DETERMINANTS OF YOUTH POULTRY FARMERS’ ADOPTION OF SELECTED BIOSAFETY PRACTICES AGAINST AVIAN-INFLUENZA OUTBREAKS IN JIGAWA STATE, NIGERIA

.


INTRODUCTION
Poultry is the collective name designated to a group of birds reared or hunted for useful purposes. They are domesticated birds kept for purpose of egg or meat production which includes chickens (domestic fowls), turkeys, ducks and geese (FAO, 2017). It is the most commercialized of all the subsectors of the Nigerian agriculture with those commonly reared like chickens, ducks, guinea fowls, turkeys, pigeon and more recently ostriches (Adeyemo and Onikoyi, 2012). The total demand for poultry birds in Nigeria as at 2016 stood at 200million birds while supply was 140 million birds signifying an urge gap in the demand and supply chain. The demand-supply gap is filled by illegal imports that enter the Nigerian markets at lower prices than domestic producers (Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development [FMARD], 2016). This short fall among others is primarily due to diseases outbreak most of which are notifiable and reportable such as highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI A/H5N1) of very high economic importance and virulence (AICP, 2014). Avian influenza is a highly zoonotic disease of poultry that can cause wide range of economic, social and psychological damage to the farmers, consumers, national and international trade market (Henning et al., 2009). In Nigeria, small scale poultry represents 85% of the estimated 82 million adult chickens, accounting for approximately 94% of the total poultry keeping and nearly 4% of the total estimated value of the livestock resources in the country (Eze et al., 2017). Disease remains one of the major threats to boosting poultry production in Nigeria. These major diseases are; Newcastle disease, avian influenza, avian pox, infectious bursal disease, colisepticeamia, coccidiosis and worm infestation with Newcastle and avian influenza being the most recognized by poultry farmers (Musa et al., 2012). Disease reduces the productivity of an animal and cause decline in output, increases cost of production and reduction in profit (Abdullahi et al., 2015). According to CDC (2016), the estimated annual economic financial burden of livestock diseases is to the tune of N29.2 billion in Nigeria. The one experience in Nigeria in the year 2009-2011 due to infectious disease outbreaks amounted to over three billion naira (Eze et al., 2017). To avert this disease use of vaccines, good hygiene, increasing standard of cleanliness and regular monitoring of flock health have enormous contributions to the establishment of flock with a low disease incidence. This practices in the livestock and poultry subsector are called biosecurity.
It (biosecurity) consists of a set of management practices which, when followed, collectively reduces the potential for the transmission or spread of disease-causing organisms such as the Avian Influenza virus onto and between sites, animals and humans (FAO, 2017;Obayelu, 2007;CIDRAP, 2017). Biosecurity consists of two major elements -bio-containment (prevention of spread of the virus from one infected premises to another) and bio-exclusion (measures to excluding infectious agents from uninfected sites). Biosecurity has three major components: isolation, traffic control and sanitation. Isolation refers to the confinement of animals within a controlled environment. A fence keeps birds in, but it also keeps other animals out. Isolation also applies to the practice of separating birds by age group or species. In large poultry operations, all in all-out management styles allow simultaneous depopulation of facilities between flocks and allow time for periodic clean-up and disinfection to break the cycle of disease. Traffic Control (human traffic as well as the vehicular traffic) includes both the traffic onto the farm and the traffic patterns within the farm. Sanitation addresses the disinfection of materials, people and equipment entering the farm and the cleanliness of the personnel on the farm (CEVA, 2011;OIE, 2017). The broad objective is the socioeconomic determination of youth poultry farmers' adoption of some selected biosecurity measures against avian-influenza outbreaks in Jigawa State, Nigeria. The specific objectives were to: i. describe the socioeconomic characteristics of the youth poultry farmers in the study area; ii. identify the diffused biosecurity practices available among the youth on poultry; iii. examine the level of adoption of the standard biosecurity practices among the youth; iv. identify the sources of information on biosecurity to the youth on poultry; v. examine the constraints of the youth farmers to adoption of biosecurity measures

MATERIALS AND METHODS The Study Area
The study was conducted in Jigawa State Nigeria. The population for the study was mainly all the youth poultry farmers in the state. Jigawa State is one of thirty-six states that constitute Federal Republic of Nigeria. It is situated in the north-western part of the country between latitudes 11.00°N to 13.00°N and longitudes 8.00°E to 10.15°E. The state has a total land area of approximately 22,410 square kilometers with 27 local governments (National Population Commission [NPC], 2006). The topography is characterized by high land areas which is almost 750meters. Soil tends to be fertile ranging from sandy-loamy with many pockets of fadama and alluvial plains suitable for the cultivation of rice, sugar-cane, millet, vegetables and sorghum, etc. The State shares common boundaries with three (3) states and Niger Republic. There are usually two seasons in the state viz the rainy season lasting from June through October and dry season spanning from November to May. The mean temperature ranges from 35•c in October to about 50•c in May, while mean annual rainfall varies from 700mm to over 1000mm and can last up to 200days in some lowland parts of the State. Jigawa state is predominantly an Agrarian state with over 80% of the population involved in Agriculture. The major rain fed crops grown in the state includes millet, sorghum, cowpea, groundnut, cocoyam, soya beans. Dry crops include sugarcane, Hot pepper, okra, tomatoes, onions and spinach (MTSS, 2016). The major livestock kept in the state includes, small ruminants (sheep and goat), poultry, cattle etc. The Hadejia-Nguru river has the largest fadama area in Nigeria. Jigawa state is divided into four ADP Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4 1. Zone 1. With headquarters in Brinin kudu comprises of Dutse, Kiyawa, Jahun, Buji, Brinikudu, Gwaram, and Miga; 2. Zone 2. With headquarters in Gumel comprises of Gumel, Maigatari, Ringim, Taura, Gagarawa; 3. Zone 3. with headquarters in Hadejia comprises of Briniuwa, Kirikasamma, Kafin-Hause, Auyo, Guri, Malamadori, Kaugama, Hadejia; 4. Zone 4. With headquarter in Kazaure comprises of Kazaure, Yankwashi, Gwiwa, Roni, Suletankarkar, Babura, Garki;

Sampling Procedure
The population for the study comprised of all the youth poultry farmers in the state as the sample unit. A multi-stage (3-stage) sample technique was employed for the study. The first stage, was a random selection of two local governments each from the ADP Zones as follows: Zone 1; Dutse and Kiyawa, Zone 2; Gumel and Ringim, Zone 3; Kafi-Hausa and Hadejia and Zone 4; Kazaure and Babura respectively. The second stage was a random selection of four communities each from the local government selected. The third stage was also the random selection of fifteen poultry farmers from each of the communities to give a sample size of 120 respondents for the research. The statistical analyses employed are descriptive statistics (percentages mean, frequency counts, standard deviation) and inferential statistics used was regression analysis. Table 1 shows the result of the socioeconomic characteristics of the youth poultry farmers. Majority (75.0%) were married. This is in line with the submission of Ahien et al. (2017); Vogelstein (2013) and Unicef (2014a; 2014b) that marriage confers responsibility. Greater percentage (92.5%) were males, with average age of 24 years, having secondary education (50.0%) while 40.0% had no formal education. This implies that they within the active and productive age range. Average monthly income is N26,075.00 (85.0%) and farming experience of 13 years. It has been reported that farmers' experience in farming count more than educational attainment in order to increase productivity (Apantaku et al., 2016). Asare et al. (2017) also stated that apart from the formal education being a source of information to farmers, experience in farming or number of years in farming can also serve as a means through which farmers get information. Mean household size is five (5) persons, flock size of 411 birds, no extension contact (84.2%) and they belong to social group (91.7%).   Table 2 shows the diffused biosecurity practices used by the youth farmers in protecting their birds from AI infection. The practices were measure on a three-point likert type scale of Highly Practiced (HP = 1), Undecided (U = 2) and Not Practiced (NP = 3). Biosecurity in poultry production has three components according to FAO (2007) and CEVA-Chicks (2011); cleaning, disinfection and segregation and traffic control, respectively. Respondents were examined under each component to ascertain compliance with biosecurity best practices. In the cleaning sub-component, the respondents highly practiced vaccination of birds ( ̅ = 1.000), constant cleaning of farm ( ̅ = 1.167), hand washing with soap and water after toileting ( ̅ = 1.492) and cleaning before restocking new birds ( ̅ = 1.625) while others though equally important were not practices. In the disinfection sub-components only; keeping of farm records ( ̅ = 1.583), disinfection of equipment brought to the farm ( ̅ = 1.667) and constant and periodic disinfection of equipments, poultry house and cloths ( ̅ = 1.792) were highly practices by the youth among others. On segregation and traffic control sub-components, they highly practiced most of the activities except; employee restrictions ( ̅ = 2.250), periodic visitation to ADP Office for training ( ̅ = 2.750) and visitors/vehicle entry cleaning protocols ( ̅ = 3.000). All these improper practices of biosecurity measures observed may be due to farmers' lack of adequate knowledge, resources and initiatives to apply strict biosecurity measures on their farms (Eze et al., 2017). Earlier studies conducted in Nigeria shows that, keeping poultry in captivity without the proper knowledge of the basic principles of biosecurity could expose human to flock resulting to risk of infection to flock and human (zoonsis) (Alhaji and Odetokun, 2011). Restrictive movement in the farm limits the introduction of infection agents to flock (Henning et al., 2009). Shama (2010) reported that people who come into poultry houses can introduce very serious diseases. In some study, poultry farmers provided foot dip with disinfectant which is contrary to the findings of Ameji et al. (2012) in Kogi State, Nigeria and Ambarawati et al. (2010) in Bali, Melbourne Australia where poultry farmers had poor sanitation with the majority of farmers not having footbath. Sanitation is very crucial in poultry house in other to eliminate disease agents (Mccrea and Bradley, 2008). This means that all the standard biosecurity measures must be utilized by farmers to keep away infections (Banshi, 2010). Mean Value ( ̅ ) =2, Value below 2 is highly practice while above is not practiced Source: Field Survey, 2021.

Level of Adoption of the Standard Biosafety Practices among Respondents
Based on the biosecurity components in Table 2, Table 3 indicates the categorization of the level of adoption of the biosecurity standard practices. The respondents have high adoption ( ̅ = 1.832) on the segregation and traffic control sub-component probably because it does not require any specialized educational procedure to operate and manage. In the cleaning sub-components, the respondents have medium level of adoption ( ̅ = 2.159) of the biosecurity practices probably because of the cost implication of buying disinfectants, drugs and expert technicalities involved, while at the disinfection sub-components the respondents show low level of adoption of the standard biosecurity components ( ̅ = 2.458). this is in support of the submission of Eze et al. (2017) that the adoption of biosecurity components and practices among poultry farmers is at different levels.

Sources of information on Biosafety Practices Among the Youth Poultry Farmers
The source of information of the youths on biosecurity practices is shown in Table 4. The major source of information of the youth on poultry biosecurity practices to avert AI infection and outbreaks as opined by majority is Co-farmers/farmers group (79.2%). This was followed by Radio program (73.3%), Family/friends/ neighbors (59.2%) and Television programs (55.8%). Average proportion agreed on film show (50.0%), while extension agents/ADP/Veterinary Services (44.2%) and Newspaper (40.8%) were not really sources of information to the respondents. These is in line with the findings of Eze et al. (2017), that Cofarmers or farmers group had significant influence on the use of biosecurity among poultry farmers.  Table 5 shows the respondents constraints to adoption of biosecurity measures on poultry. The constraint was measured on three-point likert type scale of Highly Severe (HS = 1), Moderately Severe (MS = 2) and Less Severe (LS = 3), respectively. The highly severe constraints of the youth poultry farmers were; lack of education, poor extension/veterinary contact lack of Buffer Areas around the farm site and lack/ poor farm record keeping ( ̅ = 1.000). Others are perception that AI is a natural disease in occurrence ( ̅ = 1.017), lack of exposure to other areas (Cosmopolitan, ̅ = 1.025), high cost of drugs/ vaccines and lack of capital/resources/ technicalities ( ̅ = 1.033) to high cost of implementation of the biosecurity measures ( ̅ = 1.042). while lack of steady/sustainable market ( ̅ = 2.625), lack of manpower to implement biosecurity ( ̅ = 2.633) and incompatibility of the biosecurity measures with socio-cultural background of the farmers were not seen as severe constraints to the respondents. This is in line with the submission of Oladipo et al. (2020) that the major constraints of poultry farmers on biosecurity practices is literacy level among others.  Table 6 depicted the socioeconomic determinants of adoption of biosafety practices among the respondents. Only age, average monthly income, farming experience and membership of social group shows positive significance to biosecurity measures. This is in line with the submission of Eze et al. (2017), that belonging to social group enhances social capital development, thus allowing trust, idea and information exchange, hence farmers within a social group learn from each other the benefits and use of new technology and practices. Farmers who belong to social organizations will learn more about biosecurity measures and therefore the likely hood of adopting them. Also, as the age of the respondents increases the biosecurity compliance practices increases too. Older farmers have accumulation of wealth, more contact with extension workers, large family size and are better preferred by credit institutions (Langy and Mekura, 2005). All of which will enhance their adoption and use of technologies such as biosecurity measures more than the younger ones. They are assumed to have gained knowledge and experience over time and better able to evaluate technology information than younger farmers (Mignouna et al., 2011;Kariyasa and Dewi, 2011;Eze et al., 2017). Year of experience has positive significance to biosecurity practices. Farmers with more experience would be more efficient, have better knowledge of biosecurity practices thus run a more efficient and profitable enterprise (Eze et al., 2017), probability of farmers having experience in disease management and other farm practices increases. High income from farm has effect on purchasing ability and access to biosecurity measures.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The research concluded that the youth poultry farmers are not abreast of the significance of these biosecurity practices and how they can be used on their farms to keep out AI attack. It is therefore recommended that adequate and periodic training should be done to the youth in the study area, developed partners, NGOs, agencies like AICP should be proactive in the study area to help the youth eradicate the negative effect of the zoonotic virus on their means of livelihood. Extension/veterinary officers should be more involved in the study area.