|
|
|
| |
Research Article
|
|
Assessment of Factors Affecting the Level of Poultry Disease Management
in Southwest, Nigeria
|
|
|
O.K. Akintunde
and
A.I. Adeoti
|
| |
ABSTRACT
|
Poultry diseases remain one of the major threats to poultry production in Nigeria.
A disease outbreak could result in severe economic losses within the shortest
possible time before its medicated recovery is ensured. In the light of this,
this study was designed to estimate the level of poultry disease management
and its determinants in poultry egg production in Southwest, Nigeria. Primary
data was obtained with the aid of structured questionnaire from a cross section
survey of 403 poultry farmers drawn through multi-stage sampling procedure.
Descriptive statistics, Fuzzy logic model and Multinomial Logit model were used
to analyze data obtained. The results of the analysis showed that majority (81.4%)
of the poultry egg farmers were males. Majority (85.6%) were married with an
average household size of 5±1.68 members. The average age and mean years
of experience were 45±9.08 and 10±5.05 years, respectively with
majority of them had formal education. Majority (68%) of the poultry egg farmers
in the study area operate at low level of poultry disease management. The study
further revealed that the factors influencing the level of poultry disease management
in the study area include gender, years of formal education, household size,
years of poultry farming experience, access to credit, livestock insurance,
livestock extension services, stock size and poultry system. The study recommended
that, improved extension services and the government should formulate a policy
that will improve the level of poultry disease management in the study area.
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| Received:
September 18, 2014; Accepted: October 29, 2014;
Published: December 01, 2014 |
|
INTRODUCTION
In Nigeria, the poultry sector accounts for about 58.2% of total livestock
production (Amos, 2006). The poultry sub-sector offers
the quickest returns to investment outlays in livestock enterprise by virtue
of its short gestation period, high feed conversion ratio alongside being one
of the cheapest, commonest and best sources of animal protein in the country
(Ojo, 2002). This indicates the crucial role it holds
in the livestock industry. Poultry production is the most efficient and cost-effective
way of increasing the availability of high-protein food, as eggs are known to
provide the most perfectly balanced food containing all the essential amino
acids, minerals and vitamins (Branckeart et al., 2000).
In Nigeria, production of eggs and poultry birds occupies a prime position for
improving animal protein consumption of both rural and urban households. Poultry
products (meat and eggs) have assumed the role of providing much needed animal
protein to human populace (Aihonsu and Sunmola, 1999).
In Nigeria, poultry contributes about 15% of the total annual protein intake
with approximately 1.3 kg of poultry products consumed per head per annum (Ologbon
and Ambali, 2012).
In the past decades, there has been a recorded improvement in poultry production
in Nigeria with its share of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increasing in
absolute terms. It was reported that the contribution of poultry egg and meat
to the livestock share of the GDP increased from 26% in 1995 to 27% in 1999
with an increase in egg production alone accounting for about 13% during the
period (Ojo, 2003). It contributed approximately 4.45%
of the total livestock contribution to the agricultural Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) in 2004 (CBN, 2004). In spite of the significance
of the poultry industry to the national economy, poultry farms face challenges
inimical to the growth of the industry. Poultry production in general is facing
low capital base, inefficient management, disease and parasite, housing and
marketing problems, etc. (Alabi et al., 2000).
Diseases remain one of the major threats to boosting poultry production in
Nigeria (Adewole, 2012). The major diseases are the
Newcastle disease, Avian Influenza, Avian pox, Infectious Bursal Disease, Colisepticeamia,
Coccidiosis and worm infestation (Usman and Diarra, 2008)
with, Newcastle Disease being the most recognized by poultry farmers (Adene
and Oguntade, 2006). Diseases reduce the productivity of a sick animal resulting
in less meat, less milk or fewer eggs. It provides less draught power and poorer-quality
food and fibre. In economic terms, output declines, costs rise and profits fall
(Farooq et al., 2000). Mohamadou
et al. (2010) estimated economic analysis annual financial burden
of livestock diseases that amounts to 29.2 billion in Nigeria. Also, economic
losses experienced by poultry farmers for the years 2009-2011 amounted to over
three billion Nigerian currency due to Infectious Bursal Disease outbreaks alone
(Musa et al., 2012).
Poultry disease management involves taking steps to ensure good hygiene and
increasing the standards of cleanliness as well as containment to reduce the
risk of introducing disease into a flock (Fasina et
al., 2012). Application of standard biosecurity measures is vital in
protecting poultry birds from any disease (Dorea et
al., 2010). Biosecurity is security from transmission of infectious
diseases, parasites and pests (Zavala, 2011). Biosecurity
has focus on maintaining or improving the health status of animal and preventing
the introduction of new disease pathogens by assessing all possible risks to
animal health (Fraser et al., 2010; Julien
and Thomson, 2011). Augustine et al. (2010)
reported that the implementation of sound biosecurity measures will go a long
way in minimizing the problems of disease outbreak and spread in the Nigerian
poultry industry and also maintain consumers’ confidence in Nigerian poultry
products.
Available analytical works in Nigeria on management issues associated with
poultry disease are mostly descriptive (Etuk et al.,
2004; Usman and Diarra, 2008; Ameji
et al., 2012). Contrary to these previous studies, this study employed
the use of fuzzy logic model to examine the relative contribution of poultry
disease prevention, control and mitigation to the level of poultry disease management.
Also, literature is vast with the economic analysis of poultry production in
Nigeria (Akpabio et al., 2007; You
and Diao, 2007; Obi et al., 2008; Fasina
et al., 2008; Ajetomobi and Adepoju, 2010;
Bawa et al., 2010). However, none of these studies
has taken into account the assessment of level of poultry disease management
as well as factors influencing it. It is against this background that the study
assessed the level of poultry disease management in Southwest, Nigeria. The
specific objectives are to:
| • |
Estimate the level of poultry disease management |
| • |
Determine the factors affecting the level of disease management |
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study area: The study was carried out in Osun and Oyo states, Southwest,
Nigeria. Osun State has 30 Local Government Areas with an estimated population
of 3.4 million (NPC, 2006) and land area of 14,875 km2
on latitude 5°N and 8°N; between longitude 4°E and 5°E.
The climate is humid tropical type with a mean annual temperature of about 28°C
and a mean annual rainfall of over 1600 mm. Oyo State has 33 Local Government
Areas with an estimated population of 5.6 million (NPC, 2006).
The land area is 35,743 km2 located within latitude 3°N and 5°N;
between longitude 7 and 9.3°E. The average temperature is between 24 and
25°C. Rainfall figures over the state vary from an average of 1200 mm at
the onset of heavy rains to 1800 mm at its peak in the southern part of the
state to an average 800 and 1500 mm at the northern part of the state. There
are two distinct ecological zones in both states; the rainforest and derived
savannah zones. Major crops found in these states are yam, cassava, maize, rice,
vegetables and cash crops like cocoa, rubber, kolanut and citrus. Rural households
in the states rear sheep, goats, local chickens and pigs. Also, intensive rearing
of cockerels, layers and broilers exotic birds have become popular in the study
area.
Source and type of data: The primary data was obtained with the aid
of well-structured questionnaire that captured socio-economic/demographic characteristics
of poultry farmers and farm characteristics. These include age of the poultry
egg farmer, gender, level of education, poultry farming experience, household
size and sources of credit. It also includes information about practice of various
biosecurity measures; routine vaccination and medication by the poultry farmers
in the study areas.
Data collection and sampling technique: A multistage sampling technique
was employed in selecting the poultry farmers in the study areas. The first
stage was the purposive selection of Osun and Oyo States from the six states
that made up the Southwest, Nigeria; based on the highest exotic-poultry population
distribution in Southwest, Nigeria (FDLPCS., 2007). The
second stage involved purposive selection of six Local Government Areas (LGAs)
from Osun State and eight local governments from Oyo State. The size of the
local governments chosen from each state was based on available records of number
of registered members of the Poultry Association of Nigeria (PAN) in which Oyo
State has the highest number of poultry farmers than Osun State. The purposive
selection of the local governments in each state was based on those with the
highest number of registered members of the Poultry Association of Nigeria (PAN).
They are Iwo, Ejigbo, Irewole, Ayedire, Irepodun and Ilesa West in Osun State
and Afijio, Egbeda, Lagelu, Akinyele, Atiba, Oyo East, Ona Ara and Oyo West
in Oyo State.
The third stage was the random selection of two hundred and forty and one hundred
and eighty poultry farmers selected from Oyo and Osun States respectively. The
number of poultry farmers selected in each selected Local Governments Area is
proportionate to the size of registered members of the Poultry Association of
Nigeria (PAN) in each LGAs. In all, total of four hundred and twenty poultry
farmers. However, responses from four hundred and three questionnaires were
used while others were discarded for incomplete information.
Fuzzy logic model: Fuzzy logic model was adopted to estimate the poultry
disease management level. The term fuzzy was proposed by Zadeh
(1965), when he published the famous paper on Fuzzy Sets. The fuzzy set
theory is developed to improve the oversimplified model, thereby developing
a more robust and flexible model in order to solve real-world complex systems
involving human aspects. In this approach, an element can belong to a set to
a degree k (0<k<1), in contrast to classical set theory, where an element
must definitely belong or not belong to a set. Fuzzy sets was used to estimate
the farm’s level of poultry disease management index based on poultry farmers’
decisions in the use of biosecurity measures for poultry disease prevention;
medications (prevention and control) and insurance for mitigation.
For a brief mathematical exposition of the fuzzy set theory, following Dagum
and Costa (2004) and Appiah-Kubi et al. (2007)
to proceed as follows: Let X be a set and x an element of X. A fuzzy subset
P of X can therefore be defined as follows:
where, Fp is a membership function which takes its values in the
closed interval (0, 1). In other words, the fuzzy sub-set P of X is characterized
by a membership function Fp(x) associating a real number in the interval
(0, 1) to each point of X. The value Fp represents the degree of
belonging to P. That is, each value Fp (x) is the degree of membership
of x to P.
In a simple application to measure the level of poultry disease management,
let X be a set of n poultry farms (i = 1, 2, 3… n) and P, a fuzzy subset
of X, the set of low. In the fuzzy approach Fp(x), the membership
function of the level of poultry disease management of exotic-layer chicken
farm i is defined as:
| • |
xij = 1; if exotic-layer chicken farm i is of high
level poultry disease management |
| • |
0≤xij≤1; if exotic-layer chicken farm i reveals a partial
degree of level of poultry diseasemanagement |
Following Costa (2002), the degree of membership to
the fuzzy set P of the ai-th exotic-layer chicken farm (i =1, 2…
n) with respect to the j-th attribute (j = 1, ……, m), is stated as
follows:
where, Xj(ai) is the m order of attributes that will
result in a state of poultry disease management if totally or partially owned
by the ai-th farm.
Ordinal or categorical discrete variables are those that present several modalities
(more than two values). The lowest modality is denoted as cinfj and
the highest modality as csup,j, then, following Cerioli
and Zani (1990), Costa (2002) and Dagum
and Costa (2004) to express the membership function of the ai-th
poultry farm as:
The poultry disease management index of the ai-th poultry farm,
FP(ai) (i.e., the degree of membership of the ai-th
poultry farm to the fuzzy set P) is defined as the weighted average of xi:
where, Fp is the poultry disease management index for the population
of poultry farms studied:
The degree of attainment of the selected poultry disease management is express
by Eq. 4 and 5. It is conceptualized as:
where, wj is the weight given to the j-th attribute:
Equation 8 expresses the degree of poultry disease management
of the j-th attribute for the entire population of n poultry farms:
From Eq. 9, the poultry disease management index of the population
FP is expressed as a weighted average of FP (Xj)
with the weight wj as defined in Eq. 7.
The poultry disease management level was generated from the poultry disease
management index. The level of poultry disease management was categorized following
Lestari et al. (2011) as (1) Low level (0 up to 0.33), (2) Moderate
level (0.34-0.66) and (3) High level (0.67-1.0). The three dimensions (Biosecurity
practices, Medications and Insurance) and attributes as shown on Table
1 was selected following Ritz (2011).
Multinomial logit model: A multinomial logistic regression was used
to analyze the factors affecting the level of poultry disease management by
poultry egg farmers. The dependent variable reflects the three level of poultry
disease management: Low, moderate and high level.
| Table 1: |
Dimensions and attributes for poultry disease management index
measurement |
 |
| Adapted from Ritz (2011) |
The dependent variables thus take three levels (1, 2 and 3), 1 represents the
low level, 2 represents the moderate level and 3 represents the high level of
poultry disease management. To estimate this model there is need to normalize
in one category, which is referred to as the “reference state”. The
reference state chosen for this study is the “Low poultry disease management”
option which is the least desirable option. According to Maddala
(1983), the model makes the choice of probabilities on individual’s
characteristics of the respondents (poultry egg farmers). Given three choice
categories, s = 1, 2, 3, the multinomial logit model assigns probabilities Pis
to events characterized as “i-th poultry egg farmers s-th category”.
The vector of the characteristics of the farmer is denoted by z. The chance
of choosing an alternative is equal to the probability that the utility of that
particular alternative is greater or equal to the utilities of all other alternative
in the choice set. Following Babcock et al. (1995),
the multinomial logit for choice across the poultry farms (s = 1, 2, 3) can
then be specified as:
In this study, X1 to X13 are independent variables that
influenced the poultry disease management level of poultry egg farmer. The explanatory
variables included in the model are similar to those used in previous related
studies (Ojo, 2003; Oladeebo and
Ambe-Lamidi, 2007; Adepoju, 2008; Olagunju
and Babatunde, 2011; Isiorhovoja, 2013).
Where the parameters are defined as follows:
Poultry egg farmer characteristics:
| • |
X1 |
= |
Age of poultry farmers (years) |
| • |
X2 |
= |
Years of formal education of the exotic-chicken egg farmers (years) |
| • |
X3 |
= |
Gender (dummy = 1 if female, 0 otherwise) |
| • |
X4 |
= |
Household size (number of persons) |
| • |
X5 |
= |
Hired labour (man-days) |
| • |
X6 |
= |
Poultry farming experience (years) |
| • |
X7 |
= |
Access to Extension services (dummy = 1 if yes, 0 otherwise) |
| • |
X8 |
= |
Access to Credit (dummy = 1 if yes, 0 otherwise) |
| • |
X9 |
= |
Use of Insurance (dummy = 1 if yes, 0 otherwise) |
Poultry farm characteristics:
| • |
X10 |
= |
Poultry system (dummy = 1 if battery cage, 0 otherwise) |
| • |
X11 |
= |
Stock size (number of birds) |
| • |
X12 |
= |
Age of birds (weeks) |
| • |
X13 |
= |
Mortality rate (%) |
Statistical analysis: Data was subjected to descriptive, fuzzy sets
and Multinomial logit regression analyses.
RESULTS
Socio-economic characteristics of poultry egg farmers: Table
2 presents socio-economic characteristics of poultry egg farmers. Majority
(70.5%) of the poultry farmers were below 50 years of age with an average age
of 45±9.08 years. Majority were mostly male (81.4%). Most of the poultry
farmers were married (85.6%) with average household size of 5±1.68 persons.
Majority had secondary education (45.2%) followed by those with tertiary education
(36.7%). More than half (56.3%) of the poultry farmers had between 5-10 years
of poultry farming experience with the mean years of experience being 10±5.05
years. Majority (70%) of the poultry farmers had an access to credit while the
remaining (30%) were discovered not to have access to any source of credit.
Only 12% of the poultry egg farmers insured their poultry farms.
Level of poultry disease management: The degree of membership for each
attribute is determined and the weights for the attributes were calculated as
presented in Table 3.
| Table 2: |
Socio-economic characteristics of poultry farmers |
 |
| Field survey data (2013) |
The weightwas calculated as the natural logarithms of membership function.
The contribution of each dimension to the multidimensional poultry disease management
index shows that biosecurity practices related dimension contributed largely
(82%) to explaining overall degree of poultry disease management as shown on
Table 4. Medications dimension contributed 16% while contribution
of livestock insurance was the lowest in the category being (2%).
Following the Lestari et al. (2011), the poultry
disease management index using the fuzzy set analysis was classified.
| Table 3: |
Average membership functions and weights for attributes of
poultry management index |
 |
| Field survey data (2013) |
| Table 4: |
Absolute and relative contributions to poultry disease management
index by attributes |
 |
| Field survey data (2013) |
The level of poultry disease management was categorized as follows: (1) Low
level (0-0.33), (2) Moderate level (0.34-0.66) and (3) High level (0.67-1.0).
| Table 5: |
Distribution of level of poultry disease management |
 |
| Field survey data (2013) |
| Table 6: |
Results of the multinomial logit model of determinants of
level of poultry disease management |
 |
| *Significant at 10%, **Significant at 5%, ***Significant at
1%, No. of obs = 403 LR χ2 (26) = 142.83 Prob>χ2
= 0.0000, Log likelihood = -248.3317 Pseudo R2 = 0.2234 |
Table 5 revealed that majority (68%) of the poultry farmers
operate at low level of poultry disease management, 26.3% of the poultry farmers
practise at moderate level of disease management while a few (5.7%) of the farmers
operate a high level of disease management.
Factors affecting the level of poultry disease management: The factors
affecting the level of poultry disease management are presented in Table
6. The level of poultry disease management is categorized as high, moderate
and low, with the low level being the reference category. Results show that
the gender of the poultry farmer had low probability of attaining a moderate
level of disease management relative to low level while other factors such as
years of formal education, household size, years of poultry farming experience,
access to credit, use of livestock insurance, access to livestock extension
services and stock size had high probability of attaining a moderate level of
disease management relative to a low level. The results also show that the gender
of the poultry farmer had a negative effect while other factors such as household
size, years of poultry farming experience, access to credit and poultry system
had a positive significant effect on the probability of attaining a high level
of disease management relative to a low level.
DISCUSSION
Poultry farmers were mostly male (81.4%) which implied that modern poultry
farming is still predominantly a male occupation because of the high level of
risk involved, labour intensive and other husbandry processes which are not
attractive to most women. Consistent with this finding are the studies of Lawal
et al. (2009), Adisa and Akinkunmi (2012)
and Uzokwe and Bakare (2013). Most of the poultry farmers
had above the minimum primary education level which is expected to affect their
attitude towards adoption of scientific techniques to improve their level of
poultry disease management. Similar findings were reported by Bamiro
et al. (2013). About 12% of the poultry egg farmers insured their
poultry farm which indicates a preponderance of low participation in agricultural
insurance by the poultry farmers in the study areas. Also, majority (73.9%)
of the poultry farmers had access to livestock extension services. This implies,
that majority of these poultry farmers had access to advisory services and adequate
information on improved disease management techniques.
The finding of this study has revealed that the relative contribution of biosecurity
practices (disease prevention) to disease management is highly relative to medication
and insurance. The reason is that biosecurity practices are routine management
which are easily practised by the poultry farmers in which the minimal cost
is incurred unlike medication and insurance that requires high cost of operation.
The diagnostic statistics revealed that the chi-square distribution which was
used to test the overall model adequacy was significant at 1% (χ2
= 142.83, p<0.0000). The marginal effect estimate of effect of gender implied
that the probability of female poultry farmer to attain moderate level relative
to a low level of poultry disease management reduces by 14%. This result indicates
that the probability of female poultry farmers to attain moderate level of poultry
disease management is low. The probability of attaining a moderate level of
disease management relative to the low level increases as the years of education
of the poultry farmer increases. As years of formal education of poultry farmer
increased by one year increases the probability of poultry farmer attaining
moderate level of disease management rather than being at low level by 1%. This
implies that the more educated the farmers are the higher the probability of
improvement in disease management practices as increased years of education
is expected to increase the rate of adoption of modern poultry disease management
practices.
Household size had a positive significant effect on the on the level of poultry
disease management. The probability of attaining a moderate level of disease
management relative to a low level increases by 4% as the number of household
members increases. As years of experience of the poultry farmer increases the
probability to attain a moderate level of disease management rather than a low
level by 1%. This finding is consistent with the study of Ezeh
et al. (2012) who posited that the longer the years of farming experience,
the more exposed and efficient the farmer becomes. Probability of poultry farmer
attaining a moderate level of disease management relative to the low level increases
with the poultry farmer’s access to credit by 12%. Also, the use of livestock
insurance and access to livestock extension services increases the probability
of attaining a moderate level of disease management by about 23 and 11%, respectively
relative to a low disease management level. It is expected that poultry farmers
with access to extension services will have a better knowledge of disease prevention
and modern husbandry practices. The stock size had a positive significant effect
on the level of disease management. An additional increase in stock size increases
the probability of poultry farmer attaining moderate level of disease management
relative to low level by 19%.
The probability of female poultry farmer to attain high level relative to a
low level of poultry disease management reduces by 2%. An additional increase
in household size by one person increases the probability of poultry farmers
to attain high level of disease management rather than being at low level by
0.8%. Also, as years of experience of the poultry farmer increases the probability
to attain a high level of disease management rather than a low level by 0.3%.
Access to credit and poultry system increases the probability of attaining high
level of disease management by about 2 and 10%, respectively relative to a low
disease management level.
CONCLUSION
The empirical findings emanating from the study revealed that poultry farming
is mostly dominated by male. Most of the poultry egg farmers were in their active
and productive years. Also, the level of literacy of poultry farmers was high
in the study area and most of the poultry farmers had an average period of poultry
farming experience of ten years. Majority of the poultry egg farmers had an
access to livestock extension services while few of them made use of livestock
insurance policy. The analysis of the contribution of each attribute to the
multidimensional poultry disease management index showed that biosecurity practices
dimension contributed largely to explaining overall degree of poultry disease
management in Southwest, Nigeria. Also, the findings of this study revealed
that majority of the poultry egg farmers manage their farms at low level of
poultry disease management while a few farmers operate at high level.
Gender of the poultry farmer had a negative effect while other factors such
as years of formal education, household size, years of poultry farming experience,
access to credit, use of livestock insurance, access to livestock extension
services and stock size had a positive significant effect on the probability
of attaining a moderate level of disease management relative to low level.
The study recommends that policy focus should be geared towards enlightenment
campaigns on the significance of biosecurity as a crucial component of poultry
disease management. It can therefore be recommended that extension agency should
be mandated to disseminate improved biosecurity practices and better medication
techniques that will improve the present level of poultry disease management
in the study area. Also, it is recommended that government should train poultry
farmers on regular basis based on biosecurity, disease prevention and the adoption
of modern husbandry practices. Mitigation option through the use of livestock
insurance policy is very low amongst the poultry farmers in Southwest, Nigeria.
Recommendations of the study therefore includes that the government should
formulate a policy that will make livestock insurance more affordable to poultry
farmers by increasing the present level of subsidy granted for livestock insurance
cover. Also, adequate dissemination of knowledge on the benefits of livestock
insurance by extension agents is crucial to increase the level of particitpation
of poultry farmers in the use of livestock insurance to mitigate against disease
outbreak in poultry enterprise.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors are grateful to Mr. Phillip Oni of office of FADAMA, Oyo State,
Nigeria state headquarters, Mr. Salawu Ismail of Department of Agriculture and
Food Security, Oyo state Local Government Civil Service Commission and Mr. Adelakun
of ADP, Osun state for their assistance in field survey and technical assistance.
|
|
REFERENCES |
Adene, D.F. and A.E. Oguntade, 2006. The structure and importance of the commercial and village based poultry industry in Nigeria. FAO Poultry Production Systems, FAO, Rome, Italy, October 2006, pp: 1-102.
Adepoju, A.A., 2008. Technical efficiency of egg production in Osun State. Int. J. Agric. Econ. Rural Dev., 1: 7-14.
Direct Link |
Adewole, S.O., 2012. The efficacy of drugs in the treatment of coccidiosis in chicken in selected poultries. Acad. Res. Int., 2: 20-24.
Direct Link |
Adisa, B.O. and J.A. Akinkunmi, 2012. Assessing participation of women in poultry production as a sustainable livelihood Choice in Oyo State, Nigeria. Int. J. Plant Anim. Environ. Sci., 2: 73-82.
Direct Link |
Aihonsu, J.O.Y. and M.A. Sunmola, 1999. Optimal laying period for profitable and sustainable egg production. Ife J. Agric., 20: 67-80.
Ajetomobi, J.O. and A.A. Adepoju, 2010. Avian influenza awareness and profitability of poultry egg production in Oyo State, Nigeria. Int. J. Poult. Sci., 9: 183-187.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
Akpabio, I.A., D.P. Okon, A.O. Angba and C.L. Aboh, 2007. Avian influenza scare and poultry egg production in Uyo Urban, Nigeria. Int. J. Poult. Sci., 6: 298-301.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
Alabi, R.A., I.O. Tariuwa , P.E.A. Onemolease, A. Mafimisebi, T.A. Isah, A.O. Esobhawan and D.I. Oviasogie, 2000. Risk management in poultry enterprises in Edo State through insurance Scheme. Proceedings of the 5th Annual Conference of Animal Science Association of Nigeria, September 19-22, 2000, Port Harcourt, Nigeria, pp: 182-184.
Ameji, O.N., P.A. Abdu, L. Saidu, J. Kabir and A. Assam, 2012. Awareness, knowledge, readiness to report outbreak and biosecurity practices towards highly pathogenic avian influenza in Kogi State, Nigeria. Int. J. Poult. Sci., 11: 11-15.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
Amos, T.T., 2006. Analysis of backyard poultry production in Ondo state, Nigeria. Int. J. Poult. Sci., 5: 247-250.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
Appiah-Kubi, K., E. Amanning-Ampomah and C. Ahortor, 2007. Multi-dimensional analysis of poverty in ghana using fuzzy sets theory. PMMA Working Paper No. 2007-21, University of Ghana, Ghana. July 2007, pp: 1-36. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1000184.
Augustine, C., D.I. Mojaba and J.U. Igwebuike, 2010. An assessment of bio-security status of poultry farms in Mubi Zone of Adamawa State, Nigeria. J. Agric. Vet. Sci., 2: 65-67.
Direct Link |
Babcock, B.A., N.M. Chaherli and P.G. Lakshminarayan, 1995. Program participation and farm-level adoption of conservation Tillage: Estimates from a multinomial logit model. Working Paper No. 95-WP 136, Centre for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, May 1995, pp: 1-23.
Bamiro, O.M., A.O. Otunaiya and I. Adejumo, 2013. Profit efficiency in poultry production in peri-urban Lagos, Nigeria. Int. J. Applied Agric. Apicult. Res., 9: 120-130.
Direct Link |
Bawa, G.S., P.I. Bolorunduro, M. Orumuyi, M.K. Ajala and A. Peter, 2010. Farmers' perception of the avian influenza (Birdflu) epidemic in some parts of Northern Nigeria. Am. Eurasian J. Sci. Res., 5: 170-175.
Direct Link |
Branckeart, R.D.S., L. Gavira, J. Jallade and R.W. Seiders, 2000. Transfer of technology in poultry production for developing countries. FAO Sustainable Development Dimensions, October 2000 and Proceedings WPC2000 Montreal, Canada.
CBN., 2004. Annual report and statement of account. Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Abuja.
Cerioli, A. and S. Zani, 1990. A Fuzzy Approach to the Measurement of Poverty. In: Income and Wealth Distribution, Inequality and Poverty, Dagum, C. and M. Zenga (Eds.). Springer Verlag, Berlin, ISBN-13: 9783642842504, pp: 272-284.
Costa, M., 2002. A multidimensional approach to the measurement of poverty. IRISS Working Paper Series No. 2002-05, Luxembourg, pp: 1-17. http://iriss.ceps.lu/documents/irisswp28.pdf.
Dagum, C. and M. Costa, 2004. Analysis and Measurement of Poverty. Univariate and Multivariate Approaches and their Policy Implications. A Case Study: Italy. In: Household Behaviour, Equivalence Scales, Welfare and Poverty, Dagum, C. and G. Ferrari (Eds.). Physica-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, ISBN-13: 9783790826814, pp: 221-271.
Dorea, F.C., R. Berghaus, C. Hofacre and D.J. Cole, 2010. Survey of biosecurity protocols and practices adopted by growers on commercial poultry farms in Georgia, U.S.A. Avian Dis., 54: 1007-1015.
CrossRef | PubMed | Direct Link |
Etuk, E.B., I.C. Okoli and M.U. Uko, 2004. Prevalence and management issues associated with poultry coccidiosis in Abak agricultural zone of Akwa Ibom state, Nigeria. Int. J. Poult. Sci., 3: 135-139.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
Ezeh, C.I., C.O. Anyiro and J.A. Chukwu, 2012. Technical efficiency in poultry broiler production in Umuahia capital territory of Abia state, Nigeria. Greener J. Agric. Sci., 2: 1-7.
Direct Link |
FDLPCS., 2007. Current issues in the control of avian influenza in Nigeria. A Presentation at a Stakeholders Meeting with Poultry Association of Nigeria by Dr. Mohammed Dantani Saidu, October 30, 2007 in Abuja, Nigeria.
Farooq, M., F.R. Durrani, S. Faisal, A. Asghar and A. Khurshid, 2000. Incidence of infectious bursal disease among birds submitted to a diagnostic laboratory in NWFP, Pakistan. Pak. Vet. J., 20: 77-80.
Direct Link |
Fasina, F.O., A.M. Ali, J.M. Yilma, O. Thieme and P. Ankers, 2012. The cost-benefit of biosecurity measures on infectious diseases in the Egyptian household poultry. Prev. Vet. Med., 103: 178-191.
CrossRef | PubMed | Direct Link |
Fasina, F.O., M.M. Sirdar and S.P.R. Bisschop, 2008. The financial cost implications of the highly pathogenic notifiable avian influenza H5N1 in Nigeria. Onderstepoort J. Vet. Res., 75: 39-46.
PubMed |
Fraser, R.W., N.T. William, L.F Powell and A.J.C. Cook, 2010. Reducing Campylobacter and Salmonella infection: Two studies of the economic cost and attitude to adoption of on-farm biosecurity measures. Zoonoses Public Health, 57: e109-e115.
CrossRef | PubMed | Direct Link |
Isiorhovoja, R.A., 2013. Socioeconomic factors as predictors of entrepreneurial behaviour in poultry farm. Mediterr. J. Social Sci., 4: 511-517.
Direct Link |
Julien, D. and S. Thomson, 2011. Interactive methods to educate and engage poultry producers on the importance of practicing on-farm biosecurity. J. Agric. Ext. Rural Dev., 3: 137-140.
Direct Link |
Lawal, B.O., D.O. Torimiro and B.A. Makanjuola, 2009. Impact of agricultural extension practices on the Nigerian poultry farmers' standard of living: A perceptional analysis. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosyst., 10: 465-473.
Direct Link |
Lestari, V.S., S.N. Sirajuddin and K. Kasim, 2011. Adoption of biosecurity measures by layer smallholders. J. Indonesian Trop. Anim. Agric., 36: 297-302.
Direct Link |
Maddala, G.S., 1983. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK., ISBN-13: 9780521338257, Pages: 401.
Mohamadou, F.J., J. Christine and I. John, 2010. Financial costs of disease burden, morbidity and mortality from priority livestock diseases in Nigeria. The World Bank Paper, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nigeria, September 2010.
Musa, I.W., L. Saidu and E.S. Abalaka, 2012. Economic impact of recurrent outbreaks of gumboro disease in a commercial poultry farm in Kano, Nigeria. Asian J. Poult. Sci., 6: 152-159.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
NPC., 2006. Analysis of Nigerian 2006 census results. National Population Commission (NPC), Abuja, Nigeria.
Obi, T.U., O.A. Olubukola and G.A. Maina, 2008. Pro-Poor HPAI risk reduction strategies in Nigeria: Background paper. DFID Pro-poor HPAI Risk Reduction Strategies Project, Africa/Indonesia Region Report No. 5, South Africa.
Ojo, S.O., 2002. Analysis of the three risk factors in commercial poultry production in Osun State, Nigeria. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of Nigeria Society for Animal Production, March 17-21, 2002, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria. -.
Ojo, S.O., 2003. Productivity and technical efficiency of poultry egg production in Nigeria. Int. J. Poult. Sci., 2: 459-464.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
Oladeebo, J.O. and A.I. Ambe-Lamidi, 2007. Profitability, input elasticities and economic efficiency of poultry production among youth farmers in Osun state, Nigeria. Int. J. Poult. Sci., 6: 994-998.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
Olagunju, F.I. and R.O. Babatunde, 2011. Impact of credit on poultry productivity in South-Western Nigeria. ARPN J. Agric. Biol. Sci., 6: 58-64.
Direct Link |
Ologbon, O.A.C. and O.I. Ambali, 2012. Poultry enterprise combination among small-scale farmers in Ogun State, Nigeria: A technical efficiency approach. J. Agric. Vet. Sci., 4: 7-15.
Direct Link |
Ritz, C.W., 2011. Poultry disease prevention checklist. Eggs Program Online, Issue No. 10/August 2011.
Usman, B.A. and S.S. Diarra, 2008. Prevalent diseases and mortality in egg type layers: An overview. Int. J. Poult. Sci., 7: 304-310.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
Uzokwe, U.N. and E.A. Bakare, 2013. The effects of climate variability on poultry production in Ose Local government area of Ondo State, Nigeria: Socio-economic characteristics and perceptions of farmers. Int. J. Agric. Biosci., 2: 39-44.
Direct Link |
You, L. and X. Diao, 2007. Assessing the potential impact of avian influenza on poultry in West Africa: A spatial equilibrium analysis. J. Agric. Econ., 58: 348-367.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
Zadeh, L.A., 1965. Fuzzy sets. Inform. Control, 8: 338-353.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
Zavala, G., 2011. Viral respiratory diseases of poultry: A continuous challenge. Proceedings of the 17th Congress of the World Veterinary Poultry Association, August 14-18, 2011, Cancun, Mexico -.
|
|
|
 |
Subscribe Today
