PARTICIPATORY EPIZOOTIOLOGY RESEARCH OF ANIMAL HEALTH DEVELOPMENT IN OLOHUNDE VILLAGE, LANLATE, OYO STATE, NIGERIA.

BY

IDOWU, OLUGBENGA STEPHEN

(MATRICULATION NUMBER: 118802)

A RESEARCH PROJECT REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT

OF VETERINARY PUBLIC HEALTH AND PREVENTIVE MEDICINE,

FACULTY OF VETERINARY MEDICINE

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF THE MASTERS IN PREVENTIVE VETERINARY MEDICINE (MPVM) DEGREE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN,

NIGERIA.

APRIL, 2005.

CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that this work was done by

IDOWU, OLUGBENGA STEPHEN in the Department of Veterinary Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.

………………………………….. …………..

Signed: Dr. O.O. Babalobi (Supervisor) Date

Department of Veterinary Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine,

University of Ibadan, Nigeria.

.

………………………………… …………….

Signed: Prof. G.A.T. Ogundipe (Head of Department) Date

Department of Veterinary Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine,

University of Ibadan, Nigeria.

DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to all those who are too weak and vulnerable

to speak or act in determining the direction of issues affecting them.

AKNOWLEDGEMENT

I give all the thanks, honour and glory to my Father God, for this accomplishment. It has really been by His grace and power through the Risen Christ; and strength and understanding by His Holy Spirit, in spite of all indications otherwise.

I also wish to register my sincere appreciation to my senior colleague, friend and supervisor, Dr. Tayo Babalobi, for his hard-work on this, in spite of his personal health concerns at this time. I can only repeat our continual prayer for him to enjoy his days in good health, long life and prosperity, body, soul and spirit in Jesus name. Amen.

This can also be a good opportunity to express sincere thanks to fellow students and our lecturers and senior colleagues in the Department of Veterinary Public Health and Preventive Medicine, where we have had a rare kind of warm and cordial relationship between teachers/lecturers and students. Your attitude to students welfare and being considerate to their feelings is worth emulating.

Thank you and God bless you.

Idowu, O. S.

April, 2005.

ABSTRACT

The concepts of PLA (Participatory Learning and Action) and PRA (Participatory Rural Appraisal), which have to do with the full participation of people in the processes of learning about their needs and opportunities, and in the solution or action required to address them, were applied to animal health and production development research in Olohunde village, near Lanlate, a typical rural, livestock producing area of Oyo State, Nigeria. This is relatively uncommon in veterinary research in Nigeria, but it is in use in many epizootiological research and livestock development projects in other parts of Africa.

The study was carried out in November 2004, to amplify farmer participation in livestock health research and development, to provide the baseline data against which on-going livestock-health interventions in Olohunde village can be evaluated in future, while understanding more, the expressed needs of livestock farmers, existing local resources, traditional systems and local constraints or risks in relation to animal health in a typical rural setting.

The results showed that the main animal species kept were sheep and goats. The major diseases constraints were PPR (Peste de Petit Ruminantes) and Mange. There were increases in the incidence of diseases around May, June and July, while feed resources were available all year round and more in May to September. The farmers were unable to describe any particular treatment regime, be it ethno-veterinary or orthodox, for PPR. There were generally poor attitude, inadequate time and other resources given for husbandry and for constant provision of adequate health-care and good nutrition for animals, in spite of good availability of basic resources.

The opportunities to promote a wider application of participatory epizootiology and community-based animal health services were suggested to be more explored in order to reduce the isolation of poor/vulnerable, rural livestock farmers’ inputs from livestock research and development in Nigeria.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents Page

Title Page i

Certification ii

Dedication iii

Acknowledgement iv

Abstract v

Table of Contents vii

List of Tables ix

List of Pictures x

List of Maps xi

Chapter One INTRODUCTION

1.1.00 Introduction 2

1.2.00 Study Objectives 4

1.3.00 Justification 5

1.4.00 The Project Area 6

Chapter Two LITERATURE REVIEW 8

2.1.00 The Concept of Participation 8

2.2.00 Participatory Research 10

2.2.01 Other Terms used in Participatory Research 14

2.3.00 Participatory Research Tools 15

2.3.01 Community Inventory or Semi-Structured Interviewing16

2.3.02 Mapping 17

2.3.03 Transect 17

2.3.04 Focus Group Discussion 18

2.3.05 Wealth Ranking 18

2.3.06 Seasonal or Historical Diagramming 19

2.3.07 Institutional Mapping or Venn Diagramming 20

2.3.08 Matrix Ranking 20

2.4.00 Participatory Epizootiology 21

2.5.00 Examples of Using Participatory Methods

in Epizootiology 25

2.5.01 Animal Health Surveys, Need Assessments

And Action Planning 25

2.5.02 Monitoring, Impact Assessment and Evaluation 26

2.5.03 Ethno-veterinary Studies 26

2.5.04 Participatory Disease Searching 27

2.5.05 Participatory Research 28

2.5.06 Disease Modelling 28

2.6.00 Challenges of using Participatory Approaches

In Epizootiology 30

2.7.00 The Future of Participatory Epizootiology 31

Chapter Three MATERIALS AND METHODS 33

3.1.00 Materials 33

3.2.00 Collection and Processing of Data 34

Chapter Four RESULTS

4.1.00 Results 38

4.1.01 Livestock Species 38

4.1.02 Issues in Livestock Health and Production 38

4.1.03 Major Animal Diseases and Veterinary

Public Health Issues 41

4.1.04 Knowledge, Skills and Attitudinal Gaps

In Animal Health 44

4.1.05 Ethno-veterinary Knowledge 46

4.1.06 Comparison of Sources of Animal Health and

Disease Control Services 47

4.1.07 Farm Transect 48

4.1.08 Seasonal Calendars 50

4.2.00 Action Points 51

Chapter Five DISCUSSIONS

5.1.00 Discussion 53

5.1.01 Livestock Species 53

5.1.02 Issues in Livestock Health and Production 54

5.1.03 Veterinary Public Health and

Ethno-veterinary Issues 56

5.1.04 Comparison of Sources of Animal Health

And Disease Control Services 58

5.1.05 Seasonal Variation in Disease Incidence,

Livestock Income and Feed Availability 58

5.2.00 Suggestions and Conclusion 59

References 62

Appendices 66

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1 Matrix Scoring of Livestock Species Kept in Olohunde 39

Table 2 Historical Matrix Ranking of Livestock Health and

Production Issues Identified by Farmers in Olohunde 40

Table 3 Ranking of Animal Health and Public Health Issues

by Farmers in Olohunde 44

Table 4 Comparison of Sources of Animal Health and Disease

Control Services 47

Table 5 Tabular Representation of the Transect Walk of Olohunde 49

Table 6 Seasonal Calendar of Disease Incidence, Livestock Income

And Feed Availability 50

LIST OF PLATES

  Page

Plate 3.1 Showing one of the participating farmers

doing her matrix scores 37

Plate 4.1 and 4.2 Farmers while taking turns to draw,

decide or explain their responses 39

Plate 4.3 One of the many animal confinements in

Olohunde 42

Plate 4.4 Showing one of the Plenary Sessions

During the PRA 44

FIGURE

Page

Figure 1 Map Showing the Location of Olohunde in Lanlate area

of Oyo State, Nigeria 7

CHAPTER ONE

1.1.00 INTRODUCTION

Experience and various accounts in the literature show that livestock health or disease control interventions or innovations adopted from developed countries or from research or large-scale farms are seldom successful in developing countries or on farms/communities with poor or no access to efficient external input support. This is due to many constraints such as differences in climatic, political, social and economic realities, large number of tropical diseases to contend with, poorly instituted and inappropriate disease prevention and control inputs and importantly, lack of consultation with animal owners, farmers and pastoralists who are key stakeholders and are consequently the end-users of such innovations/interventions (McCrindle et al., 1996). Animal health research results only translate into disease control innovations if farmers and pastoralists actually apply them in practice. This is especially true for farming under precarious conditions, exemplified by most pastoral communities in Africa.

It has been recognized that using participatory methods, livestock extension, development and research objectives can be selected, evaluated and ranked, with active involvement of farmers and animal owners (McCrindle et al., 1996). Participatory methods offer creative approaches to information sharing, production of knowledge and generation of potential solutions with those whose livelihood strategies form the subject of research (IIED, 1994).

According to Wade (1989) and Bembridge (1991), extension of technology can only function effectively if the objectives of the extensionist and that of the users of the technology being extended come to coincide. Getting them to coincide involves situational (systems) analysis and management of change (McCrindle, 2003). Change is linked to perceptions and can consequently only be achieved by listening to people and observing their situation and perceptions. This involves a “Systems Approach” (Lazlo, 1983), where all the variables, intrinsic and extrinsic to a particular system, as well as all the interactions are identified, analyzed and evaluated. This is possible only within the realm of Participatory Research and Development.

PLA (Participatory Learning and Action) and PRA (Participatory Rural Appraisal) represent two of a wide range of terms used to describe those concepts and methods used for the full participation of people in the processes of learning about their needs and opportunities, and in the solution or action required to address them (IIED, 1994). This research in Olohunde village makes deliberate use of such participatory methods to understand the expressed needs of farmers, existing local resources, traditional systems and local constraints or risks in relation to animal health and production in their community. This is in order to contribute to knowledge about appropriate and sustainable epizootiological interventions and veterinary public health policies of Government and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) working for animal production, health and development in Olohunde and other similar communities, at least in Southwest Nigeria. Participatory Epizootiology is a generic term for a series of methods, which have been designed to achieve this. Many epizootiological research and development projects in major pastoral communities in Africa are currently using participatory approaches (Catley and Mariner, 2002).

1.2.00 STUDY OBJECTIVES

Using participatory Epizootiological approach, the objectives of this research are to:

i. Identify and rank the major animal diseases and health problems of epizootiological importance in the study area.

ii. Determine and prioritize what the farmers consider to be their major constraints and limiting resources for animal health management and disease control in the study area.

iii. Review the disease diagnostic, prevention and control strategies or methods presently in use for animal health management, in terms of cost effectiveness, availability, accessibility and other appropriate criteria for the community.

iv. Understand local perspectives and preferences of animal health management practices recommended by outside experts and those currently in use in their community, including ethno-veterinary practices.

v. Determine the level of awareness and the knowledge gaps about animal health management issues (disease signs/symptoms and pathogenesis) among livestock farmers in the community.

1.3.00 JUSTIFICATION

The findings of this research project will provide baseline data against which the on-going livestock health and production interventions in the community can be evaluated in future, while contributing to determining the sort of appropriate and sustainable epizootiological interventions that can be instituted by Government and Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) working in Olohunde, Lanlate and other similar communities, at least in Southwest Nigeria.

This project is also a means to amplify practice of giving relevance and power to the people in determining the direction of important issues concerning their progress such as livestock health and development. Hopefully this project will at least take livestock farmers in Olohunde community to this reality.

Participatory methods are relatively uncommon in veterinary research in Nigeria; this project lends one more voice to the use of participatory methods where appropriate in order to achieve effective and sustainable livestock health and disease control in Nigeria, as elsewhere.

1.4.00 THE PROJECT AREA

Olohunde is a small village of about two hundred inhabitants with thirty-two houses. The village is located about five kilometers off Lanlate/Odo-Awaiye road in Ibarapa North Local Government area of Oyo state, Nigeria. The inhabitants of Olohunde are mainly Yoruba. The few non-indigenes living in the village are migrant farm labourers from neighboring Republic of Benin. The major occupation for men in the village is farming and hunting; women engage mainly in trading in farm products apart from helping their husbands on the farm. The majority of the active farming population range in age between 35 and 55 years. Many of the younger people are either working or schooling in the cities and towns. Livestock keeping on free-range is an age long traditional practice for both men and women. Interest in livestock farming is relatively high given the provision for animal shelter/pens in many of the houses in the village.

Olohunde village was selected for this research, being a typical rural, livestock producing area; and also because I am familiar with some Christian development workers and missionaries under the Justice, Development and Peace Commission (JDPC) of the Ibadan Archdiocese of the Catholic Church, who are already working there.

Figure 1.1 : Map showing the location of Olohunde, Lanlate, Oyo State, Nigeria. (See inserted Leaf)

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1.00 THE CONCEPT OF PARTICIPATION.

The contemporary history of participatory approaches began shortly after World War II, with the creation of the World Bank. The goal of the western world was to introduce economies to capitalism through modernization and industrialization. In most contexts, village/rural institutions, local traditions and peasants were considered backward and unable to contribute meaningfully to the process of finding solutions to the problems affecting them. Participation from local people often came from the elites.

In spite of mounting pressures to preserve the status quo, indigenous actors in developing countries were working hard to promote participatory processes. One of the most influential of these actors was Paulo Freire, a Brazilian literacy educator. He focused on the active involvement of local people in defining their own realities and problems (Freire Paulo 1970). He proved that common people have the capacity to take the initiative and think about their own problems and appropriate solutions.

This advent of the concept of participation ushered in a multitude of participatory techniques used among social researchers and development practitioners. By the late 1970s a technique called "Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA)” became popular with decision-makers in international agencies, including the World Bank and other International aid agencies. Building on close collaboration with local populations, RRAs were designed to collect first-hand data from the local people about their perceptions of their local environments and living conditions. RRA methods were specifically adapted to respond to local conditions. Thus communication processes with illiterate persons not used to communication in abstract terms were carefully considered. Visualization, using locally comprehensible symbols and tools like mapping, diagramming and ranking were introduced to facilitate the sharing of information with people.

During the 1980's NGOs operating at grass-roots level used RRA to come up with further fine-tuned approaches called “Participatory Rural Appraisal” (PRA). PRAs use similar methods and tools as RRA, but the underlying philosophy and purpose gradually changed. While RRAs aim at extracting information, often in a single event, PRAs were designed to follow more the peoples’ own concerns and interests. One of the most important principles in PRA was the sharing of results of analysis, decisions and planning efforts among the community members by open and public presentations and meetings. Thus it built up rural peoples’ own capacities for analyzing their circumstances of living, their potentials and their problems in order to actively decide on appropriate changes. PRA facilitators accepted more and more the role of learners. These shifts towards interactive mutual learning underscored the need to introduce a new terminology for the methods. Thus, practitioners led by those from the Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), gradually came to accept the term Participatory Learning and Action (PLA), from the early 1990s.

2.2.00 PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH

Related to these changes are the strong recognition of the values of Participation in Research. Participatory research has its origins in the countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America as one of several critiques of the claims of orthodox positivist research to value-free, impartial research (Jiggins, 1998). Also, adult educators in the South (contemporaries and disciples of Paulo Freire), concerned to promote dialogical educational processes between educators and students, created a process that enabled learners to take greater control over their own learning. They discovered however, a contradiction between the processes they worked with as critical educators and those with which they carried out research activities, which drew on orthodox, top-down research methodologies. They needed to find a way of carrying out research that was consistent with the principles of adult education, which they had developed. Paulo Freire linked the process of knowing with that of learning, through an ongoing cycle of reflection and action, which he called ‘praxis’. This learning process

stimulates the growth of critical thinking, which raises critical awareness in learners, about the world around them. Alongside Freire's ideas came a parallel idea; that of the ‘phenomenologists’ who held that experience is a legitimate source of knowledge. Thus, experience was added to reflection and action, as factors that could influence practice.

Chambers (1980) defined participatory research as a process of collective, community based investigation, education and action (experience, reflection and action) for structural and personal transformation. It is a method of investigating problems involving the people to identify their problems, for providing solutions and taking collective action (GTZ, 2003). Participatory research and technology development seeks to create an equitable partnership between researchers and farmers or other stakeholders in agricultural innovation. A wide range of approaches and methods to achieve this exist, which makes it difficult to clearly separate participatory methods in agricultural research from those used in rural development in general. The set of tools in participatory rural appraisal (PRA) is part of participatory research and is also used in agricultural extension and community development.

Okali et al, (1994) stated that participatory research has two inseparable components, namely participatory ‘tools’ and participatory ‘philosophy’. The tools such as Venn diagramming, matrixes, mapping, seasonal calendars and timelines are essentially visual and diagrammatic constructions that facilitate the sharing of information, while the philosophy centers around the concept that people have a right to determine their own development and recognizes the need for local people to participate meaningfully in the process of analyzing their situation, planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating their own solutions, leading to sustainable local development. In many instances, participatory tools are suitable and are well used for extractive research purposes, which largely ignore the underlying empowerment philosophies. Practitioners have criticized this form of research noting that the use of participatory tools for mere information gathering is potentially more dis-empowering than the traditional questionnaire surveys (Okali et al, 1994).

Two fields of study may be regarded as the specific source and intellectual foundations of participatory research: the farming systems concept in agriculture, and the concept of action research in social science. The farming systems concept recognizes the complexity of agriculture by integrating all the relevant factors (ecological, as well as social, cultural and economic) needed to comprehend the evolution of farming. Many farming systems in the tropics are highly location-specific, corresponding to the diversity of the ecosystems and cultural traditions that manage them. They have often developed over a long period of time and are deeply embedded in the traditions of rural communities. Farming Systems Research analyses these systems in a comprehensive way, combining ecological and social research. Empirical work on the ground, therefore, involves farm families and rural communities, leading them to analyze their own systems. Even more important than the analysis, Farming Systems Development (FSD) needs to build on the wealth of local experience in managing their ecosystems. Finding suitable technologies presupposes the incorporation of local knowledge and judgement.

The concept of (participatory) action research has emerged as a powerful social science method in the last 30 years. Participatory Action Research sees research as being embedded in the social world, and argues that social research is, in fact, a form of social practice. Action research is not only motivated by practical problems - the mere fact that researchers participate in solving them, asking questions and encouraging reflection already changes initial situations. Participatory Action Research consciously involves communities in the research process, enabling people to articulate their views and try out new things. Research and social change (development) are, therefore, parallel processes. The basic model of action research is an action/reflection cycle. It starts with a (participatory) diagnosis of problems, continues by planning and implementing practical actions (trying out new ideas), and ends by observing and evaluating the activities. The cycle can be repeated several times, thereby generating first-hand insights into the dynamics of change as well as concrete recommendations.

2.2.01 Other Terms used in Participatory Research

One of the terms related to participatory research is Participatory Technology Development (PTD). PTD is a generic term for a range of variants (e.g. ‘OFCOR’ - On-Farm, Client-Oriented Research, ‘OFAR’-On Farm Adaptive Research). What they all have in common is that research is

done in cooperation, with researchers involving farmers, farmers' organisations and extension agents. The objective is to develop appropriate and readily applicable technologies by using action research principles in agriculture. Farmers are given an active role in technology design and contribute their knowledge on local farming systems, equipment and practical skills, while researchers bring their scientific knowledge and methodological expertise to bear on the situation.

Another term, On-Farm Research (OFR) is a set of techniques for conducting research in close cooperation with farmers and under real-life conditions. The aim is to rapidly identify factors limiting production, and test potential solutions for their economic and social acceptability by way of on-farm experiments. OFR takes different forms depending on who designs and manages the experiment. Irrespective of its type, any OFR applies farm survey techniques so as to extrapolate the findings and communicational methods so as to enter into a dialogue with the farmer.

2.3.00 PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH TOOLS

These are the methods used in participatory exercises, including participatory epizootiological research and development. They are essentially interactive, visual and diagrammatic constructions that facilitate the sharing of information. They are specifically adapted to respond to local conditions using, where possible, visual and locally comprehensible symbols that aid communication processes, especially with and among illiterate persons not used to abstract communication terms. Majority of them have been developed in initiatives deriving from Sociology, Community Development, Agricultural Extension or Research, as well as in the Health sector. Examples include: Venn diagramming, Semi-structured interviewing, Matrixes, Mapping, Seasonal Calendars, and Timelines. Some of them, according to Bartle (2003), are explained below:

2.3.01 Community Inventory or Semi-structured interviewing

This is a central tool in PLA, as it is widely used throughout any PLA exercise, even when other tools are in use. It involves interviewing community people in a way that allows for free and friendly discussion, so that participants can analyze their contributions. Interviewers do not work with any set of specific questions, but it is best to prepare a checklist of topics to cover and work from it so that all relevant topics are covered. Check lists usually should include both assets and liabilities in the community, available facilities, including how well they are working, or not working, potentials and opportunities as well as threats and hindrances, both possible and current.

2.3.02 Mapping

Making a community map is probably the best tool to start up a participatory appraisal with a community. One method is to ask individuals or small groups to each make a separate map, then, as a group exercise later, all the small groups/individuals prepare a large map (e.g. using newsprint or flip chart paper) combining and synthesizing what is included on all the maps. The map usually will include communal facilities, personal and family buildings, assets and liabilities. Valuable information over and above that shown on scientifically produced maps can be obtained from maps drawn by local people. These maps show the perspective of the drawer and reveal much about local knowledge of resources, land use and settlement patterns, or household characteristics.

2.3.03 Transects

This involves taking a walk across the community, noting important features and undertaking informal discussions with community members on the issues generated by relevant observations made in line with the objectives of the PLA exercise. The observations are usually represented graphically and discussed by participants.

2.3.04 Focus Group Discussions

There may be a range of experiences and opinions among members of the community or there may be sensitivity in divulging information to outsiders or to others within the community, this is where a focus group discussion can be useful. The discussion topics chosen are fewer than for the general community inventory. It is best to first conduct separate sessions for the different interest groups, record their contributions carefully, and then bring them together to share as groups their special concerns. It is important to be careful that while we recognize the different interest groups in the community, we do not want to increase the differences between the groups.

2.3.05 Wealth Ranking

This is a particularly useful method of discovering how community members define poverty, who the really poor people are, and to stratify samples of wealth. This is best done only after the PLA team has built up some rapport with the community members. A good example is to make a card each bearing the name of each of the households in the community, and then select some members of the community to put these cards into groups according to various measures of wealth and to give their rationale for the groupings. How they categorize members of the community, and the reasons they give for making those categories and for putting different households into each category, are very revealing about the socio-economic makeup of the community.

2.3.06 Seasonal or Historical Diagramming

Seasonal and historical variations and trends can be easy to miss during a short visit to the field. PLA researchers have attempted various diagramming techniques to help explore changes in: rainfall, labour demand, farming (fishing, hunting, herding) activities, wood supply for fuel, disease incidence, migration for employment, food stocks and many other elements that change over time. The diagrams produced can be used as a basis for discussions for the reasons behind changes and implications for the people involved.

2.3.07 Institutional Mapping or Venn Diagramming

Information about the social organization of a community and the nature of social groups is often difficult to get. Complex relationships between rich and poor segments of the community, family ties and feuds, and political groups cannot often be easy to untangle. Participatory tools provide a quick way to understand the less sensitive aspects of social interaction in a community. One method is to ask key informants to construct a Venn diagram. A Venn diagram is simply a collection of circles, each of which represents a different group or organization active in the community in relation to the issue under discussion. The size of each circle reflects the relative importance of the group represented; the smaller the circle, the less influential the group about the issue. The amount of overlap between two circles represents the amount of collaboration or joint decision-making between two groups.

2.3.08 Matrix Ranking

This tool is used to assess a range of different issues against selected criteria. Community people are asked to list their own appropriate criteria (e.g. cost, availability, distance, size etc) in the rows of a matrix, against the items or issues at stake (e.g. breeds of animal, types of livestock, water sources, veterinary services etc) in the columns. Each item in the matrix can be given a score or ranked against each criterion in the rows to determine which item(s) is/are considered most important to them. For example, farmers can be asked to rank the types of livestock kept in their village in terms of the amount of income they bring, amount of food derived from their products, their importance to crop cultivation and other such criteria of importance to animal husbandry in their community.

These tools as mentioned are not exhaustive. PLA practitioners and researchers have used various terms to describe innovative methods based essentially on what has been explained above. Thus we can find such other terms as Chapatti diagrams, Time- Lines, Flow-diagrams and so on; they are all essentially based on the tools explained above.

2.4.00 PARTICIPATORY EPIZOOTIOLOGY

Veterinary epizootiology is the study of disease (and other problems) in animal populations and factors that determine its occurrence. Therefore, epidemiological observations relate to populations. In contrast, clinical observations are visible signs of disease in a live animal or signs detected using basic instruments such as a thermometer or stethoscope. Pathological observations usually relate to tissues, organs or dead animals. Unlike epidemiological observations, clinical and pathological observations can be seen mainly in individual animals.

Any form of veterinary investigation (epizootiological, pathological or clinical) may yield either qualitative or quantitative information or both (Catley, 1999). Procedures such as history taking, clinical examinations and post mortem examinations are common diagnostic tasks performed by field veterinarians, and are largely subjective (Mariner, 2000). Routinely veterinary diagnosticians mentally combine and crosscheck information provided by livestock keepers with observations of the environment and animals in question. Even laboratory examinations and the interpretation of laboratory results involve subjective interpretation by veterinarians. It follows therefore that epidemiology is a natural extension of clinical and pathological methods on populations.

Participatory epizootiology is a relatively new branch of epizootiology that is still developing. The approach is based on qualitative inquiry. According to the needs of a given intervention, participatory epizootiology can also combine the benefits of participatory tools and methods with quantitative inquiry. Participatory epizootiology uses a wide range of interviewing, scoring, ranking, and visualization methods, sometimes combined with conventional veterinary investigation and epidemiological tools (Catley and Mariner, 2002). Although professionals in a wide range of disciplines regularly use participatory approaches, veterinarians have been slow to adopt participatory ways of working. Many veterinarians consider qualitative data to be unreliable, invalid and difficult to incorporate into official disease information systems.

In theory, the validity of farmers’ ideas of disease, emanating from the use of participatory tools, as expressed in local languages, and their perceptions of proportions of animals affected can be cross-checked using modern veterinary techniques to give the ‘scientific’ or ‘objective’ answer. These modern techniques include laboratory tests that detect either a causal organism (such as a virus, bacteria or parasite) or evidence of ongoing or previous infection (by detection of antibody). However, there are numerous constraints when considering this approach to validation. For example, the value of a laboratory test is determined by the sensitivity and specificity of the test. Sensitivity is the ability of the test to detect infection and not miss those animals that are infected (i.e. ‘positive’ cases of infection). In a herd of 100 cattle all infected with parasite X, a highly sensitive test might detect parasite X in 98 cattle and miss only two cases. Such a test would be described as 98% sensitive and the number of false negatives is low (only 2%). Specificity is the ability of the test to correctly identify non-diseased animals and relates to the ability of a test to identify accurately the correct disease agent. In a herd of 100 cattle not infected with parasite X, a highly specific test might classify one cow as positive and correctly identify the other 99 as negative. In this case, the test would be said to be 99% specific and the rate of false positives would be 1%.

In researches carried out in the horn of Africa by the Participatory Approaches to Veterinary Epidemiology (PAVE) Unit of the International Institute of Environment and Development (IIED), there were important limitations in the diagnostic tests available. For trypanosomosis for instance, the best diagnostic test for field investigations was only approximately 50% sensitive, meaning that 50% of positive, infected animals may be missed by the test. For another important disease, fascioliasis, laboratory tests were only approximately 30% sensitive (i.e. 70% of positive cases are likely to be missed by the test). These features of diagnostic tests meant that a ‘true’ estimate of disease presence was difficult to obtain using the available laboratory methods. In cases where pastoralists cannot make a firm diagnosis of a disease, or appear to group a collection of disease signs into a vague syndrome, state-of-the-art diagnostic tests developed by scientists are not necessarily more reliable than herders’ opinion. This has confirmed by research (Catley and Mariner, 2002).

2.5.00 EXAMPLES OF USING PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH METHODS IN EPIZOOTIOLOGY

2.5.01 Animal Health Surveys, Needs Assessments and Action Planning

Participatory research has been used widely during animal health surveys conducted by NGOs as part of community-based animal health projects (Catley and Mariner, 2002). For example, Intermediate Technology Development Group (ITDG) began using participatory methods in 1986 during a base-line survey in Kamujini, Kenya. The survey was an initial needs assessment or feasibility study and was intended to provide a rapid overview of key issues, relationships and services in communities, and locally-prioritized livestock diseases. The survey included the use of methods such as wealth ranking, progeny histories, ethnoveterinary question lists, informal interviews, transect walks, mapping, and ranking exercises. Similarly, the use of participatory research methods was central to the community-based programmes established by the Operation Lifeline Sudan Livestock Programme (Leyland, 1996) and the Pan African Rinderpest Campaign (PARC) (Mariner, 1996).

2.5.02 Monitoring, Impact Assessments and Evaluations

Although participatory methods are widely used during the initial stages of veterinary epidemiological project implementation, their use in project monitoring and evaluations has been less extensive (Catley and Mariner, 2002). In the pastoral areas of the Horn of Africa, ActionAid-Somaliland used participatory methods as part of a soft systems approach in programme reviews in 1994 and 1998 (ActionAid-Somaliland, 1998). A review of Oxfam UK/Ireland’s community-based animal health project in Karamoja, Uganda (Catley, 1997) also used participatory scoring tools.

2.5.03 Ethno-veterinary studies

Specific studies to collect and document indigenous veterinary knowledge have, to varying degrees, used participatory methods. In comparison with the various participatory

methods used in the development of community-based animal health services; ethno-veterinary studies have tended to use a narrow range of interviewing methods (Catley and Mariner, 2002). Often these methods have been more formal than informal, with questionnaires and structured owner interviews forming the basis for data collection. Working with ITDG in Kenya, Wanyama (1997) used various ranking and scoring methods in a more participatory ethnoveterinary research approach.

2.5.04 Participatory Disease Searching

The later stages of animal disease eradication programmes require the final remnants of disease to be sought out and removed from a population. Participatory Disease Searching (PDS) evolved in the Pan African Rinderpest Campaign and used pastoralists’ knowledge of Rinderpest to locate disease outbreaks in remote areas. The approach was based on participatory methods such as semi-structured interviews and in particular, the use of probing questions to delve deeply into local knowledge about Rinderpest (Catley, 2004) Also, mapping and time-lines were used to build an historical picture of Rinderpest outbreaks in a given area (Mariner and Flanagan, 1996; Mariner, 2000). These methods were used in combination with conventional veterinary investigation methods such as clinical and laboratory examination. When the searching team actually located a Rinderpest outbreak, the involvement of livestock keepers during the disease search meant that discussion on the action required to control the outbreak was easily initiated.

2.5.05 Participatory research

The various research activities conducted by the Participatory Approaches to Veterinary Epidemiology (PAVE) Project of the International Institute of Environment and Development (IIED), involves participatory research methods (Catley and Mariner, 2002). In each research location, livestock keepers identified the diseases under investigation as priorities. In each case, participatory diagnosis followed by discussion on appropriate control measures was the main field-level activity. In Kenya, research findings were presented to community representatives and an action plan for further work was agreed with the Kenya Trypanosomosis Research Institute (KETRI) (Catley et al., 2002).

2.5.06 Disease Modeling

Computer simulations of disease transmission can assist epidemiologists to develop disease control strategies. By understanding the way a disease moves between animals in a population, appropriate methods to interrupt disease transmission can be identified. Disease modelling often makes use of expert opinion provided by technicians to estimate parameter values where hard data is limited or too expensive to collect. A common criticism of disease models has been that the people actually developing the model or providing the expert opinion are isolated from the realities on the ground (Catley and Mariner, 2002). Frequently, this means that the validity of the available field data used to run the model is not fully understood and therefore, inappropriate conclusions are drawn. Similarly, recommendations for disease control should be informed by knowledge of local preferences for different control options.

In southern Sudan, participatory methods were used to generate basic data for a Rinderpest disease model (Mariner, 2000). Constructing a model requires an understanding of herd age structure and mortality rates due to Rinderpest in different age groups of cattle.

Participatory methods such as proportional piling were used to produce this kind of data (Catley and Mariner, 2002). Development of the model also requires understanding of livestock population structure and the degree of contact between herds. This herd-to-herd contact is directly related to spatial, temporal and social relationships between adjacent communities. Participatory methods were ideal for studying linkages between communities. Methods such as mapping were used to quantify contact between communities and herds as well as seasonal variations in contact levels.

2.6.00 CHALLENGES OF USING PARTICIPATORY APPROACHES IN EPIZOOTIOLOGY

In common with the use of participatory approaches and methods by workers in other technical sectors, veterinary uses of participatory methods are affected by various difficulties. For example, a survey revealed that the number of veterinarians involved in the use of Participatory tools exceeded the number who had received training in it (Catley, 2000). Furthermore, a commonly cited complaint was ‘negative attitudes among colleagues and superiors’ and insufficient training courses and manuals. It is rare to find a report or proposal that uses methods other than structured interviews or proposes training in participatory research methods for veterinary researchers (Catley and Mariner, 2002).

In the participatory research activities carried out by PAVE, IIED, while some researchers readily grasped the concept of open-ended inquiry and enjoyed asking further questions, other researchers focused solely on recording farmers’ responses, regarding this as the main output of the method (Catley and Mariner, 2002). This experience has much in common with reports from other participatory approaches workers in other fields. Thus attitude, behaviors and a certain mindset are central to effective participatory inquiry.

2.7.00 THE FUTURE OF PARTICIPATORY EPIZOOTIOLOGY

Although participatory epizootiology is used by only a handful of veterinarians, there are opportunities to promote its wider development and application. For example, the Pan African Programme for the Control of Epizootics (PACE) presently covers 32 countries and aims to eradicate Rinderpest from Africa, improve control of other epizootics and develop the capacity of national veterinary epidemiology units. Within the PACE, the Community-based Animal Health and Participatory Epidemiology (CAPE) Unit is planning to encourage key regional and national-level veterinary agencies to learn more about participatory approaches in pastoral areas of the Greater Horn of Africa region (Catley and Mariner, 2002). Some of the main activities of the CAPE Unit are as follows:

♦ Dissemination of experiences in participatory epidemiology via academic and informal publications, and workshops.

♦ Training in participatory epidemiology for senior-level epidemiologists in government veterinary services, veterinary schools and research institutes, followed by application in the field e.g. as a component of disease surveillance systems and research in pastoral areas.

♦ Encourage veterinary epidemiologists to become involved in the design, monitoring and impact assessment of community-based animal health programmes in pastoral areas; create links between government epidemiologists and NGO programmes.

♦ With veterinary schools, explore options for incorporating community based animal health and participatory epidemiology into undergraduate or postgraduate curricula; support postgraduates to conduct participatory research in pastoral areas.

Ultimately, these activities will improve animal health information flow both from and to pastoral communities, enable wider application of community-based animal health services and reduce the isolation of pastoralists from national and international livestock research and development.

CHAPTER THREE

MATERIALS AND METHOD

3.1.00 MATERIALS

A team was constituted to help in the fieldwork for this research. The team was multidisciplinary, made up of two veterinarians, one crop scientist, one social worker, and one animal health extension worker; all members of the team have some training and experience in participatory research. .Apart from logistics (transport, stationeries, meeting venues, accommodation, food and honoraria) for the team, no other major inputs in terms of materials went into the implementation of this research, except the PRA tools that were used for data collection and community participation. A 3.1 Mega pixels digital camera was also acquired to aid in recording pictures during the fieldwork.

The PRA tools used for this project are:

♦ Semi-structured interviews

♦ Transect Diagrams

♦ Seasonal Calendars

♦ Historical Matrices

♦ Matrix Scoring

They were used as explained below under Collection and Processing of Data.

3.2.00 COLLECTION AND PROCESSING OF DATA

The fieldwork/PRA took the team (five-member team), three days; one of the three days was used for planning and of appropriate checklist of questions and PRA tools to be used (see Appendix 1 for PRA Checklist). The work could have taken longer, but because all (except one) of the team members are already familiar with the community, having been there as Christian development workers and missionaries under the Justice, Development and Peace Commission (JDPC) of the Ibadan Archdiocese of the Catholic Church.

During the two days PRA exercise in the village, meetings, interviews, rapport building and discussion sessions were held with community members (see Appendix 2 for the PRA Time Schedule/Agenda). Eighteen livestock farmers (eight women and ten men) actively participated in the meetings held. (See Appendix 3 for the List of Community Members Participating in the PRA). Mr Jimoh Adeniran and Mr. Moses Ogundiya (both members of the village) were the key informants for the PRA. The PRA involved the collection of mostly qualitative data using PRA tools as explained below.

Semi-structured interviews

This tool was used widely throughout the PRA fieldwork exercise, to complement all the other tools used. Members of the PRA team took turns, as the need arose, to take notes and pictures or to

ask questions from the farmers and community people on various issues relating to animal health management in the community. Questions were asked in a way that allows for free and friendly discussions, so that all participants were encouraged to contribute and analyze their contributions.

Although the PRA team has a prepared checklist of the minimum issues to be covered, the interview process was flexible. Whenever any respondent raised new issues, which was not part of the prepared checklist, but was of importance to the research objectives, the interviewer would allow the issues to be well discussed. (see the PRA checklist in the appendix 1 below)

Transects

The PRA team, guided by a small group of key informants and community people took a walk across the community, noting important features and undertaking informal discussions with community members on the issues generated by relevant observations made by team members in line with animal health and disease control in the community. The observations and discussions were represented graphically as transect diagrams, which were later discussed during semi-structured interview sessions.

Seasonal or Historical Diagramming

Seasonal and historical variations and trends in disease incidence, rainfall pattern and availability of livestock feed stocks were observed using seasonal diagrams with Focus Groups of community members- Men and Women. The diagrams produced were used as bases for discussions for the reasons behind changes and implications for the people involved.

Matrix Ranking

This tool was used to assess a range of different issues against selected criteria. The community people were asked to list their own appropriate criteria (relating to livestock health and disease control) in the rows of a matrix, against the items or issues at stake (e.g. breeds of animal, types of livestock, feeding resources, veterinary services e.t.c.) in the columns. Each participating farmer picked five (5) pieces of maize seeds from a nearby sun-drying platform and went in turn to allocate scores to each item against each criterion in the rows to determine which item(s) is/are considered most important to him/her. One of such scoring sessions was taken in picture 1 below:

Plate 3.1 showing one of the participating farmers doing her matrix scores

CHAPTER FOUR

4.1.00 RESULTS

Two village workshops and key informants interviews were held where farmers answered and discussed issues raised in the PRA checklist, while taking turns (as individuals or focus groups e.g.

Men and Women) to draw, decide or explain their responses. See plates 4.1 and 4.2 below (page 41). The findings of the PRA team are as follows:

4.1.01 Livestock Species

The main animal species kept according to livestock farmers in Olohunde were sheep and goats, followed by chickens, then dogs, duck and pig, in that order. When asked to allot scores to the different species in terms of their own criteria, the following (as in Table 1) were obtained (page 39):

Table 1: Matrix Scoring of Livestock Species kept in Olohunde Village.

Pig Chicken Duck Dog Sheep & Goats

Importance as Income source

1 8 4 10 16

Importance as Food 0 10 2 0 8 Importance in crop destruction 1 4 0 0 11

TOTAL 2 22 6 10 35

4.1.02 Issues in Livestock Health and Production

Over the past thirty year period, as far as they could state precisely, farmers in Olohunde village identified and ranked the following issues in terms of their importance to livestock health and production in their village (Table 2).

Table 2: Historical Matrix Ranking of Livestock Health and Production Issues Identified by Farmers in Olohunde Village

Disease Pilferage Accidental & Malicious Injuries

Pastoral & Feed Factors

Destruction

of crops

Before 10 0 0 0 0

Babangida’s

Rule (i.e. before 1985)

During Babangida’s Rule

(i.e.1985-1993)

16 1 1 2 2

After Babangida’s Rule

(i.e. 1993-2004)

23 3 3 6 8

TOTAL 49 4 4 8 10

Plates 4.1 and 4.2: Farmers while taking turns to draw, decide or explain their responses.

4.1.03 Major Animal Diseases and Veterinary Public Health Issues

Since Sheep and Goats are the most important livestock species kept by the farmers, the major diseases identified and discussed were mainly those that affect these species; of course women were quicker to also remember those that affect poultry. The most important health problem discussed was referred to in their local dialect as Ayohere.( meaning, ‘walking slowly’, describing the ill-thrift and weakness associated with PPR). The PRA team members had noted this problem too in their work in the village and have identified it as Peste de Petit Ruminantes (PPR). Farmers recounted the terrible losses in terms of mortality and loss of production recorded early in the year 2004, as a result of the disease. The poor appearance of many animals seen around was also attributed to the PPR outbreak.

Other diseases and issues discussed include Ekuku (Mange) and changes in the crop farming system in the village, whereby crop farms are now nearer the homes, making them accessible to livestock thus resulting in animals especially goats destroying crops planted around homesteads. The issue of crop destruction is already at such a level that owners were forced about two years ago to construct houses and keep their animals indoors. See some of the animal confinements in pictures 4 below.

Plate 4.3 : One of the various animal confinements in Olohunde

. Also mentioned were the problems posed by heavy rains aggravating diseases in animals, and mainly among the women, hawks and eagles cannibalizing on chickens. When asked about zoonoses like Rabies and Onchocerciasis, the farmers said these diseases are known, but they do not constitute major health issues in the community. Two of the men Mr. Moses Ogundiya and Mr. Jimoh Adeniran emphatically confirmed the availability of local remedies to the two diseases, but when asked further to describe the components, use and mode of action of the remedies, they both declined.

At the time that the PRA was going on, which was November, most of such animal houses were empty and animals were roaming freely around. It was explained that the recent PPR outbreak

seemed to affect animals kept under intensive systems more than those kept on free-range, thus various owners decided to open their confinements. With this experience the villagers thought that confinement was a predisposing factor to the PPR outbreak. One of the women, Mrs Sabitiyu Adediran was emphatically different about this general thought. She had been chosen from the village about two weeks earlier to participate in a recent field trip organized by the Ibadan Catholic Archdiocesan JDPC, to some farms in Oke-Iho. She narrated what she saw in the sheep and goat farms visited. She explained that if the right environment and good quantity and quality feed can be provided, animals will do better under intensive system. She was highly impressed and announced that, soon after selling her farm products she will start a model goat farm that other farmers can learn from. In a recent meeting on the follow-up work being done by the JDPC missionaries, Mrs Adediran was reported to have started her model goat farm. A PPR vaccination campaign was reportedly held, where almost all goats and sheep in the village were brought by their owners for vaccination.

By far the problem of PPR and Mange ranked highest as scored by the farmers and represented in Table 3 below:

Table 3 Ranking of Animal Health and Public Health Issues by Farmers in Olohunde village.

Issues PPR Mange Crop destruction

Cannibalism by Hawks and Eagle

Heavy Rains aggravating livestock diseases

Scores 30 23 20 15 12

Plate 4.4 showing one of the Plenary Sessions during the PRA

4.1.04 Knowledge, Skills and Attitudinal Gaps in Animal Health

During Semi-structured interview sessions held with the farmers, there were issues relating to livestock production and health that they clearly showed disinterest and confessed poor or lack of understanding. Such issues include those relating to the required quantity and quality of feed resources for animals in confinement. For example they believe that some of the feed mainly provided for the animals are of poor quality and sometimes are dangerous to the health of their animals (e.g. feeding sheep and goats rations made of over ninety percent cassava peels and tubers) they still fed them anyway, for lack of the attitude, time and other resources requirements for constant provision of adequate and good quality feed for animals. The farmers attributed this to the traditional and long history of animal husbandry under the free-range system. They are used to letting animals fend for themselves, although present realities are forcing them to confine the animals; and now there is a great need for attitudinal change in the area of livestock feeding.

When asked about the causative factors for PPR, which was ranked highest among the issues affecting livestock health and production, farmers mentioned such factors as confinement, poor feeding, poor hygiene, and introduction of sick animals into the stock, stress of say transportation or other causes and exposure to cold conditions. It was only after asking a prompting question were they able to mention the factor contributed by microbes. Even then the farmers could not identify the particular type or characteristics of the microbe important as causative agent of PPR.

On the pathogenesis and epizootiology of the disease (i.e. PPR), farmers are unable to describe, except of course to state that it is an acute disease and that all ages are affected, but mortalities are faster and higher among the younger stock and those in confinement. They also stated that the disease affects goats more than sheep.

On the possible treatment of the disease, farmers were unable to describe any particular treatment regime, be it local or orthodox. Some farmers mentioned that they use some human medicines like paracetamol, tetracycline and Flagyl*, but no recovery was achieved in almost all cases. They mentioned that even the animal health experts called to help stop the outbreak failed to arrest the situation after collecting very high charges. Although they have been told about that before, farmers still expressed some doubts if anything could be done in form of immunization, except of course that they do good management practices to prevent a reoccurrence of the outbreak. Expectedly some farmers believed that the outbreak was a spiritual attack and it can only be prevented by a spiritual remedy. They believe that whatever the situation, it can be treated by appropriately potent spiritual means.

4.1.05 Ethno-veterinary Knowledge

Farmers in Olohunde were unable to mention any proven effective local remedy for the major animal health problems identified. However mention was made of an effective local remedy for retained placenta in animals. Farmers mash Iyeye leaves and administer the leaf extracts as a drench or toasted dried corn is fed to the animal immediately after parturition. These treatments are reported by the farmers to be very effective and quick in the treatment of retained placenta. The same treatments are also said to be used for women in labor.

Another common ethno-veterinary remedy mentioned is that used against diarrhea and fever in humans and tried on sheep and goats. For diarhoea, farmers make extracts of Ogbo leaves and administer as a drench. For fever farmers make extracts of Gbagungbagun (Titonia species) leaves and administer as a drench. When asked whether this remedy against diarhoea was used for cases of PPR, farmers said that it was used, but it was not effective.

4.1.06 Comparison of Sources of Animal Health and Disease Control Services

Criteria Animal Health ‘Experts’ from the Towns

Local Remedies known within the village

Fulani Animal Healers

Availability/ Readiness to provide services

20 35 5 (least available)

Accessibility/Nearness 15 40 5 (least accessible)

Reliability/ How truthful? 5 (least reliable) 35 20 Cost 40 5 (least costly) 15 Effectiveness/Does Remedies work well?

25 15 (least effective) 20

4.1.07 Farm Transects

A transect was done across the community, with some of the farmers undertaking informal discussions and observing important locations, resources and other features relevant to livestock health and development. The following graphic representation of the findings was put together with the farmers at the end of the exercise (page 50):

Table 5 : Diagramatic Representation of the Transect walk of Olohunde Village

IMPO

RT

AN

T O

BSE

RV

AT

ION

S O

F R

ESO

UR

CE

S A

ND

O

TH

ER

FE

AT

UR

ES

RE

LE

VA

NT

TO

LIV

EST

OC

K

HE

AL

TH

AN

D P

RO

DU

CT

ION

IN O

LO

HU

ND

E

Feed Resources

Feed-mill, Trees (Jatropha spp)

Grasses & Shrubs, Cassava Peel, Yam peels and tubers

Trees, Grasses & Shrubs

Trees, Grasses & Shrubs

Water Point (Deep Well), Trees, Grasses & Shrubs

Drying Platform for human and animal feed

Livestock Species

Goats, Sheep, Chicken, Local pig Goats, Sheep

Goats, Sheep

Goats, Sheep

Goats, Sheep, Chicken

Housing types

Mud Houses with fenced confinements for animals, Church

Mud Houses with fenced- confinements for animals

Mud Houses with fenced- confinements for animals

Mud Houses with fenced- confinements for animals

Mud Houses with fenced- confinements for animals

Other Resources

Composting Dump Site

4.1.08 Seasonal Calendars

The seasonal variations and trends in livestock disease incidence, market, and livestock feed availability were represented graphically by the farmers as shown below. The diagram was used to discuss the reasons behind changes and their implications.

Table 6 : Seasonal Calendar of Disease Incidence, Income and Feed from Livestock

Disease Incidence Income/Food from Livestock Livestock Feed Availabity

Jan NIL NIL Feb NIL NIL Mar Apr May Jun NIL Jul NIL Aug Sep Oct Nov NIL NIL Dec NIL

4.2.00 ACTION POINTS

At the end of the PRA, a feedback session was held, where all the findings enumerated above were presented to a cross section of community members to ensure that possible misrepresentations were corrected and that they agree with, and own the reports as valid. In addition the following action points were set by the farmers and the JDPC missionaries to work together in addressing the issues raised:

1) That the JDPC will organize trainings for the farmers on Livestock Nutrition, Management and Disease Control, starting from November, 2004.

2) That the farmers will organize themselves into a Livestock Farmers Self Help Group to serve as the base for subsequent intervention by JDPC and other agencies that are interested in supporting livestock health and development in the village.

3) That the farmers should repair and rework their existing livestock houses and other facilities to meet standards as discussed and according to the trainings that JDPC will provide.

4) That JDPC will organize a yearly PPR vaccination exercise for the sheep and goats and regular livestock treatment assistance for the farmers.

CHAPTER FIVE

5.1.00 DISCUSSION

Although these findings are unique, it can be said that they are not a complete departure from what others have found from similar work on livestock health and production development in Southwest Nigeria.

5.1.01 Livestock Species

The main animal species kept according to livestock farmers in Olohunde were sheep and goats, followed by chickens, then dogs, duck and pig, in that order. Dogs are not used for food; goats and sheep are of major importance to crop production because of their great propensity to feed on crops planted around homesteads or nearby farms. Although some of them keep pigs, generally the people in Olohunde, being predominantly Muslims do not attach importance to pigs as a source of food. These are reflections of cultural values and traditional farming systems in the predominantly Yoruba Southwest Nigeria and is similar to what Ademosun (2004) and Adesehinwa et al (2004) also found in similar Southwest Nigerian villages.

5.1.02 Issues in Livestock Health and Production

Since Sheep and Goats are the most important livestock species kept by the farmers, the major diseases identified and discussed were mainly those that affect these species. The problem of PPR and Mange is typical of reports (Ademosun (2004) and Adesehinwa et al (2004) in other communities, where goats constitute a good majority of animals kept. Over the past thirty year period, the problem of livestock disease continues to take the center stage, and the problem of disease becomes worse year after year as a result of inactive commitment to put adequate measures in place to address the problem, on the part of farmers and other animal health policy makers and implementers.

Continued use of shifting cultivation methods mean that farmers need to go farther from the village every planting season to get fallow land to cultivate. As labour becomes scarce due to rural-urban migration of people of working age and the increasing disincentive to farming (poor prices for crop products e.g. cassava and cocoa), there is expectedly some changes in the crop farming system in the village as in other communities facing similar realities (Okoli, 2003). Crop farms are now nearer the homes, making them accessible to livestock, especially goats feeding on and destroying such crops. The issue of crop destruction has become very serious in many communities, and Olohunde is not an exception. In most cases it is already at such a level that owners are often forced (by community law) to construct houses and keep their animals indoors or stop keeping them altogether (Okoli, 2003).

The clear disinterest and poor or lack of understanding shown about issues relating to the required quantity and quality of feed resources for animals in confinement were rightly attributed to their traditional and long history of animal husbandry under the free-range system. Like other culturally similar communities, the farmers in Olohunde are used to letting animals fend for themselves, although present realities are forcing them to confine the animals; and now there is a great need for attitudinal change in the area of livestock feeding. There is generally a poor attitude, inadequate time and other resources given for herding or for constant provision of adequate and good quality feed for animals in confinement, whereas the transect walk, discussions and observations of important locations, resources and other relevant features revealed the presence of basic resources (feed, water source, housing, access to animal healthcare) that can support the improvement of animal husbandry in the community. This is similar to what obtains in other communities where herding or more intensive livestock husbandry is a relatively minor traditional livelihood activity (Okoli, 2003).

. 5.1.03 Veterinary Public Health and Ethno-veterinary Issues

The reported absence of cases of zoonoses like Rabies and Onchocerciasis, which the farmers knew and were able to describe and the emphatically reported availability of local remedies to the two diseases would need further investigation.

Farmers reports that PPR is an acute disease, affecting goats more than sheep, affecting all ages with higher and faster mortality rates among younger stock and those in confinement; and that its causes include microbes, confinement, poor feeding, poor hygiene, and introduction of sick animals into the stock and stress (e.g. transportation and exposure to cold conditions) are similar to those enumerated by Obi (1983).

The inability of the farmers to identify the particular type or characteristics of the microbe important as causative agent of PPR is expected, given that such information are obtainable only by careful scientific study.

The farmers’ inability to describe any particular treatment regime, be it local or orthodox, for PPR, indicates their helplessness at combating the problem, without external assistance and it also shows the relatively lower importance attached to livestock husbandry as a livelihood activity. According to Armitendu (2004), in most communities where livestock production constitute the traditional mainstay of livelihood over long periods, farmers tend more towards finding local (ethno-veterinary) remedies and at least management methods are devised, based on experience, to circumvent the effects of serious diseases. However the mention made of an effective local remedy for retained placenta and fever in animals and that used against diarrhea and fever in humans and tried on sheep and goats, shows that the development and use of ethno-veterinary remedies is already in place, it will only take more time and commitment to animal health and further interactions with other cultures to have more effective remedies with low external inputs.

Reflecting cultural values and traditional belief systems of typical rural African communities, with minimal contacts with other cultures and value systems, it is expected that some farmers will still believe that the PPR outbreak was a spiritual attack and it can only be prevented by a spiritual remedy.

5.1.04 Comparison of Sources of Animal Health and Disease Control Services

Farmers scored animal health experts from nearby towns least truthful in their dealings. This was attributed to supposed sharp practices by these practitioners. It was alleged that these ‘experts’, including those from government agencies, most of the time have not provided satisfactory services and farmers are not getting value for money, compared for example with itinerant Fulani animal healers and the use of locally known remedies. Oladele (2004) has attributed poor delivery of animal health services in rural areas to similar reasons.

5.1.05 Seasonal Variation in Disease Incidence, Income and Feed Availability

The reported increase in the incidence of diseases around May, June and July agrees with Obi (1983) to be attributable to the rainy season. Also as observed by Adesehinwa et al (2004) and Ajala (2004), feed resources are available all year round and more in May to September due to the rainy season at that period in the area as would be in other similar place in Southwest Nigeria.

Farmers obtain more income and food from livestock in March/April, August and December, because these periods are festive periods. Although the farmers are predominantly Muslim, during the Christian festivals of Easter and Christmas (i.e. March/ April and December), they often receive their visiting relatives, who usually would like to spend the holidays with them in the village; and that would mean more chickens, goat or sheep slaughtered for food. Apart from this, there are usually increased market demands for live animals during these periods and thus increased income from livestock.

5.2.0 SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSION

As stated earlier participatory approaches are currently widely used in epizootiological research and development projects in major pastoral communities in Africa. In spite of this there are indications that the use of participatory methods is relatively yet to be known and applied appropriately among veterinary research and development agencies and practitioners in Nigeria.

In Nigeria, as elsewhere, there are opportunities to promote a wider development and application of participatory epizootiology. The Pan African Programme for the Control of Epizootics (PACE) presently has a project in Nigeria, located within the Nigeria Veterinary Research Institute (NVRI), Vom. The main aim of PACE is to eradicate Rinderpest from Africa, improve the control of other epizootics and develop the capacity of national veterinary epidemiology units. Within the PACE, there is a Community-based Animal Health and Participatory Epidemiology (CAPE) Unit, which operates in places like Chad and Sudan. It is unlikely that this unit is fully operational in Nigeria.

The CAPE Unit is active in other parts of Africa in disseminating experiences in participatory epizootiology via academic and informal publications, training in participatory epizootiology for senior-level epizootiologists in government veterinary services, veterinary schools and research institutes and applying participatory approaches in the field. CAPE encourages veterinary schools to explore options for incorporating community based animal health and participatory epidemiology into undergraduate or postgraduate curricula and also support postgraduates to conduct participatory research in pastoral areas.

These areas are very relevant in Nigeria, and particularly also in Southwest Nigeria, given the ever increasing importance of livestock (poultry, pig and small ruminants) to public health and socio-economic well-being of people. The CAPE approach is here suggested to be more explored by the Department of Veterinary Public Health and Preventive Medicine, considering the leading position of the University of Ibadan Veterinary Faculty to livestock health and development in Nigeria.

It is my sincere hope that this work will open grounds locally in the introduction of more appropriate and sustainable livestock health and production development approaches and promote wider application of community-based animal health services and reduce the isolation of poor/vulnerable livestock farmers (who unfortunately constitute the majority) from national and international livestock research and development.

REFERENCES

ActionAid-Somaliland, (1998) Programme Review by the Sanaag Community-based Organisation; ActionAid, London. Pp. 28-30

Ademosun A.A. (2004) Constraints and Prospects for Small Ruminant Research and development in Africa Livestock Research for Rural Development 16 (8), 2003. Pp. 27-32

Adesehinwa A O K, J O Okunola and M K Adewumi (2003)Socio-economic characteristics of ruminant livestock farmers and their production constraints in some parts of South-western Nigeria Livestock Research for Rural Development,16 (8),Pp. 35-42

Ajala M K (2004) Household decision-making in the production of small ruminants in Giwa Local Government Area of Kaduna State of Nigeria. In: Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Nigerian Society of Animal Production, Sokoto, Nigeria. Pp 399-402.

Amitendu De, H P S Arya, Babulal Tudu and A Goswami (2004) Indigenous technical knowledge in animal husbandry Livestock Research for Rural Development 16 (8)

Bartle J. (2003) Community Self-Management, Empowerment and

Development www.scn.org/cmp/index.

Bembridge T.J. (1991) The Practice of Agricultural Extension - a Training Manual. Development Bank of Southern Africa, Halfway House 1685, Gauteng, South Africa. 21-24

Catley, A., (1997). A Review of the Oxfam UK/Ireland Kotido Livestock Development Project (Animal Health Component), Kotido District, Karamoja: Consultancy Report for the Renewable Natural Resources Sector, Overseas Development Administration (UK), Uganda, Vetwork UK, Edinburgh.

Catley, A., (1999). Methods on the Move: a Review of veterinary uses of participatory approaches and methods focussing on experiences in dryland Africa. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London.

Catley, A., (2000). The use of Participatory Appraisal by Veterinarians in Africa. Office International des Epizooties Scientific and Technical Review, 19 (3), 702-714.

Catley, A., Irungu, P., Simiyu, K., Dadye, J. Mwakio, W., Kiragu J.andNyamwaro, S.O., (2002). Participatory Investigations of bovine trypanosomiasis in Tana River District, Kenya. Journal of Medical and Veterinary Entomology, 16 (2),Pp. 1-12.

Catley A. and Mariner J. C. (2002), Where there is no Data: ParticipatoryApproaches to Veterinary Epidemiology in the Pastoral Areas of the Horn of Africa International Institute for Environment and Development, Drylands Program issue paper no. 110

Catley A. (2004) Participatory Approaches in Animal Healthcare: From Practical Applications to Global-level Policy Reform in Participatory Learning and Action (PLA ) Notes, IIED, London, Double Issue 50: 140-149

Chambers R. (1980) Rapid Rural Appraisal, Rationale and Repertoire; IDS discussion paper number 155. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex. U.K.

GTZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit) (2003) GTZ Information Notes, GTZ, Eschborn, Germany. www.gtz.org

International Institute for Environment and Development (1994) Rapid Rural Appraisal(RRA) Notes, Issue No. 20. Special Issue on livestock, IIED, London 1-35

Jiggins C. (1998), Farmer Participatory Research and Technology

Development. Occassional Papers in Rural Extension No. 5 Department of Rural Extension Studies, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada.

Lazlo E. (1983) Systems Science and World Order. Pergammon

Press, New York, USA.35-45

Leyland, T., (1996). The Case for a Community-based Approach with reference to southern Sudan. in: The World Without Rinderpest. FAO Animal Health and Production Paper 129, 109-120.

Mariner, J.C., (2000). Manual on Participatory Epidemiology. FAO Animal Health Manual No.10. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome. 70-73

Mariner, J.C., (1996). The World Without Rinderpest: Outreach toMarginalised Communities. in: The World Without Rinderpest. FAO Animal Health and Production Paper 129, 97-107.

Mariner, J.C. and Flanagan, F., (1996). Epidemiological Intelligence on the Incidence of Rinderpest in Somalia and North Eastern Kenya. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, 67-70

Mccrindle C.M.E. (2003). Communicating Skills to Animal Owners: Veterinary Extension and Primary Health Care Methodology. in: Pearson R.A, Fielding D. and Tabbaa D. (Eds.) Proceedings of the fourth International Colloquium on Working Equines, held at Al Baath University, Hama, Syria 54-78

Mccrindle C.M.E., Stewart C.G. And Kiwanuka A. (1996) Methodology to Assess Animal Health Needs and Extent of Activities in: Zimmermann W., Pfeiffer Du. And Zessin Kh (Eds.) Primary Animal Health Care Activities in Southern Africa. DSE - ZEL (German Foundation for International Development - Food and Agriculture Development Center), Feldafing, Germany: 136-149.

Obi T.U. (1983) Studies on the Epidemiology of Peste de Petit Ruminantes (PPR) in Southeastern Nigeria, Tropical Veterinarian 5 (1): 207-217

Okali C., James S. and Farrington J. (1994) Farmer Participatory Research: Rhetoric and Reality, Intermediate Technology Publications on behalf of Overseas Development Institute, U.K. 13-40

Okoli I. C. (2003) Incidence and Modulating Effects of Environmental Factors on Trypanosomiasis, Peste de Petit Ruminantes and Broncho-pneumonia in Imo State, Nigeria: Livestock Research for Rural Development 15 (9), 2003, www.cipav.org.co/lrrd

Wade J. (1989) Felt Needs and Anticipatory Needs: Reformulation of a basic Community Development Practice. Journal of the Community Development Society 20 (2): 116-123.

Wanyama, J.B. (1997). Confidently Used Ethnoveterinary Knowledge Among Pastoralists of Samburu, Kenya. Book One: Methodology and Results. Intermediate Technology Kenya, Nairobi. Pp.25-33

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: PRA Checklist Questions

1) Which animal types are kept in Lanlate Community?

2) How will the farmers rank these animal types against one another in terms of local criteria?

3) Which issues are of importance to the farmer in the healthcare of his/her animals?

4) How do the issues mentioned rank in relation to one another?

5) Which major animal diseases and veterinary public health problems are affecting the community?

6) How do the diseases and other health problems rank in relation to one another?

7) Which of the diseases/problems mentioned above are related and how?

8) What are the causes of the diseases mentioned?

9) Can farmers display an adequate understanding of the pathogenesis, epizootiological and other knowledge base necessary for effective control of these diseases?

10) Which knowledge, skill and attitudinal gaps can be identified in the drive for sustainable, low external input control of animal health/veterinary public health problems at the community level?

11) Which local control or preventive methods are available for the diseases mentioned?

12) Are the local methods effective and efficient and meeting the farmer’s needs?

13) For which of the diseases are local remedies unknown?

14) How have farmers been coping with diseases for which local remedies are not available or adequate?

15) What are the views of the farmers on the accessibility and cost effectiveness of orthodox control/preventive methods against these diseases?

Appendix 2: PRA Time Schedule

Day One

11.00 a.m.- 2.00 p.m. Introduction

Opening formalities with PRA team

Formal Visits to Community Leaders, Key- Informants and Gatekeepers.

Breaking the Ice, Rapport Building

Announcements of Village Workshops

Basic PRA Training for Team members

2.00 p.m.- 3.00 pm Lunch Break for PRA Team

3.00 p.m.- 4.00 p.m. Semi Structured Interview of key Informants

4.00 p.m.-6.30 p.m. Village Workshop I

Opening formalities

Historical Matrices

Matrix Scoring

Announcements and Closing

Day two

9.00 a.m. – 12.00 noon Farm Transects

12.00 noon – 2.00 p.m. Semi Structured Interview of key Informants

2.00 p.m.-3.00 p.m. Lunch Break for PRA Team

3.00 p.m.- 6.00 p.m. Village Workshop II

Seasonal Calenders

PRA Feedback to Community

Action Points

Closing formalities

DEPARTURE

Appendix 3: Names of Farmers and Community Members who Participated in the PRA

1) Adeniran Jimoh

2) Alawusa Kasaliya

3) Adediran Alowonle

4) Ogundiya Moses

5) Ogundiya Oluranti

6) Adesokan Sikiratu

7) Adeniran Sabitiyu

8) Adeleke Bolomope

9) Okesola Mosunmola

10) Ramoni Nuratu

11) Moradeyo Sikiratu

12) Tijani Rafatu

13) Adeleke Lateef

14) Akinyode Immanuel

15) Raji Lawal

16) Adediran Olusegun

17) Adeleke Salako

18) Adediran Biliaminu