Food security and economic importance of family poultry (chicken) husbandry program in Artibonite and South departments of Haiti

V P Nchinda, O Thieme*, P Ankers*, V Crespi** and S Ariste***

IRAD (Institute of Agricultural Research for Development) Bambui, Box 80, Bamenda-Cameroon
petenstebe@yahoo.com
* FAO, Animal Production and Health Division, Rome
** FAO, Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Rome
*** FAO, Haiti

Abstract

The objective of this study was to determine the food security and economic importance of family poultry (chicken) husbandry intervention in the Artibonite and South departments of Haiti. Data were collected from 132 respondents following a quasi-experimental research design and triangulated using case studies findings of nine family poultry enterprises and secondary data of similar intervention in the areas covered. Data analysis was done using STATA version 10 and excel spreadsheet.

The analysis revealed that the net margins were US$38.4 and US$226 from survey and case study data respectively with participants of the poultry development project making more profit than those who had been selected but not yet been supported by the project. The net margin from chicken rearing represents 7.3%, 3.2% and 2.2% of non-food, food and total monthly household expenditures respectively well above those of the not yet involved participants. The analysis of the data showed that out of the total number of 96 eggs disposed of each year (and per family) an average of 39 were sold, 39 consumed and 18 given out as gifts. The project participants were significantly (P<0.05) better off as far as the number of fowls sold or given away are concerned compared to the newly recruited beneficiaries. The family poultry (chicken) husbandry support program was therefore profitable for the beneficiaries and contributed to the welfare of participants. The sustainable development and uptake of family poultry could be a critical strategy for livelihood improvement and poverty alleviation in the post earthquake and poverty stricken Haiti.  However, measures need to be taken to reduce the primary constraints of bird mortality by securing a sustainable vaccination system, ensuring that producers adopt appropriate bio-security and management practices, and by regular follow-up from competent technical services and the access to inputs. 

Key words: Family poultry support, profitability, impact, welfare

Introduction

Family poultry has been increasingly recognized as one of the entry points to address the problems of malnutrition, food insecurity, low income and poverty as a whole. In fact, Gawande et al (2007) and Dei et al (2009) argue that family poultry is a profitable venture and eventually a tool for livelihood improvement and poverty alleviation (Dolberg 2007, Fasina et al 2007, Sharma 2007). Family poultry contributes subsidiary rural family income (Sonaiya 2007) especially for the landless (De Lasson & Dolberg 1985) and women who are very active in family poultry husbandry. This activity empowers women financially (Riise et al undated), and improves the educational and nutritional status of children (Pitt et al 2003) through the gained income and the intake of poultry and eggs. Moreover, rustic chickens have important cultural values (Laroche & Awono 2008), they are highly preferred and keeping them remains a major livestock rearing activity for 95% of rural households in Haiti (MARNDR 2007). The estimated population of four millions birds in Haiti is largely insufficient to meet the domestic demand which is partly satisfied by importing 12.6 millions of chickens annually (MARNDR 2010).

The importance of family poultry and a request of the Haitian Government in 2002 led to three projects for “Small-scale Poultry Farming” that were implemented between 2002 and 2010 by the Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Rural Development (MARNDR) and the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations. The National Programme for Food Security (NPFS) was responsible for providing technical assistance in collaboration with related ministerial services while the financial management was entrusted to FAO. The support provided by the projects consisted of capacity building activities for smallholder farmers, extension workers, veterinary officers, community volunteer vaccinators and partner institutions in selected areas crucial to the development of family poultry in the Artibonite and South departments. Periodic vaccination campaigns were organised each year. Infrastructure (e.g. coops) and small material support was also included in the services offered to the farmers during the intervention period. Exotic cocks (Plymouth, Leghorn and Rhode Island Red breed roosters), subsidies for purchasing indigenous hens and initial feed supplements were also provided to farmers (Crespi & GuerneBleich 2005 & 2007).

The analysis of the importance for food security and the economic viability of family poultry based on an understanding of the innovation and local conditions can guide policy makers and development agencies (Sonaiya 2007; Guèye 2003a). It may also serve the purpose of accountability and feedback to funders and tax-payers that had allocated resources for the development of family poultry husbandry in Haiti. An assessment of the economic and food security importance of the family poultry support program in the departments of intervention was missing which was therefore the objective of this study.

Materials and method

Study area

The study was carried out in five of the twelve council areas in the Artibonite and South departments of Haiti where family poultry support intervention had been either implemented or planned. The five council areas were chosen purposively to consider potential differences within the departments, diversity of husbandry systems, the introduced innovations (enhanced technical skills, housing and improved cocks) and areas of food deficiency. The choice of the council areas was also guided by the intention to reach out to newly recruited program participants given the fact that it was a quasi-experimental research design.

Data Collection

First, data were gathered from secondary sources principally from the 2007 monthly monitoring and evaluation forms of the previous phase of a similar family poultry support programme available at the National Programme for Food Security (NPFS). The latter collected these data from the records kept by the farmers over a period of nine months. With the help of a guide, primary data were gathered from nine key informants or family poultry enterprises. Observations were also used to collect some of the information that could not have been captured with the guide or questionnaires. Primary data were also collected by using structured questionnaires from a total of 132 respondents of whom 59 (44.7%) were newly recruited and 73 (55.3%) old project participants. Newly recruited project participants (control group) were those farmers that had just been selected and yet to benefit from the support of the project. The “old” farmers were those that had been participating in previous phases of the poultry support program between 2 and 8 years ago. These participants are described as the treated group or old project participants that have already benefitted from the project in terms of training, hen subvention, cocks, coops construction and feed subsidy. The respondents consisted of 83 males (63%) and 49 females (37%); the structure of the data set and the distribution of respondents to the five council areas is shown in Table 1.

Nine family poultry enterprises (including two non-project poultry enterprises) from the six council areas in table 1 were also reached for a profitability assessment. The prevailing family poultry production systems (scavenging and semi-intensive) described by Guèye (2003b) were taken into consideration while making the economic assessment of the family poultry. 

Data collected

The socioeconomic data collected from the respondents include personal and household characteristics such as household size, monthly household food and non-food expenses, marital status, sex, age, literacy level and main occupation. Data gathered on income and asset base included land holding and, income from eggs, chicken husbandry and other livestock such as pigs, cattle and goats. The information collected about the family poultry enterprises included inputs (feed, medicines/vaccines, coop, labour and birds) expenses and income from sales (birds, eggs and manure). The initial values of fixed assets like the coops were depreciated using the constant depreciation method. The prices of equipment and materials used were obtained from the local market closest to each site; the cost of labour was determined based on the prevailing rate at each site and as recommended by the Haitian government. The data collected on flock characteristics included the number of chicks, pullets, cocks, and the laying and rearing performance of hens. The numbers of eggs/fowls sold, consumed or given away were also recorded. Secondary data collected from the records of NPFS include (155) farmers’ monthly income and expenditure on family poultry husbandry recorded over a period of nine months.  

Data analysis

Data were analysed using STATA version 10 and for the economic analysis of family poultry husbandry based on the partial budget method using MS Excel. Annual constant depreciation of assets, essentially coops was applied. Gross margins, net income and related benefit-cost ratios for the family poultry enterprises were also determined. In order to determine the average annual poultry income, the value of eggs and fowls sold, consumed or given out as gifts were estimated or extracted from the farmers’ records for the period between September 2009 and September 2010. Triangulation of this analysis was made using data from nine family poultry enterprises across the council areas reached and data collected during the second phase of the poultry intervention in 2007. This consisted of comparing the margins determined using data from primary and secondary sources. The T-test and partial budget methods were used to determine mean differences between the project beneficiaries (treated) and the control group.

In order to determine the proportion of earned chicken income to monthly household, food and non-food expenditure, the determined values of mean and gross margins were expressed as a percentage of monthly households’ food and non-food expenditure. Similarly, the net and gross margins were also expressed as a percentage of other income earned from other livestock like pigs, cattle and goats.

Results and Discussion

Socioeconomic characteristics of respondents

Agriculture is the main Income Generating Activity (IGA) declared by 49.2% of the respondents followed by petty trading for 26.5% of them. The rest of the respondents are employed (8.40%), rear other animals (7.63%) like cows, goats and pigs or do other things not mentioned (6.87%) to earn a living. Only 1.53% of the respondents consider family poultry as the main income generating activity. Family poultry is a subsidiary activity carried out by the entire family with women and children playing a major role. It is also a hobby for men who take time off to organise what is generally described as “cock fighting”. These are weekly competitions during which specially trained rustic cocks fight against one another for a ransom agreed upon by the cock owners.

In fact, agriculture and petty trading are the two main income generating activity in both departments of Artibonite and South. Meanwhile, the level of education differs among the respondents. The primary level of education was reported by 38.2% of the respondents; secondary school level by 35.1% and the university level by 5.3%. 21.4 % of the respondents have never been to school.

The average age of the respondents considered in the South department (53.4 years) was significantly higher (P<0.01) than their counterparts of Artibonite with an average age of 47.1 years.  The household size (6.9) of the respondents of the South department was also significantly higher (P<0.01) than that of the respondents of the Artibonite department with an average household size of 5.2.  There were no recorded significant differences (P<0.05) between the two departments as far as the number of adults and children are concerned (table 2).  

A significant difference was found between the respondents of Artibonite and the South departments as concerns their monthly savings and food expenses. The mean monthly food expenses for the Artibonite respondents (US $172.6) is significantly higher (P<0.01) than the corresponding monthly food expenses for those of the South (US $90.5).  However, the average land holding of the Artibonite respondents that stands at 1.1ha is not significantly (P<0.05) greater than the average land size (0.80ha) declared by the respondents from the South.  

 Table 3 shows the class distribution of land holdings among the respondents of the departments of Artibonite and South, respectively. About forty nine percent (48.9) of the respondents in Artibonite own land well above 1.2 ha with another 34% owning land in the class range of 0.81-1.2 ha. The other 17% of the respondents from Artibonite own ≤0.80ha of land. Of the respondents from the South department 39.7% own at least ≤0.80ha of land, 7.1% own land in the class range of 0.80-1.2 ha and the rest (40.5%) own more than 1.2 ha. Overall, 43.2%, the respondents own more than 1.20ha of land.

The analysis of the socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents gives an overview of the category of persons that were included in the survey. However, it is worth noting that Sletten and Egset (2004) concluded that poverty in Haiti is not determined by differences in household characteristics and land ownership but rather by geographical factors like location characterized by climatic conditions, lack of infrastructure and soil erosion. Respondents were selected from different geographical locations to determine the profitability of the family poultry enterprise.

Benefit-Cost analysis of family chicken husbandry

The average annual expenditure incurred from the rearing of birds under the scavenging system stood at USD 77.5 (table 4). This fixed cost represents 46% of the total yearly expenditure whereas the expenditure on medication, vaccines and feed (variable cost) accounts for 54% of the annual expenses. The average amount spent on the construction of a coop was US $7.9 higher among the old project participants than for the control group. This is explained by the fact that the coops of the old project participants were bigger in size than those of the recently chosen participants. The data collected from the nine family poultry enterprises or producers in the project area puts the annualised average cost of chicken husbandry at US $669. The fixed cost (FC) accounts for 42% of the annual expenditure with variable cost (VC) representing 58% of the latter (table 5). These expenses are determined by the spending for the construction of coops, purchase of feed mills, terrain ‘lease’ and stock of chicken.

The analysis of field data collected during nine months in 2007 by the family poultry support staff leads to the conclusion that the average annual variable expenditure for running a chicken farm enterprise was US $63.1. Only variable costs were considered as the investment expenses were not recorded. The differences in fixed and variable costs observed by the survey, the recorded field data and the study of nine family poultry enterprises is explained by the socioeconomic context of the chicken husbandry, management practices, investment in the enterprises and inflation.

The analysis of data collected by way of survey revealed that an average family poultry (chicken) rearer makes an annual income of US $ 115.9 based on the assumption that the eggs and fowls consumed or given away as gift could equally be sold at the prevailing prices (US $ 0.11-$0.25) at which eggs were sold over the years and US $ 5.00-US $ 15.00 for fowls as provided by the respondents. Based on this working assumption, the analysed survey data show that an average farmer would get from the enterprise a gross margin of US $74.0.  

 Similarly, a positive gross margin was also determined using the data collected from nine family poultry enterprises (table 5) operating with either scavenging or semi-intensive systems in the South and Artibonite departments. The analysis in table 5 shows that an average chicken entrepreneur attains a gross margin of US $429 and a net benefit of US$ 226. All the nine farmers whose enterprises were studied either break-even or make profit without system boundary losses. The average benefit–cost ratio was 1.5, showing that smallholder chicken husbandry intervention is a profitable venture. This ratio was up to 2.8 in one of the scavenging system-based enterprises. It will even be more profitable if the coops were fully exploited. 

 The analysis of secondary data collected in 2007 by the project technicians also show that the average monthly gross margin for family poultry enterprise was US $12.1 with an estimated annual gross margin of US $144.7 (table 6).  The monthly gross margins were positive throughout the nine months period during which data were collected. However, these gross margins varied from one month to the other. The highest net gross margins were recorded in the months of February and July where the flock size was quite substantial. These are months preceding those of New Castle outbreaks. Following these months farmers reduce their stock to avoid losses due to the Newcastle disease.

 The gross margins were US$74.0, US$144.7 and US$429 based on the analysis of data from a survey, farmers’ records and case studies, respectively. The net margins were US$38.4 and US$226 from the survey and the case study data, respectively with project participants making more profit than those who are still to benefit from the project support. Family poultry husbandry is therefore a profitable venture for smallholder farmers. When these farmers are provided support as it was the case with the current family poultry intervention, the participants can make even better profit margins from the activity.  

Contributions of family poultry to welfare of participants

Family poultry is universally known as an entry points into addressing the problems of malnutrition, food insecurity and poverty especially as Gawande et al (2007) and Dei et al (2009) argue that family poultry is a profitable venture. Thus, it is considered as a tool for livelihood improvement and poverty alleviation (Fasina et al 2007; Sharma 2007). The support in promoting family poultry (chicken) husbandry was meant to improve the livelihood of the participants. The fundamental question is whether the innovation or support provided to the participants of the projects permitted them to improve on their food security status and income.

The analysis of the survey data and triangulation with the 2007 data from NPFS revealed that the project participants as well as non-participants make a profit from chicken husbandry irrespective of whether the system is scavenging or semi-intensive. Using a monthly net margin based on the data from Table 4 and expressed as a percentage of the food and non-food monthly expenditure shows that support to chicken husbandry could boost household food and non-food expenditure. In fact, the analysis shows that the net profit margin of the project participants is twice as high as that of the newly chosen participants. The net margins earned by participants represent 7.3%, 3.2% and 2.2% of the non-food, food and total monthly household expenditures, respectively which was well above the figures of the new participants (Table 7). Similar trends also hold with gross margins accounting for up to 13.1% and 5.7% of the non-food and food expenses, respectively with project participants still fairing better than the newly chosen participants. This can be explained by the higher body weight and thus better prices of the crosses between the local hens and the exotic cocks distributed by the project as well as the larger number and bigger size of the eggs of the crossbred that also sell at higher prices compared to the eggs from local hens. The crossbred eggs also sell better for breeding purposes as they are considered “improved”. 

These earnings from family poultry represent 23.8%-45.8% of the income earned from the sale of other livestock (such as goats, sheep, cows) with project participants still taking a lead over the newly recruited participants. The earned net margin represents 28.4% and 18.3% of income earned each year from the sale of other livestock by old project participants and newly chosen participants, respectively. The gross margin could represent as much as 51.2% of the other livestock sales by the project participants each year compared to 18.3% for newly chosen participants. This indicates that the intervention added value to the participants’ livelihood.

Some of the eggs laid by the chickens were sold (39), consumed (39) or given out (18) to friends and relatives as gifts. If we assume that these eggs (96) disposed of each year is what is available for consumption, then it is still far below a recommended 180 per capita eggs meat availability per year (Sharma 2007). The project participants were better off as the numbers of fowls reportedly sold or given out were significantly (P<0.05) higher than those sold or given out by the newly recruited counterparts (Table 8). The average number of eggs not used for incubation but set aside for sale, consumption or gift from each improved hen was five per laying cycle or an estimated total of 17 per annum instead of total of 6 per annum from each rustic hen. Project participants tend to give out a higher number of eggs to friends and relatives than the newly recruited participants which creates a new dynamic. Since these eggs are considered “improved”, one can assume that they are used in friends’ or relatives’ flocks for hatching. No significant difference was found between old and new participants as far as egg and fowl consumption are concerned. Because of being “improved” the value attached to the products is higher and more are sold for better prices. For instance, the price of an “improved” egg ($0.25) was up to twice as high as the price of eggs derived from rustic hens ($0.12). The same was true for crossbred birds that were sold at prices ($13.7) up to twice as high as rustic birds ($6.2).  

 It was reported that the (small) additional income made from the sale of fowls and eggs was used to meet school expenses of children as well as some of the household non-food needs. The intervention for improving poultry production therefore permitted the participants to make improvements to their welfare and the household as a whole which were small but not negligible. Despite these achievements there are still many improvements that can be made to fully exploit the egg production capacity of the crossbred birds.  

Discussion

Overall, the net margin from chickens of an average farmer was positive and estimated at US $38.4 with higher net margins (US $48.8) for project participants than for the newly recruited participants (US $27.3) (Table 4). This indicates that the intervention had a positive effect on the income of project participants. Njue et al (2006) also reported positive net margins in Kenya following a vaccination intervention that accounted for a 3.36 returns on investment. The analysis shows a net positive income for family poultry enterprises irrespective of system and particularly better for the project participants. The support provided to the farmers over the years in the Artibonite and South departments of Haiti permitted the beneficiaries to earn income which is estimated to be $21.2 higher than the amount earned by the control group. The benefit-cost ratio ranged from 1.0 - 2.8 with an overall value of 1.5. However, more income could still be earned by these farmers if their enterprise would be properly managed, attention paid to vaccination, feeding, the coops fully exploited and birds culled at appropriate moments.

The net margins earned by the participants represent 7.3%, 3.2% and 2.2% of the non-food, food and total monthly household expenditures, respectively which was well above those of the newly recruited participants (Table 7). Similar trends also hold for the gross margins accounting for up to 13.1% and 5.7% of the non-food and food expenses respectively with project participants also fairing better than the newly recruited participants.  The eggs laid by chickens were sold, consumed or given out to friends and relatives as gifts. However, the number of 96 eggs disposed of each year by an average farmer is still far below the recommended per capita egg requirements. The numbers of chickens sold and/or given out as gifts by old project participants were significantly higher (P<0.05) than those of the newly recruited participants and together with the higher body weight of the crossbred chicken introduced by the project intervention permitted the farmers to make more money. It also permits producers to enhance their social ties by offering chickens as gifts to relatives and visitors in general. These gifts (chicken) are consumed or constitute breeding stock for the recipients.

Conclusion

• The gross margins were US$74.0, US$144.7 and US$429 for analysis of different data sources from a survey, farmers’ records and case studies, respectively. The net margins were US$38.4 and US$226 from survey and case study data respectively with project participants making more profit than those who are not yet supported by the project. These variations are principally due to data sources, the level of fixed cost incurred, management practice and support provided to the respondents. Family poultry in Haiti is profitable irrespective of whether it is practised with the scavenging or a semi-intensive system and the project interventions allowed participants to sell or give out  as gifts a significantly higher (P<0.05) number of birds than those who had not yet benefited from the project.

• The family poultry (chicken) husbandry support program therefore enhances social interaction and solidarity among the project participants and the community at large as demonstrated by the significant difference in the number of fowls given away to friends and relatives by the “old” participants. Furthermore, the program increases the income of the beneficiaries and provides additional financial capabilities for the people supported in the departments of Artibonite and South Haiti. A sustainable development and uptake of the poultry subsector is critical for livelihood improvement and poverty alleviation in post earthquake and poverty stricken Haiti. However, measures need to be taken to reduce the primary constraints of bird mortality by securing a sustainable vaccination system, ensuring that farmers adopt appropriate bio-security and management practices, and by regular follow-up from competent technical services and the access to inputs.

Acknowledgement

The authors are very grateful to the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) for financing the studies.  Special thanks go to all the collaborators from the Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Rural Development (MARNDR) in Haiti, the FAO Representation in Haiti and at FAO Headquarters (Rome) for supporting and assisting the assessment process especially under the very challenging working environment. 

References

Crespi V and GuerneBleich E 2005a Promotion of small scale aquaculture and poultry farming for food security in Haiti: TCP/HAI/2909. FAO Aquaculture newsletter # 33:11-14.

Crespi V and GuerneBleich E 2007b Support to the Implementation of the “Diversification” component of the FAO Special Programme for Food Security (PSSA) through the Development of Fish Farming. FAO Aquaculture newsletter # 37:18-21.

De Lasson A and Dolberg F 1985 The Causal Effect of Landholding on Livestock holding. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, Vol. 24(4): 339-354.

Dei HK, Alidu I, Otchere E O, Donkoh A, Boa-Amponsem K and Adam I 2009 Improving the brooding management of local guinea fowl (Numida meleagris). Family Poultry Vol. 18(1&2):3-8

Dolberg F 2007 Poultry production for livelihood improvement and poverty alleviation. In O. Thieme and D. Pilling, eds. Proceedings of the International Conference Poultry in the Twenty-first Century: avian influenza and beyond, held 5–7 November 2007, Bangkok, Thailand. Rome. http://www.fao.org/Ag/againfo/home/events/bangkok2007/docs/part3/3_1.pdf.

Egset W and Sletten P 2003 La pauvreté en Haïti. Un profil de la pauvreté en Haïti à partir des données de l’enquête ECVH, Oslo (Norvège): Fafo, 52p.

Fasina F O, Wai M D, Mohammed S N and Onyekonwu O N 2007 Contribution of poultry production to household income: a case of Jos South Local Government in Nigeria. Family Poultry Vol. 17 (1&2):30-34.

Gawande S S, Kalita N, Barua N and Saharia K K 2007 Indigenous chicken farming in rural conditions of Assam, India Family Poultry Vol. 17(1&2):15-29

Guèye E F 2003a Gender issues in family poultry production systems in low-income food-deficit countries. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture Vol. 18 (4): 185-195

Guèye E F 2003b “Poverty alleviation, food security and the well-being of the human population through family poultry in low-income food-deficit countries”. Food, Agriculture and Environment 1(2): 12-21.

Laroche D C and Awono C 2008 Evolution of urban chicken consumption in Southern countries: a comparison between Haiti and Cameroon, 12th Congress of the European Association of Agricultural Economists (EAAE) August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/43938/2/171.pdf

Ministère de l’Agriculture des Ressources Naturelles et du Développement Rural 2007 Colloque National sur la problématique des Micro, Petites et Moyennes Entreprises du secteur agro-industriel, Caribe Convention Center, 11-12 May 2007. http://veterimed.org.ht/colloque/acte_final_MPME.pdf

Ministère de l’Agriculture des Ressources Naturelles et du Développement Rural 2010 Plan national d’Investissement Agricole de l’Haiti.

Njue S W,  Kasiiti J L and Gacheru S G 2006 Assessing the Economic Impact of Commercial Poultry Feeds Supplementation and Vaccination against Newcastle Disease in Local Chickens, In Kenya. In: Improving farmyard poultry production in Africa: Interventions and their economic assessment. Proceedings of a final research coordination meeting organized by the Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture and held in Vienna, 24–28 May 2004. Pages 116-124. http://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/te_1489_web.pdf .

Pitt M, Shahidur R K, Omar H C and Millimet D 2003 Credit programmes for the poor and the Health Status of Children in Rural Bangladesh, International Economics Review 44(1): 87-118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2354.t01-1-00063

Riise J C, Kryger K N, Seeberg D S and Christensen P F (undated) Impact of Smallholder Poultry Production in Bangladesh-12 years Experience with Danida supported livestock projects in Bangladesh. Network for Smallholder Poultry Development. http://www.poultry.life.ku.dk/Development_potentials/~/media/migration%20folder/upload/poultry/workshops/w25/papers/riise.pdf.ashx .

Sharma R K 2007 Role and relevance of rural family poultry in developing countries with special reference to India. Family Poultry Vol. 17(1&2):35-40.

Sletten P and Egset W (2004) Poverty in Haiti: Fafo-paper: 31. ISSN 0804-5135.

Sonaiya E B 2007 Family poultry, food security and the impact of HPAI. World's Poultry Science Journal 63:132-138 Cambridge University Press.  doi:10.1017/S0043933907001353

Received 14 August 2011; Accepted 18 August 2011; Published 1 September 2011

Go to top