Impact of COVID-19 on Smallholder Poultry Farmers in Nigeria
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Description of Study Area and Household Selection
2.2. Research Hypothesis
2.3. Data Collection and Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Gender and Age of Respondents
3.2. Household Size
3.3. Income
Respondents’ Income Relative to Poverty Line
3.4. Contribution of Chicken to Food Security and Income during the Pandemic
3.5. Household Flock Size
3.6. Markets, Sales, and Access to Extension Services
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Evans, K. Survey of 9000 Smallholders Finds COVID-19 Pandemic Is Causing Hunger. 2021. Available online: https://livestock.cgiar.org/news/survey-9000-smallholders-finds-covid-19-pandemic-causing-hunger (accessed on 3 August 2021).
- Middendorf, B.J.; Faye, A.; Middendorf, G.; Stewart, Z.P.; Jha, P.K.; Prasad, P.V.V. Smallholder farmer perceptions about the impact of COVID-19 on agriculture and livelihoods in Senegal. Agric. Syst. 2021, 190, 103108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guèye, E.F. The role of family poultry in poverty alleviation, food security and the promotion of gender equality in rural Africa. Outlook Agric. 2000, 29, 129–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sonaiya, E.B. Poultry husbandry in small rural farms. Entwickl. Ländlicher Raum 1990, 4, 3–6. [Google Scholar]
- FAO. Chicken Genetic Resources Used in Smallholder Production Systems and Opportunities for Their Development; Sørensen, P., Ed.; Smallholder Poultry Production Paper No. 5; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2010; Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/al675e/al675e00.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2021).
- Gerber, P.J.; Steinfeld, H.; Henderson, B.; Mottet, A.; Opio, C.; Dijkman, J.; Falcucci, A.; Tempio, G. Tackling Climate Change through Livestock—A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2013; Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/i3437e/i3437e.pdf (accessed on 14 July 2021).
- Bamidele, O.; Sonaiya, E.B.; Adebambo, O.A.; Dessie, T. On-station performance evaluation of improved tropically adapted chicken breeds for smallholder poultry production systems in Nigeria. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2020, 52, 1541–1548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- UNDP. Human Development Report 2006: Beyond Scarcity. Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis Technical Report; United Nations Development Programme: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Sonaiya, E. Family poultry, food security and the impact of HPAI. Worlds Poult. Sci. J. 2007, 63, 132–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herrero, M. Improving Smallholder Poultry Productivity to 2050 in Nigeria. LiveGaps Factsheet. 2021. Available online: https://research.csiro.au/livegaps/wp-content/uploads/sites/37/2021/02/LiveGAPS-factsheet-Poultry-projections-Nigeria.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2021).
- Yakubu, A.; Bamidele, O.; Hassan, W.A.; Ajayi, F.O.; Ogundu, U.E.; Alabi, O.; Sonaiya, E.B.; Adebambo, O.A. Farmers’ choice of genotypes and trait preferences in tropically adapted chickens in five agro-ecological zones in Nigeria. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2020, 52, 95–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Alabi, O.O.; Ajayi, F.O.; Bamidele, O.; Yakubu, A.; Ogundu, E.U.; Sonaiya, E.B.; Ojo, M.A.; Hassan, W.A.; Adebambo, O.A. Impact assessment of improved chicken genetics on livelihoods and food security of smallholder poultry farmers in Nigeria. Livest. Res. Rural 2020, 32, 77. [Google Scholar]
- Dan-Nwafor, C.; Ochu, C.L.; Elimian, K.; Oladejo, J.; Ilori, E.; Umeokonkwo, C.; Steinhardt, L.; Igumbor, E.; Wagai, J.; Okwor, T.; et al. Nigeria’s public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic: January to May 2020. J. Glob. Health 2020, 10, 020399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Akanni, L.O.; Gabriel, S.C. The Implication of Covid19 on the Nigerian Economy. Centre for the Study of the Economies of Africa (CSEA). 2020. Available online: http://cseaafrica.org/the-implication-of-covid19-on-the-nigerian-economy (accessed on 31 July 2021).
- Liverpool-Tasie, L.S.O.; Reardon, T.; Belton, B. “Essential non-essentials”: COVID-19 policy missteps in Nigeria rooted in persistent myths about African food supply chains. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2021, 43, 205–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Otache, I. The effects of the Covid-19 Pandemic on the Nigeria’s economy and possible coping strategies. Asian J. Soc. Sci. Manag. Stud. 2020, 7, 173–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andam, K.; Edeh, H.; Oboh, V.; Pauw, K.; Thurlow, J. Impacts of COVID-19 on food systems and poverty in Nigeria. Adv. Food Secur. Sustain. 2020, 5, 145–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tung, D.X.; Costales, A. Market Participation of Smallholder Poultry Producers in Northern Viet Nam. A Living from Livestock Research Report 1 RR Nr. 07-06. 2007. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/bp288e/bp288e.pdf (accessed on 22 July 2021).
- FAO. Poultry in the 21st Century: Avian Influenza and Beyond. In Proceedings of the International Poultry Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, 5–7 November 2007; Thieme, O., Pilling, D., Eds.; Animal Production and Health Proceedings No. 9. FAO: Rome, Italy, 2008. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/i0323e/i0323e00.htm (accessed on 25 July 2021).
- Pagani, P.; Abimiku, J.E.; Emeka-Okolie, W. Assessment of the Nigerian Poultry Market Chain to Improve Biosecurity; FAO: Abuja, Nigeria, 2008; Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/ak778e/ak778e.pdf (accessed on 27 July 2021).
- Alemayehu, T.; Bruno, J.; Poole, J.; Getachew, F.; Sonaiya, E.B.; Bamidele, O.; Adebambo, O.; Adeyinka, I.A.; Dessie, T. Household Baseline Data in Nigeria: Monitoring Delivery of Chicken Genetic Gains; ILRI Research Report 47; ILRI: Nairobi, Kenya, 2018; Available online: https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/96559 (accessed on 2 July 2021).
- Ajayi, F.O.; Bamidele, O.; Hassan, W.A.; Ogundu, U.; Yakubu, A.; Alabi, O.O.; Akinsola, O.M.; Sonaiya, E.B.; Adebambo, O.A. Production performance and survivability of six dual-purpose breeds of chicken under smallholder farmers’ management practices in Nigeria. Arch. Anim. Breed. 2020, 63, 387–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- FORMECU. The Assessment of Vegetation and Land Use Changes in Nigeria. In National Forest Reference Emission Level (FREL) for the Federal Republic of Nigeria; Geomatics International Inc. for Federal Department of Forestry: Abuja, Nigeria, 2019; Available online: https://redd.unfccc.int/files/2019_submission_frel_nigeria.pdf (accessed on 5 August 2021).
- African Chicken Genetic Gains. Available online: https://africacgg.net/ (accessed on 18 July 2021).
- Adepoju, P. Nigeria responds to COVID-19; first case detected in sub-Saharan Africa. Nat. Med. 2020, 26, 444–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- MapCustomizer. Available online: https://www.mapcustomizer.com/map/Covid-19%20Impact%20assessment%20survey%20NG (accessed on 6 August 2021).
- Ott, L.R.; Longnecker, M. An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis, 5th ed.; Thomson Learning: Pacific Grove, CA, USA, 2001; pp. 308–677. [Google Scholar]
- R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2020; Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 10 June 2021).
- Central Bank of Nigeria. Available online: https://www.cbn.gov.ng/rates/ExchRateByCurrency.asp (accessed on 22 June 2021).
- World Bank. Principles and Practice in Measuring Global Poverty. 2016. Available online: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2016/01/13/principles-and-practice-in-measuring-global-poverty (accessed on 25 June 2021).
- FEWSNET. Revised Livelihoods Zone Map and Descriptions for Nigeria. 2018. Available online: https://fews.net/sites/default/files/documents/reports/Nigeria_LH_zoning_report_09_2018.pdf (accessed on 28 July 2021).
- Herrero, M. Poultry Production in Nigeria. LiveGaps Factsheet. 2021. Available online: https://research.csiro.au/livegaps/findings/livestock-production/poultry-production-in-nigeria (accessed on 1 August 2021).
- Babatunde, R.O.; Omotosho, O.A.; Sholotan, O.S. Factors influencing food security status of rural farming households in North Central Nigeria. Agric. J. 2007, 2, 351–357. [Google Scholar]
- Columbus, O. African cultural values and inter-communal relations: The case with Nigeria. Dev. Ctry. Stud. 2014, 4, 208–217. Available online: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/234682106.pdf (accessed on 29 July 2021).
- NDHS. Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey 2018; NPC: Abuja, Nigeria; ICF: Rockville, MD, USA, 2018; Available online: https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR359/FR359.pdf (accessed on 2 August 2021).
- Birhanu, M.Y.; Alemayehu, T.; Bruno, J.E.; Kebede, F.G.; Sonaiya, E.B.; Goromela, E.H.; Bamidele, O.; Dessie, T. Technical Efficiency of Traditional Village Chicken Production in Africa: Entry Points for Sustainable Transformation and Improved Livelihood. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mberu, B.U. Household structure and living conditions in Nigeria. J. Marriage Fam. 2007, 69, 513–527. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4622453 (accessed on 30 July 2021). [CrossRef]
- Makiwane, M.; Kaunda, C.J. Families and Inclusive Societies in Africa. 2018. Available online: https://www.un.org/development/desa/family/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2018/05/1-2.pdf (accessed on 30 July 2021).
- UNICEF. Pregnant Mothers and Babies Born during COVID-19 Pandemic Threatened by Strained Health Systems and Disruptions in Services. Press Release. 2021. Available online: https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/pregnant-mothers-and-babies-born-during-covid-19-pandemic-threatened-strained-health (accessed on 10 July 2021).
- Adekunle, C.P.; Akinbode, S.O.; Shittu, A.M.; Momoh, S. Food price changes and farm households’ welfare in Nigeria: Direct and indirect approach. J. Appl. Econ. 2020, 23, 409–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Bureau of Statistics. Consumer Price Index (CPI) January 2021. 2021. Available online: http://statistics.gov.rw/publication/consumer-price-index-cpi-january-2021 (accessed on 27 July 2021).
- Lain, J.; Vishwanath, T. Tackling Poverty in Multiple Dimensions: A Proving Ground in Nigeria? World Bank Blogs. 2021. Available online: https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/tackling-poverty-multiple-dimensions-proving-ground-nigeria (accessed on 5 July 2021).
- World Bank. Poverty and Equity Brief. Nigeria. 2021. Available online: https://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/poverty/987B9C90-CB9F-4D93-AE8C-750588BF00QA/SM2021/Global_POVEQ_NGA.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2021).
- Akindele, S.A. COVID-19: 10.9 Million More Nigerians to Fall into Poverty by 2022. 2020. Available online: https://www.premiumtimesng.com/business/business-news/431566-covid-19-10-9-million-more-nigerians-to-fall-into-poverty22-by-2022-world-bank.html (accessed on 4 August 2021).
- Joseph-Raji, G.A.; Saldarriaga, N.M.A.; Hernandez-Ore, M.A.; Timmis, E.; Ogebe, J.O.; Rostom, A.M.T.; Cortes, M.; Kojima, M.; Okou, C.I.F.; Jenq, C.; et al. Rising to the Challenge: Nigeria’s COVID Response (English); Nigeria Development Update; World Bank Group: Washington, DC, USA, 2020; Available online: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/152691607607461391/Rising-to-the-Challenge-Nigerias-COVID-Response (accessed on 7 August 2021).
- Anyanwu, J.C. Rural poverty in Nigeria: Profile, determinants and exit paths. Afri. Dev. Rev. 2005, 17, 435–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anyanwu, J.C. Marital Status, Household Size and Poverty in Nigeria: Evidence from the 2009/2010 Survey Data Working Paper Series; No. 180; AfDB: Tunis, Tunisia, 2013; Available online: https://www.afdb.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/working_paper_180_-_marital_status-_household_size_and_poverty_in_nigeria-_evidence_from_the_2009-2010_survey_data.pdf (accessed on 31 July 2021).
- Akinola, L.; Essien, A. Relevance of rural poultry production in developing countries with special reference to Africa. Worlds Poult. Sci. J. 2011, 67, 697–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, J.T.; de Bruyn, J.; Bagnol, B.; Grieve, H.; Li, M.; Pym, R.; Alders, R.G. Small-scale poultry and food security in resource-poor settings: A review. Glob. Food Sec. 2017, 15, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heinz, G.; Hautzinger, P. Meat Processing Technology for Small-to Medium Scale Producers. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. 2007. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/ai407e/ai407e.pdf (accessed on 27 September 2021).
- Drewnowski, A. The nutrient rich foods index helps to identify healthy, affordable foods. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2010, 91, 1095S–1101S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hetherington, J.B.; Wiethoelter, A.K.; Negin, J.; Mor, S.M. Livestock ownership, animal source foods and child nutritional outcomes in seven rural village clusters in Sub-Saharan Africa. Agric. Food Secur. 2017, 6, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Variable | Period | Gender | Location | Region | Total n = 525 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Male n = 179 | Female n = 346 | Kebbi n = 105 | Nasarawa n = 105 | Kwara n = 105 | Imo n = 105 | Rivers n = 105 | North n = 315 | South n = 210 | |||
Household size | Before COVID-19 Mean (SD) | 6.56 (2.40) | 7.15 (1.97) | 8.90 (1.15) | 8.11 (1.43) | 5.35 (1.47) | 5.42 (2.43) | 6.98 (1.23) | 7.45 (2.04) | 6.20 (2.07) | 6.95 (2.14) |
During COVID-19 Mean (SD) | 7.85 (2.55) | 8.52 (2.54) | 9.80 (1.73) | 8.87 (1.87) | 6.66 (2.13) | 6.70 (2.49) | 9.47 (2.56) | 8.43 (2.32) | 8.08 (2.88) | 8.29 (2.56) | |
Percent increase | 19.66 | 19.16 | 10.11 | 9.37 | 24.49 | 23.62 | 35.67 | 13.15 | 30.32 | 19.28 | |
Monthly income (NGN) | Before COVID-19 Mean (SD) | 30,260.34 (22,591.60) | 18,583.82 (14725.51) | 17,919.05 (12232.35) | 18,433.33 (15,694.36) | 30,714.29 (21,169.10) | 27,110.48 (23,038.36) | 18,647.62 (15,173.98) | 22,355.56 (17,738.52) | 22,879.05 (18,916.78) | 22,564.95 (18,623.52) |
During COVID-19 Mean (SD) | 20,956.42 (18,483.56) | 12,854.34 (13,091.79) | 14,800.00 (11,104.53) | 10,387.62 (9447.64) | 23,153.33 (19,351.10) | 16,093.33 (16,486.22) | 13,649.52 (16,708.49) | 16,113.65 (14,917.91) | 14,871.43 (16,603.21) | 15,616.76 (15,610.21) | |
Percent decrease | −30.75 | −30.83 | −17.41 | −43.65 | −24.62 | −40.64 | −26.80 | −27.92 | −35.00 | −30.79 | |
Flock size | Before COVID-19 Mean (SD) | 29.68 (2.49) | 29.64 (2.50) | 31.52 (3.14) | 28.31 (2.35) | 29.64 (1.60) | 29.38 (1.88) | 29.41 (2.10) | 29.83 (2.77) | 29.40 (1.98) | 29.65 (2.49) |
During COVID-19 Mean (SD) | 30.40 (3.37) | 30.21 (2.74) | 32.41 (2.01) | 29.36 (1.62) | 29.90 (2.89) | 30.62 (4.28) | 29.11 (2.00) | 30.56 (2.60) | 29.86 (3.42) | 30.28 (2.97) | |
Percent change | 2.43 | 1.92 | 2.82 | 3.71 | 0.88 | 4.22 | −1.02 | 2.45 | 1.56 | 2.13 |
Household Sizes | 1–2 n (%) | 3–5 n (%) | 6–9 n (%) | 10+ n (%) | N | F | df (a,b) | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Before COVID-19 | ||||||||
Gender | ||||||||
Male | 6 (3.4) | 55 (30.7) | 97 (54.2) | 21 (11.7) | 179 | 9.27 | 1523 | 0.02 * |
Female | 2 (0.6) | 64 (18.5) | 249 (72.0) | 31 (9.0) | 346 | |||
Location | ||||||||
Kebbi | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 77 (73.3) | 28 (26.7) | 105 | 101.77 | 4520 | 0.00 * |
Nasarawa | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 90 (85.7) | 15 (14.3) | 105 | |||
Rivers | 1 (1.0) | 0 (0.0) | 102 (97.1) | 2 (1.9) | 105 | |||
Kwara | 0 (0.0) | 7 (6.9) | 96 (91.0) | 2 (2.1) | 105 | |||
Imo | 7 (6.7) | 54 (51.4) | 37 (35.2) | 7 (6.7) | 105 | |||
Total | 8 (1.5) | 119 (22.7) | 346 (65.9) | 52 (9.9) | 525 | |||
During COVID-19 | ||||||||
Gender | ||||||||
Male | 0 (0.0) | 31 (17.3) | 102 (57.0) | 46 (25.7) | 179 | 8.29 | 1523 | 0.00 * |
Female | 1 (0.3) | 43 (12.4) | 183 (52.9) | 119 (34.4) | 346 | |||
Location | ||||||||
Kebbi | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 57 (54.3) | 48 (45.7) | 105 | 101.77 | 4520 | 0.00 * |
Nasarawa | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 66 (62.9) | 39 (37.1) | 105 | |||
Rivers | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 54 (51.4) | 51 (48.6) | 105 | |||
Kwara | 0 (0.0) | 39.0 | 50 (47.6) | 14 (13.3) | 105 | |||
Imo | 1 (1.0) | 33 (31.4) | 58 (55.2) | 13 (12.4) | 105 | |||
Total | 1 (0.2) | 74 (14.1) | 285 (54.3) | 165 (31.4) | 525 |
Overall Percentage Increase in Household Size (24.7% ± 43.7) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Percentage Increase (Range) | Less than 1% Increase n (%) | 1–50% Increase n (%) | 51–100% Increase n (%) | More than 100% Increase n (%) | N | F | df (a,b) | p-Value |
Gender | ||||||||
Male | 78 (43.6) | 76 (42.5) | 14 (7.8) | 11 (6.1) | 179 | 4.79 | 1523 | 0.03 * |
Female | 148 (42.8) | 157 (45.4) | 39 (11.3) | 2 (0.6) | 346 | |||
Location | ||||||||
Kebbi | 51 (48.6) | 53 (50.5) | 1 (1.0) | 0 (0.0) | 105 | 12.1 | 4520 | 0.00 * |
Nasarawa | 57 (54.3) | 46 (43.8) | 2 (1.9) | 0 (0.0) | 105 | |||
Rivers | 29 (27.6) | 49 (46.7) | 26 (24.8) | 1 (1.0) | 105 | |||
Kwara | 43 (41.0) | 46 (43.8) | 12 (11.4) | 4 (3.8) | 105 | |||
Imo | 46 (43.8) | 39 (37.1) | 12 (11.4) | 8 (7.6) | 105 | |||
Total | 226 (43.1) | 233 (44.4) | 53 (10.0) | 13 (2.5) | 525 |
None n (%) | One Child (1) n (%) | Two Children (2) n (%) | Three Children and Above (≥3) n (%) | N | χ2 (df) | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | |||||||
Male | 86 (48.0) | 35 (19.6) | 35 (19.6) | 23 (12.8) | 179 | 10.63 (3) | 0.01 * |
Female | 163 (47.1) | 83 (24.0) | 36 (10.4) | 64 (18.5) | 346 | ||
Location | |||||||
Kebbi | 54 (51.4) | 32 (30.5) | 10 (9.5) | 9 (8.6) | 105 | 72.24 (12) | 0.00 * |
Nasarawa | 54 (51.4) | 35 (33.3) | 14 (13.3) | 2 (1.9) | 105 | ||
Rivers | 40 (38.1) | 20 (19.0) | 13 (12.4) | 32 (30.5) | 105 | ||
Kwara | 38 (36.2) | 20 (19.0) | 14 (13.3) | 33 (31.4) | 105 | ||
Imo | 63 (60.0) | 11 (10.5) | 20 (19.0) | 11 (10.5) | 105 | ||
Total | 249 (47.4) | 118 (22.5) | 71 (13.5) | 87 (16.6) | 525 |
No Relatives Came to Live with Us n (%) | 1 Person Came to Live with Us n (%) | 2 Persons Came to Live with Us n (%) | 3 Persons Came to Live with Us n (%) | 4 Persons and Above Came to Live with Us n (%) | N | χ2 (df) | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | ||||||||
Male | 109 (60.9) | 20 (11.2) | 26 (14.5) | 1 (0.6) | 23 (12.8) | 179 | 3.29 (4) | 0.51 |
Female | 193 (55.8) | 50 (14.5) | 54 (15.6) | 7 (2.0) | 42 (12.1) | 346 | ||
Location | ||||||||
Kebbi | 75 (71.4) | 16 (15.2) | 10 (9.5) | 4 (3.8) | 0 (0.0) | 105 | 102.3 (16) | 0.00 * |
Nasarawa | 71 (67.6) | 12 (11.4) | 18 (17.1) | 4 (3.8) | 0 (0.0) | 105 | ||
Rivers | 35 (33.3) | 13 (12.4) | 22 (21.0) | 0 (0.0) | 20 (19.0) | 105 | ||
Kwara | 57 (54.3) | 15 (14.3) | 13 (12.4) | 0 (0.0) | 20 (19.0) | 105 | ||
Imo | 64 (61.0) | 14 (13.3) | 17 (16.2) | 0 (0.0) | 10 (9.5) | 105 | ||
Total | 302 (57.5) | 70 (13.3) | 80 (15.2) | 8 (1.5) | 65 (12.4) | 525 |
Monthly Income (NGN) | No Income n (%) | Less than 5000 n (%) | 5000–10,000 n (%) | 10,000–50,000 n (%) | Over 50,000 n (%) | N | F (df (a,b)) | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Before COVID-19 | ||||||||
Gender | ||||||||
Male | 9 (5.0) | 4 (2.2) | 23 (12.8) | 112 (68.2) | 21 (11.7) | 179 | 50.78 (1523) | 0.00 * |
Female | 15 (4.3) | 13 (3.8) | 114 (32.9) | 194 (56.1) | 10 (2.9) | 346 | ||
Location | ||||||||
Kebbi | 0 (0.0) | 3 (2.9) | 41 (39.0) | 60 (57.1) | 1 (1.0) | 105 | 11.54 (4520) | 0.00 * |
Nasarawa | 0 (0.0) | 2 (1.9) | 52 (40.0) | 57 (54.3) | 4 (3.8) | 105 | ||
Rivers | 6 (5.7) | 8 (7.6) | 27 (25.7) | 59 (56.2) | 5 (4.8) | 105 | ||
Kwara | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 19 (18.1) | 75 (71.4) | 11 (10.5) | 105 | ||
Imo | 0 (0.0) | 4 (3.8) | 8 (7.6) | 65 (61.9) | 10 (9.5) | 105 | ||
Total | 24 (4.6) | 17 (3.2) | 137 (26.1) | 316 (60.2) | 31 (29.5) | 525 | ||
During COVID-19 | ||||||||
Gender | ||||||||
Male | 17 (9.5) | 9 (5.0) | 40 (22.3) | 101 (56.4) | 12 (6.7) | 179 | 33.77 (1523) | 0.00 * |
Female | 22 (6.4) | 79 (22).8 | 112 (32.4) | 128 (37.0) | 5 (1.4) | 346 | ||
Location | ||||||||
Kebbi | 0 (0.0) | 18 (17.1) | 36 (34.3) | 50 (47.6) | 1 (1.0) | 105 | 10.25 (4520) | 0.00 * |
Nasarawa | 0 (0.0) | 36 (34.3) | 31 (29.5) | 38 (36.2) | 0 (0.0) | 105 | ||
Rivers | 19 (18.1) | 17 (16.2) | 35 (33.3) | 28 (26.7) | 6 (5.7) | 105 | ||
Kwara | 0 (0.0) | 4 (3.8) | 29 (27.6) | 64 (61.0) | 8 (7.6) | 105 | ||
Imo | 20 (19.0) | 13 (12.4) | 21 (20.0) | 49 (46.7) | 2 (1.9) | 105 | ||
Total | 39 (7.4) | 88 (16.8) | 152 (29.0) | 229 (43.6) | 17 (3.2) | 525 |
Below USD 1.90 n ( %) | Above USD 1.90 n (%) | N | χ2 (df) | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Before COVID-19 | |||||
Gender | |||||
Male | 79 (44.1) | 100 (55.9) | 179 | 33.1 (1) | 0.00 * |
Female | 242 (69.9) | 104 (30.1) | 346 | ||
Location | |||||
Kebbi | 73 (69.5) | 32 (30.5) | 105 | 37.3 (4) | 0.00 * |
Nasarawa | 72 (68.6) | 28 (31.4) | 105 | ||
Rivers | 80 (76.2) | 25 (23.8) | 105 | ||
Kwara | 45 (42.9) | 60 (57.1) | 105 | ||
Imo | 51 (48.6) | 54 (51.4) | 105 | ||
Household Size | |||||
1–2 | 5 (62.5) | 3 (37.5) | 8 | 34.3 (3) | 0.00 * |
3–5 | 50 (42.0) | 69 (58.0) | 119 | ||
6–9 | 235 (67.9) | 111 (32.1) | 346 | ||
10+ | 31 (59.6) | 21 (40.4) | 52 | ||
Total | 321 (61.1) | 204 (38.9) | 525 | ||
During COVID-19 | |||||
Gender | |||||
Male | 121 (67.6) | 58 (32.4) | 179 | 19.0 (1) | 0.00 * |
Female | 291 (84.1) | 55 (15.9) | 346 | ||
Location | |||||
Kebbi | 82 (78.1) | 23 (21.9) | 105 | 23.1 (4) | 0.00 * |
Nasarawa | 97 (92.4) | 8 (7.6) | 105 | ||
Rivers | 86 (81.9) | 19 (18.1) | 105 | ||
Kwara | 70 (66.7) | 35 (33.3) | 105 | ||
Imo | 77 (73.3) | 28 (26.7) | 105 | ||
Household Size | |||||
1–2 | 1 (100.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 | 11.7 (3) | 0.01 * |
3–5 | 48 (64.9) | 26 (35.1) | 74 | ||
6–9 | 236 (82.8) | 49 (17.2) | 285 | ||
10+ | 127 (77.0) | 38 (23.0) | 165 | ||
Total | 412 (78.5) | 113 (21.5) | 525 |
True n (%) | False n (%) | N | χ2 (df) | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | |||||
Male | 43 (24.0) | 136 (76.0) | 179 | 4.31 (1) | 0.04 * |
Female | 57 (16.5) | 289 (83.5) | 346 | ||
Location | |||||
Kebbi | 10 (9.5) | 95 (90.5) | 105 | 21.1 (4) | 0.00 * |
Nasarawa | 25 (23.8) | 75 (76.2) | 105 | ||
Rivers | 10 (9.5) | 95 (90.5) | 105 | ||
Kwara | 29 (27.6) | 76 (72.4) | 105 | ||
Imo | 26 (24.8) | 79 (75.2) | 105 | ||
Household Size | |||||
1–2 | 3 (37.5) | 5 (62.5) | 8 | 6.14 (3) | 0.11 |
3–5 | 29 (24.4) | 90 (75.6) | 119 | ||
6–9 | 62 (17.9) | 284 (82.1) | 346 | ||
10+ | 3 (6.0) | 49 (46.0) | 52 | ||
Total | 100 (19.1) | 425 (80.9) | 525 |
Predictors | β | SE | Wald | df | p-Value | OR | 95% CI for OR | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower | Upper | |||||||
Model | 1.101 | 0.101 | 119.208 | 1 | 0.000 * | 3.008 | ||
Constant | 2.902 | 0.575 | 25.494 | 1 | 0.000 * | 18.215 | ||
Location | −0.181 | 0.075 | 5.855 | 1 | 0.016 * | 0.835 | 0.721 | 0.966 |
Gender | −0.555 | 0.233 | 5.674 | 1 | 0.017 * | 0.574 | 0.363 | 0.906 |
Household size increase (childbirth) | 0.136 | 0.106 | 1.649 | 1 | 0.199 | 1.145 | 0.931 | 1.409 |
Household size increase (arrival of relatives) | 0.204 | 0.094 | 4.740 | 1 | 0.029 * | 1.227 | 1.021 | 1.474 |
Monthly income | −0.470 | 0.161 | 8.557 | 1 | 0.003 * | 0.625 | 0.456 | 0.856 |
Did Your Monthly Income Reduce or Increase during the Pandemic? | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Reduced n (%) | No change n (%) | Increased n (%) | Total n (%) | χ2 (df) | p-Value | ||
Compared to before COVID-19, did you have to rely more on chickens for money and/or food during COVID-19? | No | 88 (67.2) | 31 (23.7) | 12 (9.2) | 131 (100.0) | 18.71 (2) | 0.00 * |
Yes | 329 (83.5) | 38 (9.6) | 27 (6.9) | 394 (100.0) | |||
Total | 417 (79.4) | 69 (13.1) | 39 (7.4) | 525 (100.0) |
Household Size | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1–2 n (%) | 3–5 n (%) | 6–9 n (%) | 10+ n (%) | Total n (%) | χ2 (df) | p-Value | ||
Compared to before COVID-19, did you have to rely more on chickens for money and/or food during COVID-19? | No | 1 (0.8) | 28 (21.4) | 72 (55.0) | 30 (22.9) | 131 (100.0) | 13.62 (3) | 0.00 * |
Yes | 0 (0.0) | 46 (11.7) | 213 (54.1) | 135 (34.3) | 394 (100.0) | |||
Total | 1 (0.2) | 74 (14.1) | 285 (54.3) | 165 (31.4) | 525 (100.0) |
Was There an Increase in Flock Size? How? | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No | Yes: Gifts, Donations n (%) | Yes: Local Hens Hatched Chicks n (%) | Yes: Purchased DOC n (%) | N | χ2 (df) | p-Value | |
Gender | |||||||
Male | 33 (18.4) | 9 (5.0) | 79 (44.1) | 58 (32.5) | 179 | 14.0 (2) | 0.00 * |
Female | 92 (26.6) | 6 (1.7) | 186 (53.8) | 62 (17.9) | 346 | ||
Location | |||||||
Kebbi | 21 (20.0) | 7 (6.7) | 63 (60.0) | 14 (13.3) | 105 | 56.6 (8) | 0.00 * |
Nasarawa | 19 (18.1) | 4 (3.8) | 63 (60) | 19 (18.1) | 105 | ||
Rivers | 22 (21.0) | 0 (0.0) | 37 (35.2) | 46 (43.8) | 105 | ||
Kwara | 22 (20.9) | 1 (1.0) | 51 (48.6) | 31 (29.5) | 105 | ||
Imo | 41 (39.0) | 3 (2.9) | 51 (48.6) | 10 (9.5) | 105 | ||
Total | 125 (23.8) | 15 (2.9) | 265 (50.5) | 120 (22.8) | 525 | ||
What Was Responsible for the Decrease in Flock Size? | |||||||
Gifts, and Donations n (%) | Mortality, Theft, and Predation n (%) | Consumption n (%) | Sale of Adult Live Birds n (%) | N | χ2 (df) | p-Value | |
Gender | |||||||
Male | 69 (38.5) | 6 (3.4) | 45 (25.1) | 59 (33.0) | 179 | 16.0 (3) | 0.00 * |
Female | 139 (40.2) | 11 (3.2) | 42 (12.1) | 154 (44.5) | 346 | ||
Location | |||||||
Kebbi | 0 (0.0%) | 39 (37.1) | 13 (12.4) | 53 (50.5) | 105 | 128.7 (12) | 0.00 * |
Nasarawa | 5 (4.8) | 31 (29.5) | 13 (12.4) | 56 (53.3) | 105 | ||
Rivers | 7 (6.7) | 17 (16.2) | 44 (41.9) | 37 (35.2) | 105 | ||
Kwara | 38 (36.2) | 14 (13.3) | 29 (27.6) | 24 (22.9) | 105 | ||
Imo | 18 (17.1) | 29 (27.6) | 21 (20.0) | 37 (35.2) | 105 | ||
Total | 68 (13.0) | 130 (24.8) | 120 (22.8) | 207 (39.4) | 525 |
Affected by the Restriction n (%) | Not Affected by the Restriction n (%) | N | χ2 (df) | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | |||||
Male | 160 (89.4) | 19 (10.6) | 179 | 4.82 (1) | 0.03 * |
Female | 284 (82.1) | 62 (17.9) | 346 | ||
Location | |||||
Kebbi | 104 (99.0) | 1 (1.0) | 105 | 162.8 (4) | 0.00 * |
Nasarawa | 47 (44.8) | 58 (55.2) | 105 | ||
Rivers | 96 (91.4) | 9 (8.6) | 105 | ||
Kwara | 96 (91.4) | 9 (8.6) | 105 | ||
Imo | 101 (96.2) | 4 (3.8) | 105 | ||
Total | 444 (84.6) | 81 (15.4) | 525 |
Fewer Sales n (%) | No Difference n (%) | More Sales n (%) | N | χ2 (df) | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | ||||||
Male | 137 (76.5) | 75 (14.0) | 17 (9.5) | 179 | 12.2 (2) | 0.00 * |
Female | 227 (65.6) | 44 (12.7) | 75 (21.7) | 346 | ||
Location | ||||||
Kebbi | 87 (82.9) | 14 (13.3) | 4 (3.8) | 105 | 76.0 (8) | 0.00 * |
Nasarawa | 69 (65.7) | 1 (1.0) | 35 (33.3) | 105 | ||
Rivers | 63 (60.0) | 11 (10.5) | 31 (29.5) | 105 | ||
Kwara | 83 (79.0) | 17 (16.2) | 5 (4.8) | 105 | ||
Imo | 62 (59.0) | 27 (24.8) | 17 (16.2) | 105 | ||
Total | 364 (69.4) | 69 (13.1) | 92 (17.5) | 525 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Bamidele, O.; Amole, T.A. Impact of COVID-19 on Smallholder Poultry Farmers in Nigeria. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11475. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011475
Bamidele O, Amole TA. Impact of COVID-19 on Smallholder Poultry Farmers in Nigeria. Sustainability. 2021; 13(20):11475. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011475
Chicago/Turabian StyleBamidele, Oladeji, and Tunde Adegoke Amole. 2021. "Impact of COVID-19 on Smallholder Poultry Farmers in Nigeria" Sustainability 13, no. 20: 11475. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011475