Download pdf - Proper hygiene and effective management of livestock as a ... · Proper hygiene and effective management of livestock as a Panacea for agricultural development and increase in Nigeria’s

Proper hygiene and effective management of livestock as a Panaceafor agricultural development and increase in Nigeria’s grossdomestic product (GDP): a review

Ayi Vandi Kwaghe1*, Columba Teru Vakuru1, Mwapu Dika Ndahi1, Abdulganiyu Abubakar1,Vivian Ngoundu Iwar2 and Egejuru Eze1

Address: 1 Department of Veterinary and Pest Control Services, Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Area 11,Garki, Abuja, Nigeria. 2 Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, ECOWAS Commission, 101 Yakubu Gowon Cresent,Asokoro District, PMB 401 Abuja, Nigeria.

*Correspondence: Ayi Vandi Kwaghe. Email: [email protected]

Received: 19 March 2015Accepted: 25 May 2016

doi: 10.1079/PAVSNNR201611024

The electronic version of this article is the definitive one. It is located here: http://www.cabi.org/cabreviews

© CAB International 2016 (Online ISSN 1749-8848)

Abstract

Increased livestock production and better food security will naturally follow from properlivestock management practices. Such management practices include the application of appropriatevaccination schedule, biosecurity, feeding regimen, and implementation and sustenance of improvedand feasible livestock policies. In meat production, the abattoir needs to be well equipped forantemortem and postmortem procedures, hygienic processing of carcasses, and packaging, toimprove the quality and quantity of meat and meat products. In Nigeria, about 90% of the livestockindustry (cattle, sheep and goats) is managed extensively (nomadic management system) orsemi-intensively (animals are taken out to graze and are brought home with little or no provisionat home). These systems are greatly affected by insufficient grazing reserves, lack of cattle routes,and consequently, by conflicts between the livestock farmers and crop farmers due to invasionof livestock into farms during grazing. During the dry season, livestock animals tend to becomeemaciated due to insufficient food, which leads to health depreciation due to declined immune status,and decline in meat production and reproduction rate. Diseases possess a great challenge tomeat and egg production due to illiteracy and lack of resources for proper management of livestock.In the poultry industry, where most of the meat is produced, typically no or only some biosecurityprocedures are in place at the commercial farms. The backyard local poultry are kept withoutany form of care; they tend to scavenge for their food and are prone to all forms of diseases, parasitesand predators. The hygienic status and carcass preparation at Nigeria’s abattoirs is very poor, whichaffects the meat industry. In general, livestock production in the country is greatly affected bypoor management practices, diseases and poor meat processing strategies, which leads to theproduction of low-quality meat that can easily decompose, and the spread of food-borne andzoonotic diseases. Livestock policies in the country have not produced the desired economicgrowth due to their inadequate implementation. Also, the oil boom era relegated agriculture tothe background from being the major part of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP). There isneed for new strategies and proper implementation of livestock policies – it is recommended toencourage stakeholders to participate and to diversify the industry into manufacturing and not justproduction. This study was carried out in order to assess state of livestock production, managementsystems including assessment of livestock policies, and challenges faced by this industry in Nigeria,and to identify the way forward for better livestock production and subsequent increase in thenation’s GDP.

Keywords: Livestock, Gross domestic product, Management practices, Diseases, Nigeria, Food security,Livestock policies

CAB Reviews 2016 11, No. 024

http://www.cabi.org/cabreviews

mailto:[email protected]

Review Methodology: Materials for the review were obtained using available publications from the authors and internet searchengines. Phrases like ‘livestock management practices in Nigeria’, ‘livestock biosecurity’, ‘livestock policies in Nigeria’, ‘assessmentof livestock policies in Nigeria’, ‘agricultural transformation agenda’ (ATA) and ‘livestock vaccination and history of Nigeria’s grossdomestic products’ (GDP), were used. The website for Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) was also browsed for further information onNigeria’s agricultural GDP.

Introduction

Livestock is one of the major contributors to Nigeria’sgross domestic product (GDP), accounting for one-third ofthe nation’s agricultural GDP, providing income, employ-ment, food, farm energy, manure, fuel and transport.Livestock is vital to the economies of many developingcountries and fulfil many roles for a substantial number ofpeople in these countries. The livestock industry is a majorsource of government revenue, for example, throughtaxation and export earnings from hides and skins. Yet,planners and economists often underestimate the contri-bution of livestock to GDP. The role of livestock as a sourceof manpower in the northern savanna zone and as a sourceof organic manure to boost crop production, as well astheir efficient utilisation of otherwise unusable plants toproduce meat, milk and other products, are often notconsidered. For low-income producers, livestock can serveas a store of wealth. Enhancing agricultural productivitycould contribute to industrial growth by providing capitalinvestment, foreign exchange and markets for manufac-tured consumer goods [1].In Nigeria, there are about 15.24 million cattle,

96.67 million goats, 51 million sheep, 6.87 million pigsand 140 million poultry. The livestock subsector (LSS)contributes about 15–20% of Agricultural GDP and 5–6%of the country’s total GDP [2]. While the country has someof the best cattle and associated resources in Africa,international demand for meat has been weakened by poorhygiene and welfare standards [3]. The total value of live-stock, based on the mid-1991 market prices, is estimated tobe about 60 billion naira – undoubtedly a major nationalasset and a renewable resource worthy of sustained futuredevelopment [4].The poultry sector in Nigeria accounts for about

58% of the total livestock production in the country [5].The poultry sub-sector offers the quickest returns toinvestment outlays in livestock enterprise by having ashort gestation period, high feed conversion ratio, andby being one of the cheapest, most common and bestsources of animal protein in the country [6]. Poultrydiseases remain one of the major threats to poultry pro-duction in Nigeria. A disease outbreak could result insevere economic losses within a short period of time [7]. Inthe past decades, there has been a recorded improvementin poultry production in Nigeria with its share of theGDP increasing in absolute terms. The contribution ofpoultry egg and meat production to the livestock shareof the GDP increased from 26% in 1995 to 27% in 1999,with an increase in egg production alone accounting forabout 13% [8]. The production contributed approximately

4.5% of the total livestock contribution to the GDP in2004 [9].Biosecurity means security from transmission of infec-

tious diseases, parasites and pests [10]. It focuses onmaintaining or improving the health status of animals andpreventing the introduction of new disease pathogens byassessing all possible risks to animal health [11, 12]. Poultrydisease management involves ensuring good hygiene,increasing the standard of cleanliness, and reducing therisk of introducing disease into the flock [13]. Applicationof standard biosecurity measures is vital for protectingpoultry birds from disease [14].In the 1960s, the agricultural sector provided the main

source of employment, income and foreign exchangeearnings in Nigeria. This followed from focused regionalpolicies based on commodity comparative advantage [15].Concerned about the country’s sole dependence on crudeoil for its foreign exchange and food importation as a meansof achieving food security, the Nigerian government madeseveral forays at policies for the development of the agri-cultural sector [16]. Since 1980, several interventions,policies and programmes have been executed by differentgovernments to redirect Nigerians to the farms. Examplesinclude the River Basin Development Programme (RBDP),Operation Feed the Nation (OFN), Green Revolution (GR),the Directorate for Food, Roads and Rural Infrastructure(DFRRI) and Agricultural Development Programme (ADP).Regardless of these interventions, Nigeria imports approxi-mately US$3.5 billion in food products annually, leadingfood imports to grow at an unsustainable annual rate of 11%(http://www.doreopartners.com).To increase livestock production and ultimately the

nation’s GDP, proper hygiene and effective managementis very important. Also, the country’s livestock policiesneed reforms and proper implementation to significantlyincrease production. There is also a need to diversify thesector and to take a critical look at the manufacturingprocedures.

Livestock Management Practices and Challengesin Nigeria

In Nigeria, cattle, sheep and goat production systemsare predominantly traditional management systems, suchas nomadic/pastoral systems, mixed farming, peri-urbanand modern ruminant livestock husbandry. In general, theproduction and management systems vary from free-rangein less populated areas to year-round confinement throughthe means of ‘cut and carry’ feeding of grass to the animalsin densely populated areas [1].

2 CAB Reviews


http://www.doreopartners.comhttp://www.doreopartners.com

Over 85% of all livestock in the LSS is traditionally man-aged, meaning that traditional systems dominate the pro-duction, processing and marketing of livestock in Nigeria.Most livestock is managed in ways that are low in costs andinputs. Nationally, the more intensively managed commer-cial sector accounts for 11% of the total chicken population,3% of the pig population, and

crop residues from cropped farmlands hardly meetsthe requirements for animal growth. The unavailability ofgrazing feedstuffs is aggravated by widespread bushfiresand the imbalance between the stocking rate and carryingcapacity of the range. Overstocking may lead to high incid-ence of erosion and reduction in the carrying capacity ofvast land areas, which are potentially available for high cattleproduction. Acute shortage of range resources during thedry season usually results in considerable losses in liveweight and number of stock. The cyclical occurrence offeed deficit impairs animal growth rate and reproductiveperformance while prompting movement of stock fromone place to another – a phenomenon that can lead tonumerous problems including high susceptibility of animalsto diseases and pest attacks, and often fatal clashes betweenherders and farmers [22].

Commercialisation of crop residuesAgro-pastoralists and nomadic and semi-nomadic pastoral-ists used to have rare access to crop residues, but now theyuse crop residues intensively. However, nowadays cropresidues are treated as economic commodities, which limitherders’ opportunities to use them to meet their dryseason pasture requirements [21].

Inadequate breeding programmes

Adoption of haphazard breeding programmes in whichindigenous cows are crossbred with bulls by naturalor artificial insemination at one time and massive impor-tation of exotic breeds into the tropics at another time,have failed to make any tangible impact – local breeds ofcattle have not responded well to improvements in theirquantitative traits. It is still not clear whether local breeds ofcattle should be categorized as dairy or beef types. Theyall exhibit dual or triple purpose traits, with productivityfar below the expected average. The reproductive perfor-mance of cows, which is something important to considerin breeding, is hampered by long calving intervals rooted inpoor management and inadequate feeding [22].

Theft of livestock

Stealing herds of livestock is a persistent problem in theNorthern part of the country. Armed thieves –who usuallycome at night and defeat the typically poorly armed farmsecurity guards – remove significant numbers of animals.This is a major setback to pastoralist and livestock farmers.

Disease and pest infestation

In tropical environments, a number of important epizooticdiseases of livestock thrive. These diseases are so virulentthat they limit production, increase morbidity, and cause

widespread death of livestock. However, other diseases ofless epizootic nature are presumably increasing in signifi-cance, and they may reduce the productivity of the nationalherd even if they are less virulent. Although much progresshas been made in the diagnosis and control of some ofthese diseases, the increasing populations of vector peststhat transmit diseases constitute a major threat to farmanimal production in the tropics. For example, the tsetse flyalone, when covering about 75% of the country, reducesthe areas with valuable feed resources available by makingthe areas where they fly is present nearly inhabitablefor cattle. Other pests of significant economic importanceare enteric and helminthic parasites such as coccidia,Eimeria, flukes, roundworm, hookworms and ectoparasites(ticks, mange, mites and lice). They cause diarrhoea, loss ofappetite, slow growth rate, unthriftiness, damages to theskin, and generally debilitating mortality among stock,leading to grave economic losses [22].

Low investment potential

The slow growth rate of livestock industry especially inthe tropics denotes a long gestation period for investmentto mature. This is contrary to receiving quick returns oninvestments that financial institutions like banks and inves-tment houses desire. Livestock projects, due to the time ittakes to achieve growth and the high uncertainty associatedwith livestock production, are not as attractive optionsto investors as services and trades that may return theborrowed funds and interests more quickly. Collaterals andguarantee of substantial value are not easily available forlivestock producers to secure sufficient loans in orderto improve production even in the few instances wherefinancial institutions are willing to offer support [22].

Institutional problems

Lack of genuine institutional support and political will toimprove livestock production cannot be separated from theproblems confronted by the industry. Policies are writtenbut never implemented because abrupt changes are intro-duced, or when policies are implemented there is greatdifficulty to sustain them. In addition, the fact is that theproducers are largely uneducated, conservative and highlymobile, poses another difficulty. Meaningful outreach canrarely accommodate producers who experience hatred,have a nonchalant attitude or are suspicious or reject theinnovations that are put in place for adoption [22].

Challenges in abattoirs

Abattoirs tend to have passive disease surveillance andissues with producing quality meat for consumption. Thesurveillance of disease in the abattoir is of immense

4 CAB Reviews


importance to disease control and prevention. When thereis proper surveillance in the abattoir, diseased animals willnot be slaughtered or taken for granted. However, thehygienic situation in over 90% of Nigeria’s abattoirs israther unacceptable, as carcasses are prepared in unhygie-nic conditions leading to easy decay of dressed carcasses[23]. Meanwhile, antemortem and postmortem inspectionsare rarely carried out. The lairages are either damaged orsimply not in use. Most animals are taken into the abattoiron the day they are slaughtered. Diseased and cachexicanimals are brought in for slaughter. Cases of bovinetuberculosis, helminthoses and dermatophylosis are com-mon in the abattoir. Meat easily decomposes because ofpoor meat quality and lack of storage facilities, and thereare no meat vans for proper meat transportation to thelocations where products are sold [24].The hygienic state of abattoirs is generally poor, which is

often demonstrated by a bad odour in the whole environ-ment. Problems in the abattoir include: lack of compen-sation to animal owner, inadequate veterinary services,improper documentation (lack of adequate data which isessential in disease prevention), illiteracy (livestock ownersand butchers) and peoples’ indifferent attitude. In fact,the whole abattoir system needs to be re-evaluated andre-scheduled if the issue of hygienic meat production is tobe considered [24]. Similar problems are encountered inpoultry meat production. Only very few of the privatelyowned abattoirs in Nigeria follow good hygienic standardsin meat production.

Economic Losses in the Livestock Industry

Livestock diseases cause major problems in livestock pro-duction systems. These problems include lowered animalwelfare, productivity losses, uncertain food security, lossof income and negative impact on human health [25].Diseases reduce the productivity of sick animals resultingin lowered meat, milk and egg production. Diseased animalsprovide less draught power and poorer-quality food andfibre. In economic terms, outputs decline, costs riseand profits fall [26]. The estimated economic analysis ofthe annual financial burden of livestock diseases amountedto 29.2 billion naira in Nigeria [27]. Also, in 2009–2011economic losses to poultry farmers amounted to over3 billion naira due to IBD alone [28].

Standard Livestock Management Procedures

Standard operating procedures should be carried out in themanagement and control of disease in the livestock industryfor better productivity and for subsequent increase in thequantity and quality of meat and meat products, eggproduction, and to increase the nation’s GDP. Livestockdisease management can reduce disease through improvedanimal husbandry practices. These include controlled

breeding, controlling entry to farm lots, quarantining sickanimals, developing and improving antibiotics, vaccines anddiagnostic tools and evaluating ethno-therapeutic optionsand vector control techniques [25]. Other areas that needappropriate attention are feeding and hygiene.

Good reproductive management

Techniques such as artificial insemination and embryotransfer are frequently used today, not only as methods toguarantee that females breed regularly, but also to helpin the improvement of herd genetics. This may be doneby transplanting embryos from high-quality females intolower-quality surrogate mothers, freeing the higher-qualitymother to be re-impregnated. This practice vastly increasesthe number of offspring which may be produced from asmall selection of the best-quality animals. It also improvesthe ability of the animals to convert feed to meat, milk orfibre more efficiently, and it improves the quality of the finalproduct while decreasing genetic diversity [25].

Livestock vaccination

Veterinary vaccines have had, and will continue to have, amajor role in protecting animal health and public health,reducing animal suffering, enabling efficient productionof food animals to feed the growing human population,and greatly reducing the need for antibiotics to treat foodand companion animals. Vaccines are a cost-effectivemethod to prevent animal diseases, enhance the efficiencyof food production, and reduce or prevent transmissionof zoonotic and food-borne infections to people. Safe andeffective animal vaccines are essential to modern society[29]. Vaccines work by exposing the immune systemto antigens from a specific pathogen, tricking the bodyinto thinking that it has encountered the actual pathogen.Exposure to an antigen stimulates an immune response,which creates memory cells for that pathogen withoutcausing the negative effects of an actual first infection. Mostvaccines are either modified live vaccines (ML) or killedvaccines. The ML contains live microbes that have beenmodified so that they have the antigen components ofthe disease-causing agent but do not cause disease; killedvaccines contain antigen components or pieces of thedisease-causing agent [30].

Reasons for vaccine failureThe most common reason vaccinated animals get sick isbecause they fail to fully respond to vaccination. Proceduresto maximize immune response include following labeldirections for timing, route of administration, and propervaccine handling, and minimizing stress that can suppressimmune function. Some vaccines, especially MLs, must behandled very carefully. Exposure to heat and sunlight, orbeing mixed too long prior to use can reduce a vaccine’s

Ayi Vandi Kwaghe et al. 5


effectiveness. All vaccines must be kept cool, even whilethe vaccine is in the syringe. Nevertheless, even wheneverything is done correctly, some animals fail to mounta sufficient immune response to create immunity to the dis-ease. Factors contributing to this failure are poor nutrition(including micro- and macro-mineral imbalance or defici-ency), congenital immunodeficiency and poor overall health[30, 31]. For younger animals there are blocking maternalantibodies (from colostrum) present that interfere with theability of the animal to build immunity. This is the result ofvaccinating animals that are too young, and label directionsshould be adhered to [30]. While it does not provideperfect protection, vaccination is the most effective toolavailable to prepare an animal’s immune system to respondto disease challenges. A sound vaccination programmedeveloped with the veterinarian and carried out usingproper timing and technique is critically important tomaintaining the health and profitability of the herd [30].

Importance of vaccinesSafe and efficient food production. Veterinary vaccinesare used in livestock and poultry to maintain animalhealth and to improve overall production. More efficientanimal production and better access to high-quality proteinare essential to feed the growing population [29].

Control of zoonotic diseases. Vaccines to control zoonoticdiseases in food animals, companion animals and evenwildlife have had a major impact on reducing the incidenceof zoonotic diseases in people [29].

Control of emerging and exotic diseases of animals andpeople. Emerging and exotic animal diseases are agrowing threat to human and animal health and jeopardizefood security. Increases in human and animal populations,with accompanying environmental degradation and globa-lized trade and travel, enhance opportunities for transfer ofpathogens within and between species [29].

Reduction of the need for antibiotics. Veterinary vaccinesreduce the need for antibiotics to treat infections in foodproducing and companion animals. There are increasingconcerns related to antibiotic resistance associated withthe extensive use of antibiotics in veterinary and humanmedicine [32].

Food safety vaccines. Recently, vaccines have been devel-oped to reduce the shedding of organisms that causefood-borne diseases in people. Vaccines for Escherichiacoli – O157:H7 in cattle and Salmonella enteritidis inchickens – are available. These vaccines do not typicallyimprove the health of the vaccinated animal, but theyreduce the shedding of pathogens that may contaminateanimal products for human consumption [29].

Immunocontraception and immunocastration. Immuno-neutering vaccines against sperm, egg antigens and the

hormones of pregnancy have been developed and may formthe basis of immunological contraceptives in the future[33]. Immunisation through the use of baited vaccines hasalready been used as a strategy for the control of rabiesin wild animal reservoirs [34], and potentially, a similarstrategy could be used for controlling the population ofso-called ‘pest’ species. The possibility of preventing testisdevelopment through vaccination has been investigated.This can be done either by treating males with exogenoushormones that down-regulate the hypothalamic/pituitary/gonadal axis or by neutralizing these hormones withspecific antibodies. Very few measurements of the welfareof treated animals have been carried out, but the behaviourof immunized male pigs was found to be similar to that ofsurgically castrated ones [35], who show reduced aggres-sive and mounting behaviours and increased feeding beha-viour, compared with entire males. As well as on farms,vaccination can be used to manipulate the sexual activitiesof animals, and thus control populations, in other animalfacilities such as animal sanctuaries, zoos and wildlife parks,and such interventions should improve the welfare of theanimals [33].

Prevention of mass slaughter for disease control. For somediseases the policy has been to stamp out an infection onfarms through the mass killing of animals. Vaccination ofanimals with appropriate measures to differentiate vacci-nated animals from infected animals is a useful adjunct, evena viable alternative to mass killing [33].

Preservation of healthy environment. The use of vaccinesincludes the preservation of a healthy environment andfostering of economical livestock rearing, for food andrecreation [36].

Chemophylaxis and chemotherapy

Chemoprophylaxis is relevant in livestock productionfor disease prevention, for example, the administration ofanticoccidial drugs to poultry is essential in commercialpoultry production. Also, in livestock production, there isneed for proper medication in the prevention and treat-ment of diseases. Diseases such as helminthoses, ascariasis,babesiosis and parasitic infections can be effectivelymanaged with drug administration. In general, the use ofchemoprophylaxis and chemotherapy is essential in theeffective management and increase in livestock production.

Biosecurity measures

Prevention is the most cost-effective way of managingdisease, and it still remains the best approach towardsmaintaining healthy livestock and increased revenue. Thefollowing practices aid in disease prevention: selecting awell-known reliable source from which to purchase animals

6 CAB Reviews


and one that can supply healthy stock; monitoring newanimals for disease before introducing them into the mainflock, especially in intensive management farming systems;and carrying out wildlife and vector control to reducethe spread of diseases such as cowdriosis and babesiosistransmitted by ticks. Biosecurity encompasses a varietyof activities on the farm: management of visitors, trafficcontrol, employee training, management of replacementanimals, technical services, storage and handling of feed-stuffs, rendering practices and manure management, allimpact biosecurity. Because of the vast array of potentialthreats, a Biosecurity Resource Group should be con-sidered. The group should include operation supervisors,a veterinarian, a nutritionist, an extension specialist, andothers who may have specific expertise. This group canwork to fit a biosecurity management plan to livestockoperation [37]. Biosecurity is classified into three majorsections which are isolation, traffic control and sanitation.

IsolationThe most important step in disease control is limitingcontact, co-mingling and movement of livestock. This issueis of special importance for new animals arriving on thefarm, including replacement animals, breeding animals, oranimals returning from livestock shows. Even co-minglingbetween established groups of livestock on the farm shouldbe minimized. An important biosecurity option on ranchesis to separate livestock by age and/or production groups.Isolation of animals can be particularly difficult duringnatural disasters because of damage to facilities and/orperimeter fences or lack of feed resources. It is importantto isolate sick animals, especially animals with unfamiliarsymptoms or those with symptoms that do not improvewith usual treatment [37, 38].

Traffic controlTraffic control includes traffic onto an operation andtraffic patterns within an operation. Traffic includes morethan vehicles; all animals and people must be considered[38]. It is important to consider points where disease couldenter the farm, and how it could spread. Traffic controlwithin the operation should be designed to stop or mini-mize contamination of animals, feed and equipment. It isalso important to restrict people to places where they needto be and limit visitors’ access to barns and lots. Posting awarning sign asking visitors to keep out and giving instru-ctions or a telephone number to call instead of enteringthe operation is recommended, as well as keeping a recordof all visitors that enter the premises. Consideration shouldbe given to a visitor’s previous stops as both the peopleand their transportation are potential contaminants. Also,foreign visitors should be given careful consideration andfootwear, clothing and other products from foreign coun-tries should be banned. People who have travelled outsidethe country should be denied access to a farm for a mini-mum of 14 days to control accidental introduction offoreign animal diseases. Disposable boot covers may be a

better option than footbaths to contain contaminationfrom soil and manure. Other animal traffic concerns includepets, dogs, cats, horses, wildlife, rodents and birds. Trafficcontrol within the operation should be designed to stopor minimize contamination of livestock, feed, feed handlingequipment and equipment used on animals [37].

SanitationThe sanitation component of biosecurity addresses thedisinfection of people, equipment, animals and materialentering the farm, and the maintained cleanliness of peopleand equipment [37, 38]. It is good practice to avoidusing common syringes and needles for vaccination, bloodtesting or administering animal health product, and to bevigilant when working with sick animals, i.e. it is betterto move from healthy to sick animals during the day, nevervice versa. An important objective of sanitation is toprevent faecal contaminates from being ingested by live-stock. The use of separate equipment for feed handlingand manure and dead animal removal is optimal. If thesame equipment is utilized for manure and feed handling,performing thorough cleaning and disinfection is necessary.Additionally, loaning of equipment or trailers presentsanother opportunity for pathogen introduction to the farm.Cleaning of facilities and equipment between groups oflivestock during processing is a good management practiceto reduce pathogen transmission [37].

Biosecurity management practicesKey farm biosecurity management practices prevent orreduce the below hazards to acceptable levels.Biological hazards: There should be a plan for controlling

risk from viruses, bacteria, parasites and other contami-nants. These controls must be considered from the fol-lowing standpoints: introduction to the farm, exposure andspread within the herd, general and specific measures forimmunization, and minimizing the risk of export to otherfarms [38].Chemical hazards: There should be a plan for handling

and storage of pesticides, herbicides, feed additives, drugs,medicines and any potentially toxic materials for chemicalusage, and staff should have appropriate training onsafe chemicals use [38]. Application diary should be keptfor livestock, pastures and crops, adherence to withholdingperiods (WHPs) and export slaughter intervals. Setting alivestock treatment schedule, record treatment dates andWHPs is also recommended [39].Physical hazards: There should be a plan for animal

handling and treatment to minimize trauma and maximizecomfort and care. This includes ventilation, traffic flow,housing facilities and animal handling equipment [38].

Disease transmission routes

In order to perform the risk assessment and formulatebiosecurity/biological risk management (BRM) plans, itis important to know how diseases are introduced



and spread. Disease agents can be spread from animal toanimal, or from animal to human and vice versa, through avariety of transmission routes. Biosecurity/BRM considersfive main routes: aerosol, direct contact, fomite, oral andvector-borne. The sixth route, zoonotic, can spread fromanimals to humans through one of the five previously listedroutes. Many infectious agents can be transmitted by morethan one route of infection [37].

Aerosol transmissionAerosol transmission occurs when disease agents con-tained in droplets are passed through the air from oneanimal to another or from an animal to a human and viceversa. Most pathogenic agents do not survive for extendedperiods of time within the aerosol droplets, and as a result,close proximity of infected and susceptible animals isrequired for disease transmission [37].

Direct contactTransmission by direct contact requires the presence ofan agent or organism in the environment or within aninfected animal. A susceptible animal becomes exposedwhen the agent directly touches open wounds, mucousmembranes, or the skin through blood, saliva, nose to nosecontact, rubbing or biting. It is important to note thatdepending on the disease agent, it is possible for directcontact transmission to occur between animals of differentspecies including humans. For the purposes of the BRMinformation, reproductive transmission will encompassthose diseases spread through venereal (breeding) andin utero routes (dam to offspring during gestation) [37].

Fomite transmissionA fomite is an inanimate object that can carry diseaseagents from one susceptible animal to another. Examples offomites include contaminated brushes, clippers, needles,balling guns, clothing, milking units, teat dip cups, feedor water buckets and shovels. Traffic transmission isanother special type of fomite transmission in which avehicle, trailer or human spreads organic material toanother location [37].

Vector-borne transmissionVector-borne transmission occurs when an invertebrateacquires a pathogen from one animal and transmits it toanother. Fleas, ticks and mosquitoes are common biologicalvectors of disease, and flies and cockroaches are commonmechanical vectors [37].

Oral transmissionPathogenic agents can also be transmitted to animals orhumans orally through consumption of contaminated feed,water or licking/chewing on contaminated environmentalobjects. Feed and water contaminated with faeces, urine orsaliva are frequently the cause of oral transmission ofdisease agents. However, feed and water can also becontaminated with other infectious agents [37].

Environmental contaminationMany disease agents can survive for extended periods oftime in soil or other organic materials like bedding and oldfeed. Animals or humans can then acquire the disease agentas discussed in previous sections: from the environmentthrough inhalation of aerosolized microbes, via oral con-sumption, or from direct contact with an animal or fomites.Therefore, environmental contamination should not beignored but studied. The routes the disease agent uses toget into the animal can be controlled if the animal’s environ-ment is controlled. It is important to remember thatdisease transmission can occur without animals exhibitingobvious signs of disease. That is why awareness of thevarious routes of transmission becomes so essential whenassessing and developing a strategy to minimize the riskof disease for a facility or operation [37].

Livestock enterprise security

The other important aspect of biosecurity is the protectionof the livestock enterprise from external threats orpressures whose goals are to prevent or stop the livestockenterprise. The reasons associated with the threatcould include the desire to alter management practices,free the animals, destroy facilities and equipment, stopmodern agriculture practices or ultimately to bring harmto individuals associated with agriculture enterprises.Agroterrorism refers to actions that are targeted againstagriculture-associated industries with the intent to causeharm [37].

Personnel

Along with the implementation of basic biosecuritypractices, additional employee screening and training isimportant. Careful selection, background checks andmonitoring of new employees is crucial. There would beno easier way to bring a potential threat onto the livestockenterprise than through directly employing someonewhose intent is to harm the enterprise. Likewise, adequateemployee training is essential. Livestock enterprise employ-ees are expected to be observant of their workplace andenvironment. Employees should be encouraged to adoptthe philosophy that if a situation does not look right, theyshould question it. Owners, managers, and employees arethe ones best suited to make judgments if a situation doesnot appear as it should or if things have been tampered oraltered. Discovery and mitigation of a potential biologicalrisk starts at the livestock enterprise – those associatedwith the farm are the first responders. The people andemployees of the livestock enterprise are the first in lineof active defence against mitigation of biological threats.Proper training in situation assessment and situationresponse is an extremely important aspect of employeetraining [37].

8 CAB Reviews


Situation assessmentSituation assessment should evaluate the livestock enter-prise from an outside perspective. The goal is to determinewhere the enterprise is vulnerable. The list below is just aplace to start in order to aid assessment.

• What type of perimeter enclosure is utilized?• What level of access can someone gain to the enterprise?• Are control points for human and animal trafficestablished?

• Is there a policy for control of visitors?• What level of access is there to chemicals and feedresources?

• Does regular inventory of animals, chemicals, machinery,etc. take place?

Once a situation assessment has been made, securitymeasures should be put in place. Vigilant adherence to theBRM strategies and security measures must be maintained.The time and resources invested in making a plan will bewasted if that plan is not fully followed, maintained andregularly reviewed [37].

Communication

Finally, direct and effective cooperation with the local lawenforcement is crucial. It is recommended to invite a lawenforcement representative to help develop the enterprisesecurity plan. Familiarity with how a livestock enterprisefunctions and its personnel will be important should locallaw enforcement ever need to respond to a situation. Thefirst time to contact law enforcement should not be whenthe livestock enterprise is in crisis [37].

Importance of BRM plan

The BRM plan is useful for the following reasons: to preventeconomic loss caused by production losses or prematureanimal depopulation; prevent theft of livestock, machinery,tools and equipment; protect the ‘wholesome’ image ofthe food animal livestock producers sell and to protect‘market access’ of the products; prevent or minimize aninterruption in cash flow or equity and change the attitudeof ranchers/owners/employees to be aware of suspiciousactivities and suspicious people, and to ‘harden’ theiroperation so that their ranch would be a difficult target forpeople that would do them harm [37].

Biosecurity: best management practices

Best management practices for biosecurity should be ableto fulfil the aspects listed below [37].

• Regularly evaluate activities management practices onthe operation to assess the potential for biosecurity

threats; it is recommended to be vigilant for signs ofdisease (coughing, weight loss, runny nose and eyes,difficulty breathing, abortions, stillbirths, etc.).

• Know and understand the warning signs of exoticdiseases/foreign animal diseases.

• Minimize access routes onto the operation to controlunauthorized vehicular and personnel traffic.

• Minimize unnecessary visitors to the operation as theycan unknowingly distribute pathogens.

• Wash trucks and equipment to reduce contaminationfrom outside sources and increase sanitation betweenuses.

• Report unexplained death, loss or illness affecting a highpercentage of the herd.

• Quarantine new animals for a minimum of 3 weeksbefore introducing them into the herd.

• Ask feed suppliers about feed quality assurance pro-grammes to verify ingredients and prevent introductionof prohibited feed sources.

• Consider using footbaths or plastic boot covers and handwashing stations to reduce contamination and improvesanitation.

• Not use feed equipment for manure handling because oflikely faecal contamination.

• Dispose of dead animals properly to eliminate pathogenexposure of healthy animals.

• Control populations of rodents, birds and insects to pre-vent transmission of diseases and reduce feed spoilage.

Benefits of biosecurity

The benefits of implementing on-farm biosecurity practicesare significant. For producers, these practices include: im-proving animal health andwelfare; keeping out new diseases;cutting the cost of disease prevention and treatment;reducing the use of medication, such as antibiotics, withan associated reduction in the risk of emergence of resistantpathogens; producing safe, wholesome and high-qualityproducts; increasing consumer and buyer confidence;protecting human health; minimizing the potential forfarm income losses; enhancing the value of the herd; andmaintaining and accessing new markets for genetics [40].

Trends in Nigeria’s Agricultural GDP (1960–2012)

In spite of Nigeria’s rich agricultural resource endowment,there has been a gradual decline in agriculture’s contri-butions to the nation’s economy [41, 42]. This can beobserved from the figures demonstrating how muchagriculture contributed to the nation’s GDP and fromthe rising value of food import [43]. The contribution ofthe agricultural sector to Nigeria’s GDP has varied in thepast decades. In 1960–1964 it was 61.65%, 1965–1969:53.27%, 1970–1974: 39.69%, 1975–1979: 23.8%, 1980–1984: 31.3%, 1985–1989: 38.12%, 1990–1994: 32.55%,



1995–1999: 34.32%, 2000–2004: 37.05%, 2005–2009:33.5% [43], and in 2010–2012 the sector’s proportion ofthe GDP was 37.02% [44]. Based on these figures, it seemsthat throughout the 1960s, agriculture was the main sourceof livelihood and income in the country, and since 1970there has been a fluctuating decline in the sector’s propor-tion of the GDP, the lowest proportion being 23.8% (1975–1979). This may reflect the oil boom era the nation experi-enced, during which the government paid more attentionto crude oil processing than agriculture. Nigeria haswitnessed strong economic growth in the past few years,averaging 8.8% real annual GDP growth from 2000 to 2007.However, the agriculture sector has lagged behind GDPgrowth, growing at 3.7% in 2007. Reviewing the productionand postharvest constraints affecting agricultural pro-ductivity in Nigeria is an important step in formulatingpolicies to reverse these trends in the future [45].In Nigeria, the livestock industry accounts for about

5% of national GDP and 20% of agricultural GDP [3]. Thepoultry sector accounts for about 58% of the total livestockproduction in Nigeria [5], indicating that poultry is themajor source of livestock production in the country.Therefore, more attention should be paid to the develop-ment of the poultry sector.International Food Policy Research Institute [46] carried

out a study using empirical analysis to find out the publicspending on agriculture in Nigeria during 2001–2005. Thefindings revealed that public spending on agriculture wasexceedingly low. Less than 2% of total federal expenditurewas allotted to agriculture, which was much lower thanwhat was spent on other key sectors such as education,health and water. This spending contrasts dramatically withthe sector’s importance in the Nigerian economy and thepolicy emphasis on diversifying away from oil. The amountof spending also falls well below the 10% goal set by Africanleaders in the 2003 Maputo agreement. Nigeria fallsfar behind in agricultural expenditure by internationalstandards, even when accounting for the relationshipbetween agricultural expenditures and national income.The spending is highly concentrated in a few areas. There isan urgent need to improve internal systems for tracking,recording and disseminating information about publicspending in the agriculture sector [47].Gradually the nation has come to realize that crude oil

alone as a natural resource cannot sustain the needs ofthe nation with a growing population that is currently about160 million people. Awareness of the need to revisit andremodel the agricultural sector has led the government tothe agricultural transformation agenda (ATA) which is set toimprove agriculture as well as livestock production in thecountry. In 2011, the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN)came up with the Transformation Agenda identifying sevensectors of the economy as the main growth driversduring the transformation period (2011–2015), includingagriculture, water resources, solid minerals, manufacturing,oil and gas, trade and commerce, as well as culture andtourism. The decision was prompted by the fact that the

performance of these sectors had been constrained byseveral challenges including low productivity, low level ofprivate sector investment, non-competitiveness, inadequatefunding, shortage of skilled manpower, low investment inresearch and development, poor development of valuechain, low value addition, poor regulatory environment,poor quality of goods and services, poor state of physicalinfrastructure, policy instability and discontinuity, low levelof technology, paucity and poor flow of information andhigh cost of doing business [48]. The government thusassumed a baseline GDP growth rate of 11.7% per annumwithin the period, which will translate to real and nominalGDP of about N428.6 billion and N73.2 trillion, respect-ively, at the end of the programme period [44].A study conducted by Ahungwa et al. [44], examined

different trends in how agriculture has contributed tothe nation’s GDP within during 1960–2012 (53 years)using time series data emanating from National Bureau ofStatistic (NBS), Central Bank of Nigeria, National PlanningCommission (NPC) and CIA Fact book. The results showedthat the share of agriculture to the total GDP had adownward trend, while maintaining a clear dominance overother sectors in 1960–1975. Further analysis depicted anundulating trend, intertwining with the industrial sector in1976–1989. The regression results showed that agriculturehas a positive relationship with GDP and contributessignificantly to it with a coefficient of 0.664, implying thata percentage increase in the contribution of agriculture canincrease the GDP by 66.4% which is higher than in anyother sector. This cumulative effect of agriculture on GDPclearly affirmed the dominance of the sector’s contributionto the GDP of Nigeria. Therefore, the study recommendedthat the government should create an enabling environ-ment by increasing the budgetary allocation and a friendlypolicies framework in order to support a strong and effici-ent agricultural sector that can accelerate the attainment ofNigeria’s goal of achieving the targeted growth rate and theproposed vision of becoming one of the 20 leading worldeconomies by the year 2020 [44].

Livestock Policies in Nigeria

The LSS has always been an important component of theNigerian economy. Despite the importance of the sub-sector growth in livestock output has been slow. In the faceof constraints posed by disease and ecological problems,government policies have not been totally successful inintroducing or encouraging the development of basic tech-nological and institutional changes necessary to exploit thepotential that exists for an efficient growth of the LSS [49].

Historical survey of government objectives andpolicies towards the LSS

A review of government objectives and policies for the LSSin Nigeria can be conveniently divided into five periods: the

10 CAB Reviews


colonial period preceding independence in 1960, the im-mediate post-independence period up to the end of theSahelian drought in 1974, the oil-boom period in 1975–1985, the period since 1986 marking the commencementof the structural adjustment programme [49], and cur-rently, the period of ATA.

The colonial eraInitial colonial objectives with respect to the LSS were notexplicitly stated, but the commitment to expand exports oflivestock products had emerged prior to World War II.Early documents (cited in [50] indicated that schemes forthe collection of fresh milk from the Fulanis for creamseparation and processing into clarified butter fat (CBF) forexport began in the late 1920s in Northern Nigeria.Exports of CBF rose from 10 t in 1933 to 2400 t in 1939[50]. The early 1940s also witnessed the establishment ofdairy herds and milk processing plants in Vom and Agege tomeet expatriate population demand in Jos and Lagos [51].The colonial government objectives were primarily im-

plemented through a policy of investment in both physicalinfrastructure and basic research. By 1950 an extensiveinternal rail and road network system had been completed.A number of Livestock Improvement and Breeding Centres(LIBCs) were established in different parts of the country inthe late 1940s and early 1950s to carry out cross-breedingexperiments – primarily to achieve increased milk pro-duction – using exotic bulls and artificial insemination [52].However, most of the schemes embarked upon during thisperiod were oriented towards ranching and thus had littleimpact on smallholder or pastoral systems. Furthermore,attention appears to have been focused mainly on cattle,particularly dairy production, to the exclusion of otherlivestock species [49].

The immediate post-independence period (1960–1974)The onset of independence saw both a continuation and ashift in livestock development policy in Nigeria. On the onehand, some of the programmes initiated during the colonialperiod, such as the tsetse eradication and livestock breedingprogrammes, were continued. On the other hand, drivenby a desire to improve the rate of growth of the economyand to achieve a more equitable distribution of income,the new regional governments initiated a number of pro-grammes in an attempt to improve smallholder and pastoralsystems. Thus in 1962, a supplementary feed programmeaimed at introducing concentrate feeding to cattle inorder to reduce seasonal weight losses was introducedin northern Nigeria. The scheme was also viewed as anattempt to encourage settlement among the nomadicpastoralists. The supplementary ration, the cost of whichwas subsidized, took the form of equal parts of groundnutcake and cottonseed cake plus 2% common salt and minerallicks [52]. Although the response of the pastoralists wasfavourable, the scheme did not have the desired impact dueto inadequate supply and untimely distribution of thesupplements [49].

In 1965, grazing reserves were introduced into the sameregion to protect the traditional grazing lands from cropfarming, to secure a year-round source of fodder forruminants and to encourage the settlement of pastoralnomads [53]. In the south-west, a smallholder steer fatten-ing scheme was introduced in the early 1960s. Usingsemi-intensive management systems, participating farmersfattened trypanotolerant steers for supply to slaughterhouses in the adjoining urban areas. The scheme provedsuccessful and the experience led to the establishment of aSmallholder Fattening Scheme in 1979 as a component ofthe World Bank assisted First Livestock DevelopmentProject [52]. Aside the regional programmes, trade andproduction investment policies were also emphasizedduring this period. Trade policy towards the LSS initiallytook the form of import duty. In 1960, imported meat,butter and cheese carried a 20% duty rate. Within the next5 years, tariff rates rose quickly, ranging from 35% forbutter and cheese to 66.7% for meat. The 1961 budgetspeech provided a justification for what was to become thefuture direction of trade policy by claiming that increaseswere imposed upon goods consumed by the better-offsections of the community. The statement added that ‘onecould reasonably maintain that imported meat, butter ...constitute indispensable or significant items in the familybudget of the low-income groups which form the bulk ofour population’ [54]. Thus, tariff increases were imposed toserve as an indirect consumption tax and raise revenue forthe government.The civil war of 1967–1970 brought a new dimension to

trade policy. The dominant consideration during the warwas the balance of payments position. A significant depart-ure from the past was the introduction and liberal use ofquantitative restrictions. Thus, between 1965 and 1970,importation of meat was controlled largely through importlicensing. Freer trade did not resume at the end of the civilwar. In fact, between 1971 and 1973, the use of quantitativeimport restrictions assumed greater importance as importbans were introduced to cover such products as beef andpoultry meat. These measures provided an implicit protec-tion for domestic livestock producers. During this period,the government attempted to provide a parallel productionand marketing system. The Nigerian Livestock and MeatAuthority (NLMA) was established in 1971 by the FederalGovernment, to do, for example, the following: to operateabattoirs, cattle farms and wholesale meat markets; tomanufacture animal feeds; to trade in livestock and hidesand skins; to control and regulate the interstate activities oftraders in livestock and livestock products; and to carry onany business connected to the livestock industry. For mostof this period, investment in direct production was a majorpolicy instrument. Intensive feedlot fattening for beef, basedon high intakes of molasses with supplementary feeding ofcottonseed and restricted grazing, was started in 1972 atthe Mokwa cattle ranch owned by the NLMA [52]. Bilateralassistance was initially provided by the Federal Republic ofGermany. A significant development was the introduction



of sugarcane molasses from the Bacita Sugar Factory.Under the scheme, local bulls and steers (mainly SokotoGudalis and Bunajis) were purchased as yearlings withaverage weights of 200–240 kg. Over a 3-month fatteningperiod, the animals averaged 300 kg live weight. Thedressed carcasses were sold through government-ownedcold stores. Although the scheme was initially successful,the backward linkage with the sugar factory proved difficultto maintain and coupled with management problems at theranch, only about 15 000 animals were fattened between1972 and 1978 [55]. Just like during the colonial period, itappears that little attention was paid to the other animalspecies, apart from cattle, during this period [49].

The oil-boom period (1975–1985)Policies instituted in the immediate post-independenceperiod were largely continued in the 1975–1985 period.The basic economic objective remained to be incomegrowth with some new concern for increased animalprotein intake. The rise in government revenue as a resultof the oil boom initially led to a relaxation of livestock tradepolicy. Between 1974 and 1977, quantitative import restri-ctions were removed and tariff rates were reduced suchthat, once again, customs duties on most livestock productsfell in the range of 10–30% [49].The trade liberalisation policy was, however, short-lived.

With the sudden downturn in the world oil marketbetween 1978 and mid-1979, customs tariffs were revisedupwards and quantitative import restrictions were re-imposed. Import prohibition orders covered fresh milk,eggs and live poultry, while frozen or chilled meat cameunder import licensing. These measures served to raise thedomestic prices of imported livestock products well aboveworld prices. Although the 1983 budget speech reiteratedthe ‘determination to make Nigeria self-sufficient in foodproduction’ and thus provided a further justification for thetrade restrictions, it is now well understood that thoseresponsible for trade restrictions together with those whohad access to import licenses and foreign exchange allo-cations were able to gain from the rents implied by theprice differential between domestic and world prices. Thus,following Collier [56], a reasonable inference is that rent-seeking was at least partly responsible for the restriction ofimports of livestock products [49].In addition to the direct effects of trade policy on the

availability of livestock products, there were also importantindirect effects operating through the government’sexchange rate policy [49]. Oyejide [57] estimated thatbetween 1973 and 1980, the real exchange rate appreciatedby 61%, partly as a result of massive capital inflows asso-ciated with the oil boom and partly due to government’sfailure to depreciate the naira to reflect Nigeria’s relativelyhigh inflation rate. The overvalued exchange rate wassustained by periodic import restrictions and exchangecontrol regulations. As noted earlier, short-term variationsin quantitative import restrictions caused price instabilityfor several livestock products [49]. Meanwhile, previously

introduced investment and technical policies were con-tinued. The Nigerian Livestock Production Company(NLPC) was established in 1976 to provide credit andtechnical services for the development of the Mokwa andManchok fattening ranches. Following the dissolution ofthe Nigerian Livestock and Meat Authority in 1979, theNLPC was reorganized and enlarged to take over theformer’s functions [49].Various dairy processing plants were also set up as part

of the government’s strategy to encourage the domesticdairy industry. Among these were Madara Limited in Vom,Nigeria Dairy Company in Kaduna and Minna Dairy Plant inMinna. All were established with daily capacities in excessof 20 000 l of fresh milk, some of which was to comefrom associated government dairy farms and the rest fromlocal collection from surrounding farmers. However,inadequate prices offered by the plants made local milkcollection difficult and the plants resorted to basing theirproduction activities on reconstituting imported powderedmilk [52, 58].Institutional policies involving land and credit were

introduced during this period. The 1978 Land TenureDecree vested all rural land not under active exploitationin state governors. Although an official title to land (i.e.,certificate of occupancy) can be obtained through thisdecree, the process is both time consuming and expensiveand, thus, out of the reach of most pastoralists. Further,it has been argued that the decree with its recommendedhigh levels for land compensation has militated against landacquisition for the establishment of new grazing reserves[59]. The Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme (ACGS)was also introduced in 1978. The scheme was establishedto guarantee loans granted by commercial and merchantbanks for agricultural purposes. The lending, however,has been lopsided and has tended to favour mostly themodem poultry sector. Loan guarantee statistics showedthat between the inception of the scheme in 1978 and1986, total guaranteed loans amounted to N316.86 million.Out of this total, N173.90 million or 54.9% went tolivestock and out of the livestock loans, N149.04 million or85.7% went to poultry production. Commercial bankswere willing to lend for poultry projects not because suchprojects were intrinsically more profitable, but due to theshort interval between loan advance and repayment. Thescheme also appeared to have catered mainly for the largecommercial poultry producers [49].

The period from 1986 (post oil boom era)The Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) initiated inSeptember 1986 has brought about a variety of sectoralreforms in the Nigerian economy. As it affects the LSS, itinvolves a reduction in the role of the state in productionactivities with a corresponding emphasis on using the pri-vate sector as an instrument for production and inputsupply. It has led to the scrapping of the NLPC and itssubsidiaries. Following the massive devaluation of the nairafrom around parity with the US dollar to the rate of

12 CAB Reviews


4.6 naira to the dollar in September 1986, prices ofimported livestock products, particularly dairy products,rose substantially [49].In general, the new programme has not led to freer

trade. When the programme started the ad valorem dutyon imported meat was 30%. Since early 1988, a ban onimports of fresh, chilled or frozen meat has been applied toprotect domestic producers. For live animals, exceptpoultry, import duty rose to 20% in 1986 from the 15%duty applied in 1984. However, since most live animals aretrekked across the border from neighbouring countries,the herders avoid official crossing posts and the animals are,therefore, not directly affected by these tariff rates. Livepoultry imports were banned in 1986, except for foun-dation and grandparent stock used for research ormultiplication purposes. Increased interest rates since1987 have also limited the number of livestock producersapplying for loans from commercial banks [49].

The Nigeria ATANigeria’s investment in agriculture is exceptionally lowaveraging approximately 2% of government expenditure[48]. The ATA was designed for the following purposes: toestablish a Federal Department of Agricultural Extension(FDAE) which will oversee, monitor and provide theleadership needed for an efficient and effective agriculturalextension and advisory service delivery in Nigeria; reviewthe agricultural extension policies within the subsistingagricultural policies and recommend appropriate policies,which will ensure the effective participation of all stake-holders in a stable policy environment and adequate fundingfor the delivery efficient and effective agricultural extensionand advisory services; recommend appropriate institutionalstructures and arrangements for the delivery of effectiveand efficient multi-plural agricultural extension and advi-sory services in Nigeria, using the value chain approach;and recommend demand-responsive extension systems/approaches and tools that will ensure the delivery ofefficient and effective agricultural extension and advisoryservices for all the multi-actors in the targeted commodityvalue chains of interest to government [60]. So far, the ATAhas raised the agricultural GDP. It is hoped that theprogramme will be sustained and will lead to subsequentincrease in the GDP of the LSS.

Analysis of livestock production by time period

The statistics of livestock production index in NigeriaThe statistics of livestock production index in Nigeria bytime periods are presented in Tables 1 and 2. As shown inthe Tables, the mean of real output of livestock was highestfor the 1999–2005 post-SAP periods and lowest during the1970–1985 pre-SAP periods. The mean output for theentire period (1970–2005) was 4.37% higher than the 1990level. During the SAP era (1986–1998) the mean of realoutput was higher the 1990 base year by 19.36% but slightly

lower than the real output during the post-SAP era ofdemocratic rule in Nigeria (1999–2005). The higher indexrecorded during the 1986–1998 period was mainlyaccounted for by the post-1990 real output level. Theaverage real output of livestock for the 1986–1998 periodswas 16.25% lower than the 1990 base year level while the1991–1998 showed an average 8.71% increase over the1990 base year index [61].Table 1 also presents the results of statistical tests of

significance between the real production in the respectiveperiods and the aggregate data. It reveals that the differ-ence between the mean of the aggregate output and thatof the pre-SAP is significant (P< 0.01) in favour of theaggregate output, while the difference between the aggre-gate and the post-SAP era are statistically significant(P< 0.01) in favour of the post-SAP era. The results oftests of significance between the real productions for thedifferent time periods are presented in Table 2. Significantdifferences were found for each pair of periods considered.The results tend to suggest that there has been a pro-gressively increasing trend in livestock production [61].

Estimated trend equationsThe estimated trend equations for livestock for selectedstudy periods are presented in Table 3. The coefficient ofthe time trend is positive for all four periods. However,whereas the coefficient is highly significant for the 1986–1998, 1999–2005 and the 1970–2005 (aggregated) periods,indicating significant increases (or growth), it is statisticallynon-significant for the 1970–1985 pre-regulation period,indicating sameness in output. Table 3 reveals further that

Table 1 Test of significance of mean livestock productionbetween different periods and entire period

PeriodMean

(1990=100)Std.dev.

Meandifference t-value

1970–1985 55.89 13.02 48.48*** 4.891970–2005 104.37 56.131986–1998 119.36 28.16 14.99NS 1.231970–2005 104.37 56.131999–2005 187.34 39.78 82.97*** 3.71

***Significant at 1%; **Significant at 5%; *Significant at 10%;NS, not significant.Source: [61].

Table 2 Test of significance of mean livestock productionbetween different periods

PeriodMean

(1990=100)Std.dev.

Meandifference t-value

1970–1985 55.89 13.03 63.47*** 7.501986–1998 119.36 28.161970–1985 55.89 13.03 131.46*** 8.551999–2005 187.34 39.781999–2005 119.36 28.16 67.98*** 4.46

***Significant at 1%; **Significant at 5%; *Significant at 10%.Source: [61].



the coefficient of determination is high (r2 > 0.85) andsignificant (P< 0.01) during the three periods of significantgrowth in output [61].

Compound growth rate in livestock outputThe calculated annual compound growth rates are pre-sented in Table 4 for four study periods. The table showsthat the compound growth rate in livestock output was

domestic cost structure. It will be argued that the oil boom,import restrictions and the overvaluation of the currencyhave all combined to trigger mechanisms which have pro-duced two important consequences for prices and incen-tives in the LSS [49].First, restrictive trade policies which were designed to

address the balance of payments problem and prop up theovervalued exchange rate appeared to have raised domesticprices above world equivalent prices. The other majorconsequence for livestock prices and incentives came aboutas a result of the inflows of foreign capital associated withthe oil boom. The sudden increase in oil-related capitalinflows created a standard case of the ‘Dutch disease’ [63].The influx of foreign capital augmented not only the supplyof tradeables, but by raising incomes, increased the demandfor all goods and services. The ensuing excess demand fornon-tradeables was curtailed by an increase in their pricerelative to tradeables, which induced reallocations of expen-diture and production. Over the period 1975–1985, animalproduct (tradeable) prices declined by about 50% relativeto the price of millet (a non-tradeable grain that iscommonly exchanged for animal products in NorthernNigeria). The devaluation of the naira following the intro-duction of the SAP in September 1986, has slowed downthe relative price decline. Nevertheless, it is clear that oneconsequence of the oil boom was a perceptible change inrelative prices in favour of non-tradeable goods and ser-vices and against the producers of tradeable goods [49].The overall effect of government policies has been to

raise the domestic prices of most livestock products abovetheir equivalent world prices with the result that varyingdegrees of protection are provided for domestic pro-duction. However, it appears that up till 1985, domesticprices for most livestock products were simultaneously highby international standards but low in terms of being able toattract domestic resources to increase production. Thispicture which largely depicted the situation for agriculturaltradeable products as a whole, was in sharp contrast to theenhanced profitability of investments in the constructionand service sectors during the same period [56].

Lessons and policy directions for the future

The government’s direct production programmes havebeen largely ineffective in expanding livestock output in

Nigeria. The production increases generated by such pro-grammes have been minimal. What is worse, by divertingresources away from the pastoralists and agropastoralists,such programmes have tended to hinder the developmentof the traditional sector [49].For most of the period under review, trade policy more

or less substituted for an explicit price policy for theLSS. Trade policy, however, failed to provide appropriateincentives for domestic livestock production. Trade restric-tions resulting from policy changes in response to macro-economic concerns provided protection for most livestockproducts. Because it ensued as a by-product of otherconcerns, the resulting protection lacked important fea-tures of an appropriate production incentive system, suchas stability and consistency [49].Since the inception of the SAP, a number of changes have

taken place to redress some of the past mistakes. Twospecific issues in addition to the changes already imple-mented deserve mention and should help to facilitate thegrowth of livestock output [49]. First, government invest-ment policy within the LSS needs to be reviewed. All toooften in the past, government provided funds for pro-duction programmes with little or no consideration beinggiven to the past performance record of such programmes.A shift from this approach to a strategy that promotesresearch on new technologies and strengthens the exten-sion services to disseminate the results of this research isneeded. At the same time, complementary incentive poli-cies that will facilitate the uptake of new innovations andinduce private capital investment in the LSS should beinstituted [49]. Secondly, in designing government policies,the full implications of these policies for the differentsectors of the economy need to be explicitly recognizedand taken into consideration. The fact that most livestockproducts are tradeable means that livestock, trade andexchange rate policies are inevitably interlinked. Theupshot is that better coordination of policy decisions isnecessary. However, proper coordination and informedpolicy-making call for a good data base. A significant featureof policy-making in the past has been that crucial decisionswere made on the establishment of new projects, supportto different livestock species, level of imports and so forthwith little or no empirical information. Not surprisingly,such policy-making has often led to mistakes. Thus, thegathering, processing and reporting of production statisticsneed to be improved [49].

Table 5 Estimated quadratic equations in time variables for livestock production, 1970–2005

Period

Estimated parameters

r2 F Sig.β0 β1 β2

1970–1985 (n=16) 4.1772*** (27.3502) −0.0731 (−1.7672) 0.0048* (2.0234) 0.270495 2.41 0.1291986–1998 (n=13) 4.1039*** (70.6747) 0.1473*** (7.7192) −0.0061*** (−4.5714) 0.956939 111.11 0.0001999–2005 (n=7) 5.0660*** (56.4699) −0.0429 (−0.8360) 0.0161* (2.5555) 0.944589 34.09 0.0031970–2005 (n=36) 3.8578*** (41.4004) 0.0122 (1.0540) 0.00095*** (3.1039) 0.897437 144.37 0.000

***Significant at 1%; **Significant at 5%; *Significant at 10%; t-values are in parentheses.Source: [61].



Finally, the economic reforms of the last 2 years and thesteep devaluation of the naira have raised domestic pricesand created an environment that will reward producerswho are able to curtail the use of imported inputs in theirproduction activities. The implications of this for poultryproducers who depend on imported stocks, feeds anddrugs are clear. But given the low value of such inputs in thetotal cost of production of ruminant livestock in Nigeria,the opportunity now exists for increased output of beef,mutton and goat meat. However, this opportunity will beturned into the country’s advantage only if a consistent mixof policies is put in place to encourage improved animalhusbandry, feeding and delivery of farm inputs and veteri-nary supplies. These issues should form part of an overallpackage of measures to promote structural changes withinthe LSS [49].For livestock policy to be effective enough to transform

traditional agriculture, particularly the LSS to a mechanizedone, proactive and pre-emptive steps need to be taken toensure effective and efficient implementation of macro-economic livestock policy objectives [64].

Partnership with Relevant Institutionsand Organizations

Partnership with relevant institutions and organizations isaimed at promoting synergy and participation, as well asto foster policy dialogue and multi-disciplinary approach.To do this, the Livestock Policy Hub (LPH) will need tonetwork and establish partnership with the following stake-holders: regulatory bodies such as Veterinary Council ofNigeria (VCN), Nigerian Institute of Agricultural Science(NIAS), etc., for effective collaboration in areas of reviewand enforcement of existing laws; standards and food safetyagencies for setting, establishing and enforcing food safetystandards [2]; animal health product manufacturers forStrict compliance with product requirements and stan-dards; research institutes for developing new technologies,extension packages and dissemination of information; coop-eratives and civil society organizations for better under-standing of issues involved in VET-GOV and administration;relevant government agencies for creating conducive busi-ness environments providing the necessary policy drives;the media to create the necessary publicity and awarenessto the public; farmers’ organizations for adoption of bestpractices and adherence to laws; and women and youthorganizations as well as the vulnerable for an all-inclusiveapproach to livestock development [2].

Gaps Identified in the Nigerian Livestock Policies

The history of livestock development in Nigeria revealsa longstanding effort to find a strategy to improve pro-ductivity and raise output. Policies that have been institutedto achieve these goals have not been totally consistent.Trade and exchange rate policies, in particular, appear to

have been driven by macro-economic concerns rather thanby a desire for livestock development. The support given tovarious categories of producers and to different livestockspecies has also been lopsided. Large commercial pro-ducers appear to have benefited at the expense of the bulkof small-scale pastoralists, while small ruminants seem tohave been neglected. These problems put the attainmentof government objectives into question [49].

Non-interaction between and among stakeholders

The continued absence of progress in livestock policies andprogrammes in agriculture in Nigeria is the consequence ofnon-interaction between the government and the variousstakeholders within a particular programme as well as lackof opportunities for decision-making and policy dialoguewith other stakeholders. Agriculturists, scientists, research-ers and more importantly the farmers/rural dwellers arenormally ignored during planning and implementation ofagricultural/rural development policies and programmes.These stakeholders are in a better position to identify thepolicies and programmes that will be tailored to the needof the farmers/masses. However, their non-participationhas led to failure of intervention programmes, increasedpoverty and inaccessibility of basic social amenities withdwindling economic fortune [65].

Weak agricultural policy

In Nigeria, the livestock policies are either inadequateor obsolete and there is a lack of enforcement of existinganimal health laws and standards [2]. Agricultural policiesare not specific and they are handled as cross-sectoral policyrelated to forestry, in which environmental factors alsocome into play (e.g., the forest policy of 1945). Developedeconomies have their agricultural policies publically dis-played. Also, a policy should have a strategy, targets, goals,specific objectives, and most importantly programme orprojects, geared towards accomplishing the goals.Nevertheless, this is not the case in Nigeria, as was

seen in 1960–1966 when there were several agriculturalpolicies but no agricultural programme or project to carryout the directives of the policies. Sometimes, agriculturalprogrammes and projects are not consequences of agri-cultural policies. For example, in the military era there werefew agricultural policies, decrees and acts that existedwith invention of numerous agricultural programmes suchas National Accelerated Food Production Programme(NAFPP), Operation Feed the Nation (OFN), AgriculturalDevelopment Projects (ADP), River Basin DevelopmentAuthorities (RBDAs), Green Revolution (GR), Directoratefor Food, Roads and Rural Infrastructure (DFRRI),Better Life Programme (BLP) For Rural Women, FamilySupport Programme (FSP), Family Economic AdvancementProgramme (FEAP), National Fadama Development Project

16 CAB Reviews


(NFDP), and National Agricultural Land DevelopmentAuthority (NALDA) which was initiated in 1992 muchlater than the decree (1978) and an act (1979) supportingit. There is urgent need to reverse this situation toameliorate the persistent failure of agricultural policiesand programmes in Nigeria [65].

Conflicts between different programmes and projects

Conflicts between different programmes and projectsmay be linked to new administration, lack of interest, andinvention of new policies and programmes. There has beenconflict between FSP and FEAP, and the conflict betweenDFRRI and ADP was pronounced in many states. Appar-ently, DFRRI merely removed the sign posts of some ADPSand replaced them with its own to take merit for theconstruction of certain rural roads and boreholes [66], andreportedly significant amounts of resources had also beenwasted [65].

Short duration of agricultural policies and programmes

Continuity of existing programmes and new administrationhas not been sufficient for the policies and programme tohave an impact. Examples of such cases are FSP (in 1994),FEAP (1996), OFN and RBDAS (1976), NAFPP (1972),OFN (1976) and GR (1980). Changes retard developmentprogress and do not allow the development policies andprogrammes to fulfil their mission and mandate to over-come the food crisis in Nigeria [65].

Inconsistency and incompatibility of regional policiesand programmes with the national policies andprogrammes

It should also be recognized that programmes and policiescan have different impacts on different people (clientele)because a given programme or policy has different effectson the various target audiences. Alternatively, differentpolicies and programmes may exist at the same time, as wasthe case with RBDA (1976) and OFN (1976), and DFRRI(1986) and BLP (1987). New policies and programmesshould be consistent, work in harmony and collaborateclosely with regional and national policies and programmes.Good rapport and relationships, as well as a peacefulatmosphere increase the chances to achieve success ofagricultural policies and programmes, and consequentagricultural development [65].

Emphasis on mainly food and animal production

Agricultural growth and development need diversificationinto different sectors like manufacturing and services.

Relying exclusively on farm output, which the mostagricultural policies and programmes emphasize, meanssubjecting the inhabitants of the nation to chronic poverty,marginalisation and stagnation. Policies should aim atmobilizing resources (human and material) with the aimof developing programmes or projects in rural non-farmemployment (such as fee fishing, hunting lodges andgrowing ornamental plants) and in secondary and tertiarysectors (such as tourism, recreational and environmentalservices or preservation). Many of these activities that werepreviously overlooked and geographically quite dispersedhave become true productive links involving agroindustrialoperations, and sophisticated systems of distribution,communication and packaging [65].

Delay, embezzlement, misappropriation and lackof funding to pursue specific policies and programmes

The Nigerian government may need to channel funds fromthe informal sector to the formal sector of the economyto make development policies and programmes bothworkable and more effective The government abruptlywithdrew the funding from NAFPP, which contributedto the failure of the project, and lack of funding delayedthe implementation of ADP – this lack of funding persistsin ADP today. Misplacement of priority or misdirectionof funds to unnecessary components of agriculturalprogrammes should also be avoided to avoid wastage ofresource that hamper programme success. For example, inFSS expenses incurred mainly on infrastructure – which didnot directly increase agricultural output – and it was one ofthe problems that led to the failure of the scheme [65].

Inadequate virile technical advisory and extensionservices

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) issuccessful partly because of their systematic and timelytechnical advisory services are provided within universitiesor Land Grant colleges of agriculture. Provision of exten-sion services can help smallholder farmers to acquireentrepreneurial skills, and teach and convince farmers toadopt and diffuse innovations. Not educating participantsand beneficiaries on the meaning and goals of OFN, FSS andBLP, contributed immensely to their failure [65].

Lack, and inadequate monitoring and evaluationof programmes and projects

Evaluation helps determine achievements of rural develop-ment programmes to set aims and objectives. Evaluationtechniques can serve to improve implementation and effici-ency of programmes after interventions have begun, andprovide evidence as to the cost efficiency and impact of a



specific intervention within and between policy sectors[67]. Especially continuous, on-going and stage-by-stageevaluations are important because they expose gaps inprogramme objectives, thereby affording opportunities foradjustment. Unfortunately, the importance of monitoringand evaluating projects has not been fully recognized inNigeria. In GR, for example, no monitoring or evaluationwas carried out, but huge sums of money were spent onexecuting the programme [65].

Other factors

Other indicators of weak agricultural policies in Nigeria arepoor state of animal health services and infrastructures,inadequate budgeting for animal health programmes, desertencroachment, soil erosion, overgrazing, bush burning, pres-ence of endemic livestock diseases, inappropriate tariffs andpricing of livestock [2].

Recommendations and the Way Forward

Various stakeholders, including farmers and rural people,should be involved in the planning and execution of agri-cultural policies and programmes. There is need for acommunication strategy to be developed and implementedto support the establishment and operations of LPHs atnational levels, to create necessary awareness on sustain-ability at national levels, and to bring the issue to theattention of decision makers and development partners [2].Establishment and strengthening of LPHs at both nationaland state levels as a mechanism to generate evidence forlivestock policy formulation and the role of livestock in theeconomy should be undertaken, and the existing insti-tutional culture and diversity of stakeholders should beconsidered in the establishment of LPHs. Also, functionallinkages with Commercial Agriculture DevelopmentProgramme (CADP), national and state teams should beestablished, as well as other agriculture/livestock policy andstrategy formulation mechanisms, and the structure andinstitutionalisation of LPHs should be addressed at thenational level for further elaboration and validation [2].Also, agricultural policies and programmes should

be open, transparent, and they should be framed withina context in which agricultural development policies andprogrammes are national issues based on a broad enoughconsensus to guarantee continuity and freedom of expres-sion for the opinions on decisions of individuals. Thegovernment should promote a virile extension liaisonservice that is empowered and supported by adaptiveresearch and mobile personnel equipped with necessarymedia facilities and information. This would help the targetaudience solve any misconceptions related to the objec-tives, relate to the information to and from the researchand government, and increase participation in the pro-gramme since the government would be in closer contact

with the target audience. This would consequently improvethe chances of the programme becoming successful [65].Programmes should be monitored and their efficacies

evaluated in terms of specific geographical impacts. Thiswould provide a highly useful approach for evaluating thedirect and indirect impacts of different programmes andprojects interacting simultaneously. Policy makers andplanners should also identify and evaluate alternative ordifferent intervention programmes in terms of both theirimmediate and long-term impacts and their implications tothe communities and society at large [65].The philosophy of policy/programme consistency should

be adopted in Nigeria. This would be the easiest way tostreamline, direct and focus to agricultural development.This philosophy should be a critical issue for our futurepolicies and programmes. Government should providean enabling environment for private sectors to becomeinvolved in agricultural development especially in areas suchas processing, preservation, exportation, tourism, recrea-tional and environmental services. This would promoteagricultural development and project the country to theentire world. Tourist centres such as Yankari gamesreserve, Obudu cattle ranch and museums, could servethis purpose [65].The government and private sector should invest in

animal health services by providing adequate budgeting foranimal health programmes and infrastructures; reviewingand amending all existing legislations, developing human andinfrastructural capacities for enforcement of animal healthlaws and standards; ensuring sustainable land use manage-ment to address desert encroachment, soil erosion, over-grazing and bush burning; supporting strategic control ofendemic livestock diseases; reviewing existing tariffs andreinforcing guaranteed minimum price for livestock andlivestock products; and supporting efficient land acquisitionand management of grazing reserves through Private PublicPartnership (PPP) [2]. The governments’ ATA should beconsidered a priority, and partnerships should be estab-lished with relevant institutions and organizations topromote synergy and participation, as well as to fosterpolicy dialogue and a multi-disciplinary approach.

Conclusion

Diseases, management practices, farming systems, abattoirmanagement (in terms of disease control and poor controlof animal movement within and out of the country),poverty, low capital, and illiteracy, have contributedmassively to the slow growth of the livestock industry inNigeria. A lot needs to be done in the livestock industry inorder to increase production that could lead to thesubsequent increase in the nations GDP. Looking at thepoultry industry, poultry farmers need to be empoweredin terms of capital and management practices to ensureefficient production. There is a need for associations to beformed to prevent disease outbreaks and to provide mutual

18 CAB Reviews


assistance. The local poultry needs to be properly takencare of and routinely vaccinated. The traditional free-rangeor backyard poultry system also needs to be addressed.Difficulty in feed provisioning during the dry season is also aproblem that affects the farming system. Land laws need tobe re