Farmers’ awareness and perceptions on Newcastle disease in chicken: Evidence from high and low rainfall regions of Kenya

Figures & data

Figure 1. Maps of Kakamega and Machakos counties.

Figure 2. Classification of agro-climatic zones in Kenya.

Table 1. Expected signs of variables hypothesized to influence farmers’ awareness on Newcastle disease

Variable	Description of the variable	Expected sign
Region	Dummy (1= Urban, 0 = Otherwise)	+
Gender	Dummy (1= Female, 0 = Otherwise)	+
Household type	Dummy (1= Female headed, 0 = Otherwise)	+
Experience	Dummy (1= Above 5 years, 0 = 5 years and below)	+
Motive for rearing	Dummy (1= For commercial,0 = For subsistence)	+
Access to extension	Dummy (1= Yes, 0 = Otherwise)	+
Access to training	Dummy (1= Yes, 0 = Otherwise)	+
Access to credit	Dummy (1= Yes, 0 = Otherwise)	+
Group membership	Dummy (1= Yes, 0 = Otherwise)	+
Age	Respondent’s age in years	+/-
Education level	Dummy (1= Above primary,0 = Primary and below)	+
Marital status	Dummy (1= Married,0 = Otherwise)	+/-
Distance to agrovet	Distance to agro-veterinary service providers in Kilometres	+
Record keeping	Dummy (1= Yes, 0 = Otherwise)	+

Table 2. Socio-economic characteristics of farmers in Kakamega and Machakos counties

Characteristics	Kakamega (n = 192)	Machakos (n = 140)	Pooled (n = 332)	Statistically significant differences between sites (p-value)
Gender (% female)	64.0	56.4	60.8	1.407
Average age (years)	46 (15)	48 (16)	47 (15)	−1.023
Education level (% above primary)	55.2	51.7	53.3	0.811
Experience (% 5 years and below)	44.8	49.3	46.7	−1.305
Marital status (% married)	75.5	81.4	78.0	−1.284
Average land size (acres)	1.9 (2.8)	3.8 (4.5)	2.7 (3.6)	4.816***
Production system
Free-range/extensive	58.9	57.9	58.4	0.945
Intensive	8.3	3.6	6.3
Semi-intensive	19.3	19.3	19.3
Mixed	13.5	19.2	16.0
Distance to agro-veterinary service providers (Km)	2.7 (3.1)	2.3 (2.9)	2.7 (3.6)	1.388
Access to extension (% yes)	35.4	32.9	34.3	0.485
Access to training (% yes)	20.8	31.4	25.3	−2.193**
Access to credit (% yes)	25.5	24.3	25.0	0.257
Membership to group (% yes)	70.3	71.4	70.8	0.221
ND awareness (% yes)	81.2	67.8	75.6	2.831

Note: ND- Newcastle Disease. Standard deviations are in parentheses. Asterisks ***, **, * denote statistically significant differences between Counties at 1, 5 and 10%, respectively.

Figure 3. Farmers’ perceptions of Newcastle disease outbreaks in Kenya.

Figure 4. Newcastle disease awareness levels among chicken farmers in Kenya.

Table 3. Newcastle disease outbreaks and symptoms experienced by farmers

	Kakamega	Machakos	Pooled sample
Characteristics	(n = 192)	(n = 140)	(n = 332)
ND outbreaks experienced (% yes)	46.9	55.7	50.6
ND symptoms observed (% yes)
Loss of appetite	23.4	36.6	25.0
Drop in egg production	11.5	8.7	9.3
Increased respiration and gasping	29.2	39.4	29.2
Greenish diarrhoea	40.6	48.1	38.5
Twisted necks	22.4	38.5	25.0
Sudden death	23.9	28.8	22.8

Note: ND- Newcastle Disease.

Figure 5. Sources of Newcastle disease awareness among chicken farmers in Kenya.

Table 4. Factors influencing chicken farmers’ awareness on Newcastle disease

	Kakamega		Machakos			Pooled sample
Variables	(n = 192)		(n = 140)			(n = 332)
	Coef.	p-value	Coef.	p-value		Coef.	p-value	Dy/dx
Region (1= Urban)	−1.207**	0.042	.962		0.211	−.236	0.589	−.019
Gender of respondent (1= Female)	.001	0.998	−.768		0.128	−.201	0.216	−.028
Household type (1= Female-head)	1.589*	0.060	.818***		0.064	1.109**	0.029	−.046
Experience (1= Above 5 years)	−.644	0.187	.754		0.167	−.062	0.850	−.010
Motive (1= Commercial)	−.569	0.224	−.200		0.715	−.413	0.194	−.081
Access to extension (1= Yes)	.674	0.258	.094		0.865	.561	0.128	.083
Training on animal health (1= Yes)	.120	0.804	1.781***		0.002	.889**	0.010	.139
Access to credit (1= Yes)	.151	0.792	1.777**		0.011	.826**	0.040	.128
Group membership (1= Yes)	1.257**	0.011	.342		0.496	.682**	0.029	.117
Age (years)	−.005	0.742	.021		0.185	.002	0.859	−.001
Education level (1= Above primary)	.445	0.350	.006		0.990	.197	0.520	.013
Marital status (1= Yes)	1.091*	0.099	−.489		0.483	.405	0.361	−.047
Distance to agrovet (Km)	.585***	0.003	.555**		0.018	.483***	0.000	.076
Constant	.056	0.964	−.366		0.776	−.071	0.926	−.019
Log likelihood	−73.181		−67.310			−155.542
Pseudo-R^2	0.210		0.231			0.186
Prob> Chi2	0.000		0.000			0.000

Note: Asterisks ***, ** and * denote statistical significance levels at 1, 5 and 10%, respectively.

Table 5. Variance inflation factors for variables in the binary logit model

Variable	VIF
Household type	1.740
Marital status	1.730
Access to extension	1.320
Group membership	1.210
Gender	1.200
Access to training	1.190
Education level	1.190
Access to credit	1.170
Age	1.160
Experience	1.140
Record keeping	1.090
Motive	1.070
Distance to agrovet	1.070
Region	1.030
Mean VIF	1.240

Data availability statement

The data supporting the findings of this study can be obtained from the corresponding author, [B. O. I], upon reasonable request.