Livestock Research for Rural Development 21 (7) 2009 Guide for preparation of papers LRRD News

Citation of this paper

Cost implications and benefits of intraocular vaccination of rural chickens with Newcastle disease vaccine strain I2

U Musa, P A Abdu*, I I Dafwang*, L Sa’idu, J A Edache, M S Ahmed and P D Karsin

National Veterinary Research Institute, Vom, Nigeria
* Ahmadu Bello University Zaria, Nigeria
usmanmusagulma@yahoo.com

Abstract

An estimate of cost benefit of Newcastle disease (ND) control in rural chickens in four Local Government Areas of Plateau State, Nigeria using Newcastle disease vaccine strain I2 (NDVI2) via intraocular (i/o) route and financial losses in the event of ND outbreaks in rural chickens in Plateau State at the prevalence and mortality rates of 40% and 28% respectively using static model was investigated.

 

The estimates of direct financial losses due to ND outbreak in unvaccinated flocks in terms of value of birds and eggs amounted to 1,250,505.9 ($9,263.00) out of which the value of birds amounted to 799,195.5 ($5,920.00) and the value of eggs amounted to 451,310.4 ($3,343.04) The total cost estimates of vaccination amounted to 187,669 ($1,390.14). The overall total annual financial implication of ND outbreak and vaccination with NDVI2 through intraocular route was 1,577,592.4 ($11,685.90). The overall total financial losses avoided following vaccination was 10,296,264 ($76,268.62) while the benefit cost ratio arising from adopting NDVI2 via intraocular route for control of ND in rural chickens is 7.2.

 

It was concluded that the use of NDVI2 via intraocular route for vaccination of rural household chickens in Plateau State was a good and an economically advantageous method for ND control. It is therefore strongly recommended as the most feasible, efficient and effective method of ND control in rural chickens.

Keywords: financial implication, Newcastle disease vaccine, Plateau State, rural chicken


Introduction

Rural household chickens rearing is the most widespread stock breeding business in every household in rural areas. The business contributes significantly to the improvement of Nigeria’s rural and national economy. Wosu (1992) reported that rural poultry sector contributes 68.5% of the national poultry meat supply as against 11.39% from commercial chickens and 19.7% from other poultry, they provide scarce animal protein in the form of meat and eggs they are also for sale or barter in societies where cash is not abundant. Rural household poultry participates in pest control, manure provision and are used for special festivals and to meet social obligations (Alders and Spradbrow 2001).

 

Newcastle disease has been described by Okeke and Lamorde (1988) as one of the most important poultry diseases of economic importance in Nigeria. Losses due to this disease have been recorded in many commercial farms and rural household poultry. Newcastle disease was reported from all parts of Nigeria (Halle et al 1999; Abdu et al 2000; Saidu et al 2006). Studies carried out on prevalence and outbreaks of Newcastle disease in different parts of Nigeria showed varied results. In Plateau State, a prevalence of 40.0% was documented by Adu et al (1986). In Ibadan, Oyo State seroprevalence of 38.0% was documented by Oyewola et al (1996). In Maiduguri Borno State, Baba et al (1998) recorded ND seroprevalence of 54.0%. While 63.0% seroprevalence was reported by Orajaka et al (1999) in Southeast derived Savannah Zone of Nigeria. In Kaduna State 74.3% seroprevalence of NDV antibodies was documented by Nwanta (2003).

 

Any cost effective strategy like ND control that increases the productivity of rural household poultry will assist in poverty reduction, improve food security and increase assess to protein intake, assess to cash and other resources that culminate in improvement of the standard of living of the populace.

 

The objective of this study is aimed at determining the cost effectiveness of i/o vaccination using NDVI2 versus no vaccination. The benefits that may be derived from these vaccinations will be determined and recommendations made where necessary.

 

Materials and methods 

Questionnaire

 

Information in a structure questionnaire on management, productivity, value of birds and eggs obtained through interviews with farmers were used. Representatives of flocks size were chosen for the investigation using a simple random sampling technique of Martin et al (1987). The flock structure was defined as chicks (0- 10 weeks old), growers (11-20 weeks old), adult cocks (> 21 weeks old) and adult hens (> 21 weeks old).

 

Study design

 

Data on ND prevalence in ND affected flocks in Plateau State was used and average mortality rate in ND affected flocks in Kaduna State was used because of the absence of available literature on average mortality rate in ND affected flocks in Plateau State.

The following information was obtained as shown in Table 1 to 3:

(i)                              Basic parameters for the analysis of the estimated financial losses and benefit cost ratio (Table 1).

(ii)                            Financial losses estimate due to ND outbreak in unvaccinated flocks (Table 2).

(iii)                           Cost of implementing vaccination against ND in the sampled flocks in Plateau State (Table 3). 


Table  1.  Basic parameters for the analysis of the estimated losses and benefit cost ratio

Discounted

                =             10.0

Prevalence rate of ND (Adu et al 1986)

                =             40.0

Average mortality recorded in a flock (Abdu  et al 1992)

                =             28%

Percentage protection on using NDVI2in the survey

                =             92%

Chicken population in sampled households

                =             27,078

Hens (31.4%)                                                     

                =             8,498

Cocks (18.6%)                                                   

                =             5,053

Chicks (29.5%)                                   

                =             7,987

Growers (20.5%)                                

                =             5,540

Average number of chickens lost annually due to ND per household

                =             18

                Chicks (60%)                                      

                =             11

                Mature chickens (40%)     

                =             7

Estimate of reproductive traits obtained through interview

Annual average egg production per hen

                =             40

Average number of chicks per hatch             

                =             9

Average number of eggs per clutch               

                =             12

Diluent per bird during vaccination

                =             0.2ml

Cost of diluent per bird per day during vaccination                   

                =             0.14

Average cost of birds                                       

 

                - /Hens                                              

                =             350

                - /Cocks

                =             450

                - /Chicks

                =             50

Cost of NDVI2 (Subsidized rate) per dose

                =             1.00

Transportation cost for the vaccination Programme

600 per village per day x 32 villages x 4 days of visits             

=             76,800.00
($568.90)

Labour for the vaccination

20 animal health officers @ 1,000 per day for 4 days              

=             80, 000.00
($592.60)

Exchange Rate =  135 = US$1

Results

Table 2 shows estimated financial losses in the event of ND outbreak in unvaccinated rural household chickens and costs of implementing vaccination against ND in the sampled flocks in Plateau State.


Table 2.  Estimates of financial losses to ND outbreak in unvaccinated flocks and costs of implementing vaccination against ND in the sampled flocks in  Plateau State Nigeria

(a) Estimates of financial losses due to ND outbreak in unvaccinated flocks

(i).          Direct losses due to mortality

 

-Prevalence rate (morbidity rate)

                = 0 .40 x 27,078 = 10,831

-Mortality rate in infected flock

                = 0.28 x 10,831    = 3,033

(ii).         Value loss of birds

 

-              Chicks 0.3 x 3,033 x 50

                = 45,495

-              Growers0.2 x 3,033 x 250

                = 151,650

-              Cocks     0.2 x 3,033 x 450

                = 272,970

-              Hens      0.31 x 3,033 x 350

                = 329,080.5

-              Sub total                              

                = 799,195.5

(iii).       Value loss of eggs (egg production  losses) per annum

 

- Hens    0.31 x 3,033 x 40 x 12

                = 450,310.4

Sub total cost (a)                               

                = 1,250,505.9

(b) Estimates of financial cost of vaccinating 27,078 rural household chickens with NDVI2 via intraocular route

(i).         Cost of materials for the vaccination

 

-Cost of diluents for 27,078 birds @ 0.14

                = 3,791

-Cost of vaccine for 27,078 birds x 1.00

                = 27,078

(ii).Cost of transportation during     vaccination          

                = 76,800.00

(iii).         Labour for the vaccination

                = 80,000.00

Sub total (b) =                                    

                = 187,669.00 ($1,390.14)

(iv).Total financial cost (losses in outbreak   and cost of vaccination) a + b (1,250,505.9 + 187, 669)             

                = 1,438,174.9 ($10,653.15)

(v).          Discounted cost of vaccination

Future Value (FV)= Present Value (PV) (1 + 0.1)n

(vi).         Total annual financial implications of ND outbreak and vaccination with NDVI2 through i/o = 1,438,174.9 (1 + 0.1)1      

                = 1,577,592.4 ($11,685.87)

Exchange Rate =  135 = US$1


At prevalence and mortality rates of 40% and 28%, respectively the estimates of direct financial  losses due to ND outbreak  in unvaccinated flocks in terms of value of birds  and eggs amounted to 1,250,505.9 ($9,263.00) out of which the value of birds  amounted to 799,195.5 ($5,920.00) and the value of eggs amounted to  451,310.4 ($3,343.04). While the  total cost estimates (cost of diluents, vaccines, transportation  and  labour) of financial cost of vaccinating 27,078 rural household chickens with NDVI2 via  intraocular route amounted to 187,669 ($1,390.14).The overall total annual financial implications of ND outbreak and vaccination with NDVI2 through intraocular route was 1,577,592.4 ($11,685.90)         

 

Table 3  shows an estimate of benefits of vaccinating rural household chickens with a NDVI2 vaccine via intraocular route in four LGAs of  Plateau State Nigeria.


Table 3.  Estimate of benefits of vaccinating rural household chickens with a NDVI2 vaccine via intraocular route in four local government areas of Plateau State Nigeria

(i).           Protection offered by the vaccine 

= 92 %

(ii).          Expected number of birds protected  0.92 x 27,078

=  24,912

-Chicks 0.3 x 24,912 x 50

= 373,680

-Growers 0.2 x 24,912 x 250

= 1, 245,600

-Cocks   0.2 x 24,912 x 450

= 2,242,080

-Hens     0.31 x 24,912 x 350            

= 2,702,952

(iii) Sub total (a)                                 

= 6,589,224

(iv) Number of hens saved due to   vaccination 0.31 x 24,912

= 7,723

(v).Annual egg production @ 40 eggs per hen x 7,723              

= 308,920

(vi).Financial value of eggs @ 12 x 308,920 (b)             

3, 707,040

(vii).        Total financial losses avoided following vaccination (a + b)

= 10,296,264 ($76,268.62)

(viii).       Discounted benefits of vaccination

                Future Value (FV)               

=Present Value (PV) (1 + 0.1) n

 

=10,296,264 (1 + 0.1) 1             

 

= 11,325,890.4 ($83,895.50)

Benefit Cost Ratio                                                                                                1,577,592.4                   

=∑Benefits =   11,325,890.4  = 7.2

      ∑Cost           1,577,592.4

Exchange Rate =  135 = US$1


About 24,912 rural household chickens valued at 6,589,224 ($48,809.06) are expected to be protected from which 7,723 hens are expected to be saved. The saved chickens are expected to produce 308,920 eggs valued at 3,707,040 ($27,459.55). The overall total financial losses avoided following vaccination was 10,296,264 ($76,260.62) while the cost benefit ratio is 7.2.

 

Discussion 

It was observed from this study that the highest amount of money lost was from hens 329,080.5 ($2,437.63) and the least was from chicks 45,495 ($337.00). The low value of chicks unlike the hens may due to under estimates as the chicks were not normally sold by rural chicken owners in Nigeria, however, the value was estimated based on the information supplied by farmers. The estimated financial losses and benefits due to ND outbreaks in the study area was based on direct and indirect chickens and egg losses.  Nwanta (2003) reported that the direct losses are relatively easy to quantify as they vary with the prevalence of the disease. While indirect losses were based on the information supplied by the chicken owners and could vary with the prevalence and severity of the ND and also with the location of the area under consideration. The overall value of loss of eggs and birds  per annum  amounted to  1,250,505.9 ($9,263.00), though the losses seems to be reticent but important if it is considered that rural household chickens constitute the majority of chicken population in the  four LGAs under study. Information on the exact financial losses due ND outbreak in rural household chickens in Nigeria is lacking. Similarly, Okeke and Lamorde (1988) reported that the implication of ND outbreak could be varied from many socio economic viewpoints from the lost of the cocks, hens, eggs and lack of growth of the flock population.

 

The estimate of financial cost of vaccinating 27,078 rural household chickens with NDVI2 via intraocular route seems to be modest compared to the benefits derived. Though, it is possible that some of the unit costs might have been under estimated or overlooked, the use of NDVI2 via intraocular route with benefit cost ratio of 7.2 showed it to be highly economically advantageous method for the control of ND in rural household chickens in the four LGAs in the study areas than the cost - benefit ratio of 2.0 that was reported by Nwanta et al (2005) in Kaduna State when NDV4 HR was administered to chicken via feed. Costs like transportation and labour which make the bulk of the cost can be further cut down when farmers or extension agents are trained and involved in carrying out some of the activities. Earlier reports by Johnson and Cummings (1991) highlighted the resultant benefits of the cost effective method for controlling ND in rural household chickens. The increase in egg production and hatchability and the multiplier effect in relation to sales of chickens and eggs, income and welfare of rural farmers, particularly women and children are some of the benefits for effective ND control in rural household chickens (Johnson and Cummings 1991).

 

It was concluded that the use of NDVI2 via i/o route for vaccination of rural household chickens in Plateau State was better than when ND is allow to run its course in an unvaccinated rural chickens or when NDV4 HR  was used in feed and an economically advantageous method for ND control. It is therefore highly recommended (NDVI2 ) as the most feasible, efficient and effective method of ND control in rural household chickens in Nigeria.

 

Conclusion

 

References 

Abdu P A,  Mera U M and Sa’idu L 1992 A study on chicken mortality in Zaria. Nigeria. In: Proceedings 19th World's Poultry Congress, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 20-24th September 1992, Volume 2. Pp. 151

 

Abdu P A, Sa’idu L and George B D J 2000 Diseases of local poultry in Nigeria. Discovery and Innovation 14(1/2): 107-118

 

Adu F D, Edo U And Sokale B 1986 Newcastle disease: The immunological status of Nigerian local chickens. Tropical Veterinarian 4: 149-152

           

Alders R and  Spradbrow P B 2001 Controlling Newcastle in village chicken. A field Manual  Australian Center for International Agriculture Research Monograph No 82, Pp. 37.

 

Baba S S, El-yuguda A D and Baba M M 1998 Serological evidence of mixed infection with Newcastle disease and egg drop syndrome 1976 viruses in village chicken in Borno State, Nigeria. Tropical Veterinarian 16: 137-141

 

Halle P D, Umoh J U, Sa'idu L and Abdu P A 1999 Prevalence and seasonality of Newcastle disease in Zaria, Nigeria. Tropical Veterinarian 17: 53 - 62

 

Johnston J and Cummings R 1991 Control of Newcastle disease in village chickens with oral V4 vaccine. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Economic Assessment Series, No. 7.

 

Martin S W, Meek A H and Willeberg P 1987 Veterinary Epidemiology:  Principles and Methods. Iowa State University Press, Ames IA ,Pp. 22-47

 

Nwanta J A 2003 Field vaccination trials with a thermostable Malaysian Newcastle disease vaccine (NDV 4HR) in local chickens in Kaduna state, Nigeria; A PhD Dissertation, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Pp. 178

 

Nwanta J A, Umoh J U, Abdu P A, Ajogi, I and Egege, SC 2005 Comparison of the cost of unvaccinated and oral vaccinated local chickens with a Malaysian thermostable Newcastle disease vaccine (NDV4HR) in Kaduna State, Nigeria. Bulletin Animal Health and Production in Africa 53: 203-210.

 

Okeke E N and Lamorde A G 1988 Newcastle disease and its control in Nigeria. In: Viral Diseases of Animals in Africa.  Olufemi Williams A and W N Masiga (editors) OAU/CTA Publication, Pp. 283 - 287

 

Orajaka L J E, Adene D F, and Anene B and Onuoha E A 1999 Seroprevalence of Newcastle disease in local chickens from southeast derived Savannah zone of Nigeria. Revue d'Elevage et de Medicine Veterinaire des Pays Tropicaux 52 (3 4): 185-188

 

Oyewola K A, Ogundipe G A T and Durojaiye O A 1996 Seroprevalence of Gumboro and Newcastle disease in local chickens in Ibadan, Nigeria. Bulletin of Animal Health and Production in Africa 34: 57-59

 

Sa’idu L, Abdu P A, Tekdek L B, Umoh J U, Usman M and Oladele S B 2006 Newcastle disease in Nigeria. Nigerian Veterinary Journal 27(2): 23-32

 

Wosu L O 1992 Strategy for sustained livestock production and development in   Nigeria, In: Book of Proceedings of 29th Annual Conference of Nigerian Veterinary Medical Association, Kaduna, Pp. 165 – 170



Received 18 December 2008; Accepted 15 April 2009; Published 1 July 2009

Go to top