ICT Adoption in Smallholder Poultry Farming: A Systematic Review of Benefits, Barriers, and Gender Disparities Across Sub-Saharan Africa

Xaba, Majezwa; Nontu, Yanga; Jiba, Phiwe

doi:10.3390/su18041788

Open AccessSystematic Review

ICT Adoption in Smallholder Poultry Farming: A Systematic Review of Benefits, Barriers, and Gender Disparities Across Sub-Saharan Africa

by

Majezwa Xaba

^*

,

Yanga Nontu

and

Phiwe Jiba

Department of Agriculture, University of Zululand, Private Bag X1001, KwaDlangezwa 3886, South Africa

^*

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Sustainability 2026, 18(4), 1788; https://doi.org/10.3390/su18041788

Submission received: 24 October 2025 / Revised: 9 December 2025 / Accepted: 18 December 2025 / Published: 10 February 2026

Download

Browse Figure

Versions Notes

Abstract

The agricultural sector in the world and Sub-Saharan Africa faces the pressing challenge of meeting the growing food demand driven by the exponential population growth. With smallholder poultry farming playing a critical role in food and nutritional security, this systematic review synthesizes literature from the past two decades to assess the adoption of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) among smallholder poultry farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). The review focuses on the benefits and barriers impacting this adoption. Following the PRISMA methodology, 19 peer-reviewed studies were analyzed to explore how ICT facilitates market participation, enhances information exchange, and improves producer livelihoods. The included studies in this review were sourced from four major academic databases: Science Direct, Web of Science, Wiley online library, and EBSCOhost. The findings reveal that ICT adoption significantly reduces information asymmetry, enables farmers to access market and production knowledge, and thus improves their profitability and inclusion in informal and formal market platforms. The review underscores the potential of targeted policy interventions and digital platforms to empower smallholder poultry farmers, enhance their commercialization, and contribute towards agricultural sustainability in the region. This study highlights the critical need for increased ICT accessibility, capacity building, and infrastructural improvements to support the digital transformation of smallholder poultry farming in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Keywords:

technology innovation; technology utilization; market participation; diffusion of innovation theory; technology acceptance model; sustainable livelihood framework; PRISMA

1. Introduction

The demand of food is increasing globally. According to Aregaw et al. [1] the world’s population is expected to be over 9.7 billion by 2050, increasing the demand of food by 60%. Sub-Saharan Africa is also expected to experience a tremendous growth in population, which is expected to double by 2050 [2]. This situation demands intensive developments of food production in the agricultural sector, and the study further mentioned the necessity of technology adoption in agriculture to maximize production and to ensure food security for the exponentially growing population. These developments cannot only be achieved by commercial producers; therefore, smallholder farmers need to be incorporated in this development process.

Amede et al. [3], emphasized the importance of smallholder farmers, noting that they contribute to an estimated 50–70% of global food production, which means they are playing a crucial role in making food available to all parts of the world, including remote areas. As a result, stakeholders and policymakers have started paying more attention to rural developments and giving the opportunity to remote areas to become economically active [4]. With necessary developments invested in smallholder poultry farmers, this means that they can get a chance to commercialize and increase their production. The adoption of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) is believed to play a pivotal role in helping smallholder farmers reach lucrative market offers and fully accommodating them to market platforms [4,5], which will help to fight malnutrition in SSA [5].

ICT refers to technological devices and systems including hardware, software, and digital platforms that enable the use to generate, store, exchange, and distribute different forms of information [6]. In the context of poultry farming, ICT tools include mobile phones, market information platforms, digital payment systems, and online veterinary services. These ICT tools brings different aspects which alleviate the poultry sector not only through market platforms, but also by leading to product quality, profitability, and preservation of the environment, enabling famers to make informed decisions on their farming activities [7]. ICT has also eliminated costs of obtaining information, thus facilitating information sharing, providing record-keeping tools and helping to creating visual markets for agricultural products [8].

The world’s largest portion of smallholder farmers is found in Sub-Saharan Africa, and they are characterized with high levels of vulnerability [2]. Their vulnerability greatly emphasizes food insecurity in the region. In addressing food insecurity, major agricultural developments needs to take place, as the sector has tremendous impacts in fighting against poverty and malnutrition [9]. This situation does not only require sufficient food production, but sufficient nutritious food. In addressing this problem of food insecurity in the region, there has been an increasing recognition to stabilize poultry production in the region [2].

The poultry industry does not only provide food, but it also plays a crucial role in income generation, as week as social, cultural, and environmental values [10]. This indicates that poultry production is one of the major agricultural industries in SSA, supplying different needs within communities, and people have various reasons for venturing into poultry enterprises. The biggest poultry producing country in the region is South Africa, followed by Nigeria [2]. The poultry industry is also a largest agricultural sector in the country, representing 18% of the Agricultural Domestic Product (GDP), and accumulated a gross value of ZAR 59.94 billion in 2020 [11]. The study furthermore indicated that, although South Africa is the highest poultry producing country, it is also a net importer of broiler meat.

This clearly shows that the country cannot produce enough to match the demand of the local market, as it relies on imports for broiler meat. As the country jumps on imported poultry products, many smallholder poultry producers are left behind and excluded from market offers. This situation has placed smallholders in a highly vulnerable position whereby broiler producers contend that rising imports erode local investment and weaken the competitiveness of local poultry industry, ultimately driving smallholder farmers out of the market [11]. These represent significant challenges that must be addressed and prioritized to improve market participation for smallholder farmers.

Poultry production plays a crucial role in poverty alleviation in the region due to its low input requirements and its affordable high-quality protein. Studies by [2,12] emphasize that poultry farming is among the fastest ways to generate income for households, significantly contributing to both poverty reduction and nutritional security. These benefits underscore the importance of poultry production not only for enhancing food security (food availability) but also for improving dietary nutrition (dietary diversity and protein uptake).

To stabilize poultry production in Sub-Sahara, smallholder farmers need to produce enough for them and for the market. For them to be able to engage or participate in the market, they require market information and knowledge. According to [13], the use of technology has proven to be effective in reducing communication barriers between stakeholders, improving service quality, and eliminating costs in information sharing. This is the point where ICT can be employed in the process of revolutionizing smallholder farmers, as it offers customized and actionable agricultural information in real time [14]. The study further emphasized the explosion of ICT tools to all parts of the world, including Sub-Sahara; about 70% of the poorest 20% of countries have access to mobile phones.

The diffusion of ICT tools was noticeable back in 2014. The adoption of mobile phones was said to be around 39% (347 million) and was expected to increase to 49% (504 million) in 2020 [15]. Other studies also indicate a significant increase in these numbers: according to [16], the Global System of Mobile Connections (GSMA) indicated a mobile-cellular subscription total of 446 million in SSA, accounting for 9% of the global subscriptions in 2018, and the numbers were expected to accelerate and reach 690 million in 2025. The study furthermore revealed that smartphone subscribers are also expected to increase, with South Africa expected to be around 60%.

The penetration of mobile phones indicate a positive direction towards ICT adoption in SSA as they hold potential benefits to reduce information asymmetry to farmers and also close the information gap existing between large commercial and smallholder farmers [15]. Although there is high usage of mobile phones in Sub-Sahara, vulnerability of smallholder farmers persist [2], and many countries in SSA have mobile phone subscriptions lower than their population sizes [16]. This clearly indicates that there are challenges behind the sluggish growth of ICT in SSA negatively affecting smallholder farmers to effectively utilize ICT tools to their potential. Mwalupaso, Wang, Xu, and Tian [15] believed the challenges to be related or influenced by their vulnerability and low literacy level; the study furthermore indicated that this high level of mobile phones adoption compared to other ICT gadgets is because they are less demanding in terms of user capabilities and infrastructure and are mostly affordable.

This article focuses on ICT, agriculture, and smallholder poultry farmers and poultry production in the Sub-Saharan region. The search was conducted on 5 June 2025, systematically reviewing articles from 2005 to 2024. The main aim of this review paper is to underscore the potential benefits of ICT in transforming smallholder production and contribute to the existing literature. This could help promote ICT adoption and the digitalization of agriculture, with specific focus solely on poultry producers.

2. Theoretical Framework

This review is guided by three complementary theories that collectively offer a comprehensive understanding of how and why smallholder poultry farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa adopt ICT. These are the Diffusion of Innovation, Technology Acceptance Model, and the Sustainable Livelihood Framework. These frameworks provide a holistic view on the dynamics at play regarding ICT adoption and barriers hindering it. They also offer insights on gender, equity, and livelihood in the context of smallholder poultry farming within SSA.

The Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) theory offers fundamental explanations on how newly invented technological tools diffuse within the social system over time. According to Rodgers, the adoption occurs through five stages: knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation. For smallholder poultry farmers to be able to adopt ICT tools, they need to be aware of ICT tools, understanding their benefits and receive adequate demonstrations before deciding to adopt them. The DOI further suggests that adoption increases when technologies are perceived as useful, simple, and compatible with existing practices, and decreases when technologies are considered costly and complex. The uptake of these CT tools is shaped by social norms, communication channels, and community influence.

The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) compliments the DOI by providing more of an individual perspective on the adoption behavior of farmers towards the new technology. According to TAM there are two primary factors determining whether an individual farmer will adopt and continue using the new technology: perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU). In the context of smallholder poultry farming, ICT tools are likely to be adopted when they are viewed as improving market access, productivity, veterinary access, and eliminating transaction costs (perceived usefulness). The adoption rate also increases when the technological tools are easy to operate given their low literacy level (perceive ease of use). However, if the farmer perceives the technology to be costly, complex, or unreliable, the adoption rate decreases. The TAM is useful in understanding the barriers towards the adoption of ICT in the context of smallholder poultry farming in SSA as several studies reported low ICT adoption in the region.

The Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SLF) provides a broader development perspective linking ICT adoption to livelihood outcomes. This framework views livelihood in terms of access to five types of capital: human, social, natural, physical, and financial. ICT contributes to these assets in multiple ways, as digital tools help farmers with timely market information and knowledge (human capital), improve their social networking, and facilitate sharing of information between farmers and communities (social capital), enabling them to occupy lucrative market offers (financial capital) and improving their access to production inputs and infrastructure (physical capital). The framework also allows for an exploration of gender disparities, since women and men have unequal access to livelihood assets and decision making.

By integrating these three theoretical models, this review paper provides a comprehensive theoretical foundation connecting all the processes from technology introduction to technology adoption and usage. The DOI and TAM guided the adoption process and the factors hindering ICT adoption, and the SLF further indicated benefits of adopting ICT such as improved market access and income, thus contributing to overall improved livelihoods.

3. Vertical Integration in African Poultry Industry

Firms are vertically integrated when they partially or wholly internalize their operations without the involvement of external agents, and when two or more production stages occur under one management [17]. In the context of poultry farming, vertical integrators are the primary drivers of large-scale, commercial poultry production as they support them with the necessary capital, technology, and management expertise to produce a consistent volume of chicken [18]. By controlling the feed, chicks, and farming environment, integrators can enforce strict biosecurity measures and ensure a standardized, higher-quality product. This is crucial in a region often affected by diseases like Avian Influenza [19], as integrators consolidate the market, moving it from a fragmented system of small independent farmers to a more organized, corporate structure [17].

This leads to greater efficiency as the integrator bears most of the risk throughout the production process rather than the individual farmer who in this model is often referred as a “contract grower”. This makes large commercial producers in poultry more feasible since they receive input support [17]. Although vertical integration in poultry is associated with improved farm performances [18], it is not yet the dominant model across the entire continent, as even in high broiler producing countries in SSA such as South Africa [20], only a few vertically integrated broiler firms have been reported [21]. This model primarily benefits smallholders who already have a certain level of capital to build poultry houses that meet the integrator’s standards, excluding the poorest farmers [22]. This shows that marginalized smallholder poultry farmers are often left out of these developments.

The African poultry market is increasingly a dual system, with the formal sector being highly efficient, supplying urban supermarkets and fast-food chains with standardized, frozen, or chilled products [23]. On the other hand, the informal market is dominated by vulnerable smallholder farmers, selling live birds in local markets. This means the sector caters to consumer preferences for fresh, local birds; however, it struggles with scale and consistency [24].

Availability and quality of chicken feed is arguably the single biggest constraint on the growth of the African poultry industry. Feed typically constitutes 60–70% of the total cost of production as many African countries rely heavily on imported maize and soybean meal, the primary ingredients in feed [25]. This makes the industry vulnerable to global commodity price shocks, currency devaluation, and supply chain disruptions. This is because local production of maize and soybeans is often insufficient, hampered by poor agricultural practices, climate change (drought), and inadequate storage infrastructure [26,27]. This creates constant shortages of affordable, local raw materials. The combination of import costs, tariffs, and logistical challenges makes feed prohibitively expensive, rendering African poultry farmers less competitive against cheap imports of frozen chicken parts [20].

Quality issues usually stem from poor post-harvest storage of maize that leads to fungal growth and aflatoxins, which are toxic to poultry [28]. They suppress immune systems, reduce growth rates, and can be transferred to eggs and meat, posing a human health risk. Small, local feed mills may produce feed with inconsistent nutrient profiles, leading to poor feed conversion ratios and slower growth, increasing costs and reducing profitability [29]. In some cases, feed is adulterated with non-nutritive fillers like sand or sawdust to increase volume, further degrading its quality [30]. The high cost and poor quality of feed directly lead to lower profit margins for farmers, higher prices for consumers, and an inability for local producers to compete with imports [20,31], which results in a stunted growth of the SSA poultry industry.

4. Materials and Methods

This paper aims to present a systematic literature review focusing on the adoption and potential impact of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in the context of agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. The focus is on smallholder livestock farmers and specifically smallholder poultry farmers. The paper used literature from journals and articles that were collected from four databases, namely Science direct, EBSCOhost, Wiley online library, and Web of Science. The review was conducted systematically using accredited journals and articles from these databases following the PRISMA (preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines throughout the whole process. See tables below showing the full search strategy and inclusion criteria used in this paper. A total of 671 papers were collected from all the databases, and their abstracts were screened according to the exclusion and inclusion criteria. After the process 24 documents remained, and after the full text eligibility assessment 19 papers remained. As a result, 19 documents were used in this systematic review.

Keywords

“ICT” OR “Information communication technology” AND “market participation” AND “smallholder farmers” OR “small-scale farmers” AND “livestock” AND/OR “poultry”.

Region

“ICT” OR “Information communication technology” AND “market participation” AND “smallholder farmers” OR “small-scale farmers” AND “livestock” AND/OR “poultry” AND “Sub-Saharan Africa”.

Years

2005–2024.

4.1. ScienceDirect

ScienceDirect keyword search, conducted on the 5 June 2025, retrieved a total of 133,575 reports. These reports were then filtered using the region, publication years, language, access type, and article type, which resulted in 257 reports. Table 1 below provides the overall search strategy used in this database from the keyword search till the last filter.

4.2. Wiley Online Library

Another search was conducted on the Wiley online library database on 5 June 2025, whereby the keyword search resulted in 257 reports. After the keyword search, the reports were filtered by region, years, access type, and access type. These filters resulted in 20 reports being retrieved. Table 2 illustrates the complete search strategy conducted on this database.

4.3. Web of Science

Another search was conducted on the Web of Science database on the same day, whereby the keyword search produced 441,769 reports. After the keyword search, the reports were filtered by region, years, language, access type, article type, research areas, publisher, category, and citation topic Meso. These filters resulted in 244 reports being retrieved. Table 3 illustrates the complete search strategy conducted on this database.

4.4. EBSCOHost

The last search was conducted on the EBSCOHost database on the same day, whereby the keyword search produced 1449 reports. After the keyword search, the reports were filtered by region, years, source type, and access type. These filters resulted in 150 reports being retrieved. Table 4 below illustrates the complete search strategy conducted on this database.

4.5. Screening, Eligibility, and Inclusion Criteria

After conducting the systematic search across the four databases, the screening process commenced to identify studies that met the objectives of this review. The screening consisted of three stages: duplicate removal, title and abstract screening, and full-text screening.

No duplicates were identified among the retrieved articles, leaving 671 records for screening. Three authors screened all records to determine preliminary relevance based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. After this stage, 24 articles were retained for full-text assessment. The 24 retrieved articles were independently assessed by the same authors for eligibility according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria represented in Table 5 below. Following this assessment, 19 studies met the criteria and were included in the final review. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were carefully chosen to ensure that only studies directly relevant to the review objectives assessing the adoption and impact of ICT among smallholder poultry farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa were included. These criteria were adapted from Dumisa et al. [17] and are as follows:

4.5.1. Focus Area

The primary focus of this review is on information and communication technology (ICT) adoption and its effects on smallholder poultry farmers. Including studies not related to ICT would dilute the relevance of the findings and could introduce confounding evidence unrelated to technology adoption. ICT-specific studies allow for a precise evaluation of digital tools, mobile applications, and advisory services that shape agricultural practices.

4.5.2. Population

Smallholder poultry farmers vary in terms of farm size, access to resources, level of market participation, and technology adoption capacity contrasted to large commercial producers. Including only smallholder contexts ensures that the findings are directly applicable to the population of interest, capturing the realities of resource-limited farmers and their challenges. This specificity improves external validity and policy relevance for interventions targeting smallholder poultry systems.

4.5.3. Region

Agricultural production systems, ICT infrastructure, market dynamics, and socio-economic characteristics are greatly distinct across regions. Sub-Saharan Africa presents unique challenges and opportunities for ICT adoption in agriculture, such as poor network connectivity in remote areas, small farm sizes, and informal market structures. Including studies only focusing on SSA ensures that the review captures contextually relevant evidence that can inform local policy and governmental based decisions.

4.5.4. Years

The study selected journals and articles between 2005 and 2024. Studies before 2005 are likely outdated and may not reflect current technologies or adoption trends. Limiting to studies up to 2024 ensures the review includes recent, relevant evidence that accurately reflects modern ICT use in smallholder poultry systems.

The criteria ensure that only studies addressing ICT adoption among smallholder poultry farmers in SSA are included, avoiding irrelevant or non-generalizable findings. By focusing on a specific population and region, the evidence synthesized reflects the realities of the target population and avoids confounding effects from different farming systems or regions. The criteria ensure that the review findings are actionable, informing interventions, extension services, and ICT-based programs for smallholder poultry farmers. Including only studies from 2005 to 2024 ensures that results reflect current technological innovations and adoption trends, which is crucial in a rapidly evolving ICT landscape. Figure 1 below depicts the whole PRISMA flow diagram of the study selection process from identification to inclusion. Additional information including the PRISMA checklist, List of Figures and graphical abstract are accessible in the Supplementary Materials.

4.5.5. Synthesis of Outcomes and Effect Measures

The 19 retrieved documents in this review comprise 7 qualitative and 12 quantitative studies. Quantitative studies reported continuous outcomes such as household income, productivity, digital literacy, and technical efficiencies using regression coefficients (β) (0.1 = small, 0.3 = moderate, 0.5 = large), mean differences (Cohen’s d: 0.2 = small, 0.5 = moderate, 0.8 = large), or technical efficiency scores (improvement > 0.1 considered meaningful). The binary outcomes such as market participation and disease occurrences were displayed using odds ratios (OR) (1.1–1.5 = small, 1.6–2.5 = moderate, >2.5 = large), risk ratios (RR) (small, 1.6–2.5 = moderate, >2.5 = large), or marginal effects. Threshold interpretations were also applied where appropriate. Qualitative studies reported outcomes through thematic synthesis or narrative descriptions, without numerical effect measures. No studies required re-expression of effect measures; all quantitative outcomes were presented in their original metric. The effect measures for this study are available in Table A1 in the appendix.

5. Results

5.1. Potential Benefits of ICT Utilization in Agriculture

5.1.1. Improved Profitability and Livelihood

ICT utilization poses great benefits which are beneficial to the productivity and farmers using it. Findings from the literature strongly suggest that the adoption of ICT elevates profitability and the overall livelihoods of smallholder farmers in the SSA region. This is due to the fact that digital tools make market linkages more efficient, allowing farmers to directly create sales at farmgate, bypassing middlemen [5]. Mobile-based platforms, one of the digital tools, have proven to reduce transaction costs while increasing revenues, which may strengthen the farmer’s financial stability [4]. Furthermore, ICT facilitates timely access to information on buyers and market opportunities, enabling farmers to make decisions that could help to maximize profit [7]. This is evident as digital marketing channels expose farmers to competitive markets which lead to more sales and improved livelihoods [14].

5.1.2. Reduced Information Asymmetry

The role of ICT in bridging information gaps between farmers and markets is recognized. This stems from the fact that ICT applications assist farmers to overcome persistent challenges related to inaccurate market information [33]. ICT-enabled price broadcasting reduces uncertainty while enhancing access to real time information, helping farmers to make informed decisions [15]. Additionally, ICT platforms reduce information gaps through improving access to weather forecasts and disease alerts, keeping farmers in check [34]. These platforms and tools provide timely updates on the supply and demand conditions, which allows farmers to come up with effective strategies to enhance their market participation [4,5]. ICT empowers farmers with advisory services that close the knowledge gaps in an easy and understandable way, enhancing farm productivity [35].

5.1.3. Contribution to Improved Farm Management

ICT is beneficial as it improves planning, resource allocation, and record-keeping, contributing to better farm management. To improve operational efficiency, farmers make use of ICT, enabling them to schedule farming activities in an appropriate way [33]. These digital advisory platforms guide farmers on how to use inputs effectively, manage pests and diseases, and plan for reinvestment, enhancing productivity [35]. ICT tools encourage farmers to adopt improved management practices through accessible production guidelines [16]. This is further highlighted by the way in which record-keeping and monitoring applications allow farmers to easily track performance, improving budgeting and planning [7]. These findings reveal that ICT-based decision support systems increase efficiency in daily farming operations [13]. It can be further argued that digitalized farm management increases efficiency even across production processes, from the point of initial farming decision to the utilization of final production [14].

5.1.4. Improved Food Security

The role of ICT in improving food security is relevant through increased agricultural productivity and consistent food availability. This reveals that ICT improves access to farming information, leading to better crop performance [34]. Efficient access to market information improves farmer’s production incentives, contributing to higher productivity [5]. ICT-driven services enable farmers to boost yields [36], reduce production risks [14], and assist in coping with climate variability [2], thus enhancing resilience in smallholder farmers and boosting their food security. This is because ICT provides information that supports timely planting and harvesting decisions, which contribute towards improved food security [12]. Table 6 below presents the potential impact of ICT on transforming smallholder farmers within agricultural sector.

5.2. Barriers to the Adoption of ICT

5.2.1. High Costs Associated with ICT Utilization

High costs remain as one of the most noticeable barriers which restrict SSA smallholder farmers from adopting the use of ICT tools. The financial burden associated with buying digital devices hinders the adoption among these farmers as they usually lack financial means to purchase them [33]. This is relevant when looking at the high cost of mobile data and devices in contrast with the income generated by smallholder farmers, as they are mostly reported to be vulnerable [7]. Digital platforms require recurring costs to maintain and for internet subscriptions, which is a challenge for smallholder farmers [36]. SSA in particular is incurred by the highest internet costs globally, which widens the digital divide [39]. It can then be concluded that financial constraints reduce the farmer’s ability to participate fully in digital markets [14].

5.2.2. Low Literacy Level

Low levels of literacy present a major barrier towards the utilization of ICT among smallholder farmers. This is because limited formal education reduces the farmer’s capability to comprehend and utilize ICT tools effectively [33]. Insufficient digital skills prohibit farmers from navigating mobile applications and online platforms [16]. Many farmers lack the competency required to easily interpret digital information which leads to them avoiding the use of ICT-based solutions [39]. This proves that digital illiteracy weakens the farmer’s confidence in using technology to draw decisions [14]. Illiteracy challenges reduce the adoption of modern technologies affiliated with agricultural practices, especially observed among older and marginalized farmers [38].

5.2.3. Age and Gender

Age and gender also influence the farmers’ ability and willingness to adopt ICT. Older farmers are usually risk-averse and struggle to adapt to emerging digital technologies [15]. Technical inefficiency directly relates to age, making younger farmers more receptive to ICT-driven innovations [36]. This is because youth are more technologically literate and motivated to adopt digital usage [39]. Gender disparities further put strain on adoption, as it was discovered that men in SSA are more likely to be in possession of digital devices and have greater access to mobile services. On the other hand, women face social and financial constraints which limit the use of ICT.

5.2.4. Infrastructure and Poor Network Connectivity

Limited infrastructure and weak network connectivity pose considerable challenges for smallholder farmers in SSA. Poor infrastructure restricts the farmer’s ability to have access to ICT services [33]. In many rural SSA areas, unstable electricity and limited telecommunication networks make consistent utilization of ICT challenging [40]. Weak network coverage discourages farmers from relying on using mobile platforms to access real-time market information [15]. Poor road and energy infrastructure limits the farmer’s ability to physically engage with digital markets [38]. Furthermore, remote rural communities suffer from frequent service interruptions, which limits farmer’s access to digital agricultural services [2].

5.2.5. Ineffective Extension Service

Ineffective extension services continue to limit the integration of ICT into smallholder farming systems. Extension systems in SSA are often understaffed and outdated, leaving farmers with limited assistance [40]. The limited reach of extension officers deprives farmers of timely and relevant information to their agricultural practice [34]. Conventional extension fails to introduce farmers to digital tools or to build technological knowledge [16]. These fragmented extension structures prevent the effective dissemination of ICT innovations [7]. Weak institutional support further limits farmers’ access to digital advisory services [1]. Table 7 below presents the potential barriers to the adoption of ICT and market participation among smallholder farmers in SSA.

6. Discussions

The adoption of digital tools and services such as mobile phones, basic apps, or advisory platforms holds real promise for smallholder farmers in SSA. Recent evidence suggests that ICT can boost productivity by ensuring better access to markets, effective resource management, and more efficient agricultural practices [41]. In areas where extension services and market linkages are weak or unreliable, ICT acts as a link between information and farmers. This is because ICTs equip farmers with timely information on important considerations for markets [42]. This implies that farmers move through different stages which are crucial for adoption. These stages include awareness, persuasion, decision making, implementation, and confirmation. This is due to the fact that technologies perceived as useful, compatible with existing practices, and easy to use are more likely to be adopted [43]. However, high costs and complexity continue to be a barrier, hindering the uptake of ICT.

Despite the opportunities relevant from adopting ICT, smallholder farmers face persistent barriers that limit their use. Structural challenges such as poor digital infrastructure, unreliable electricity, and weak network connectivity remain significant [44]. As much as numerous digital services are available, many smallholder farmers rely on mobile phones, as other devices are often unaffordable or ineffective in areas with poor connectivity [45]. This further depicts that the adoption of ICT depends on their perceived usefulness and ease of use. Low digital literacy and limited educational backgrounds reduce the farmers’ ability to engage with ICT effectively, while platforms not designed for low-literate users, or those who are not frequent in languages other than the local one, continue to strain adoption [46]. Moreover, adoption is uneven as wealthier or better-connected farmers benefit more, leaving those from marginalized groups and women at risk of exclusion [47]. Such disparities reveal the need for inclusive and context-specific interventions to prevent widening inequalities.

Apart from the abovementioned factors, broader livelihood considerations influence and are affected by ICT adoption. This is because these livelihood factors determine the accessibility and utilization of ICT which in turn enhances productivity and enhances them for overall development. Access to market information and advisory services may strengthen human capital such as knowledge and skills, while digital networks and community platforms improve social capital including community networks and advisory services [48,49]. Improved market opportunities enhance the farmer’s financial stability [42], whereas connectivity to input and infrastructure strengthens management of resources [50]. When used effectively, these benefits could contribute towards the smallholder farmer’s resilience and food security. However, gender disparities still affect access to these assets, as women usually face restricted access to resources [51] and limited power to make decisions [52], leading to reduced adoption and associated benefits.

Amidst the challenges observed, evidence shows that when ICT interventions are paired with supportive infrastructure, inclusive design such as dual-platform solutions for digital devices and capacity building through training or extension support, they have the potential to improve smallholder livelihoods and farm performance significantly [53].

7. Policy Context on Smallholder Poultry Production in SSA (Active Adoption and Benign Neglect)

Government policies towards poultry production in SSA vary greatly, having different impacts on smallholder poultry producers. This review mentioned the most dominant trends aimed at enhancing poultry production and are summarized as follows.

7.1. Active Promotion

There are several programs developed to improve poultry productivity, for example, the African Chicken Genetic Gain Project. This program began in November 2014 and aims to improve poultry genotypes and support smallholder poultry production and productivity growth as pathway to eradicate poverty in SSA [54]. This platform helps maintain genetic diversity and promote preservation of high-performance breeds. Another study by [55] indicated that Tropical Poultry Genetic Solutions (TPGS) project in Africa shows typically dual-purpose improved breeds to greatly increase the financial returns of farmers compared to indigenous breeds. Such initiatives are economically important as they minimize production costs and improve financial gains of smallholder farmers. The study further mentioned the necessity to subsidize inputs for poultry production in SSA as it reduces startups and transportation costs, which are major challenges for smallholder poultry producers.

In Tanzania and Kenya, community based vaccinators (CVs) supported by government and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) helped facilitated the uptake of vaccines to prevent the spread of Newcastle disease following structured farmer trainings in animal husbandry, biosecurity, and disease management [56]. These interventions were helpful as they did not only speed up the uptake of vaccines but also reduced the overall mortality rate of poultry birds.

Although these initiatives are helpful in the development of smallholder poultry sector, they struggle to incorporate smallholder producers in markets as they are at risk of being repelled by large poultry operations because they lack the political and economic power of large commercial companies [57]. This shows a lack of government support and weak policy interventions aimed at alleviating the poultry sector in SSA. With such initiatives not struggling to alleviate smallholder farmers, this emphasizes the existence of benign neglect.

7.2. Benign Neglect

Across Sub-Sahara, many smallholder farmers operate under minimal veterinary investments, poor extension support, and limited development programs; this is described as benign neglect [58]. This situation has several negative consequences on the growth and operation of poultry enterprises, especially those owned by smallholder farmers.

One of the most pressing challenges affecting smallholder poultry producers is the high burden of Newcastle disease. This recurring disease shows that it is not properly controlled in the region as a result of smallholder farmers facing limited access to vaccines [59,60]. According to Ogolla, Anyona, Chemuliti, Kimani, King’oo, Waweru, Omia, Nyamongo, and Bukachi [56], these vaccines are often unaffordable to vulnerable to smallholder farmers, as they recur annually.

Weak extension further worsens the challenges as farmers lack support on housing, disease prevention, and feed formulation, which forces them to rely on indigenous prevention systems. This lack of technical support increases the mortality rate in poultry birds and decreases the productivity of smallholder poultry farmers [55]. Smallholder poultry producers normally suffer from marginalized extension support, as extension agents often prioritize crops or large stock producers, leaving smallholder poultry farmers behind [61]. With poor service delivery to emerging poultry farmers, they continue to lack information and input support from government support structures, as the study further indicated that smallholder poultry producers face limited public investment in improved genetics, appropriate housing, and access to feed that lead to low productivity and high mortality in rural flocks.

Another burning issue affecting smallholder poultry producers is the high cost associated with poultry inputs. Essential inputs like feed, improved breeds, and vaccines are mostly unsubsidized in SSA, with feed accounting for a large portion of total costs [62]. This situation lowers the financial returns of farmers as most of their earnings are consumed by variable costs. As vulnerable poultry farmers cannot afford to purchase high-cost inputs, they are then forced to rely on low quality inputs which result in low productivity. Challenges including lack of business skills, poor infrastructure, and limited access to credit forces smallholder farmers to occupy informal markets as they face difficulties to meet institutional standards and market access requirements [63].

These barriers encountered by emerging poultry producers to access formal markets have led to high imports of frozen poultry in SSA. Chibanda, Thobe, Almadani, van Horne, Deblitz, and Wieck [31] indicated that poor market and trade policies have left many Sub-Saharan African smallholder poultry producers exposed to cheap frozen imports, outcompeting local prices and keeping smallholder producers out of formal market platforms. It was also emphasized by Knößlsdorfer and Qaim [64] that these high-volume imports from Brazil and European Nation countries (EU) have depressed producer prices in west and southern African markets despite occasional tariff increases aimed to protect the poultry industry.

These countries produce enough for themselves and dump low quality poultry to African markets at low prices because they are operating under production systems that lower their unit costs. For example, the poultry industry in Brazil benefits from favorable economies of scale, as well as a well-developed input supply chain and policy environment that effectively reduce production cost, allowing them to produce enough and export their low-quality produce to Sub-Saharan countries [64,65]. This indicates that by subsidizing poultry input prices in SSA, smallholder poultry producers can produce to the required market standards, and their productivity can significantly increase, allowing them to compete for market space with large commercial producers.

8. Conclusions

The world depends primarily on agriculture for food. Within the sector, poultry production plays a crucial role in providing affordable protein and supporting rural livelihoods. In SSA smallholder poultry farmers form a backbone of local poultry supply but continue to face several challenges compared to commercial producers. With large-scale producers having less challenges, they are having an advantage in occupying formal markets while smallholder producers are exposed to informal markets. Smallholder poultry producers’ exclusion from formal markets is highly influenced by limited access to reliable information and formal marketing opportunities. The reviewed articles demonstrated that ICTs have become increasingly vital in addressing these disparities.

Across the reviewed studies, ICT tools have indicated a huge potential to reduce information gaps, reinforce decision making, and connect poultry farmers to input and lucrative output markets. Jointly, these improvements translate into better farm management, increased market participation, and potential gains in income. The findings also highlighted that ICT adoption in SSA is not uniform, as gender disparities, infrastructural limitations, and high usage costs continue to hinder the adoption of ICT, especially for women and vulnerable producers in marginal areas.

By synthesizing evidence across these articles, this review emphasizes that meaningful digital transformation in the SSA region requires more than technology availability. The incorporation of ICT tools highly depends on addressing structural barriers shaping farmers’ capabilities, opportunities, and motivations. Strengthening the technical abilities of farmers, improving network connectivity in remote areas, reducing high costs related to ICT utilization, and enhancing extension service emerge as consistent priorities across studies. When these structural and gender inequalities are resolved, ICT can significantly enhance smallholder poultry farmers’ abilities to participate in formal markets, diversify their income, and contribute more effectively to local food systems in SSA.

This review paper promotes agricultural revolution through ICT adoption by smallholder poultry farmers in SSA, as ICT tools hold the potential to alleviate their livelihoods by enabling them to occupy market channels, giving them an opportunity to commercialize. Integrating smallholder poultry farmers into formal markets can help stabilize poultry production in SSA, create employment opportunities for people, significantly reduce poultry imports, and boost the overall agricultural sector. The review also recommends that relevant policies aimed at enhancing agricultural productivity should protect the poultry sector by imposing strong tariffs and ensure that smallholder poultry farmers are incorporated in formal markets and receive adequate ICT training to improve their technical skills.

9. Study Limitations

Although this review provides valuable insights into the role of ICT in smallholder poultry production in SSA, several limitations should be acknowledged. This review relied solely on English studies, which may limit the findings, as information written in other languages were not included. Secondly, the time frame and specific focus on stallholder poultry production also brought limitations. Recent developments and evolving digital technologies may not be fully incorporated as the study included articles from the years 2005–2024. Moreover, despite a systematic search across multiple databases, studies focusing on ICT in the context of smallholder production are very few, which limited the number of studies included in this review.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su18041788/s1, The supporting information includes the PRISMA checklist, adopted from Page et al. [66], the list of figures and the graphical abstract.

Author Contributions

M.X., Y.N., and P.J. formulated the review investigation, M.X. was responsible for data collection, analysis, interpretation, and original draft preparation, and Y.N. and P.J. supervised, reviewed, and edited the final draft. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data to support the findings from this review utilized numerous databases used in this review.

Acknowledgments

Authors acknowledge all sources of information used for this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:

PRISMA	Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
SDG	Sustainable Development Goal
SSA	Sub-Saharan Africa
ICT	Information and Communication Technology
DOI	Diffusion of Innovation Theory
SLF	Sustainable Livelihood Framework
TAM	Technology acceptance Model

Appendix A

Table A1. Outcomes, Outcome Type, Effect Measures, and Study Type.

Author (s)	Study Type	Outcome Type	Outcome	Effect Measure (s)	Measure Alignment	Interpretation
[7]	Qualitative	Sustainable agricultural insights	N/A	Thematic synthesis, narrative	No numerical effect measure; reported as themes/concepts	Identify key patterns in ICT adoption and sustainable practices
[5]	Quantitative	Nutrition and dietary outcomes	Continuous	Regression coefficient (β), marginal effects	β = unit change in outcome per unit predictor; marginal effect = probability change; threshold; trivial < 0.1, small 0.1–0.3, moderate 0.3–0.5, large > 0.5	β coefficient indicate that mobile phone access positively influenced nutrition outcomes; marginal effects show probability of improved dietary. Effect size moderate (β ≈ 0.3–0.4), meaning a meaningful improvement on nutrition per unit increase in mobile phone access
[14]	Quantitative	Digital literacy and ICT uptake	Continuous/Binary	Regression coefficient (β), mean differences	β = interpreted per unit change; Cohen’s d for mean differences; 0.2 small, 0.5 moderate, 0.8 large	β shows higher digital literacy increases likelihood of ICT adoption; mean difference indicates adoption rate was significantly higher among literate farmers. Effect size: moderate (Cohen’s d ≈ 0.5)
[4]	Quantitative	Household income	Continuous	Regression coefficient (β), income elasticities	Elasticity: % change in outcome per 1% change in predictor; Thresholds: <5% trivial, 5–15% small, 16–30% moderate, >30% large.	Positive β indicates internet use increases income; elasticity suggest 1% increase in internet use raises income by ≈15% (small-to- moderate)
[37]	Quantitative	Behavioral intentions towards ICT adoption	Continuous	Standardized path coefficients (β)	β = thresholds: 0.1 small, 0.3 moderate, 0.5 large	β ≈ 0.35 indicate moderate effect: intention strongly predicts ICT adoption among farmers
[34]	Quantitative	Market engagement	Binary	Marginal effects, odds ratios (OR)	OR = 1 no effect, OR 1.1–1.5 small, OR 1.6–2.5 moderate, OR > 2.5 large; marginal effect probability change, per unit predictor	OR ≈ 1.8 suggests moderate increase in profitability of participating in markets with ICT use; marginal effect shows 15% increase in profitability per unit change in predictor
[35]	Qualitative	Digital agriculture on supply trends	N/A	Thematic synthesis	Conceptual patterns; no numerical effect	Highlights major trends and supply-side actors; effect not quantified
[15]	Quantitative	ICT adoption and supply efficiency	Continuous	Technical efficiency scores	Score: 0 = least efficient, 1 = full efficient; improvement > 0.1 considered meaningful	Score improvement > 0.1 indicates meaningful increase in production efficiency with ICT adoption; interpreted as moderate effect.
[33]	Quantitative	ICT adoption in poultry farming	Continuous/Binary	Descriptive stats (%), β coefficients	Frequencies %; β interpreted as predictor unit; small < 0.1, moderate 0.1–0.3, large > 0.3	Positive β shows ICT use is associated with improved farm practices; frequency data indicate adoption was moderate; effect size small-to-moderate (β ≈ 0.2–0.3)
[38]	Quantitative	Usage of poultry related activities, binary	Binary	Logistic regression coefficient (β)/odd ratios for predictors (age, sex, education, farm size/experience, holding size)	Predictor effect = higher or lower likelihood of mobile phone usage	More educated farmers, young farmers, and those with large holdings. have significantly higher odds of using mobile phones for poultry activities; old age/smallholding reduces adoption likelihood.
[13]	Qualitative	Cooperative management framework	N/A	Thematic indicators, conceptual	Conceptual evaluation; no numerical effect	Provides a framework for sustainable cooperative management; no numerical effect.
[12]	Quantitative	Newcastle disease in smallholder poultry production	Binary	Risk Ratios (RR), Incidence Rates, β coefficients	RR = 1 no effect; RR 1.1–1.5 small, 1.6–2.5 moderate, >2.5 large; β coefficients interpreted per predictor unit	RR ≈ 1.7 for key risk factors indicates a moderate increase in risk of disease; β coefficients quantify contribution of specific predictors to incidence
[2]	Qualitative	Knowledge asymmetry in poultry production	N/A	Thematic analysis	Narrative description; no numerical effect	Highlights knowledge gaps and best practices; no numerical effect
[36]	Quantitative	ICT use and Poultry production efficiency	Continuous	Regression coefficients (β), mean differences	β = interpreted per unit change; Cohen’s d: 0.2 small, 0.5 moderate, 0.8 large	Positive β indicates ICT usage improves productivity, Cohen’s d ≈ 0.5, moderate effect.
[39]	Qualitative	Gender disparities in ICT utilization	N/A	Thematic synthesis	Conceptual outcomes; no numerical effect	ICT adoption influenced by gendered barriers; not quantified
[11]	Qualitative	Economic performance of broiler producing farms	N/A	Thematic synthesis	Narrative outcomes; no numerical effect	Reviews efficiency challenges and economic sustainability
[40]	Quantitative	Coping with digital extension challenges	Continuous	Descriptive stats (%), mean differences	% adoption. Mean difference interpreted using small < 0.2, moderate 0.5, large > 0.8	Descriptive data show significant proportion of farmers successfully coping; Mean difference moderate (0.4–0.5), indicating meaningful improvement in coping strategies
[1]	Quantitative	Extension agent competencies	Continuous	Composite scores, regression coefficients (β)	β = interpreted per unit change; composite score range 0–100 increase > points considered meaningful	Positive β indicates competences improve advisory performances; Increase > 5 points in composite score is meaningful (moderate effect)
[16]	Qualitative	ICT role in enhancing extension service	N/A	Thematic synthesis	Narrative description; no numerical effect	ICT supports sustainable livestock production through advisory services; effect not quantified

Note: N/A = Not Applicable. Source: Synthesis data (2025).

References

Aregaw, Y.G.; Endris, E.A.; Bojago, E. Factors Affecting the Competence Level of Agricultural Extension Agents: A Comprehensive Analysis of Core Competencies in Northwestern Ethiopia. Educ. Res. Int. 2023, 2023, 7928467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Nwobodo, C.E.; Okoronkwo, D.J.; Eze, R.I.; Ozorngwu, A.M.; Iwuchukwu, J.C.; Azuka, V.C.; Udoye, C.E. Knowledge Capabilities for Sustainable Poultry Production in Sub-Sahara Africa: Lessons from Southeast Nigeria. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Amede, T.; Konde, A.A.; Muhinda, J.J.; Bigirwa, G. Sustainable Farming in Practice: Building Resilient and Profitable Smallholder Agricultural Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Siaw, A.; Jiang, Y.S.; Twumasi, M.A.; Agbenyo, W. The Impact of Internet Use on Income: The Case of Rural Ghana. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Parlasca, M.C.; Mußhoff, O.; Qaim, M. Can mobile phones improve nutrition among pastoral communities? Panel data evidence from Northern Kenya. Agric. Econ. 2020, 51, 475–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Gallucci, A.; Trimarchi, P.D.; Abbate, C.; Tuena, C.; Pedroli, E.; Lattanzio, F.; Stramba-Badiale, M.; Cesari, M.; Giunco, F. ICT technologies as new promising tools for the managing of frailty: A systematic review. Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 2021, 33, 1453–1464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mushi, G.E.; Serugendo, G.D.; Burgi, P.Y. Digital Technology and Services for Sustainable Agriculture in Tanzania: A Literature Review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jolex, A.; Tufa, A. The Effect of ICT Use on the Profitability of Young Agripreneurs in Malawi. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Gillespie, S.; van den Bold, M. Agriculture, Food Systems, and Nutrition: Meeting the Challenge. Glob. Chall. 2017, 1, 1600002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Birhanu, M.Y.; Bruno, J.E.; Alemayehu, T.; Esatu, W.; Geremew, K.; Yemane, T.; Kebede, F.G.; Dessie, T. Beyond diffusion to sustained adoption of innovation: A case of smallholder poultry development in sub-Saharan Africa. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2022, 20, 1028–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ramukhithi, T.F.; Nephawe, K.A.; Mpofu, T.J.; Raphulu, T.; Munhuweyi, K.; Ramukhithi, F.V.; Mtileni, B. An assessment of economic sustainability and efficiency in small-scale broiler farms in limpopo province: A review. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Tsaxra, J.B.; Gallardo, R.A.; Abolnik, C.; Chengula, A.A.; Msoffe, P.L.M.; Muhairwa, A.P.; Phiri, T.; Mushi, J.R.; Chouicha, N.; Mollel, E.L.; et al. Spatiotemporal Patterns and Risk Factors for Newcastle Disease Virus among Chickens in a Tanzania Live Bird Market. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2024, 2024, 5597050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Chawviang, A.; Kiattisin, S.; Thirasakthana, M.; Mayakul, T. A Smart Co-Operative Management Framework Based on an EA Concept for Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Magesa, M.; Jonathan, J.; Urassa, J. Digital Literacy of Smallholder Farmers in Tanzania. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mwalupaso, G.E.; Wang, S.G.; Xu, Z.X.; Tian, X. Towards Auspicious Agricultural Informatization-Implication of Farmers’ Behavioral Intention Apropos of Mobile Phone Use in Agriculture. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mapiye, O.; Makombe, G.; Molotsi, A.; Kennedy, D.; Mapiye, C. Towards a Revolutionized Agricultural Extension System for the Sustainability of Smallholder Livestock Production in Developing Countries: The Potential Role of ICTs. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Adams, F.; Mensah, A.; Etuah, S.; Aidoo, R.; Asante, B.O.; Mensah, J.O. Modelling of vertical integration in commercial poultry production of Ghana: A count data model analysis. Heliyon 2022, 8, e11961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Oppong, A.K.; Donkor, E.; Asare, J.; Nimoh, K. Vertical integration strategies and the performance of poultry firms in Ghana. J. Agribus. Rural Dev. 2024, 3, 294–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mdemu, S.; Matondo, A.B.; Christensen, J.P.; Amasha, A.E.; Ngowi, H.A.; Westwood, E.; Ochai, S.O.; Nonga, H.E.; Osbjer, K.; Mdegela, R.H. Biosecurity practices and their determining factors in commercial layer chickens in selected regions of Tanzania. BMC Vet. Res. 2025, 21, 581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Nkukwana, T.T. Global poultry production: Current impact and future outlook on the South African poultry industry. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 48, 869–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Queenan, K.; Cuevas, S.; Mabhaudhi, T.; Chimonyo, M.; Slotow, R.; Häsler, B. A qualitative analysis of the commercial broiler system, and the links to consumers’ nutrition and health, and to environmental sustainability: A South African case study. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 650469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Omodara, O.D.; Oluwasola, O.; Oyebanji, T. Modelling Contract Farming Impact on Poultry Farm Income: Lessons from the Nigerian Anchor-Borrower Outgrowers’ Programme. J. Agric. Environ. Int. Dev. (JAEID) 2025, 119, 85–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ncube, P.; Roberts, S.; Zengeni, T. Development of the Animal Feed to Poultry Value Chain Across Botswana, South Africa, and Zimbabwe; WIDER Working Paper; ECONSTOR: Hamburg, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
Meseret, M.; Solomon, D.; Tadelle, D. Marketing system, socio economic role and intra household dynamics of indigenous chicken in Gomma Wereda, Jimma Zone, Ethiopia. Livest. Res. Rural Dev. 2011, 23, 2–11. [Google Scholar]
Bagopi, E.; Chokwe, E.; Halse, P.; Hausiku, J.; Humavindu, M.; Kalapula, W.; Roberts, S. Competition dynamics and regional trade flows in the poultry sector: The case of South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, and Zambia. In Proceedings of the Pre-ICN Forum, Marrakech, Morocco, 22–25 April 2014. [Google Scholar]
Nsomba, G.; Shedi, O. Market Development for Regional Industrialization and Sustainability: The Case of the Soybean to Poultry Value Chain; University of Johannesburg: Johannesburg, South Africa, 2023. [Google Scholar]
Goga, S.; Bosiu, T. Governance of poultry value chains-A comparative perspective on developing capabilities in South Africa and Brazil. In Johannesburg: Industrial Development Think Tank (IDTT); University of Johannesburg: Johannesburg, South Africa, 2019. [Google Scholar]
Ochieng, P.E.; Scippo, M.-L.; Kemboi, D.C.; Croubels, S.; Okoth, S.; Kang’ethe, E.K.; Doupovec, B.; Gathumbi, J.K.; Lindahl, J.F.; Antonissen, G. Mycotoxins in poultry feed and feed ingredients from Sub-Saharan Africa and their impact on the production of broiler and layer chickens: A review. Toxins 2021, 13, 633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ochieng, P.E.; Croubels, S.; Kemboi, D.; Okoth, S.; De Baere, S.; Cavalier, E.; Kang’ethe, E.; Faas, J.; Doupovec, B.; Gathumbi, J. Effects of aflatoxins and fumonisins, alone or in combination, on performance, health, and safety of food products of broiler chickens, and mitigation efficacy of bentonite and fumonisin esterase. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2023, 71, 13462–13473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kizza, D.; Okello, S.; Kalule, D.N.; Winfred, A.; Azuba, R.; Nalubwama, S.; Margret, N.; Joshua, I.; Immaculate, N.; Kayemba, V. Perceptions of veterinary extension staff regarding poultry feed and ingredients in selected districts of Uganda: A qualitative study. Discov. Food 2024, 4, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Chibanda, C.; Thobe, P.; Almadani, M.I.; van Horne, P.; Deblitz, C.; Wieck, C. Improving broiler farm competitiveness in Ghana and Senegal: Insights from comparative analysis with Germany and The Netherlands. Agric. Food Secur. 2024, 13, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Olaniyi, O. Assessment of utilization of information and communication technologies (ICTs) among poultry farmers in Nigeria: An emerging challenge. Transnatl. J. Sci. Technol. 2013, 3, 29–43. [Google Scholar]
Nwafor, C.U.; Ogundeji, A.A.; van Der Westhuizen, C. Adoption of ICT-based information sources and market participation among smallholder livestock farmers in South Africa. Agriculture 2020, 10, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Birner, R.; Daum, T.; Pray, C. Who drives the digital revolution in agriculture? A review of supply-side trends, players and challenges. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2021, 43, 1260–1285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Umar, A.I.; Olayiwola, S.A.; Egbeadumah, M.O.; Kefas, K.; Alahira, J.C. Effects of information communication and technology (ICT) usage on poultry farmers in Jalingo Local Government Area of Taraba State, Nigeria. Sci. Pap. Ser. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural Dev. 2022, 22, 773–778. [Google Scholar]
Mwalupaso, G.E.; Wang, S.; Rahman, S.; Alavo, E.J.-P.; Xu, T. Agricultural Informatization and Technical Efficiency in Maize Production in Zambia. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Folitse, B.Y.; Manteaw, S.A.; Dzandu, L.P.; Obeng-Koranteng, G.; Bekoe, S. The determinants of mobile-phone usage among small-scale poultry farmers in Ghana. Inf. Dev. 2019, 35, 564–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Zougmoré, R.B.; Partey, S.T. Gender Perspectives of ICT Utilization in Agriculture and Climate Response in West Africa: A Review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dube, M.; Francis, J.; Maliwichi, L. Beneficiaries’ strategies for coping with extension challenges in poultry-based poverty alleviation projects in a rural local municipality of South Africa. S. Afr. J. Agric. Ext. 2018, 46, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Nxumalo, G.S.; Chauke, H. Challenges and opportunities in smallholder agriculture digitization in South Africa. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2025, 9, 1583224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Choruma, D.J.; Dirwai, T.L.; Mutenje, M.J.; Mustafa, M.; Chimonyo, V.G.P.; Jacobs-Mata, I.; Mabhaudhi, T. Digitalisation in agriculture: A scoping review of technologies in practice, challenges, and opportunities for smallholder farmers in sub-saharan africa. J. Agric. Food Res. 2024, 18, 101286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Aziz, M.A.; Ayob, N.H.; Ayob, N.A.; Ahmad, Y.; Abdulsomad, K. Factors influencing farmer adoption of climate-smart agriculture technologies: Evidence from Malaysia. Hum. Technol. 2024, 20, 70–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ayim, C.; Kassahun, A.; Addison, C.; Tekinerdogan, B. Adoption of ICT innovations in the agriculture sector in Africa: A review of the literature. Agric. Food Secur. 2022, 11, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Abdulai, A.-R.; Tetteh Quarshie, P.; Duncan, E.; Fraser, E. Is agricultural digitization a reality among smallholder farmers in Africa? Unpacking farmers’ lived realities of engagement with digital tools and services in rural Northern Ghana. Agric. Food Secur. 2023, 12, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Naseri, R.N.N.; Idris, N.H. Addressing Low Digital Literacy Among Rural Farmers Through the AGRIKIT. Int. J. Res. Innov. Soc. Sci. 2025, 9, 5202–5208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Abdulai, A.-R. Toward digitalization futures in smallholder farming systems in Sub-Sahara Africa: A social practice proposal. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2022, 6, 866331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Gong, S.; Jiang, L.; Yu, Z. Can digital human capital promote farmers’ willingness to engage in green production? Exploring the role of online learning and social networks. Behav. Sci. 2025, 15, 227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Mukul, K.; Sheeri, G. A Study on Social Capital and Incubation in Enriching Rural Entrepreneurship in Rural Areas. J. Entrep. Manag. 2024, 13, 8. [Google Scholar]
Das, D.K. Exploring the symbiotic relationship between digital transformation, infrastructure, service delivery, and governance for smart sustainable cities. Smart Cities 2024, 7, 806–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Chikwe, C.F.; Kuteesa, C.; Ediae, A.A. Gender equality advocacy and socio-economic inclusion: A comparative study of community-based approaches in promoting women’s empowerment and economic resilience (2022). Int. J. Sci. Res. Updates 2024, 8, 110–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pedroza-Gutiérrez, C.; Solano, N.; Fernández-Rivera-Melo, F.; Hernández-Herrera, I. What are the factors that enable or hinder gender equality? Lessons and experiences on gender dynamics in Mexican small-scale fisheries. Mar. Policy 2024, 159, 105944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Raghunath, A.; Metzger, A.L.; Easton, H.; Liu, X.; Wang, F.; Wang, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Mpogole, H.; Anderson, R. eKichabi v2: Designing and scaling a dual-platform agricultural technology in rural Tanzania. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Honolulu, HI, USA, 11–16 May 2024; pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar]
Dessie, T. Progress Narrative: African Chicken Genetic Gains Program; CGIAR: Montpellier, France, 2018. [Google Scholar]
Birhanu, M.Y.; Osei-Amponsah, R.; Yeboah Obese, F.; Dessie, T. Smallholder poultry production in the context of increasing global food prices: Roles in poverty reduction and food security. Anim. Front. 2023, 13, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ogolla, K.O.; Anyona, D.N.; Chemuliti, J.K.; Kimani, W.W.; King’oo, F.M.; Waweru, K.M.; Omia, D.O.; Nyamongo, I.K.; Bukachi, S.A. Effectiveness of a community-centered Newcastle disease vaccine delivery model under paid and free vaccination frameworks in southeastern Kenya. PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0308088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Chaiban, C.; Robinson, T.P.; Fèvre, E.M.; Ogola, J.; Akoko, J.; Gilbert, M.; Vanwambeke, S. Early intensification of backyard poultry systems in the tropics: A case study. Animal 2020, 14, 2387–2396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Seré, C. Investing Sustainably in African Livestock Development: Opportunities and Trade-Offs; 3688901; SSRN: Rochester, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
Apeh, D.; Hassan, A.; Jibril, S.; Garba, M.; Haruna, V. Assessing Constraints to Newcastle Disease Vaccine (I2) Adoption Among Smallholder Local Chicken Farmers in Plateau State, Nigeria. Niger. J. Agric. Agric. Technol. 2025, 5, 191–200. [Google Scholar]
Mramba, R.P.; Mapunda, P.E.; Kisanga, A.C. Newcastle disease awareness and vaccination practices among indigenous chicken farmers in the Biharamulo district of Tanzania. Poult. Sci. Manag. 2025, 2, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Manyakanyaka, B.; Modirwa, S.; Tshwene, C.; Maoba, S. Assessment of extension services on capacity building of smallholder livestock farmers in Midvaal local municipality, Gauteng province. S. Afr. J. Agric. Ext. 2022, 50, 173–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wilson, W.C.; Slingerland, M.; Oosting, S.; Baijukya, F.P.; Smits, A.-J.; Giller, K.E. The diversity of smallholder chicken farming in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania reveals a range of underlying production constraints. Poult. Sci. 2022, 101, 102062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mthombeni, S.; Bove, D.; Thibane, T.; Makgabo, B. An Analysis of the Barriers to Entry and Expansion Limiting and Preventing Access to Markets for Emerging Farmers; Working Paper CC2019/03; The Competition Commission of South Africa: Pretoria, South Africa, 2019. [Google Scholar]
Knößlsdorfer, I.; Qaim, M. Cheap chicken in Africa: Would import restrictions be pro-poor? Food Secur. 2023, 15, 791–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Madibana, M.; Fouche, C.; Manyeula, F. Chicken Dumping In South Africa And The Long-Term Effects On Local Commercial Chicken Farming Industry: A Review. Afr. J. Food Agric. Nutr. Dev. 2024, 24, 25559–25577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Moher, D. Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: Development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2021, 134, 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]