Prospects of Pekin Duck Rearing in Coastal Region of Bangladesh

Study Design

A questionnaire was prepared to survey the existing socio economic status of duck rearing farmers in the study area. It was designed in a simple manner so as to get accurate information from the farmers. For cost-benefit analysis 50 numbers of Day Old Chicks (Pekin breed) were given to each of 30 selected farmers. During 3 months of research feed and technical supports were provided from Grameen Jano Unnayon Sangstha. Growth and Mortality was observed and recorded in every week. After 3 months of research all the duck were sold to local market.

Study Location

The study was conducted in different place of Bhola sadar and Doulatkhan upazilla under Bhola district, five branches under Grameen Jano Unnayon Sangstha from both upazillas were selected where duck populations seemed to be higher. The survey areas were Miyarhat, Velumia, North Jaynagar Veduria and Porangonj, 6 farmers from each branch and total 30 farmers were selected randomly for survey and pekin duck rearing. This study was conducted during summer.

Study Duration

July 2019 to October 2019

Source of Birds

Day old Chicks (Pekin breed) were collected from Bhai Hatchery and Breeding farm, Kusthia, Bangladesh. The average weights of the day-old ducklings were 60.43gm.

Housing, Feeding and Management

Before starting the study Tin- bamboo shed house was prepared by each farmer. All the ducklings were brooded for 0-10 days. At the age of 11 days the ducklings were transferred to tin-bamboo houses. All ducklings were vaccinated against Duck Plague and Duck Cholera. The experimental birds were allowed to scavenge freely in the natural water body from 6.00 to 10.00 hours daily. In addition to scavenging feed, the birds belonging to supplementary group received different amounts of concentrate mixtures. Supplemental feeds were given @ 10g in the first week which was further increased @ 12.5g in each week until 8 weeks and there after 100g of wet mash feed was supplied to the birds up to 90days of age. The supplemental feeds were divided into two equal portions and were given twice daily (7.00 A.M. and at 5.00P.M.). Feeds were supplied in the plastic bowls and the bowls were cleaned properly before each feeding time. Proper care and management practices were followed by the farmers throughout the experimental period under the supervision of researcher.

Data Collection

Data were collected through interview of randomly selected members under 5 branches of Grameen Jano Unnayon Sangastha (GJUS) who were involved in duck farming. The relevant data for this study were collected without biasness. Respondents had no specific written documents of their own. So, they had to rely on memory. Interviews were normally conducted in respondent’s house during their leisure time.

Data Management and Analysis

Collected data were coded after ending of data collection and then compiled, tabulated and analyzed the data. The local units were converted into standard units. The qualitative data were transferred into quantitative data by appropriate scoring technique. Data were carefully tabulated and descriptive analysis was performed.

Socio economic status of duck farmers

The profile of duck farmers is summarized and presented in Table 1. According to table 1 Small (>4), Medium (5- 7), Large (>7) family size percentage were 40, 50, 10% respectively, the majority of the respondents (46%) belonged to over 40years aged group and 37% were from middle aged group (25-49years). About 43% of the farmers are illiterate, 33% received primary education, 24% of the respondents had secondary level education and no one of the respondents had higher level of education. In case of occupation we found that 67% of the respondents were housewife, 23% of the respondents were businessman and 10% provide service along with agriculture. All of the respondents do not have scientific knowledge, 80% of the respondents do not know about duck diseases.

Table 2 show existing, housing and feeding type of duck farmers in the study areas. It was found that all (100%) of the farmers use semi-intensive method, most of the farmers (90%) use tin and bamboo/betel nut shed house, 90% of the farmers use sawdust and 10% use ash as litter. Most of the farmers (56.57%) clean house 10-15 times in a month, 33.33% farmers clean 5-10 times in a month and 10% clean house once regularly. In case of feeding 20% of the farmers depends natural feed, 80% depends on supplemental feed.

Among supplemental feed farmers use Ready feed, Rice polish and wheat bran 13%, 13% and 74 % respectively and 87% farmers use feed from own source. In case of source of drinking water 67% farmers use water from pond and rest 33% from tube well. In case of source of treatment 56.67% farmers receive treatment from LSP, 33.33% from NGOs worker and 10% from Upazilla Veterinary Hospitals. Ninety percent of the famers maintain regular vaccination schedule.

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Pekin Duck Rearing

Table 3 show the body weight gain of Duck from Day Old chicks to 3 months. Average body weight of pekin duck in 0 day, 7 days, 15 days, 30 days, 2 months and 3 months were 60.43±2.08, 113±2.65, 282.87±9.26, 743.5±26.48, 1885±34.56 and 2732.83±40.45 respectively.

Table 4 shows the cost of pekin duck rearing. The cost for Day Old chick, Feed, Medicine, Housing & litter and miscellaneous were Taka 4500±0, 9000.833±393.84, 823±101.73, 1500±0, 218±15.57taka respectively and the total cost was Taka 16041.83±420.12.

Table 5 shows income and profit from pekin duck rearing in study areas. Income from meat and liter were rearing were Taka 29060±890.95 and 340.4±13.53. The average total income was Taka29400.4±896.44 and net profit was Taka 13358.57±1037.15.

Socio Economic Status of Duck Farmers

We found that Small(>4), Medium(5-7), Large(>7) family size percentage were 40,50,10% respectively, the majority of the respondents (46%) belonged to over 40 years aged group and 37% were from milled aged group(25-49years). In case of education we found that 43% of the farmers are illiterate, 33% received primary education, 24% of the respondents had secondary level education and no one of the respondents had higher level of education. We also found that 67% of the respondents were housewife, 23% of the respondent had business and 10% provide service along with agriculture, 80% of the respondents do not know about duck diseases (Table 1).

This was in close agreement with the observation of Rahman MM, et al. [9] who reported that 39% farmers were from middle-aged category and 30% farmers have got primary level of education, 18% had secondary and 9% had higher education, about 50% farmers had large family size having an average of 7 persons per family and Eighty five per cent farmers in both districts did not use vaccines against duck diseases in Noakhali and Lakshmipur districts. Of course, their locations of survey were different.

Jha B, et al. [10] also reported that most of the respondents duck farmers were < 35 years of age (52%) having with primary level of education (28%). Family size of the most of the farmers (57%) were large (size > 6 members). About 73% farmers had no training on duck farming and some of the farmers had training with short duration (7 to 15 days). Result of this study revealed that majority of the farmers (68%) had no idea about common duck diseases which is almost similar with this study.

Existing Housing and Feeding Type of Duck Farmers Study Areas

In duck farming, proper housing is an important thing. Houses protect duck from bad weather and predator animals. In the study area, mainly three types of duck houses were found which are shown in Table 2. From the table, it is evident that most of the houses were made with Semi intensive method (100%) followed by straw-bamboo made (10%) and house made by Tin and bamboo/betel nut was (3%). Most of the farmers (56.67%) clean house 10-15 times monthly, some (33.33%) clean houses 5-10 times monthly and rest (10%) once in a month and no one clean house regularly. In case of feeding 20% of the farmers depends natural feed, 80% depends on supplemental feed. Among supplemental feed farmers use ready feed, rice polish and wheat bran 13%, 13% and 74 % respectively and 67% farmers use feed from own source. In case of source of drinking water 67% farmers use water from pond and rest 33% from tube well. In case of source of treatment we found that 56.67, 33.33 and 10% of the respondent receive treatment from LSP, NGOs and Upazilla Veterinary Hospitals respectively. Most of the farmers (90%) follow vaccination schedule and rest (10%) don’t follow vaccine for rearing duck (Table 2).

This result was in consistent with a study Jha B, et al. [10] for ducks feeding of the farmers depended on natural feed sources while some provided rice and ready feed (13%%) rice polish (13%) and wheat bran (74%%). Ninety percent of the farmers were made duck houses with tin-shed or betel nut and wood having necessary floor space. The highest proportion of the farmers (90%) followed the vaccination program regularly.

Rhaman MM, et al. [9] reported 44%t of the farmers cleaned their duck houses 2-3 times in a month whereas only 11%cleaned their duck houses every day, 22% once in month, 18 per cent 4-6 times in a month and 5 per cent farmers cleaned their duck houses 7-10 times in a month. About 39 per cent farmers reared ducks under scavenging system with only natural feed resources and 61.5 per cent farmers used supplemental feed, mainly rice polish (118 g/ bird/day) in summer season. Eighty five per cent farmers in both districts did not use vaccines against duck diseases. There is a little dissimilarities with Rhaman MM, et al. [9] because of location.

Body weight gain of Pekin Duck

We found that the average body weight of pekin duck in 0 day, 7 days, 15 days, 30 days, 2 months and 3 months were 60.43±2.08, 113±2.65, 282.87±9.26, 743.5±26.48, 1885±34.56 and 2732.83±40.45 respectively. Bhuiyan MM, et al. [11] reported that live weight of 9th week pekin duck was 1763kg and claimed that the Pekin breed is superior to both Muscovy and Deshi white ducks. in the sylhet area. It might be due to the reason that, while they were grazing, ate different amounts of fallen grains in the paddy fields, earthworms and small insects Similar results were reported by Bochno R, et al. [12]. They recorded higher growth rate of Pekin over Muscovy ducks during the first eight weeks of life. Meat of Muscovy was tastier than other breeds of ducks. But the highest amount of meat was found from Pekin. Szasz S, et al. [13] indicated that at 12 weeks the Pekin ducks had higher body weight than Muscovy and Mule ducks, which substantiate the results obtained in this trial. Ninety percent of the famers maintain regular vaccination schedule. (Table 2) whereas Zahan [14] were reported that 60% farmers vaccinate duck regularly and 67% farmers feed their duck by rice polish and wheat bran.

Cost Benefit Analysis of Pekin Duck

Average pekin duck rearing cost was Tk. 16041.83±420.12, income was Tk. 29400.4±896.44, net profit was Taka 13358.57±1037.15 (Table 5) Solomon JKQ, et al. [15] reported that profit from rearing of Pekin drakes and Pekin hens was 147.79 and 162.23 USD in Guyana which is almost similar with our study.

Bhuiyan MM, et al. [11] comparing production cost and gross margin reported the highest production cost was found in Pekin and the lowest in Deshi White. The highest gross margin and BCR (Tk.34.93/duck and 1.66 respectively) were obtained from Pekin and the lowest (Tk. 11.45/duck and 1.23 respectively) from Deshi White There were a little dissimilarities with Hassan FA, et al. [16] during Economic calculations revealed that Muscovy breed had a significantly lower (P˂0.001) feed cost and feed cost/kg gain compared to the other breeds, whereas there is no significant difference between Pekin and Mulard breeds. However, the total variable costs of Muscovy and Pekin were significantly lesser than those of Mulard ducks (P = 0.004). Muscovy ducks showed the highest values for gross income ($12.49), gross margin ($1.12), and benefit–cost ratio (0.54), followed by Pekin and Mulard ducks in that order.