Munich Personal RePEc Archive

Extensive and Improved Traditional

Poultry Farming in Togo: A
Comparative Analysis of Socioeconomic
Characteristics of Farmers

Soviadan, Mawussi Kossivi and Enete, Anselm Anibueze and

Okoye, Chukwuemeka Uzoma and Dossa, Kossivi Fabrice

Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nigeria,

Nsukka (UNN)

31 October 2021

Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/113915/
MPRA Paper No. 113915, posted 04 Aug 2022 17:09 UTC
 Extensive and Improved Traditional Poultry Farming in
Togo: A Comparative Analysis of Socioeconomic
Characteristics of Farmers
Mawussi Kossivi Soviadan*
Department of Agricultural Economics,
University of Nigeria, Nsukka (UNN), Nigeria
University of Bonn, Germany
University of Lomé, Togo
*
Corresponding author’s email address:
[email protected]
Anselm Anibueze Enete
Chukwuemeka Uzoma Okoye
Kossivi Fabrice Dossa
Department of Agricultural Economics,
University of Nigeria, Nsukka (UNN), Nigeria

Abstract

Since 2014, the Agricultural Sector Support Project (PASA) has been
assisting smallholder farmers in Togo with the adoption of Improved
Traditional Poultry Farming Technique (ITPFT) in rural areas for wealth
creation, food security and poverty alleviation. This paper focuses on
comparing the socioeconomic characteristics of beneficiaries and non-
beneficiaries of PASA subsidies. Both random and purposive sampling
techniques were used to select 400 farmers. The sample consisted of 86 project
beneficiaries and 314 non-beneficiaries. Structured questionnaires were used
to collect data. Results of analysis indicated that there is a significant
difference in socioeconomic variables such as self-financing capacity, level of
education, membership in cooperative societies, household size, farm size, and
annual sale of poultry between project beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries
prior to the implementation of PASA. Descriptive statistics show that five
years after the implementation of PASA, the annual poultry sales per farmer
ranged from 0 to 1700 birds for beneficiaries and from 9 to 200 birds for non-
beneficiaries. The turnover per farmer ranged from US $ 0 to US $ 42409 and
from US $ 33 to US $ 996 for beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries,
respectively. The profit per farmer ranged from US $ 0 to US $ 25446 for
beneficiaries and from US $ 26 to US $ 797 for non-beneficiaries.

1
The magnitude of the standard deviations of the potential outcome variables
among beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries suggests that adoption rates of
ITPFT may vary from one farmer to another. As a result, compared to non-
beneficiaries, beneficiaries experienced a greater increase in potential
outcomes five years after the implementation of PASA. Failure to comply with
improved production technique on certain farms, despite receiving subsidies,
is a factor that could negatively impact the effective, efficient, and optimal
achievement of the project’s expected results. Further research will
concentrate on determining the added value of PASA through the use of
appropriate and thorough econometric adoption and impact assessment
methods.

Keywords: Traditional Poultry Farming, PASA, Government Subsidies,

Improved Production Technique, Comparative Analysis, Socioeconomic
Characteristics, Togo

1. Introduction

Traditional poultry farming in rural areas is critical for sustaining

livelihoods and supplying poultry products in rural, suburban, and urban areas,
as well as providing important support to developing countries' most
vulnerable groups (FAO, 2014). As long as poverty persists in rural areas,
traditional poultry farming will continue to provide opportunities for high
quality income generation and nutrition for the human population (FAO,
2015). Poultry farming in Togo is essentially characterized by two types of
production, namely traditional poultry farming based on the breeding of local
birds and the modern poultry faming based on the rearing of imported exotic
breeds with different degrees of intensification. The bird species are mainly
chickens, guinea fowls, ducks, turkeys, and pigeons (Tona, 1992; Aklobessi,
2003; Dao, 2010). Poultry farming is one of the largest livestock sectors in the
country. It contributes significantly to the Agricultural Gross Domestic
Product (Gauthier & Langlois, 2010) and occupies an important place in the
daily living of Togolese people, especially in rural areas where poultry are
raised not only for the production of meat and eggs, but also as a means of
income through sales (Kondombo et al., 2003). In some African cultures,
chickens are also used as gifts and for rituals.
Local poultry are characterized by high genetic variability (Hoffmann,
2007), hardiness, disease resistance under severe rearing conditions, better
breeding ability of the females (brooding and hatching) and protection of their
offspring especially against predators, and bad weather (Kondombo, 2005).
Traditional poultry farming is characterized by extensive free-range farming
where the birds must look for their food in the environment (Kondombo, 2005;
Pousga et al., 2005). However, supplement cereals are often distributed to
birds at certain times of the day. This is characterized by low productivity
because its production potential is inherently low combined with poor
environmental and feeding conditions. Losses are usually greater during the
rainy season, and are also due to theft and slaughter because of the extensive
nature of this type of breeding. There is also high mortality and slow growth
of birds essentially because of diseases, predation, external parasites, and
accidents. Long brooding periods per poultry which results in low production
of poultry ready for slaughter or sale is common (Mcainsh et al., 2004; Pousga
et al., 2005).
The Agricultural Sector Support Project (PASA) is one of the projects
of the National Program for Agricultural Investment and Food Security
(PNIASA) developed by the government of Togo in its 2010-2015 investment
plan with the assistance of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO) and the World Bank (WB) (Gauthier & Langlois,
2010). The overall objective of PNIASA is to increase the productivity and/or
competitiveness of strategic food crops, export crops, and livestock
production, as well as the promotion of an enabling environment for privately
driven agricultural development (Gauthier & Langlois, 2010). In this regard,
a second sub-component of PASA was aimed at reviving the livestock sub-
sector. The specific objective is to provide short-term emergency assistance to
rehabilitate poultry and small ruminant production, assist small livestock
farmers to develop and improve livestock production in rural areas for wealth
creation, food security and poverty reduction (PNIASA, 2016). With specific
reference to the case of poultry, it was to enable farmers that will benefit from
the grants to improve their poultry farming technique in order to reduce the
constraints associated with the above-mentioned traditional extensive poultry
farming, increase production, enhance food security, increase income, and
reduce poverty.
Thus, as part of the implementation of this second PASA sub-
component, the government provided farmers with a subsidy for the adoption
of ITPFT in 2014. A total of 86 farmers were involved in the initial selection
phase of PASA. The purpose of this research is to examine the socioeconomic
characteristics of farmers, both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of the
project's subsidies, before and after the implementation of PASA.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Field of Study
Togo, a West African country, is geographically located between 6°
and 11° North latitude, and 0° and 2° East longitude, with a surface area of
56,600 square kilometers. It is bordered by the Bight of Benin and Burkina
Faso in the south and north, respectively. Togo is bound in the west by Ghana
and in the east by Benin Republic (RNA, 2012). It is subdivided into five
regions namely, the Maritime Region, the Plateaux Region, the Central
Region, the Kara Region, and the Savannah Region (Figure 1). The Togolese
population is estimated at 8,082,366 inhabitants (UN-DESA-PD, 2019). Togo
has significant agricultural potential despite its limited size. Cultivable land is
estimated at nearly 3.4 million hectares (64% of the territory), 45% of which
is currently cultivated. The country's varied climate divides it into several
agro-ecological zones allowing the production of a diversified range of
agricultural products. Irrigable land is estimated at 86,000 hectares and
exploitable lowland at 175,000 hectares (Gauthier & Langlois, 2010).
Despite this significant agricultural potential, more and more regions
are facing the adverse effects of climate change and increasing land pressure
through over-exploitation of land, resulting in declining fertility and land
degradation, and a decrease in agricultural production and productivity
(Gauthier & Langlois, 2010; NDP, 2018). The rural population is estimated at
3,843,049 (FAO, 2013). In 2012, the number of active farmers was estimated
at 3,738,430 representing more than 60% of the national population and was
unevenly distributed in terms of space as follows (FAO, 2013):
- Maritime Region: 776,135 inhabitants, or 20.8%
- Plateaux Region: 1,161,580 inhabitants, or 31.1%
- Central Region: 457,173 inhabitants, or 12.2%
- Kara Region: 601,036 inhabitants, or 16.1%
- Savannah Region: 742,506 inhabitants, or 19.9%

2.2. Sampling Technique

2.2.1. Sampling Procedure
Documentation and field visits allowed us to identify the different
districts and localities of the five major rural areas involved in this
investigation. The study focused on Togolese farmers. The size of the target
population represented the total number of farmers in Togo. The sample size
for this study was determined using the sample calculation formula below,
with a 95% confidence level:
𝑵
𝒏= (𝟏)
𝟏 + 𝑵 × 𝒆𝟐

Source : (Fellegi, 2003)

With:
N = the size of the target population (Togolese farmers),
n = the sample size and
e = the level of precision (5%).

The vast majority of the active agricultural population is involved in

both agriculture and traditional poultry farming. As a result, the national
agricultural population size N of 3,738,430 was used to calculate the study's
sample size.

Calculation of the Sample Size (n)

𝟑 𝟕𝟑𝟖 𝟒𝟑𝟎
𝒏= ; 𝒏 = 𝟑𝟗𝟗, 𝟗𝟓𝟕𝟐𝟎𝟔 = 𝟒𝟎𝟎
𝟏 + 𝟑 𝟕𝟑𝟖 𝟒𝟑𝟎 ∗ (𝟎, 𝟎𝟓)𝟐

2.2.2. Sample Size Per Stratum

In 2014, 86 farmers participated in the Ministry of Agriculture’s
Agricultural Sector Support Project (PASA) for the adoption of improved
traditional poultry farming technique. The project's beneficiaries were
distributed across the country's five regions and by district, and they were
included in the overall sample. The non-beneficiaries of the project made up
the remainder of the sample which was also distributed by region based on the
region's weight in the national agricultural population. The regional samples
were also stratified based on the distribution of project beneficiaries by district
(Table 1a and 1b).

2.3. Data Collection

This study adopted a farm household survey design in Togo. The study
utilized primary data on extensive and improved traditional poultry farming.
Data were collected using survey instrument administered on 400 respondents
of which the beneficiaries of the project were purposively selected. Note that
the beneficiaries of the project consisted of 86 farmers, while the non-
beneficiaries consisted of 314 farmers. The 86 beneficiaries received a grant
from the Ministry of Agriculture. Thereafter, they received technical training
and technical support for the improvement of traditional poultry farming
technique. Data collected covered five consecutive years of poultry farming
and two periods, specifically, from 2014 (the year the project began, the
baseline) to 2018 (five years after the implementation of the project, the
follow-up).
Figure 1. Map of the Study Area (Togo)
Source: Author’s Conceptualization
2.4. Estimation Method

Data for the study were analyzed using statistical and econometric
tools. The objective of this investigation was achieved by describing and
comparing the socio-economic characteristics of beneficiaries and non-
beneficiaries of the project.

2.4.1. Pearson Chi-Square Significance Test (χ2)

The Pearson's Chi-square significance test (χ2) was used to compare
the socio-economic qualitative variables of both beneficiaries and non-
beneficiaries of the project. The equation is specified as thus:
𝒏
(𝑶𝒊 − 𝑬𝒊 )
𝝌𝟐 = ∑ (𝟐)
𝑬𝒊
𝒊=𝟏

Source: (Franke et al., 2012)

Where:
𝜒 2 = Pearson Chi-Square
O = Observed Value
E = Expected Value
∑ = Summation sign
𝑛 = The sample size
𝐻0 is not rejected if P-Value (Chi-square (χ2)) is greater than 5% or rejected
otherwise.
2.4.2. Student Significance Test (t-test)
The Student Significance Test (t-test) was used to compare the mean
of the socioeconomic quantitative variables of both beneficiaries and non-
beneficiaries of the project. The equation is specified as thus:
̅ − 𝝁𝟎
𝒙
𝒕 = √𝒏 (𝟑)
𝒔

Source: (Zabell, 2008)

Where:
𝑡 = Student Value
𝑥̅ = The mean of the beneficiaries of the project
𝜇0 = The mean of the non-beneficiaries of the project
𝑠 = The standard deviation
𝑛 = The sample size
𝐻0 is not rejected if P-Value (T-Student) is greater than 5% or rejected
otherwise.
 Table 1a. Sample Size Per Region
Region Agricultural Population Weight of the Sample Stratified
by Region Region by Region
Maritime 776 135 21% 83
Plateaux 1 161 580 31% 124
Central 457 173 12% 49
Kara 601 036 16% 64
Savannah 742 506 20% 80
Total (Togo) 3 738 430 100% 400
Source: Author’s Conceptualization

Table 1b. Full Sample Design of the Study

Region District selected Beneficiaries Weight of Non- Sample Per
Beneficiaries Beneficiaries District
Per Districts selected
TANDJOARE 5 24% 14 19
OTI 5 24% 14 19
SAVANNAH
TONE 6 29% 17 23
KPENDJAL 5 24% 14 19
Total Savannah 4 21 100% 59 80
BINAH 6 35% 17 23
KARA KOZAH 6 35% 17 23
ASSOLI 5 29% 14 19
Total Kara 3 17 100% 47 64
TCHAOUDJO 6 35% 11 17
SOTOUBOUA 5 29% 9 14
CENTRAL
BLITTA 3 18% 6 9
TCHAMBA 3 18% 6 9
Total Central 4 17 100% 32 49
AGOU 3 17% 18 21
AMOU 1 6% 6 7
EST-MONO 3 17% 18 21
PLATEAUX
OGOU/ANIE 5 28% 29 34
DANYI/KPELE 5 28% 29 34
MOYEN MONO 1 6% 6 7
Total Plateaux 6 18 100% 106 124
GOLFE 2 15% 11 13
LACS 2 15% 11 13
ZIO SUD 4 31% 22 26
MARITIME
AVE 3 23% 16 19
VO 1 8% 5 6
YOTO 1 8% 5 6
Total Maritime 6 13 100% 70 83
TOTAL 23 86 100% 314 400
Source: Author’s Conceptualization
3. Results and Discussion
Table 2. Socioeconomics Characteristics of Beneficiaries and Non-Beneficiaries of PASA
Frequency Percentage (%)
Attributes Categories Non Non
Beneficiaries Sample Beneficiaries Sample
beneficiaries beneficiaries
Savannah 21 59 80 24.44 18.78 20
Kara 17 47 64 19.76 14.97 16
Region Central 17 32 49 19.76 10.20 12.25
Plateau 18 106 123 20.93 33.75 31.00
Maritime 13 70 83 15.11 22.30 20.75
Male 75 274 349 87.20 87.26 87.25
Gender
Female 11 40 51 12.80 12.74 12.75
22 – 30 1 28 29 1.16 8.92 7.25
31 – 40 18 103 121 20.93 32.80 30.25
Age 41 – 50 33 115 148 38.38 36.62 37
51 – 60 26 51 77 30.23 16.24 19.25
61 – 76 8 17 25 9.30 5.42 6.25
Yes 86 298 384 100 95 96
Education
No 0 16 16 0 5 4
Single 2 9 11 2.33 2.87 2.75
Married 82 294 376 95.34 93.63 94
Marital Status
Divorced 0 2 2 0 0.63 0.50
Widower 2 9 11 2.33 2.87 2.75
Primary 19 232 251 22 74 62.75
Secondary 39 55 94 45 18 23.50
Level of Study High School 23 11 34 27 3 8.50
University 5 0 5 6 0 1.25
Non-Formal 0 16 16 0 5 4
Membership of Yes 83 11 94 96.5 4 23.5
Cooperative No 3 303 306 3.5 96 76.5
 Improved Yes 86 0 86 100 0 21.5
Poultry House No 0 314 314 0 100 78.5
Semi-Modern Yes 59 0 59 68.60 0 14.75
Equipment No 27 314 341 31.40 100 85.25
Yes 32 0 32 37.21 0 8
Incubator
No 54 314 368 62.79 100 92
Yes 86 0 86 100 0 21.5
Food Quality
No 0 314 314 0 100 78.5
Yes 86 0 86 100 0 21.5
Water
No 0 314 314 0 100 78.5
Yes 48 3 51 55.81 1 12.75
Hygiene
No 38 311 349 44.19 99 87.25
Yes 79 118 197 91.86 37.58 49.25
Health Care
No 7 196 203 8.14 62.42 50.75
Type of Semi-Intensive 65 0 65 75.58 0 16.25
Poultry Farm Extensive 21 314 335 24.42 100 83.75
Technique Yes 86 0 86 100 0 21.5
Support No 0 314 314 0 100 78.5
Source: Author’s Computation Based on Field Data, 2014, 2020
3.1. Descriptive Statistics
Region
Table 2 shows that 24.44% of the 86 farmers who benefited from the
project were in the Savannah region, 19.76% in the Kara region, 19.76% in
the Central region, 20.93% in the Plateaux region, and 15.11% in the Maritime
region. Similarly, of the 314 non-beneficiaries of the project, 18.78% were in
the Savannah region, 14.97% in the Kara region, 10.20% in the Central region,
33.75% in the Plateaux region, and 22.30% in the Maritime region. These
findings support the results of MAEP (2014) and Aklobessi (2003), who found
that the Savannah, Kara, and Plateaux regions are the most involved in
traditional poultry farming in Togo.
Gender
Table 2 shows that out of the 400 farmers surveyed, 87.25% were
males and 12.75% were females. Out of the 86 project beneficiaries, 87.20%
were males while 12.80% were females. Furthermore, 87.26% of the 314 non-
beneficiaries were males while 12.74% were females. Women are less
represented in traditional poultry farming than men, according to these
findings, in both beneficiary and non-beneficiary groups. These findings are
consistent with those of Lombo et al. (2018) and Moussa Amadou et al.
(2011). Concerning farmer participation in PASA for the improvement of
traditional poultry farming, prior to receiving the project subsidy, which
amounted to approximately US $ 6,364 per farmer in general, the government
imposed on the farmers self-financing covering which is 10% of the cost of
installation of the improved poultry farm. The self-financing capacity can be
in cash or in kind, and in most cases, the beneficiaries used their land as a
construction site for the improved poultry farm. This self-financing capacity
criterion did not allow women to benefit from the subsidy in large numbers.
This is because in rural areas, it is difficult for women to easily mobilize
approximately US $ 637 and they also rarely have lands. These results are in
line with those of Anyanwu (2014) and Guèye (2000a, 2000b, 2005). Along
the same lines, Akinola and Essien (2011), Chowdhury (2013), Das et al.
(2008), Guèye (2000a, 2000b, 2005, 2007), Riise et al. (2005), and Saleque
and Mustafa (1996) argued that projects and programs promoting traditional
poultry farming for rural development must encourage the participation of
vulnerable groups, especially poor women with no financial resources and
those who rarely have lands.
Age
The youngest of the 86 farmers who used PASA was 25 years old and
the oldest was 68 years old, and this is five years after the implementation of
PASA. With a standard deviation of 8.84, the average age was 48.
The youngest of the 314 non-beneficiaries of the project was 22 years old,
while the oldest was 76. With a standard deviation of 9.82, the average age
was 44 years. In terms of age groups, out of the 86 beneficiaries of the project,
1 farmer (1.16%) was between the ages of 22 and 30, 20.93% were between
the ages of 31 and 40, 38.38% were between the ages of 41 and 50, 30.23%
were between the ages of 51 and 60, and 9.30% were between the ages of 61
and 68. Similarly, out of the 314 non-beneficiaries of the project, 8.92% were
between the ages of 22 and 30, 32.80% were between the ages of 31 and 40,
36.62% were between the ages of 41 and 50, 16.24% were between the ages
of 51 and 60, and 5.42% were between the ages of 61 and 76. Beneficiaries
and non-beneficiaries of the project were roughly the same age.
Marital Status
2.33% of the project's 86 recipients were single, 95.34% were married,
and 2.33% were widowed. 2.87% of the 314 non-beneficiaries were single,
93.63% were married, 0.63% were divorced, and 2.87% were widowed. The
majority of farmers in both beneficiary (95%) and non-beneficiary (94%)
groups are married according to these findings. This could be one of the
reasons why rural households practice traditional poultry farming to meet their
financial and nutritional needs. Farayola et al. (2013), Sankara et al. (2018),
and Umunna et al. (2012) all came to similar conclusions.
Education and Level of Study
96% of the 400 farmers polled were literate, while 4% were not. At
least one form of education was available to all 86 project beneficiaries. 95%
of the 314 non-beneficiaries of the project had at least one form of education,
while 5% did not. According to the findings of the analysis, 22% of the 86
project beneficiaries had primary education, 45% had secondary education,
27% had higher education, and 6% had university education. In the case of the
314 non-beneficiaries of the project, 74% had a primary education, 18% had
a secondary education, 3% had a higher education, and 5% had no formal
education.
Despite the fact that the majority of the respondents were literate
(Anyanwu, 2014; Umunna et al., 2012), project beneficiaries had a higher
level of education than non-benefiaries. One of the motivating factors for
participation in PASA for the improvement of traditional poultry farming
could be the level of education.
Membership in Cooperative Societies
In terms of cooperative societies membership, 96.5% of the 86 project
beneficiaries were members, while 3.5% were not. In addition, 4% of the 314
non-beneficiaries of the project were members of cooperative societies, while
96% were not. According to these findings, the majority of project
beneficiaries (96.5%) are members of agricultural cooperatives societies,
while only 4% of non-beneficiaries are members. Farmers' membership in
agricultural cooperatives societies, according to Umunna et al. (2012), plays
an important role in their access to needed information. One of the factors
motivating farmers to participate in PASA for the adoption of the improved
traditional poultry rearing technique could be their membership in agricultural
cooperative societies.
Housing and Equipment

Table 2 shows that the 314 non-beneficiaries of the project continued to raise
their poultry in traditional poultry houses using traditional equipment. This
finding is in agreement with those of Dessie and Ogle (2001), Kumaresan et
al. (2008), and Magothe et al. (2012) who argued that village poultry were
raised in very poor housing. In contrast, all the 86 beneficiaries of the project
had improved their poultry houses with 69% using semi-modern equipment.
Similarly, Chowdhury (2013), Riise et al. (2005), and Saleque and Mustafa
(1996) also found that traditional poultry housing and equipment had been
improved through development programs and projects that benefited farmers
in rural areas. Regarding feeding and watering equipment, Table 2 shows that
none of the non-beneficiaries were using modern feeding and watering
equipment in their poultry farm. However, the majority of beneficiaries of the
project were using them. The maximum number of feeding troughs used per
beneficiary was 52 and the average was 7 with a standard deviation of 7.96.
As for watering troughs, the maximum number used per beneficiary was 40,
and the average was 6 with a standard deviation of 6.35. All the non-
beneficiaries of the project continued to use traditional poultry equipment due
to insufficient means of obtaining modern or semi-modern equipment. In
contrast, 31% of the beneficiaries of the project who were not using semi-
modern poultry equipment had received subsidies to procure such equipment,
but they voluntarily decided not to purchase or renew them when they were
out of use. Magothe et al. (2012) argued that the use of feeding and watering
equipment by farmers on their improved traditional poultry farms is very
important for a healthy balanced diet and enables farmers to practice the
sanitary measures indispensable for the reduction of mortality. The absence of
semi-modern equipment in some improved poultry farms of project
beneficiaries could affect the expected results of PASA.
Incubator

Regarding ownership of incubator, out of the 86 beneficiaries of the

project, only 37.21% had incubator in their poultry farms, 62.79% did not
have. All the non-beneficiaries did not have incubators in their poultry farms.
The incubator is the machine in the poultry sector that produces day-old bird
in sufficient quantities to meet the needs of poultry farms. One of the most
important equipment to be acquired by farmers that had received subsidies for
the improvement of their traditional poultry farms was the incubator. Azahar
et al. (2020) reported that not only will the egg incubator significantly improve
traditional poultry production, it will also provide income consistency, and
thereby, enabling smallholder farmers to move into eventual rural
entrepreneurship. Unfortunately, out of the 32 incubators inventoried in the
field, only 2 were operational. In addition, the farmers involved in PASA for
the improvement of traditional poultry farming technique had not received any
technical training on the use of these incubators. We must take note of the fact
that manipulation of the incubator requires technical skills. The absence and
the unsatisfactory condition of incubators on the improved poultry farms, and
the failure to train the beneficiaries in its use could affect the project’s
expected results. It should be noted that none of the non-beneficiaries of the
project was using the incubator for breeding day-old small birds, the
incubation being natural, as it has always been the case in traditional free-
range poultry farming. According to Chambers et al. (2012), natural
incubation does not allow a rapid reproduction of poultry. The introduction of
the incubator through PASA for the adoption of Improved Traditional Poultry
Farming Technique (ITPFT) by project beneficiaries is a very commendable
initiative, but much work remains to be done in terms of the effectiveness of
this innovation.

Food and Water

Table 2 shows that all the 86 project beneficiaries provided their birds
with a balanced diet and safe drinking water. Farmers who practiced
traditional free-range poultry farming were attempting to balance their
poultry's diet with the seasonal residual resources available. In the dry season,
Mcainsh et al. (2004) discovered that feed intake is generally insufficient for
any production beyond basic herd maintenance needs. According to FAO
(2015) and Weis (2008), the size and productivity of traditional poultry farms
are ultimately determined by the human population, including household and
crop residues, as well as the availability of other food resources. Surveys in
Nigeria resulted in the compilation of a list of food resources available to
smallholders (Sonaiya & Swan, 2007).
These ingredients were mostly kitchen or agro-industrial waste, and they were
similar to other tropical foods. Kitchen waste, cereals and their by-products,
roots and tubers, oil seeds, tree leaves and/or fruits, animal proteins, aquatic
plants, and commercial foods make up the residual food base to peck (Moussa
Amadou et al., 2011; Sonaiya & Swan, 2007). Food resources for poultry are
available at all stages of production. Available resources are supplemented
with appropriate ingredients, feed waste, and insects as needed in the
traditional poultry farming system. The importance of these food resources for
poultry farming varies by region and is dependent on their availability in
sufficient quantities (FAO, 2015). A regular supply of low-cost balanced feed,
in addition to simple rationing, is essential for improved traditional poultry
farming productivity.

Health Care and Hygiene

Five years after the implementation of PASA, 91.86% of the project's

beneficiaries were taking sanitary measures to prevent disease. On the other
hand, 37.58% of the non-beneficiaries of the project made health-related
provisions to prevent disease. Only 55.81% of the beneficiaries were able to
follow proper hygiene practices. Diseases are a bottleneck in most local
poultry farms, resulting in significant losses. Predators (shrews, raptors, and
wild animals), theft, and accidents are all important causes of poultry losses in
addition to disease (FAO, 2015). According to farmers and the majority of
extension workers, Newcastle disease is the leading cause of disease deaths.
This conclusion is based on farmers' lack of understanding of poultry diseases
and their symptoms (Guèye, 1999; Pattison et al., 2007). Virus-borne diseases
are the most lethal. Vaccines can prevent them but not treat them. Vaccination
of poultry against diseases, on the other hand, is not a common practice in
traditional poultry farming management activities. This neglect is most likely
due, on the one hand, to the government's disengagement from implementing
periodic poultry vaccination programs in rural areas and, on the other hand, to
farmers' lack of interest in vaccination. Among project beneficiaries, poultry
care was limited to regular vaccinations. Whereas among the non-
beneficiaries, poultry care was frequently limited to empirical treatments and
rarely to therapeutic treatments using traditional or pharmaceutical remedies.
Farmers must consider hygiene and health care rules, such as prophylaxis and
vaccinations, when dealing with animal health in general, and poultry health
in particular.
Type of Poultry Farming

Five years after the implementation of PASA, 75.58% of the

beneficiaries were able to practice semi-intensive traditional poultry farming
system. Free-range traditional poultry farming continues to be practiced by all
the non-beneficiaries. Only the beneficiaries were able to practice the semi-
intensive traditional poultry farming system because they were receiving
advisory support, training, follow-up, and evaluation services from technical
support structures such as the National, Regional and Prefectural Directorates
of Agriculture and the Institute for Technical Advice and Support. According
to Chowdhury (2013) and Singh et al. (2011), motivating farmers for semi-
intensive or small-scale intensive poultry production systems can help with
livelihood security, because the basic scavenging model of production has
shown its limits for poverty alleviation, and the system is being held
responsible for the recent outbreak of emerging poultry diseases. Hence, the
fact that not all project beneficiaries who received government subsidies
practiced semi-intensive system could affect the project’s expected results.

Household Size

There was only one person in the smallest household in the study area. The
largest household had 34 and 22 people for project beneficiaries and non-
beneficiaries, respectively. The average household size among beneficiaries
was 10 with a standard deviation of 5.37, while it was 7 with a standard
deviation of 3.18 among non-beneficiaries. These findings show that
household size is significantly larger among project beneficiaries than non-
beneficiaries. One of the factors associated with participation of farmers in
PASA for the adoption of improved traditional poultry farming technique
could be household size. Furthermore, the average household size was around
ten people. This can be explained by the fact that for rural farm households,
children and relatives serve as an available family labor force and a source of
human resource wealth. According to Anyanwu (2014), the lack of well-
developed social security systems and low savings in developing countries,
particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, tends to increase fertility rates, particularly
in rural areas, so that parents can receive some economic support from their
children when they reach adulthood. Moreover, as Schultz (1981) and
Anyanwu (2014) pointed out, high infant mortality rates in sub-Saharan
African countries tend to lead to an excess of replacement births or births to
guard against high infant and child mortality, thereby increasing household
size. Furthermore, developing countries in Africa (particularly rural
populations) continue to believe that, in the face of a high mortality rate, a
high birth rate is the best alternative. As a result, many people believe that they
should have as many children as possible because they don't know which ones
will survive. Furthermore, children are viewed as an essential component of
the household labor force in order to ensure income and as a form of insurance
against aging. However, a large number of children and their participation in
household production may stymie investment in human capital, resulting in
low household income and the creation or perpetuation of poverty-fertility
traps (Lanjouw & Ravallion, 1995; Szekely, 1998; Anyanwu, 2014).

Farm Size

Prior to the implementation of PASA, among non-beneficiaries, the

minimum number of poultry per farmer was 8, the maximum was 101, and the
mean was 33 with a standard deviation of 19.24. While among project
beneficiaries, the minimum was 14 per farmer, the maximum was 241, and the
mean was 72 with a standard deviation of 40.07. Five years after the
implementation of PASA, among the non-beneficiaries, the minimum number
of birds was 8 per farmer, the maximum was 380, and the mean was 42 with
a standard deviation of 38.84. While among project beneficiaries, the
minimum was 0 per farmer, the maximum was 1051, and the mean was 188
with a standard deviation of 201.10. In terms of types of poultry raised, among
the non-beneficiaries of the project and on average per respondent, the results
of the analysis yielded proportions of 67%, 24%, 6%, and 3% for chickens,
guinea fowl, ducks, and turkeys, respectively before the introduction of PASA,
and 65%, 26%, 7%, and 2% after the implementation of PASA. While among
project beneficiaries, on average per respondent, the results of the analysis
yielded proportions of 62%, 31%, 4%, and 3% for chickens, guinea fowl,
ducks, and turkeys, respectively before the introduction of PASA, and 60%,
33%, 4%, and 3% after the implementation of PASA. These findings, in line
with those of RNA (2012), Dao (2010), Aklobessi (2003) and Tona (1992),
confirm that chickens followed by guinea fowl are the predominant poultry
species in Togo.
Grant Value

The average amount granted to each project beneficiary was US $

5,825. The minimum amount of subsidies granted to farmers who benefited
from PASA for the adoption of ITPFT was US $ 3,440 and the maximum
amount granted was US $ 6,364. The government approved a maximum grant
amount of US $ 6,364 for each recipient under this project which is considered
a standard grant. As a result, any amount less than US $ 6,364 was considered
a substandard grant. According to descriptive statistics, 59% of the project’s
beneficiaries received the standard grant, while 41% received a substandard
grant.
Hatching Rate of Eggs

Table 4 shows that, prior to the implementation of PASA, among the

non-beneficiaries of the project, the minimum hatching rate of eggs per farmer
was 40%, the maximum was 85%, and the average was 68% with a standard
deviation of 0.08. While among project beneficiaries, the minimum hatching
rate of eggs was 40%, the maximum was 80%, and the average was 65% with
a standard deviation of 0.07. These hatching rates of eggs were in agreement
with those reported by Chowdhury (2013), Ekue et al. (2002), Moussa
Amadou et al (2011), Msami (2000), Sarkar and Golam (2009), and Sonaiya
(1995). Five years after the implementation of PASA, among the non-
beneficiaries of the project, the minimum hatching rate of eggs was 40% per
farmer, the maximum was 85%, and the average was 66% with a standard
deviation of 0.098. While among project beneficiary
es, the minimum hatching rate of eggs was 0%, the maximum was
95%, and the average was 91% with a standard deviation of 0.04. Conroy et
al. (2005) stated that projects aimed at improving hatching rates of poultry
eggs based on local equipment had demonstrated their effectiveness. In
contrast, Kumaresan et al. (2008) reported that the hatchability percentages
were higher under backyard conditions than in the intensive system.
According to Kumaresan et al. (2008), the higher hatchability observed with
natural hatching may be due to the use of fresh eggs, whereas the low
hatchability observed with artificial hatching was due to delays in eggs setting
due to time lost in transportation of the eggs. These findings show that the
project's beneficiaries improved their eggs hatching rate by strengthening the
technical production itinerary. One of them, however, had an egg hatching rate
of 0%. After receiving the grant for the improvement of his poultry farm, the
latter beneficiary abandoned this production to invest in other economic
activities. This project beneficiary's 0% egg hatching rate may have negative
impact on the project's expected outcomes.

Poultry Loss Rate

Disease is a major cause of poultry losses. Ignorance of hygiene rules,

non-cleaning of drinkers, feeders, and shelters; the introduction of poultry into
the flock without respecting the quarantine deadline; cramped habitat;
wandering animals; lack of periodic vaccinations and prophylactic measures,
and so on are all factors that favor susceptibility to diseases (Biswas et al.,
2006; FAO, 2004, 2013, 2015). Table 4 shows that, prior to the project's
implementation, the minimum poultry loss rate among non-beneficiaries was
50%, the maximum was 90%, and the average was 70% with a standard
deviation of 0.85. Among project beneficiaries, the minimum poultry loss rate
per farmer was 45%, the maximum was 90%, and the average was 69% with
a standard deviation of 0.11. Traditional poultry farming is generally
constrained by a high poultry loss rate. This is frequently due to death,
predation, theft, and accidents. These findings are in agreement with those of
Chowdhury (2013), Conroy et al. (2005), Das et al. (2008), Guèye (1998),
Kumaresan et al. (2008), Mcainsh et al. (2004), Msami (2000), and Sarkar and
Golam (2009). Following the implementation of PASA, among the non-
beneficiaries of the project, the minimum poultry loss rate was 50%, the
maximum was 95%, and the average was 76% with a standard deviation of
0.09. Among project beneficiaries, the minimum poultry loss rate per farmer
was 5%, the maximum was 100%, and the average was 14% with a standard
deviation of 0.04.
 Table 3. Summary Statistics of the Primary Data Collected from the 400 Respondents
Minimum Maximum Mean Standard Deviation
Attributes Benefi Non-bene- Total Benefi- Non-bene- Total Benefi- Nonbene- Total Benefi- Non-bene- Total
ciaries ficiaries Sample ciaries ficiaries Sample ciaries ficiaries Sample ciaries ficiaries Sample
Farm Size before the treatment 14 8 8 241 101 241 72 33 41 40.07 19.24 29.72
Farm Size after the treatment 0 8 0 1051 380 1051 188 42 74 201.10 38.84 115.2
Chickens before the treatment 8 8 8 128 62 128 45 23 28 22.13 10.20 16.41
Chickens after the treatment 0 8 0 884 180 884 113 28 47 120.38 19.41 67.75
Guinea Fowl before the treatment 0 0 0 113 42 113 23 8 11 19.60 9.48 13.78
Guinea Fowl after the treatment 0 0 0 839 161 839 62 11 22 117.41 16.77 59.95
Ducks before the treatment 0 0 0 35 16 35 3 2 3 6.99 4.42 5.08
Ducks after the treatment 0 0 0 78 35 78 7 3 4 15.18 5.49 8.70
Turkeys before the treatment 0 0 0 16 9 16 2 1 1 3.09 0.85 1.66
Turkeys after the treatment 0 0 0 89 16 89 7 1 2 14.91 1.94 7.49
A.A.S of Poultry before the treatment 9 10 9 123 69 123 49 24 30 24.71 12.70 18.88
A.A.S of Poultry after the treatment 0 9 0 1700 200 1700 287 31 86 303.71 22.58 176.3
A.A.S. of Chickens before the treatment 6 8 6 74 38 74 31 17 20 14.39 6.84 10.62
A.A.S of Chickens after the treatment 0 5 0 1025 95 1025 174 21 54 184.75 12.21 106.5
A.A.S of Guinea Fowl before the treatment 0 0 0 58 29 58 15 5 7 11.61 6.35 8.68
A.A.S of Guinea Fowl after the treatment 0 0 0 1198 85 1198 82 8 24 152.34 10.25 77.15
A.A.S of Ducks before the treatment 0 0 0 25 14 25 3 2 2 4.87 3.43 3.78
A.A.S of Ducks after the treatment 0 0 0 182 25 182 10 2 4 25.30 4.09 12.63
A.A.S of Turkeys before the treatment 0 0 0 16 10 16 1 1 1 2.80 0.78 1.50
A.A.S of Turkeys after the treatment 0 0 0 676 16 676 18 1 4 76.38 1.75 35.99
Age 25 22 22 68 76 76 48 44 45 8.84 9.82 9.76
Household Size 1 1 1 34 22 34 10 7 8 5.37 3.18 3.86
Waterers 0 0 0 40 0 40 6 0 1 6.35 0 3.79
Feeders 0 0 0 52 0 52 7 0 2 7.96 0 4.67
Grant Value 3440 6364 5825 794
 Table 4. Summary Statistics of the Potential Outcomes of PASA

Minimum Maximum Mean Standard Deviation

Attributes Beneficiaries Non- Beneficiaries Non- Beneficiaries Non- Beneficiaries Non-
beneficiaries beneficiaries beneficiaries beneficiaries
Hatching Rate of Eggs 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.85 0.65 0.68 0.07 0.08
Before the treatment
Hatching Rate of Eggs 0 0.4 0.95 0.85 0.91 0.66 0.04 0.098
After the treatment
Poultry Loss Rate 0.45 0.5 0.9 0.9 0.69 0.7 0.11 0.85
Before the treatment
Poultry Loss Rate 0.05 0.5 0.25 1 0.14 0.76 0.04 0.09
After the treatment
Turnover 33 37 796 529 222 99 152 63
Before the treatment
Turnover 0 33 42409 996 2498 134 4913 125
After the treatment
Profit 26 29 637 424 178 79 122 51
Before the treatment
Profit 0 26 25446 797 1499 107 2948 100
After the treatment

Sources (Tables 3 and 4): Author’s Computation Based on Field Data, 2014, 2020
Notes: A.A.S.= Average Annual Sale.
Farm Size: Total number of poultry in the farm (Average Annual)
Monetary values are estimated in US dollars. (US $ 1 = XOF 550 at the time of the study)
 These findings show that by improving habitats, implementing a semi-
intensive system, balancing diet, and adhering to hygiene and health care
measures, the poultry loss rate in project beneficiaries' poultry farms decreased
dramatically. The findings back up those of Kumaresan et al (2008). However,
one of the beneficiaries had a 100% poultry loss rate because, after receiving
a state subsidy to improve his poultry farm, he abandoned this production to
invest in other economic activities. This project beneficiary's 100% poultry
loss rate may have negative impact on the project's expected outcomes.

Poultry Sales, Turnover, and Gross Profit

Prior to the implementation of PASA in Togo, among the non-

beneficiaries, the average annual minimum number of poultry sold per farmer
surveyed was 10, the maximum was 69, the mean was 24, and the standard
deviation was 12.70. Among the beneficiaries, the average annual minimum
number of poultry sold per farmer surveyed was 9, the maximum was 123, and
the mean was 49 with a standard deviation of 24.71. Five years after the
implementation of PASA, the information collected from the 400 respondents
showed that among the non-beneficiaries, the average annual minimum
number of poultry sold per farmer surveyed was 9, the maximum was 200, and
the mean was 31 with a standard deviation of 22.58. While among the
beneficiaries, the average annual minimum number of poultry sold per farmer
surveyed was 0, the maximum was 1,700, and the mean was 287 with a
standard deviation of 303.71.
In terms of turnover, prior to the implementation of PASA, the
minimum annual turnover among the non-beneficiaries was US $ 37 per
farmer, the maximum was US $ 529, and the mean was US $ 99 with a
standard deviation of 63. While among the beneficiaries, the minimum annual
turnover was US $ 33 per farmer, the maximum was US $ 796, and the mean
was US $ 222 with a standard deviation of 152. Five years after the
implementation of PASA, among the non-beneficiaries, the minimum annual
turnover was US $ 33 per farmer, the maximum was US $ 996, and the mean
was US $ 134 with a standard deviation of 125. While among the recipients,
the minimum annual turnover was US $ 0 per farmer, the maximum was US
$ 42409, and the mean was US $ 2498 with a standard deviation of 4913.
In terms of profit, prior to the implementation of PASA, the minimum
annual profit among the non-beneficiaries was US $ 29 per farmer, the
maximum was US $ 424, and the mean was US $ 79 with a standard deviation
of 51. While among the recipients, the minimum annual profit per farmer was
US $ 26, the maximum was US $ 637, and the mean was US $ 178 with a
standard deviation of 122. Five years after the implementation of PASA, the
minimum annual profit for the non-beneficiaries was US $ 26 per farmer, the
maximum was US $ 797, and the mean was US $ 107 with a standard deviation
of 100. While among the beneficiaries, the minimum annual profit was US $
0, the maximum was US $ 25446 per farmer, and the mean was US $ 1499
with a standard deviation of 2948.
Traditional poultry farming is generally practiced for three main
purposes and this include sale, consumption, and ceremonies (Dolberg, 2007;
FAO, 2004, 2013, 2015; Guèye, 2000a). Before the implementation of PASA,
farm size, average annual poultry sale by farmer, turnover, and profit of each
farmer surveyed among the beneficiaries of the project were slightly higher
than those of non-beneficiaries, indicating that these variables could be
determinants in farmers' decision to participate in PASA. The findings show
that five years after the implementation of PASA, the non-beneficiaries of the
project naturally experienced a slight increase in annual number of poultry
sold, turnover, and gross profit. Five years after the implementation of PASA,
the increase in these variables was much greater for project beneficiaries than
non-beneficiaries, and this could positively affect the project's potential
outcomes. However, the absence of birds on certain beneficiaries' farms
despite the subsidies received is a negative indicator for effective achievement
of the expected results within the framework of PASA, because this absence
of production is explained by the fact that certain farmers, after benefiting
from the subsidies for the improvement of their poultry farms, have abandoned
traditional methods of production. Furthermore, five years after the
implementation of PASA, the magnitude of the standard deviations of the
potential outcome variables among project beneficiaries such as farm size,
average annual sale of poultry by beneficiary, turnover, and profit of each
beneficiary indicate that the adoption rate of ITPFT may differ from one
farmer to the next.

3.2. Comparative Analyses of Certain Socioeconomic Characteristics of the

Beneficiaries and Non-Beneficiaries before the Implementation of PASA
Following the work of Lancaster (1969), Plackett (1983), Franke et al.
(2012), Gosset (1908), Raju (2005) and Zabell (2008), the inferential statistics
(the Pearson’s Chi-square significance test (χ2) between the qualitative
variables and the Student significance test (t-test) between the means of the
quantitative variables) yielded the results presented in Table 5. The levels of
significance of these two tests revealed that prior to the implementation of
PASA, for some socioeconomic variables such as location, gender, age,
marital status, religion, education, and poultry loss rate, there is no significant
difference between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries surveyed. As a result,
these variables may or may not influence farmer participation in the project,
and they may also be used as control variables in the project's impact
 evaluation analysis. Other socioeconomic variables, such as self-financing
capacity in cash or in kind, level of education, household size, agricultural
cooperative membership, hatching rate of eggs, farm size, and average annual
sale of poultry, show a significant difference at the 1% level between
beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries surveyed prior to the implementation of
PASA. As a result, these variables could be related with participation of
farmers in the project. Furthermore, five years after the implementation of
PASA, there is a significant difference in the means of potential outcome
variables such as poultry loss rate, hatching rate of eggs, farm size, annual sale
of poultry, turnover, and gross profit for both beneficiaries and non-
beneficiaries. The impact evaluation of the adoption of improved traditional
poultry rearing technique on the potential outcomes of project beneficiaries is
thus justified and necessary in order to quantify the added value created by
this emerging agricultural practice among farmers in rural areas.

Table 5. Comparative Table of Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Beneficiaries and Non-

Beneficiaries before and five years after the Implementation of PASA
Socioeconomic Unit/Measurement Chi- Student P-Value
Characteristics square test test
(χ2) (T-test)
Before the Implementation of PASA
Sex (Male=1, Female=0) 0.0002 0.99
Age Years -3.57 0.99
Marital Status Categories 0.7125 0.87
Religion Categories 12.35 0.15
Canton/Location Categories 59.89 0.82
Self-Financing Capacity US $ 296.20 0.0000
Level of Study Years 116.65 0.0000
Household Size Number of members -4.91 0.0000
Membership of Cooperative (Yes=1, No=0) 324.85 0.0000
Loss Rate of Poultry In % 0.55 0.58
Hatching Rate of Eggs In % 3.30 0.0011
Farm Size Number of Poultry -12.57 0.0000
Average Annual Sale Number of Poultry sold -12.33 0.0000
of Poultry
Education Years 3.39 0.066
Five years after the Implementation of PASA
Loss Rate of Poultry In % 56.38 0.0000
Hatching Rate of Eggs In % -22.93 0.0000
Total Number of Poultry Number of Poultry -12.12 0.0000
Average Annual Sale In US $ -14.47 0.0000
of Poultry
Turnover In US $ - 8.54 0.0000
Profit In US $ - 8.37 0.0000
 Source: Author’s Computation Based on Field Data, 2014, 2020
4. Conclusion

The purpose of this investigation is to analyze the socioeconomic

characteristics of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of government subsidies
in Togo within the framework of the implementation of the second sub-
component of the Agricultural Sector Support Project (PASA) in 2014.
Significance levels of Pearson's Chi-square test (χ2) and Student's t-test
indicate that before the implementation of PASA, there is a significant
difference between the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of the project with
respect to socioeconomic variables such as self-financing capacity in cash or
in kind, level of education, household size, farm size, membership in
cooperative societies, hatching rate of eggs, average annual sale of poultry,
turnover, and profit. These variables could therefore be important
determinants of farmers’ participation in PASA.
Five years after the implementation of PASA, it emerged from the
results of the study that the beneficiaries of the project experienced a larger
and very important decrease in their poultry loss rate and increases in their
hatching rate of eggs, farm size, average annual sales of poultry, turnover, and
profit due to participation in the project, and this might have a positive impact
on their income and welfare. However, the large discrepancy between the
standard deviations of the outcome variables of the beneficiaries of the project
indicate that the adoption rates of improved traditional poultry farming
technique might differs from one farmer to another.
In addition, the non-compliance of all the beneficiaries of the project
with the semi-intensive poultry farming system, the failure to scrupulously
respect the improved traditional poultry farming technique, the absence and
inadequacy of hatcheries or incubators, the lack of training and strengthening
of technical production capacities, the failure to comply with hygiene and
sanitary care measures and the absence of production and sales in some
improved poultry farms after receiving PASA subsidies are factors that could
have negative effect on the efficient, effective, and optimal achievement of the
expected results of PASA.
Like every other scientific research, we end by mentioning a limitation
of the study. Firstly, we guide the understanding of this analysis from a
correlation viewpoint. Given the fact that we used cross-sectional data and
could not control for many confounding in the way of identifying participation
into PASA, we do not make any causal claims. Future research may want to
credibly identify participation into PASA as well as the impact evaluation of
PNIASA through the use of longitudinal data sets or in a more controlled
experimental setting.
Conflict of Interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Funding
The authors are grateful to the German Academic Exchange Service
(DAAD) for funding this research.

References:
1. Akinola, L. A. F. & Essien, A. (2011). Relevance of rural poultry
production in developing countries with special reference to Africa.
World’s Poultry Science Journal, 67(4), 697–705.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043933911000778
2. Aklobessi, K. K. (2003). Revue et stratégie de développement du sous-
secteur petit levage: aviculture, cuniculture, et aulacodiculture.Lomé-
Togo.
3. Anyanwu, J. C. (2014). Marital Status, Household Size and Poverty in
Nigeria : Evidence from the 2009/2010 Survey Data. African
Development Review, 26(1), 118–137.
4. Azahar, K. B. B., Sekudan, E. E. A. & Azhar, A. M. Bin. (2020).
Intelligent Egg Incubator. International Journal of Recent Technology
and Applied Science, 2(2), 91–102.
https://doi.org/10.36079/lamintang.ijortas-0202.129
5. Biswas, P. K., Uddin, G. M. N., Barua, H., Roy, K., Biswas, D., Ahad,
A. & Debnath, N. C. (2006). Causes of loss of Sonali chickens on
smallholder households in Bangladesh. Preventive Veterinary
Medicine, 76(3–4), 185–195.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2006.05.001
6. Chambers, V., Foresti, M. & Harris, D. (2012). The Final Report:
Political Economy of Regionalism in West Africa - Scoping study and
prioritisation. 4(3), 1–24.
7. Chowdhury, S. D. (2013). Family poultry production in Bangladesh:
Is it meaningful or an aimless
journey? World’s Poultry Science Journal, 69(3), 649–665.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043933913000652
8. Conroy, C., Sparks, N., Chandrasekaran, D., Sharma, A., Shindey, D.,
Singh, A. N. & Anitha, K. (2005). Improving Backyard Poultry-
keeping: A case study from India. Agricultural Research and
Extension Network, 146(2005), 1–16.
9. Dao, B. (2010). Recensement (qualitatif/quantitatif) de toutes les
exploitations avicoles et des structures de la filière dans toutes les
régions du pays.Togo.
10. Das, S. C., Chowdhury, S. D., Khatun, M. A., Nishibori, M., Isobe, N.
 & Yoshimura, Y. (2008). Poultry production profile and expected
future projection in Bangladesh. World’s Poultry Science Journal,
64(1), 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043933907001754
11. Dessie, T. & Ogle, B. (2001). Village Poultry Production Systems in
the Central Highlands of Ethiopia. Tropical Animal Health and
Production, 33(2001), 521–537.
12. Dolberg, F. (2007). Poultry production for livelihood improvement
and poverty alleviation. Poultry in the 21st Century: Avian Influenza
and Beyond. Proceedings of the International Poultry Conference,
Held. 2007., (2005), 1–26.
13. Ekue, F. N., Poné, K. D., Mafeni, M. J., Nfi, A. N. & Njoya, J. (2002).
Survey of the traditional poultry production system in the Bamenda
area, Cameroon. Characteristics and parameters of family poultry
production in Africa. Institute of Agricultural Research for
Development (IRAD). Yaounde, Cameroon.
14. FAO (2004). Small scale poultry production. Psikologi Perkembanga
n, 1–224. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
15. FAO (2013a). Organisation des Nations Unies pour l’Alimentation et
l’Agriculture: Quatrième recensement national de l’Agriculture 2011-
2014: Résultats chiffrés détaillés sur l’agriculture togolaise,.
16. FAO (2013b). Poultry Development. In Poultry Development Review.
ISBN 978-92-5-108067-2.
17. FAO (2014). Decision tools for family poultry development. FAO
Animal Production and Health Guidelines (Vol. 16). Rome, Italy.
18. FAO (2015). Secteur Avicole Togo. Revues nationales de l’élevage de
la division de la production et de la santé animales de la FAO (N°9).
Rome.
19. Farayola, C. O., Adeyemo, A. A., Nwachukwu, S. C. & Yusuf, A.
(2013). Extension Strategy Development and Training Needs for
Small Scale Commercial Poultry Farmers in Nigeria. Journal of
World’s Poultry Research, 3(4), 99–105.
20. Fellegi, I. P. (2003). Méthode et pratiques d’enquêtes. N° 12-587-X au
catalogue. Ottawa, Canada.
21. Franke, T. M., Ho, T. & Christie, C. A. (2012). The Chi-Square Test:
Often Used and More Often
Misinterpreted. American Journal of Evaluation, 33(3), 448–458.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214011426594
22. Gauthier, J. & Langlois, A. M. (2010). Program National
d’Investissement Agricole et de Sécurité Alimentaire: PNIASA. Plan
d’investissement 2010-2015. Lomé-Togo.
23. Gosset, W. S. (1908). Student. The Application of the ’Law of Error’
to the Work of the Brewery. Biometrika, 6(1), 3-6.
24. Guèye, E. F. (1998). Village egg and fowl meat production in Africa.
World’s Poultry Science Journal, 54(March), 73–86.
25. Guèye, E. F. (1999). Ethnoveterinary medicine against poultry
diseases in African villages. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 55(2),
187–198. https://doi.org/10.1079/wps19990013
26. Guèye, E. F. (2000a). The role of family poultry in poverty alleviation,
food security and the promotion of gender equality in rural africa.
Outlook on Agriculture, 29(2), 129–136.
https://doi.org/10.5367/000000000101293130
27. Guèye, E. F. (2000b). Women and family poultry production in rural
Africa. Development in Practice, 10(1), 98–102.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09614520052565
28. Guèye, E. F. (2005). Gender aspects in family poultry management
systems in developing countries. World’s Poultry Science Journal,
61(1), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1079/WPS200440
29. Guèye, E. F. (2007). Evaluation of the impact of HPAI on family
poultry production in Africa. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 63(3),
391–400. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043933907001523
30. Hadji, E. L. & Gueye, F. (1998). Regional report Village egg and fowl
meat production in Africa. Poultry Science, 54(3).
31. Hoffmann, I. (2007). Vaccination as a tool to preserve poultry genetic
resources ? Proceeding of FAO conference on: “vaccination: a tool for
the control of avian influenza”, Verona 20-22
32. Kondombo, S. R. (2005). Improvement of village chicken production
in a mixed (chicken- ram) farming system. PhD Thesis, Wageningen
Institute of Animal Science, Wageningen University, The Netherlands.
33. Kondombo, S. R., Nianogo, A. J., Kwakkel, R. P., Udo, H. M. Y. &
Slingerland, M. (2003). Comparative analysis of village chicken
production in two farming systems in Burkina Faso. Tropical Animal
Health and Production 35: 563- 574.
34. Kumaresan, A., Bujarbaruah, K. M., Pathak, K. A., Chhetri, B.,
Ahmed, S. K. & Haunshi, S. (2008). Analysis of a village chicken
production system and performance of improved dual purpose
chickens under a subtropical hill agro-ecosystem in India. Tropical
Animal Health and Production, 40(6), 395–402.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-007-9097-y
35. Lancaster, F. W. (1969). MEDLARS: report on the evaluation of its
operating efficiency. American Documentation, 20(2), 119–142.
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630200204
36. Lanjouw, P. & Ravallion, M. (1995). Poverty and Household Size. The
Economic Journal, 105(433), 1415–1434.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2235108
37. Lombo, Y., Tona, K. & Bonfoh, B. (2018). Analysis of the Technical
and Sanitary Constraints of the Traditional Breeding of Guinea Fowl
in “Région des Savanes” of Northern Togo. Journal of Pharmacy and
Pharmacology, 6(1), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.17265/2328-
2150/2018.01.009
38. MAEP (2014). Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Elevage et de la Pêche.
Principales caractéristiques de l’agriculture Togolaise: Quatrième
recensement national de l’agriculture 20011-2014. Volume VI:
Module complémentaire. (DSID). 147.
39. Magothe, T. M., Okeno, T. O., Muhuyi, W. B. & Kahi, A. K. (2012).
Indigenous chicken production in Kenya: I. Current status. World’s
Poultry Science Journal, 68(1), 119–132.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043933912000128
40. Mcainsh, C. V, Kusinaz, J. & Madsen, J. (2004). Regional Report
Traditional chicken production in. Poultry Science, 60(June), 233–
246. https://doi.org/10.1079/WPS2OO4
41. Moussa Amadou, B., Idi, A. & Benabdeljelil, K. (2011).
Characterization of traditional poultry
farming in Niger. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 67(3), 517–530.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043933911000560
42. Msami, H. M. (2000). Studies on the structure and problens of family
poultry production in Tanzania. Proceedings of the Research
Coordination Meeting of IAEA, Held in Morogoro, Tanzania, 95–106.
43. NDP (2018). National Development Plan (NPD). 2018-2022.
44. Pattison, M., McMullin, P., Bradbury, J. M., & Alexander, D. (2007).
Poultry diseases. Elsevier Health Sciences.
45. Plackett, R. L. (1983). Karl Pearson and the Chi-Squared Test.
International Statistical Review / Revue Internationale de Statistique,
51(1), 59. https://doi.org/10.2307/1402731
46. PNIASA (2016). Program National D’Investissement Agricole et de
Sécurité Alimentaire. Plan de Gestion des Pestes et des Pesticides
(PGPP). Rapport Final (Version Actualisée).Togo.
47. Pousga, S., Boly, H., Lindberg, J. E. & Ogle, B. (2005). Scavenging
chickens in Burkina Faso: Effect of season, location and breed on feed
and nutrient intake. Tropical Animal Health and Production 37: 623-
634.
48. Raju, T. N. K. (2005). William Sealy Gosset and William A.
Silverman: Two “students” of science. Pediatrics, 116(3), 732–735.
https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2005-1134
49. Riise, J. C., Permin, A. & Kryger, K. N. (2005). Strategies for
developing family poultry production at village level - Experiences
from West Africa and Asia. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 61(1),
 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1079/WPS200437
50. RNA (2012). DSID (Direction de la Statistique de l’Informatique et de
la Documentation). 4ème Recensement National de l’Agriculture
(RNA).II: module de base. 571p.
51. Sarkar, K. & Golam, M. (2009). A move from subsistence to semi-
commercial family poultry farming with local chickens : effective
strategies for family poultry in Bangladesh. World's Poultry Science
Journal,65(2), 251–259.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S004393390900021X
52. Saleque, M. A. & Mustafa, S. (1996). Landless Women And Poultry:
The Brac Model in Bangladesh. Livestock Feed Resources within
Integrated Farming Systems, 349–371.
53. Sankara, F., Pousga, S., Dao, N. C. A., Gbemavo, D. S. J. C., Clottey,
V. A., Coulibaly, K. & Kenis, M. (2018). Indigenous knowledge and
potential of termites as poultry feed in Burkina Faso. Journal of Insects
as Food and Feed, 4(4), 211–218.
https://doi.org/10.3920/JIFF2017.0070
54. Schultz, T. P. (1981), Economics of Population, Addison-Wesley,
Reading, MA.
55. Singh, D. P., Fotsa, J. C. & Thieme, O. (2011). Summary and
conclusions of the first e-conference of the International Network for
Family Poultry Development (INFPD) on the theme ‘Opportunities for
poultry breeding programs for family production in developing
countries: The bird for the poor.’ FAO, Rome, Italy.
56. Sonaiya, E. B. (1995). An assessment of some health and production
costs for smallholder poultry in South-Western Nigeria. Proceedings
ANRPD Workshop, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, June 13-16, pp. 87-93.
57. Sonaiya, E. B. & Swan, S. E. J. (2007). Small scale poultry production:
technical guide (Vol. 1). Daya Books.
58. Szekely, M. (1998). The Economics of Poverty, Inequality and Wealth
Accumulation in Mexico, St Anthony’s Series, New York.
59. Tona, K. (1992). Diagnostic du système de production en aviculture
traditionnelle: cas de la région maritime. Mémoire de fin d’études
agronomiques. ESA - UB. 85p.
60. Umunna, M. O., Adeeko, A., Onifade, O. T., Adigun, O. S. & Apapa,
A. N. (2012). Poultry Farmers’ Access to Extension Services in Atisbo
Local Government Area of Oyo State, Nigeria. African
Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences, 4(6), 221–225.
https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.ajbas.2012.4.6.1117
61. UN-DESA-PD (2019). United Nations, Department of Economic and
Social Affairs, Population Division. Volume II: Demographic Profiles
(ST/ESA/SER.A/427). In World Population Prospects 2019.
62. Weis, T. (2008). The Global Food Economy: The battle for the future
of farming. Review of African Political Economy, Vol. 35, pp. 689–
689. https://doi.org/10.1080/03056240802574318
63. Zabell, S. L. (2008). On student’s 1908 article “the probable error of a
mean.” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 103(481), 1–
7. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214508000000030