This research provides important insights into smallholder farmers’ behaviour regarding preferences and willingness to pay for village poultry vaccination services and poultry genetic resources. However, some limitations remain in the thesis, in spite of the fact that efforts were made to minimize potential problems. Based on the limitations and major conclusions of the thesis, some suggestions are made for future research.
The choice experiment surveys for this research were conducted in one district, in West Ethiopia, despite the various socio-cultural and poultry production systems that prevail in the country. Consequently, it was not possible to investigate variation in farmers’ preference for traits of chicken in different parts of the country in this thesis. One would normally expect differences in preference for traits of chicken between farmers, which could be due to difference in production objectives. Farmers in the peripheries of the capital city, for instance, may target the effective demand for eggs in the city and prefer traits of chicken that reflect the egg production potential of chicken, and mothering ability of chicken may not be their preferred trait. Therefore, understanding preferred traits of chickens under different socio-cultural and production objectives is an important future research target. This study also used cross sectional survey data; therefore, it was not possible to assess changes in farmers’ preferences over time. Hence, panel data would be helpful to see how farmers’ preferences are changing and to assess how the production system is moving towards a market oriented system.
A follow-up survey to the CVM study was not conducted in this research. In the CVM study, conducting a follow-up CVM survey would have given important insight into the temporal stability of the stated WTP in the original survey for further policy implications, and should be considered in future research. Therefore, the estimated WTP for vaccine service in this study should be carefully interpreted, though the findings give important insight into farmers’ behaviour with regard to the use of poultry vaccine technology. An important future research area related to farmers’ preference and WTP for vaccine technology is to investigate the technical and economic feasibility of using the technology in the prevailing production environment. Pilot work on delivery of vaccination services, and ex-ante and ex-post impact evaluations of the use of poultry vaccine technologies in
village poultry production environment would help to justify using the technologies and inform policymakers and development practitioners.
Smallholder farmers in developing countries rarely practice record keeping. The socioeconomic data used in Chapter 2 of this thesis were collected using a survey instrument in which the information gathered relied on the farmers’ memory. In such circumstances understating/overstating at least some socioeconomic data would not be unexpected, though it is not uncommon to rely on respondents’ memory of the past in most related studies in developing countries. In this study, households were categorized into income quartiles to analyse the role of poultry to households across income quartiles. Yet, we suggest this income data is carefully interpreted and used in characterising households as poor or non-poor. Another area of research in this regard may be working with farmers in record keeping and a more accurate evaluation of the role of poultry to household in different wealth status and the impact of infectious diseases and control interventions where there is opportunity for trial intervention. The analysis could also be moved forward towards flock modelling.
References
Aklilu, H., Almekinders, C., Udo, H., Van der Zijpp, A., 2007. Village poultry
consumption and marketing in relation to gender, religious festivals and market access. Tropical animal health and production 39, 165-177.
Aklilu, H., Udo, H., Almekinders, C., Van der Zijpp, A., 2008. How resource poor households value and access poultry: Village poultry keeping in Tigray, Ethiopia. Agricultural Systems 96, 175-183.
Alemu, D., Degefe, T., Ferede, S., Nzietcheung, S., Roy.D., 2008. Overview and
background paper on Ethiopia’s poultry sector: Relevance for HPAI research in Ethiopia. DFID Pro-poor HPAI Risk Reduction Strategies Project Africa/Indonesia Region Report No. 1. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Bush, J., 2006. The Threat of Avian Flu Predicted Impacts on Rural Livelihoods in Southern Nation, Nationalities and Peoples Region (SNNPR), Ethiopia. The Food Economy Group, May 2006.
Bettridge, J., Lynch, S., Brena, M., Melese, K., Dessie, T., Terfa, Z., Desta, T., Rushton, S., Hanotte, O., Kaiser, P., Wigleya, P., Christley, R.M., 2014. Infection-interactions in Ethiopian village chickens. Preventive veterinary medicine 117, 358-366.
Halima, H., Neser, F.W.C., Marle-Koster, E., Kock, A., 2007. Village-based indigenous chicken production system in north-west Ethiopia. Tropical animal health and production 39, 189-197.
Mirkena, T., 2010. Identifying breeding objectives of smallholders/pastoralists and optimizing community-based breeding programs, Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems. University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Vienna.
Negassa, A., Rashid, S., Gebremedhin, B., 2011. Livestock Production and Marketing. International Food Policy Research Institute – Ethiopia Strategy Support Program II,Working Paper 26.
Teklewold, H., Dadi, L., Yami, A., Dana, N., 2006. Determinants of adoption of poultry technology: a double-hurdle approach. Livestock Research for Rural Development 18(3) available at http://www.lrrd.cipav.org.co/lrrd18/3/tekl18040.htm
United Nations, 2013. World population policies 2013, New York. Accessed 01-07-2014, at
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/policy/WPP2013/wp p2013.pdf#zoom=100.
World Bank, 2005. Ethiopia - Well-being and poverty in Ethiopia : the role of agriculture and agency. Washington, DC: World Bank. Accessed 06 June, 2014 at
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2005/07/6297093/ethiopia-well-being-poverty- ethiopia-role-agriculture-agency.
Appendix 1
Questionnaire for cross sectional study- Socioeconomic and CVM survey
Introductory sheet
1. Start by greeting the respondent in their language! 2. Explain the following briefly to the respondent!
This is a questionnaire is part of a research study into the economic and health problems of village poultry in rural Ethiopia, Jarso and Horro. The study is conducted by International Livestock Research Institute and the University of Liverpool. Before you decide whether to participate, we would like to explain to you why the research is being done and what it will involve. Please feel free to ask us if you would like more information or if there is anything that you do not understand.
The data to be generated will be on socioeconomic importance of poultry, poultry health services, management, disease problems and preference for traits of indigenous poultry. By doing this, we hope we can develop ways to reduce the problems with disease that will work in your village.
This questionnaire will take about 120 minutes but respondents have the right to stop the interview at any time. Yet, the data will only be used if the questionnaire is completed. Data generated with this questionnaire will not be transferred to a third person and will be used only for the purpose of the study.
We would like to stress that you do not have to accept this invitation and should take part only if you want to. If you decide later you would like your data to be removed, you can tell your DA who will contact us.
Thank you in advance for your willingness to discuss with us!
Village name: ... Date /dd/mm/yyyy/:... Time started:... Name of the enumerator:...