IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i17p7811-d1473585.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Wipas Loengbudnark

    (Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand)

  • Vibuntita Chankitisakul

    (Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand
    Network Center for Animal Breeding and Omics Research, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand)

  • Monchai Duangjinda

    (Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand
    Network Center for Animal Breeding and Omics Research, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand)

  • Wuttigrai Boonkum

    (Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand
    Network Center for Animal Breeding and Omics Research, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Wipas Loengbudnark & Vibuntita Chankitisakul & Monchai Duangjinda & Wuttigrai Boonkum, 2024. "Sustainable Growth through Thai Native Chicken Farming: Lessons from Rural Communities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-17, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:17:p:7811-:d:1473585
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/17/7811/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/17/7811/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sarah E. Dumas & Luke Lungu & Nathan Mulambya & Whiteson Daka & Erin McDonald & Emily Steubing & Tamika Lewis & Katherine Backel & Jarra Jange & Benjamin Lucio-Martinez & Dale Lewis & Alexander J. Tra, 2016. "Sustainable smallholder poultry interventions to promote food security and social, agricultural, and ecological resilience in the Luangwa Valley, Zambia," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 8(3), pages 507-520, June.
    2. Sarah E. Dumas & Luke Lungu & Nathan Mulambya & Whiteson Daka & Erin McDonald & Emily Steubing & Tamika Lewis & Katherine Backel & Jarra Jange & Benjamin Lucio-Martinez & Dale Lewis & Alexander J. Tra, 2016. "Erratum to: Sustainable smallholder poultry interventions to promote food security and social, agricultural, and ecological resilience in the Luangwa Valley, Zambia," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 8(3), pages 521-522, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Verena Nüchter & David J. Abson & Henrik von Wehrden & John-Oliver Engler, 2021. "The Concept of Resilience in Recent Sustainability Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-21, March.
    2. Nuhu, Ahmed Salim & Liverpool-Tasie, Lenis Saweda O. & Awokuse, Titus & Kabwe, Stephen, 2021. "Do benefits of expanded midstream activities in crop value chains accrue to smallholder farmers? Evidence from Zambia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    3. Bernard Pelletier & Gordon M. Hickey & Kimberly L. Bothi & Andrew Mude, 2016. "Linking rural livelihood resilience and food security: an international challenge," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 8(3), pages 469-476, June.
    4. Hao Yuan Chan & Sarina Abdul Halim-Lim & Tai Boon Tan & Nitty Hirawaty Kamarulzaman & Adi Ainurzaman Jamaludin & Wan Abd Al Qadr Imad Wan-Mohtar, 2020. "Exploring the Drivers and the Interventions towards Sustainable Food Security in the Food Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-27, September.
    5. Jenny-Ann Toribio & Richard Markham & Lucy Carter & Archie Law & Robyn Alders & Michael Dibley & Merrilyn Walton & Lucas Shuttleworth & David Guest, 2018. "Research for development to improve health outcomes from agriculture for rural communities: what is needed?," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 10(3), pages 661-675, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:17:p:7811-:d:1473585. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.