CHAPTER ONE

Introduction
1.1 Background of the study
Poultry meat and eggs offer considerable potential for meeting human needs for dietary
animal supplies, (Folorunsho and Onibi, 2005). Poultry products provide high-quality protein
in the diets of rural people whose traditional foods are typically rich in carbohydrate but low
in protein,
Poultry production also known as aviculture in the past was not counted as an important
occupation, but nowadays, poultry production has developed and occupies a place of pride
among livestock enterprises due to its rapid monetary turnover (Laseinde, 1994). Semi-
scavenging backyard indigenous poultry are extremely important in providing income, and
has been used in countries like India and Bangladesh as a tool for poverty reduction. Poultry
are good converters of feed to egg and meat within short periods of time. (frands, 2003;
David, 2017; Kekocha, 1994 ) these reasons amongst others has made the sector attractive
and popular among small, medium and as well large poultry farmers. A major advantage of
eggs and poultry meat as human food is that there are no major taboos on their consumption
as compared to other forms of meat such as pork and beef (David, 2017) Poultry production
has a less detrimental impact on the environment than other livestock, given the productions
systems it operates in, that is, traditional (free-range, scavenging), semi-commercial and
commercial/ industrial systems. Globally, over 70% of chicken meat is produced in industrial
systems.
The poultry sector is possibly the fastest growing and most flexible of all livestock sectors.
Driven primarily by very strong demand it has expanded, consolidated and globalised over
the past 17 years in countries of all income levels. Livestock is fundamental to the livelihoods
of about one billion of the world’s poorest people. Rural poultry, in particular, is essential for
the livelihood of many resource-poor farmers often being the only asset they possess. It
makes up about 80 Percent of poultry stocks in low-income food-deficit countries, and
beyond its economic or nutritional importance, is also widely recognized. Poultry production
is carried out in most countries of the world. According to FAO statistics, (2013), around 58
billion chickens are slaughtered for meat in the world each year. Total global chicken meat
production is around 90 million tonnes per annum with the United State of America being
the highest producer of broilers (17,111,240 tonnes) in 2011 thus accounting for 19.0% of
total world production, closely followed by China and Brazil, with 11,550,00 and 11,421,730
tonnes,(12.8% and 12.7%) respectively. Other big poultry producers include, Russia, Mexico,
India, with no African country featuring amongst the top ten producers in the world. The
poultry industry has developed largely in the developed countries to improvements in their
production techniques, prompt medical provision, and automated poultry houses amongst
others.
In Africa, the main components of the poultry sector are the family and rural sectors which
make around 80% of poultry stocks in many African developing countries. Chicken meat
production in Africa as a whole went up from 3,297,000 tonnes in 2005 to 4,592,000 tonnes
in 2011. However, poultry production in Africa is lagging behind than that of other continents
such as Asia (FAOSTAT, 2014), this is due to rising domestic demand with an increasing
population. Imports of poultry products in Africa will continue to increase because of the
spread of the Avian influenza outbreaks in many countries for example Angola, Benin,
Ghana, and Egypt hit by the disease in 2012 (Conway, 2012).The regional dependency on
imports is currently estimated at 24% of the domestic consumption, up from 18% in 2009.
However, production in South Africa will continue to increase due to imposed anti-dumping
duties on US and Brazilian poultry imports. The combination of feed, environmental
constrains, and the low level of technical efficiency because of insufficient and improper
equipment, inadequate training and motivation for operational personnel, has kept the
performance of the poultry farms in Africa low (Adeyeye, 1990).
In Cameroon, Poultry meat represents about 45% of the total meat produced in the
nation and its domestic demand gap from 2008 to 2015 increased from 38,063 tons - 64,867
tons (MINEPIA, 2015). The traditional sub-sector also called rural or backyard production
system largely dominates poultry keeping in Cameroon. The sub-sector is very important for
the livelihood of many Cameroonians as 70% of livestock operators own poultry farms that
are the main source of revenue for about 39.7% of them (MINEPIA, 2015). Thus chicken
remains a significant component of food security and plays an important role in generation of
income and savings of the poorest families (Zaman et al, 2004).

Poultry is the most commercialized of all the Cameroon livestock agriculture. Poultry
contributes 1% of the GDP of Cameroon and it generates a net profit of 15 billion CFA per
year (MINEPIA 2012). The types of poultry that are reared in Cameroon are Chickens,
Ducks, Guinea fowls, Japanese quails, Turkeys and Ostriches (keambou et al, 2016).
Cameroon is not among the leading poultry producers in Africa (FAOSTAT, 2012)., this
underperforming nature is caused by many factors including: limited access to institutional
services, high cost of poultry farm inputs, limited access to the market, high rate of disease
attacks, socio cultural factors etc. The effect of these is that many farmers including Nazareth
centre cannot generate sufficient income from this activity.

Since poultry contributes just about 1% of the GDP of Cameroon. Adopting appropriate
innovation in this sector is a means of increasing both production and productivity, for the
benefit of all the stakeholders of the poultry sector.

1.2. Problem statement

According to the Bamenda Poultry farmers’ production records of 2012- 2017, Poultry
farmers in Bamenda receive their revenues from the processing and marketing of poultry
products, but not all of these farmers enjoy the full benefits of this activity because the
productivity of their poultry farms are not up to their expectations, this may be due to the
constrains and problems faced by the sector such as poor management of farm houses, lack of
quality feed, improper treatment/vaccination, scarcity of chicks, inefficient marketing
strategies, absence of modern equipment to most farmers, and above all, training and
innovative practices.

Methods of poultry production are somewhat different amongst the various poultry farmers
in the Bamenda. It will be of great help/benefit not only to the farmers and the consumers, but
also to the economy as a whole if improved process and market innovative poultry practices
are assessed and made known to other farmers who have not yet adopted such innovations.
Thus, the following research questions were derived for the study.

1.3. Main Research question

What are the various innovations that have taken place in the poultry sector and how has their
adoption been beneficial to poultry farmers?

1.4. Sub research Questions

 What are the socio-economic characteristics of poultry farmers and the rate of
innovation adoption in Bamenda III sub-division?
 What are the existing innovations in the poultry sector and the production rate of
poultry farmers?
 What are the constrains faced by farmers in the adoption of innovations
 1.5. Research Objectives
The general objective of this study will be, to assess the various innovations that have taken
place in the poultry sector and how their adoption is beneficial to poultry farmers in the
Bamenda III sub-division.

The specific objectives include:

 To Identify the Socio-economic profile of people practicing poultry farming and the
rate of innovation adoption in Bamenda III sub-division.
 To find out the existing innovations, the extent of adoption and its effects on the
production rate of poultry farmers in this area.
 To identify the problems farmers faced in the adoption of innovations.

1.6. Research Hypotheses

The socio-economic profile of farmers affects the rate of innovation adoption.
Innovation adoption increases poultry production
Access to information influences the adoption of innovations

1.7. Significance of the study

The findings of this study will contribute to the existing body of knowledge on the subject
matter of innovation adoption, with special focus on the poultry sector.

This research will provide a clear understanding of problems inherent in adopting innovations
in poultry sector, and may be used as a reference document for policy makers, poultry
farmers, consumers of poultry products and students carrying out their research work in
similar areas.

1.8. Justification of the study

Information on poultry production and its productivity is well documented, with a lot of
emphases on a number of domains such as feeding composition ratios for different types of
birds, factors influencing the productivity of poultry farms, socio-economic and technical
characteristics of local chicken production (Keambou et al, 2016), none so far has been seen
that specifically talks of the innovations of the poultry sector in most parts of the country and
most especially in Bamenda. Thus, the need to carry out this work.

1.9. Limitations of the Study

Firstly, access to information for this study was somewhat difficult since much work has not
been carried out in the domain of innovation adoption in Cameroon.
Secondly, most of the views and opinions of this work are solely that of the author, and are
not perfect in their expression of certain circumstances, and thus are open for criticism and
correction.
 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter comprises of the definition of the key concepts of the study, the theoretical
framework in which the extension and the diffusion theories will be discussed and finally, the
conceptual framework of the study.

2.1. DEFINITION OF KEY CONCEPTS

2.1.1. Innovation
An innovation is an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual (farm-
level) adoption and/or aggregate adoption (Feder et al., 1985). Innovation and technology are
to be taken as synonyms. An idea perceived by an individual as model to his farming system
which is capable of eliciting immediate reaction of the farmers in improving his standard of
living (Emeka, 2015). It matters little, so far as human behaviour is concerned, whether or not
an idea is "objectively" new as measured by the lapse of time since its first use or discovery.
The perceived newness of the idea for the individual determines his or her reaction to it. If the
idea seems new to the individual, it is an innovation. Newness in an innovation need not just
involve new knowledge. Someone may have known about an innovation for some time but
not yet developed a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward it, nor have adopted or rejected
it. The "newness" aspect of an innovation may be expressed in terms of knowledge,
persuasion, or a decision to adopt, Rogers (1995).

2.1.2 Poultry Production.

The word poultry is applicable to bird species raised in most countries for meat and eggs
(Oyeyinka et al., 2012). They include chicken, ducks, turkeys, pigeons, ostriches, guinea
fowls and quails. The main genotypes of commercial layers are Shaver Star cross, Isa Brown
and Ross, while commercial broiler genotypes include Arbor Acres, Hybro, Cobb (United
Kingdom) and Hype co (Holland). Indigenous chicken genotypes include the Rhode Island
Red, Light Sussex, New Hampshire Red, Black Australorps, White Leghorns, Plymouth
Rock, Barred Rock and Buff Rock (FAO, 2008). The poultry sector employs people either
directly in production and marketing or indirectly through linkages with suppliers of such
inputs as day‐old chicks, feed and veterinary services. Production systems are thus classified
into; intensive, semi-intensive, extensive, and integrated systems
 2.1.3. Problems of Innovation Adoption
The problems here refer to the challenges poultry face before and during the adoption
process. These problem are innovation-based, that is the characteristics of the innovation
itself like simplicity, reliability, its relative advantage, observability, and compatibility. The
problems are also farmer-based, such as literacy levels, years of experience, cultural beliefs,
age, amongst, others like location and farm size, accessibility to credit. (Ezeano, 2010).

2.2. Theoretical Framework

To improve on the quality of this work, some concepts were defined, the theoretical
framework of innovation and literature review on innovation adoption in the poultry sector.

There are several theories one can draw upon to study the adoption process, amongst others
is, Bounded Rationality, Diffusion Theory, Extension Theory, the Theory of Reasoned
Action and Consumer Behaviour Theory. As many as these theories are, (Neels and Kris,
2005) found that these different frameworks don‘t contradict each other and when combined
into a conceptual framework they offer very useful constructs for studying the adoption
process. The researcher has found the Extension theory appropriate for use in this study, for it
has been tested and accredited in other production fields such as in crop production.

2.2.1 The Extension theory

Extension science evolved from rural sociology and over time extension has become more
and more aligned with social psychology and communication (Röling, 1988). This theory
stipulates that all farmers would eventually see the benefit of new innovations and thus adopt
them. Therefore, views and measures of the success of an innovation are based on the level at
which an innovation is adopted. Furthermore, increased adoption rates will occur as
information about the innovation is communicated through farmers’ social networks such as
farmers’ cooperatives. This organised and formal process of actively communicating such
information s called extension, basically the process of changing voluntary behaviour via
communication. The goal of extension is to determine how to convey information regarding a
new innovation to a certain population (such as poultry farmers) so that they will adopt it.
The challenge then of extension is to design an appropriate communication channel (Röling,
1988).
Extension theory helps us better understand the contextual factors of the adoption process of
innovation and provide insights into the communication aspects thereof – using
communication to influence adoption decision-making.
 2.2.2 The Diffusion Theory.
According to Rogers (1995) diffusion theories have their origins in the explanation of the
adoption of technological change by farmers. He points out that diffusion is not a single, all-
encompassing theory. It is several theoretical perspectives that relate to the overall concept of
diffusion.
There are four major theories that deal with the adoption of innovations, they are;
o The innovation-decision process theory, The innovation-decision process theory is
based on time and five distinct stages (Nutley et al, 2002). The first stage is knowledge.
Potential adopters must first learn about the innovation. Second, they must be persuaded
as to the merits of the innovation. Third, they must decide to adopt the innovation. Fourth,
once they adopt the innovation, they must implement it. Fifth, they must confirm that
their decision to adopt was the appropriate decision. Diffusion results once these stages
are achieved
o The individual innovativeness theory, is based on who adopts the innovation and
when. A bell-shaped curve is often used to illustrate the percentage of individuals that
adopt an innovation.
Rogers (1995) also pointed out that as well as the determinants of apportion at the individual
level, there are a variety of external or social conditions that may accelerate or slow the
diffusion process such as:
-Whether the decision is made collectively, by individuals, or by a central authority.
- The communication channels used to acquire information about an innovation, whether
mass media or interpersonal.
- The nature of the social system in which the potential adopters are embedded, its norms, and
the degree of interconnectedness.
- The extent of change agents‘ (advertisers, development agencies, etc.) promotion agencies
o The rate of adoption theory, The theory of rate of adoption suggests that the adoption of
innovations is best represented by an s-curve on a graph (Nutley et al, 2002). The theory
holds that there are five categories of adopters over the average time of adoption;
innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards.
o The theory of perceived attributes. The theory of perceived attributes is based on the
notion that individuals will adopt an innovation if they perceive that the innovation has
the following attributes (Nutley et al 2002). First, the innovation must have some relative
advantage over an existing innovation or the status quo. Second, it is important the
 innovation be compatible with existing values and practices. Third, the innovation cannot
be too complex. Fourth, the innovation must have trialability. This means the innovation
can be tested for a limited time without adoption. Fifth, the innovation must offer
observable results (Rogers, 1995).
2.3. Conceptual Framework (Literature Review)
2.3.1 Poultry Production Systems
The commercial poultry production systems in most advanced economies of the world
are carried out in the intensive systems where exotic and high producing birds are reared and
fed complete feeds in gigantic battery cages and other forms of rearing where birds are
permanently stocked on high densities. In most Asian countries, the livestock sector is under
pressure to adapt and expand its production systems. The adaptation involves mainly a shift
in livestock species and functions, with the greatest change being the increase in the number
of poultry. Technological changes are creating modern and capital-intensive production
chains for poultry meat and eggs, leaving the traditional and labour-intensive sector to
smallholder farmers. Semi-intensive systems of production entails the free-range systems that
vary from large fixed houses with yards to small portable houses that are moved regularly
they are called alternative production systems some of which include; fixed houses with
yards, potable houses like wheeled houses, egg mobiles, pasture pens, which are small
floorless pens that are usually moved by hand to new pasture (Salantin, 1993). While large
scale indoor production system are used in many countries in the world, small scale
production is still remain important. For example small scale production accounts for about
30% of china’s poultry sector (Anne, 2006).

Poultry production systems in tropical Africa are mostly based on the scavenging
system (Dwinger et al, 2003). Approximately 80% of the chicken populations in Africa are
reared in this system (Gueye 1998) and their motivation for such system is based on several
factors for example small-scale enterprises are found mostly in the rural villages where
production inputs are difficult to obtain and marketing outlets are not well organised

According to Shaner et al (1982), the term “small-scale'' refers to those operations in which
the farmers frequently have difficulty obtaining sufficient inputs to allow use of the
technology available to medium-scale and large-scale farmers and in contrast, large-scale
enterprises are concentrated along the railway line and in urban centres where there is access
to production facilities and marketing outlets. Intensive production systems are mainly
practiced by commercial poultry farmers in Africa like Egypt, Nigeria, South Africa, and
their contribution to the total output cannot also be undermined.

In Cameroon, the production system is mainly small holder poultry production,

dominated by local chicken and represents about 69.4% of birds and 57% of them are being
catered for by women. Moreover, the western highland is the major site for small holder
poultry production in Cameroon (MINEPIA, 2009). (Keambou et al, 2007) revealed that
western highland smallholder chicken production is made up of a variety of genotype such as
black chicken (17.2%), white type (15.3%) and barred hens (4.77%). Local hens are
characterized by slower growth rate, poor laying ability and smaller egg size as compared to
exotic breeds (Dassie and Ogle, 2011) However, their eggs fetch higher market prices
compared to commercial layer eggs and yet culturally very important for communities.
According to (Djoukam and Teguia 1991), the west region of Cameroon which houses more
than 40% of the national poultry population of the country remains the highest region with
the highest number of small holder poultry farms were 72% of the farms have flock sizes of
50 to 1000 birds only and the target market here is the centre region precisely Yaoundé and
the foreign market in Gabon.

2.3.2. Adoption of Innovation.

Innovations are adopted after some considerations made by the individuals on the following
characteristics;

Relative advantage – the extent to which the innovation is perceived to have

significant advantages over current alternatives.

Compatibility – the degree to which the innovation is seen as being consistent with
past practices, current values and existing needs.

Complexity – the extent to which the innovation can readily be understood and easily
implemented.

Trial-ability – new ideas that can be tried out at low cost before wholesale adoption
are more likely to be taken up.

Observability – the degree to which the use and benefits of the innovation are visible
to others, and therefore act as a further stimulus to uptake by others.
In addition to these classic innovation characteristics identified in early work, other attributes
have also been identified as being potentially important, such as: adaptability, centrality to
the day-to-day work of the organisation, and little requirement for additional visible resources
(Wolfe, 1994).

ADOPTER CATEGORIES
Adopter categories have been developed, which are classifications of members of a social
system on the basis of their innovativeness – that is, the extent to which an individual or other
unit of adoption is relatively early in adopting new ideas. The S-shaped curve is reproduced
in many descriptive accounts of diffusion, although the time over which the innovation
diffuses varies, as does the percentage of the population who ultimately adopt the innovation.
The S-shaped curve becomes a normal curve when plotted as the incidence of people
adopting at various points in time rather than the prevalence of people who have adopted up
to that point. The normal curve is used to delineate five different categories of adopters
according to (Rogers, 1995).they are:

 Innovators

 Early adopters,

 Early majority

 Late majority, and

 Laggards

STAGES IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS

The process of adoption is said to pass through the following five stages:

1. Knowledge – the individual (or decision-making unit) is exposed to the innovation’s

existence and gains some understanding of how it functions.

2. Persuasion – the individual (or unit) forms a favourable or unfavourable attitude

toward the innovation. This may involve, for example, a matching of the innovation
to a perceived problem, and some kind of appraisal of the costs and benefits of
adoption.
 3. Decision – the individual (or unit) engages in activities that lead to a choice to adopt
or reject the innovation. This may include interaction with forces of support or
opposition that influence the process.

4. Implementation – the individual (or unit) puts an innovation into use.

5. Confirmation – the individual (or unit) seeks reinforcement for an innovation

decision already made, but may reverse this decision if exposed to conflicting
messages about the innovation (Rogers, 1995 p202).

Figure 1: Stages of the adoption process.

2.3.3. Innovative Techniques

The techniques here outlined have been found by the researcher from thorough
background study to be of high beneficial advantages to improve the livelihood of poultry
farmers, and livelihood here entails a set of economic activities through which a household
meets its basic needs and earns some cash income.

A. CREDITS ACQUISITION
Credit is the overall arrangement through which inputs in kind and in cash are made
to farmers who repay such inputs at a later date as stated in the repayment schedule.
Agricultural credits encompasses all loans and advances granted to a farmer to finance
activities relating to the agricultural sector, in this case poultry.

The access to credit is expected to have a positive effect on the adoption of various village
poultry technologies, because the introduction of new technologies often requires short-term
or long-term investments. The main problem, however, is that measuring access to credit is
not an easy task. Doss (2006).

(Akinrinola & Okunola, 2014) showed that there was an increase in the investment level of
farmers and that was attributed to their accessibility to farm credits during the Nigerian
Agricultural Insurance Scheme in ondo state.

The positive effect of access to credit on the adoption of village poultry improvement
technologies is consistent with Feder et al. (1985) who argue that access to credit is an
important determinant for the adoption of new technologies. Indeed, access to credit
facilitates the acquisition of technology by small farmers who, in general, have limited
financial liquidity. This implies that improving producers’ access to credit will increase the
adoption of new and improved poultry techniques.

Credits are required to expand the scale of production and increase levels of production for
poultry farmers, thus it needed to break the vicious cycle of poverty.

B. JOINING OF POULTRY COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES

A cooperative is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet

their common economic, social and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned
and democratically-controlled enterprise.

It occupies a key position in agricultural development with support in resource and input use,
harvesting of water resources, marketing channels, storage facilities, distribution channels,
value addition, market information and a regular monitoring network system. Cooperatives
are also engaged in economic activities like disbursement of credit, distribution of
agricultural inputs (seeds, fertilizers, and agrochemicals), etc. Cooperatives have inherent
advantages in tackling the problems of poverty alleviation, food security and employment
generation (Virendra et al, 2015)
The advantages of cooperative marketing were increased bargaining strength of farmers,
direct dealing with consumers, credit availability, cheaper transport, storage, grading and
processing facilities and market intelligence.

Despite some recent research on the economic performance of farmer cooperatives which has
shown promising results in improving their livelihood (Babb and Lang, cited by Ralph D.C.
1987), most farmers are still reluctant to join these cooperative societies.

Access to reliable and accurate market information is often another challenge that does not
allow poultry producers to identify and target markets that offer more opportunities and better
profits (martin et al, 2011). Thus, membership to farmer cooperatives facilitate easier access
to inputs like feed supplements, improved chicks, drugs and vaccines, technical advice,
credit, training, transportation and marketing of chicken products (Branckaert et al., 2000).
Organising poultry farmers into groups has not been easy especially among free range
chicken keepers since flock sizes are small and chicken are maintained with minimal labour
and capital inputs. Nevertheless, it is essential that farmers are encouraged to initiate chicken
farming using medium sized flocks (Branckaert et al., 2000).

C. INSURANCE

Agricultural Insurance, in its widest sense may be defined as the stabilization of income,
employment, price and supplies of agricultural products by means of regular and deliberate
savings and accumulation of funds in small installments by many, in favourable time periods
to defend some or few of the participants in bad time periods (Arene, 2005). The term
“insurance” In recent times, insurance has been seen as part of an overall risk management
strategy. (UNCTAD 1994)”. The primary motive of any agricultural insurance policy is to
serve as a security for losses resulting from natural disasters. It also serves as collateral for
agricultural loan to the farmers from banks. (Arene, 2005).

Patrick (2010), in his study, discovered that the respondent poultry farmers agree to the
following statements: agricultural enterprise is faced with risks and uncertainties; agricultural
insurance is beneficial; agricultural insurance reduces farmers’ worries and stress. It then
implies that the respondents had a favourable attitude towards agricultural insurance. He
further found that farmers recognized the fact that poultry enterprise being an agricultural
activity is faced with risks and uncertainties, and that one way to overcome such risks and
uncertainties is through insurance cover.

o Agricultural insurance empowers the farmers to obtain farm credit. Since insurance
guarantees protection against crop and/or livestock failure, the insured farmer has
greater confidence in obtaining loans

o It facilitates better planning and project implementation since there is a high level
assurance for continuity in business;

o It serves as an assurance to banks and other financial institutions who grant loan for
agricultural purposes as loans given will be repaid;

D. RECORDS KEEPING

Torres (2001) defines Record keeping as the keeping of detailed records by a farmer of his
farm’s daily operations, income and expenses.

In the face of the recent global economic crunch and the rapid pace of the farming industry, it
is impossible for producers to manage a farm enterprise the way their parents did 30 years
ago (Arzeno, 2004). Henderson & Gomes (1974) noted that one possible approach to
improving small-scale farming is through the use of farm records. Without farm records, a
farmer will not make it very far in today’s business environment. This is because a farmer
who maintains an adequate set of records can usually handle problems better than the one
who does not (Poggio, 2006).

Types of Farm Records

There are various types of farm records (Poggio, 2006) classified them under four basic
types. They include;

Resource inventories; assets and liabilities of the farm

Production records; mortality, breeding, bird performance, feed information, laying and
labour.

Financial records; income from sale of eggs and birds and expenditure from feed, vaccines,
labour and maintenance of farm equipments.
Supplementary records; survey map, the farm layout (map) and the legal documents of the
farm.

According to (Devonish et al., 2000), 84% of the farmers interviewed kept records on
production (feed, egg production, labour, mortality, birth and breeding). Okantah et al.,
(2003) also found that majority of farmers (96%) kept production records (weight of birds
sold, the amounts of feeds and drugs or vaccines administered). These high percentages prove
that most farmers are more concerned about the productivity of their farm business.
According to (Devonish et al., 2000 cited by Patrick 2010), it was found that majority of
farmers (76% and 95%) kept financial records respectively. These show the importance
farmers attach to their financial needs.

Implications of Keeping Farm Records

Essentially, accurate written farm records are very helpful, (Devonish et al., 2000), reported
that farmers were interviewed in the district and 57% of them confirmed that they obtained
credits due to the fact that they were keeping farm records, thus a farmer who has a well-kept
farm record is in a more favourable position to borrow needed funds than one who has no
farm records.. According to Johl & Kapur (2001), when farmers keep records, they
continuously give the needed information for state and national farm policies such as land
and price policies. This further helps in research works which will require precise and correct
data which is possible only if proper records are maintained on the farms and included in the
study. Farm records therefore serve as a helpful tool in obtaining the correct data for
examining and developing sound policies. Farmers must maintain proper farm records in
order to receive subsidies from government. This was stated by Rolls (2001 cited by Patrick
2010) that records of building and machinery linked to farm registration in Hungary are
essential for access to government subsidies.

Also, in Lithuania, farmers are also obliged to keep farm records to obtain state support.

Constraints of Keeping Farm Records

Farm record keeping is often seen as a mundane task by farmers (Poggio, 2006). Obviously,
farmers are faced with constraints which cause their inability to keep farm records. (Minae et
al., 2003, cited by Patrick 2010) noted that the lack of keeping farm records is more
pronounced due to the high levels of illiteracy. Another constraint faced by farmers is that,
most of them engage in several enterprises and mixed farming systems, and thus farm record
keeping requires much of their time. They are therefore faced with time constraints which
hinder them from keeping farm records (Johl & Kapur, 2001).

(Johl & Kapur, 2001) further stated that the subsistence nature of farming does not produce
any incentive for keeping the farm records. Farmers therefore cannot engage separately
trained accountants for helping them in farm accounting. Singh (2001) commented that the
small farmers know that because of the small size of their farm holdings they will not be able
to effect economies of scale hence do not show interest in farm record keeping. Minae (2001)
noted that lack of sensitisation on the importance of farm record keeping on the performance
of farm businesses by extension agents or enumerators is a constraint. (Johl & Kapur, 2001)
further stated that sufficient numbers of trained specialists in farm management are not
available who could help farmers maintain records of their business. (Johl & Kapur, 2001)
stated that farmers are always afraid of new taxes and so they fear that if they maintain
records and their incomes show up high in their record books, some sort of high tax may be
levied on them.

E. THE DEEP LITTER SYSTEM OF HOUSING

This is a production system where birds are kept in open house spaces and various bedding
materials such as sawdust, wood shavings, straw and groundnut and rice hulls

The deep litter system ensures good stocking of birds. It is essential that meat birds have
adequate room, whether they are housed in small groups on village farms or in larger semi-
commercial or commercial sheds. Lack of space can lead to leg problems, injuries and
increased mortality (Sainsbury, 1988). This is often noticed in the cage system of production.
As they approach market weight, an approximate maximum stocking density for fully
confined birds on deep litter is 30 kg of bird per square metre of floor area.

This system eases and facilitates the removal of litter. Litter removal takes place after about 2
months after the bedding materials are put, thus the routine activity of removing litter daily is
reduced.
 F. PROVISION OF EXTENSION SERVICES

Another variable that must also be considered is access to information. Farmers must have
information about new technologies before they can consider adopting them. Since extension
services are one important means for farmers to gain information on new technologies,
variables about extension services are often used as a measure of access to information. Since
the origins of organized extension services in second half of the 19th century, the aim of
extension has been to accelerate the adoption of improved practices, and application of new
technologies in agriculture (Davis et al., 2004). For more than a century, extension worldwide
primarily followed a linear transfer-of-technology approach, involving adoption of science-
based technologies (Rogers, 1995). In this role, extension functions on the basis of an expert
consultant, offering the presumed best solution. The roles of extension services as outlined by
(Akinnagbe et al, 2013) includes:
 Improving the linkages between public and private sectors involvement in agricultural
biotechnology
 Developing the appropriate mechanisms to transfer the research findings on
agricultural technologies
 Involvement of end-users (farmers) to participate in issues relating to biotechnology
research and development.
 Educating the end users to adopt the new innovation in order to achieve food security.
 Encouraging the development of positive attitudes amongst scientists of the
knowledge, experience and capabilities of the local people in research and
development process.
 Encouraging the development of receptive attitude in farmers or local people to accept
technological changes in their farming practices.
 Equipping the farmers with managerial skills through informal education and
demonstrations to sustain proven technologies.
 Technology financing through donor agencies and procurement of essential
machinery.
 Linking farmers to the source of farm credit
 Provision of accurate, unbiased, objective and research-based information on
agricultural technologies.
 Provides specialists and researchers with information on farmer’s needs.
 Provides feedback on the effectiveness of technological innovations
  Developing the appropriate mechanisms to transfer the research findings on
agricultural biotechnology
 Increasing farmer household productivity through dissemination of improved
desirable traits of biotechnology products
 Helping farmers to identify and analyze their production problems.
 Making the farmers to be aware of the opportunities to obtain increased income and
attain a better standard of living.
 Informing the public about the development of innovations using different
communication channels
 Overall improvement of the quality of life of the rural people within the frame work
of the national economic social policies as a whole.
 Provision of incentive to farmers through extension delivery systems provided with
good information and government support
G. USE OF FOOT BATHS
This is one of the highly used bio-security measures to prevent livestock infections in animal
production.

Many poultry farmers do not yet still see the importance of these measures and because of
negligence, suffer untold losses. Another measure is the restricted access to poultry houses.

2.3.4. Problems of Innovation Adoptions

Innovation uptake is dependent on the capacity of the user to access innovation and later use
it. This capacity is dependent on certain cultural, socio-economic, personal, political and
geographical variables. It also includes the appropriateness of the information, the credibility
of the information channel, and the information provider’s characteristics. Characteristics of
an innovation also play a key part in its adoption by an individual. (Ezeano, 2010)
investigated factors related to the adoption of improved farm practices and the isolated
variables include farmer age, education, years of experience, social and tenured status, agro-
climate, location, farm size, credit, and characteristics of the innovation itself such as relative
advantage, compatibility, complexity, divisibility and communicability, techniques of
communication, amount of participation and the use of traditional culture. In the aspect of
age, young farmers are more receptive than older ones as the older ones are not always ready
to part with the old techniques for new ones.
 2.4. Description of the host institution
The host institution here is Nazareth centre which is an agro pastoral centre created in 1997
by 3 piarist fathers from Spain. The centre was created with the aim of reducing
unemployment amongst youths in Bamenda city especially Nkwen. It is located in mile 4
Mente Nkwen Bamenda. The centre is involved in animal production (poultry production,
rabbit and pig production) and crop production (maize, beans, carrots and vegetables). The
centre also trains farmers on government sponsored agricultural programs.

The centre began with rabbit production in that same year of its creation and poultry
production soon followed where it had 1000 broilers and 1500 layers ( Nazareth Centre,
1997).

In 2003, the centre was properly created and recognized by the Cameroon government and
was granted a lot of subventions from the government which led to an increase in the centre’s
production capacity where the number of broilers increased from 1000 to 1500, and the layers
also increase from 1500 to 2000 and the piggery unit also came up (Nazareth centre, 2003).
In the year 2012, there was a drastic shoot of the piggery unit which affected the whole centre
negatively and led to a drop in the production capacity of the poultry unit because the piggery
unit produces most of the finances used in running the centre such as paying employees and
payment of the centre’s bills. With the collapsed of the piggery unit, the poultry unit was now
the only unit which could generate finances for the payment of workers and bills and due to
the high level of consumption of the poultry unit finances, it led to a drop in the number of
broilers purchased from 1500 to 500 due to limited finances (Nazareth centre, 2012). In the
year 2015, there was another drastic drop in the number of layers from 2000 to 1000 because
of lack of veterinary control (Nazareth centre, 2015). Presently, the centre has 1000 layers
and is aiming to improve the number of layers from 1000 to 2000 in 2018 and has a long term
strategic plan to have 3000 to 4000 layers in the year 2020 (Nazareth centre, 2017). But the
centre’s poultry farm productivity has not been the best as was expected (Nazareth centre,
2016). Thus carrying out this study will be beneficial to this institution as the findings will
direct the center towards new innovations in the poultry sector.
 CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1. Research design
The study was done using a descriptive survey design to investigate the benefits of adopted
innovation of poultry farmers in Bamenda III. This was in an effort to ensure that poultry
farms became meaningful in terms of reward and as a source of income to the famer and the
society at large. Descriptive survey designs are used in preliminary and exploratory studies
(luck & Reuben, 1992) to allow researcher gather information, summarize, present and
interpret for the purpose of education and clarification (Orodho, 2002).

3.2. Description of the study area

Bamenda is a city in North western Cameroon and capital of the North West region and is
located 366 kilometres NW of the Cameroonian capital, Yaoundé.

Bamenda is known for its cool climate and scenic hilly condition, with an average annual
rainfall of 2145mm and an annual temperature of 21.5 degree centigrade, The city has a
population of about 1,500,000 people and a majority of the inhabitants do business for a
living which is the main source of their income followed by agriculture, with a majority of
people in this city farming just for family consumption (MINEPIA, 2012). The main crops
cultivated include maize, beans, yams and vegetables. A majority of farmers often do mix
farming (MINEPIA, 2012).The main type of poultry practiced in this part of the country is
broiler production followed by layers. The poultry production here is dominated by small
scale production for both house hold consumption and commercial purposes, but in times of
feast such as the December, January and February periods of the year, were demand for birds
and egg is very high, many people go into poultry production and some that were already
existing in the business increase their production capacity in other to meet the market demand
of poultry product consumption.
Figure 2: The map of Bamenda city.

3.3. Study Population

A study population is defined as all the members of a real or hypothetical set of people,
events or objects to which a researcher wishes to generate a research study (Borg and Gall,
1989). The target population in the study comprised of poultry farmers in Bamenda III sub
division with a total surface area of Bamenda of 22.9 Km2 hectares and its estimated
population stands at 105.244 ( CAMGIS in Minimum Urban Local Development Scheme,
2008). The population of Bamenda III municipality is largely cosmopolitan made up of
indigenous Nkwen and Ndzah people, migrants from all over the North West and West
Regions, other regions of Cameroon and Nigerians.

3.4. Data sources

Both primary and secondary data is used for this study. Primary data collected through
structured questionnaires administered to the poultry producers selected in the study area.
The secondary data collected from books, articles, journals, web pages, reports and also
poultry farm experts in Nazareth centre and in the regional delegation of livestock.

3.4. Method of data collection

Data collection method for this study was the questionnaire made up of open ended and close
ended questions. The questionnaire is divided into three sections. The first section seeks to
bring out the socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the farmers. The second
section is about the extent of innovation adoption, finally, the last section contains some of
the problems of innovation adoption.

Questionnaire validation was done through the scrutiny the supervisors. That is, the first copy
was presented to the supervisor who cross checked it and made the necessary corrections to
ensure the questions would lead to the attainment of research objectives, before the final copy
was then printed.

3.5. Sampling technique

Purposively sampling was used to select the respondents. This was due to some reasons such
as the ease of accessibility of the area, and the researcher’s familiarity with the customs of the
people. Secondly, random sampling was used to select the respondents (poultry farmers).

3.6. Sample Size

A portfolio of farmers were selected for use for this study. 3 poultry production Experts in
NAPTC, 3 farmers whom have constant contact with the center, and 26 farmers who have
registered under the sub divisional delegation of MINEPIA. Making a total of 29 sampled
farmers.

3.6. Data analysis technique

Descriptive and qualitative statistics is used to analyse the data collected to better understand
the relationship between the various variables.

3.6.1 Statistical Instrument

Chi square test of independence for the different variables of the analysis

3.6.2. Data Analysis Tool

Data was analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS v20) computer
software to generate descriptive and inferential statistics
 REFERENCES
 Adedeji, O.S. Amao, S.R. Alabi, T.J. and Opebiyi, O.B. (2014). Assessment of Poultry
Production System in Ilesha West Local Government Area of Osun State, Nigeria.
Scholars Academic and Scientific Publishers, Nigeria.
 Adeyeye, V.A. (1990). The impact structural adjustment programme on the livestock
sector: A case study of poultry industry in Oyo State, Nigeria. Paper presented at the
National Conference on Nigerian Livestock Industry and Prospects for the 1990s.
Nigerian Institute for Social and Economic Research, Kaduna, Nigeria.
 Akinrinola, O. & Okunola, A. M. (2014). Evaluation of effects OF agricultural insurance
scheme on agricultural production in ondo state, Federal University of Technology,
Akure, Nigeria
 Amos, T.T. (2006). Analysis of backyard poultry production in Ondo state, Nigeria.
 Arene, C.J, & Tee D.M. (2005). Agricultural Insurance in Humid Nigeria: An Analysis of
the Performance of the Livestock subsector. Revista di Agricultura Tropicale
subtropicale,
 Arzeno, A. (2004). Record Keeping in Farm Management, College of Agriculture and
Biological Sciences, South Dakota State University, Brookings.
 Borg, W R & Gall, M D,(1989). Educational research: An introduction (5th ed.):
Longman publishers, New York.
 Conway, A. (2012). High feed costs impact poultry meat, egg production worldwide.
WATT Executive Guide to World Poultry Trends.
http://www.wattagnet.com/High_feed_costs_impact_poultry_meat,_egg_production_worl
dwide.html
 David, F. (2017). The role of poultry in human nutrition, Queensland, Australia.
 Davis K, Irani T, Payson P (2004). Going toward in education on agricultural
biotechnology: Extension’s role internationally. J. Int. Agric. Ext. Educ. 11(1):25-34.
 Dessie, T and Ogle, B (2001). Village poultry production systems in the central highlands
of Ethopia Tropical animal health and production.
 Devonish, E., Pemberton, C. A., Ragbir, S. (2000). Record keeping among small farmers
in Barbados, Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, University of the
West Indies, St Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago.
 Djoukam J and Teguia A (1991) Filiere des produits avicoles au Cameroon: Typologie
des elevages avicoles semi intensifs dans la province de l’ouest
 Dwinger RH, Bell J G and Permin A, (2003). A program to improve family poultry
production in Africa. Network for Smallholder Poultry Development.
 FAO. (2006).
 FAO. (2013). Poultry development review. ISBN 978-92-5-108067-2 Pdf.
 FAOSTAT. (2012). Livestock primary production data. Retrieved from;
Http://www.faostat.fao.org.
 FAOSTAT. (2013). Statistics; Broiler chickens, the Farm Animal Welfare Compendium.
 Farid, K.R. and Farid S.A Nassah. ( ) poultry production in the Middle East and African
states: situation, future, and strategies. Cairo University, Egypt.
 Folorunsho, O.R. and Onibi G.E. (2005). Assessment of the Nutritional Quality of
Eviscerated Waste from Selected Chicken Types. Proceedings of the 1st Annual
Conference on Developments in Agriculture and Biological Sciences. 27th April,
2005.School of Agriculture and Agricultural Technology, Federal University of
Technology, Akure, Nigeria, pp:300.
 Frands, D. (2003). Review of household poultry production as a tool for poverty
reduction with focus on Bangladesh and India. Pro-poor livestock policy initiative
working paper number 6.
 Gueye, E F, (2000). Approach to Family poultry development. Proceeding of the 21st
world’s poultry congress.
 Hansen, J. C. Johnson, D.M. and Lesley, B. V. (1991). Developing and improving your
farm records, Department of Agriculture, University of Maryland.
 Henderson, T. H., & Gomes, P.I. (1979). Profiles of Small Farming in St. Vincent,
Dominica and St. Lucia: Report of a Baseline Survey, Barbados.
 Johl, S. S. & Kapur, T.R. (2001). Fundamentals of Farm Business Management, Kalyani
Publishers, pp 253-259.
 Keambou T.C, Manjeli Y, Téguia A, Tchoumboué J, Iroumé R.N, (2007). Détermination
du poids par des mensurations corporelles chez la poule locale des hautesterres de l’ouest
Cameroun. Biosciences Proceedings, Vol. 11: 156-165.
 Keambou, T.C., Kana J.R, Ngah A.M. Tedongmo, A.M.Y. Raquel J.S. Frederico L.
(2016). Socio-economic, technical characteristics and challenges to local chicken
production in the western highlands of Cameroon. University of Buea, Cameroon.
 Kekocha, C.C., (1994). Poultry Production Handbook. Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
London, pp: 166
 Laseinde, E.A.O., (1994). Terminology in Poultry Production. Tropical Agricultural
Production Series.
 Martin, H. Frands, D. and Robyn, A. (2011). Products and profit from poultry,
Diversification booklet number 3, Second edition
 MINEPIA. (2012). Report annuel, division des etudes de la plantification, de la
cooperation et des statistiques , p137, Yaoundé, Cameroon.
 MINEPIA. (2015). Project information document, Retrieved from;
Http://www.minepia.org.
 Neels, B. and Kris, A. (2005). An assessment of five different theoretical frameworks to
study the uptake of innovations, Paper presented at the 2005 NZARES Conference
Hamilton, New Zealand.
 Netting, R, (1993). Epilogue: does the smallholder have a future? In Smallholders
householders farm families and the ecology of intensive sustainable agriculture p. 320–
334.
 Nutley, S. Davis, H. and Isabel, W. (2002). Conceptual Synthesis 1: Learning from the
Diffusion of Innovations, University of St Andrews, United Kingdom.
 Patrick A. (2010) Assessing Farm Record Keeping Behaviour among Small-Scale Poultry
Farmers in the Ga East Municipality
 Patrick, C.A. (2010). Poultry Farmers’ Response to Agricultural Insurance in Delta State,
J. Agri. Sci. Nigeria.
 Poggio, M. (2006). Farm Management Records, [Online] Available: www.srdc.gov.au,
retrieved on 4th November, 2008, 9:20 GMT.
 Ralph D.C (1987). The role of farmer cooperatives in a changing agricultural economy,
southern journal of agricultural economics, USA
 Rogers, E.M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations 3rd edition, New York: Free Press, 453pp
 Rushton, J & Ngongi S.N, (1998). Poultry, women and development: old ideas, new
applications and the need for more research. World Animal Review, 43–49.
 Sainsbury, D.W.B. (1988). Broiler chicken. In Management and welfare of farm animals.
The UFAW Handbook, pp. 221–232. London, Balliere Tindall.
 Torres, A.B.D. (2001). Farm Management in Extension in the Philippines, FAO, Rome
(unpublished)
 UNCTAD secretariat. (1994). agricultural insurance in developing countries,
UNCTAD/SDD/INS/1/Rev.1
 Virendra Kumar, K. G. Wankhede, and H. C. Gena, (2015). Role of Cooperatives in
Improving Livelihood of Farmers on Sustainable Basis, American Journal of Educational
Research, vol. 3, no. 10: 1258-1266. doi: 10.12691/education-3-10-8.
 Wolfe, R A (1994) Organisational innovation: review, critique and suggested research
directions Journal of Management Studies 31(3) pp405-31
 Zaman, M.A. Sorensen, P. and Howlider M.A.R. (2004). Egg production performance of
a breed and three cross breeds under semi-scavenging systems or market livestock for
rural development vol, 16, retrieved from, http://www.irrd.org.