Participatory Epidemiology and Seroprevalence of Newcastle Disease in Local Chickens in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja Nigeria
– Participatory Epidemiology and Seroprevalence of Newcastle Disease in Local Chickens in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja Nigeria –
Download Participatory Epidemiology and Seroprevalence of Newcastle Disease in Local Chickens in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja Nigeria project materials: This project material is ready for students who are in need of it to aid their research.
ABSTRACT
Newcastle Disease (ND) constitutes an impediment to poultry production and health with increasing number of cases reported yearly by private veterinarians in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in commercial farms, but the epidemiological status of the disease in local chickens is unknown and outbreaks are usually not reported.
The objectives of the study were to determine the importance of poultry in relation to other livestock, the importance of ND in relation to other poultry diseases, the presence and levels of antibodies to ND and management constraints of rural chickens.
The study was carried out between April and June, 2012. Semi-structured interviews (SSIs), proportional piling, ranking, matrix scoring, seasonal calendar, mapping and transect walk were used on 40 informant groups in 40 purposively selected villages of the FCT to determine the perception of poultry owners on the clinical signs of ND in local chickens.
In addition, 400 serum samples collected from local chickens in the villages were screened for ND virus antibodies using haemagglutination inhibition test (HI) and information on husbandry and management practices was obtained from 400 selected rural poultry owners using a structured questionnaire.
The participatory epidemiology (PE) data were subjected to descriptive statistics and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) was calculated to determine the level of agreement between the informant groups. Also, HI test results and information on husbandry and production constraints were subjected to descriptive statistics.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cover Page————————————————————————————-i
Title Page————————————————————————————– ii
Declaration———————————————————————————— iii
Certification———————————————————————————– iv
Dedication————————————————————————————- v
Acknowledgements————————————————————————— vi
Abstract—————————————————————————————- viii
Table of Content—————————————————————————— x
List of Figures——————————————————————————– xiii
List of Tables——————————————————————————— xiv
List of Plates———————————————————————————- xvii
List of Appendices—————————————————————————xviii
List of Abbreviations and Symbols——————————————————–xix
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION—————————————————– 1
1.1 Background of the study—————————————————————- 1
1.2 Statement of research problem——————————————————— 9
1.3 Justification of the study————————————————————— 10
1.4 Aim of the study———————————————————————— 11
1.5 Objectives of the study—————————————————————– 11
1.6 Research questions———————————————————————- 12
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW——————————————– 13
2.1 History of Participatory Epidemiology———————————————– 13
2.2 Participation concept and Livestock Development——————————— 18
2.3 Participatory Appraisal Methods—————————————————— 21
2.4 Existing Veterinary Knowledge——————————————————- 24
CHAPTER THREE: MATERIALS AND METHODS——————————— 26
3.1 Study Area——————————————————————————— 26
3.2 Study Population————————————————————————– 29
3.3 Study Design—————————————————————————— 29
3.4. Data Collection————————————————————————— 30
3.5 Data Analysis—————————————————————————— 37
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS————————————————————– 39
4.1 Participatory Epidemiology————————————————————- 39
4.2 Serology———————————————————————————— 49
4.3 Local Chickens Production and Management Constraints————————– 52
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION———————————————————– 69
CHAPTER SIX: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS– 79
6.1 Summary———————————————————————————– 79
6.2 Conclusions——————————————————————————– 80
6.3 Recommendations————————————————————————- 81
References————————————————————————————– 82
Appendices————————————————————————————- 93
INTRODUCTION
There is a growing understanding that rural people are knowledgeable on the many subjects that touch their lives and that they possess a creativity and analytical capacity which can greatly assist in the development of improved agricultural practices (Chambers, 1991). Sriskandarajah et al., (1989) suggested that knowledge is not a commodity for transfer from the informed to the uninformed, but the outcome of a dynamic, collaborative process between co-learners.
According to Mariner (1999), livestock owners are no longer seen as an inert substrate upon which development is to be practiced; they are active participants who can and must bring important intellectual contributions to development.
Schwabe (1982) and Thrusfield (1995), reported that there are many anomalies that influenced a shift towards a broader-based investigation of animal diseases that were not amenable to conventional investigation and control strategies viz complex infectious diseases (e.g. tuberculosis and brucellosis), subclinical diseases, non- infectious diseases and diseases of unknown cause.
With regard to rinderpest, Plowright (1998) has indicated that ‘nomadic cattle owners could give uninitiated professionals a firm diagnosis of rinderpest and had even husbanded mild strains purposely to immunize their young stock’.
Also, Masiga (1997) observed that scientists’ efforts at controlling trypanosomoses in Africa over many years had met with limited success due to failure of farmers’ participation.
According to Huhn and Baumann (1996), among the problems facing veterinary research in sub-Saharan Africa were insufficient applied researches to solve field problems contributing to development and poor working relationships between research centres 23 and farmers.
Consequently, ideas about agricultural development are changing to incorporate new ideas on farmer participation and a range of approaches have been developed.
REFERENCES
Abdou, I. and, Bell, J. G. (1992). Dynamique de la volaille villageoise dans la région de keita au Niger.
In: Village Poultry Production in Africa., Proceedings of an International Workshop held in
Rabat, Morocco, 7-11 May 1992, pp. 6-11.Abdu , P.A., George, J.B., Abdullahi, S.U and Umoh, J.U. (1985). Poultry diseases diagnosed at the
avian clinic of Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria. A retrospective study. Nig. Vet. J. 140 63-65.
Formatted: Font: ItalicAbdu, P. A.,; George, J. B.,; Abdullahi, S. U. and Umoh, J. U. (1985). Poultry diseases diagnosed at the
Avian Clinic of Ahmadu Bello University-Zaria: A retrospective study. Nigerian Veterinary
Journal, 14 (1): 63-65.Abdu, P. A., Abdullahi, S. U., Adesiyun, A. A. and Ezeokoli, C. D. (1987). Challenge study on
infectious bursal disease in chicks derived from vaccinated hens. Tropical Animal Health
Production, 19:57-52.Adene, D. F. (1990). Country report on the management and health problems of rural poultry stock in
Nigeria. In: Proceedings of Centre for Tropical Agriculture. Seminar on Smallholder Rural
Poultry Production, Thessaloniki, Greece, pp. 175-182.Adene, D. F. (1997). Diseases of Poultry in Nigeria. An overview of the problems and solution. Tropical.
Veterinarian., 15:103-110.Adene, D. F. and Oguntade, A.E. (2006). FAO Animal Production and Health Division. Poultry Sector
Country Review.
CSN Team.
