inspite of rapid advances in the animal husbandry technologies and their benefit to livestock sector, productivity of this sector is still very low in India. Reasons like low awareness of improved animal husbandry technologies/ practices and poor knowledge level of farmers regarding feed and farm management are often found responsible for low production than the actual potential. Training can counter such limitations by imparting knowhow directly. Therefore, this study was carried out to find the effectiveness of scientific trainings on poultry farming conducted by GADVASU, Ludhiana in terms of knowledge gain of the trainees.

Materials and Methods

About 70 trainees from various poultry farming trainings conducted by Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University from August 2016 to August 2017. Data was collected after six months of attending the training programme on pig farming. Questionnaire on knowledge test was prepared and pretested. Knowledge test included 25 multiple choice questions. All the 25 questions had total four options with single correct option. These questions about knowledge test were collected from the various lectures conducted by subject matter specialists and scheduled regularly during the training programmes. Questions were included on a wide variety of areas like feeding and nutrition, breeds and breeding aspect, shed construction, health care and diseases, vaccination etc.

For knowledge evaluation through test, each correct answer was scored as one and each wrong answer was scored zero. The sum of score was taken as knowledge score. For each training programme, maximum possible score was 25 and minimum was 0. Knowledge index at pre and post evaluation stage was calculated by dividing the total score obtained by the maximum obtainable score and multiplying the result with 100. Data were analyzed using SAS 9.3.

KI = × 100

Knowledge gain = KI (pretest) – KI (posttest)

Results and Discussion

Socio-Personal and Communication Profile of Trainees

Out of 70 trainees from poultry farming (Table 1), 60 % were less than 30 years age and only 8.57 % belonged to higher age group. Most of the respondents (42.86 %) had studied till ‘graduation and above’ and majority (58.57 %) trainees had annual income ‘between 1-6 lakh’. Most trainees (34.29 %) had only land as the source of income and 30.0 % belonged to business/service sector. At least 55.71 % trainees had land holding between 1-5 acres. Eziebe et al. (2014) in a study on poultry farmers also found that 84 % had income between 2-6 lakh. Kabir et al. (2015) in a study on poultry farmers also reported that 40 % had agriculture as primary occupation and 36% belonged to business/service sector. Majority respondents (Table 9 Please correct) 45.71 % had low mass media exposure followed by 37.14 % with medium level of exposure and only 17.14 % with high exposure. Bhuyian et al. (2013) in a study also reported that majority (54 %) poultry farmers had low exposure to communication media, 46 % had medium exposure and none of the farmers had high exposure. As in case of pig and goat farming, most trainees (60.0 %) had medium extension agency contact and 67.14 % had low level of social participation.

Table 1: Socio-personal and communication profile of trainees

Impact of Poultry Farming Training on Knowledge Level of Trainees

Table 2, lists the pre-training and post-training scores of respondents after 2-week training programme. None of the trainees was aware of demerits of using raw soyabean for poultry, but after attending regular classes, 41.37 % became sufficiently aware. Similarly knowledge regarding vaccination ( 0 before vs 38.57 % after), debeaking age (7.14 % before vs 51.43 % after), use of antioxidants in ration (0 before vs 41.43 % after), light requirement of birds (8.57 % before vs 48.57 % after), humidity percent for egg storage (0 vs 47.14) and nutrients affecting egg coat (12.86 vs 44.29) showed significant (P<.01) improvement. Therefore, training goes a long way in removing misconceptions and giving a right direction to the trainees. Jat and Yadav (2012) also recommended that knowledge of poultry farmers should be increased through exposure and trainings.

Table 2: Impact of poultry farming training on knowledge level of trainees

Evaluation of Pre-training KI, Post-training KI, Knowledge Gain in Poultry Farming w.r.t. Independent Variables

Table 3 depicts that overall pre-KI of 10.80 ± 0.88 rose to post KI of 47.94 ± 0.74 with a knowledge gain of 37.14 ± 0.89 which was significant (P<.01). As is clear from Table, pre-KI, post KI and knowledge gain were lowest (8.00 ± 2.92, 40.0± 0 and 32.0 ± 2.92 respectively) in ‘≥ 46 age’ group. However, pre-KI was highest (13.47 ± 1.14) in ‘graduate and above’ education category and knowledge gain was lowest (34.67 ± 1.28) in this category. Also, pre-KI and post KI were both highest (20.0 ± 2.31 and 56.0 ± 2.31 respectively) in ‘≥ 6 lakh’ income category but knowledge gain was highest (40.8 ± 1.06) in ‘< 1 lakh’ income category. As far as income source was concerned, pre-KI was highest (14.86 ± 3.46) in ‘land and animals’ category, post KI and knowledge gain were highest (51.24 ± 1.72 and 39.43 ± 1.84 respectively) in ‘others’ category. Also, pre-KI was lowest (8.0 ± 0.91) in ‘1-5 acre’ land category and knowledge gain was lowest (34.12 ± 1.94) in ‘5-10 acre’ land category.

Table 3: Pre-training KI, post-training KI and knowledge gain of poultry farming w.r.t independent variables

Figures with different superscripts in a column for different variables differ significantly (P<.05)

Pre-training KI, post-training KI, knowledge gain w.r.t. mass media exposure, extension agency contact, social participation

As can be inferred from Table 4, pre-KI and post KI are highest (15.33 ± 2.82 and 50.0 ± 1.52 respectively) for high level of mass media exposure but knowledge gain is lowest (34.67 ± 1.50) for high level. Similar trend is followed for social participation.

Table 4: Pre-training KI, post-training KI and knowledge gain of poultry farming w.r.t. mass media exposure, extension agency contact, social participation

Figures with different superscripts in a column for different variables differ significantly (P<.05)

Effect of Training and Its Interaction with Independent Variables on the Scores Obtained Before and After Training

As revealed in Table 5, training itself and training interaction with age, education, annual income, income source, land, mass media exposure, extension agency contacts and social participation, all had significant effect on scores obtained before and after training.

Table 5: Effect of training and its interaction with independent variables on the scores obtained before and after training

Conclusion

The study demonstrated significant increase (P<.01) in the Knowledge index of trainees after training. The awareness level regarding various aspects of poultry management also increased. Therefore, scientific trainings on poultry farming are a must to gather information and clear doubts for effective farm management in order to obtain efficient production.

References

1. BAHS (Basic Animal Husbandry and Statistics). 2017. Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi.
2. Bhuyian M A Sayeed, Akanda M K I, Hasanuzzaman S M and Tipu S Uddin. 2013. Farmers communication exposure and knowledge in poultry farming. J Bangladesh Agril Univ 11 (2): 177-182.
3. Birthal S P, Joshi P K and Kumar A. 2002. Assessment of Research Priorities for Livestock Sector in India. Policy Paper 15. National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research (ICAR), New Delhi, India.
4. Ezeibe A B C, Okorji E C, Chah J M and Abudei R N. 2014. Impact of entrepreneurship training on rural poultry farmers adoption of improved management practices in Enugu state, Nigeria. African J Agril Res 9 (20): 1604-1609.
5. Jat S M and Yadav J P. 2012. Knowledge level of poultry farmers about recommended poultry farming practices. Indian Res J Ext Edu 12, (1): 51-54.
6. Kabir M S, Asaduzzaman M and Dev D S.2015. Livelihood improvement through family poultry farming in Mymensingh district. J Bangladesh Agril Univ 13, (2): 247-56.
7. Kurup M P G. 2002. Small holder dairy production and marketing in India: Constraints and opportunities. National Dairy Development Board, India. http://ssdairy.org/ programme/html/ch.10.htm
8. Sharma V P, Delgado C L, Staal S and Singh R V. 2003. Policy, technical and environmental determinants and implications of the scaling-up of milk production in India. Report of Livestock Industrialization Project: Phase II IFPRI, Washington, DC.