NAAS Score 2018

                   5.36

Declaration Format

Please download DeclarationForm and submit along with manuscript.

UserOnline

Free counters!

Previous Next

Factors Influencing Participation of Farmers in Contract and Non Contract Broiler Poultry Farming

G. T. Gopala P. V. K. Sasidhar K. C. Veeranna M. Harisha T. N. Krishnamurthy Nagappa Banuvalli
Vol 8(4), 115-120
DOI- http://dx.doi.org/10.5455/ijlr.20170829085212

The study was taken up to assess the factors that influence participation or non-participation of farmers in contract broiler poultry farming (CBF) and non-contract broiler poultry farming (NCBF). The study applied Bennett’s hierarchy of evaluation model by adapting sets of methods - individual surveys, SWOT analysis and Focus Group Discussion (FGDs). The data was collected from 90 contract and 90 non-contract broiler farmers and the FGD with key stakeholders from three districts, viz. Shivamogga, Chitradurga and Davanagere of Karnataka state, India, through personal interviews. The study results revealed that, ‘No market risk’ (100 %), ‘Regular and quick returns’ (87.77 %) and ‘Less working capital required’ (83.33 %) were the top three motivations to participate in CBF. ‘Regular and quick returns’ (94.44 %), ‘High margins’ (88.88 %) and ‘Ease of operation’ (85.55 %) were the top three motivations for farmers to do NCBF.


Keywords : Contract Broiler Farming Factors of Motivation Influencing Factors Non Contract Broiler Farming Participation

Introduction

Contract farming in developing countries has experienced mixed outcomes, yielding some successes and some failures. Contract farming has, over the years, been considered as one system that has considerable potential for providing a way to integrate small-scale farmers into the modern economy. It has been argued that via. contracts, agro-industrial firms can provide the credit, inputs, information and subsequently market to the product (Glover 1990 and Goldsmith, 1985). Well-managed contract farming has proven to be effective in linking the small sector to sources of extensive advice, mechanization, inputs and credit, and to guaranteed and profitable markets for the products (FAO, 2001). But the evidence from some countries, however, also suggests that the vast majority of contract farming schemes exclude small farmers (Singh, 2002). Generally, capital intensive large firms try to exclude small farmers from the contracting system due to high transaction cost and poor economies of scale. The total number of poultry farms has decreased in developed countries like Japan, USA and Canada after the introduction of vertically integrated contract faming systems (Begum et al., 2005). Hence, the success in developing contracting models or other forms of farm-firm linkages that are effective for smallholders will be a key challenge to the smallholder participation in the transformation of Indian agriculture in general and poultry sector in particular. CBF has played a major role in the growth of the broiler sector, especially in structure, size and number of broiler farms in southern and western India. Though commercial farming can yield substantial gains, the transition from subsistence farming to market-driven broiler production is burdened with marketing risk (Von Braun and Kennedy, 1994 and Ramaswami et al., 2006).  Though CBF contributed to the rapid growth of the Indian broiler industry, the study was conducted to assess the factors that influence the participation or non-participation of farmers in contract broiler farming in Karnataka.

Materials and Method

The three districts of central Karnataka viz. Shivamogga, Davanagere, and Chitradurga were purposively selected for the study and from these 3 districts, 6 taluks each were selected totaling 18 taluks and from these 18 taluks, 5 each, of contract and non- contract poultry farmers were selected from randomly selected  villages of each taluk.  Thus, arriving a respondent’s size of 30  contract broiler farmers and 30 non-contract broiler farmers, (5 farmers from 6 taluks of each district) totaling 60 from each district, forming a total respondent size of 90 contract broiler farmers and 90 non contract broiler farmers from the three districts. The study applied Bennett’s hierarchy model (Table 1) to conduct follow-up evaluation by adapting sets of methods (Bennett, 1976). By using data from individual surveys, this hierarchy evaluates CBF and NCBF systems, beginning at the bottom step with inputs and progressing to the top – end results. At level- 4 of the Bennett’s evaluation hierarchy model, farmer’s reactions   on the CBF and NCBF were measured by using farmer’s feedback on the factors of motivation to do CBF and NCBF and reasons to change integrator(s) or input providers in the past two years based on open ended questions.

 

Table 1: Conceptual model depicting Bennett’s hierarchy applied in the study

Evaluation Hierarchy Measurement in the study Indicators Empirical Measurement
Level  7

(end results)

Socio-economic changes and impacts ·       SWOT parameters

·       FGD on: selection of contract farmers; terms and conditions applicable in CBF

·       Constraints analysis

Open-ended questions

 

 

Level  6

(practice change)

Technical advices adoption ·       Non-adoption, discontinuation, partial adoption and full adoption of  technical advices Scale on four- point continuum
Level  5

(KASA)

Farmers’ perceptions ·       Perceptions on inputs (chicks, feed, medicines and EAS- Extension Advisory Services) and outputs (broiler birds, manure value and payment system) Scale on five- point continuum
Level  4

(reactions)

Farmers’ feedback Factors of motivation to do CBF and NCBF

Reasons to change integrator(s) or input providers in the past two years

Open-ended questions

 

Level  3

(outputs)

Technical and economic performance Broiler birds (flock size, mortality number, birds sold, sale age, sales rate and bird lifting days)

Productivity (mortality  percentage, birds sold, feed consumption and body weight)

Efficiency (FCR- feed conversion ratio, sale age, weight gain/day)

Economics of inputs and outputs

EAS (frequency of information from various sources)

Technical and economic performance index
Level 2

(activities)

Activities in CBF and NCBF Physical and human resource activities in CBF and NCBF Survey
Level 1

(inputs)

Personal characteristics of farmers Age, gender, education, social category, family and size, poultry occupation and experience Survey

Results and Discussion

Factors of Motivation for CBF

No market risk’ (100 %), ‘Regular and quick returns’ (87.77 %) and ‘Less working capital required’ (83.33 %) were the top three motivations to participate in CBF, followed by other motivational factors such as ‘Good market demand’   (78.88 %), ‘Easy to operate’ (74.44 %), ‘Good subsidiary occupation’ (66.66 % ), ‘Employment’ (60.00 %), ‘Manure for crops’ (51.11 %), ‘High margins’ (35.55 %), ‘Less land required’ (30.00 %), ‘Chicken for home consumption’ (25.55 %), ‘Alternative to less profitable agriculture’ (20.00 %) respectively  (Table 2 ). The findings of the study are line with the findings of Shojarani (2007) Nagaraj et al. (2008), Gulati et al. (2009) and Sridharan and Saravanan (2013).

 

Factors of Motivation for NCBF

‘Regular and quick returns’ (94.44 %), ‘High margins’ (88.88 %) and ‘Ease of operation’ (85.55 %) were the top three motivations for farmers to do NCBF followed by other motivational factors such as ‘Good market demand’   (76.66 %), ‘Good subsidiary occupation’ (70.00 %), ‘Employment’ (68.88 %), ‘Manure for crops’ (63.33 %), ‘Less land required’ (41.11 %), ‘No market risk’ (35.88 %), ‘Chicken for home consumption’ (33.33 % ), ‘Alternative to less profitable agriculture’ (28.88 %) respectively(Table 2). The findings of the study are in line with the findings of Begum (2005), Sudha Narayanan (2012) and Wainaina et al. (2012).

Table 2:   Factors of motivation to do CBF and NCBF

Factors of  Motivation CBF

Frequency (%)

Rank NCBF

Frequency (%)

Rank
No market risk 90 (100.00) 1 35 (35.88) 9
Regular and quick returns 79 (87.77) 2 85 (94.44) 1
Less working capital required 75 (83.33) 3
Good market demand 71  (78.88) 4 69 (76.66) 4
Easy  to operate 67 (74.44) 5 77 (85.55) 3
Good subsidiary occupation 60 (66.66) 6 63 (70.00) 5
Employment (self and family) 54 (60.00) 7 62 (68.88) 6
Manure for crops 46 (51.11) 8 57 (63.33) 7
High margins 32 (35.55) 9 80 (88.88) 2
Less land required 27 (30.00) 10 37(41.11) 8
Chicken for home consumption 23 (25.55) 11 30 (33.33) 10
Alternative to less profitable agriculture 18 (20.00) 12 26 (28.88) 11

Change of Integrator(s)/Input Provider(s)

About 38.89 per cent of contract farmers and 67.78 per cent of non-contract farmers had changed integrator(s) and input provider(s) respectively, in the past two years (Table 3). The findings of the study are in line with the findings of Fernando Rello and Marcel Morales (2002).

Table 3:  Changed integrator(s)/input provider(s) in the past two years (n=90)

Changed Integrator(s)/Input Provider(s) CBF

Frequency (%)

NCBF

Frequency (%)

Yes 35  (38.89) 61 (67.78)
No 55 (61.11) 29 (32.22)

Reasons for Changing Integrator(s)

Low Rearing charges’ (97.14 %), ‘Not providing chicks for six batches’ (91.42 %) and ‘Delay in chick delivery’ (82.85 %) were the top three reasons for changing integrator(s) by contract farmers. ‘Delay in chick delivery’ (96.72 %), ‘Low quality feed’ (91.80 %) and ‘Low FCR’ (83.60 %) were the top three reasons for changing input provider(s) by non-contract farmers (Table 4).  The findings of the study are line with the findings of Sudarshannaidu (2013) Nagaraj et al. (2008) and Gulati et al. (2009).

Table 4: Reasons for changing integrator(s)

CBF NCBF
Reasons Frequency

n =35

Rank Reasons Frequency

n =61

Rank
Low rearing charges (R C) 34 (97.14.) 1 Delay in chick delivery 59 (96.72) 1
Not providing chicks for 6 batches 32 (91.42) 2 Low quality feed 56 (91.80) 2
Delay in chick delivery 29(82.85) 3 Low FCR 51 (83.60) 3
Delay in lifting birds ( > 2 days) 27 (77.14) 4 Low sale rate 46 (75.40) 4
Stringent  production cost 23 (65.71) 5 High mortality 39 (63.93) 5
Low rate incentive 21  (60.00) 6 Payment delay 27 (04.26) 6
High penalty 19 (54.28) 7 Low quality EAS 23 (37.70) 7
Low FCR 16  (45.71) 8 High cost of EAS 18 (29.50) 8

Conclusion

Contract production is more efficient than non contract production. The efficiency surplus is largely appropriated by the processor. Despite this, contract growers still gain appreciably from contracting in terms of lower risk and higher expected returns. Improved technology and production practices as well as the way in which the processor selects growers are what make these outcomes possible.  Contract farming can be highly beneficial to rural poultry farmers. It increases access to credit and drives production scales, opens up markets which would have otherwise remained inaccessible to the rural farmer, promotes risk-sharing and risk reduction, improves extension support and use of new knowledge, increases income, creates employment and improves livelihood; and stimulates rural development. Contract farming can also be highly beneficial to poultry business companies and the public sector in general. This could be instrumental in providing the farmers much more than assured markets and fair prices, but also support in the form of risk mitigation, access to information on management technology of the growing of birds, and markets and access to credit and other inputs.

References

  1. Begum, I.A. 2005. An assessment of vertically integrated contract poultry farming: A case study in Bangladesh. International Journal of Poultry Science. 4(3):167-176.
  2. Begum, I.A., Osanami, Fumio, Kondo,Takumi. 2005. Performance of vertically integrated contract and independent poultry farms in Bangladesh: A comparative study, The Review of Agricultural Economics, 6(3): 101-117.
  3. Bennett, C.F. 1976. Analyzing Impacts of Extension Programmes. ESC No. 575. Washington, D.C., USA: S. Department of Agriculture Extension Service.
  4. 2001. Contract farming – Partnerships for growth. FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin 145, Rome.
  5. Fernando Rello and Marcel Morales. 2002. The rural non-farm economy and farm/non-farm linkages inquerétaro, mexico, Chapter-3 in, Promoting farm/non-farm linkages for rural development, FAO case studies from Africa and Latin America.
  6. Glover, D. 1990. Contract Farming and Out grower Schemes in East and Southern Africa, Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, 41(3): 303-315.
  7. Goldsmith, A. 1985. The private sector and rural development: Can agribusiness help the small farmer? World Development, 13(11/12): 1125-1138.
  8. Gulati, Ashok , Kavery Ganguly and Maurice R. Landes. 2009. Towards contract farming in a changing agri-food System, ncap.res.in/contract. Accessed on 10th Sept.2014.
  9. Nagaraj, N., Chandrakanth, M.G.,Chengappa, P.G, Roopa, H.S.,and Pramod, M. Chandakavate. 2008. Contract Farming and its Implications for Input-supply, Linkages between Markets and Farmers in Karnataka. Agricultural Economics Research Review. 21:307-316.
  10. Ramaswami, B., P.S. Birthal and P.K. Joshi. 2006. Efficiency and distribution in contract farming: The case of Indian poultry growers.  MTID Discussion Paper No. 91. Washington, D.C., USA: International Food Policy Research Institute.
  11. Singh, S. 2002. Theory and Practice of Contract Farming, A Review. Journal of Social and Economic Development, 3 (2): 228-46.
  12. 2007. Globalization and Contract Farming in India-Advantages and Problems, Conference on Global Competition & Competitiveness of Indian Corporate, 637-647.
  13. Sridharan, A. and Saravanan, R. 2013. A study on motivating factors to enter into poultry farming with special reference to suguna broiler contract farms in Coimbatore district. International Journal of Marketing, Financial Services & Management Research,2(3)online available atindianresearchjournals.com.
  14. Sudharshan Naidu, N.T. 2013. Managing Buyer-Seller Relationships in Contract Farming. IRMA (Institute of Rural Management) seminar paper – 658.
  15. Sudha Narayanan, 2012. Safe Gambles? Farmer perceptions of transactional certainty and risk-return trade off in contract farming schemes in southern India. http://www.igidr.ac.in/pdf/publication/WP-2012-021.pdf.
  16. Von Braun, J. and Kennedy, E. (Eds). 1994. Agricultural Commercialization, Economic Development, and Nutrition. Baltimore, Maryland, USA: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  17. Wainaina, Priscilla W.Okello, Julius JumaNzuma and Jonathan M.2012. Impact of Contract Farming on Smallholder Poultry Farmers’ Income in Kenya. Paper presented in International Association of Agricultural Economists 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil.
Abstract Read : 226 Downloads : 62
Previous Next
Close