Next Article in Journal
Impact of Spatial Layout Design on Energy Consumption of Ice Rinks in Cold Regions
Previous Article in Journal
Offshore Wind Power: Progress of the Edge Tool, Which Can Promote Sustainable Energy Development
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 17
10.3390/su16177811
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Sustainable Growth through Thai Native Chicken Farming: Lessons from Rural Communities

by
Wipas Loengbudnark
1,
Vibuntita Chankitisakul
1,2,
Monchai Duangjinda
1,2 and
Wuttigrai Boonkum
1,2,*
1
Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand
2
Network Center for Animal Breeding and Omics Research, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(17), 7811; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177811
Submission received: 30 May 2024 / Revised: 29 August 2024 / Accepted: 6 September 2024 / Published: 7 September 2024
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Thai native chickens hold significant value in rural communities due to their adaptability and suitability for local rearing conditions. However, there are challenges in the commercial raising of these chickens. This study aimed to evaluate and promote the potential of Thai native chickens (Pradu Hang Dum) for commercial purposes and the development of sustainable native chicken farming. Out of 110 interested farmers, 88 met preliminary conditions and 62 were well-prepared and willing to comply with project conditions. Some farmers were disqualified for not understanding the project conditions or having inadequately prepared chicken coops. The survival rate of native chickens provided to farmers through the project was 52%. Among the surviving birds, 40% were male and 60% were female. The most common causes of death in the project were sickness, accidents, and fighting. The average body weights and average daily gains at different ages were significantly different among farm groups. The average egg production per hatch per hen was 13 ± 2.4 eggs. The highest egg production was in the good farms compared to moderate and poor farms. Better farm management led to higher egg production. In conclusion, this study demonstrates that effective farm management significantly enhances the productivity of Thai native chickens, highlighting their potential as an income-generating activity for rural communities. While challenges such as sickness and accidents impact survival rates, the findings suggest that improved management practices can lead to better production outcomes.

1. Introduction

The native chicken plays multifaceted roles in rural communities, acting as a genetic resource to develop high-yielding chicken breeds, as evidenced by several studies [1,2,3,4]. This invaluable protein source, with lower fat content than commercial broilers [3,5], contributes to economic, social, and cultural aspects [6,7,8]. Native chickens can forage for themselves, adapt to poor environmental conditions, reproduce naturally, and resist certain diseases [9,10]. Typically, native chickens are raised extensively and fed with local grains and household scraps [11]. These attributes make native chicken raising suitable for rural areas and align with the objectives of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to eliminate poverty and promote balanced development across economic, social, and environmental dimensions [2,12,13,14]. Native chickens have been receiving attention in developing and promoting community-level economic development and served as rural animal protein sources in many countries, such as Pakistan, Indonesia, South Africa, and India [15,16,17,18].
The National Statistical Office of Thailand reported that the poverty line, calculated from the cost of essential food and non-food items needed for survival (42 items), averages 2997 baht per person per month for Thailand. Khon Kaen Province reported 2903 baht per person per month in 2022. This economic strain forces individuals to seek employment in larger cities or other provinces due to their income falling below the poverty line. According to the Department of Livestock Development of Thailand report in February 2024, there were 114,939,469 native chickens and 2,764,104 native chicken farmers. Approximately 50% of these chickens, totaling 57,540,164, were raised in the northeastern region [19,20]. Most local backyard chickens in Thailand are raised under extensive production systems, leading to natural breeding without specific management, which results in crossbreeding and the potential loss of purebred characteristics. Recognizing the importance of preserving the genetics of native animals, the Department of Livestock Development and the Thailand Research Fund (TRF) initiated a project in 2002 to select purebred native chicken breeds. Four breeds were identified: Pradu Hang Dum, Leung Hang Kao, Chee, and Dang. In 2009, a Research and Development Network Center for Animal Breeding was established under a memorandum between the TRF and Khon Kaen University to advance the scientific and academic resources for breeding native chickens.
In this study, only Pradu Hang Dum will be considered. Pradu Hang Dum (PD) is a significant Thai native chicken breed [21], known for its black feathers, beak, and shanks [22]. It is popular throughout Thailand, especially in the northeastern and northern regions, due to its distinctive black legs, which locals associate with native chickens. Native chicken farming is often more sustainable than industrial poultry farming for several reasons. Firstly, native chickens typically require fewer inputs such as commercial feeds and antibiotics, relying on locally available resources and traditional feedstuffs [23], which reduces the environmental impact of feed production and transportation. Secondly, these chickens are better adapted to local climates and conditions [6,24,25], decreasing the need for energy-intensive housing and climate control. Additionally, they are often raised in free-range or semi-intensive systems that promote biodiversity and soil health. Traditional and natural disease prevention methods further minimize the environmental footprint associated with chemical treatments [26]. Furthermore, native chicken farming supports genetic diversity, crucial for resilience against diseases and changing environmental conditions, contributing to a more sustainable and ecologically balanced approach to poultry farming.
Despite challenges such as nutritional and health deficiencies leading to high mortality and low production, raising Thai native chickens can be worthwhile. They are known for their flavorful meat and high-quality eggs, which can fetch premium prices in niche markets. Their lower maintenance requirements compared to commercial breeds make them a sustainable option for small-scale farmers. By improving their nutrition and health through targeted interventions, overall productivity and survival rates can be significantly enhanced, making the investment beneficial in the long run. PD chickens potentially align with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, offering opportunities for commercial farming and promoting them as a primary career. Raising native chickens can improve household incomes for rural populations, provide a good source of animal protein, serve the growing demand of the world’s population, and empower and employ women and the elderly. Additionally, they help control pests, provide manure for soil fertilizer, convert kitchen waste into high-quality animal protein, and conserve biodiversity [3]. Modern agricultural systems should be more productive while less wasteful. Sustainable farming practices must be integrated to enhance livestock production systems, improve animal-source food for nutrition, implement livestock solutions, and improve farmers’ livelihoods, especially for small-scale producers. These practices should be designed to produce long-term results [27,28].
Our research on Thai native chickens has been segmented into five phases: diversity existence, structural transformation, community engagement, stakeholder involvement, and scientific exploration. The present study pertains to phase four, emphasizing stakeholder participation to create a community multiplier effect, generate new careers, manage supply chains, and enhance grassroots economies. The objective of this study was to evaluate and promote the potential of Thai native chickens (Pradu Hang Dum) for commercial purposes and the development of sustainable native chicken farming. This was aimed to be achieved by creating a model community of knowledgeable farmers, assessing farmer readiness, recording production efficiency, and highlighting critical success factors for effective farm management practices.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Animal Ethics and Sampling

This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Khon Kaen University, adhering to the Ethics of Animal Experimentation guidelines set by the National Research Council of Thailand (Approval No. IACUC-KKU-144/64). The research was carried out in the Thungpong subdistrict, Ubolratana district, located in the northwest of Khon Kaen province [29]. The area is situated approximately 45 km from Khon Kaen City and covers about 32 square kilometers. Most of the area is mountainous, interspersed with large mounds due to the area adjacent to the Phu Phan Kham Mountain range, which extends west and has the Lam Nam Phong plains. The ground condition is sandy loam, with generally scattered gravel ponds. The soil composition is primarily sandy loam, interspersed with gravel ponds, rendering it generally unsuitable for efficient agricultural cultivation. Consequently, most farmers in the area are unable to cultivate crops effectively and are compelled to migrate to larger cities to seek employment opportunities.
The selection process for participating farmers began with 110 interested individuals. Candidates were then evaluated based on the following criteria: (1) a strong interest and commitment to the project, (2) prior experience in raising poultry such as chickens, ducks, or geese, and (3) a willingness and readiness to adopt new technologies and knowledge. After screening, 62 farmers were selected to participate in the project. Project officials then visited each farm and interviewed the farmers to gather additional information and ensure they were prepared and suitable for the project.

2.2. Data Collection

The process began with assessing the readiness and area suitability of the participants. All selected farmers attended two training sessions and received ten eight-week-old Thai native chickens (two male and eight female Pradu Hang Dum) along with other production inputs, including commercial chicken feed, deworming medicine, and vitamins. The vaccination schedule for the chickens was as follows: fowl cholera at 12 weeks of age during the fifth field visit, and Newcastle disease and infectious bronchitis at 14 weeks of age during the sixth field visit. Subsequently, according to the program, the chickens were re-vaccinated and dewormed during the eighth, tenth, and eleventh visits.
After the project’s completion, we encapsulated the key learning and best practices that were shared during the project in a manual and video tutorials on raising Thai native chickens. These serve as a valuable resource for farmers and other interested individuals. Details are shown in Figure 1.
All chickens were raised in an open-housing system with an average of 12 h of natural light daily. They were fed ad libitum a commercial chicken crumble diet containing 21% crude protein, 3% lipids, 5% crude fiber, and 3000 Kcal/kg energy (Betagro 203A, Betagro PCL, Bangkok, Thailand), and there was clean water for chickens all times until the end of the experiment. Each farmer was provided with a manual weighing scale to weigh their chickens individually at 14 and 34 weeks of age. The weighing process was scheduled between 7 and 8 AM before feeding the chickens. The data recorded included survival rate and causes of death, body weight and average daily gain, egg production, number of cooperative farmers, number of hatches, number of chicks, and the number born alive at 8 and 12 weeks of age. This data collection was continuously monitored and followed up by project staff.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

This study categorized farmers’ native chicken farms into three chicken farm management groups (Good, Moderate, and Poor) based on success indicators and production targets (Table 1). Thematic qualitative analysis and descriptive statistics were used to provide an overview of survival rates and causes of death among native chickens in the area. Data on body weight, average daily gain, egg production, and farmer cooperation in each farm management group were analyzed using a completely randomized design (CRD). The results are presented as the mean ± standard error (SE). Means were analyzed with ANOVA followed by Tukey’s range test to determine significant differences in all parameters between farm groups. A probability level of p < 0.05 was considered significant. To assess the current status of the project, determine an efficient and systematic approach to its implementation, plan strategies to deal with potential operational issues, and ensure that all stakeholders have a common understanding, a SWOT analysis and Sustainable Supply Chain for Thai Native Chickens were used in this study.

3. Results

3.1. Farmer Selection

During the first public hearing, 110 farmers expressed their interest in participating. Upon applying the initial selection criteria, 88 farmers met the preliminary conditions. The project team subsequently conducted field visits to gather additional information through interviews and to evaluate the readiness of individual farmers. Ultimately, 62 farmers were found to be well-prepared in terms of location suitability and prior experience in raising poultry, and they were willing to comply with the project conditions (Figure 2). The evaluation revealed that farmers who did not pass the assessment in this round were primarily disqualified for two reasons: (1) 38% for misunderstandings among some farmers who believed they would receive chickens unconditionally, and (2) 62% because their chicken coops were not adequately prepared.

3.2. Production Efficiency

3.2.1. Survival Rate

Over the course of one year, the survival rate of native chickens provided to farmers through the project was recorded. Out of the initial 620 birds, 324 chickens survived, resulting in a survival rate of 52% (Figure 3). Among the surviving birds, 130 were male (40%) and 194 were female (60%). In general, the survival rate of chickens in community farms is affected by many factors beyond their control, including difficulty adapting to new environments, which can lead to sickness, depression, loneliness, and refusal to eat. Figure 4 showed the most common causes of death in the project were (1) sickness (135 birds), (2) accidents and carelessness (111 birds), (3) pecking and fighting (24 birds), (4) theft (13 birds), and (5) unknown causes (13 birds). A breakdown of male and female deaths by cause is presented in Figure 4.

3.2.2. Growth Performance

The compared body weights and average daily gains (ADG) of male and female chickens at 14 and 34 weeks of age separated by farm group (Good, Moderate, and Poor) are presented in Figure 5. At 14 weeks of age, the body weights of chickens were significantly higher in the good farms (1240 g) compared to the moderate (905 g) and poor (707 g) farms (p < 0.05). Specifically, male chickens had higher body weights than females across all the farm groups, with the combined weights showing the same trend. By 34 weeks of age, the differences in body weights among the farm groups remained consistent, with the good farms resulting in the highest weights (3011 g), followed by moderate (2196 g) and poor (1716 g) farms (p < 0.05). Again, males exhibited higher body weights than females in each farm group. The ADG from 8 to 14 weeks of age was highest in chickens in good farms (12.7 g/day), followed by those on moderate (9.2 g/day) and poor farms (7.2 g/day) (p < 0.05), with males having a slightly higher ADG than females. The ADG from 14 to 34 weeks of age showed a similar pattern, with the good farms (17.3 g/day) yielding the highest gains (p < 0.05) and males consistently outperforming females in all farm quality groups. These results highlight the significant impact of the farm group on the growth performance of chickens, with the good farms leading to better growth outcomes and male chickens generally achieving higher weights and ADG compared to females.

3.2.3. Egg Production

The compared egg production of Thai native chicken per hatch per hens separated by farm group (Good, Moderate, and Poor) are presented in Figure 6. The average egg production was 13 ± 2.4 eggs per hatch per hen. Hens in the good farms produced the highest average number of eggs (17.5 egg/hatch/hen) compared to the moderate (12.1 egg/hatch/hen) and poor (9.2 egg/hatch/hen) farms, respectively (p < 0.05). The differences in egg production among the farm groups were statistically significant, indicating that better chicken farm management resulted in higher egg production per hatch per hen. Most eggs were laid during the first hatch. This outcome indicates that the egg production per hatch per hen exceeded the set indicator values, demonstrating that Pradu Hang Dum chickens can be raised effectively in rural areas.
However, the results did not entirely meet expectations, as researchers anticipated that the hens would produce at least three hatches per year. In reality, most hens produced only one hatch, with only a few achieving two hatches. Analysis suggests that this discrepancy is primarily attributable to dietary factors. The poor quality of the feed resulted in slow growth rates, and consequently, both cocks and hens reached puberty later than expected. To address this issue, future efforts should include training on the production of high-quality local feed. Regarding hatchability, despite originating from a testing station, the hens retained good maternal abilities. This is evidenced by an average of 10 chicks hatched per hen per hatch, aligning well with the prescribed indicators. Nonetheless, there remain challenges concerning maternal abilities and chick survival rates. Factors such as hens not raising their chicks, predation by dogs and cats, and insufficient feed contribute to a moderate survival rate for the chicks. To mitigate these issues, it is recommended that chicks be raised separately from the hens.

3.2.4. Cooperation of the Farmers

Level of cooperation and number of farmers for fowl pox, fowl cholera, and Newcastle disease and infectious bronchitis (ND-IB) vaccination separated by farm group (Good, Moderate, and Poor) are presented in Figure 7. Most farmers showed strong cooperation with the Native Chicken Bank project, especially on moderate and good farms. In contrast, poor farms showed the least cooperation (p < 0.05). When farmers were not present, they ensured that the chickens were placed in coops before the staff visited. Cooperation was categorized as primarily excellent when farmers were always present during staff visits and actively assisted in managing the chickens. During each follow-up visit by the project staff, cooperative farmers contributed by helping catch chickens, providing detailed information about their poultry-raising practices, discussing encountered problems, and attentively listening to the advice given. This high level of cooperation generally resulted in fewer issues with the chickens. In stark contrast, farmers who exhibited less cooperation faced significantly higher mortality rates among their chickens. This was largely due to the lack of proper management; for example, the chickens were not kept in coops during staff visits, making it challenging to gather accurate information and provide effective support. Consequently, this lack of engagement led to an increased number of chicken deaths (Figure 7). To enhance the success of future projects, more stringent selection criteria should be implemented for choosing participating farmers. This would involve a comprehensive needs assessment and more rigorous area surveys to ensure a higher level of readiness and commitment among participants.

3.3. SWOT Analysis

SWOT analysis was conducted, as illustrated in Figure 8. It revealed that one of the strengths is the abundance of land and labor available to farmers for raising native chickens. The location is also conducive for cultivation and accessing markets both locally and beyond the village. All participating farmers and local staff share a common objective, showing determination and enthusiasm for collective success. However, farmers lack expertise in production planning, marketing strategies, and group organization, potentially impacting production consistency and leading to uncertain market demand. Insufficient staffing levels and the remote nature of some farms pose challenges for regular visits and adequate care provision. Furthermore, some farmers view the project merely as a supplementary source of income, which could undermine its stability and deter further investment. Unforeseen policy changes in the future might result in project abandonment, affecting its sustainability. On a positive note, there is a strong demand in the market for native chickens, offering an opportunity for Thai native chicken farmers to generate steady income through coordinated group efforts led by capable individuals. This setup can enhance their collective bargaining power and ensure long-term sustainability.

3.4. A Sustainable Supply Chain for Thai Native Chickens: From Research Center to Consumer

The production and distribution of Thai native chickens have undergone a transformation, transitioning from traditional practices to a more sustainable and integrated approach. It involves knowledge transfer [30] and offering guidance on native chicken production across the entire supply chain, from upstream to downstream (Figure 9). This shift involves a comprehensive understanding of the entire supply chain, starting from research centers and extending to consumers. Initially established as a research center (NCAB) which plays a pivotal role in establishing the foundation for a sustainable Thai native chicken supply chain, our research center develops high-quality breeding stock, producing high quality day-old chicks, ensuring a consistent supply of healthy breeding stock for farmers. We conducted genetic selection, focusing on selecting and breeding native chickens with desirable traits like disease resistance, good growth performance, and good meat quality. The research center also promotes best practices, disseminating knowledge and training to farmers on proper chick handling, feeding, and management techniques, ensuring optimal production and animal welfare. Participating farmers are actively guided in adopting good farming practices (GFM) aligned with the Department of Livestock Development of Thailand. This involves providing support and guidance to farmers in improving their facilities to meet GFM standards, ensuring better hygiene and animal welfare. Farmers are also encouraged to embrace sustainable farming practices, such as using organic feed, reducing waste, and minimizing environmental impact. Regular farm visits and monitoring programs are implemented to ensure compliance with GFM standards and identify any potential issues. Once chickens reach market weight, they are collected from farmer networks and transported to local slaughterhouses or Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP)-compliant slaughterhouses, ensuring higher product quality and meeting international standards. Efforts are also made to facilitate access to diverse markets, including restaurants, supermarkets, wholesalers, and major retailers, expanding the reach and sales of Thai Native chickens. Consumer awareness campaigns are promoted to highlight the benefits and unique qualities of Thai Native chickens, increasing demand and market share.
This integrated and sustainable approach to the Thai Native chicken supply chain, starting from research centers and reaching consumers, ensures consistent quality, promotes farmer livelihoods, and fosters sustainable development, ultimately securing the future of Thai Native chickens both domestically and internationally.

4. Discussion

The development of native chicken-raising careers is closely related to the establishment of a circular economy at the community level, which is essential for promoting sustainable agriculture. By using resources efficiently, it is possible to enhance local food security, conserve genetic resources, and foster economic flexibility. This, in turn, paves the way for the future development of new products that add value [31,32]. This approach is based on various conceptual models of sustainable rural development that rely on indicators measuring the quality of life in rural populations [33].
The observed survival rate of Thai native chickens in this study was 52%, highlighting both challenges and opportunities for improvement within the community farming model employed. While this rate is higher than the initial set indicators, the 48% mortality rate underscores several critical factors that need addressing to achieve sustainable production. The primary causes of death among the chickens included sickness (135 birds), accidents and carelessness (111 birds), pecking and fighting (24 birds), theft (13 birds), and unknown causes (13 birds). These findings reflect the complexities and challenges inherent in managing backyard chicken farming in rural settings. A significant proportion of mortality was attributed to sickness, underscoring the importance of better healthcare practices and disease prevention. Farmers require enhanced skills in recognizing health issues and treating common ailments. Implementing regular health check-ups and preventative care protocols could significantly reduce mortality due to illness. Meanwhile, the substantial number of deaths due to accidents emphasizes the need for safer management practices and improved infrastructure. This includes training on proper handling, improving fencing and enclosures, and ensuring safer storage and transportation of feed.
The sex-specific data reveals a notable disparity in survival, with a higher mortality rate among males (40% of survivors) compared to females (60% of survivors). A deeper examination of the specific causes of death for both male and female chickens, as presented in Figure 4, identified potential patterns or trends. Observations of the chickens’ behavior, particularly social interactions, could provide insights into the role of aggression and competition in mortality. The results revealed that male chickens had a higher mortality rate due to accidents, fighting, and sickness compared to female chickens. This disparity may be attributed to several factors, including the more aggressive and territorial nature of male chickens [34,35], which can lead to increased competition for resources and potential injuries or stress-related health issues
A lack of care and knowledge regarding disease prevention and treatment also resulted in low growth rates for chickens and reduced egg production, leading to lower overall results than those required by the project [36,37]. The situation mirrors finding from other regions around the world, including reports on village chickens in Mozambique [38], efforts to improve village poultry survival rates in Benin [39], and native chickens in rural areas of Sierra Leone [40]. The study’s growth performance results also showed that body weight and average daily gain (ADG) values were lower than those reported in previous studies [4,9]. Several factors could contribute to this reduced weight gain, including stress, predation, increased mobility leading to higher caloric expenditure, and environmental conditions [41,42,43,44]. Additionally, some farmers were too remote for frequent access and visits, hindering the ability of staff to provide timely assistance and advice during emergencies.
While researchers anticipated that the hens would produce at least three hatches per year [45,46], most hens only produced one hatch, with a few achieving two. Analysis suggests this discrepancy is primarily attributable to dietary factors. The poor quality of the feed resulted in slow growth rates, causing both cocks and hens to reach puberty later than expected [47]. This delay in reaching sexual maturity likely contributed to the lower hatching frequency. Future efforts should include training on the production of high-quality local feed to address this issue.
Despite originating from a testing station, the hens retained good maternal abilities, as evidenced by an average of 10 chicks hatched per hen per hatch, aligning well with prescribed indicators. However, challenges remain concerning chick survival rates. Factors such as hens not raising their chicks, predation by dogs and cats, and insufficient feed contribute to a moderate survival rate for the chicks. To mitigate these issues, raising chicks separately from the hens is recommended, as this would provide a more controlled environment for chick rearing and reduce the risk of predation or neglect.
These findings highlight the importance of careful selection of participating farmers and providing thorough training. Before distributing chickens, thorough area surveys are crucial to ensure the safety and health of the chickens before delivery to farmers. While most farmers cooperated well with the project, some lacked the necessary knowledge or resources. Future project implementations should develop a more rigorous selection process, with detailed inquiries regarding farmer readiness and facility availability, especially considering remoteness, which affects supervision capacity [13,48,49]. Efforts to impart knowledge about producing high-quality feed using locally available resources could boost growth rates and hatching frequency [2,3,10,50]. Additionally, separating eggs from the hens and using alternative hatching methods, rather than allowing hens to brood and hatch eggs themselves, could increase chick survival rates. The study indicates opportunities for expanding the project to create a group of model farmers, who could serve as an example for other communities. This opens the possibility of developing native chicken raising into a primary career in the future, aligning with the success of the native chicken bank project in Phayao province [30].
Despite Pradu Hang Dum chickens having some constraints, which are slow growth and low egg production, they are more well-adapted to harsh environments than commercial chicken breeds. Native chickens can thrive in areas with limited land for rearing ruminant livestock. The farming and feeding system can be improved and developed to be more appropriate for better chicken production performance. Educating farmers on innovation and management, especially in marketing, can be particularly beneficial [2,10,51]. Native chickens are often sold through broker-mediated transactions, which involve a long chain of operators. This system decreases returns to farmers and increases costs to consumers, highlighting the need to enhance the bargaining power of native chicken producers [10]. Raising Pradu Hang Dum chickens aligns with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, as there is commercial potential and opportunities to promote this as a primary livelihood. Native chickens significantly contribute to various aspects of rural life, improving household incomes, serving as a valuable protein source, and meeting the rising demand from the world’s growing population. They also play a role in empowering and employing women and the elderly. Moreover, native chickens help control pests, provide manure that can be used as soil fertilizer, convert kitchen waste into high-quality animal protein, and contribute to biodiversity conservation [3,52]. By addressing these challenges and leveraging the inherent advantages of native chicken farming, it is possible to create sustainable and profitable rural livelihoods that contribute to global food security and economic stability.
The key operational best practices observed throughout the project are summarized in Figure 10. It commences with a meeting between the project representatives and participating farmers to establish a shared understanding of the project objectives and operational guidelines in agriculture. Subsequently, an analysis of the local market’s demand for native chickens is conducted, coupled with the assessment of farmers’ potential and readiness. Planning production in alignment with market requirements is crucial, alongside determining midstream and downstream activities in the supply chain to bridge the gap between production and the market. Lastly, monitoring and evaluation play a pivotal role in swiftly addressing any arising issues. This model presents a sustainable approach to agricultural livelihood development for farmers, laying the groundwork for future business practices. The implementation process adheres to the principle of participatory work, contrasting with past practices that solely focused on distributing production resources without continuous performance monitoring across the supply chain. This new approach prioritizes results throughout the entire process (supply chain) and emphasizes inclusive participation at all levels, ensuring the advancement of the livestock system utilizing Pradu Hang Dum chickens to drive career opportunities and grassroots economies. This strategic shift aims to establish a stable and sustainable agricultural career system.
However, this study and the further related project still have some limitations due to government policy to support and promote Thai native chicken farming from upstream to downstream of the supply chain, especially the participation of both public and private sectors at the midstream and downstream levels in developing native chicken products to be suitable for the market, attractive to consumers, and have agricultural product standards. Farmers still do not have convenient access to various facilities such as equipment, inputs, technology, and knowledge of business and finance.

5. Conclusions

The study concluded that while Thai native chickens have potential as an income-generating activity for rural communities, their success depends significantly on proper farm management practices. The survival rate and productivity, including growth performance and egg production, were notably higher in well-managed farms. Therefore, for sustainable and successful commercial raising of Thai native chickens, ongoing farmer education, improved farm infrastructure, and effective management practices are essential. The study also underscores the need for better cooperation and engagement from farmers to achieve optimal outcomes.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.C., M.D. and W.B.; methodology, W.L., V.C., M.D. and W.B.; validation, W.L., V.C. and W.B.; formal analysis, W.L., V.C. and W.B.; writing—original draft preparation, W.L., V.C. and W.B.; writing—review and editing, W.L., V.C. and W.B.; visualization, W.B. and V.C.; supervision, W.B.; project administration, W.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Royal Golden Jubilee PhD Program (Grant number: PHD-0158-2561) and the Fundamental Fund of Khon Kaen University.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Khon Kaen University (No. IACUC-KKU-144/64, 16 December 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Chicken farmers participating in this project agree to provide information and are prepared to follow the advice of a team of experts in raising and managing native chickens. This advice is sourced from the experimental farm of the Animal Breeding and Omics Research Network Center, Faculty of Agriculture (NCAB), one of our university’s research centers, Khon Kaen University.

Data Availability Statement

Additional data are available upon request from the corresponding authors.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Research and Development Network Center for Animal Breeding (Native Chicken), Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University (KKU), for providing the material and animals.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Melesse, A. Significance of scavenging chicken production in the rural community of Africa for enhanced food security. World’s. Poult. Sci. J. 2014, 70, 593–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Wong, J.T.; Bruyn, J.D.; Bagnol, B.; Grieve, H.; Li, M.; Pym, R.; Alders, R.G. Small-scale poultry and food security in resource-poor settings: A review. Glob. Food Secur. 2017, 15, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Singh, M.; Mollier, R.T.; Paton, R.N.; Pongener, N.; Yadav, R.; Singh, V.; Katiyar, R.; Kumar, R.; Sonia, C.; Bhatt, M.; et al. Backyard poultry farming with improved germplasm: Sustainable food production and nutritional security in fragile ecosystem. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2022, 6, 962268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Chaikuad, N.; Loengbudnark, W.; Chankitisakul, V.; Boonkum, W. Genetic comparisons of body weight, average daily gain, and breast circumference between slow-growing Thai native chickens (Pradu Hang Dum) raised on-site farm and on-station. Vet. Sci. 2023, 10, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Jaturasitha, S.; Chaiwang, N.; Kreuzer, M. Thai native chicken meat: An option to meet the demands for specific meat quality by certain groups of consumers: A review. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2016, 57, 1582–1587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Padhi, M.K. Importance of indigenous breeds of chicken for rural economy and their improvements for higher production performance. Scientifica 2016, 2016, 2604685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Franzoni, A.; Gariglio, M.; Castillo, A.; Soglia, D.; Sartore, S.; Buccioni, A.; Mannelli, F.; Cassandro, M.; Cendron, F.; Castellini, C.; et al. Overview of native chicken breeds in Italy: Small scale production and marketing. Animals 2021, 11, 629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Mottet, A.; Tempio, G. Global poultry production: Current state and future outlook and challenges. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 2017, 73, 245–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Tongsiri, S.; Jeyaruban, G.M.; Hermesch, S.; van der Werf, J.H.; Li, L.; Chormai, T. Genetic parameters and inbreeding effects for production traits of Thai native chickens. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2019, 32, 930–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Desta, T.T. Indigenous village chicken production: A tool for poverty alleviation, the empowerment of women, and rural development. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2021, 53, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ariza, A.G.; González, F.J.; Arbulu, A.A.; Jurado, J.M.; Bermejo, J.V.; Vallejo, M.E. Variability of meat and carcass quality from worldwide native chicken breeds. Foods 2022, 11, 1700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. United Nations. Sustainable Development. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals (accessed on 13 March 2024).
  13. Alders, R.G.; Dumas, S.E.; Rukambile, E.; Magoke, G.; Maulaga, W. Family poultry: Multiple roles, systems, challenges, and options for sustainable contributions to household through a planetary health lens. Matern. Child. Nutr. 2018, 14, E12668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Nicholls, E.; Ely, A.; Birkin, L.; Basu, P.; Goulson, D. The contribution of small-scale food production in urban areas to the sustainable development goals: A review and case study. Sustain. Sci. 2020, 15, 1585–1599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sadef, S.; Khan, M.S.; Rehman, M.S. Indigenous chicken production in Punjab: A detailed survey through participatory rural appraisals. J. Anim. Plant Sci. 2015, 25, 1273–1282. [Google Scholar]
  16. Munawaroh, S.; Rouf, A.A.; Rohmadi, D.; Anas, S.; Rosdiana; Nur, A. Additional income for poor families through native chicken farming (KUB and Sensi) development in Gorontalo Province. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 807, 032060. [Google Scholar]
  17. Yusuf, S.F.G.; Popoola, O.O. An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Training Offered to Smallholder Scavenging Chicken Farmers in Raymond Mhlaba Local Municipality, Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Singh, M.; Patton, R.N.; Mollier, R.T.; Pongener, N.; Yadav, R.; Singh, V.; Katiyar, R.; Singh, G.D.; Deori, S.; Doley, S.; et al. Indigenous Chicken Production System in Different Agro-Ecology of Indian Himalayan Region: Implication on food and economic security. Front. Nutr. 2023, 10, 1244413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. ICT-DLD. Information on Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Livestock in 2024. Information and Communication Technology Center, DLD. Available online: https://ict.dld.go.th/webnew/index.php/th/service-ict/report/428-report-thailand-livestock/reportservey2567/1813-2567-monthly (accessed on 13 March 2024).
  20. National Statistical Office. Important Statistics and Indicators. Available online: https://www.nso.go.th/nsoweb/nso/statistics_and_indicators?impt_branch=309 (accessed on 8 April 2024).
  21. Mookprom, S.; Duangjinda, M.; Puangdee, S.; Kenchaiwong, W.; Boonkum, W. Estimation of additive genetic, dominance, and mate sire variance for fertility traits in Thai native (Pradu Hang Dam) chickens. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2021, 53, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sakulthai, A.; Sawangrat, C.; Pichpol, D.; Kongkapan, J.; Srikanchai, T.; Charoensook, R.; Sojithamporn, P.; Boonyawan, D. Improving the efficiency of crossbred Pradu Hang Dam chicken production for meat consumption using cold plasma technology on eggs. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 2836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Yaemkong, S.; Rattanapradit, P.; Ngoc, T.N.; Charoensook, R.; Chirarat, N.; Soipethand, U.; Yaemkong, S. Diversity of Traditional Knowledge and Local Wisdom of Indigenous Chickens Farmers in Bang Krathum, Nakhon Thai, Mueang and Chat Trakan Districts Phitsanulok Province. J. Appl. Anim. Sci. 2017, 10, 39–46. [Google Scholar]
  24. Daryatmo, I.M.; Juiputta, J.; Chankitisakul, V.; Boonkum, W. Genetic Selection Approach for Semen Characteristics in Thai Native Grandparent Roosters (Pradu Hang Dum) Using Random Regression Test-Day Models and Selection Indices. Animals 2024, 14, 1881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Charoensook, R.; Tartrakoon, W.; Incharoen, T.; Numthuam, S.; Pechrkong, T.; Nishibori, M. Production system characterization of local indigenous chickens in lower Northern Thailand. Khon Kaen Agric. J. 2021, 49, 1337–1350. [Google Scholar]
  26. Awewomom, J.; Dzeble, F.; Takyi, Y.D.; Ashie, W.B.; Ettey, E.N.Y.O.; Afua, P.E.; Sackey, L.N.A.; Opoku, F.; Akoto, O. Addressing global environmental pollution using environmental control techniques: A focus on environmental policy and preventive environmental management. Discov. Environ. 2024, 2, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. FAO. Available online: https://www.fao.org/newsroom/detail/unlocking-the-potential-of-sustainable-livestock-production/en (accessed on 8 July 2023).
  28. NIFA. Available online: https://www.nifa.usda.gov/topics/sustainable-agriculture (accessed on 8 July 2024).
  29. Thungpong Subdistrict Administrative Organization. Basic Information: Thungpong Subdistrict Administrative Organization. Available online: https://www.thungpongkhonkaen.go.th/content-4-1.html (accessed on 1 April 2024).
  30. Yotapakdee, T.; Proburom, P.; Phannarong, S.; Boonyasana, P.; Rukprayoon, N.; Singyoocharoen, W.; Chotinan, S.; Suprarakorn, S. Ageing Rural Population and Job Opportunities: A Case of Native Chicken Farming; Food and Fertilizer Technology Center for the Asian and Pacific Region: Kawana, Japan, 2022; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  31. Karmaker, U.K.; Mukherjee, U.; Islam, M.S.; Bhattacharyya, P.; Chowdhury, K.S. Chicken production of indigenous people at mahadevpur of Naogaon district in Bangladesh: It’s potentiality of promoting regular income option commercially. J. Agric. Eng. Food Technol. 2018, 5, 86–96. [Google Scholar]
  32. Dumas, S.E.; Lungu, L.; Mulambya, N.; Daka, W.; McDonald, E.; Steubing, E.; Lewis, T.; Backel, K.; Jange, J.; Lucio-Martinez, B.; et al. Sustainable smallholder poultry interventions to promote food security and social, agricultural, and ecological resilience in the Luangwa valley, Zambia. Food Secur. 2016, 8, 507–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Belyaeva, G.I.; Ermoshkina, E.N.; Sukhinina, V.V.; Starikova, L.D.; Pecherskaya, E.P. The conceptual model of sustainable development of the rubal sector. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 2016, 11, 6853–6865. [Google Scholar]
  34. Huang, Z.L.; Lee, Y.P. Aggressiveness Influences Behavioral Patterns of Local Chicken. J. Poult. Sci. 2005, 42, 30–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lin, J.C.; Daigle, C.L.; Tang, P.C.; Wang, C.K. Influence of Sex Hormones on the Aggressive Behavior during Peck Order Establishment and Stabilization in Meat and Egg Type Chickens. Poult. Sci. 2024, 103, 103669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mustofa, F.; Fathoni, A.; Sari, A.P.; Sasongko, H.; Maharani, D. Body weight and body size measurement of five Indonesian local chicken. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 788, 012016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Piamya, P.; Nitiwararuk, K.; Boonkerd, T.; Panatuk, J.; Kaewlamun, W. Study on growth performance, meat quality, carcass quality and sensory evaluation of Pradu Hang Dam Chiang Mai 1 chicken raised with commercial diet for native chicken and mixed diet. Khon Kaen Agric. J. 2019, 47, 1203–1212. [Google Scholar]
  38. Harrison, J.L.; Alders, R.G. An assessment of chicken husbandry including Newcastle disease control in rural areas of Chibuto, Mozambique. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2010, 42, 729–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Sodjinou, E.; Henningsen, A.; Koudande, O.D. Improving village poultry’s survival rate through community-based poultry health management: Evidence from Benin. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2012, 45, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Conteh, A.M.; Gogra, A.B. Investigation of native chicken mortality/loss in the free-range system: Causes, control measures and impact to farmers at the household level, Moyamba District, Southern Sierra Leone. J. Anim. Sci. Vet. Med. 2020, 5, 97–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mosca, F.; Madeddu, M.; Mangiagalli, M.G.; Colombo, E.; Cozzi, M.C.; Zaniboni, L.; Cerolini, S. Bird density, stress markers and growth performance in the Italian chicken breed Milanino. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2015, 24, 529–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bizeray, D.; Leterrier, C.; Constantin, P.; Picard, M.; Faure, J.M. Early locomotor behaviour in genetic stocks of chickens with different growth rates. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2000, 68, 231–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Soyalp, S.; Hartono, E.; Willems, O.W.; Bai, X.; Wood, B.J.; Aggrey, S.E.; Rekaya, R. Growth Rate Distribution and Potential Non-Linear Relationship between Body Weight and Walking Ability in Turkeys. Animals 2023, 13, 2979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Boonkum, W.; Chankitisakul, V.; Kananit, S.; Kenchaiwong, W. Heat stress effects on the genetics of growth traits in Thai native chickens (Pradu Hang dum). Anim. Biosci. 2024, 37, 16–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Haitook, T.; Tawfik, E.; Zöbisch, M. Options for Native Chicken (Gallus domesticus) Production in Northeastern Thailand. In Proceeding of Conference on International Agricultural Research for Development, Göttingen, Germany, 8–10 October 2003. [Google Scholar]
  46. Tongsiri, S.; Leotaragul, A.; Leotaragul, O.; Pratum, C. Increase of numbers of egg clutch and reduction of mortality rate of Thai native chicks. In Proceeding of FAO/IAEA International Symposium on Sustainable Improvement of Animal Production and Health, Vienna, Austria, 8–11 June 2009. [Google Scholar]
  47. Simeneh, G. Review on the Effect of Feed and Feeding on Chicken Performance. Anim. Husb. Dairy Vet. Sci. 2019, 3, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  48. Henuk, Y.L.; Bakti, D. Benefits of promoting native chickens for sustainable rural poultry development in Indonesia. ANR Conf. Ser. 2018, 1, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Asnawi, A.; Ridwan, M.; Nurlaelah, S.; Amrawaty, A.A.; Baba, S.; Kasim, K. Profile of the poultry system and the socio-economic impact of native chickens as a potential development Area in South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2023, 63, 1791–1803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Vos, R.; Cattaneo, A. Poverty reduction through the development of inclusive food value chains. J. Integr. Agric. 2021, 20, 964–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wantasen, E.; Elly, F.H.; Santa, N.M. The analysis of semi intensive native chicken farming in rural communities. Indones. Trop. Anim. Agric. 2014, 39, 126–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sokołowicz, Z.; Herbut, E.; Krawczyk, J. Poultry production and strategy for sustainable development of rural areas. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2009, 9, 107–117. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 16 07811 g001
Figure 1. Timeline of field visits and activities.
Figure 1. Timeline of field visits and activities.
Sustainability 16 07811 g001
Sustainability 16 07811 g002
Figure 2. Field visits and assessment of the readiness of farmers participating in the project.
Figure 2. Field visits and assessment of the readiness of farmers participating in the project.
Sustainability 16 07811 g002
Sustainability 16 07811 g003
Figure 3. Number of chickens that died and survived by sex in the project.
Figure 3. Number of chickens that died and survived by sex in the project.
Sustainability 16 07811 g003
Sustainability 16 07811 g004
Figure 4. Causes of death found in the project.
Figure 4. Causes of death found in the project.
Sustainability 16 07811 g004
Sustainability 16 07811 g005
Figure 5. Average body weights (±SE) at 14 (A) and at 34 weeks (B), and average daily gains (ADG) at 8–14 (C) and at 14–34 (D) weeks of age in Thai native chickens by farm group (Good, Moderate, and Poor). Means for the same trait with different letters (a, b, c) differ significantly (p < 0.05).
Figure 5. Average body weights (±SE) at 14 (A) and at 34 weeks (B), and average daily gains (ADG) at 8–14 (C) and at 14–34 (D) weeks of age in Thai native chickens by farm group (Good, Moderate, and Poor). Means for the same trait with different letters (a, b, c) differ significantly (p < 0.05).
Sustainability 16 07811 g005
Sustainability 16 07811 g006
Figure 6. Average egg production per hatch per hen (±SE) separated by farm group (Good, Moderate, and Poor). Means for the same trait with different letters (a, b, c) differ significantly (p < 0.05).
Figure 6. Average egg production per hatch per hen (±SE) separated by farm group (Good, Moderate, and Poor). Means for the same trait with different letters (a, b, c) differ significantly (p < 0.05).
Sustainability 16 07811 g006
Sustainability 16 07811 g007
Figure 7. Level of cooperation and number of farmers for fowl pox, fowl cholera, and Newcastle disease and infectious bronchitis (ND-IB) vaccination separated by farm group (Good, Moderate, and Poor). Means for the same trait with different letters (a, b, c) differ significantly (p < 0.05).
Figure 7. Level of cooperation and number of farmers for fowl pox, fowl cholera, and Newcastle disease and infectious bronchitis (ND-IB) vaccination separated by farm group (Good, Moderate, and Poor). Means for the same trait with different letters (a, b, c) differ significantly (p < 0.05).
Sustainability 16 07811 g007
Sustainability 16 07811 g008
Figure 8. SWOT analysis of the native chicken bank project.
Figure 8. SWOT analysis of the native chicken bank project.
Sustainability 16 07811 g008
Sustainability 16 07811 g009
Figure 9. A sustainable supply chain for Thai Native chickens (Pradu Hang Dum): from research center to consumer.
Figure 9. A sustainable supply chain for Thai Native chickens (Pradu Hang Dum): from research center to consumer.
Sustainability 16 07811 g009
Sustainability 16 07811 g010
Figure 10. Best practices for working to promote the creation of a new sustainable native chicken-raising career.
Figure 10. Best practices for working to promote the creation of a new sustainable native chicken-raising career.
Sustainability 16 07811 g010
Table 1. Success indicators, production targets, and chicken farm management groups.
Table 1. Success indicators, production targets, and chicken farm management groups.
ParametersExpected
Production
Outputs		Chicken Farm Management Group
GoodModeratePoor
1. Survival rate (%)40>4020–39<20
2. Body weight at 14 weeks old (g)1000 g>1000800–1000<800
3. Body weight at 34 weeks old (g)2500 g>25002000–2500<2000
4. Number of cooperative farmers 1 (farmers)25>2520–24<20
5. Number of hatches (hatches)3 hatches210
6. Number of eggs/hatch/hen (eggs)15 eggs>1210–12<10
7. Number of hatched chicks/hen (chicks)10 chicks>106–9<6
1 The number of cooperative farmers was calculated based on a 40% participation rate of the 62 selected farmers, resulting in an expected number of 25.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Loengbudnark, W.; Chankitisakul, V.; Duangjinda, M.; Boonkum, W. Sustainable Growth through Thai Native Chicken Farming: Lessons from Rural Communities. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7811. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177811

AMA Style

Loengbudnark W, Chankitisakul V, Duangjinda M, Boonkum W. Sustainable Growth through Thai Native Chicken Farming: Lessons from Rural Communities. Sustainability. 2024; 16(17):7811. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177811

Chicago/Turabian Style

Loengbudnark, Wipas, Vibuntita Chankitisakul, Monchai Duangjinda, and Wuttigrai Boonkum. 2024. "Sustainable Growth through Thai Native Chicken Farming: Lessons from Rural Communities" Sustainability 16, no. 17: 7811. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177811

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop