Poultry, HPAI and Livelihoods in Thailand – A Review
Transcript of Poultry, HPAI and Livelihoods in Thailand – A Review
A Collaborative Research
Project Funded by:
Implemented by:
Poultry, HPAI and Livelihoods in
Thailand – A Review
S. Burgos, J. Otte, D. Pfeiffer
R. Metras, S. Kasemsuwan, K. Chanachai
S. Heft-Neal and D. Roland-Holst
Mekong Team Working Paper No. 4
Rome, October 2008
Pro-Poor HPAI Risk Reduction
i
Table of Contents
Page
Preface.....................................................................................................................................................iii
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................v
Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 1
Macroeconomic Overview ...................................................................................................................... 2
Agriculture .......................................................................................................................................... 4
Livestock.............................................................................................................................................. 5
Thailand’s Poultry Industry...................................................................................................................... 7
Chicken and Duck Production Systems............................................................................................... 9
Traditional, small-scale, extensive backyard/garden poultry production...................................... 9
Semi-intensive, small-scale to medium-scale, market-oriented, commercial chicken/duck
production .................................................................................................................................... 10
Intensive, large scale, industrially-integrated chicken/duck production ..................................... 10
Geographic Distribution of Poultry Production ................................................................................ 14
Domestic Poultry Markets and International Trade ......................................................................... 16
Domestic poultry markets and marketing.................................................................................... 16
International trade ....................................................................................................................... 17
Poultry, Livelihoods and Nutrition ........................................................................................................ 21
Contribution of Poultry to Household Income ................................................................................. 21
Household Food Expenditures and Nutritional Status ..................................................................... 22
The HPAI Epidemic: Course and Institutional Response ....................................................................... 24
Course of the HPAI Epidemic ............................................................................................................ 24
Temporal pattern of H5N1 outbreaks .......................................................................................... 24
Spatial pattern of H5N1 outbreaks............................................................................................... 26
Spatio-temporal pattern of H5N1 outbreaks ............................................................................... 26
HPAI incidence by poultry flock type............................................................................................ 28
Human cases................................................................................................................................. 29
Animal Health Services and Institutional Response.......................................................................... 29
Control measures.......................................................................................................................... 30
Surveillance................................................................................................................................... 32
Impact mitigation measures......................................................................................................... 32
Economic and Social Impacts of HPAI and Control Measures .............................................................. 34
Immediate Impacts through Mortality and Public Intervention....................................................... 34
Immediate Direct Impacts through Consumer and Market Reactions............................................. 34
Domestic market reactions........................................................................................................... 34
International market reactions..................................................................................................... 34
Short-term Flow-on Impacts ............................................................................................................. 35
Medium- to Long-term Impacts and Adjustments ........................................................................... 35
Conclusions............................................................................................................................................ 37
References............................................................................................................................................. 39
Annexes ................................................................................................................................................. 41
Mekong Team Working Paper
ii
List of Tables
Table 1 Gross domestic product, GDP per capita and population, Thailand, 2000 – 2006 ....... 02
Table 2 Main trade partners for exports and imports, Thailand, 2006 ..................................... 02
Table 3 Structure of GDP for 1960s, 1980s, 2004 and 2006 ...................................................... 03
Table 4 Total labour force, people not in labour force, and average unemployment rates,
Thailand, 2000 – 2006 ...................................................................................................
03
Table 5 Evolution of hypermarkets and convenience stores, Thailand, 1998-2006 .................. 16
Table 6 Total and food expenditure by income quintiles, Thailand .......................................... 22
Table 7 HPAI incidence per 1,000 flocks by flock type and relative HPAI risks ......................... 28
Table 8 Control measures for H5N1 in Thailand since 2004 ...................................................... 31
Table 9 Number of poultry culled in Thailand, 2004-2006 ........................................................ 34
Table 10 Estimated HPAI-related losses to the poultry industry, Thailand, 2004 ....................... 35
List of Figures
Figure 1 Agricultural and non-agricultural GDP, Thailand, 1999 – 2006 .................................... 05
Figure 2 Composition of agricultural GDP, Thailand, 1999 – 2006 ............................................. 05
Figure 3 Poultry and other livestock GDP, Thailand, 1999 – 2006 ............................................. 06
Figure 4 Thailand’s chicken, duck, pig and cattle meat production, 1961 – 2007...................... 06
Figure 5 Number of flocks by type of poultry in Thailand in 2004 ............................................. 07
Figure 6 Number of birds by flock type in Thailand in 2004 ....................................................... 07
Figure 7 Layer, broiler and native chicken populations, Thailand, 2003 – 2007 ........................ 08
Figure 8 Waterfowl populations, Thailand, 2003 – 2007 ........................................................... 08
Figure 9 Quail population, Thailand, 2003 – 2007 ...................................................................... 09
Figure 10 Total broiler production by region, Thailand, 1996 – 2006 .......................................... 12
Figure 11 Schematic of vertical integration in broiler production in Thailand ............................. 13
Figure 12 Major geographic regions of Thailand .......................................................................... 14
Figure 13 Poultry populations by geographic region (2003) ........................................................ 14
Figure 14 Estimated densities of poultry in Thailand ................................................................... 15
Figure 15 Chicken product imports and exports by value, Thailand, 2003 – 2006 ....................... 17
Figure 16 Duck product imports and exports by value, Thailand, 2003 – 2006 ........................... 18
Figure 17 Export values of frozen and value-added/pre-cooked poultry, Thailand, 1998 – 2006 19
Figure 18 Quantity and value of egg exports, Thailand, 2003 – 2006 .......................................... 20
Figure 19 Average monthly total and farming incomes by socio-economic class of households,
Thailand, 2000...............................................................................................................
21
Figure 20 Annual meat consumption, Thailand, 1995 – 2006 ...................................................... 23
Figure 21 Retail prices of pork, beef, and chicken in Bangkok, 1993 – 2005 ................................ 23
Figure 22 Expenditure on poultry meat as percent of food expenditure by income quintile,
1990 to 2002 .................................................................................................................
23
Figure 23 Temporal pattern of HPAI H5N1 outbreaks in Thailand from 2004 until 2007 ............ 24
Figure 24 Comparison of temporal patterns of HPAI H5N1 outbreaks in Thailand from 2004
until 2007 for the central region and other regions .....................................................
25
Figure 25 Cumulative total of H5N1 outbreaks by district in Thailand, 2004 to 2008 ................. 26
Figure 26 Spatio-temporal pattern of H5N1 outbreaks in Thailand since 2004 ........................... 27
Figure 27 Number of outbreaks by poultry flock type during the first three epidemic waves .... 28
Figure 28 Human cases of HPAI in Thailand, 2004 – 2008 ............................................................ 29
Figure 29 Group of provinces with free-grazing duck movement restrictions in 2005 ................ 31
Figure 30 Number of H5N1 outbreaks per day, control measures and x-ray surveys
implemented by DLD in Thailand since 2004 ................................................................
33
List of Boxes
Box 1. Country Facts................................................................................................................. 04
Pro-Poor HPAI Risk Reduction
iii
Preface
Since its re-emergence, HPAI H5N1 has attracted considerable public and media attention because
the viruses involved have been shown to be capable of producing fatal disease in humans. While
there is fear that the virus may mutate into a strain capable of sustained human-to-human
transmission, the greatest impact to date has been on the highly diverse poultry industries in
affected countries. In response to this, HPAI control measures have so far focused on implementing
prevention and eradication measures in poultry populations, with more than 175 million birds culled
in Southeast Asia alone.
Until now, significantly less emphasis has been placed on assessing the efficacy of risk reduction
measures, including their effects on the livelihoods of smallholder farmers and their families. In order
to improve local and global capacity for evidence-based decision making on the control of HPAI (and
other diseases with epidemic potential), which inevitably has major social and economic impacts, the
UK Department for International Development (DFID) has agreed to fund a collaborative, multi-
disciplinary HPAI research project for Southeast Asia and Africa.
The specific purpose of the project is to aid decision makers in developing evidence-based, pro-poor
HPAI control measures at national and international levels. These control measures should not only
be cost-effective and efficient in reducing disease risk, but also protect and enhance livelihoods,
particularly those of smallholder producers in developing countries, who are and will remain the
majority of livestock producers in these countries for some time to come.
With the above in mind, this document aims to provide a brief country economic overview; a review
of the poultry sector that examines production, trade, markets and consumption; information on
household income, food expenditures and poultry contribution to nutrition. Finally, it describes the
course of HPAI and applied control measures, with their concomitant impacts on livelihoods, the
poultry sector and the economy at large. This information should provide background information to
be used as additional evidence for policymaking processes at national and international levels.
Authors
Sigfrido Burgos and Joachim Otte work at the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Dirk Pfeiffer
and Raphaelle Metras teach and conduct research at the Royal Veterinary College (RVC), Suwicha
Kasemsuwan is assistant professor at Kasetsart University in Thailand, Karoon Chanachai works at the
Thai Department of Livestock Development (DLD) and Samuel Heft-Neal is a student of David Roland-
Holst who teaches and conducts research at the University of California – Berkeley (UCB).
Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply
the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the DFID, FAO, RVC, UCB, IFPRI or ILRI
concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities,
or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or
products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these
have been endorsed or recommended by the above mentioned organizations in preference to others
of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this document are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of DFID, FAO, RVC, UCB, IFPRI or ILRI.
Mekong Team Working Paper
iv
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the valuable contributions of all colleagues who reviewed and made suggestions to
the manuscript, to Dr. Marius Gilbert at the Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium for kindly
providing maps of poultry distributions in Thailand, and are also very grateful to DFID for funding this
project.
Keywords
Avian Flu, Chickens, Ducks, Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza, HPAI, Livelihoods, Markets, Market
Shocks, Poultry, Poultry Production, Poverty, Smallholder Farms, Smallholders, Southeast Asia,
Thailand
More information
For more information about the project please refer to www.hpai-research.net
Pro-Poor HPAI Risk Reduction
v
Executive Summary
The specific purpose of the DFID-funded Pro-Poor HPAI Risk Reduction Project is to promote
evidence-based, pro-poor HPAI control measures at national and international levels. With that aim
in mind, this document provides a brief economic overview of Thailand; a description of the
country’s poultry sector, and a review of the course of HPAI and applied control measures, with their
concomitant impacts on livelihoods, the poultry sector and the economy at large.
Macroeconomic Overview
The Thai economy has been transformed by active promotion of foreign investments, a proactive
export and construction sector, and by monarchy giving way to democratic rule that helped solidify
international ties and trade-based development. Thailand's economy has averaged 5.6 percent
growth per year from 2002 to 2006. Structural factors, geographical location, favourable exchange
rates and relatively low wages have boosted economic progress. Rising incomes and consumer
demand have attracted technological innovations and increased imports of non-food items. The size
of the workforce – most of which is literate – is approximately 37 million persons, with the majority
under 30 years of age. Unemployment rates stand at 2 percent. The agricultural sector accounts for
one tenth of GDP, whereas livestock accounts for 12 percent of agricultural GDP. Rice is the most
important crop and rice fields are an abundant feed resource for free-grazing waterfowl.
Thailand’s Poultry Industry
Poultry production systems in Thailand can be classified as: (I) traditional, small-scale, extensive
backyard/garden poultry production, (II) semi-intensive, small- to medium-scale, market-oriented,
commercial chicken/duck production, and (III) intensive, large scale, industrially-integrated
chicken/duck production. Indigenous backyard chickens and native waterfowl are the most
prominent flock types constituting more than 95 percent of all flocks but only about 30 percent of all
birds. The vast majority of birds, mainly broilers, are raised in commercial farms, most of which are
located in the central region. The total production of poultry meat has grown at an annual rate of 4
to 7 percent for chickens and 1 to 3 percent for ducks over two decades and Thailand had established
itself as the fifth largest exporter of poultry meat prior to the incursion of HPAI in 2004. As reaction
to the HPAI crisis the industry lobbied intensively to maintain domestic consumption, rapidly
transformed its processing facilities and adapted to export both, frozen and precooked chicken meat.
Poultry and Livelihoods
Poultry are of considerable importance to the livelihoods of smallholder and village farmers,
particularly in remote rural areas where poultry represents an important source of animal protein
and provides cash income. The average total monthly income in 2000 for all Thai households is a little
over 12,000 Baht. The proportion of total expenditures allocated to food items ranges from 34 to 38
percent for all income quintiles. Dietary consumption is 1,875 calories per capita most of which come
from carbohydrates and proteins. Broiler and pork meats are preferred by Thais. Per capita broiler
meat consumption in Thailand has grown steadily from 7.9 kg/yr in 1990 to 14.1 kg/yr in 2003. From
1993 until 2005 the retail price of chicken has remained between 40 – 60 Bath (US$ 1.20 – 1.80) per
kilogram, which is at least a quarter less than the price of one kg of pork.
The HPAI Epidemic: Course and Institutional Response
H5N1 in poultry was first reported on January 2004. Up until January 2007, a total of 1,929 outbreaks
have been officially registered. Four separate epidemic waves can be differentiated, with most
affected districts located in the centre of the country. Although backyard flocks represent the
majority of affected flocks, this appears to be mainly a reflection of their absolute abundance as the
risk of HPAI infections was found to be lower in backyard chickens, duck and geese flocks compared
to layer, broiler and particularly to quail flocks raised commercially.
Mekong Team Working Paper
vi
Control measures implemented included, but were not limited to, culling of infected flocks,
restriction of poultry movements, enhanced biosecurity and improved hygiene during production
and handling. Also, vaccination was avoided and fighting cocks required registration. Extensive
disease awareness-raising by television, newspaper, and radio took place during the peak outbreak
months. Compensation and preferential loans have been incorporated into HPAI impact mitigation
packages. Up until April 2008, 25 humans, mostly young males, contracted disease, of which 17 died.
Social and Economic Impact of HPAI and Control Measures
The most immediate impact of HPAI to livestock producers is the loss of their productive assets.
Between 2004 and 2006, almost 64 million birds were culled in an attempt to curb disease spread.
With the announcement of HPAI, consumers where reluctant to buy and consume poultry meats and
eggs due to fears of contracting disease, leading to dramatically reduced demand for poultry
products and increased demand for alternative meats. In rural areas, these effects were more
pronounced: households whose income depended on cash sales of poultry products in markets saw
reductions in their weekly incomes; traders, collectors, slaughterers and retailers were also adversely
affected. Import bans levied by Japan and the EU caused a collapse of export sales of poultry meat
and consequently a number of poultry exporters went out of business. A Thai think-tank estimates
that the total damage to the entire interrelated private poultry sector was roughly US$3 billion in
2004 alone.
Conclusions
Even for emerging economies like Thailand, agriculture will remain important because it provides
food, raw materials, income, and occupation in rural areas. Additionally, agricultures’ contribution to
economic wellbeing in Thailand is significant because it ensures food security and contributes to
exports. Thailand’s modern and dynamic poultry industry plays an important role in its economy. The
industry was hard hit by outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza between 2004 and 2007,
which resulted in bans and other measures that restricted trade in poultry and poultry products.
Increased scale and integration of the poultry industry has greatly reduced the average cost of
production thereby decreasing the price of chicken meat for Thai consumers and nowadays, chicken
is the most affordable source of meat protein in Thailand. Despite the many benefits of livestock
sector progress, highly industrialized poultry production systems may and sometimes do increase the
risks of disease spread from animals to humans and environmental hazards stemming from the
disposal of large volumes of animal waste. Faced with public pressures and shifting consumers’
perceptions on food and poultry quality, the current poultry production landscape poses challenges
to newcomers that may discourage participation to supply national and international markets.
If Thai poultry businesses wish to remain competitive and profitable they will have to embrace
comprehensive poultry health programmes and food safety certification schemes, coupled with
increased collaboration with government-sponsored programmes dealing with disease surveillance,
live bird market monitoring and awareness-raising campaigns in rural and urban areas.
Pro-Poor HPAI Risk Reduction
1
Introduction
Globalisation has brought an unwelcome problem – increased risk of transboundary
diseases. HPAI clearly illustrates that through extending livestock supply chains, local
conditions of animal production have repercussions on global human health risks.
For a vast majority of rural households in developing countries, poultry act as an important
source of protein and are part of the social fabric, a situation which will not change in the
near future. Therefore, global policies toward HPAI and its control necessarily implicate the
rural poor majority and these people need to be recognized as part of the solution to
reducing human health risk, not the problem.
It has been seen time and time again that prescriptive eradication measures fail to achieve
their direct objective and that by driving the problem ‘under ground’, disease risk actually
increases. Because of their diversity and weak institutional linkages in most of the affected
countries, national policies cannot be designed and implemented effectively without close
attention to local incentives. Despite international pressure to act quickly on control
measures, one size will not fit all or even a significant percentage of local conditions.
To ensure effective, affordable and socially fair HPAI control programmes, national and
international policy making needs to be based on stringent analysis of risks, consequences
and risk management options. This document is part of a series of documents that aim to
provide comprehensive overviews of the economic (macro- and micro-) and institutional
environment of countries that have been affected by HPAI, Thailand being one of these, to
draw out lessons that can be applied elsewhere.
The document is divided into six sections. The first section deals with Thailand’s economy,
population, labour force, agriculture and livestock sector. The second section deals with its
poultry industry, specifically chicken and duck production systems, as well as marketing and
trade. The third section is dedicated to the role of poultry in rural livelihoods, their
contribution to income and nutrition as well as consumer preferences for poultry meats. The
fourth section reviews the course of the HPAI epidemic in Thailand and the structure of the
national animal health systems and instituted control measures. The fifth section attempts
to systematically compile the available information on the direct and indirect impacts of
HPAI and HPAI control measures. Finally, the last section provides some concluding
observations.
Mekong Team Working Paper
2
Macroeconomic Overview
The Thai economy has been dramatically transformed over the past few decades. By the
1970s, the active promotion of foreign investment had already created an industrial sector
based on import substitution. In the 1980s, a proactive export and construction sector made
it a hub for international commerce. Absolute monarchy giving way to democratic rule
under a progressive constitution aided in solidifying international ties and trade-based
development. Economic policy under Mr. Thaksin Shinawatra (February 2001 – September
2006) was dominated by a self-sufficiency philosophy, and this approach ignited national
production and bolstered secondary infrastructure.
Overall economic growth has been fairly strong. Thailand's economy has recorded fairly
robust GDP growth in recent years (Table 1), averaging 5.6 percent a year between 2002 and
2006. However, there are alarming disparities in national wealth distribution, which were
amplified by fortune accumulation by elites during prosperous times. The uneven
distribution of wealth is particularly evident between urban and rural areas. Although the
export sector remains a key economic driver, domestic demand has become increasingly
important. Rising consumer demand, fuelled by growing incomes, has attracted
technological innovations and increased imports of non-food items.
Table 1. Gross domestic product, GDP per capita and population, Thailand, 2000 – 2006.
Description 2000 2002 2004 2006
GDP (billion US$) 413.0 445.8 524.8 585.9
GDP per capita (US$) 6,640 7,065 8,174 8,972
Population (million) 62.2 63.1 64.2 65.3 Source: World Bank, UNDP and CIA Factbook, 2008.
Thailand’s growing economy has attracted speculative investments. In late 2006, the central
bank introduced a new measure to tackle speculative capital flows, requiring financial
institutions to deposit 30% of foreign-currency inflows.
Exports continue to expand rapidly. The value of merchandise exports has increased sharply
over the past few years, with annual growth rates averaging 17.5 percent between 2003 and
2006. By 2006 export revenue reached nearly US$130bn, up from US$68.2bn in 2002. The
USA, China and Japan are major trade partners (Table 2).
Table 2. Main trade partners for exports and imports, Thailand, 2006.
Main Destination of Exports % of total Main Origin of Imports % of total
USA 15.0 Japan 20.4
Japan 12.7 China 10.6
China 9.0 USA 6.7
Singapore 6.4 Malaysia 6.6
Hong Kong 5.5 United Arab Emirates 5.6 Source: The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2008.
Structural factors, geographical location, favourable exchange rates and relatively low wages
are the main driving forces behind export expansions. Consequently, foreign-exchange
reserves continue to expand in Thailand, which has managed to rebuild its reserves over the
Pro-Poor HPAI Risk Reduction
3
past decade, after the government's unsuccessful defence of the Baht in international
markets in 1997.
Table 3. Structure of GDP (percentages) for 1960s, 1980s, 2004 and 2006.
Sector 1960s 1980s 2004 2006
Agriculture 32.5 20.8 10.1 10.5
Industry 56.3 60.8 43.5 44.8
Services 11.2 18.4 46.4 44.7 Source: The Economist, 2008; World Bank, 2007; and Oxford Economics, 2006.
Agriculture’s share in GDP has shrunk from about one third in the 1960s to around one tenth
in 2006, while the relative contribution of the services sector has grown from 11.2 to nearly
45 percent (Table 3). Within services, tourism, an important contributor of foreign currency
earnings, has picked up after SARS and the 2004 tsunami. The share of industry has changed
comparatively little. Overall industry-related outputs account for almost 45 percent of GDP
and industry specialises in vehicles, electronics, electrical goods and textiles. Within the
industrial sector, manufacturing has recorded strong growth in recent years. The
construction sector was hit hard by the 1997 financial crisis, suffering four long years of
contraction. However, over the past seven years the sector has generally recovered and is
now a major source of employment.
Table 4. Total labour force, people not in labour force, and average unemployment rates,
Thailand, 2000 - 2006.
Description 2000 2002 2004 2006
Total labour force (million) 33.2 33.9 35.5 36.4
Persons not in labour force (million) 13.6 13.6 13.8 14.1
Average unemployment rate (%) 3.32 2.42 2.10 1.85 Source: Thailand’s National Statistics Office, Report of the Labour Force Survey, 2006.
Population growth has been slowing in recent decades, falling to an average of around 0.7
percent per year over 2002 - 2006, from around 1.8 percent in the early 1980s and 3 percent
per year in the 1960s. National authorities estimate that population growth rates will
continue to decline. The size of the workforce is approximately 37 million persons, with the
majority under 30 years of age. Unemployment rates have been declining and currently
stand at 2 percent (Table 4). Each year about 800,000 people join the labour force. The
literacy rate is above 90 percent; however there is a growing shortage of engineers and
skilled technical personnel.
Mekong Team Working Paper
4
Box 1. Country Facts
Official Name
Government
Capital City
Area
Population (2007 est.)
Population Density
Urban Population
Rural Population
Religion
Language (official)
Currency
Life Expectancy (m/f)
Inflation Rate (2008)
HDI (2007)
Economic Indices
GDP-2007 [PPP*]
GDP-2007 per capita
Kingdom of Thailand
Parliamentary Democracy
and Constitutional
Monarchy
Bangkok
513,115 sq km
65.5 million
128 per sq km
32%
68%
Buddhism
Thai
Thai Baht (THB)
69/75 Years
5.6%
0.781
US$519.362Bn (IMF);
US$519.439Bn (WB);
US$519.400Bn (CIA);
US$ 519.400Bn (Average)
US$7,929 (IMF);
US$7,930 (WB);
US$7,930 (CIA);
US$7,930 (Average)
Sources: The World Bank, CIA World Factbook, International Monetary Fund, World Health Organization, UNDP,
wikipedia.
* Purchasing Power Parity.
Thailand is a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and of the Cairns Group of
agricultural exporters.
Agriculture
Once considered the backbone of Thailand’s economy, despite strong absolute growth, the
agricultural sector is declining in terms of its relative importance to the overall economy and
currently accounts for 10 to 11 percent of GDP (Figure 1 and Table 3).
Roughly 40 percent of Thailand's labour force is employed in agriculture. The main crops
cultivated are rice, rubber, maize and cassava. Rice is the most important crop and Thailand
is the largest exporter in world rice markets. Other agricultural commodities produced in
significant amounts include fish and fishery products, tapioca, kenaf, tobacco, rubber,
bananas, sesame, coconuts, corn, peanuts, cashew nuts, soybeans, cotton, kapok, castor
beans and sugarcane. Exports of processed foods such as canned tuna, canned pineapples,
and frozen shrimp are rising.
Pro-Poor HPAI Risk Reduction
5
Figure 1. Agricultural and non-agricultural GDP, Thailand, 1999 – 2006* (Billion Baht).
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Non Ag GDP
Ag GDP
Source: Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board, Thailand, 2006. * At market prices.
Available at http://www.nesdb.go.th/econSocial/macro/gdp_data/mainaccount.htm
Livestock
On average, between 1999 and 2006, livestock accounted for 12 percent of agricultural GDP
(Figure 2). Over the same period, within the livestock sector, the contribution of poultry has
been fluctuating between 40 and 50 percent, accounting for 4 to 6 percent of total
Agricultural GDP (Figure 3).
Figure 2. Composition of agricultural GDP, Thailand, 1999 – 2006* (Billion Baht).
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
forestry and logging
agricultural services
animal farming
fruits, nuts and spices
vegetables and flowers
cereals and crops
Source: Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board, Thailand, 2006. * At market prices.
Available at http://www.nesdb.go.th/econSocial/macro/gdp_data/mainaccount.htm
Mekong Team Working Paper
6
Figure 3. Poultry and other livestock GDP, Thailand, 1999 – 2006* (Billion Baht).
0
20
40
60
80
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Poultry Other Livestock
Source: Adapted using data from NaRanong and the Office of the NESDB, Thailand, 2006. * At market prices.
Meat production represents more than three fourths of livestock GDP. By 2001, Thailand
had reached a production of two million tons of meat, most of it contributed by poultry
(Figure 4). During the past two decades, the total production of poultry meat has grown at
an annual rate of 4 to 7 percent for chickens and 1 to 3 percent for ducks. In 2005, Thailand’s
poultry (chicken and duck) meat production reached a little over 1 million tons, which
represents close to 52 percent of total Thai meat production (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Thailand’s chicken, duck, pig and cattle meat production, 1961 – 2007.
0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
19611963
1965
1967
19691971
1973
1975
19771979
1981
1983
19851987
1989
1991
19931995
1997
1999
20012003
2005
2007
To
nn
es
CHICKEN DUCK MEAT PIG MEAT CATTLE MEAT
Source: FAOSTAT, 2008.
Pro-Poor HPAI Risk Reduction
7
Thailand’s Poultry Industry
In Thailand, poultry are an integral part of rural peoples’ livelihoods, with backyard chicken
flocks of predominantly indigenous chickens and native waterfowl being the most prominent
flock types in early 2004 (Figure 5), together constituting more than 95 percent of all flocks
(but only about 30 percent of all birds). The vast majority of birds, mainly broilers (Figure 6),
are raised in commercial farms for domestic and international markets. It has been
estimated that the Thai poultry industry generates employment for around 110,000 people.
Figure 5. Number of flocks by type of
poultry in Thailand in 2004 (n ≈ 2.9 million).
Figure 6. Number of birds by flock type in
Thailand in 2004 (n ≈ 280 million).
23.9%
1.2%
1.6%
73.2%
0.1%
Waterfowl Layer Broiler Backyard Quail
8.6%
8.7%
58.9%
22.5%
1.3%
Waterfowl Layer Broiler Native Quail
Source: Tiensin et al., 2005.
Chickens: Chickens are the most important type of poultry raised and consumed in Thailand,
with a standing population of approximately 250 million birds. The classification of chicken
types used by the Thai Department of Livestock Development (DLD) is: layers, broilers and
native chickens.
Native chickens are raised and kept for several purposes: home-consumption, alternative
income source and supply to specialty markets. Broilers are important, both for domestic
consumption and exports, while, like in most countries, commercial egg production is mainly
for domestic consumption.
As can be seen in Figure 7, the number of native chicken is estimated to have remained
relatively stable between 2003 and 2007 at around 60 million birds, while large fluctuations,
related to the HPAI epidemic, were seen in the broiler population (populations fluctuating
between 100 and 175 million birds). In the case of layers, populations have increased to
almost 50 million heads in 2007 from close to 25 million in 2003 (Figure 7). This rise may be a
result of a campaign to boost egg consumption in Thailand (Bangkok Post, 2002).
Mekong Team Working Paper
8
Figure 7. Layer, broiler and native chicken populations, Thailand, 2003 – 2007 (million).
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Native Chickens Broiler Chickens Layer Chickens
Source: DLD – MAC, 2008.
Waterfowl: The Thai waterfowl population, comprising various types of ducks and geese,
despite being prominent, with between 22 and 25 million birds is only about one tenth the
size of the chicken population. Slightly less than half of the waterfowl are layer ducks,
followed by broiler ducks and Muscovy ducks. The population of geese is negligible (Fig. 8).
Similar to chickens, overall waterfowl stocks decreased in 2004 due to the HPAI epidemic.
Although the population of layer and broiler ducks has again reached pre-HPAI levels,
Muscovy ducks have declined from 6.1 million in 2003 to 3.6 million in 2007.
Figure 8. Waterfowl populations, Thailand, 2003 – 2007 (million).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Muscovy Ducks Broiler Ducks Layer Ducks Geese
Source: DLD – MAC, 2008.
Quail: Very similar to chickens, ducks and geese, quail stocks declined in 2004 to 3.3 million
from 3.7 million a year earlier. By 2007, numbers surpassed pre-outbreak levels and
exceeded 5 million (Figure 9). Quails are largely kept for the production of eggs.
Pro-Poor HPAI Risk Reduction
9
Figure 9. Quail population, Thailand, 2003 – 2007 (million).
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Source: DLD – MAC, 2008.
Chicken and Duck Production Systems
For explanatory purposes, and in conformity with companion reports for Viet Nam and
Cambodia, this report uses a threefold classification to describe chicken and duck production
systems in Thailand: (I) traditional, small-scale, extensive backyard/garden poultry
production, (II) semi-intensive, small- to medium-scale, market-oriented, commercial
chicken/duck production, and (III) intensive, large scale, industrially-integrated chicken/duck
production.
Traditional, small-scale, extensive backyard/garden poultry production
In 2004, this type of poultry production system accounted for around three fifths of poultry
flocks and one fifth of the total poultry population. Most rural households in Thailand raise
native chickens, which are also commonly known as Thai indigenous chickens (TIC). They are
preferred over imported exotic breeds because they survive under harsh conditions and
reproduce regularly under minimum care, feed and management. These birds are kept in
backyards and sometimes fenced to protect them from predators and thieves at night. They
get fed twice daily by women, elders and children, and move freely with their flock
scavenging for edible insects, seeds, kitchen waste and fresh plant parts. Laying birds are
given broken rice, rice bran, ground corn kernels and cassava chips. Some farmers also
provide them with termites and house fly larvae. No vaccinations and de-worming are
performed. Newcastle disease, fowl cholera and fowl pox are the most common diseases
affecting TIC (Choprakarn and Wongpichet, 2007).
Flocks on average consist of one rooster and 3 to 5 hens. Each flock can produce 90 to 150
chicks that are kept until reaching 1 to 1.5 kg in 4 to 5 months time. Flock size fluctuates
throughout the year depending on hatching rates, natural feed availability, diseases and
farmers’ time constraints. High mortality rates of about 30 to 70 percent occur during
seasonal change periods. Flock sizes decline from March to September (hot and humid) due
to low hatching and high mortality rates.
Cochin Chinese and Red Jungle Fowl are the TIC ancestors. Maturity is reached at 6 to 8
months for females and 8 to 12 months for male chickens. A hen can spend up to 10 to 15
Mekong Team Working Paper
10
weeks in each reproductive cycle, and lays 10 to 12 eggs per clutch, with a hatching rate of
80 to 85 percent. Each household produces 2 to 4 marketable size birds per month, which
translates to 25 to 50 birds per year of which 15 to 35 birds are used for home consumption
(50 - 70%) and the rest for sales.
Demand for TIC meat is generally higher than supply because it is regarded as tastier and
healthier. Particularly high demand and prices for TIC occur from May to June and November
to January due to festivities and religious events (Choprakarn and Wongpichet, 2007).
Semi-intensive, small-scale to medium-scale, market-oriented, commercial chicken/duck
production
This type of poultry production system operates at relatively larger scales, uses more
developed infrastructure, and has a higher rate of commercialization than the system
described above. Because the boundaries with the traditional extensive system at one end
previous and with the large-scale industrial production system at the other end are not
clearly demarcated, it is difficult estimate the number of flocks and birds which fall into this
system. Roughly, it may account for one fifth of poultry flocks and one eight of the total
poultry population.
Chickens and ducks are provided with locally manufactured animal feeds, in addition to
natural feed resources such as worms, insects, pests, vegetables, and grass. Own-stock
hatching is preferred, but day-old chicks/ducklings of imported breeds are bought at local
hatcheries or at local markets. Production cycles for meat birds range from 70 to 90 days,
with intermediate mortality rates and efficiency levels. For the purpose of this report, flock
sizes ranging from 100 to 1,000 birds are classified as falling into this production system.
Backyards, gardens and orchards are usually fenced with nylon netting or bamboo material
or walled with bricks, however, makeshift enclosures made with local primary building
materials, such as mud bricks or bamboo, or tree branches are also frequently seen. Bio-
security measures for disease prevention, treatment and management are given a little bit
more attention as compared to traditional backyard raising systems.
Ducks are usually raised outdoors in lakes and man-made ponds. Husbandry practices vary
by flock size, number of years in business, product specificities and local market prices. Duck
raising cycles coincide with rice production periods and demand peaks. Local hatcheries
supply ducklings, feed manufacturers supply feedstuffs, and informal lenders supply short-
term capital to fund these operations.
Intensive, large scale, industrially-integrated chicken/duck production
In 2004, intensive large-scale, industrially-integrated poultry raising farms accounted for
about 3 percent of poultry flocks and close to 70 percent of total population (Figures 5 and
6). The modern poultry sector in Thailand is characterized by industrialization and vertical
integration. This evolution has taken place over the past two decades. Up until late 2003, the
main factor of progress has been technological innovation, specifically, the introduction of
evaporative-cooling systems in production houses, which save labour costs and substantially
increase weight gains, survival rates and feed conversion.
Another factor underlying the fast growth in the poultry industry was contract farming, that
is, legally-binding contracts between large poultry integrators and poultry producers.
Entering into written agreements with poultry producers allows firms in the poultry business
to more flexibly adjust production volumes to changes occurring in both, domestic and
Pro-Poor HPAI Risk Reduction
11
export markets. Poultry producers benefit from these arrangements by relatively lower risk
exposures to price movements and supply disruptions (Leibler et al, 2008).
Despite the benefits of contract farming, Thailand’s poultry firms moved away from contract
farming and opted more towards vertical integration in a collaborative effort to ensure
compliance with Europe’s increasingly stringent import requirements for food safety and
animal welfare.
Commercial breeding farms / hatcheries
Breeding farms raise the grandparent (GP) and parent stock (PS) that produce fertile eggs
which, after incubation and hatching, provide chicks to the production sector, mainly
composed of broiler and layer/pullet farms. The breeding houses consist of closed sheds (45
x 350 feet) equipped with ventilation, drinkers and feeder systems with a capacity to hold up
to 10,000 birds in high biosecurity conditions. An average breeding farm can produce
800,000 breeders per year.
Hatcheries are built separately and are exclusively for hatching eggs from GP and PS farms.
These are equipped with incubators, setters and storage rooms with capacities of 25,000
eggs per batch. The quality of the chicks produced is monitored by checking parameters
such as uniformity, feed conversion rate, and cost effectiveness. This information is fed back
to the breeding farms and hatcheries to optimize performance and survivability.
Modern incubators in Thailand provide optimum support for the embryonic development of
modern breeds in the hot climates, whereas setters feature reduced heat-up time options,
modifiable cooling capacity and integrated heating/cooling mechanisms to ensure the room
environment mimics that of the nest.
Intensive industrial chicken broiler farms
In January 2004, intensive industrial chicken broiler production accounted for less than two
percent of poultry flocks but for nearly sixty percent of total standing poultry population
(Figures 5 and 6). These values do not reflect the sharp drop in total broiler production in
2004 to 694 million from 1.1 billion in 2003 due to HPAI and resulting export bans. Broiler
production has not returned to pre-outbreak levels, but is on a rising trend (Figure 10).
Industrial broiler production is characterized by keeping poultry indoors throughout the
entire production cycle. The facilities are modern, well equipped and mechanized (i.e. semi-
automatic and automatic equipment). Built-in systems accommodate internal feeding belts,
water supply, controls for humidity, air, and waste management. Some systems have more
extensive automation, including computerized monitoring and remote controls.
State-of-the-art poultry houses equipped with cutting edge technologies enable the
management of some production and growth variables through controlled ventilation inlets,
tunnel ventilation and evaporative cooling that work extremely well in tropical climates.
However, careful attention needs to be paid to the many details in managing these systems;
otherwise, bodyweight and feed conversion rates can be impaired, resulting in significant
financial loss to both the grower and integrator.
Mekong Team Working Paper
12
Figure 10. Total broiler production by region, Thailand, 1996 – 2006 (million birds).
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Northern North-eastern Southern Central Plain
Source: Department of Livestock Development (DLD) and Office of Agricultural Economics (OAE).
Development of the broiler industry in Thailand has been largely driven by the private
sector, with little intervention or assistance from the Thai government. However things have
changed. To cope with the rapid evolution of global commerce and to comply with
international livestock trade requirements, the Thai government, by vesting responsibility on
the Department of Livestock Development (DLD), has decreed farm and hygiene standards,
and various regulations on animal handling and welfare.
For example, some years ago, EU food inspectors detected antibiotics (which are banned in
Europe) and dioxins in some Thai broiler imports. These findings prompted exporters to
switch their production from contract farming to vertical integration (Figure 11) to be able to
exert greater control over the entire production process. This shift also increases economies
of scale, ensures cheaper supply of inputs, promotes traceability, facilitates management,
and increases homogeneity of products.
In this vertical production system, most birds are commercial chickens of foreign breeds.
Integrators have their own state-of-the-art hatcheries which supply day-old-chicks to their
farms, with surpluses sold to contractors and independent producers. Feed mills are also
integrated. Owning and operating a feed mill ensures scheduled delivery of feedstuffs,
reduces feed costs and follows the most recent traceability requirements. Some large
companies also have their own animal health departments. Besides in-house production by
company-owned farms, many integrators still also rely, partly, on contract farming.
Pro-Poor HPAI Risk Reduction
13
Figure 11. Schematic of vertical integration in broiler production in Thailand.
Source: Thai Broiler Processing Exporters Association and the Department of Livestock Development (DLD).
Broadly, broiler raising has been shortened from 45 to 40 days, thus lessening feed costs.
Nowadays, broiler chickens sold by retailers are smaller than they used to be; however, their
feed conversion rates have improved dramatically to rations of 1.75 : 1 (and even lower in
exceptional cases).
This process of modernization has brought with it winners and losers. One of the winners
has been supply and construction firms. For example, the Evaporative Cooling Housing1
(ECH) systems, which maintain temperatures between 26 and 30˚C or less during hot-humid
seasons in tropical Thailand, have to be bought, built, installed and maintained by supply
and construction firms. ECH and its complementary technologies have been heralded as the
most efficient cost saving technologies the industry has introduced, because they
substantially reduce feed and labour costs and increase growth and survival rates.
Intensive industrial chicken layer farms
In January 2004, intensive industrial chicken layer production accounted for slightly more
than one percent of poultry flocks and slightly less than ten percent of total poultry
population (Figures 5 and 6). Layer farms produce white and brown eggs for human
consumption and the manufacture of secondary food products. These eggs are infertile and
1 ECH is nothing more than an enclosed semi-automatic production house equipped with large fans and water sprinklers to cool
down temperatures generated by the usual 10,000 to 25,000 birds that are designed to hold.
Imports
Grand Parent Stock
Parent Stock
Hatcheries
Medicines
Feedstuffs
Broiler Farms
(integrated, contracted, independent)
Slaughterhouses Processing Plants
Domestic Markets
(Local)
Export Markets
(International)
Mekong Team Working Paper
14
sold domestically. Structural changes in the layer industry come much slower than those of
broilers but here too, cost control has been the main driver for integration.
Geographic Distribution of Poultry Production
The largest numbers as well as a large share of the industrial chicken, farmed and free-
grazing ducks are raised in the central region of Thailand, which accounts for roughly one
fifth of the total area of Thailand and which is also densely populated (197 person/ km2)
(Figures 12 and 13).
Figure 12: Major geographic regions of
Thailand.
Figure 13: Poultry populations (million birds)
by geographic region (2003).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
No
rth
Cen
tral
East
So
uth
No
rth
East
Backyard Broilers Layers
Waterfowl Quail
Source: Tiensin et al., 2005.
The concentration of industrial / farmed chickens and ducks in the central region is a result
of the close proximity of feed resources, hatcheries, feed mills, ports, railroads, and high-
volume processing plants that allow massive throughputs. Before the advent of HPAI, free-
grazing ducks were also highly concentrated in the central region because of the vast
accessibility to rice grown in this region, especially because rice paddies surround entire
cities and towns.
Although indigenous/native chickens are ubiquitous throughout Thailand, these are mostly
concentrated in the northern and north-eastern regions, which are physically the largest and
widest (and also poorest) regions in the country.
Estimated densities of industrial / farmed chicken and duck populations as well as of grazing
ducks and backyard / native chicken are presented in Figures 14 a, b, c, and d.
Northern Region
Central Region
Northeastern Region
Eastern Region
Southern Region
Pro-Poor HPAI Risk Reduction
15
Figure 14 a: Estimated density of farmed /
industrial chicken in Thailand.
Figure 14 b: Estimated density of farmed
ducks in Thailand.
Figure 14 c: Estimated density of free-
grazing ducks in Thailand.
Figure 14 d: Estimated density of native /
backyard chicken in Thailand.
Source: Gilbert et al., 2006.
Bangkok
Chiang Mai
Bangkok
Chiang Mai
Bangkok
Chiang Mai
Bangkok
Chiang Mai
Mekong Team Working Paper
16
Domestic Poultry Markets and International Trade
Thailand meets almost its entire national demand for poultry products as it does not import
chicken and duck meats or eggs (see Figures 15 and 16). Around sixty percent of industrial
broiler meat production is consumed domestically with small and medium size poultry
farmers and backyard poultry producers, especially those located north and east of Thailand,
complementing domestic supply. In value terms (and in ‘normal’ years), however, export
receipts for chicken meat and their products, chicken eggs and duck meat and their products
account for more than 80 percent of total poultry GDP.
Domestic poultry markets and marketing
Poultry and poultry product sales take place in wet and dry markets, while chicken, duck and
quail eggs are retailed almost everywhere. For semi-intensive smallholder operators and
traditional backyard poultry producers servicing rural domestic markets, poultry marketing is
facilitated by traders who collect birds from various villages and communities and resell to
retailers at urban market locations, who offer and sell birds to end consumers. For poultry
producers located in the highlands or far from commercial centres, market participation is
constrained by difficult agro-ecological conditions and infrastructure limitations. The choice
of marketing channel is determined by a number of factors, with geographical location,
distance to markets, density of traders, transportation networks, product price and
transaction cost as main determinants.
Although large integrators dominate the export market, their attempt to capture a major
market share in the domestic chicken meat market by appointing retailers to sell their
‘branded’ products in wet markets has been less successful as small- and medium-scale
wholesalers are very competitive due to their much lower overhead costs (Poapongsakorn,
2005).
Rising incomes and urbanisation have impacted poultry retail channels. The advent of
western-type market outlets (i.e. hypermarkets and cash-and-carry convenience stores) as
well as fast-food outlets (i.e. Kentucky Fried Chicken, Sizzler, and Popeye’s) have stimulated
consumption growth and prompted the introduction of new products (i.e. breaded chicken
parts, chicken nuggets, chicken burger patties, breast filets, chicken tenders, and popcorn
chicken) that are also offered in frozen food section at retail stores. Chicken parts that are
not exported, such as wings and legs, end up in fryers of fast food restaurants, some of
which are owned by vertically integrated conglomerates (i.e. Chester Grill by CP group).
Table 5. Evolution of hypermarkets and convenience stores, Thailand, 1998-2006.
1998 2006 Location Description
Total Bangkok Upcountry Total
Carrefour 7 18 6 24
Tesco Lotus 13 28 28 56
Tesco Lotus Market 0 5 18 23
Lotus Express 0 212 33 245
Big C 20 23 26 49
Leader Price 0 5 0 5
Tops Supermarket 40 66 23 89
Total 80 357 134 491
Source: 1998 data from Poapongsakorn et al. (2002) and 2006 data from Meat Weekly Report.
Pro-Poor HPAI Risk Reduction
17
Table 5 above shows increased numbers of hypermarkets and convenience stores in
Thailand (mainly Bangkok) from 1998 to 2006. International corporations such as Tesco and
Carrefour have expanded their presence to take advantage of Thais’ rising incomes. For
example, Lotus Express has up to 245 stores and Tops supermarket more than doubled the
number of store presence, while Carrefour’s market presence tripled.
Although the number of wet markets in Bangkok has declined substantially, there are
probably thousands of chicken retailers in almost 500 wet markets and small food shops in
the sub-urban communities of the city. A consumer survey in Bangkok found that most
people still prefer to buy fresh food and fruits from the wet markets and small scale food
retailers near their home. The main reasons are lower prices and that food in wet markets,
particularly meat, fish, vegetables and fruits are fresher than those in the supermarkets
(TDRI, 2004 cited in Poapongsakorn, 2005). Wet and dry markets (usually located alongside)
offer poultry and non-poultry products, often with no refrigeration, makeshift edifications,
multi-species caging, live slaughtering, extemporal waste disposal, and few sanitary facilities.
Isolation of avian influenza viruses from live bird markets has been reported in Viet Nam and
People’s Republic of China (Nguyen et al., 2005; Wang et al., 2006).
International trade
Exports: Thailand had established itself as the fourth largest exporter of poultry meat prior
to the incursion of HPAI in 2004 (only Brazil, USA and EU exported more). In 2003, Thailand
exported nearly 485 thousand tonnes of poultry meat (nearly 40% of production),
representing an export revenue of nearly 45 trillion Baht (US$1.083 billion) (Figure 15). For
duck meats, products and by-products export revenues were around 2.2 trillion Baht (US$
52.9 million) in 2003 (Figure 16). For both types of poultry products, export revenues
dropped to nil in 2004 due to the incursion of HPAI, but picked up again in 2005 and 2006.
Small surpluses of eggs are exported to neighbouring countries.
Figure 15. Chicken product imports and exports by value, Thailand, 2003 – 2006.
0.00
15.00
30.00
45.00
Exported Imported Exported Imported Exported Imported
Live birds Eggs Meats, products and by-products
Tri
llio
n B
ah
t
2003 2004 2005 2006
Source: DLD – MAC, 2008.
Mekong Team Working Paper
18
Imports: Thailand is a net importer of live birds. Most imported live birds are genetic
material (i.e. parent stock) to supply the industrial farm sector with chicks and ducklings
(Figures 15 and 16).
Figure 16. Duck product imports and exports by value, Thailand, 2003 – 2006.
0.00
1.00
2.00
Exported Imported Exported Imported
Live birds Meats, products and by-products
Tri
llio
n B
ah
t
2003 2004 2005 2006
Source: DLD – MAC, 2008.
Poultry meats: Thailand exports both, frozen and precooked chicken meat. Frozen chicken
meat exports started in 1982, whereas precooked chicken meat exports started 12 years
later, in 1994 (see Annex 5). Not all chicken parts are exportable; thighs, wings and breasts
make up the majority of pieces sent to international markets.
Between 1994 and 2003, frozen de-boned chicken meat exports increased from 153
thousand tonnes to 331 thousand tonnes (Annex 5), with Japan and the EU being the main
recipients, but, as a result of HPAI, these exports fell to 26 thousand tonnes in 2004 (Annex
4). In 2005, exports to Japan and the EU accounted for 48 and 47 percent of total broiler
meat exports, respectively. The Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, France, and the UK are the
major importers of Thai poultry products in the European Union (Annex 4).
Precooked chicken meat exports began with a little less than 16 thousand tonnes in 1994
(accounting for 10 percent of total exports that year) and reached more than 270 thousand
tonnes in 2006 (Annex 4 and Annex 5). In 2003, in value terms, the share of precooked
chicken meat was already close to 47 percent of total broiler meat exports1. However, after
HPAI outbreaks and consequent export bans in 2004, exports of precooked chicken meat
increased drastically (Figure 17). For example, from 2003 to 2006, the quantity of precooked
chicken meat exported almost doubled, accounting for 97 percent of total chicken meat
exports in 2006 (Figure 17).
1 The average export prices per tonne range from US$3,022 to US$1,637 for frozen chicken and from US$5,628 to $2,234 for
precooked chicken (Annex 5).
Pro-Poor HPAI Risk Reduction
19
Figure 17. Export values of frozen and value-added/pre-cooked poultry, Thailand, 1998 - 2006.
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Mill
ion
Ba
ht
FROZEN POULTRY VALUE ADDED POULTRY
Source: Ministry of Commerce, Thailand, 2007.
In the recent past, Japan bought uncooked frozen poultry meat in the form of boneless leg
meat, boneless breast meat, special cut meat in sticks and other made-to-order chicken
products. Nowadays, almost all exported products are made-to-order, ready-to-eat
products, which are processed or prepared by heat exposure (i.e. grilling, steaming, and
boiling) and further elaborated by packaging (i.e. hermetic vacuum sealing). Some of these
products are breaded or seasoned (i.e. with salts, species, and sauces) and disinfected (i.e.
UV radiation). The EU used to import Thai broiler meat as uncooked, skinless-boneless
breast meat, but also switched to semi-cooked and cooked meat in made-to-order, ready-to-
eat product offerings. Marketing of value-added products is an easy route for exporters to
differentiate their most prized product offerings as high-end consumers demand products
that can be quickly and easily prepared under 15-20 minutes time.
Comparatively, real wages in Thailand are higher than in neighbouring countries. This poses
a threat to exports because as soon as its neighbours start to comply with major importers’
food safety and animal welfare requirements, it would not be long for Thailand to face
strong competition. Thailand’s private sector foresaw this, and strategically established
production hubs in China, Cambodia and Viet Nam. Also, production emphasis was shifted
towards precooked chicken products in an attempt to supply higher value-added products in
order to overcome the disadvantages of relying on a single product line.
Thailand is protected by an import tariff of 30 percent for chilled or frozen uncooked meat
and 40 percent for cooked chicken meat. Without these import tariffs, it would be possible
for the US and Brazil to export low-value chicken pieces, especially wings and leg-quarters to
Thailand.
Eggs: As mentioned previously, the vast majority of national egg production is locally
consumed, with very few eggs imported and /or exported. When required, egg surpluses are
Mekong Team Working Paper
20
exported to stabilize domestic egg prices. Egg exports suffered a similar fate as fresh chicken
meat exports in 2004 due to strict import bans by recipient countries (Figure 18).
Figure 18. Quantity and value of egg exports, Thailand, 2003 – 2006 (million).
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2003 2004 2005 2006
Quantity Value (Baht)
Source: DLD – MAC, 2008.
Pro-Poor HPAI Risk Reduction
21
Poultry, Livelihoods and Nutrition
As in most southeast Asian countries, livestock plays an integral role in rural farming systems
that include cattle, buffalo, pigs, goats, and poultry (chickens and ducks) in Thailand. More
specifically, poultry are of considerable importance to the livelihoods of smallholder and
village farmers, particularly in remote rural areas where poultry represents a major source of
animal protein and provides cash income in times of need. Poultry production, as well as
aquaculture, has been highlighted by government and non-government institutions as a tool
for poverty alleviation with the potential of promoting rural economic growth.
Contribution of Poultry to Household Income
The average total monthly income in 2000 for all Thai households is a little over 12,000 Baht
(US$298); with land owning and land renting farm households earning 57 and 65 percent of
this value, respectively. Income from farming represents roughly 55 and 63 percent of total
income for land owning and land renting farm households, respectively. Because farmers
diversify by engaging in mixed farming systems, their farming incomes have multiple origins
(Figure 19).
Figure 19. Average monthly total and farming incomes by socio-economic class of
households, Thailand, 2000.
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
all households land owning farm HH land renting farm HH
Baht TOTAL INCOME FARMING INCOME
Source: National Statistics Office, Thailand, 2008; available at http://web.nso.go.th/eng/stat/subject/toc11.xls
Independent of its contribution to total rural incomes, poultry provides a safety net and a
way for poor households to add-value to the little resources at their disposal.
Mekong Team Working Paper
22
Household Food Expenditures and Nutritional Status
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the proportion of total expenditures allocated to food
items accounted for 34 to 40 percent of all household expenditure in a five region survey. In
2002, this share ranged between 34 and 38 percent for all income quintiles with the
exception of the upper 20 percent, who still allocated an average of 23 percent of total
expenditure to food (Table 6).
Table 6. Total and food expenditure by income quintile (1994 prices), Thailand.
Description Poorest
quintile
2nd quintile 3rd quintile 4th quintile Richest
quintile
Total Expenditure 3,147 4,374 5,933 8,162 16,876
Food Expenditure 1,154 1,688 2,169 2,788 3,867
Food as % 37 38 37 34 23 Source: Poapongsakorn, 2005.
Nearly three-quarters of food expenditures (72%) are on raw food items for home
preparation rather than eat-out expenditures and ready-to-eat/take-home foods. Bangkok,
where almost half of food expenditures are not home-based is an exception. Most of the
food acquired for household consumption (77%) is bought rather than home-produced
except in households in the northeast, where purchased food constitutes about half (52%).
In general, households in rural areas tend to purchase more food items to cook/prepare at
home than urban and peri-urban households.
The typical Thai dietary intake relies heavily on rice as its main source of calories. A national
nutrition survey in 2006 revealed that dietary consumption is 1,875 calories per capita and is
increasing due to access to more caloric food items (i.e. sugars and fats). 60 percent of total
calories come from carbohydrates, the contribution of protein to calorie intake increased
from 11.5 percent in 1960 to 13.2 percent while fat consumption also increased from
contributing 9 percent of the total calories in 1960 to 24 percent in 2006. The proportion of
animal protein to total protein has risen to 49.5 percent compared to 32 percent in 1960.
Average intakes of micronutrients are generally adequate; 126 percent of RDA for iron, 231
percent for Vitamin A, 313 percent for Vitamin C, but inadequate for calcium.
Figure 20 below shows comparative consumption patterns of chicken, pork and beef. Pork
consumption has remained steady over a decade at roughly 12 kg per year, whereas beef
plateaus at 4 kg per year after coming down from a high of 6.25 kg per year in 1995. Broiler
and pork meats are preferred by Thais, not only for their high nutritional value, but also due
to ingrained religious reasons. Broiler meat consumption in Thailand has grown steadily
from 7.9 kg/yr in 1990 to 14.1 kg/yr in 2003.
In 2004 and 2005, a trend disruption occurred due to HPAI outbreaks and fears of disease
contraction among Thai consumers. By 2006, consumption returned to pre-outbreak levels.
In rural areas, and especially in the highlands, consumption of chicken meat and eggs is the
main source of animal protein which is complemented with beans, vegetables and fruits.
Pro-Poor HPAI Risk Reduction
23
Figure 20. Annual meat consumption (kg/person), Thailand, 1995 – 2006.
0
5
10
15
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Kg p
er
pers
on
BROILER PORK BEEF
Source: Rabobank, USDA, FAO (various years, multiple datasets).
Expansion of broiler production has contributed to a long-term decline in chicken prices
relative to pork leading to increased chicken consumption. From 1993 until 2005 the retail
price of chicken has remained between 40 – 60 Bath (US$ 1.20 – 1.80) per kilogram, which is
at least a quarter less than the price of one kg of pork (Figure 21).
Figure 21. Retail prices of pork, beef, and
chicken in Bangkok, 1993 – 2005 (Baht/kg).
Figure 22. Expenditure on poultry meat as
percent of food expenditure by income
quintile, 1990 to 2002.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
Pork Beef Chicken
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Po
ore
st
Q2
Q3
Q4
Ric
hest
1990
1994
1998
2002
Source: Ministry of Commerce, Thailand, 2007. Source: Adapted from Poapongsakorn, 2005.
Between 1990 and 2002, average real expenditure on chicken increased from 67 Baht per
month to 77 Baht. This relatively small change masks significant shifts in relative allocation
of food expenditure by different income groups. While the top three quintiles have
significantly reduced their relative spending on chicken (fresh and processed, excluding eggs)
within the food basket, the poorest quintile has markedly increased its relative expenditure
on chicken, making chicken the main source of meat protein for the poor (Figure 22).
Mekong Team Working Paper
24
Number of daily H5N1 outbreaks in Thailand
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
01
/01/2
004
01
/03/2
004
01
/05/2
004
01
/07/2
004
01
/09/2
004
01
/11/2
004
01
/01/2
005
01
/03/2
005
01
/05/2
005
01
/07/2
005
01
/09/2
005
01
/11/2
005
01
/01/2
006
01
/03/2
006
01
/05/2
006
01
/07/2
006
01
/09/2
006
01
/11/2
006
01
/01/2
007
01
/03/2
007
Time
Nb
of
ou
tbre
ak
s
The HPAI Epidemic: Course and Institutional Response
In late 2003 massive mortalities were reported in commercial chicken farms that were later
confirmed to be HPAI. In a matter of days, the emerging avian influenza epidemic became a
national and regional crisis.
Course of the HPAI Epidemic
The first case of H5N1 in poultry in Thailand occurred in laying hens and was officially
diagnosed and reported to the OIE on January 23, 2004. Since then, until January 2007, a
total of 1,929 HPAI H5N1 outbreaks have been officially registered by the Thai department
of livestock development (DLD). Epidemiological data collected by DLD includes the number
of outbreaks reported per day and the type of affected flock while information on the size of
affected poultry flocks by species is not available.
Temporal pattern of H5N1 outbreaks
The first wave of HPAI H5N1 outbreaks in Thailand officially started in January 2004 and
lasted until May 2004. Subsequently, a second larger wave occurred from July 2004 to April
2005 totalling 1,655 outbreaks and reaching a peak of 39 outbreaks per day in November
2004 (Figure 23).
Some other cases were reported from July to November 2005. In 2006, only two outbreaks
were reported during the month of July and two outbreaks only were also reported in
January 2007. The last outbreak analyzed in this dataset occurred in March 2007 and was
recorded in the north-eastern region.
Figure 23. Temporal pattern of HPAI H5N1 outbreaks in Thailand from 2004 until 2007.
Source: Compiled by authors from DLD data.
The temporal pattern was stratified by regions, differentiating the Central region from other
regions (Figure 24). The term ‘other regions’ refers to the northern region, north-eastern
region, eastern region and southern region. The temporal pattern of outbreaks does not
seem to differ when this administrative stratification is applied.
Pro-Poor HPAI Risk Reduction
25
Figure 24. Comparison of temporal patterns of HPAI H5N1 outbreaks in
Thailand from 2004 until 2007 for the central region and other regions.
Nb of daily outbreak in Central region of Thailand
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
01/0
1/2
004
01/0
3/2
004
01/0
5/2
004
01/0
7/2
004
01/0
9/2
004
01/1
1/2
004
01/0
1/2
005
01/0
3/2
005
01/0
5/2
005
01/0
7/2
005
01/0
9/2
005
01/1
1/2
005
01/0
1/2
006
01/0
3/2
006
01/0
5/2
006
01/0
7/2
006
01/0
9/2
006
01/1
1/2
006
01/0
1/2
007
01/0
3/2
007
Time
Nb
of
ou
tbre
aks
Nb of daily outbreaks in other regions of Thailand than Central
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
01/0
1/2
004
01/0
3/2
004
01/0
5/2
004
01/0
7/2
004
01/0
9/2
004
01/1
1/2
004
01/0
1/2
005
01/0
3/2
005
01/0
5/2
005
01/0
7/2
005
01/0
9/2
005
01/1
1/2
005
01/0
1/2
006
01/0
3/2
006
01/0
5/2
006
01/0
7/2
006
01/0
9/2
006
01/1
1/2
006
01/0
1/2
007
01/0
3/2
007
Time
Nb
of
ou
tbre
aks
Source: Compiled by authors from DLD data.
All H5N1 isolates from 2004 and 2005 belong to the same virus clade 1, which at the time
was also the dominant clade in Viet Nam and which remains the dominant clade in southern
Viet Nam. 2006 saw the introduction of clade 2.2.4, which became one of the dominant
clades in China in 2005 and was isolated in northern Viet Nam in 2007 (Inui, 2008).
Central Region
Other Regions
Mekong Team Working Paper
26
Spatial pattern of H5N1 outbreaks
Most HPAI affected districts were located in the centre of the country (Figure 25). Nine
districts from six provinces (i.e. Suphanburi, Phitsanulok, Lopburi, Ang Thong, Kampaeng
Phet and Phichit provinces) reported between 36 and 77 outbreaks each.
Figure 25. Cumulative total of H5N1 outbreaks by district in Thailand, 2004 to 2008.
Spatio-temporal pattern of H5N1 outbreaks
The combined temporal and spatial pattern combining location and number of outbreaks
was mapped in one figure to obtain an overview of the development of the epidemic. It
appears that the second epidemic wave (from July 2004 to April 2005) was concentrated in
the central and bordering northern region of Thailand, while neither the first wave (from
January to May 2005) nor the following outbreak waves in 2006 and 2007 seem to follow a
particular spatial pattern (Figure 26).
Pro-Poor HPAI Risk Reduction
27
Number of daily H5N1 outbreaks in Thailand
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
01/0
1/2
004
01/0
3/2
004
01/0
5/2
004
01/0
7/2
004
01/0
9/2
004
01/1
1/2
004
01/0
1/2
005
01/0
3/2
005
01/0
5/2
005
01/0
7/2
005
01/0
9/2
005
01/1
1/2
005
01/0
1/2
006
01/0
3/2
006
01/0
5/2
006
01/0
7/2
006
01/0
9/2
006
01/1
1/2
006
01/0
1/2
007
01/0
3/2
007
Time
Nb
of
ou
tbre
ak
s
1st
wave 2nd
wave July to Nov 05 2006 and 2007
Figure 26. Spatio-temporal pattern of H5N1 outbreaks in Thailand since 2004.
Mekong Team Working Paper
28
HPAI incidence by poultry flock type
The number of flocks of the different types of poultry affected by HPAI during the first two major and
minor third epidemic waves as recorded by DLD is depicted in Figure 273.
As can be seen in Figure 27, in all three waves,
backyard flocks represented the majority of
affected flocks (73, 58, and 77%). The second most
affected flock type during the first wave were
broiler flocks (11%), while in the second wave duck
and geese flocks represented the second most
affected flock type (30%), followed by broiler and
layer flocks (approx. 5% each). The situation again
changed during the third minor epidemic wave
with quail flocks becoming the second most
affected flock type (8%), closely followed by duck
and geese flocks (7%) as the third most affected
flock type.
The number of HPAI affected flocks of different
flock types primarily is a reflection of the absolute
abundance of flocks of the different categories
within the classification used by the Thai DLD. In
order to obtain an approximation of the absolute
and relative risk of contracting HPAI for the
various flock types, the number of affected flocks
by type was scaled by the respective number of flocks initially at risk (as reported in Figure 26). The
results of this crude analysis are presented in Table 7. Not surprisingly, the absolute risk of HPAI was
highest for all flock types during the second epidemic wave (July 2004 to April 2005). However,
against expectations, during all three episodes analysed, the risk of HPAI4 was consistently lower in
backyard and duck/geese flocks compared to layer, broiler and particularly to quail flocks, in which
by far the highest incidence was recorded.
Table 7. HPAI incidence per 1,000 flocks by flock type and relative HPAI risk (RR)
for different flock types (HPAI risk of backyard flocks as baseline).
Backyard Waterfowl Layer Broiler Quail
Incidence1 RR
2 Incidence
1 RR
2 Incidence
1 RR
2 Incidence
1 RR
2 Incidence
1 RR
2
Wave-I 0.061 1.00 0.020 0.33 0.548 9.01 0.481 7.90 2.700 44.37
Wave-II 0.454 1.00 0.707 1.56 2.111 4.65 1.879 4.13 12.727 28.01
Wave-III 0.027 1.00 0.007 0.26 0.055 2.02 0.099 3.22 2.314 85.24 1 per 1,000 flocks 2 relative risk vis-à-vis backyard flocks during the same outbreak wave
Source: Authors’ calculations.
The highest (approximately 35-fold) increase in diagnosed HPAI incidence between the first and
second wave was recorded for duck/geese flocks, the flock type which during the first wave had the
lowest diagnosed HPAI incidence, while for other flock types the risk of diagnosing HPAI infection
increased by a factor of 5 to 7 between the first and the second wave.
3 This summary combines all affected poultry not classified as layer, broiler, ducks, geese or quail (e.g. ‘native’, ‘bantam’, ‘fighting cocks’
etc) into the category ‘backyard’. 4 It is acknowledged that the flock population at risk is likely to have changed as a result of the epidemic and control measures and that
therefore the results of the analysis can only be taken as indicative of major trends.
Figure 27. Number of outbreaks by poultry
flock type during the first three epidemic
waves.
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
W-I W-II W-III
Quail
Layer
Broiler
Waterfowl
Backyard
Nr of outbreaks
Flock type
W-I: Jan. – May 2004; W-II: July 2004 – April 2005;
W-III: July – Nov 2005
Pro-Poor HPAI Risk Reduction
29
Human cases
Up until October 2008, the World Health Organization (WHO) reports that Thailand has had 25
confirmed cases of HPAI in humans, of which 17 have been fatal.
Figure 28. Human cases of HPAI in Thailand, 2004 – 2008.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M
Source: World Health Organization, 2008.
Of the confirmed HPAI cases in humans, 16 (64%) occurred in males and 9 (36%) in females. HPAI in
humans tends to affect younger rather than older individuals. For example, 14 (56%) of cases
occurred in people aged 20 or less, 6 (24%) in people aged between 20 and 40, and the remaining 5
(20%) in people over 40. Figure 28 above shows that 17 (68%) cases occurred in 2004. The high
percentage of cases in 2004 is directly correlated to the magnitude and intensity of the first and
second epidemic waves. The five human cases in 2005 and the three cases in 2006 also coincide with,
albeit minor, HPAI outbreaks in poultry.
Animal Health Services and Institutional Response
The Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MAC) in Thailand is the entity responsible to
administer the agriculture, forestry, water resources provision, irrigation, promotion and
development of farmers and cooperative system, including manufacturing process and agricultural
products as well as other agricultural issues (MAC, 2008).
MAC consists of 14 governmental agencies and these are: Office of Secretary to the Minister; Office
of the Permanent Secretary; The Royal Irrigation Department; Department of Cooperative Auditing;
Department of Fisheries; Department of Livestock Development; Department of Forestry; Land
Development Department; Department of Agriculture; Department of Agriculture Extension;
Cooperative Promotion Department; Agriculture Land Reform Office; Office of National Standard of
Agricultural Products and Food; and Office of Agricultural Economics (MAC, 2008).
The Department of Livestock Development (DLD) within MAC is responsible to promote and develop
the technology of production and animal health, and to ensure that there is sufficient amount of
animals certified by health standard and without residual chemicals and contaminating substances.
2004 2005 2006 2007
Mekong Team Working Paper
30
With the advent of HPAI in early 2004, DLD – MAC have been actively involved with the ministry of
health and other governmental dependencies to combat the spread of avian influenza disease
among animals and humans.
Control measures
Since 2004, control measures were implemented such as culling of infected flocks, restriction of
poultry movements and improved hygiene during production. Findings are summarized in Table 8.
During the first wave of outbreaks in January 2004, a radius of 5 km was applied for pre-emptive
culling around farm-outbreaks.
Restrictions of poultry movements were applied within 50 km around infected areas. In July 2004,
after realizing big losses of mostly healthy birds, pre-emptive culling was reduced to 1 km radius, and
a restriction of poultry movements was also reduced to 5 km radius. In the same time, DLD changed
the case definition to reduce the time to implement control measures once outbreaks were
reported. A case was then defined as a flock having more than 10 percent of mortality in one day;
and all birds, their products and other potential contaminated material would be destroyed
immediately. Samples were also collected for laboratory analysis. Additionally, birds were sampled
before movements, and they were allowed to move only after samples tested negative. Poultry
exhibition and cock fighting were forbidden. Registration of all fighting cocks was compulsory, and
cocks must now be tested.
In July 2005, the case definition was updated to improve detection and response. If poultry death
rates were higher than 1 percent on commercial farms and higher than 5 percent on backyard
poultry; birds, products and materials were destroyed. Pre-emptive culling was implemented within
a village only or within 1 km radius around an outbreak. Restriction of movements was increased to
10 km radius around infected area. Furthermore, any poultry restocking in the affected areas can be
carried out after 90 days provided that no more positive cases are detected.
As free-grazing ducks were likely to be a risk factor for the spread of the virus, the government
forced farmers to switch to a presumably ‘more secure’ house farming system, but too little time was
allocated for this change, and free-grazing ducks farmers were invited to only move their ducks
within 3-provincial areas designated by government edict (groups in Figure 29). In 2006, free-grazing
duck activities were strictly forbidden, with farmers having to house their birds. Vaccination has
never been implemented (Tiensin et al., 2007). Control measures applied since 2004 are summarized
in Table 8 and represented in Figure 29.
Additionally, to disseminate health messages on avian influenza to the public and healthcare
professionals, the ministry of health established a call-in hotline that recorded call volume from a
minimum of 30 calls per day to a maximum of 200 calls per day. Ironically, official television
messages were aired for only three days in the month of February 2004. In addition to these efforts,
local media coverage was extensive, with daily television, newspaper, and radio reports during the
peak outbreak months (Olsen et al., 2005).
Pro-Poor HPAI Risk Reduction
31
Table 8. Control measures for H5N1 in Thailand since 2004.
January 2004 July 2004 July 2005 2006 and onwards
Case
definition
- Poultry with clinical
signs* and sudden
death of almost 100%
OR
- cumulative mortality
rate more than 40%
within 3 days without
noticeable signs
- Flock having poultry
death rate > 10% in one
day
- Poultry death rate > 1%
for commercial farms and
> 5 % for backyard poultry
- Poultry death rate >
1% for commercial
farms and > 5 % for
backyard poultry, plus
detection of clear
clinical signs of
disease at arrival
Culling - Pre-emptive culling in
5km radius around
case
- Pre-emptive culling in
1km radius around case.
- Destruction of products
and materials
- Pre-emptive culling in
1km radius around case
- Destruction of products
and materials
- Stamping out in the
affected premises,
with 75%
compensation
Movement
restrictions
- 50km radius around
infected areas
- 5km radius around
infected areas
- Sampling before
movements
- 10km radius around
infected areas
- Movement of ducks
restricted in 3 provinces
- Quarantines, zoning
and movement
control inside the
province/regions.
Hygiene - Thorough disinfection
of affected premises,
all infected and
contaminated
materials in risk areas
- Registration of fighting
cocks
- Ban on exhibition and
cockfighting
- Thorough disinfection of
affected premises, all
infected and
contaminated materials in
risk areas
- Free-ranging ducks
activities forbidden;
dipping/spraying of
incoming vehicle tires
Source: Compiled by authors based on OIE, 2006, Tiensin et al. 2007 and Kasemsuwan, 2008.
*Note: clinical signs are severe respiratory signs, with excessively watery eyes and sinusitis, cyanosis of the combs, wattle
and shanks, oedema of the head, ruffled feathers with diarrhoea and nervous system disruption signs.
Figure 29. Group of provinces with free-grazing duck movement restrictions in 2005.
Source: (Tiensin et al. 2007)
Mekong Team Working Paper
32
Surveillance
The surveillance system in Thailand since 2004 included active disease scanning and targeted
surveillance of risk and non-risk areas (Kasemsuwan, 2008 and Tiensin et al., 2007). The scanning
surveillance consisted in reporting outbreaks from stakeholders from the field, whereas the targeted
surveillance aimed at visiting villages to detect the presence of infection and to cull without delay
when infection was present.
DLD also implemented also targeted surveillance surveys, called X-ray surveys (Figure 30). The first
one was implemented in October 2004 (Tiensin et al., 2007). The objective was to detect infection in
all villages in Thailand and to cull positive flocks according to the official running case definition. The
X-ray surveys continued in 2005 (February, July and October), 2006 (February, June and September),
and 2007 (January and June).
National veterinary service screening procedures included cloacal and nasal swab sampling in a 5-km
radius zone around the infected poultry (native chickens, ducks, broilers, layers and quails) farms.
Also, starting in mid 2006, the following day on which disinfection of the affected premises was
completed; an active clinical surveillance in a 10-km radius zone was performed, coupled with a ban
on the movement of poultry for a period of 30 days (OIE, 2006).
Impact mitigation measures
In Thailand, according to the Animal Epidemic Act, farmers are entitled to compensation of 75
percent of the value of productive assets destroyed. Complete compensation was provided during
initial outbreaks because the epidemic was widespread and devastating, but later, compensation
payments were reduced to 75 percent as the magnitude of outbreaks and radius of the culling zone
was reduced.
Compensation per bird ranged from US$0.38 to US$65, depending on the type of poultry (for
example, US$0.38 for quail; US$1.13 for broiler; US$2 for meat duck; US$2.25 for backyard chicken;
US$3.5 for layer chicken, layer duck, or goose; US$7.25 for turkey; and US$65 for ostrich).
Additionally, the government provided free-range duck raisers with soft loans at 2 percent interest
rates to help them in two ways: recover from productive asset losses and to relocate their
production units (and their homes with it) outside of populated urban centres (Sriboonsue, 2006).
Overall, the government allocated a budget of US$130 million for mitigation measures. All costs
incurred for implementing basic measures (i.e. transportation, surveillance and monitoring costs,
extra salaries and wages, safety equipment and inputs) were assumed at government expense
(Tiensin et al., 2005).
Pro-Poor HPAI Risk Reduction
33
Figure 30. Number of H5N1 outbreaks per day, control measures and x-ray surveys [ ] implemented by DLD in Thailand since 2004.
Number of daily H5N1 outbreaks in Thailand
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
5001/0
1/2
004
01/0
3/2
004
01/0
5/2
004
01/0
7/2
004
01/0
9/2
004
01/1
1/2
004
01/0
1/2
005
01/0
3/2
005
01/0
5/2
005
01/0
7/2
005
01/0
9/2
005
01/1
1/2
005
01/0
1/2
006
01/0
3/2
006
01/0
5/2
006
01/0
7/2
006
01/0
9/2
006
01/1
1/2
006
01/0
1/2
007
01/0
3/2
007
Time
Nb
of
ou
tbre
ak
s
Culling 5km radius - Culling 1km radius - Destruction products & materials
Movement restriction 50km radius Movement restriction 5km
Movement restriction 10km radius
Movement restriction free-grazing ducks
- Culling 1km radius - Destruction products & materials
Ban free-grazing ducks
Ban on cockfighting
Mekong Team Working Paper
34
Economic and Social Impacts of HPAI and Control Measures
Quantification of the impacts of avian influenza (and of other epidemic diseases) is complicated by
the fact that direct impacts on livestock producers will propagate upstream and downstream through
related supply and distribution networks, that short-term reactions are likely to be followed by
longer-term adjustments, that impacts include direct cost elements and revenue foregone, and that
losses to the poultry sector will, at least to some extent, be ‘externalized’ on the one hand and, on
the other hand, be compensated for by gains in other livestock sub-sectors.
Immediate Impacts through Mortality and Public Intervention
The most immediately deleterious impact of HPAI to livestock producers is the loss of their
productive assets, which can be caused either by the disease itself or by government-mandated
stamping out measures. Table 9 below shows that in Thailand, between 2004 and 2006, almost 64
million birds were culled in an attempt to curb disease spread. More specifically, 63 million or 98
percent of all bird deaths occurred in 2004 during the first and second epidemic waves.
Table 9. Number of poultry culled in Thailand, 2004-2006.
Year Number of birds culled
2004 63,000,000
2005 450,000
2006 320,000 Source: Thai Broiler Processing Exporters Association, 2007.
The Thai Department of Livestock Development calculated that US$ 12.5 million and US$ 26.0 million
were spent in the first and second wave respectively for cleaning and disinfection, surveillance,
movement control and public awareness campaigns (DLD, 2004).
Immediate Direct Impacts through Consumer and Market Reactions
Disease impacts arise through market reactions, which can be particularly severe on the demand-side
in the case of diseases that are associated with a public health risks. International markets also react
very swiftly to outbreaks of reportable zoonotic diseases, which are of particular relevance to highly
export-oriented sectors, such as the Thai poultry sector.
Domestic market reactions
With the announcement of HPAI in Thailand, consumers where immediately reluctant to buy and
consume poultry meats and eggs due to fears of contracting disease, leading to dramatically reduced
demand for poultry products and increased demand for alternative meats. As a result prices for
poultry meats and eggs decreased and conversely, sales and prices for alternative meats increased.
Also, demand for alternative protein sources, that is, legumes and nuts, rose. Because live poultry
markets were deemed unsafe, many people avoided them, thus causing reduced traffic flows and
reduced sales of non-agricultural products in market stands that contribute to a significant
proportion of retailers’ revenues (NaRanong, 1999; McLeod et al., 2006).
International market reactions
Immediately after HPAI was officially declared in Thailand, Thailand's two largest importers of
chicken products, namely Japan and the EU, imposed an import ban on fresh-frozen poultry. Raw and
frozen chicken exports to the EU dropped from a high of 98,686 tons in 2001 to 11,027 tonnes in
Pro-Poor HPAI Risk Reduction
35
2004. Similarly, in other countries, exports reached a high of 8,927 tonnes in 2003 but dropped to a
mere 457 tonnes in 2004 (see Annex 4). In terms of financial losses, this ban reduced frozen chicken
meat export earnings to very low levels of US$44.4 million in 2004, US$13.7 million in 2005 and
US$15.8 million in 2006 from US$597.2 million in 2003 (calculated using data from Annex 5).
As a result, a number of poultry exporters went out of business: before the HPAI outbreak 22 chicken
exporters were operating while in early 2005 less than 10 exporters were still in business, all of which
are large-scale integrators (Poapongsakorn, 2005).
Overall, export bans imposed on Asian AI-infected countries reduced the global supply of poultry
products and contributed to a nearly 15% increase in international poultry prices. Also, HPAI
outbreaks had a moderate impact on U.S. exports of feed ingredients (i.e. soybeans and soybean
meal) to SE Asia and China (Monke, 2004).
Short-term Flow-on Impacts
The indirect impacts that HPAI and the consequential animal losses have on related industries is
much more complicated to quantify because these shock waves propagate upstream and
downstream through related supply mazes and distribution networks. A report from the Thai Broiler
Processing Exporters Association estimates that the total damage to the entire interrelated private
poultry sector was almost 100 billion Baht (roughly US$ 3 billion) in 2004 alone (NaRanong, 2007).
Table 10 presents estimates of the HPAI-related losses to various actors in the Thai poultry value
chain as estimated by the Thai Broiler Processing and Exporters Association. These estimates
consider some of the up- and downstream impacts of HPAI in the poultry sector, i.e. from feed
producers to poultry exporters, but do not include ‘horizontal’ impacts on other sectors and
industries, such as the finance sector or transportation, etc.
Table 10. Estimated HPAI-related losses to the poultry industry, Thailand, 2004.
Description Losses (in million Baht)
Hatchery Farms 4,420
Feed Mills 12,430
Broiler Farms 27,950
Slaughterhouses 28,400
Exporting entities 23,700
Total 96,900 Source: Thai Broiler Processing Exporters Association, 2005.
As of mid 2004, the HPAI epidemic had an estimated overall impact of a 0.4 percent reduction on the
national gross domestic product of Thailand. This loss would amount to approximately 27 billion Thai
Baht (US$818 million) and excludes the longer term, non-accountable impacts on society and other
shocks related to health and nutrition (NaRanong, 2007; Rushton et al., 2005).
Medium- to Long-term Impacts and Adjustments
Thailand is probably one of the HPAI affected countries which have put the largest efforts into the
elimination of infection and in which - as a consequence - disease has induced the largest structural
changes. Most of these changes are unlikely to be reversed.
The largely mobile free-grazing duck system was prohibited and the duck owners (app. 3,000) had to
register and convert to a housed production system. Chicken farmers that have open poultry houses
Mekong Team Working Paper
36
are not allowed to restock with DOCs unless they upgrade to closed housing types, which requires a
major up-front investment. Large poultry companies which contracted poultry production to
individual farmers prior to HPAI have moved away from contract farming to full vertical integration in
order to increase control over all stages of production. These measures lead to further concentration
of poultry production, and a telephone survey carried out in 2007, in which farmers known to have
produced broilers in 2003 were asked whether they were still in the business, found that 29 percent
of the farmers that could still be contacted (49%), had given up broiler production. A similar survey
among farmers that had kept layers in 2003 revealed that 44 percent had switched to other activities
(NaRanong, 2007).
The HPAI crisis also accelerated the shift of poultry exports from unprocessed frozen poultry to pre-
cooked (or ‘prepared’) poultry meats. Rather than being reversed, this trend is likely to continue and
large integrated poultry producers will probably incorporate or expand food processing capacities in
their operations to rip as much profit possible.
Pro-Poor HPAI Risk Reduction
37
Conclusions
Despite temporary setbacks (Asian financial crisis, 1997 and Tsunami, 2004) Thailand’s economy has
grown steadily over the past decades. An economy that used to be agriculture-based is now one that
is mainly industrial and service-oriented. Nevertheless, agricultures’ contribution to economic
wellbeing is significant because it ensures food security to a dynamic workforce, while also
contributing to exports. Livestock, particularly poultry, as well as aquaculture (fish and shrimps), have
the potential to both, contribute to poverty alleviation and become an important tool for rural
development. For emerging economies like Thailand, agriculture will remain important because it
provides food and raw materials for manufacturing industries, is a source of income, and an
important occupation in rural areas.
Thailand’s poultry industry is modern and dynamic, playing an important role in Thailand’s economy
(≈6% of agricultural GDP). The CP group, an agribusiness conglomerate, is undeniably Thailand’s most
important poultry sector stakeholder. Poultry numbers have grown steadily from 1997 until 2003, at
an annual rate of 6.5 percent. Thailand is the world’s 5th exporter of poultry. However, the industry
was hard hit by outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza between 2004 and 2007, which not
only caused animal losses but also started a global scare that resulted in import bans and other
measures that restricted trade in poultry and poultry products.
There are many reasons for the success of the industrial poultry sector in Thailand. Gradual changes
meant that firms built up the human capital necessary to stay competitive. Moreover, with the
logical succession of progressions, growth remained balanced without any one of the poultry sub-
sectors lagging behind (Farrelly, 1996). While the government has played a limited role in actively
promoting chicken production (does not have price supports or export subsidy programs for poultry),
it has supported its growth: a strict control of import permits, high import tariffs, import permit fees
on uncooked products, low taxation of exports and the provision of incentives for quality control
services and research have played an important role in the development of the commercial sector
(Costales et al, 2005).
There have been many benefits of industrial poultry sector development. As a result of increased
scale and integration, average cost of production has greatly reduced thereby decreasing the price of
chicken meat for Thai consumers. Consequently, chicken has become the most affordable source of
meat protein in Thailand and consumption has increased accordingly from 3 to 14 kilograms per
person per year between 1961 and 2002. In addition, employment in the industrial poultry sector has
increased from 52,460 people in 1980 to 110,000 people in 2000 (Poapongsakorn, 2005). Moreover,
the low cost of chicken meat means that selling cooked food with chicken inputs at informal street
booths is a viable employment opportunity for disadvantaged groups and a source of inexpensive
meals for many low-income workers (Poapongsakorn, 2005).
However, despite the many benefits, experience from other countries with highly industrialized
poultry production systems demonstrate that there are some disadvantages to such production
systems. Leibler et al (2008) suggest that in the U.S. poultry sector, low costs for poultry meat mask
significant externalities associated with industrial food animal production, which may have dramatic
impacts on public health. Among these externalities are the increased risk of disease spread from
animals to humans (especially antibiotic resistant bacteria) and environmental hazards stemming
from the disposal of large volumes of animal waste. High density of poultry production intensifies the
impacts of these exposures that could result in unintended detrimental consequences for societies.
Mekong Team Working Paper
38
HPAI was first officially reported in Thailand in a layer farm on January 23, 2004. Four separate
epidemic waves swept through Thailand, the second lasting from July 2004 to March 2005, this being
the most damaging. Roughly 2,000 outbreaks have been reported in poultry between 2004 and 2008,
which resulted in the death of more than 60 million birds, through disease or culling, in 2004 alone.
The Thai government implemented various animal health measures to halt disease dispersion, which
included: compensation-based culling, poultry movement controls, fighting cock registration and
public awareness-raising. The Thai animal health authorities adapted disease control measures to the
prevailing situation but vaccination was not implemented. Most HPAI outbreaks were recorded in
backyard operations, but this was due to their widespread presence (≈70% of all flocks) rather than
to their intrinsic risk of infection. In fact, during three episodic waves analysed, the risk of HPAI was
consistently lower in backyard and duck/geese flocks compared to layer, broiler and quail flocks.
Whether backyard or industrial farms are far more risky in terms of spreading disease, particularly
HPAI, is a contentious issue. Large farms take extensive precautions to prevent diseases, but raise
susceptible birds at very high densities. In addition, large farms have a much higher potential to
spread diseases over greater distances. Smallholders generally take fewer precautions to prevent
disease but the native breeds raised are comparatively more disease resistant, are kept in open
spaces, and, given the localized supply chain, smallholders are unlikely to spread diseases over large
distances. Ideally, both production systems will continue to exist and flourish while mitigating
disease risks as much as possible. Twenty five humans cases have been recorded in Thailand
between January 2004 and September 2006, and a good number of these were young males that
either tended care to poultry or played with them at home. Seventeen of the affected humans died.
Compared to the total number of cases in Viet Nam (106) and Indonesia (137), Thailand seems to
have had a lower human health burden despite the high number of outbreaks recorded in poultry.
Consumers’ perceptions of food/poultry quality are continuously evolving and producers must adapt
to these perceptions (Costales et al, 2005). These adaptations in turn influence which supply models
are utilized. Most recently, the industry has adapted to the HPAI outbreaks by exerting increasing
control over every stage of production and emphasizing their safety standards in their products and
marketing campaigns. Some of the most pervasive responses seen are: faster reactions to shifts in
domestic markets, pressure to further increase feed productivity, decreases in transaction costs, and
improved scheduling of outputs in order to succeed in an extremely competitive industry. As a result,
it is difficult for many independent commercial farmers to participate in the poultry sub-sector due
to the increasingly difficult requirements set by the industry for intensive broiler production
(NaRanong, 2007; Costales et al, 2005). For example, high fixed costs for processing, controlled
primarily by the integrators, are entry barriers discouraging participation of independent farms.
Moreover, there are obstacles to entering into contracts with integrators. The high costs required to
build the necessary production infrastructure, and difficulties in securing loans without collateral,
make it unlikely that low- and medium-income households would be able to enter into the growing
stages of industrial poultry production. Even farmers that presently have contracts may experience
difficulties adapting to the current hyper-competitive conditions, especially if they are required to
make expensive upgrades to farm infrastructure.
Because Thailand has a flexible infrastructure for poultry production in place it seems likely that the
Thai poultry industry will remain an active player in the regional and international poultry markets by
achieving further cost reductions, ensuring market access and promoting product specialization. It
has now become clear to Thai poultry entrepreneurs that poultry diseases can and do have impacts
beyond local farm economics, thus, it is in their best interest to embrace comprehensive poultry
health programmes and food safety certification schemes if they intend to remain competitive, and
profitable, in the foreseeable future. Early this year (late January 2008) two separate outbreaks
occurred in Thailand which highlights the need to continue ongoing efforts in disease surveillance,
live bird market monitoring and awareness-raising campaigns in rural and urban areas.
Pro-Poor HPAI Risk Reduction
39
References
Bangkok Post. (2002). Groups in Thailand Seek to Increase Egg Consumption. Published 01/25/2002.
Choprakarn, K. and K. Wongpichet. (2007). Village chicken production systems in Thailand. Draft
report submitted to the FAO as part of project GCP/RAS/228/GER.
Costales, A., P. Gerber, and H. Steinfeld. (2005). Underneath the Livestock Revolution. FAO Livestock
Report 2005, in Global Development.
DLD – Department of Livestock Development. (2004). Cost of Avian Influenza Control: DLD
Perspectives. In ‘Social and Economic Impacts of Avian Influenza Control’. FAO Workshop
Proceedings, pp. 39-40.
Farrelly, L. (1996). Transforming Poultry Production and Marketing in Developing Countries: Lessons
Learned with Implications for Sub-Saharan Africa. MSU International Development Working
Paper No. 63.
Gilbert, M., P. Chaitaweesub, T. Parakamawongsa, S. Premashthir, T. Tiensin, W. Kalpravidh, H.
Wagner, and J. Slingenbergh. (2006). Free-grazing Ducks and Highly Pathogenic Avian
Influenza, Thailand. Emerg. Infect. Dis., 12(2): 227-234.
Inui, K. (2008). Highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 – Observation on regional dynamics.
Presented as data in a research meeting in Bangkok, June 24th, 2008.
Kasemsuwan, S. (2008). Epidemiology of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza in Thailand. In:
International symposium Frontier in Epidemiology and Risk Assessments for Food Safety. Pages
26-30. Tokyo, Japan, 19-20 November 2007.
Leibler, J. H., M. J. Otte, and E. K. Silbergeld. (2008). Zoonotic Disease Risks and Socioeconomic
Structure of Industrial Poultry Production: Review of the US Experience with Contract
Growing. FAO PPLPI Research Report No 08-02, August 2008.
MAC – Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. (2008). Scopes and Responsibility of the Ministry of
Agriculture and Cooperatives. Available at http://www.moac.go.th/builder/moac/eng/
mission.htm
McLeod, A., N. Morgan, A. Prakash, and J. Hinrichs. (2006). Economic and social impacts of avian
influenza. FAO - ECTAD Document, 10 pages. Available at http://www.fao.org/
avianflu/documents/Economic-and-social-impacts-of-avian-influenza-Geneva.pdf
Monke, J. (2004). Avian Influenza: multiple strains cause different effects worldwide. Congressional
Research Service at the USA Library of Congress. Doc # RS21747.
NaRanong, V. (1999). The Financial Crisis and the Livestock Sector in Thailand. In: Proceedings of the
Workshop on the Implications of the Asian Economic Crisis for the Livestock Industry. RAP
Publication 1999/29.
NaRanong, V. (2007). Structural Changes in Thailand’s Poultry Sector and its Social Implications. A
publication commissioned by the FAO-AGAL, 37 pages.
Nguyen, D.C., T.M. Uyeki, S. Jadhao, T. Maines, M. Shaw, Y. Matsuoka, C. Smith, T. Rowe, X. Lu, H.
Hall, X. Xu, A. Balish, A. Klimov, T.M. Tumpey, D.E. Swayne, L.P.T. Huynh, H.K. Nghiem, H.H.T.
Nguyen, L.T. Hoang, N.J. Cox, and J.M. Katz. (2005). Isolation and characterization of avian
influenza viruses, including highly pathogenic H5N1, from poultry in live bird markets in Hanoi,
Vietnam, in 2001. Journal of Virology, 79(7): 4201-4212.
OIE (2006). Disease Information No. 31, Vol. 19, August 2006. Available at http://www.oie.int/eng/
Info/hebdo/AIS_07.HTM#Sec5
Mekong Team Working Paper
40
Olsen, S. J., Y. Laosiritaworn, S. Pattanasin, P. Prapasiri, and S.F. Dowell. (2005). Poultry-handling
Practices during Avian Influenza Outbreak, Thailand. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 11(10): 1601-1603.
Poapongsakorn, N., V. NaRanong, U. Kanto, and A. Israngkura. (2002). Livestock Industrialization,
Trade and Social-Health-Environment Issues for the Thai Poultry, Dairy, and Swine Sectors.
Monograph for IFPRI-FAO project titled: Livestock Industrialization, Trade and Social-Health-
Environment Impacts in Developing Countries, Internal FAO document.
Poapongsakorn, N. (2005). Poultry processing and marketing in the Bangkok metropolitan area.
Report commissioned by FAO – AGAL.
Rushton J., R. Viscarra, E. Guerne-Bleich, and A. McLeod. (2005). Impact of avian influenza outbreaks
in the poultry sectors of five South East Asian countries (Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR,
Thailand, Viet Nam) outbreak costs, responses and potential long term control. World's Poult.
Sci. J., 61(3): 491-514.
Sriboonsue, S. (2006). Avian Influenza Outbreaks: Thailand Experience. Presentation given at the
International Conference on Livestock Services, April 17th, 2006 in Beijing, China.
Tiensin, T., P. Chaitaweesub, T. Songserm, A. Chaisingh, W. Hoonsuwan, C. Buranathai, T.
Parakamawongsa, S. Premashthira, A. Amonsin, M. Gilbert, M. Nielen, and A. Stegeman.
(2005). Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1, Thailand, 2004. Emerg. Infect. Dis., 11: 1664-
1672.
Tiensin, T., B. Nielen, T. Songserm, W. Kalpravidh, P. Chaitaweesub, A. Amonsin, S. Chotiprasatintara,
A. Chaisingh, S. Damrongwatanapokin, S. Wongkasemjit, C. Antarasena, V. Songkitti, K.
Chanachai, W. Thanapongtham, and A. Stegeman. (2007). Geographic and temporal
distribution of highly pathogenic avian influenza A virus (H5N1) in Thailand, 2004-2005: an
overview. Avian Dis. 51 (1 Suppl): 182-188.
Wang M., B. Di, D.-H. Zhou, B.-J. Zheng, H. Jing, Y.-P. Lin,Y.-F. Liu, X.-W. Wu, P.-Z. Qin, Y.-L. Wang, L. Y.
Jian, X.-Z. Li, J.-X. Xu, E.-J. Lu, T.-G. Li, and J. Xu. (2006). Food markets with live birds as source
of avian influenza. Emerg. Infect. Dis., 12(11): 1773-1775.
Pro-Poor HPAI Risk Reduction
41
Annexes
Annex 1. Number of holdings rearing chickens, ducks and geese, and number of livestock heads by kind of breeding,
and number of livestock by holding for 1993 and 2003 taken from the Agricultural Census - Thailand.
1993
Chicken Ducks Goose
Number of heads Number of heads Holding size
class No. of holdings Total Layers Broilers Native Breeds
No. of holdings Total Layers Broilers
No. of holdings No. of
heads
1 to 19 1,681,300 14,170,942 145,222 228,319 13,797,401 716,327 4,459,473 2,359,772 2,099,701 29,081 115,173
20 to 99 863,809 26,201,585 368,816 494,451 25,338,318 79,083 2,375,923 1,170,178 1,205,745 959 29,490
100 to 499 53,064 7,435,997 860,693 937,310 5,637,994 9,838 1,705,833 1,153,356 552,477 167 31,865
500 to 999 3,861 2,380,482 768,119 925,821 686,542 1,276 790,574 581,628 208,946 74 46,890
1,000 to 4,999 9,491 22,793,596 4,447,281 18,286,871 59,444 2,781 5,865,115 2,895,474 2,969,641 125 216,386
5,000 to 9,999 3,551 22,306,491 2,896,318 19,398,236 11,937 371 2,264,505 1,021,840 1,242,665 7 47,118
> 10,000 2,336 59,632,837 14,165,823 45,461,938 5,076 156 2,998,380 1,320,580 1,677,800 0 0
Total 2,617,412 154,921,930 23,652,272 85,732,946 45,536,712 809,832 20,459,803 10,502,828 9,956,975 30,413 486,922
2003
Chicken Ducks Goose
Number of heads Number of heads Holding size
class No. of holdings Total Layers Broilers Native Breeds
No. of holdings Total Layers Broilers
No. of holdings No. of
heads
1 to 19 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
20 to 99 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
100 to 499 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
500 to 999 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
1,000 to 4,999 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
5,000 to 9,999 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
> 10,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Total n/a 252,718,883 24,312,523 165,314,786 63,091,574 n/a 23,800,092 8,878,593 8,771,348 n/a 308,667
Source: DLC – MAC, 2008 and http://www.dld.go.th/webenglish/table3.html
Note: Changes in data collection procedures and data presentation formats have occurred between 1993 and 2003 Agricultural censuses
n/a: not available
42
Annex 2. Poultry Populations (heads) in Thailand 2003 - 2007.
Year Egg Duck Meat Duck Muscovy Laying-Hen Broiler Native Chicken Ostrich Quail Goose
2003
8,878,593
8,771,348
6,150,151
24,312,523
165,314,786
63,091,574
15,947
3,692,803
308,667
2004
6,533,878
4,920,906
4,193,754
20,864,273
102,680,366
56,194,171
25,600
3,372,042
267,961
2005
10,592,280
6,499,235
4,448,830
41,210,154
147,674,157
65,319,757
18,112
3,204,935
230,907
2006
11,082,398
6,531,166
3,229,989
29,623,664
100,489,670
54,213,418
5,570
3,943,085
155,737
2007
11,200,143
10,147,336
3,605,350
49,437,136
170,300,977
63,388,159
17,451
5,296,055
176,496
Total
48,287,292
36,869,991
21,628,074
165,447,750
686,459,956
302,207,079
82,680
22,508,920
1,139,768 Source: DLC – MAC, 2008.
Pro-Poor HPAI Risk Reduction
43
Annex 3. Export and Import Quantities and Values in Thailand
STATISTICS OF IMPORT / EXPORT FOR BROILERS
Broiler Chicken Meat Meat Products
Import Export Import Export Import Export Year
Quantity
(heads)
Value
(Million
Baht)
Quantity
(heads)
Value
(Million
Baht)
Quantity
(Kgs)
Value
(Million
Baht)
Quantity
(Kgs)
Value
Million
Baht)
Quantity
(Kgs)
Value
(Million
Baht)
Quantity
(Kgs)
Value
(Million
Baht)
2003 2,752,612 699.2 4,954,991 101.5 - - 331,044,896 22,685.9 - - 192,089,974 22,108.9
2004 1,588,019 284.2 140,100 1.1 - - - - - - - -
2005 2,736,513 631.2 243,330 6.7 - - 64,530 2.1 - - 263,418,946 31,550.8
2006 1,227,100 377.8 293,320 4.8 - - 2,285,453 95.6 - - 270,345,449 32,074.6 Source: DLC – MAC, 2008.
STATISTICS OF IMPORT / EXPORT FOR LAYERS
Layers Hen Eggs
Import Export Import Export Year
Quantity
(head)
Value
(Baht)
Quantity
(head)
Value
(Baht)
Quantity
Value
(Baht)
Quantity
Value
(Baht)
2003 250,820 69,769,206 1,023,301 43,321,238 71,360 3,687,828 207,597,732 346,611,187
2004 676,448 111,531,779 31,564 1,361,876 - - - -
2005 250,305 66,138,021 75,670 1,707,475 1,397,484 67,534,595 110,299,203 179,810,476
2006 277,491 70,954,862 24,000 1,135,500 15,550,595 45,981,431 183,747,098 274,186,696
Source: DLC – MAC, 2008.
44
STATISTICS OF IMPORT / EXPORT FOR DUCKS
Ducks Duck Meat Duck Meat from Product
Import Export Import Export Import Export Year
Quantity
(head)
Value
(Million
Baht)
Quantity
(head)
Value
(Million
Baht)
Quantity
(kg)
Value
(Million
Baht)
Quantity
(kg)
Value
(Million
Baht)
Quantity
(kg)
Value
(Million
Baht)
Quantity
(kg)
Value
(Million
Baht)
2003 67,509 31.1 465,914 19.2 - - 5,246,441 474.9 - - 13,741,059 1,721.0
2004 36,916 18.3 - - - - - - - - - -
2005 40,189 2.2 - - - - 161,680 4.1 - - 6,526,312 1,536.7
2006 46,230 22.8 - - - - 483,410 8.8 - - 6,753,975 1,633.2
Source: DLC – MAC, 2008.
Pro-Poor HPAI Risk Reduction
45
Annex 4. Thailand’s major export markets for frozen and prepared poultry products. (A) Frozen poultry
Countries 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005/06/07
EU 98,686 79,370 98,231 11,027 -
Germany 49,110 49,110 59,308 5,496 -
Netherlands 25,632 25,632 21,784 2,978 -
United Kingdom 20,648 20,648 15,890 1,494 -
Japan 162,131 193,919 188,101 9,706 -
Korea, Republic of 26,777 32,945 41,720 2,897 -
China 12,172 10,642 21,487 603 -
Malaysia 6,612 8,176 14,082 637 -
Singapore 8,951 7,308 10,670 576 -
Hong Kong 4,288 2,967 5,695 234 -
Others 3,718 8,927 457 -
Total 320,779 339,045 388,913 26,137 -
% change 30.40 5.69 14.71 -93.28 -
(A)
(B) Prepared poultry
Countries 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
EU 49,840 49,840 61,628 76,050 113,096 127,601
United Kingdom 20,713 28,723 32,132 42,222 69,707 82,883
Netherlands 24,450 14,956 17,676 19,093 23,818 23,680
Germany 3,908 2,995 5,862 8,915 9,751 10,806
Belgium 400 1,331 876 666 1,415 1,175
France 224 1,424 2,076 604 587 266
Japan 52,489 66,162 84,066 102,610 149,079 148,559
Singapore 7,403 4,380 4,698 5,185 5,398 7,017
Korea, Republic of 3,307 2,311 1,832 5,510 3,553 2,821
Hong Kong 3,495 2,672 3,484 3,329 3,493 3,380
Malaysia 7 - 34 - - -
Others 477 2,233 1,332 1,130 1,819 2,348
Total 117,018 127,598 157,074 193,814 276,438 291,726
% change 34.81 9.04 23.10 23.39 42.63 5.53
Source: Department of Customs, Ministry of Commerce, Thailand, 2007.
46
Annex 5. Thailand’s broiler export quantities and prices (frozen and precooked), 1992-2006.
Export Quantity (tons) Average Export Price per
ton (US $) Year
Frozen Precooked Frozen Precooked
Price ratio
(precooked:
frozen)
1992 174,825 2,351
1993 157,086 2,244
1994 153,033 15,996 2,573 4,621 1.80
1995 149,935 22,124 2,598 5,628 2.17
1996 137,176 31,555 2,625 4,236 1.61
1997 150,775 41,114 2,357 3,909 1.66
1998 212,497 60,943 1,906 3,604 1.89
1999 217,720 65,074 1,853 2,403 1.30
2000 240,938 88,575 1,637 2,485 1.52
2001 309,516 116,650 1,745 2,234 1.28
2002 303,966 127,974 1,758 2,396 1.36
2003 331,045 154,464 1,804 2,446 1.36
2004 3,954 193,767 1,854 2,670 1.44
2005 4,534 263,419 3,022 2,592 0.86
2006 8,036 270,345 1,966 2,802 1.43 Source: Department of Business Economics, Ministry of Commerce and Thai Broiler Processing Export Association.